Commonwealth Telephone Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 317 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of COMMON WEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY and THEO-
DORE R. SIPLON, WALTER F. SEIDLER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
'-A31OODrOF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Case No. C-581.Decided June L1, 1939
Commvunieations In dusty-Inteilerence, Restraint, and Coercion : interro-
gating employees regarding union activity ; anti-union statements ; preventing
organization assistance from outside-Discrimination: discharge of employee for
activity in formation of Union, and discriminatory order of transfer of president
of Union and discharge upon refusal to take ; immaterial whether discharge or
lay-off if termination of employment was discriminatory -Reinstatement Or-
dered: discharged employees-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Frederick P. Mett, for the Board.
Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland, by Mr. R. J. Sutherland, of
Madison, Wis., for the respondent.
-Mr.- Joseph A. Padway, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Walter A.
•Grauwnlee, of Wausau, Wis., for Theodore Siplon, Walter Seidler, and
the Union.
Mr. Bliss Daffan, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Ed Brown, field representative for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America, a labor
-organization herein called the I. B. E. W., the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by Nathaniel S. Clark, Regional
-'Director for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued
its complaint dated March 16, 1938, against Commonwealth Telephone
Company, Madison, Wisconsin, 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)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, was duly served upon the re-
spondent, upon Theodore Siplon and Walter Seidler, the employees
13 N. L . R. B., No. 39.
317
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
named in the complaint, and upon Ed Brown, field representative
for the I. B. E. W.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, on August
31, 1937, terminated the employment of Theodore Siplon, a line-
man employed out of its Wausau Exchange, because he assisted in
the formation of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
of America, Local No. 378, herein called the Union, and engaged in
concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; that on or
about September 4, 1937, the respondent ordered Walter Seidler, a
trouble shooter employed out of said exchange, to remove to the
respondent's Two Rivers Exchange, and to work out of that ex-
change, for the reason that he assisted in the formation and became a
member of the Union, and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection; that on or about September 7, 1937, the respond-
ent, upon Seidler's refusal to remove to the Two Rivers Exchange,
terminated the employment of Seidler, for the reason that he assisted
in the formation and became a member of the Union, and engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; that by the
aforesaid acts the respondent discriminated in regard to hire and
tenure of employment, and terms and conditions of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union; that on or about
April 1, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees employed out of said Wausau
Exchange in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act by questioning them about their union activities, by telling
them that union organization would "net" them nothing, by urging,
persuading, and warning them not to join a union, and by other
means intimidating them from joining, assisting, and participating
in the affairs of labor organizations.
On March 22, 1938, the respondent filed its answer, which was
thereafter amended at the hearing upon leave granted by the Trial
Examiner. The answer, as amended, denied the material allegations
of the complaint, and affirmatively set forth that the termination of
Siplon's employment was incident to a necessary reduction in plant
force occasioned by economic conditions; that Seidler was ordered
transferred to the Two Rivers Exchange because of work reasons;
and that Seidler's employment was terminated because of his refusal
to work at the place to which he had been transferred. It further
alleged that the respondent's operations do not occur in the course
and current of commerce among the several States, and that if any
of its operations do occur in the course and current of commerce
among the several States, or form a part of operations constituting
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 319
such commerce, the amount and nature of any such operations is very
small and inconsequential as compared with the intrastate opera-
tions of the respondent within Wisconsin.
Pursuant to notice a hearing on the complaint was held in Wausau,
Wisconsin, on April 24, 25, and 26, 1938, before William P. Webb,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent,
the Union, Siplon, and Seidler appeared and were represented by
counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues,
was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing a motion made
by the Board to conform the complaint to the evidence adduced was
granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner made various rulings on the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. On April 25, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his
Intermediate Report, a copy of which was duly served on all parties,
finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and
recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom, and,
affirmatively, that it reinstate with back pay Siplon and Seidler to
their respective former positions with the respondent, and take cer-
tain other action to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair
labor practices found. On May 7, 1938, the respondent filed its Ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and Record, and on May 24,
1938, submitted a brief in support of its position. Pursuant to notice,
,a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the
Board in Washington, D. C., on December 13, 1938. The respond-
ent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in
the argument. The respondent submitted a brief in support of its
argument, and in accordance with leave granted it, filed herein a
certain document entitled "Record of Layoffs and Union Connection."
The I. B. E. W. also submitted a brief. The Board has considered
the respondent's Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the
Record, and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Commonwealth Telephone Company, is a Wiscon-
sin corporation with its principal office at Madison , Wisconsin. It
is one of some 20 affiliated operating companies engaged in the tele-
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
phone communications business in various parts of the United States
whose stock is held by the General Telephone Corporation, a New
York holding company.
The respondent furnishes local and long distance telephone com-
munications service through a unified system to various industrial,
farming, dairying, and summer-resort communities within the State
of Wisconsin, including Wausau, Plymouth, Richland, Prairie clu
Chien, Reedsburg, Two Rivers, and Portage. In this connection
the respondent operates 39,000 subscriber stations through 108 ex-
changes under indeterminate permits from the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission to engage in these operations, to the exclusion
of any similar enterprise within the areas prescribed by such permits.
The respondent also owns and operates an extensive toll system
within the areas of its operations. Some of the subscriber stations
owned and operated by the respondent are located just over the
State lines in Illinois and Michigan, and are switched by lines owned
jointly by the respondent and the Wisconsin Telephone Company,
one of the companies forming a part of what is popularly known as
the Bell System. A majority of the respondent's exchanges are
housed in its own buildings. Toll or long-distance telephone service,
including interstate and foreign telephone communications service,
is furnished to the respondent's subscribers through the medium of
existing contracts for the interchange of toll traffic between the re-
spondent and the Wisconsin Telephone Company, and between the
respondent and certain other independent telephone companies.
Under these agreements the communications lines of the respondent
are connected with the lines of the Wisconsin Telephone Company,
and the other companies with which it has contracted, at various
points throughout its system, and telephone communications are
interchanged and the charges therefor prorated in accordance with
the provisions of such contracts. By virtue of these agreements and
connections, toll service is furnished the respondent's subscribers to
and from all parts of the United States and many foreign countries
throughout the world. Because the respondent's service is exclusive
within the areas of its operations, comprising many communities,
its facilities are the only means available to business, professional,
industrial, agricultural, and social interests located within such
areas for the transmission of interstate and foreign telephone
communications.
During 1937 the cost of work materials purchased by the respond-
ent amounted to $175,700. Sixty-five per cent of these materials were
purchased and brought to the respondent from outside the State of
Wisconsin. The total revenue derived from the respondent's opera-
tions during 1937 was $1,146,631.79. Approximately $22,932.63 of
COM11OJNWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 321
this amount was derived from toll interstate communications originat-
ing or terminating in Wisconsin.
The respondent's system is divided into two areas , one known as
the Northern Area with an office at Wausau, Wisconsin, and the other
the Southern Area with an office at Madison, Wisconsin. This
proceeding is concerned only with the construction and maintenance
employees working within the Northern Area in and out of Wausau.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America, Local
No. 378. is a labor organization admitting to membership construc-
tion and maintenance employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In January 1937, considerable dissatisfaction concerning wages and
working conditions existed among the respondent 's construction and
maintenance employees working in and out of its Wausau branch office.
At that time the respondent increased the hourly rate of the compen-
sation of these employees by 21/2 cents. Nevertheless the men re-
mained discontented. They spoke of the increase as an "insult" to
them, and began to discuss the matter of forming a union. However,
no actual steps were taken by any of the construction and mainte-
nance employees toward unionization until early in April.
On or about April 4, 1937, Siplon, one of the employees named in
the complaint and then a temporary foreman of a construction crew
at Heyward, Wisconsin, had a conversation with one Pollock, the
respondent's plant manager at Wausau in charge of all construction
and maintenance employees throughout the Northern Area. Siplon
informed Pollock, among other things, that his men were dissatisfied
with the wages they received, and compared their wages with those
paid by another telephone company operating in the State. Siplon
explained the difficulties he and his crew had experienced on their
job and stated that they were not being sufficiently paid for such
work. The conversation then touched upon union organization, and
the financial condition of the respondent. Pollock remarked that
the respondent evidently could pay better wages because it had been
expending substantial sums in the purchase of large quantities of
materials. The following day, which was Sunday, Siplon conversed
with several of his fellow employees , including Seidler, the other
employee named in the complaint , about forming a labor organization
among the respondent 's construction and maintenance employees at
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wausau. The men indicated interest in such a proposal , and it was
decided that Seidler should arrange for an organizational meeting to
be held on April 8. This he did.
On the afternoon of April 8 at the close of the workday Pollock,
the plant manager, approached a number of the employees who had
gathered together and stated that he understood that there was to be a
union meeting that evening. One of the employees answered that
this was true. Pollock then remarked : "Well, boys, I wish you lots
of luck." Later in the day Siplon went to Pollock's office on a routine
matter. Pollock inquired of Siplon whether or not he, Siplon,
intended to go to the meeting. Siplon replied that he did. Pollock
then said : "I don't know , Ted. Maybe this thing won't do so much
good after all." Pollock's words had reference to the formation of a
union . Pollock produced certain documents which he described as
"confidential reports " received by the respondent's executives, and
stated that these reports tended to show that many of the respond-
ent's exchanges were operating at a loss. He said , "It's true the union
can force more money out of the company, but what is to prevent the
company from coming back and shutting down on construction and
throwing a lot of men out of work." There followed a rather lengthy
discussion on the attitude which the respondent had manifested to-
wards its employees and their working conditions.
That night the initial organizational meeting was held attended by
about 28 of the respondent's employees. An employee of the Wis-
consin Public Service Corporation, a neighboring concern, who was
a member of an American Federation of Labor local in Wausau,
spoke about the principles of unionization.
About 10 days after the meeting Siplon went to Pollock's home in
connection with a business matter. While there he was questioned
by Pollock as to the identity of the person who had spoken at the
April 8 meeting. Siplon stated that he did not know. Pollock then
mentioned the name of the speaker and commented that he "under-
stood" that the speaker was "just a rattle-headed kid." Siplon did
not discuss the subject with Pollock. The record shows that about
this time the respondent, through one of its officers, complained to
the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation of the fact that employees
of that company had assisted the respondent's employees in forming
a labor organization, that the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
thereafter communicated with the local of which the speaker of the
April 8 meeting was a member and stated that it wanted such
assistance stopped.
Following the April 8 meeting Pollock habitually greeted Seidler,
when the men encountered each other, with such expressions as
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 323
"Hello, John L," 1 "Hello, C. I. O." 2 Pollock only ceased this prac-
tice after Seidler expressed open resentment to such badgering.
On April 29, 1937, a so-called "Add-A-Phone" meeting was held
at Wausau by the respondent for its employees stationed there. The
purpose of the meeting was essentially to enlist the employees' sup-
port in sales promotional work. One Dakin, the respondent's gen-
eral superintendent who resided in Madison, attended the meeting
and addressed the employees. After this talk Pollock approached
Siplon and suggested that if Siplon wished he might discuss with
Dakin working conditions at Wausau. Pollock then introduced Sip-
lon to Dakin, and a conversation extending some hours ensued. Sip-
]on spoke of the low wages the men were receiving, and Dakin took
the position that the respondent was unable to pay any more. Pol-
lock, who was present, interjected, "I do not see what Ted [Siplon]
thinks he can gain by an organization." Siplon, however, continued
his complaint about the wages of the Wausau employees, and pointed
out that Dakin had not touched on the subject during his speech, al-
though this had been a matter of primary interest to the employees.
He told Dakin that the equipment of the respondent was poor; and
that when the construction men were sent out on their work they
were compelled to live in "third rate" hotels under very adverse con-
ditions. During the course of the discussion Dakin stated that in
view of the "Wagner Act" he felt he could not speak about unions
in their particular application to the respondent. Nevertheless, he
adverted to an experience he had had concerning a strike at another
company in which none of the strikers was "ever given a chance
afterwards at a supervisory job, and that is the way most of these
things turn out in the end." Siplon replied, "Mr. Dakin, you, of
course, realize that in your day unionization was more or less a spo-
radic proposition, with just groups of men here and there; but it was
not then anything like it is today. Today the organization is the
order of the day. It is coming. The day is upon us when every-
thing is going to be done by groups instead of individuals." Dakin
acknowledged that the respondent not only had heard " unioniza-
tion talk and threats here," but elsewhere, and that the respondent
had "a lot of those things coming up now but I am not afraid of it
taking place here." Dakin said, "Although it is true that organi-
zation is coming . . . it isn't on us yet entirely. If I were you,
Mr. Siplon, a young man like you, I would stay away from it all."
On May 3 the Wausau employees held another organizational
meeting which was poorly attended. On August 27 they again met.
'This referred to John L . Lewis, chairman of the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion , a national labor organization.
2 This referred to the Committee for Industrial Organization . See footnote 1.
324 DECISIONS O' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Notice of this meeting was published in a Wausau daily newspaper,
and was brought to the attention of the respondent's officials, in-
cluding Dakin. Some 12 employees were present and a temporary
organization to be affiliated with the I. B. E. W. was set up.
Following the August 27 meeting Pollock approached one Freed,
a Wausau employee who had not attended any of the organizational
meetings, and stated that he, Pollock, understood that Freed "had not
signed up with the Union." Freed replied that he had not. Another
Wausau employee, one Handt, had a similar experience. He was
interrogated by the respondent's commercial manager at Wausau,
one Moore, as to whether he, Handt, had attended the August 27
meeting, and whether certain other named employees had been pres-
ent. Among other things Moore told Handt that "the men that
joined the Union would do well to keep their fingers crossed." Moore
also questioned another employee about his attendance at the nieet-
inb. Pollock approached a group of the employees during the noon
lunch hour, and remarked, "Well, boys, I am starting a cut-rate union.
Does anybody want to join?" He later repeated the remark to an-
other group, adding, "I will cut the dues in half." Pollock testified
that his statements about the "cut-rate" union were in jest. We are
convinced, however, from the circumstances under which these state-
ments were made, in the light of the entire record, that lie intended
thereby to disparage and indicate hostility toward the organizational
efforts of the employees, and at the same time to advert to the fact
that the employees would have to pay dues to their organization which
might prove onerous.
On September 11 another union meeting was held, and the forma-
tion of the Union as a local affiliate of the I. B. E. W. was perfected.
It is evident that from the very beginning of 1937 the respondent's
construction and maintenance employees working in and out of the
Wausau office were dissatisfied with their wages and working condi-
tions, and that this discontent led to a spontaneous effort among the
men to form a labor organization. It is equally clear that commenc-
ing with the first organizational meeting of the employees in April
and continuing thereafter the respondent through its Wausau officials,
Pollock and Moore, and others, embarked upon a course of conduct
designed to combat this effort. We are not persuaded by Pollock's
disclaimer at the hearing of having had any substantial knowledge
at the time concerning the organizational activities of these em-
ployees. The evidence fully establishes the contrary.
The afore-mentioned facts show that the respondent in its attempt
to defeat unionization at Wausau, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in their organizational activities in many,
respects. - Before and after the organizational meetings of April 8
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 325
and August 27 its officials interrogated employees about, or com-
mented upon, their attendance at these meetings, and did so in a way
calculated to disclose the respondent's disfavor and hostility toward
a union. We have repeatedly held that an employer's questioning of
his employees about their union activities contravenes the Act.-
Such interrogation constitutes a threat that the employer's economic
power may be used to the disadvantage of the individual employees
who are active in the union. Indeed, here, in certain instances the
threat was more than a matter implicit in the situation. As stated
above, Pollock told Siplon prior to the April 8 meeting that while
a union might obtain higher wages for the men there was nothing
"to prevent the company from coming back and shutting down on
construction work and throwing a lot of men out of work." And,
Moore told Handt after the August 27 meeting that employees who
"joined the Union would do well to keep their fingers crossed." Of
similar intent and import were the statements made by the respond-
ent to disparage the formation of a, union and the efforts of those
therein engaged. Pollock's above statements that the speaker at the
April 8 meeting was a "rattle-headed kid," that he, Pollock, was
himself "starting a cut-rate union," were not mere idle statements of
opinion and comment. In the light of the employer-employee rela-
tion existing and the respondent's economic power, they were unmis-
takable expressions of the respondent's hostility toward organization.-
Likewise Pollock's greeting of Seidler with "Hello, John L," or
"Hello, C. I. 0." was an interference and restraint.
The steps taken by the respondent to prevent the employees of
the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation from assisting its own
employees in their organizational activities was in violation of the
Act. As we have had occasion to point out : 5
Interference, by an employer with the lawful conduct of or-
ganizational activities among employees by labor organizers is
in derogation of rights secured employees under Section 7 of the
Act, and constitutes an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (1). The rights guaranteed to employees by the
Act include full freedom to receive aid, advice, and information
from others, concerning those rights and their enjoyment.
3Matter of Trenton Garment Company and International Ladies' Garment TVoihe,s
Union, Local 278, 4 N. L R B. 1186 ; Matter of Semet-Solvay Company and Detroit Cole
Oven Employees Association and International Union, United Automobile TV'orlers of
America, Local 174, 7 N L R. B. 511 See also Matter of The Boss Manufacturing Com-
pany and Inteinational Glove Workers' Union of America, Local 85, 3 N L R. B 400
4 Virginia Ferry Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board , 101 F. (2d) 10
105-106 (C C A 4th) ; National Lobo , Relations Board v . The Falk Corporation, 102 F
( 2d) 383 ( C C A 7th ) ; also Vi,ginian By Co. v . System Federation No ,O , etc., 84 F.
(2d) 641 (C. C. A 4th), 300 U. S 515
5Matter of Harlan Fuel Company and United Mine Workers of America , 8 N L R B.
25, 3
187930-39-vol 13--22
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, we are satisfied, and find, that Dakin in his conversation
with Siplon at the Add-A-Plione meeting went beyond the limits of
ordinary or casual conversation and sought to dissuade and caution,
in respect to organizational efforts, the employee who had so clearly
disclosed himself to be a firm believer in unionization and a poten-
tial union leader. The length of the conversation which occurred,
the statements of Dakin and his admonition that if he were a young
man like Siplon he "would stay away from it all," Pollock's remark
that he did not see what Siplon "thinks lie can gain by organization,"
all confirm our conclusion. Dakin was an important official of the
respondent and his words carried the full force of its superior posi-
tion. In this the respondent, through Dakin, interfered, with and
restrained its employees.
We find that the respondent by interrogating employees- about
their organizational activities; by threatening them in that connec-
tion; by making disparaging anti-union statements to employees
regarding their organizational and concerted activities for mutual
aid and protection, and those therein engaged ; by preventing the
rendering of the assistance of others to its employees in these activi-
ties; by attempting to dissuade and caution a strong union adherent
about his engaging in organizational activities; and by each of said
acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharges
Theodore Siplon, mentioned above, was laid off by the respondent
on August 31, 1937, along with four other Wausau construction work-
ers, the "equivalent of a crew." Siplon had worked for the respond-
ent since the spring of 1936.1
The record is plain that prior to April 1937 when Siplon first
became interested in bettering the conditions of himself and his fel-
low employees through unionization, his competency as a worker had
won the approval of his superiors and he stood on friendly terms
with them. In the fall of 1936 Pollock informed Siplon that when
a new truck was obtained he would put Siplon in charge of it and
elevate him to the position of crew foreman. In January, when the
afore-mentioned general wage increase of 21/2 cents an hour was
given the respondent's employees, Siplon's wage rate was increased
5 cents an hour, his wage-increase slip bearing the notation that the
increase was "for service and ability." On March 4 he was made
acting foreman of his crew to replace the foreman, Kreiser, who had
$ The record shows that Siplon had previously been employed by the respondent from
1928 to 1931 when his employment was terminated by reason of a force reduction.
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 327
become ill. In late March Siplon married and Pollock and his wife
were his guests at a dinner following the ceremony.
Shortly after Siplon's conversation with Pollock on April 4, above
mentioned, in which Siplon had spoken of the discontent of his crew
about their wages, and after the organizational meeting of April 8,
Pollock for the first time began to criticize Siplon and his work.
Pollock spoke to Siplon about "little things." About May 6, after
the Add-A-Phone meeting, Pollock in a conversation with Siplon
broached the subject of the discussion Siplon had had with Dakin,
saying, "Why, I got the shock of my life the way you talked to Mr.
Dakin." Siplon inquired as to what he had said that surprised
Pollock. Pollock replied, "Why, the way you fired questions at Mr.
Dakin when you talked to him. You asked him questions right
out." Siplon reminded Pollock that he, Pollock, had suggested the
meeting. Pollock said, "Well, after you left, Mr. Dakin asked me
what this man Siplon's background was. I told him that you had
been in the army, and Mr. Dakin said, `Well I'm sure surprised that
a man who had been in the army does not know any more about
discipline than that."' Thereafter, Siplon went with his crew to
perform some work at Minocqua, Wisconsin. When he arrived there
he found the foreman, Kreiser, waiting to take charge of the crew.
Siplon had not known that he was not to supervise the job, and the
occurrence "made it look embarrassing for me." When Siplon re-
turned to Wausau Pollock greeted him with the remark that he,
Pollock, ought to "bust" Siplon for the way he handled a job at
Eagle River. Siplon asked what had been wrong. Pollock replied,
"It was just the way you handled it," that Siplon had not taken any
,'short cuts." Siplon asked what short cuts could have been taken,
and Pollock replied that he did not recall any right then. Siplon
showed signs of being angry, and Pollock then remarked, "Let it go,
it wasn't so bad." Siplon adverted to Pollock's expression about
"busting," saying, "You know you haven't any reason to say any-
thing like that." Pollock smiled and said, "You know what hap-
pened to Roy Putnam." The reference was to an employee who had
had difficulties with the respondent. He then said, "Well, Ted, it's
not so bad. The Eagle River job is all right as far as I am
concerned."
Early in June Siplon went to Minocqua as temporary foreman in
charge of a crew. Some 2 weeks later Kreiser reported on the job.
Siplon inquired whether lie was to continue supervising the work or
whether Kreiser was to take it over. Kreiser stated that he did not
know. The two men telephoned Pollock about the matter. Pollock
told Siplon that since Kreiser was the older employee Siplon "had
better let, him have it," and that Siplon should work as a lineman.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ttELATIONS BOARD
Pollock stated that this was only a "temporary arrangement."
Siplon then informed the men on the crew that Kreiser was their
new foreman . The incident embarrassed Siplon. The record shows
that although Kreiser assumed charge of the crew, he did not go out
on the job with the men because of his past illness, that he remained
in the office and had Siplon supervise the outside work. At the end
of the week Siplon returned to Wausau and asked Pollock for a
week's leave of absence which was given him. Upon his return,
Siplon worked as a lineman under Kreiser until his lay-off at the
end of August. Earlier , in July, another employee, O'Keefe, was
promoted to the position of foreman of a crew. Siplon never was
advanced. O'Keefe has never been laid off.
On August 23 Dakin instructed Pollock orally and in writing
to begin an "immediate reduction" of the construction force in the
Northern Area.7 On August 31 Pollock had a conversation with
Kreiser and directed Kreiser to notify Siplon that his employment
was terminated . Three other employees were laid off and a foreman
demoted . Thereafter, on August 31 Kreiser told Siplon that Pollock
had instructed that Siplon was "all through." Siplon asked, "What
made him do that?" Kreiser replied that Pollock had given no
reason, and after some further conversation said, "I don't know what
to think about it. It must be on account of the union. There can't
be any other reason, because there never has been any complaint
about your work." At the hearing Kreiser admitted that he told
Siplon that he was "all through," and testified that Siplon "prob-
ably . . . was discharged." Kreiser denied, however, having known
at that time of Siplon's union activity, and denied, or did not "recall"
mentioning the subject to him. He testified that he advised Siplon
that the reason for' the lay-off was a reduction in force, also the
"difficulties that had existed between Mr. Pollock and Mr. Siplon."
However, when interrogated at the hearing, Kreiser denied knowing
what those difficulties were. We are satisfied, although it is not
necessarily determinative of the basic issue here presented, that
Kreiser did venture the opinion to Siplon that Siplon's union activity
had brought about the termination of his employment. We are not
impressed with Kreiser's testimony on this point. Among other
things, his admitted statement to Siplon that Siplon was "all
through," that is, "probably" discharged and not merely laid off,8
shows that Kreiser then believed that something more than a lay-off
attendant on ordinary reduction in force had occurred in Siplon's
case.
This referred to the Wausau force
8 Cf Matter of Servel, Inc. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
_l m ci ica, Local No 1001, 11 N. L R B. 1295
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 329
On the day following his termination of employment Siplon spoke
with Pollock at Wausau. He asked Pollock why he had been dis-
missed. Pollock replied, "Well, Ted, this is a culmination of a long
string of circumstances ... it isn't your work but it's your atti-
tude . . . it's just the way you look at things . . . it all goes back
to that Add-A-Phone campaign." Siplon said, "What did I say at
the Add-A-Phone meeting that could have any such effect as this
at this time." Pollock replied, "I don't know. You did all the
talking with Dakin." Thereafter Pollock reiterated that it was
Siplon's "attitude," saying, "you don't look at things in the right
way." He commented that if Siplon had not given him "black looks,"
his "situation" might have been "entirely different than it is right
now." Pollock admitted that Siplon had "delivered full value" to
the respondent and complimented him on his intelligence. Siplon
inquired whether there -,iwas "anything else," and Pollock said, "Well,
Mr. Dakin has a habit of talking to men and getting things out of
them." Siplon then asked directly whether Pollock and the Union
had anything to do with his dismissal. Pollock gave a negative
reply, and said if Siplon wished he might speak with Dakin about
the matter. At the hearing Pollock was asked as to what he had
meant when he told Siplon that Siplon's "attitude" had entered into
Siplon's dismissal. Pollock testified, "Ted had a critical attitude on
everything that took place, all the way from the tools that he worked
with on up. He was critical towards the men, and to me, also about
wages." He further testified that until Siplon took over the Hey-
ward job on March 29, he had thought Siplon "an exceptionally good
man" and his attitude all right but that at that time Siplon's attitude
became "bad"; "he complained about the roads he had to travel" with
his truck. Pollock was asked :
Q. Would you call it just a coincidence that just about the
time the union was started his attitude, so far as you know, com-
menced to get bad? Would you connect that up at all with the
union?
A. No, not at all .. .
Q. That was just a coincidence?
A. It would be a coincidence.
Q. I see. There was no union prior to April, and up to April
his attitude was good; then the union came into the plant and
his attitude then goes off; is that about the history of it?
A. It would look that way to me, yes.
Q. All along in the month of April?
A. It looks that way to me.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pollock also testified that one of the considerations which led to
the dismissal was that three employees had told him they did
not want to work under Siplon, which would be sometime prior to
June 21 when Siplon was given lineman duties. However, Pollock
also testified that he would not "place any excessive weight" on the
complaint of one of these employees, and that while the incident
had "some bearing," it "of course, would be slight."
Two days later Siplon spoke with Dakin. He told Dakin that he
had been unable to receive an explanation for his dismissal and
wished to know what the reason was. Dakin replied that the re-
spondent was reducing its force, that "our men and women claim
that they can't get by on the money we are paying them, and as we
only have one pocket to take the money out of we have to get rid
of some of the people to make room for what we have to go around."
Siplon asked why the respondent had dismissed its "oldest employees
first." Dakin answered, "Now, listen here, Mr. Siplon, I don't have
to tell you a damn thing." Siplon continued the conversation and
adverted to the fact that men with less seniority than he, had not
been laid off. Dakin said, "Well, nobody wants to work for you, and
besides, you mixed the accounting department all up," and, finally,
"Well, Ted, you made mistakes with this company, and if you will
analyze yourself you will find that you have made mistakes." The
conversation thus ended. Dakin testified that Siplon also said that
he had been dismissed because of union activity and that he, Dakin,
had replied that no such activity oil the part of Siplon had been
reported to him.
The respondent contends that the termination of Siplon's employ-
ment was merely incident to the reduction of its line-construction
force in the Northern Area, which commenced August 31. The rec-
ord shows that by January 1, 1938, the respondent had reduced the
number of these employees from 15 to 3.9 However, that such a
reduction occurred does not necessarily establish that Siplon's dis-
missal on August 31, was for nondiscriminatory causes."' Pollock
testified that he alone determined what men were to be laid off and
that in doing so was guided by "their ability and their attitude."
He further testified that he resolved to dismiss Siplon for various
reasons, in particular because of Siplon's "attitude," above-men-
tioned,. and further for the reason that when Siplon had acted as
foreman his accounting report had been "mixed-up," three employ-
ees under him had asked to be transferred, and he had not done "a
The lay-offs occurred principally in December 1937.
10 Matter of Sertiel, Inc . and United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local No. 1002, 11 N. L. R. B. 1295 ; Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc and
Iron Molders Union of North America, Local 80, 8 N. L. R. B. 879.
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 331
very good job." We are not convinced that these asserted reasons
or any of them were determinative factors in Siplon's dismissal.
Siplon's "attitude" was unobjectionable and presented no obstacles
to advancement in position or his being given wage increases until
in April, by his conversations with Pollock and Dakin, he mani-
fested interest in labor organizations as a means of ameliorating the
working conditions of himself and the Wausau employees. We are
satisfied that there occurred no change in Siplon's "attitude" in
April, from what it had been theretofore. As regards the other
matters, Pollock's testimony above, set forth shows that the incident
concerning the three employees was of little consequence, and the
record fails to show precisely what the "accounting mix-up" or "poor
work" was in which Siplon was alleged to have erred. Moreover,
at the time Siplon was dismissed, and for 2 months previous, he had
acted as a lineman. He was excellent at this work. Pollock repeat-
edly at the hearing praised Siplon's ability in that field. From this
viewpoint we see little relationship between Siplon's alleged short-
comings as an assistant foreman prior to July, and his being dis-
missed as a lineman on August 31.
The foregoing facts, considered in the light of the respondent's hos-
tility toward unionization of its Wausau employees and the steps which
it took to prevent their organization, as heretofore found, convince us
that the, respondent, through Pollock, seized the first opportunity it
had to rid itself of Siplon because of his interest in labor organizations
and his activities in promoting the Union. We are satisfied that
Siplon's conversation with Dakin at the Add-A-Phone meeting re-
sulted in a definite animosity on the part of that official toward Siplon
as a potential union leader and a force to be reckoned with in the event
of organization, and that this feeling was communicated to Pollock
and thereafter conditioned Pollock in his conduct toward Siplon. As
a matter of fact Pollock already had begun to turn against Siplon
because of the April 4 conversation. The various annoyances which
Siplon experienced in June and thereafter, such as Pollock's criticism
of Siplon's work, the removal of Siplon from his position as acting
foreman, are traceable in large measure to the respondent' s anti-union
attitude. At the time of his dismissal Siplon had seniority over
other construction employees, and clearly was among the most efficient
linemen employed. Had he not disclosed himself to the respondent
as a strong union leader, and as such, ready to present to the employer
the grievances of his fellow workers, he would not, we are convinced,
have been dismissed on August 31.
The record shows that since January 1938 the respondent has re-
tained two foremen of the Northern Area line-construction crew,
O'Keefe and Stendklyft, and one lineman who now occupies the posi-
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of acting manager at Birnamwood. Under these circumstances
we cannot find, if material," that Siplon, had he not been dismissed
on August 31, nevertheless would have had his employment terminated
prior to January 1938. The retention of the two foremen indicates
that some construction work is being and has been done out of Wau-
sau, and, if relevant,12 the duty rested upon the respoldent to "dis-
entangle" 13 the consequences of its discrimination against Siplon and
to demonstrate the fact that in all events, at a later period he would
not have had work.
The respondent apparently contends that Siplon was not discharged
but merely laid off, to be recalled to work when and if conditions per-
mitted. It is immaterial whether he was laid off or discharged for in
either event the termination of his employment on August 31 con-
stituted a discrimination as to hire and tenure of employment, within
the meaning of the Act.' However, we are satisfied, and find, that
Siplon was not laid off but discharged. The statement of Kreiser to
Slplon that he was "all through," and Kreiser's testimony in that con-
nection, support our finding.
We find that the respondent by terminating the employment of
Theodore Siplon on August 31, 1937, discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of said employee and discouraged
membership in a labor organization, and that by such act the re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Walter Seidler was discharged by the respondent on September 4,
1937. He had had continuous employment since 1933 in line and
maintenance work, or, as it is known, "trouble shooting." This is
work of high skill requiring at least 2 years of training to attain com-
petence like Seidler's, as well as a thorough knowledge of electrical
transmission. Seidler was first employed by the respondent in 1928
and had intermittent work thereafter until 1933. The respondent
does not question Seidler's competency. He was a good, highly skilled
workman.
Seidler was very active in the organizational activities at Wausau,
above mentioned, and in the Union. He personally arranged for the
meeting places, publicity, and speakers for the April 8, May 3, and
11 See National Labor Relations Board v. William Randolph Hearst, Hearst Publications,
Inc., a corporation, Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., a corporation, Hearst Cor-
poration, a corporation , American Newspapers , Inc., a corporation, and King Features,
Inc, a corporation , 102 F. (2d) 658, (C. C. A. 9th).
13 See footnote 11.
' National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. ( 2d) 862 (C. C. A.
2d) cert. den . 304 U. S. 576; National Labor Relations Board v . Stackpole Carbon Com-
pany, 105 F. ( 2d) 167 (C. C. A. 3rd).
14 Matter of Precision Castings Coin pang, Inc. and Iron Molders Union of North America,
Local 80, 8 N. L. if. B. 879. See also National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio
4 Tel. Co., 304 U. S 313.
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 333
August 27 meetings. At the last of these meetings he was elected
temporary president 15 of the organization then formed to be affiliated
with the I. B. E. W. In his testimony Pollock denied having known
prior to his conversation with Seidler on September 4, mentioned
below, that Seidler belonged to the Union, that Seidler was interested
in the formation of a union at Wausau, or that he had been elected an
officer at the August 27 meeting. We are unable to place credence
in this testimony. We already have found that Pollock had knowl-
edge of the organizational activities of the employees under him, that
after the April 8 meeting Pollock persistently annoyed Seidler by
calling him "John L." and "C. I. 0." The record further shows that
in the last week of August Pollock, in a conversation with Dakin
at Madison had his attention called by Dakin to the announcement of
the August 27 meeting apparently in the Wausau newspaper of
August 26. Under all the circumstances, including those surround-
ing the discharge of Seidler, we are satisfied, and find, that prior to
September 2, when Pollock's telephone conversation with Dakin,
mentioned below, occurred, Pollock not only knew of Seidler's union
activities and leadership but that he had been made the temporary
president of the Union.
On September 4, 1937, Pollock summoned Seidler to his office and
informed him that the respondent had decided to transfer Seidler to
its exchange at Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Pollock testified that prior
thereto, on September 2, Dakin had telephoned him from Madison
and told him that a trouble-shooter was needed at Two Rivers and
that he, Pollock, should transfer one of his. men there, that Dakin
had not instructed him whom to transfer. The post which Pollock
asked Seidler to fill was one vacated some 6 months previously
through the death of an employee. Seidler asked Pollock why he
had not sent Handt, another employee, to Two Rivers. Pollock re-
plied that Handt was not a "trouble-shooter," and that in any event
it was "either you or Jablonski" who would have to go. Seidler
stated that he desired to remain in Wausau and pointed out that it
would greatly inconvenience him to be transferred, that he was a
married man with children, and owned a. small piece of property in
Wausau where he lived. Pollock did not change his position, and
Seidler asked for time to consider the matter.
Thereafter, Seidler discussed the transfer with one Priebe and
one Melvin, officials of the I. B. E. W. These men were impressed
with the fact that the transfer appeared to be motivated by an intent
to destroy the Union through removing its president from Wausau.
Priebe then went with Seidler to discuss the matter with Pollock.
"At the meeting of September 11, 1937. Seidler assumed the presidency of the perfected
organization.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
They met Pollock, and Priebe asked him if the respondent would
not be willing to permit Seidler to remain in Wausau since he was
the president of their organization. Moore, the respondent's com-
mercial manager, who was present said, "Where is Walt [Seidler]
needed most, with the telephone company or with the union?" Priebe
then accused the respondent of interfering with the employees' "right
to organize." The conversation concluded indeterminately.
Later in the day Pollock telephoned Seidler and advised him that
he had conferred with the Madison office about the transfer and that
Seidler was to report for work at Two Rivers on the following Tues-
day morning. Seidler stated that he 'did not see why, in view of the
inconvenience, he should be sent to Two Rivers and attributed the
transfer to his union activity. Pollock adhered to his decision and
Seidler then stated that he would not accept the transfer. Pollock
said that in that event Seidler would be taken off the respondent's
pay roll. He denied that Seidler's union activity had brought about
the transfer.
The respondent contends that Seidler's transfer on September 4
to the Two Rivers exchange was merely a business matter unrelated
to the union at Wausau or to Seidler's participation therein, that
the respondent needed a trouble-shooter at Two Rivers and Seidler
had been selected to fill that job. The respondent stresses the fact
that the choice lay wholly between Seidler and Jablonski, another
employee. However, the respondent never ascertained what Jablon-
ski's response would be were he told that he was being transferred.
It never requested him to go to Two Rivers nor discussed the matter
with him. At the hearing Pollock testified that he "wouldn't send
Jablonski to Two Rivers." Upon the entire record we are not per-
suaded that the respondent suddenly found it imperative on or about
September 2 to transfer Seidler to Two Rivers, and that no other
alternative was presented it. The transfer of Seidler, and conse-
quently the discharge resultant therefrom,", like the termination of
Siplon's employment a few days, previous, were, we are convinced,
rooted in the respondent's intent and desire to destroy unionization
at Wausau. Pollock knew of Seidler's leadership in the union, and
by acts had demonstrated his antipathy toward him by virtue thereof.
Seidler was a valuable worker who had been in the respondent's em-
ploy many years, and we do not believe that his employment would
have ended were it not for his leadership and union activity. The
respondent's decision and insistence upon his transfer were induced
by its desire to remove Seidler from Wausau, and failing in that it
discharged him.
16 Matter of Servel, Inc. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local No. 1002, 11 N. L . R. B. 1295.
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 335
We find that the respondent, on September 4, 1937, transferred and
thereafter discharged Seidler because of his union leadership and
activity and his engaging in concerted activities with other employees
for mutual aid and protection, thereby discriminating in regard to
terms and conditions of employment, and hire and tenure of employ-
ment, and discouraging, membership in a labor organization ; that
by said acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
Since the respective terminations of their employment by the re-
spondent, Siplon has had no employment, Seidler has had temporary
employment and earned about $35. Both men desire reinstatement.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that 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
between the several States and foreign countries, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It is essential in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from certain
activities and practices in which we have found it to have en-
gaged, and in aid of such order and as a means for removing and
avoiding the consequences of such activities and practices, that the
respondent be directed to take certain affirmative action, more par-
ticularly described below.
We have found that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its Wausau employees in the exercise of the rights secured
by the Act. We also have found that it discriminatorily terminated
the employment of Siplon and Seidler. Accordingly, we shall order
the respondent to cease and desist from such practices. Moreover,
to effectuate the purposes and policy of the Act, we shall require
the respondent to offer Siplon and Seidler immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and
to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason
of the respondent's discriminatory termination of their employment,
as aforesaid, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the illegal termination of his employment to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings 17 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire 7record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 378,
is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment, and terms and conditions of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Common-
wealth Telephone Company and its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local No. 378 , or any other labor organization
of its employees , by laying off or discharging any of its employees
because of membership in, or activity in connection with , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No . 378, or any
other labor organization , or by discriminating in any other manner
17 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , 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 the unlawful
termination of his employment and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment
elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners o f America, Lumber and Saiomill WVoi keys Union , Local 2590, 8
N. L. R. B . 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county,
municipal , or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided
below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount
thereof ,shall- be paid over to the appropriate • Sscal' agency of the Federal , State, county,
municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects.
COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY 337
in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition
of employment;
(b) In any other manner 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 purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Theodore Siplon
and Walter Seidler, and each of them, to their former positions with
the respondent, or to substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Theodore Siplon and Walter Seidler for any loss
of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tory termination of their employment on August 31 and September
4, 1937, respectively, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during
the period from the date his employment was so terminated to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 18 during such
period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each
of the said employees, monies received by said employee during said
period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted,
to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, mu-
nicipal, or other government or governments which supplied the
funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its plant, stating that the respondent will cease and de-
sist in the manner aforesaid, and maintain such notices for a period
of at least sixty (60) days from the date of said posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
MP. WILLIAM M. LEISLPSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
11 See footnote 17.