Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1941

31 N.L.R.B. 994 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL, UNION No. 249 Case No. 0-1463.-Decided May 21, 1941 Jurisdiction : automobile assembly industry. Unfair Labor Practices In General Where employer permitted supervisory officials to collect a fund on Company property which was contributed to police department after police had interfered with concerted activities of striking employees, employer held to have ratified and adopted course of interference pursued by police. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion • warning and threatening employees to discourage union membership; transfer of union leader to obstruct union organization; attempted discriminatory discharge of union members; dis- tribution of anti-union literature ; permitting manufacture on Company prop- erty of weapons for use in labor dispute; interference with picketing during labor dispute ; soliciting employees to withdraw charges of discrimination by threats of future discrimination and promise of future employment Company-Dominated Union: payment of wage increases to organizers of; hos- tility to rival labor organization ; lock-out to discourage membership in rival labor organizations ; circulation of rumors immediately preceding and during lock-out threatening to move plant and threatening that plant 'would not re- open if employees retained adherence to rival labor organization; statements of organizers and supervisory employees that membership in was condition of employment;, collaboration of organizers and employer in rejecting ad- herents of rival labor organization and employing adherents of union in reinstating employees following lock-out; discharge of adherents of rival labor organizations after reinstatement; granting of bargaining coincd'ssions on mere written request therefor. Discrimination: discharge for: failure to join company-dominated labor organi- zation; adherence to rival labor organization; association with members of rival labor organization ; refusal to come to work in caravan used to transport working employees past locked-out employees, as ; closing of plant to dis- courage union membership and discharge of both union and non-union members as, discharges ; charges of dismissed as to : employees individually discharged who did not testify ; in- absence of showing of motive; forced resig- nation, as, charges of, dismissed Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated organization; reinstatement ordered : for employees locked out; for strikers upon application ; for em- ployees discriminatorily discharged, discharging if necessary subsequently hired employees and if sufficient positions still unavailable reducuig force in a non-discriminatory manner and placing employees so discharged on a preferential list; acquisition of substantially equivalent employment not a bar; effect of misconduct and strike on; back pay : denied striker'; 'awarded locked-out and discharged employees ; hump sum ; proportionate distribution 31 N T, R B, N o 170 994 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 995 among employees discriminated' against; proportionate deduction for net earnings; decrease in production, obviating necessity of locked-out employees' services does not stop accrual of back pay where employer discriminated in reinstating locked-out employees to available positions ; effect of misconduct and strike on. Practice and Procedure Withdrawal of charges of discrimination induced by respondent's threats of future discrimination held no bar to Board proceedings. Amendment of complaint which alleged that respondent had discrimina- torily reinstated employees following a lock-out to allege that respondent had discriminatorily locked out employees held not prejudicial where com- plaint originally alleged a lock-out. Trial Examiner's ruling establishing order of proof held within his discretion and not evidence of bias. Mr. Paul Nachtman, Mr. Paul F. Broderick, Mr. Arthur R. Donovan, and Mr. David C. ,Shaw, for the Board. Madden, Freeman and Madden, by Mr. T. J. Madden, Mr. John G. Madden, and Mr. Harry R. Freeman, of Kansas City, Mo., and Mr. R. R. Brewster, Mr. R. R. Brewster, Jr., and Mr. James E. Burke, of Kansas City, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. James A. Reed, Mr. R. J. Ingraham, Mr. John Mitchell, Mr. Burr S. Stottle,'and Mr. Charles A. ,Settle, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Blue Card Union. Mr. Harry C. Clark and Mr. L. W. Krings, of Kansas City, Mo., for the U. A. W. Mr. Clif Langsdale, of Kansas City, Mo., for the discriminatees. Mr. Theodore TV. Kheel and Mr. William 7'. Little, of 'counsel to the . Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local Union No. 249, herein called the U. A. W., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri), issued its complaint dated January 31, 1938, against Ford Motor Company, Kansas City, Missouri, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean- ing of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.r 'A motion to amend the complaint made on January 26, 1939, and granted by the Tiial Examiner on February 9, 1939, deleted the allegation that the respondent enga^ed in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act See Section III-F-1, infra 441843-42-N of 31--64 996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the U. A. W., and the Independent Union of Ford Workers, herein called the Blue Card Union. The complaint, as finally amended, alleged in substance that (1) the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis- tration of, and contributed support to the Blue Card Union and its predecessor, the Independent Order of Ford Workers; (2) the respond- ent locked out and refused to reinstate 967 named employees and in other ways discriminated against 144 named employees because they joined and assisted the U. A. W.; (3) by the foregoing and other speci- fied-acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; 2 and (4) as a result of the respondent's alleged unfair labor prac- tices, the U. A. W. called a strike on December 10, 1937. On February 16, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting certain averments as to the nature of its business but denying commis- sion of the alleged unfair labor practices. It also asserted in its answer that the Board had, through its Regional Director at Kansas City, Missouri, illegally issued subpenas and threatened and intimidated wit- nesses in order to coerce and influence them to give false testimony and statements in favor of the U. A. W. and that by reason thereof the Board and the Regional Director were biased, prejudiced, and unfit to hear and determine this proceeding. On March 1, 1938, the Board filed a reply denying this allegation of the answer. No evidence was offered by. the respondent in support thereof during the hearing. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Kansas City, Missouri, beginning on February 14, 1938, and continuing with various adjourn- ments through July 19, 1939, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board.' At the commencement of the hear- ing the Blue Card Union filed a motion to intervene. The Trial Examiner granted this motion but limited participation of the Blue Card Union to the issues raised by allegations of the complaint charging that it was company dominated. The Board, the respondent, the 2 Acts of Interfeience, rest:iaint, or coercion alleged in the complaint included informing employees that`the respondent would never operate its plant at Kansas City as long as its employees were members of the U A. W , making false and misleading statements that the plant would be abandoned in order to gain public and police support in furtherance of its labor policies, circulating rumors that the respondent would abandon its plant at Kansas City and at the same time informing employees though various supervisors that the plant would be reopened with the Blue Card Union, refusing to remstate members of the U A W. while employing new men, threatening to blacklist members of the U. A IV, maintaining surveillance of U. A W meetings, interfering with ti e right of the U A W to engage In peaceful picketing and other collective action, visiting employees at their homes to induce them to renounce their membership in the U. A. W , creating a state of chaos and hystem is by instigating and acquiescing in a campaign of hostility against members of the U A W , manufacturing of peimittmg blackjacks , lead knuckles , lead pipes , and other instruments of violence to be manufactured in its plant , allowing and encouraging employees to carry guns and other weapons in their cars and upon th e ir person while going to and from work, and organizing vigilante squads among its employees. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 997 U. A. W., and the Blue Card Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. On January 16, 1940, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec- tion 36, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 2, ordered the proceeding transferred to and continued before it for action pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of said Rules and Regu- lations. The Board further ordered that no Intermediate Report be issued by the Trial Examiner, and acting pursuant to Article II, Sec- tion 37 (c), of said Rules and Regulations, directed that proposed find- ings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order be issued and that the parties should have the right within twenty (20) days from the receipt of such proposed findings of fact, proposed con- clusions of law, and proposed order to file exceptions, to request per- mission to file a brief with the Board, and to request oral argument before the Board. On January 17, 1941, the-Board issued its proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. Since the Board had 'on March 11, 1940, amended Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations to provide that "Any party may, within thirty days after the date of the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclu- sions of law, and proposed order, file a brief with the Board," it pro- vided in said proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order that any party to this proceeding might, without request, file a brief with the Board within thirty (30) days after the issuance of said proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order.' On January 21, 1941, the respondent peti- tioned the Board for an extension of time in which to file exceptions to the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and pro- posed order. Pursuant to this request, the Board granted all parties to this proceeding until March 20, 1941, to file exceptions. On March 20, 1941, exceptions filed in behalf of the respondent, the Blue Card Union, and 378 named "discriminatees" 3 were received by the Board in Washington, D. C. None of the parties to this proceed- ing-availed themselves of the opportunity to file a brief in support of their exceptions or to request oral argument before the Board. The respondent's exceptions are divided into two ' categories : (1)_ exceptions to adverse or allegedly prejudicial rulings of the Trial Ex- These 378 persons have , in their exceptions , called themselves "discriminatees " As to a great majority of them , the Board proposed to find that the respondent had discriminated within the meanuig of Section 8 (3). Several, the Board proposed to dismiss from the com- plaint. The 378 constitute approximately one-third of the number of employees covered by the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order. 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD aminer during the course of the hearing and (2) exceptions to the pro- posed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order.4 The respondent excepts "to each and every adverse ruling of the Trial Examiner during the hearing" and lists in haec verba substantially if not every adverse ruling made during the course of this record of over 27,000 pages, the testimony leading up to the ruling, and the re, spondent's objections, if any, to the ruling. No additional reasons, except those stated during the hearing, are now assigned by the re- spondent. In the preparation of the proposed findings of fact, pro- posed conclusions of law, and proposed order, the Board considered and passed upon the objections made by the respondent during the course of the hearing. We have again considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner in connection with the respondent's exceptions and find that no prejudicial errors were committed.5 The rulings, with the exceptions noted below, are hereby affirmed.' In the first 132 pages of its exceptions, the respondent has listed 161 separate exceptions to the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order. For the most part, these ex- ceptions challenge the Board's proposals in,such broad and general terms as the following: that the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order are "supported neither by the evidence nor by the purported findings of fact"; that they are "ar- bitrary, capricious, oppressive and contrary to the law and the evidence and the substantial evidence"; that they "constitute no more than in intermingling of evidence, argument, conjecture, suspicion and surmise"; or that they go beyond the "pleadings and scope thereof and the issues made thereby." No record citation is included among all these exceptions nor has the respondent filed a brief in support thereof or requested oral argument before the Board., Included among these exceptions is the assertion that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced in his conduct of the hearing. Again, no record references are cited in support of this accusation. As one particular, however, the respondent specifies that the Trial Examiner refused to entertain the testimony of "the witness Fred Lasley . . . upon the sole and arbitrary and oppressive ground that the foreman of such witness had not testified.", This ruling was made under the following circumstances. " The exceptions to the proposed findings of fact pi oposed conclusions of law , and proposed order are contained in the first 132 pages of the respondent 's exceptions The exceptions to adverse rulings of the Trial Examiner consume the remaining 3,199 pagesipf the respond- ent's exceptions - 5 It should be noted that a majority of the iuluigs to which the respondent has excepted relate to the admission of evidence over the iespondent's objection or its retention in the face of a motion to stoke. 6 See Section III-F-2, infra FORD MOTOR COMPANY a 999 In defense to the allegation of the complaint that it "refused to reinstate" members of the U. A. W. in November 1937, the respondent introduced evidence to prove that after the sit-down strike of April 2, 1937, these employees engaged in all forms of improper conduct in the plant.' In the presentation of this-defense, the respondent first pro- duced the testimony of employees who worked in the vicinity of the employees named in the complaint. These witnesses related various acts of misconduct on the part of U. A. W. members. However, it was brought out in many instances that particular cases of miscon- duct had not been reported to any supervisory official and hence could not have been considered in the selection of employees for reinstate- ment. Since the-eyidence of misconduct was admittedly offered to show the basis of selection, the Trial Examiner suggested, after 5,000 pages had been consumed without entirely covering the employees of one department, that "we can work to better advantage by first hear- ing testimony of the supervisor and discuss the possibility as to whether or'not they would reemploy and reasons back and forth and why they did not and the supervisors who made the decision., Then we can proceed down the line and the testimony of various witnesses would be more or less corroborative of the reasons set out or claimed by the supervisors." But the respondent refused to abide by this suggestion. The Trial Examiner then announced that he "would re- quire the respondent to follow that rule in the other departments of presenting foremen first, and developing why the individuals were dis- charged, and then use fellow workers' testimony as corroborative evi- dence." Notwithstanding the Trial Examiner's ruling, the respondent offered the testimony of Frederick L. Lasley, a stock checker in the stock depaitment, which the Trial Examiner refused to entertain at that point in the hearing. Finally the respondent called Everett J. Gregg, general foreman of the chassis department, although specifi- cally retaining its objection to the Trial Examiner's ruling. Despite this ruling, the respondent thereafter frequently presented testimony of individual employees before the testimony 'of the general foremen.8 Moreover, counsel for the respondent stated, in requesting an ad- journment for the preparation of written offers of proof of mis- conduct',on the -part of employees in the body, maintenance, paint, trim, powerhouse, and stock departments, that "when you start to investigate a given department here you almost have to start in with your general foreman to get the picture of the department in its entirety, and you almost have to proceed from that to the supervisory employees and from the supervisory employees to the other potential ' See Section III-F, infra. 'A number of the rulings excluding evidence to which the respondent thereafter ' excepted were consonant with the Trial Examiner 's ruling above 1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD witnesses. Counsel who examines the witness would almost necessarily- have to have a comprehensive view of the whole before he goes to the parts." The record, already prolonged, would have been unnecessarily burdened if the respondent had been permitted to persist in its consid- eration of the "parts" without a "comprehensive view of the whole." We do not believe that the Trial Examiner's ruling, made in the exer- cise of a sound discretion in the interest of an orderly and expeditious hearing, constitutes evidence of bias or prejudice or unduly limited the respondent in the presentation of its case. The Board has considered the other exceptions of the respondent as well as the exceptions of the Blue Card Union, and the discriminatees, and, to the extent that their exceptions, are inconsistent with the find- ings of fact, conclusions of law, and order below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in "the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged primarily in the, manufacture, assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles.' Its manufacturing operations are performed in various cities throughout the States of Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio, and in foreign, countries. The manufactured parts are shipped by the re- spoi,dent to its numerous assembly plants located in various States, including one at Kansas City, Missouri. The respondent also oper- ates a glass factory, open hearth furnaces, steel plants, glass furnaces, a foundry, coke ovens, a cement plant, machine shop, electric-light and power stations, steamships and barges, and other similar enterprises in connection with its.automobile business. We are concerned here only-with the Kansas City assembly plant. During ,normal production the Kansas City plant assembles approxi- mately 520 automobiles per day. Ninety-five per cent of the required materials for this plant are received from and a large portion of the finished products are shipped to points outside the State of Missouri. The plant normally employs in excess of 2,000 production workers. The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce. II. TIIE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 249, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor. It admits to membership employees of the respond- ent's assembly plant at Kansas City, Missouri. - Independent Union of Ford Workers, successor to Independent -Order of Ford Workers, is a labor organization admitting to member- FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1001 ship employees of the -respondent 's assembly plant at Kansas City, Missouri. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Organization of the U. A. W.; the sit-down strike of April 0, 1937; subsequent bargaining 1. Interference , restraint , and coercion prior to -April 2, 1937: Employees of the respondent began, to organize in January 1937. Meetings were held in restaurants and in the homes of employees and members were enrolled. The respondent was aware that its employees were forming a union. In February 1937, Walter Williams , a leader in organizing the U . A. W., was called to the office of the plant super- intendent, Joseph Bush, and there, in the presence of several addi'- tional supervisory officials, Williams was told by Bush to "keep your damn mouth shut" about the Union because "there ' are plenty of tough boys here that will crack your skull for you." In the early part of March 1937, Williams surmised that U. A. W. meetings were not secret from the respondent . In order "to test out" the men he suspected of espionage , Williams announced to employees on his line in the plant that the U. A. W. would conduct a meeting that evening. All employees were invited to attend. On the following day, Williams was transferred from the No. 1 metal line of the body- construction department , where he had been working, to the roof- panel section. John Rinkenbaugh, then assistant foreman in charge of the No. 1 metal line, testified that John Wessel, a_ foreman second in rank only to Eugene F. Eaton, general foreman of the body- construction department , instructed him to discharge Williams shortly after Williams had announced the U. A. W. meeting. When Rinken- baugh suggested that there might be a strike in protest, Wessel advised him not to discharge Williams for the present. A short while later, Wessel told Rinkenbaugh that he had arranged to place Williams on another job and there "work him to where he will have to quit." James Goff, assistant foreman in charge of the roof-panel section, the sec- tion to which Williams was transferred , testified that Eaton brought Williams to his section and "instructed me to work his tail off and keep him busy and not let him talk to anyone while he was working." A few days later, Eaton warned Goff that "if you can't keep Walter Williams busy and keep him from working for the union, I will run you out of here." Neither Eaton nor Wessel testified during the hearing. However, Roger M. Cocks, an assistant foreman in the body-construction de- partment , asserted that Williams was transferred at his own request as he had asked Eaton and Cocks on a number of occasions to be al- 1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lowed to learn other operations in the body-construction department. This transfer was made in the early part of March 1937, and Williams worked in the roof-panel section until the middle of April 1937 when, again at his request, Cocks claimed, he was transferred back to the Number 1 metal line. We cannot accept this explanation. The prox- imity in time of Williams' transfer to the inception of union organi- zation, the respondent's hostility to the U. A. W. as described in other portions of this decision, and the failure of Wessel or Eaton to testify convinces us, and we find, that the respondent transferred Williams in order to obstruct the formation of a union. On March 21, 1937, the Kansas City Star carried the report of an interview with Henry Ford wherein it was alleged that Ford had reiterated his advice to workers to "stay out of labor unions." "Those who join," Ford was quoted as saying, "will be like the turkey-they'll get it in the neck eventually." Baron De Louis, president of the U. A. W., testified that thereafter Bush called mem- bers of the union "turkey," and Patrick D. Monroe, treasurer of the U. A. W., alleged that L. E. Shepherd, assistant foreman in the trim department, addressed him as "turkey." Shepherd did not testify. While Bush denied De Louis' testimony, we are satisfied and find that supervisory officials called members of the U. A. W. "turkey," implying thereby, as Ford vas alleged to have said, that they would "get it in the neck. eventually" if they joined the U. A. W. De Louis also testified, and we find, that Raymond Frederick, general foreman of the trim department, told him "that Mr. Ford would tolerate no union inside the plant; that he had defeated N. R. A. and if there was a union it would be of his own making." We find that the respondent has, by questioning and warning em- ployees about their membership in the U. A. W., by disparaging the U. A. W., and by transferring a leader of the U. A. W. in order to obstruct his union activities, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Attempted lay-offs and the sit-clown strike At the close of work on April 2, 1937, the respondent laid, off at- least 145 employees.0 A sit-down strike of approximately 350 employees ensued; it was terminated on the afternoon of the following day. U. A. W. officials claim that the sit-down strike was a protest against the discriminatory inclusion of U. A. W. members among the employees laid off. The respondent denies that the lay-offs were dis- criminatory. It asserts that only "short term, inexperienced" em- Bush gave this estimate of employees laid off The U A W. placed the number at a substantially higher figuie We do not consider that it is necessary to resolve this conflict FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1003 ployees were selected and that the U. A., W. struck and arbitrarily threatened to continue the strike ilnless the respondent reinstated "union men" whether or not they had been laid off in a non-discrim- inatory fashion. ' Joseph Bush, plant superintendent, gave the' following account of the sit-down strike. On the morning of April 2, 1937, he testified the respondent's home office in Dearborn, Michlgan,10 telegraphed the Kansas City plant to reduce production from 525 to 491 cars per day. H. C. Doss, branch manager, immediately informed Bush, who was home with as] i ght ailment, of this communication. At 1:45 or 2: 00 o'clock in the afternoon. Bush assembled his ranking foremen, announced the cut in production, and instructed them to confer with C. A. Beatty, time-study foreman, as to the number of men to lay off. As there was not sufficient time, the foremen imposed the lay-offs without reporting back to Bush. But only "short term, inexperi- enced" employees were laid off, Bush claimed, as otherwise the foremen would have violated his instructions. "As soon as the foremen, from what, was reported to me," Bush explained, "attempted to lay off the men they had in mind . . . they were interrupted by a group of men headed by Mr. De Louis, [Henry] Rees, [L. L.] Oliver and several other men whose names I can't re- call now." When this information was brought to him, Bush has- tened to the third floor of the body shop. "I saw men milling in and about the body shop stating that `they can't lay us off."' Henry Rees, a U. A. W. leader, announced to Bush "that before we would be able to lay- off any union men we would have to first consult the committee." 11 Bush then returned to his office and informed Doss of the sit-down strike. Doss immediately telephoned Dearborn and was told that a representative of the home office -would be sent, to Kansas City, In contradiction of Bush's testimony, Baron De Louis and Walter Williams, regular and not "short term, inexperienced" employees (sub- sequently elected president and secretary of the U. A. W., respec- tively), testified that they, were included, along with other union leaders, in the lay-offs.'' In addition, three assistant foremen, each from a different department (body construction, chassis, and mainte- nance), described attempts in their respective departments to purge the plant of U. A. W. members.13 John Rinkenbaugh, the assistant foreman in the body construction department, asserted that General 11 During the hearing , there were frequent references made to, the respondent's home office in Dearborn , Michigan For convenience, we will refer to this office as Dearborn. 11 Italics ours - 11 De Louis was first employed in 1032 and Williams in 1934 ii There are only six major departments As described below, similar evidence was given concerning the trim department , another major department 1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Foreman Eaton and his assistant, Wessel, at a meeting of assistant foremen on April 2, 1937, advised him that "the biggest part of these leaders of the Union has come up from your line. We want you to get everyone of them." William W. Gilbert, of the chassis depart- ment, 'averred that he was directed to select five men to lay off. After he had completed his list, Leonard Swearingen, assistant gen- eral foreman, instructed him to include Arthur Nelson and Steve Schmidt, both members of the U. A. W. and employees with several years' seniority. 14 Dean Simpson, the assistant foreman in the main- tenance department, alleged that Ralph Settles, general foreman of that department, informed him that "they wanted to lay off all the union men they could find." Settles added that there were two em- ployees in the maintenance department, both borrowed from the body-construction department, whom he suspected of membership in the U. A. W. He identified these two employees as Bernard 'Henze and John Waers, and both were laid off. Waers, however,, com- plained to Settles, Simpson testified, that hl! was not a member of the U. A. W.' and Settles agreed to reinstate him. Of the trim depart- ment, De Louis testified that Andrew F. McClure, under whom he worked, advised him that Raymond Frederick had assembled his assistants in the trim department and stated that he was giving them a chance to do the "biggest thing" of their lives=a chance to break the Union. Frederick then provided them with a list of employees to lay off and De Louis' name was at the head of the list McClure received. While McClure and De Louis were conversing, Frederick approached them and De Louis then questioned him about his lay- off. Frederick admitted, De Louis claimed, that he was, at Bush's direction, laying off members of the U. A. W.15 , After De Louis left Frederick and McClure, he descended to the timekeeper's desk on the second floor and there observed a list of employees to be laid off. This list, De Louis asserted, included many 14 Swearingen , it should be noted, failed to support Bush in his assertion that the supervisors entrusted with selecting the particular employees to be laid off were directed to choose only "short term, inexperienced " employees He testified that Everett Gregg, general foreman of the chassis department , informed him of the cut in production and that he in turn directed the various assistant foremen and leadmen under his supervision to lay off a certain number of men Swearingen insisted that he gave them "no par- ticular instructions" as to whom they should lay off or as to the basis on which these employees should be selected 15 In an offer of proof concerning the sit-clown strike, the respondent alleged that Eaton , Wessel , Settles , and Frederick would deny the foregoing testimony of discrimination in the selection of employees to be laid off. Settles and Frederick , as well as Swearingen, also testified during the hearing about the sit -down strike . Neither Henze nor Waers, who were both working for the respondent at the time of the hearing , was called to testify or covered by the offer of proof. In his testimony Swearingen alleged that he did 'not "believe" that he bad bad the conversation - described by Gilbert . Settles admitted that be had discussed Henze and Waers with Simpson but denied that he had told Simpson to eliminate members of the U A W Frederick also admitted that he had,' spoken to De Louis ; he testified that De Louis had said - that "if you lay these men off you are going to cause a strike and you are going to have to bargain with us " FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1005 -active members of the U. A. W. De Louis immediately conferred with U. A. W. leaders throughout the plant and arranged with them to remain in the plant until the U. A. W. had secured a conference with the respondent. Similar events occurred in the body shop. Williams explained that employees in that department who were laid off, himself included, protested that the respondent was discriminat- ing against union members and asked Wessel for a conference. Wessel denied this request. Henry Rees then advised members of the U. A. W. to remain in the plant until the respondent agreed to meet with the U. A. W. When Bush entered the body shop, Williams testified, employees complained to him that the respondent was dis- ,criminating against union members and requested him to meet with the U. A. W. Bush granted the U. A. W. a conference at 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. De Louis, Williams, Oliver, Rees, and Ray Dunn, who thereafter composed the U. A. W. bargaining, committee or "grievance committee at large," 1e represented the U. A. W., Branch Manager Doss was also present for the respondent. The account of this conference given by De Louis, oil the one hand, and Bush on the other, presents the conflict between the respondent and the U. A. W. as to the cause of the sit-clown strike. De Louis alleged that he asked both Bush and Doss "why union men were being dis- criminated against," while Bush maintained that the U. A. W. arbi- trarily "demanded that we put back the union men or they continue the sit-down strike." 11 But Doss, who was the first witness to testify during the hearing, admitted that the U. A. W. "criticized the lay-off, claiming discrimination in the lay-off." 18 We are impressed with this admission in the light of the affirma- tive testimony that the respondent discriminated against members of the U. A. W. When we consider also that the strike ended the following day after the respondent agreed, as we find below, to re- instate all employees laid off and to advise the U. A. W. before impos- ing any additional discharges, we are convinced and find that the respondent attempted to employ the lay-offs to rid itself of U. A. W. members and that the sit-down strike grew out of 'protest _against this discrimination. We cannot credit Bush's assertion that the U. A. W. arbitrarily insisted that the respondent reemploy mem- bers of its union. In seeking to lay off members of the U. A., W., we find, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. I 16 This committee , either as a bargaining or grievance committee , most frequently rep- resented the U. A. W in its dealings with the respondent See Section III-A-3, infra. 11 Both the U. A. W. and the respondent agreed that Bush replied that he was following orders from Dearborn. 11 Italics ours. 1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The conference on April 2, 1937, ended without avail as the respondent maintained that it had not discriminated against the U. A. W. and that it was acting under orders from Dearborn. Doss had previously telephoned Dearborn, as we mentioned above, and had been advised that a representative would be sent to Kansas City. The U. A. W. then arranged to remain in the plant. On the follow- ing afternoon, April 3, 1937, the sit-down strike was terminated. ' According to,Board witnesses, on the moinmg of April 3, 1937, Bush informed the U. A. W. that John Gillespie, a representative of the respondent, and Ed Hall, a member of the executive committee of the U. A. W. International Union, were enroute together for Kansas City. De Louis met them at the President Hotel and ac- companied them back to the plant. There, Hall announced to the employees that he had reached a tentative agreement' with the re- spondent and that it would expedite negotiations if they would evacuate the plant. The employees immediately left the plant. The U. A. W. then met with Gillespie in the President Hotel and con- cluded the agreement settling the strike. Under this agreement, all employees were to return to work on Monday morning, April 5, 1937, and the respondent was to advise the U. A. W. before making any further lay-offs. In addition, several minor grievances were settled. Gillespie also said that he would attempt to secure a wage increase for the Kansas City plant. This agreement was not reduced to writ- ing as Gillespie insisted that Henry Ford would not "allow" a written agreement with a labor organization. ,For the respondent, Bush denied knowledge of any settlement agreement; Gillespie did not testify. Bush explained that Gillespie was brought to the plant at about 4: 00 o'clock in the afternoon by J. H. Peterson, traveling superintendent, who had accompanied Gillespie to Kansas City. Doss was also present at this meeting. Peterson did not testify. , While they were speaking to each other, Bush claimed, Hall entered the plant, announced to them that the strike had not been authorized by the International Union, and di- rected employees, for that reason, to leave the plant. Hall then asked Gillespie, Bush continued, whether be would "consult with him as to the future recognition of the union." To this inquiry, Gillespie replied that he was merely an investigator, commissioned only to observe what happened in connection with the strike. Ac- cording to Bush, the U. A. W. made no further attempt to bargain with the respondent until the early part of May 1937.1' We cannot accept Bush's account of the sit-down strike. We think it unlikely that Hall would travel from Detroit, Michigan, to Kansas City, Missouri, and terminate the strike as unauthorized 11 See Section III-A-3; infra FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1007 without any prior attempt to settle the strike with the respondent. We cannot believe that Hall would turn to Gillespie, in the presence of Bush, the plant superintendent, Doss, the branch manager, and Peterson, the traveling superintendent, ask Gillespie about "future recognition," and, without consulting Bush, Doss, or Peterson, accept Gillespie's statement that he could not bargain,with the U. A. W. as he was only an investigator.20 In subsequent meetings with the U. A. W., as we describe below, Bush did not disclaim authority to represent the respondent and Doss and Peterson were superior in rank to Bush. But whether or not Bush, Doss, and Peterson pos- sessed authority, it is not reasonable to suppose that the U. A. W. would have rested without at least asking them about "future recog- nition." Then, too, as we have mentioned, all employees returned to work on Monday morning, April 5, 1937. Bush alleged that the respondent postponed the cut in production because "the plant would be in a chaotic condition" as the employees would riot know "what was taking place." "Why impose a double difficulty on the fore- men" Bush continued "if you could eliminate it by deferring the cut?" Yet, -if we are to believe that Hall ordered the U. A. W. from, the plant for declaring an unauthorized strike, a "double dif- ficulty" would more likely have been imposed if the respondent voluntarily reinstated employees already laid off and then laid them off again. More significantly, however, Raymond Frederick, gen- eral foreman of the trim department, testified that when Bush in- structed him to reinstate all employees, he remarked that the reduc- t ion in force "would be put off until the agreement was settled." 21 In addition, Bush admitted that no disciplinary measures were con- sidered or imposed upon those persons responsible for the strike; they continued as employees for the remainder of the model season.22 Other circumstances support the contention that the respondent settled the strike with the U. A. W. After the sit-down strike, the U. A. W. came into the "open." It rented offices across the street from the plant and its members began wearing union buttons in the plant. Within the 3, days following the sit-down strike, the U. A. W. acquired approximately 600 new members, thereby doubling its prior membership.23 During the rest of April 1937, over 250 "In addition to Hall, Bush testified , De Louis, Williams, Rees, and Oliver were also present for the U. A. W. Yet none of these U. A W. officials, Bush would have us believe, questioned either him , Doss , or Peterson about "future recognition," 21 Italics ours " But in November 1937, Bush testified , when the respondent considered employees for reinstatement , foremen were allegedly instructed by Bush to take the sit -down strike into account. See Section III-D, infra - 23 As noted in footnote 67, antra, the respondent denies that many of these employees joined voluntarily . However, the fact that membership showed such a marked increase after the sit-down strike regardless of the cause is significant as showing the increased tempo of union organization at that time 1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD additional employees joined the U. A. W. and in May 1937, approxi- mately 400 other employees became members.24 It is hardly likely that the U. A. W. would have progressed in this rapid fashion imme- diately after the sit-down strike if its own representative had ter- minated the strike and acquiesced in Gillespie's disavowal of authority when questioned about "future recognition." We find, in consequence, that Gillespie concluded the agreement, described above, settling the strike with the U. A. W. We also find that this agreement was oral since Gillespie insisted that Ford would not "allow" a written agreement with a labor organization. The respondent claims, however, that Gillespie was only an investi- gator without authority to act for the respondent. Bush, plant super- intendent of the Kansas City plant, gave this description of his ca- pacity. As noted above, we have discounted Bush's assertion that Gillespie told Hall, when asked about "future recognition," that he was only an investigator. Gillespie did not take the stand during the hearing nor did any representative of the respondent's home office in Dearborn, testify as to his authority. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that at any time after the sit-down strike the respondent disclaimed Gillespie's authority to act as its representative. We are satisfied and find that in concluding the settlement agreement with the U. A. W., Gillespie acted as the authorized agent of the.respondent. We find, in addition, upon the basis of the entire record, that the re- spondent sent Gillespie to Kansas City after the strike was declared and empowered him to deal with the U. A W.26 3. The respondent's relations with the U. A. W. after the sit-down strike According to witnesses for the Board, the agreement-ending the sit- down-strike was the first of many oral agreements with the respondent relating to wages, hours, and working conditions. There was testi- mony that in order to negotiate these agreements and for the purpose of settling various grievances, the U. A. W. conferred with Bush al- most daily from April 5 to September 17, 1937, when the plant closed for the seasonal change of model. Some of the principal agreements concluded and grievances settled related to: 1. The establishment of a steward system for the disposition of grievances. 24 The membership of the U A W. acquired primarily in March , April, and May, 1937, exceeded 2,000 employees before the plant closed in September 1937 for the annual change of model shut-down The total pay roll varied from approximately 2,700 employees at the beginning of the model season in October 1936 to approximately 2,000 at its conclusion in September 1937 25 See Section Ill-C-1, 2n fra, where we discuss an agreement Gillespie made with the U. A W. in October 1937 1 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1009 2. The addition of utility and relief men to aid production employees. 3. The extension of the cooling system. 4. The granting of a leave of absence without loss of seniority to any employee elected to a full time union office.' - 5. Consultation between the respondent acid the U. A. W. before any employee was discharged. 6. An increase in wage rates. 7. The selection of employees with less than 6 months' seniority for a lay-off on April 15, 1937. 8. The observance of certain principles of seniority in laying off and discharging employees. 9. The adoption of a 4-clay week in place. of a lay-off. 10. The elimination of the practice of production employees sweeping the floor. 11. The elimination of the so-called "kitty system." 12. The elimination of certain overtime work. 13. The elimination of disc''grinding of solder. 14. The selection of employees to work during the inventory shut-down in July and again during the model shut-down in September 1937. Bush emphatically denied that he made any agreements with the U. A. W. He maintained that he held only four conferences with the U. A. -W. and that these were of limited duration. The first conference took place, Bush testified, in the beginning of May 1937, approximately 1 month after the sit-down strike. De Louis, Williams, Rees, Oliver, and Dunn appeared for, the U. A. W. as a bargaining committee and asked Bush to allow them and the U. A. W. stewards to leave their places of work without the permission of their super- visors.26 Bush flatly refused this request, asserting that the committee would first have to establish that it was the "legal bargaining agency" of the U. A. W.27 He then told the bargaining committee to bring him proof in writing of its authority to represent the U. A. W. The committee "scoffed" at this suggestion and Williams recommended' that Bush go through the plant and "check the [U. A. W.] buttons on the men." The second conference, Bush continued, was held on or about July 10, 1937, a few days before the plant closed for a 3-week in- 38 The "steward" system is described below. 'Bush explained that "It was my understanding that before I had authority to deal with them as a legal bargaining agent they had to offer some sort of proof that the members wanted them as their legal representative in dealing with me." This under- standing, he explained , was based on advice given him by the respondent 's attorneys in Kansas City . He was also told that "no court of justice" would recognize the union's membership as uncoerced. 1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ventory shut-down.28 This time the committee demanded that the respondentogive the stewards and committeemen study employment during the shut-down. Bush denied this" request as unfair to other capable employees with greater seniority. Bush also said that he could not deal with the committee as it had not yet established that it was the "legal bargaining agency" of the U. A. W. As the committee left, Williams exclaimed, "Well, some day we will make him come to terms." This same committee called upon him again, Bush alleged, a few days before the plant closed on September 17, 1937, for the annual change of model shut-down. Once more the committee asked Bush to provide the stewards and committeemen with steady employment during the plant shut-down and once again Bush replied that the request was unfair and that the committee had not proved its right to represent the U. A. W.' Williams again remarked that "we are going to get you sooner or later" and again suggested that Bush count the U. A. W. buttons in the plant. Bush declined on the ground that he did not want to interfere with the rights of -rnployees under the Act. He suggested that the committee could establish its authority either by bringiiig employees to his office, by affidavits, or through an election. Again, as they Were leaving, Will ams averred according to Bush, that "we could tie you up if we wanted to. Later on when we do get the majority we Will make you come to time." 20 The last meeting, Bush testified, was held in the latter part of September 1937, approximately a week or 10 days after the plant closed on September 17, 1937. This time the U. A. W. presented a closed-shop contract for his signature. Bush described this contract since, he claimed, the U. A. W. declined to leave a copy with him.3' In presenting this contract, Bush testified, Williams asserted that the U. A. W. "now" had a majority of the employees as members and threatened that "if I didn't sign that contract they [the U. A. W`.] would close the plant down before they would permit us to build a 1938 unit in that plant." Bush again replied that the committee had not proved its right to represent the U. A. W. and again sug- gested an election. Williams "scoffed" at this recommendation and repeated, "By God, you will either sign this contract or we will shut that plant up and you or none of the rest of your rats will work out there." I 25 This was an annual shut -down, coning at approximately the same time each year. 29 Despite the fact that the U. A. W had enrolled as members a great majority of the employees many months before, Bush insisted that Williams said that "when we do get the majority, ne will make you come to time." [Italics ours ] See Section III-B-4, infra. w Other provisions included, Bush alleged , exclusive recognition for the U A W. and steady employment for officers , committeemen , and stewards during shut-downs The contract was to iun for either 6 months or a year. - ^ FORDS MOTOR COMPANY- - 1011 As we describe below, the respondent contends that the. U. A. W. continued to, threaten that it would -close the plant if the respondent did not sign the closed-shop contract and finally delivered an ulti- matum on October 11, 1937, that unless the contract was signed by 4:00 o'clock on that day, it would place 1,000 pickets around the plant. Upon advice from Dearborn, Bush asserted, he closed the plant before the ultimatum expired. In addition to the above account of his negotiations with the U. A. W., Bush specifically denied each agreement claimed by the U. A. W. and every grievance allegedly settled through its organi- zation. On the other hand, officials'of the U. A. W. denied that Bush was asked to sign a closed-shop contract or that the respondent was served with an ultimatum.31 Upon the entire' record, we are convinced and find that the re- spondent bargained extensively with the U. A. W. after the sit-down - strike '32 that a series of agreements were concluded, and, that many grievances were considered and settled.33 These findings are predi- cated in part on our previous findings that an agreement ended the sit-down strike and that the U. A. W. thereafter came into the "open" and rented offices across the street from the plant. The conclusion of one agreement lends color to the claim that others followed and Bush's untenable denial of an agreement ending the sit-down strike casts serious doubt on his assertion that he did not thereafter bargain with the U. A. W. The existence of bargaining relations is also established by, the admissions of certain witnesses called by the respondent. As we have mentioned above, witnesses testified that the U. A. W. bargaining committee met almost daily with Bush and other representatives of the respondent. While -many of these meetings, it is said, were held in Bush's office, a great number, the U. A. W. claimed, were con- ducted on the roof of the respondent's factory. Bush specifically denied that he met with the U. A. W. on the roof. But William Sproat, the respondent's first witness, testified that his duties took him through the entire factory and that on "numerous" occasions he saw U. A. W. representatives congregated on the roof ; at times, they were by themselves, Sproat averred, but on other occasions they were with officials of the respondent. Jack Park, another witness called by the respondent, admitted tha(- he knew that Bush was dis- cussing grievances with the U. A. W. When questioned about meet- ings on the roof, Park testified that he was told "that there is where the stewards were when they were off the line sometimes." 81 See Section III-B-4,1nfra. 12 We do not intend to imply, however, that the respondent bargained with the U. A. W. in the manner required by Section 8 (5) of the Act. We describe below the procedure employed in the disposition of these grievances 441843-42-vol. 31--65 1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD William Hurst, another of the respondent's witnesses, testified that he was taken to Bush's office by Walter Williams and another repre- sentative of the U. A. W. in July 1937. On this occasion Williams protested, to Bush that Hurst was organizing a rival union. In August 1937, Hurst testified, he was in Bush's office again and this time the U. A. W. "committee-at-large" was present.34 -During this meeting, Hurst testified, he complained that U. A. W. members had thrown nuts and bolts at him in the plant. In his description of these incidents, Bush alleged that the first occurred in the plant and not in his office 35 and that the second took place while the U. A. W. bargaining committee was meeting with him in September 1937. It will be remembered that Bush previously testified that he held only four meetings with the U. A. W., in May, in July, about September 12, and again in the latter part of September 1937. While Bush brought these incidents within the pattern of his testimony, Hurst was "sure" that, the latter meeting took place in August 1937 and that the_ former took place,in Bush's office. Then, too, there is testimony that Bush agreed to the establishment- of a steward system for the settlement of grievances. Under this system, the U. A. W. elected a chief plant steward and six captain stewards, one to head each of the six major departments.36 Below the captain stewards, there were lieutenant stewards, and then shop or deputy stewards. Grievances were first placed before the shop stewards who reported them to the lieutenant stewards. The lieu- tenant steward then presented the grievances to the line foreman. If not settled, the grievances were taken to the appropriate captain steward who brought them to the attel ition of the genex al foreman of his department. If still unsettled, the grievances were' presented to Bush by the grievance committee. Bush maintained that he did not consent to or, in fact, know of any such grievance procedure. He recognized, however, that the U. A. W. had appointed stewards in the plant for he testified, as we have described above, that the U. A. W. asked permission for the stewards and the grievance committee, to leave their places without the consent of their supervisors. There is, moreover, a wealth of testimony by witnesses called to the stand for the respondent, in addi- tion to the testimony of the Board's witnesses, confirming the existence of a steward system. Jack Park explained that employees would take grievances to their "steward and the steward adjusts them." He also admitted, as we have mentioned, that he knew that Bush was discussing grievances with the U. A. W. Sproat testified that 14 This was the committee which bargained with the respondent 1b hush first testified that he did not "recall" if this meeting was held in his office or directly outside of it. 80 Chassis , paint, trim , body, maintenance , and stock. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1013 stewards "were supposed to settle grievances" and that the U. A. W. "might have helped out some" in securing an adjustment for him. 7 Sproat was also asked if, from his observation, the U. A. W. had succeeded in making any changes in the plant, and replied that :"they had made some changes." While denying that he filed any, grievances, Tony M. Bradley, an employee called as a witness by the respondent, testified that other employees had presented grievances to their stewards. He specified such grievances as "they would tell them [the stewards] that either they had too much work or they couldn't get certain jobs, and they got bawled out about it." 38 In contrast to Bush, who allegedly did not know of any steward system for the disposition of grievances, the general foreman of the trim department, Raymond Frederick, acknowledged that-there was a grievance committee .and a steward system in the plant and Ralph Settles, general foreman of the maintenance department, admitted that employees wearing "committeeman" and "steward"- buttons pre- sented "probably a daily grievance" to him on behalf of other em- ployees in the plant. Other supervisors would not deny unequivocally that there was a steward system. Thus, when Everett Gregg, general foreman of the chassis line, was asked if he had any dealings with the union's grievance committee, he replied, "I wouldn't know," and "I wouldn't know whether they were grievance committeemen or not." His assistant, Leonard Swearingen, did not "recall" if he had spoken to the grievance committee. It is clear from the record, we believe, that after the strike of April 2, 1937, the above-described steward system was introduced and maintained at the respondent's plant in Kansas City. It is also evident, and we find, that this system was established and observed by agreement between the respondent and the U. A. W. Certainly, the U. A. W. could not have undertaken to place in effect or continue this steward system without the respondent's consent and cooperation. That the respondent was bargaining with the U. A. W. finds further support in the respondent's account of agreement secured by and grievances settled, through the U. A. W. With few exceptions, the respondent admitted some basis in fact for the gains claimed by the U. A. W. through collective bargaining although it did maintain that the U. A. W. asserted credit for adjustments which it had no part in securing. Thus, witnesses testified that the U. A. W. per- suaded the respondent to employ additional relief and utility men. Bush admitted that relief, and utility men were added hut, claimed that this was'done because certain employees left their work without 37 FIe also admitted that he had discussed this matter with Dean Simpson, a member of the grievance committee. 88 The foregoing statements and many others of a similar kind were made by regular production employees called as witnesses by the respondent 1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD permission and others "loafed" on the job. However, Louis R. Howell, called as a witness by the respondent, admitted that "one of the complaints" that the U. A. W. was "taking up" with the respondent related to the addition of relief and utility men. And -Lee C. Marsh, also called by the respondent, admitted that the respondent added relief and utility men to-replace "the stewards that were out holding meetings from time to time." So, too, it was said that at the request of the U. A. W., the respondent extended its cooling system. Bush admitted that changes were made in the outlets of the system and that a new unit was added in the trim shop but claimed that the fan for this unit had been ordered before the dvent of the U. A. W. But William Hurst, a witness for the respondent, testified that the U. A. W. "would go to hollaring about ... having more fans put in the building" and that the respondent had "to add more fans and cooling systems." . ! There was also testimony that the respondent agreed, if requested, to give officers of the U. A. W. a leave of absence without loss of, seniority and that Patrick D. Monroe exercised this privilege upon being elected financial secretary of the U. A. W. While Bush denied that such an agreement was made, he admitted that Monroe came to him and asked for a leave of absence but stated that he merely allowed Monroe the usual 2 weeks granted any employee to attend to his personal affairs. Without any further assurances, if we are to believe Bush, Monroe accepted the union office and failed to return to the respondent's employ at the end of 2 weeks. Bush did not explain why, if he was not bargaining with the U. A. W., a routine request of this character would be brought to Lim, the plant superintendent, instead of Monroe's immediate superior. We have mentioned above that as part of the April 3, 1937, strike settlement, Gillespie agreed that the respondent would consult with the U. A. W. before making any additional discharges.39 This under- standing found further confirmation in Bush's admission that after the sit-down strike he instructed all foremen with authority to dis- charge employees that they were not to terminate the employment of anyone without h-s consent. While Bush denied that this was done pursuant to an agreement with the U. A. W., he was not con- sistent in his explanation of the reason for the rule. First he testified that foremen were so instructed "right after" he returned from Dear- born, Michigan, where he had gone on the day after the sit-down strike.40 In Dearborn, he was told that the respondent did not want 19 Gillespie also said that he would try to secure a wage increase for the Kansas City plant. Such an increase was granted on June 19 , 1937. While Bush denied that the U. A. W. was responsible for the increase , his explanation of this and other raises, as we describe in Section III-1PA-4-c, below, was patently incredible. 40 Bush left for Dearborn on April 5, conferred with the respondent 's officials in Dearborn on April 7 , and then , returned to Kansas City on April 9, 1937. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1015 any further interruptions in production. Then he testified that this order was given in the early part of May 1937 after he learned that two employees had been discharged without his consent.41 \ Mean- while, however the respondent imposed the lay-offs it had contem- plated making on April 2, 1937. These were made on or about April 15, 1937, when, according to Bush's est-mate, the respondent laid off between 120 and 130 employees.42 It would seem that if Bush feared, after returning from Dearborn, that a sit-down strike wits likely to recur, he would have given these instructions to his foremen befor3 they laid off employees on April 15, 1937. But if Bush had directed his foremen not to discharge anyone without his permission "right after" he returned from Dearborn, as he first alleged, then his fore- man would not have discharged either Hanson or Beatz without consulting with him.43 Before the respondent made these hiy-offs on April 15, 1937,. wit- nesses asserted, Bush conferred with the U. A. W. as Gillespie had agreed the respondent would do in settling the sit-down strike. An understanding was reached that the respondent would only lay off employees with less than 6 months' seniority.44 The respondent's records reveal that, with few exceptions, this rule was followed .4! In the latter part of May 1937, according to U. A. W. officials, when production was decreased by approximately 20 per cent, the respond- ent allowed the U. A. W. to choose between a lay-off or a reduction in work for all employees. The U. A. W. selected the, latter and thereafter, the respondent admitted, the plant entered upon a 4-day week schedule. 't'here is also testimony that the U. A. W. persuaded the respondent to discontinue (1) the practice of having production employees sweep the floor in the vicinity of their jobs, (2) the so-called "kitty" system, (3) certain overtime work required of employees,; and (4) the disc grinding of solder. Concerning the first, Bush admitted that em- ployees were required to sweep the floor near their jobs and that after the sit-down strike certain employees refused to perform this 41 The respondent ' s records indicate that these two employees , D M. Hanson and G H. Bentz , were discharged on April 21 and 28, 1937 , respectively. " From the respondent's records , it appears that perhaps 75 or 100 additional employees were laid off at this time 41 According to Board witnesses , the U A W. discussed the discharge of Hanson , Beatz, and another employee named Clifton Bryant with Bush and concurred in his decision Bush denied discussing • Hanson or Beatz ; he , did not specifically deny that he had con- sidered Bryant with the U A w. 41 This understanding was part of a broader agreement covering the application of certain principles of seniority in laying off, discharging , and promoting employees. This agreement would have received its greatest use in November 1937, when the respondent reopened its plant with less than one-half the number of employees previously on its pay roll. See our discussion in Section III-D, infra 4a U A. W officials alleged that a grievance was presented in behalf of one employee with more than 6 months ' seniority ; one of the employees laid off was not a member of the U. A W.; and two others appear not to have been regularly employed In the past. 1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD chore: As a result, he testified, the burden fell on.other employees not unwilling to do this work. He admitted, however, that the re- spondent had assigned additional employees to this job after the sit-down strike. Walter Williams described the "kitty" system as the practice of producing more automobiles than were scheduled for any one day and then applying the accumulation towards the pro- duction requirements of succeeding days. While Bush denied that the "kitty" system was eliminated or used as Williams had alleged, Jack Park, a witness called to the stand by the respondent, testified that he had heard U. A. W. leaders tell Raymond Frederick, general foreman of the trim department, "that he had to slow the, line down, and with reference to a kitty, they called it-that was a reserve of four or five or six cars to be made in excess of the production for the day and placed in reserve so that when, production wasn't reached they could draw upon this kitty or reserve to make out the day's pro- duction-and I have heard them tell them-tell Ff edericks that this could not be done." As to the overtime work, Bush testified that he had "never seen any men working before starting time or after quit- ting time." But Elbert Fullington, who testified for the respondent, admitted that he would remain after the bell rang and finish his work and that most of the other employees did the same. Disc grinding -of solder was discontinued as injurious to the health of employees. The respondent claims, however, that this practice was abolished in February or March 1937, before the inception of collective negotiations. But it is significant,, we believe, that the respondent admittedly used disc grinding on its 1938 model at which time, as we describe below, the U. A. W. had been completely eliminated from the plapt. Prior to the inventory shut-down in July 1937, according to Board witnesses, the U. A. W. arrived at an agreement with the respondent as to which employees should work during this shut-down. Bush agreed, it is claimed, that among others he would employ the members of the grievance committee, a standing committee of five U. A. W. officials.46 It will be remembered that Bush testified that the U. A. W. called upon him a few days before the July shut-down and asked that the stewards and committeemen be given continuous, employment during the shut-down. He allegedly refused this request as unfair to other qualified employees with greater seniority. But Ralph Settles, general foreman of the maintenance department, who was entrusted with selecting employees to work during the shut-down, testified that a few production employees were added to the maintenance crew and ° The agreement also provided that maintenance , maintenance clean -up, stock checkers, salvage and unloading employees of the stock department , and assistant foremen were to work during part or all of the shut-down. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1017 that "those production men were committeemen-men that were on the plant committee of the union." Obviously, if Bush rejected as unfair the proposal for committeemen to work during the shut-down, Settles would not have selected them. There is testimony that again in September 1937, the U. A. W. con- cluded an agreement with the respondent as to who should work during the seasonal shut-down for change of model .47 Since the respondent required 'approximately 50 employees from production to work in maintenance during the shut-down, the U. A. W.,prepared, as part of this agreement, a list of employees, based on experience letters sub- mitted by members of the U. A. W., to fill these positions. A copy of this list was introduced into evidence. The agreement also pro- vided that members of the grievance committee would be allowed to work during the entire shut-down .411 Once more, it will be recalled, Bush alleged that the U. A. W. conferred with him on or about Sep- tember 12, 1937, and demanded that the respondent permit stewards (of whom there were over 100) as well as committeemen (of whom there were 5) to work steadily during the plant shut-down. Bush testified that he refused this request, as he had all the preceding re- quests, and instructed Settles to select employees as he had always clone in the past. He specifically denied that the U. A. W. submitted a list of employees to work during the shut-down. But again, Settles testified that Bush instructed him "to try to give some of these com- mitteemen work" during the shut-down, and, accordingly, that. he added "committeemen" to his list. Settles also admitted that Dean Simpson, who compiled the list of employees submitted by the U. A. W., told him that "he was having certain men submit a list of qualifications, letters, and he was going to compile the list.", While Settles added that he had never seen the list, he testified that Simpson continually urged that "I should, work his list." If, as Board wit- nesses claimed and Settles admitted, the U. A. W. sought to have the respondent employ, in addition to the committeemen, persoi-is, selected on the basis of experience for the 50 positions in the maintenance de-, partment, then it is not likely, as Bush alleged, that the U. A. W. would have demanded that the respondent give steady employment to its stewards as well as the committeemen. And further; while Bush allegedly denied this request, Settles admitted that Bush in- structed him to employ "committeemen" and that he added "committee- men" to his list. 47 These employees prepared the plant for production of the new model 48 The other employees covered by this agreement included maintenance, maintenance clean-up , checkers , salvage, unloading , and service-stock employees of the stock department, body construction , powerhouse , certain sprayers in the paint department , and assistant foremen ` 1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We think that it is clear beyond dispute and we find that beginning with the agreement settling the sit-down strike in April 1937, the respondent bargained extensively with the U. A. W. We can attach no credence to Bush's assertion that he held only four conferences with the U. A. W. and rejected, because the U. A. W. had not established that it was the "legal bargaining agency," all its bids for collective bargaining.49 We find, in addition, that the U. A. W. concluded a variety of oral agreements with the respondent, described above, relating to wages, hours, and working conditions, and that many grievances were settled through its organization. These agreements were necessarily oral since the U. A. W. did not press for agreements in writing after Gillespie asserted that Ford would not "allow" a written agreement with a labor organization.eo 4. The alleged discriminatory discharges prior to September 17, 1937 The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminated against the following employees, the termination of whose employment oc- curred during the production of the 1937 model: Emil Lykke, dis- charged on January 29, 1937; William B. Orman, on April 13, 1937; Patrick D. Monroe, on May 20, 1937; Charles Richeson, on June 29, 1937; Wesley M. King, on September 16, 1937; and Carl E. Pearson, on September 16, 1937. As• we have explained above, Monroe was granted a leave of absence to assume a union office. Richeson quit for personal reasons but with the assurance that "if I would come back this fall I would be one of the first men hired . . ." We consider Monroe and Richeson in our section entitled "Remedy." None of the other four employees testified during'the hearing and the record does not establish that the respondent discriminated against them. We shall dismiss the names of these four'employees from the complaint. B. Tite respondent's campaign to destroy the U. A.. W. 1. Dissemination of anti-union literature While the respondent bargained' collectively with the U. A. W. after April 5, 1937, in July 1937, it circulated among its employees two documents vigorously attacking labor organizations.- One, entitled "Ford Gives Viewpoint On Labor," a pamphlet reprint of an inter-, ' We consider Bush's testimony again in Section III-B -4, -infra, with particular reference to his claim that the U . A W. tendered a closed -shop contract at their last meeting and threatened to close the plant if he did not sign. 61 Walter Williams, recording secretary of the U. A. W, alleged that he took minutes, which he had with him when he testified, of the U. A W meetings with the respondent During the hearing , these minutes or notes were made available to the respondent for its Inspection . They were not introduced into evidence. The respondent objected when the Board's attorney asked Williams , for the purpose of refreshing his recollection , to read these notes on the seniority agreement. 11 These documents were handed to employees as they left the plant by factory servicemen. I FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1019 view with Henry Ford, expresses a deep opposition to unions. The other, the Ford Almanac for July, contains the anti-union, "musings" of "Smoke-Stack Joe" and a short story, "Mr. and Mrs. Watkins Learn Something about Wealth," replete with disparaging references to labor organizations. Both documents have been before us in pro- ceedings involving other plants of the respondent and we have dis- cussed at length-their use in discouraging employees from exercising the rights guaranteed in the Act.52 Moreover, these documents were not isolated or incidental announcements of a bias against labor or- ganizations; instead, as we describe below, they proved to be the opening attack in a relentless campaign to destroy the Union. We must consider them as part of this campaign. In circulating these documents, we find, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. This campaign did not attain its full intensity until after the plant closed for the seasonal shut-down on September 17, 1937. Shortly after the distribution of the -pamphlet and the Almanac, however, preliminary steps were taken in the organization of an inside union which grew eventually into the Blue Card Union. The persons re- sponsible for this union, as we describe below, were inspired and assisted by the respondent. 2. The organization of the Blue Card Union In the early part of August 1937, Kenneth Paris, an employee in the stock department, and several other employees "discussed the pos- sibility" of organizing an inside union. A draft of a constitution for this union, which they called the Independent Order of Ford Workers, was prepared. William Hurst, one of these original organizers, at- tempted to enlist the support of other employees in the plant. He spoke to Marion Smith, a-member of the U. A. W., asked him "how I would like to have a better job .with more hours, and steadier work," and advised him that "this union that we have started now, I know Ford will recognize it." When the U. A. W. learned of the existence of this rival union, it complained to Bush in Hurst's presence that e2 See Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local 440, 19 N L R . B. 732; Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 325, 23 N . L. R. B. 342; Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 4125, 23 N L . R. B. 548; Matter of Ford Motor Company and H. G. McGarity , et al, 26 N L R B 419 Cf. Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of Americo, 14 N. L R B. 346 , set aside in this respect in N. L. R. B V . Ford Motor Company (C C A 6), decidfd October 8, 1940 ; but see N L R B v. Elkland Leather Company, Inc., 114 F ( 2d) 221 ( C C A 3 ), enf g Matter of Elkland Leather Company, Ina and Natsoiai Leather Workei s' Association , Local No 37, 8 N L. R B . 519, cert. denied November 18, 1940. 1020 DECIbIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hurst was organizing in the plant; Bush thereupon instructed Hurst to discontinue these activities. 53 For the next month the proponents of an inside union remained quiet. Then, shortly before the plant closed for its seasonal shut- down, they renewed their drive to organize an inside union. On September 13, 1937, approximately 14 employees attended a meeting at the home of Henry Byard. Two attorneys, Mitchell and Wright, were also present. This group selected Paris as its temporary chair- man ' and appointed a committee composed of Raymond Beechner, Henry Byard, T. B. Elley, George C_ Martin, and William Sproat to meet with the attorneys for the preparation of a constitution. The next meeting of the Blue Card Uliion was held on September 22, 1937, at the Pickwick Hotel in Kansas City. With -tdditional invitees selected by those present at the first meeting,, there were, it is esti- mated, approximately 30 persons in attendance at this second meeting. The proposed constitution and bylaws of the union, which was named the Independent Union of Ford Workers, were read and approved. Kenneth Paris was elected president; Henry Byard, vice president; Raymond Beechner, treasurer; and Olin W. Murphin, secretary.54 All the employees present were then constituted a membership com- mittee and instructed to enlist as many members as possible. As we have mentioned, this drive for members began during the plant shut-down for change of model. When the plant finally re- opened in November 1937, the Blue Card Union had completely replaced the U. A. W. as the representative of the employees then selected to work for the respondent. As we describe below, this swift transfer of allegiance was accomplished primarily through the, respondent's direct support of the Blue Card Union and its active repression of the U. A. W. 3. The events preceding the lock-out of October 11, 1937 On October 11, 1937, the respondent closed its plant "indefinitely." Prior to that date, and after September 17, 1937, the plant had been shut down for the seasonal change of model. There *ere approximately 300 maintenance and other employees working in the plant during the period between September 17 and October 11, 1937.55 As we have ' We have previously cited this ' incident as proof that Bush met more frequently with the U. A. W than he admitted on the witness stand When we consider Bush ' s explana-) tion of this incident , it also lends weight to our finding that the respondent recognized and bargained with the U . A. W. Bush admitted that he honored the U A. W. complaint 'and instructed Hurst "not to pass out any literature or interfere with anyone in the depart- ment regarding union activities ." It is unlikely , if the respondent had not recognized the U. A. W., that Bush would have prevented the organizer of a rival union from soliciting members. 64 Murphin later resigned and was replaced by Lewis E Oelklaus 51 The number varied on particular days, from slightly under 200 to almost 500 employees. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1021 recited, Bush claimed that the lock *out was provoked by an ultimatum that the U. A. W. would close the plant unless the respondent signed a closed-shop contract. While the respondent relies directly upon the ultimatum as its defense to the lock-out, it points also to the conduct of the U. A. W. in. the days preceding the lock-out. It is the respondent's contention that during the period from September 17 to October 11, 1937, the U. A. W. indulged in a campaign of violence and intimidation. In general this campaign is said to have involved a series of beatings administered to employees who opposed the U. A. W., the intimida- tion of employees who joined the Blue Card Union in an effort to force them to renounce'this union and sign affidavits implicating the respondent in its organization, the congregation of large numbers of U. A. W. members in front of the plant, and the detention of em- ployees who had been selected to work during the shut-down unless and until they joined the U. A. = W. or, if they were members, paid up arrearages in dues. This campaign grew without restriction, it is claimed, because of the inability of Kansas City police officials to assign an adequate force of policemen to the respondent's plant. Bush asserted that he had requested the police to increase the detail but was told that the prevalence of strikes in Kansas City made the assignment of addi- tional policemen impossible. Bush estimated that there were never more than 10 or 12 policemen in the vicinity of the plant; Williams placed the number between 300 to 350. No police official was called upon to testify as to the unavailability of policemen or their scarcity in the neighborhood of the respondent's plant.56 It is undeniable, though U. A. W. officials who testified minimized their extent, that there were disorders during this period. H. C. Doss, branch manager, admitted, however, that there were no dis- turbances until the early part of October 1937, on the day after the newspapers announced that the Blue Card Union had opened offices and quoted Paris as saying that "we almost have a majority" of the employees as members.57 This article appeared in the Kansas ,Cityy Star on Sunday, October 3, 1937. On October 4, 1937, several mem- bers and organizers of the Blue Card Union were beaten in front of Doss testified that "along the first 2 weeks" in October 1937, the respondent furnished the police "some meals " at a restaurant near the plant so that they would not have to leave duty. Doss admitted that the cost of these meals amounted to "around $100." 67 Doss testified, on examination by the respondent's counsel, as follows : Q. Now, when the plant was first closed for production was there any disturbance outside the plant? A. Not to any great extent that I recall. No more than usual. Q. Do you recall any incident which was followed shortly by a disturbance? A. Yes, I recall around about the first of October there was a great deal of dis- turbance which was precipitated by a newspape, article 1022 DECISIONS bF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the plant.58 Bush also recognized that these fights grew out of the ,conflict between the Blue Card Union and the U. A. W. for he testified that he was so informed when he inquired as to their origin. We find then, primarily in the light of Doss' testimony, that the "disturbances" in front of the plant did not begin until the early part of October 1937, when the Blue Card Union intensified its drive for members and threatened to replace the U. A. W. as the bargaining agent of the respondent's employees. The Blue Card Union not only challenged the U. A. W. for its members but stated emphatically through its organizers, in soliciting employees to join, that the plant would not reopen with the U. A. W. and that employees could expect to..return to work only through the Blue Card Union.59 In an endeavor to protect itself against this open and formidable threat to its existence, the U. A. W. forced employees who had joined the Blue Card Union to renounce their membership and sign affidavits indicating that the respondent prompted the for- mation of the Blue Card Union.60 There can be no doubt, and we 68 There was , on this' day , a'large gathering of U. A. W. members in front of the plant. They came , however, in response to an advertisement in the classified section of the Kansas City Star and another Sunday newspaper on October ^ 3, 1937, requesting that "all members of Local Union 249 [U. A W I report to work Ford Motor Co Monday morning October 4, 1937." Both the respondent and the U. A W. denied responsibility 'or the advertisement and each suggested that the other was the originator Bush inferred that the U . A. W. used this method of demonstrating its strength after Williams asserted , in the latter part of September 1937 , that "now" the U A W bad,a majority. See Sections III-A-3 supra and III-B-4, infra. On the other hand , the advertisement appeared 'on the same day and in the same classified section as the advertisement of the Blue Card Union announcing the opening of its offices. The Blue Card Union had , however. opened these offices oil September 29, 1937, as Paris testified , and the U A W. had commenced to picket these offices on that day. In the absence of more positive evidence on the source of this advertisement , we make no finding as to its origin I There was a wealth of testimony on this "sales talk " of the Blue Card Union organizers We cite the following statements as typical : When T B. Elley , Gentry D Gross , Walter Long , and another employee , all organizers for the Blue Card Union, solicited Rudolph G . Posdel , they advised him that "the Ford Motor Company would not open the plant under the C. I. O" William Hurst, an organizer , informed Earl F. Francis that "the Ford Plant would never open under the C. I O , and if it did open all the men that had joined the Blue Card Union would go back to work" While the Blue Card Union organizers were not as explicit in describing the manner in which they solicited employees to join , Gross admitted that if a prospective member stated that he intended to remain with the U A W, he would remark , "personally , the way things was run there at the last I don 't believe any concern could stay in business , trying to operate under those conditions ; and I might have told them I was afraid"we would all be out of a job." Fred Dill , one of the respondent 's witnesses , admitted that in soliciting him to join , Elley explained that the Blue Card Union "was just an oigamzation that they were going to got the boys to sign and go back to work" When Elley asked him if he wanted to join, Dill replied , "if I was going to work . I did." The following are typical of the affidavits signed by employees who bad joined the Blue Card Union : Ocr.71937. _ I, John Surface , am employed at the Ford Motor Co. I live at 623 Hardy Fairmount Mo I was approached by Geo. Martin [Blue Card Union organizer ] and told that the plant would not open under the C I. O. and that the Officers of this independent union had contacted Ford officials in Detroit and they had the promise of opening FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1023 find, that the U. A. W. exerted pressure upon employees to procure these affidavits. For that reason, we have not relied upon them in reaching any of the conclusions herein contained.. The manner in which they were obtained and their contents however, reveal the fear and alarm of the U. A. W. against the growing, menace of a rival organization which as we find below, was backed by the respondent. There were other reasons for the apprehension manifested by the U. A. W. In the latter part of September 1937, Bush assembled a group of assistant foremen and leadmen in the plant and advised them that the respondent contemplated erecting a new plant in St. Louis, Missouri ; that the land had been purchased, the ground broken, and the steel ordered. This plant, he explained, would assemble 1,000 cars a day; production at Kansas City would be reduced accordingly and the services of over 1,000 employees would be rendered unnecessary. Those present were told to "scatter the news" so that employees could seek other jobs. Five witnesses called by the Board gave substantially the same account of this meeting. Although Bush denied having any knowledge of this meeting or that it had taken place, he admitted that at this time he "saw an article in the paper regarding some ground that Ford bought down on the Mississippi River" and added that "I was there a month ago and it [the plant] is not built yet." 61 Word of the contemplated erection of this new plant,spread through the community, and members of the U. A. W. streamed to union head- quarters inquiring about this and other current rumors. They also asked about the Blue Card Union and the assertion of its organizers that employees would not be recalled to work unless they joined the Blue Card Union. These inquiries brought many employees within the vicinity of the plant, as the U. A. W. maintained its head- quarters immediately across the street. It was customary, in addition, for employees, to report in front of the plant before the opening of each model season and the respondent would call employees back to work from these groups. The employees were not advised that the respondent would-not follow this method of selecting employees for the 1938 model and many employees congregated in front-of the plant each day in anticipation of its reopening. A public park across the way from the plant, moreover, attracted many employees for' baseball the plant if they would get the majority in the independent union. Stobaugh who lives at, 629 Hardy belongs to the Company union KANSAS CITY, MO, October 7, 1937 I, Paul Tabor, Chassis employee at the Ford Motor Company. I live 5109 Thompson City I was told that the plant would not open but that if we organized a company union the management would then open I joined because I wanted to be with the winning organization. I signed this statement of my own free will. An offer of proof was made that seven other employees would give a similar description of the meeting as testified to by the five witnesses. Their testimony was rejected as improper rebuttal. 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and football games. So, while the number of employees in front of the plant was excessively large on October 4, 1937, as a result of the advertisement calling members of ,the U. A. W. back to work '62 the presence of large crowds was not to be unexpected. Witnesses for the Board admitted that, beginning in the early part of October 1937, the U. A. W. checked employees entering the plant. They testified, however, that Bush suggested this procedure. As we have found above, the respondent and the U. A. W. reached an under- standing as to which employees were to work during the plant shut- down. There was testimony that the respondent failed to observe the requirements of this agreement and that in protest the U. A. W. tele- phoned Bush for a conference. Bush refused to meet in the plant but agreed to confer with the U. A. W. on the sidewalk and this meeting was held in the first part of October 1937. When the,U. A. W. com- plained that Bush had violated their agreement, he suggested that the U. A. W. place representatives in front of the plant and check em- ployees against its list of those who should work. He added that he had received word from Dearborn to have no further dealings with the U. A. W. and that if,the U. A. W. had any more "squabbles" to present them to the Board.63 -On succeeding days, Williams admitted, the U. A. W. "persuaded" 40 or 50 employees who were not on its list to refrain from working. It appears, moreover, that the U. A. W. proceeded beyond the bounds of peaceful persuasion and availed itself of this opportunity to require employees to join its organization and members to pay arrearages in dues. While these activities are not to be condoned, it must be recognized that the U. A. W. was fighting for its existence. A rival organization, which it believed was sponsored by the respondent, was attracting its members with the positive asser- tion that the plant would not reopen with the U. A. W. A rumor that the respondent was building a new plant in St. Louis and would transfer a sizeable portion of its operations from Kansas City gained wide currency among the employees, as it stemmed directly from the plant superintendent, and in early October 1937 Bush advised that he had been directed to cease dealing with the U. A. W. These factors inevitably frightened the U. A. W. into the measures it took to protect its position in the plant. Upon the entire record, we conclude that the disorders that occurred in the vicinity of the plant after the newspaper announcement of the' formation of the Blue Card Union resulted directly from the respond- ent's sponsorship of this organization. We also are of the opinion that the record fails to establish that the police were unable to cope with these disorders or that the number of employees in the vicinity of See footnote 58, supra. - Bush denied this testimony. In the light of the entire record, however, we cannot credit his denial. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1025 the plant was abnormally large during this period. And it is signifi- cant, we believe, that the record contains no evidence that any em- ployees were at this time arrested and subsequently convicted for any crime or violation of law in connection with these disorders. 4. The lock-out It is claimed, as we have mentioned, that. the respondent closed its plant on October, 11, 1937, in furtherance of a plan to destroy the U. A. W. Primarily through the,testimony of Joseph Bush, plant superintendent, who represented the respondent in its relations with the U. A. W. after the sit-down strike, the respondent presented its defense to this charge. Bush contended that the lock-out on October ill 1937, was provoked by a U. A. W. ultimatum to close the plant un- less the respondent signed a closed-shop contract. He testified that this contract was presented for the first time in the latter part of September 1931; that from that day to October 11, 1937, the U. A. W. continuously reiterated its threat to close the plant and on Monday morning, October 11, 1937, telephoned Bush and asserted that "they had given me plenty of opportunity to sign the contract and that if I wouldn't sign it by 4 o'clock it was their intentions to throw at least 1,000 men around that plant as pickets and prevent anyone from enter- ing" and that "that was the final ultimatum." Bush explained that he refused, as he had from the beginning, to sign the contract and that he then called Max Weismyer, in charge of production ' at all plants, in Dearborn and advised him of the ultimatum. He also told Weismyer that he believed the U. A. W. "really meant" to carry out the ultimatum and that to avoid bloodshed the respondent ought not .reopen its plant for production. Weismyer telephoned Bush later in the afternoon, Bush continued, and told him and Doss, who listened over an extension wire, to close the plant "rather than create blood- shed and violence." Bush immediately notified his foremen 84 of the lock-out and they in turn informed employees not to report for work on the following day. U. A. W. officials specifically denied that the U. A. W. had ever tendered a closed-shop contract or threatened to close the plant unless it was accepted. In passing on this conflict in evidence, we must view Bush's testi- mony on the lock-out in relation to his account of his dealings with the U. A. W. after the sit-down strike. Bush alleged, as we have pre- viously recited, that he was faced with this demand for a closed-shop contract at his fourth meeting with the U. A. W. Briefly, we will sum- marize his description of the three meetings that allegedly preceded this conference. First, however, there is Bush's assertion that the sit- 84 Department heads and ranking assistants 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD down strike, unprovoked in its origin, ended when Ed Hall, interna- tional representative of the U. A. W., ordered employees from the plant after charging them with having declared an unauthorized strike. , Then, when Hall inquired- of Gillespie about "future recog- nition," Gillespie replied' that he was only an investigator. And although Bush, Doss, and Peterson were also present, neither Hall nor any official of the local union, according to Bush, then asked them about "future recognition." Instead, Bush asserted, the U. A. W. made no further effort to bargain with the respondent until the fol- lowing month when its bargaining committee requested Bush to per- mit the members of this committee and the U. A. W. stewards to leave their places without the permission of their supervisors. This request was denied, Bush testified, and the U. A. W. allowed 2 more months to elapse before, again seeking to bargain with the respondent. Once more, the U. A. W. confronted Bush with an unreasonable demand which he promptly rejected. A similar performance took place, it was said, at a third conference towards the middle of September 1937. Then, -in the latter part of September 1937, with the plant shut down for the seasonal change of model, the U. A. W. presented its closed- shop contract and threatened to close the plant unless it was signed. As we have discredited Bush's testimony on the sit-down strike and his relations with the U. A. W: thereafter, so must we reject his account of the lock-out. To believe, as Bush testified, that the U. A. W. threatened to close the plant unless the respondent signed a closed-shop contract, we must also believe that the U. A. W. abandoned the strike without- any prior or subsequent agreement with the re- ,pondent and that the respondent did not thereafter bargain with the U. A. W. We have already found these premises to be false. We believe, for reasons stated above, that the record 'clearly establishes that the sit-down strike was a protest against the discriminatory lay- off of U. A. W. members, that Gillespie settled the strike on that basis, and that the respondent thereafter bargained extensively with the U. A. W. For other reasons, we cannot subscribe to Bush's explanation of the lock-out. As we relate below, the respondent claims that after the sit-down. strike, members of the U. A. W. engaged in various acts of misconduct including, among other- offenses warranting discharge, a slow-down strike, deliberate sabotage and insubordination, carelessness, inefficiency, and other forms of interference with production."" That these employees were not discharged the respondent ascribes to the U. A. W. practice of continuously threatening a sit-down strike when the respondent attempted to impose disciplinary measures. As a re- ° See Section III-F-3, infra FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1027 suit, it is claimed, these serious acts of misconduct continued unabated through September 1937. In reprisal, the respondent in effect dis- charged at least 704 named employees in November 1937.66 Yet, while crediting the U. A. W. with sufficient strength to prevent the respondent from discharging 704 employees guilty of offenses warranting discharge and subsequent denial of reinstatement, Bush would have us believe that the U. A. W. made only four attempts to bargain with him and each time, but the last, acquiesced in his assertion that the committee was not the "legal bargaining agency" of the respondent's employees. Bush did not claim that any sit-down strikes were then employed or even threatened to force the respondent to accede to the U. A. W.'s demands. Only to the following extent was it said that the U. A. W. defied Bush upon the unsatisfactory con- clusion of their meetings. At 'the first of their four meetings, Bush testified, Williams "scoffed" at his suggestion that the committee present, proof in writing of its authority to represent the U. A. W.; at the end of their second meeting, Williams remarked "we are going to get you sooner or later"; and at their third meeting, Williams alleged that "we could tie you up if we wanted to. Later on when we do get the majority we will make you come to time." 67 Nor is it alleged that the U. A. W. asked-for a written contract, closed-shop or otherwise, at any time prior to this meeting in the latter. part of Sep- tember 1937. Instead, according to Bush, the U. A. W. waited until the plant shut down for the seasonal change of model and then, with- cut possession of the weapons it was credited with having used so effectively after the sit-down strike, suddenly demanded a closed-shop contract. If the U. A. W. had, as the respondent claims, successfully committed all forms of offenses by the repeated threat of a sit-down strike, it would hardly have waited until it had lost this dominant position in the plant to insist upon a closed-shop contract. W As we explain below, the respondent discharged all its employees on October 15, 1937, after it had closed its plant But,on November 15, 1937, the respondent reopened its plant for production For the model year 1935, however, it employed approximately one-half the number of emplovecs on its pay roll (luring the preceding production year Those employees rt then failed to reinstate, practically all of whom were listed in the complaint, were 'in effect" discharged As to 704- of these employees, moreover, the respondent claims that it would not reinstate them at any time "regardless of state of production " The remaining employees, allegedly, would be acceptable when production was sufficiently high to require their services OT Bush not only insisted that Williams said "when we do get the majority," but added that at their fourth meeting Williams asserted that "now" the U A W. did have a majority It is undisputed , though the respondent maintains that its members were coerced into joining, that the U. A. W. had enrolled a majority of all employees in the plant many months before these meetings in September 1937 The U A W records establish that a majority had joined within it few days after the settlement of the sit-down strike on April 3, 1937 By September 1937, its membership, on the basis,of these records, exceeded' 90 per cent of the eligible employees Nor was there any appreciable gain in membership between the dates of the third and fourth meeting Certainly, it is unlikely that in seeking to bargain collectively with the respondent, the U. A. W. would admit that it did not have a majority when its own records showed the contrary. 441843-42-vol. 31-66 1 1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD That the respondent did not decide to close its plant only after the U. A. W. had allegedly delivered an ultimatum on October 11, 1937, but in fact prepared the lock-out VV'eeks in advance, finds support in the testimony of Levin Jones and Dean Simpson. Jones alleged that a day or two after-,the plant closed on September 17, 1937, for the seasonal change of model, Ralph Settles, general foreman of the maintenance department, instructed him to place "barb wire on the gas house" so that "nobody could get over it." 68 Settles remarked that there might be trouble and that "I don't want anyone climbing over it." During this period, "there were `hasps put on all the fire escape doors" and other doors throughout the plant and these doors were then locked by factory service men. All mechanical window control devices were checked "to see that we had chains there so they could snap a lock in." Those 'windows which could not be controlled "by those window-raising devices" were bolted. The four sets of sliding doors on the ground floor of Building No. 2 were bolted and burlap placed in the cracks of these doors.69 Bush instructed Jones on "caulking" these doors and added that "I don't want this place freezing up. There might not be anyone here." 70 Furthermore, John Gillespie, who was sent to Kansas City in April 1937, and succeeded in settling the sit-down strike'71 again appeared on the scene. According to Bush, he arrived at Kansas City between Bush's first and second telephone conversations with Dearborn on October 11, 1937, and thereupon informed Bush that he had been in- structed to "stop off" in Kansas City and make an "investigation," when it was learned, while, Gillespie was enroute to California from Detroit, that the Kansas City plant was experiencing labor difficulties. Gillespie failed to testify during the hearing, and we do not know the nature of the instructions he had received from Dearborn or the cir- cumstances under which he was advised to "stop off" at Kansas City. But when we consider Gillespie's role in the lock-out, in the light of his previous relations with the U. A. W., we cannot believe that his presence in Kansas City during this crucial period was as fortuitous or accidental as Bush described. As we explain below, Gillespie under- took to persuade and succeeded in convincing the U. A. W. to call off the strike it had declared and to withdraw the picket line it had estab- "n Jones testified that he was assisted Ty Everett Price and Joseph Hempfling in this work. Although both had been recalled to work , neither testified during the hearing. I " Simpson , an assistant foreman in the maintenance department , gave substantially the- same account of these preparations. -Although Bush denied that there were any "bolt holes in the doors or frames of the windows in the plant," after the Board 's counsel suggested that "if the Trial Examiner were to inspect the Ford Plant at the present time he would find bolt holes bored in the frame of all the windows in that plant, and lie would also find holes bored in the doors and also holes bored in the doors of the fire escape ," Bush added "it could have been that there were some holes bored through those windows in 1927 or '28 that were not welded up" This suggestion of the Board 's counsel was not acted upon. 41 See Section III-A-2, supra FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1029 lished in protest against the lock-out., Ili addition, as Bush admitted, Gillespie immediately inspected the plant upon his arrival to deter- mine if Bush and Doss had "taken the proper steps to protect the property and the employees inside of the plant." - To the above we must add the warning of Blue Card Union organ- izers in soliciting employees to join that the plant would not reopen with the U. A. W., the company-inspired rumor of a new plant in St. Louis, Missouri, and the ruthless elimination of U. A. W. leaders and members in favor of officers, organizers, and members of the Blue Card Union when the plant reopened in November 1937. We discuss these matters in other portions of this decision.72 In the light of these facts, we are of the opinion that the record fails to support Bush in his contention that the U. A. W. tendered a closed-shop contract and threatened to close the plant unless it was signed. Nor do we believe that the respondent was impelled to close its plant as a result of any U. A. W. ultimatum. We are convinced that the respondent an- nounced the closing of its plant as part of its plan- to destroy the, U. A. W.73 We find that the respondent, by locking out its employees, 7d In addition , H. C. Doss, who was the first witness to testify during the hearing (Bush testified almost a year and a half later ), gave an explanation of the lock -out which included absolutely no mention of any U. A. W . ultimatum . He attributed the lock-out to the turmoil and strife created by the U. A . W. after the newspaper announcement of the organization of the Blue Card Union . It is interesting to note , moreover, that the Kansas City newspapers , which carried full and complete accounts of the lock -out and purported to quote representatives of the respondent , nowhere mentioned a U. A. W. ultimatum. Under the caption "A Ford Lockout ," the Kansas City Times reported on October 12, 1937, that the following statement had been obtained from Harry Bennett in a long-distance telephone conversation with Dearborn , Michigan : "We have nothing to do with this trouble. The plant will remain closed until the employees and the other people at Kansas City decide to settle the thing and stop standing around outside the plant like a lot of kids." H. C. Doss was credited with having said: "The present plans of the Ford shops are indefinite . At the present time we are closed " Other newspaper accounts were also lacking in any report of a U A W. ultimatum 71 The respondent contends that the Board stipulated that the "closing of respondent's plant [on October 11, 1937] was compelled by and was the direct result of illegal violence on the part of the U. A. W " Although the respondent cites no page references for the stipulation, it has in mind , apparently , the following facts contained in the record On the third day of the hearing counsel for the Board stipulated with counsel for the respondent that the sit-down strike of April 2, 1937, interfered with interstate commerce. 't'hree days later, while counsel for the respondent was cross-examining a witness on the events connected with the lock -out of October 11 , 1937, counsel for the Board interrupted and stated as follows : "If your Honor please, you will recall that prior in the record, counsel for the Board stipulated that the strike [ of April 2, 1937] did interfere with inter- state commerce ; furthermore we are willing to amend that stipulation to state that the strike of-the lock-out strike of October 11, did interfere with interstate commerce insofar as it locked up the Ford plant stock and barrel" ( Italics ours ). The respondent ignored Board's counsel 's offer to amend the earlier stipulation and did not consent thereto. At no time did counsel for the Board amend the complaint to delete the allegation that the respondent "locked out" its employees . Nor did the respondent contend at any time during the hearing that the "lock -out" allegation of the complaint was removed Two clays before the hearing closed, however , counsel for the respondent contended in objecting to evidence the Board sought to introduce , that • "Mr. Nachtman [ counsel for the Board] stated . . . that there was no question but what the Union locked the, plant up stock and barrel ," adding "it might not have been intended , but that is what you [Board counsel ] said." This , of course , misstates the offer to amend, for Board counsel alleged, not that the U. A. W. closed the plant , but that the "lock -out strike" interfered with 1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD has discriminated in regard to hire' and tenure of employment and -that it has thereby discouraged membership in the U. A. W.74 We also find that it thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that the employees then locked out retained their status as employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. C. The strike and Gillespie's agreement with the U. A. W.; the dis- charges of October 15,19.3'7; the growth, of the Blue Card Union i. The lock-out strike and Gillespie's agreement with the U. A. W. On the evening of October 11, 1937, following the announcement of the lock-out, the U. A. W. assembled and then decided to call a lock- out strike. After U. A. W. officials had telephoned to and obtained permission for the strike from the international representatives of the U. A. W. at Detroit, Michigan, the lock-out strike was officially declared. Approximately 20 or 30 members of the U. A. W. were then assigned to picket the plant.' The next day, U. A. W. representatives testified, the respondent and t he U. A. W. conferred at the_ President Hotel in Kansas City with De Louis, Williams, and others present for the U. A. W. and only Gillespie representing the respondent. This conference lasted for ap- proximately 3 hours on this day and for several additioal- hours the following day.. During these meetings, U. A. W. officers contended, interstate commerce The "lock -out strike," as appears below , was a protest against the respondent 's closing of the plant . The respondent had "locked -out" its employees betore the strike was declared . Obviously , the "lock;out strike" could not have closed the plant when the respondent had already shut it down . The "lock-out strike" interfered with interstate commerce since it prevented or tended to prevent the respondent from reopening its plant , if it so desired . Moreover, it was sufficiently clear from the nature of the evidence thereafter introduced by the Board that the Board did not intend in any, way to limit the allegation of the complaint that the respondent "locked out" its employees in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act 74 The respondent argues that a "lockout of all employees cannot constitute discrimina- tion within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act ." This is contrary to the holdings of the Board and the decisions of the courts . See, for example , Matter of Montgomery Ward & Co ., Inc. v N L R B , 107 F ( 2d) 555 (C. C A 7), enf'g as mod . Matter of Montgomery Ward & Company and Reuben IAtzenberger, et al, 9 N. L it. B 538 , wherein the company argued that it was necessary for the Board to show , in establishing dis- crimination under Section 8 (3) of the Act , ( 1) that union men were dischaiged and (2) that non -union men holding comparable jobs were retained . The court stated, however, that the term discrimination as used in Section 8 ( 3) "takes on a meaning wider than counsel [ for the company] would-have us believe" and that "we refrain from adopting any definition of the term 'discrimination ' that would circumvent the objective of Section 8 (3), namely , the prohibition of employer conduct discouraging union membership." See, also, N L R B v. Hopwood Retinning Company, Inc., et al , 98 F (2d) 97 (C. C A.-2) enf'g as mod . Matter of Hopwood Retinning Company , Inc., et al , and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union Local No. 8, and Teamsters Union, Local No. 584, 4 N. L it. B 922 75 The Kansas City Times, a morning newspaper , reported on October 12, 1937, that "twenty-five men began picketing the plant . at about 10 • 30 o'clock last night [October 11, 1937]." FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1031 Gillespie admitted that lie had been sent to Kansas City to "pull the fires," that is, close the plant permanently, but that upon inspection he determined that such a drastic step was unnecessary. He also admitted that lie had directed Bush to discharge union members in April 1937, but anticipated that Bush and Doss would "weed" them taut a few at a time. "The damn fools," he said, "fired them all at once." In consequence, he ' c`lid not blame the U. A. W. for "sitting down." He admitted, in addition, that Bush was behind the Blue Card Union. Gillespie proposed, however, that if the U. A. W. re- moved its picket line lie would guarantee that the plant would reopen. The respondent objected to the "publicity of the pickets," he explained, xnd anyway, with the plant down, they were a "futile gesture." He added that an advertisement would soon appear in the newspapers re- questing employees to turn in their badges and advised that this was merely a "face-saving device" and that employees should not relinquish -.heir badges. As we have mentioned, Gillespie did not testify during the hearing, and the foregoing testimony was not directly denied or refuted:" Further, it is significant that the U. A. W. ceased picketing the plant ,on October 16, 1937. Williams explained that upon advising Homer Martin, then international president of the U. A. W., of Gillespie's ,offer, the local chapter was granted permission to remove the picket line. The advertisement Gillespie mentioned appeared on October 16, 1937, and, again significantly, members of the U. A. W., upon instruc- tion from their union, retained their badges. We find, in consequence, "Bush contradicted the U A W as to when in October 1937 Gillespie first met with the U A. W He was not in a position to refute any of the foregoing evidence concerning Gillespie's agreement with the U A W, however , as both lie and Doss were called fiom Kansas City to Dearborn on October 12, 1937 , leaving Gillespie as the ranking representative of the respondent in Kansas City According to Bush , Gillespie conferred with the U A W on October 11, 1937 , before the respondent had announced the closing of its plant , under the following circumstances . Upon his arrival at the plant , Bush testified, Gillespie immediately made a tour of inspection Then , accompanied by Bush , he walked across the street from the plant, where the two of them met several representatives of the U A W, including De Louis and Williams Bush testified that Williams inquired of Gillespie if he had come to Kansas City "to make a report " as he had in April 1937, and added that "when we accidentally met you in the lobby of the President Hotel we told ,you that we wouldn't cause any more trouble ; but this is a horse of a diffem ent color If your friend Toe [Bush] here , doesn't sign the contract by 4 o'clock this afternoon we win • throw a thousand pickets around the plant and nobody will enter " (Italics ours) Gillespie again responded , Bush alleged , as he had on April 3. 1937 , when Hall asked him about "future recognition ," that he was only an investigator without authority to represent the respondent For reasons set forth in the text , we do no believe that Williams addressed Gillespie in this manner , that Gillespie met with the U A W before October 12, 1937, or that his meeting with the U A W, when it occurred , was any more "accidental" than his conference with the U. A. W at the President Hotel in April 1937- It is significant , also, tbat ' the Kansas City Journal-Post reported on October 12, 1937, that Doss and Bush, accompanied by a "mysterious stranger ," asked police officials for an escort to the plant. From the record it is quite apparent that Gillespie was the so-called "mys- terious stranger ," for he was with Bush and Doss on the morning of October 12, 1937, and later entered the plant, as the newspaper reported Contrary to Bush's assertion that Gillespie made himself known to the U . A W on October 11, 1937, it would appear that he was still a "mysterious stranger" on the morning of October 12, 1937. 1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Gillespie met with the U. A. W..on October 12 and 13, 1937, that he then assured the U. A. W. that the plant would reopen if it removed its pickets, and that he advised the U. A. W. to have its members retain their badges when the respondent advertised for their return.' 2. The discharges of October 15, 1937 In advising foremen of the lock-out on October 11, 1937, Bush told them merely that the plant would be closed "for the present" or "until the trouble quieted down. 11 78 By October 15, 1937, however, the re- spondent had determined on a more drastic course. On that day it officially discharged every production and maintenance employee then on its pay roll and transferred the operations of its Kansas City plant to its branch at Omaha, Nebraska.79 Doss was reassigned to Omaha, Nebraska, and Bush was given another position in the Ford organi- zation. The -respondent's decision to abandon production at its Kan- sas City plant emanated from its home office in Dearborn. The record, however, does not disclose the 'names of those persons responsible for this decision. Bush and Doss were in Dearborn at the time, having been removed from Kansas City on the afternoon of October 12, 1937; but Bush testified that he learned of this decision from Doss, who "told me that he had received instructions to close.the plant down tight, and move the activities to Omaha, Nebraska," and Doss merely testified that he was advised in Dearborn that "You •and Bush are withdrawn from Kansas City and will be assigned elsewhere." 80 We find that 77 Willhams testified that he attended two other meetings with Gillespie; one in the early part of November 1938 and another in January 1939 The first meeting was held at the Eddystone Hotel in Detroit , Michigan , with Homer Martin, Baron De Louis, and others present for the U A W. Gillespie reported at this conference that at a meeting of Martin , Henry Ford , and Harry Bennett , " they had authorized him to negotiate the settlement of these strikes at that time " Gillespie added that he had authority on October 12, 1937 , to settle the Kansas City dispute but that after leaving Kansas City he had been "undermined" by other persons in the Ford organization The second meeting opened at the Eddystone Hotel and then moved to the Administration Building of the Ford Motor Company at Dearborn ,, where representatives of the U A W conferred with Harry Bennett in addition to Gillespie Bennett confirmed that Gillespie had full authority "to negotiate settlement of the strikes ," that for a time he had been deprived of this authority , but that Bennett had realized his mistake and had again given this authority to Gillespie. Neither Bennett nor Gillespie testified during the hearing , and we find Williams' testimony to be substantially true '!8 It should be noted that , except for approximately 300 maintenance and other employees engaged in preparing the plant for the new model the plant was closed after September 17, 1937 The lock-out on October 11 , 1937, resulted in the dismissal of the 300 employees then working in the plant . It also precluded the reopening of the plant which would have occurred shortly thereafter It appears that several assistant foremen, watchmen. powerhouse employees , and pos- sibly a few others were retained. There were approximately 2,000 employees 80 C C Swenson , assistant chief clerk, testified that Doss telephoned from Dearborn on October 15 , 1937, and informed him that "it had been decided to close the Kansas City plant and we were to transfer all our records to Omaha. " Swenson then entered the dis- charges on the respondent 's recoids Since, in discharging employees , it was customary for the respondent to note on their - employment jackets ( i e., individual employment records for each employee ) the reason for their discharge and whether the respondent would con- FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1033 the respondent formally discharged its employees on October 15, 1937, in furtherance of its plan to destroy the U. A. W. 3. Continuation of the Blue Card Union after the lock-out Despite the fact that the respondent attached color of finality to its lock-out by officially discharging all employees, moving its operations to,Omaha, Nebraska, and reassigning its two highest ranking officials at the Kansas City plant, the Blue Card Union did not abate its cam- paign to enroll employees, as members of its organization. With the plant seemingly closed permanently, the organizers of the Blue 'Card Union now urged that employees would'secure their jobs again only if they joined the Blue Card Union.',' Kenneth Paris, president of the Blue Card Union, advertised this appeal in a letter to Baron De Louis dated October 23, 1937, copies of which he distributed'to the newspapers.82 The letter stated : This letter is written you on behalf of the Independent Union of Ford Workers, asking that you withdraw CIO activities at the Ford Assembly Plant. You and I have just witnessed the closing.of the Kansas City Branch of the Ford Motor Co., which has affected some 2,500 men and which, in turn, has affected directly 10,000 people, said number consisting of employees' families. Not only directly, but indirectly, unestimated numbers have been affected-the grocer, the coal dealer, the'landlord and all with whom we deal. The numbers of our organization, which are now well over a majority, feel that CIO and their activities, under your leader- seder, them for reemployment , Swenson inscribed on each employment jacket that the em- ployee was discharged because "production was discontinued" and entered the word "Yes" in reoponse to the question contained on the jacket : "Does employee merit consideration for reemployment ?" We discuss this in Section III-F-4-b, infra I "Typical of these s tatements were the following : Morel I. Helton, an organizer for the Blue Card Union, and four others , called upon Walter F. Reitz at his home. Helton "wanted me to join the Independent Union and I told him I already belonged to a union, and he said he thought that it would be to my benefit to join the Independent Union and I asked him what they had to offer in the Independent Union and he said 'seniority rights, collective bargaining , and a job ' And I told him I already belonged to one union, as I said before , and I had not been in it long enough to know what it would really do for me, and I wasn 't quite ready to join up in another union-that I didn't believe I could do two unions any good. He said , 'You want to work, don't you?' I said, 'Sure I want to work.' He said , 'You know you are not going back to the Ford plant under the conditions you left- under the U. A. W. A' I said, No, I didn't know it and when he left he told me 'Think it over' and he said if I changed my mind I could call him up and that they would see that I got work." Helton also told him that "if they got 51 per cent of the Ford men organized in the Independent Union , that they were going to send some kind of a-I don ' t -know just what he called it-to the home office, and get the plant reopened " About October 30, 1937, Charles Keating and Norval O. Fisher solicited Bert Lee McGrath to join the Blue Card Union. Fisher inquired of McGrath "What do you think about going back to work, Mac?" and added , "If you want to get back you will have to join with us boys " 12 This letter was reprinted on the first page of the Kansas City Journal-Post on Tuesday, October 26 , 1937. Copies were also sent to the Kansas City Star and the Kansas City Examiner Paris explained that he sent copies to the newspapers because " I wanted them to know all about it." 1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ship, coupled with failure of law enforcement, are directly re- sponsible for the closing of the doors of our former employer. We, as members of the Independent Union of Ford Workers, feel that the only way the Ford Assembly Plant will ever re-open, if it ever does, is for a united organization of his former em- ployees, free from coercion and intimidation, to assure him that the strike,and turmoil at the plant for the pn"ct eight months will cease. We again ask that you withdraw ali CIO activities at this Ford Plant 83 We believe this letter is not only the sentiment of the employees but of the public as well. Trusting this letter will be given your earnest consideration and that you will try to see the situation as does the majority. D. Reopening of the plant; selection of Blue Card Union members for reinstatement; exclusion of U. A. W. adherents; discharges and other forms of discriminabi( n' against the U. A. W.; the "rewarding" of Blue Card Union organizers 1. The reopening of the plant' In the early part of November 1937 the' respondent decided to reopen its Kansas City plant. This decision, as its determination to abandon production, emanated from the respondent's home office in Dearborn. The record does not clearly disclose the names of those responsible for this decision or the reasons which motivated them. None of the respondent's officials from Dearborn testified on this' subject. Busli explained that about November 10, 1937, Max Weis- myer, in charge of production at all plants, called him at Chester, Pennsylvania, where he was working, and directed him to report to Dearborn. At Dearborn Weismyer "advised me that it was their intentions to reopen the Kansas City-plant." Weismyer added that H. F. McElroy, city manager of Kansas City, Missouri, had visited Dearborn and assured the respondent of "police protection"' if it reopened its plant. Bush immediately returned to Kansas City and arranged to reopen the plant. H. C. Doss, branch manager, was recalled from Omaha, Nebraska, where he had been assigned after the lock-out, and reported at the plant on Saturday, November 13, 1937; other ranking super- visors and foremen were also notified to return to work. On Monday, November 15, 1937, the respondent reopened its office and "within the succeeding weeks recalled its regular production and maintenance employees. On December 3, 1937, the first 1938 modes automobile rolled off the assembly lines. 13 Italics ours. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1035 For its 1938 model, the-respondent employed approximately 1,000 ,employees. This was less than one-half the number of employees on its pay roll during production of the 1937 model.g4 It is charged that the respondent reduced production at Kansas City for the spe- cific purpose of destroying the U. A. W. We are of the opinion that the record fails to support this contention.S5 We do find, as described below, that upon reopening its plant in November 1937, the respondent reinstated employees who joined the Blue Card Union and rejected adherents of the U. A. W. 2. Selection of Blue ,Card Union members for reinstatement As we have mentioned, the Blue Card Union continued to organize even after the respondent had ostensibly abandoned production at Kansas City. During this period, Blue Card Union organizers in- formed employees that the plant would reopen if they joined the Blue Card Union. When the plant finally reopened, organizers for the Blue Card Union and various supervisory officials advised em- ployees that they would be reinstated only if they joined the Blue Card Union. Thus, Walter C. Gardner, an assistant foreman, ad- vised James E. Goff to "join the Blue Card Union, and show them that I was against the C. I. 0., and I would probably go back to work." Arnold Richard Mooers, a Blue Card Union organizer, in- formed Marion W. Smith that "if you expect to get back in here, you will have to join our union." When Lee E. Marshall inquired of Willard H. Logan, assistant foreman, as to "the best way" to secure reemployment, Logan informed him that he had returned by joining the Blue Card Union and that he "really" believed that was the "only way" to reinstatement."" None of the foregoing statements was-denied during the hearing.87 I At the commencement of production on the 1937 model , the respondent engaged appaoxi- mately 2 ,700 employees ; during the model season, the pay roll decreased to approximately 2,000 employees when the plant closed for change of model on September 17, 1937. tl5 At all plants in the United States , the respondent assembled under 500,000 automobiles during production of the 1938 model . During the preceding model season , it had assembled over 1,000,000 automobiles Yet, when the number of automobiles assembled at the Kansas City plant is compared with the total assembled throughout the country , it appears that there was a disproportionate decrease at Kansas City. For the 1935 , 1936 , and 1937 models, the Kansas City plant assembled 9 2, 8 9 , and 8 7 per cent , respectively, of all the automobiles assembled by the respondent This was an average of 9 0 - per cent for these three models. But during production of the 1938 model , the Kansas City plant assembled only 5 3 per cent of the respondent's entire output There are, however, many reasons which might have contributed to the greater drop in production of Kansas City, including the labor difficulties , and we do not find, upon the basis of the record in this case, that the respondent deliberately decreased production at its -plant in Kansas City. 80 The record abounds in testimony of statements to the same effect Pursuant to a ruling of the Trial Examiner , the respondent made two offers of proof containing general denials of- the unfair labor practices charged in the complaint ; one offer of proof contains general denials by various supervisory employees , the other by non-supervisory employees . The following is typical of these general denials : "That be was never informed by the Ford Motor Company or by any officer of supervisory employee 1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nor was the warning that employees would be reinstated only if they joined the Blue Card Union an idle threat. In collaboration with the Blue Card Union, the respondent carefully selected leaders and members of the Blue Card Union for reinstatement while rejecting adherents of the U. A. W. Frank Betz, who acted as an organizer for the'Blue Card Union, gave the clearest account of the tactics employed by the respondent in selecting employees who had joined the Blue Card Union.88 Betz joined the'Biue Card Union in the early-part of October 1937,89 after Paris had explained to him that "the plant will never open under the conditions out there, and if we get the majority- we assured Mr. Ford that we would keep the plant opened." 90 A short time thereafter he offered to serve as an organizer for the Blue Card Union and Paris agreed to use him. Previously, several leaders of the U. A. W. had suggested to Betz that he might organize for the Blue Card Union and "find out who was behind- Paris." When the plant reopened in November 1937, Betz organized for the Blue Card Union under the guidance of Arnold Richard Mooers, a leader in the formation of this union. 9' Mooers first gave Betz a list of six employees and instructed him to "talk to them and find out 'how they stood, and if they were weak C. I. 0. men; to sign them up, that they will make good union men." Mooers explained that if these men were "0. K.," they would be sent letters inviting them to return thereof , or by any foreman , assistant foreman , leadman , timekeeper or assistant timekeeper that the Kansas City branch of the Ford Motor Company would never reopen as long as its employees were members of the C I 0 or of Local 249 of the United Automobile Workers of America , nor does he know of any person who was so informed by any of the persons hereinbefore named " In making his ruling excluding these general denials, the Trial Examiner stated to the respondent's counsel that "I don't want to be understood as excluding or preventing you from interrogating any witness concerning whom there has been testimony offered by the Board with respect to those matters " He then asked if "I make myself clear ?" The respondent 's counsel replied "Yes , sir" Again , when the respondent made its offer of proof with respect to non-supervisory employees , the Trial Examiner stated that " I do not want to be understood as preventing respondent from presenting testimony in rebuttal , denial , or explanation of any specific instance concerning which the Board has offered testimony ." When the respondent made its offer of proof covering its supervisory officials , counsel for the Board noted that "it would appear that the respondent is . . offering to prove something which the Examiner has ruled may be placed in evidence in the testimony by the witnesses " A discussion off the record ensued The Trial Examiner then stated that "after discussing the matter with counsel for-respondent off the record , I think it is clearly understood that in connection with the offers of proof con- tained in respondent's exhibits 127 and 127A, [ the offers of proof here under discussion] there is . no misunderstanding with respect to the ruling of the Examiner on such offers of proof. I mean by that that counsel understand that if , for instance , employee John Smith appeared and testified as a witness for the Board and stated that Ray Fredrick [general foreman of the trim department] told him that he would have to join the Blue Card Union, for instance , or he wouldn 't work at the plant, or other similar statements, certainly under any ruling of the Examiner the'respondent is entitled to produce Mr. Fredrick as a witness to deny, rebut or explain any such claimed remarks or conversations." 88 With minor exceptions , the testimony Betz presented during the hearing was not denied by the respondent. 89 He had previously been forced to "bock" his trumpet in order to pay $12 dues arrears to the U. A W Betz admitted that this had made him "a little sore " es Paris denied that he had so informed Betz. ei Mooers did not testify during the hearing. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1037 to work.°2 While Mooers instructed Betz to return this list of names after he had visited these employees, Betz made a copy of this list which lie retained and which was introduced into evidence during the hearing.93 On the evening of November 17, 1937, Betz, accompanied by his wife, visited John Wessel, assistant general foreman of the body con- struction department, at his home. Mooers, Orveal F. Robinson, an assistant foreman in the body construction department,94 and another employee, identified merely as "Slick," an organizer for the Blue Card Union, were also present.95 Betz , it should be noted, had been em-' ployed in the body construction department. In Betz's presence, Wessel asked Mooers if Betz had received his letter inviting him to return to work and Mooers replied "No. It is in the mail now. He will get it so he can come to work Friday if he wants to come Friday.", Wessel then asked Betz to "look up" two employees named Jeffrey 96 and McClurg and to "let him know immediately after, I saw them how they stood." 97 Betz agreed and left shortly thereafter. The same evening, he visited these two employees and arranged to meet them the following morning at the offices of the Blue Card Union. There, they were introduced to Paris and "agreed to sign up if they could get their jobs" Betz then reported to Mooers that these men were "0. K." Betz received his letter recalling him to work on Friday, November 19, 1937, as Mooers had predicted. He then telephoned Mooers at the plant and asked him if he should report that afternoon. Mooers advised him to "wait until Monday" as "I have got some work for you to do tonight." That evening, Mooers informed him that the respondent lacked certain employees, such as "metal finishers and doormen and so forth" and gave him a list of 12 employees whom he wanted Betz to visit "right way" so that they could return to work on Monday, November 22,1937. Betz retained a copy of this list which was introduced into evidence. Of the 12 employees named thereon, 10 were reemployed on Monday, November 22, 1937, and this group 99 For the 1938 model , employees were recalled to work by letters or telegrams sent to them individually. In previous years, the respondent selected its employees from groups gathered in front of the plant at the commencement of each model season 93 Betz did not state , concerning this list , whether he solicited any of the employees named thereon . As we explain below , he was more specific with respect to other lists of employees be interviewed. 940n its employment records for the 1938 model , the respondent listed Robinson and other assistant foremen as leadmen. A leadman, it was explained , ' differs from an assistant foreman in that he works with employees under his supervision while an assistant foreman has only supervisory duties The change in classification was necessitated by the drop in production ; It was not the result of any demotion . In fact, none of these assistant foremen were given wage cuts and a few received increases. It does not appear , moreover , that they possessed any less authority as leadmen than they did as assistant foremen . For conven- ience, we shall refer to them at all times as assistant foremen 15 Neither Wessel nor Robinson testified during the hearing. 99 Spelled Jeffries in the transcript. m Neither Jeffrey, who was recalled to work, nor McClurg, who was not rehired , testified during the hearing. 1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD included metal finishers, assemblers, and welders.98 The remaining two employees were William E. McCarthy, who was rejected because "they claimed he was a C. I. O. man," and William Heyenbock, whom. Betz could not locate.99 Betz reported to Mooers on Saturday, Novem- ber 20, 1937, and Mooers then asked him, since he knew the where- abouts of the employees he had solicited if he would accompany him on the following day while Mooers distributed letters notifying these employees to return to work. These letters, Betz explained, were similar to other letters introduced into evidence which the respondent sent out over the signature of Carl Ade, personnel manager, in re- calling employees to work.100 Employees were required to present these letters at the plant in order to gain admittance. Betz agreed to assist Mooers and drove him to the homes of these employees on Sunday, November 21, 1937. Mooers insisted, however, upon deliv- ering the letters himself as he did not want to "let them see us together because we don't want them to get the impression that you are con- nected with me, -because it will get me and the company and everybody else in bad." After Mooers and Betz had completed their work, they visited Eugene Eaton, general foreman in charge of the entire body con- struction department, as Mooers had "two or three letters he wanted to give to Gene, because they were for Gene's personal friends." lo' While with Eaton, Mooers asked him if he, could use Betz on Monday morning, November 22, 1937. Eaton readily acceded, adding that Betz could report for work at 2:00 o'clock on Monday afternoon and would be paid for the entire day. On Monday morning, November 22, 1937, Mooers instructed Betz to visit Joe Gorsche and "Art" Long, door fitters, and Clyde Hixson, a metal finisher, is the respondent needed them "pretty bad." Both Gorsche and Long were out of town but Betz was able to reach Hixson who returned to work on Tuesday, November 23, 1937102 With this work completed, Betz reported for duty at 1:00 or 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Subsequently he received his pay envelope for the period ending November 25, 1937, which he did not open until he testified and which included compensation for the Monday morning he spent soliciting employees to join the Blue Card Union. To insure that his time card indicating, that he had not reported for work on Monday, November 22. 1937, until the m These employees were, John Anderson, assembler , Richard Branch , metal finisher, Herschel R. Green, assembler , C. H. Hahnel , assembler , Lawrence Weber, metal finisher, Leonard C Myers, assembler , A L Robeson, metal finisher , Lyle II Tiberghein , welder, Joe W. Tillotson , assembler , Woodrow E.,Vaughn, welder 10 None of these 12 employees testified during the hearings. 100 Ade did not testify during the hearing. lm Eaton did not testify during the hearing. lOL Neither Hixson , Gorsche, nor Long testified during the hearing Gorsche was recalled to work on November 26, 1937 It appears , however. that "Art" Long, iiho apparently is•Alby P. Long, was never reemployed. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1039 afternoon would not be changed. Betz smudged- his fingerprint on the time card and his pay receipt. The pay receipt, which Betz kept, was introduced into evidence; the time card, which the respondent retained, was not. Each night after work Betz visited Mooers at the Blue Valley Branch of the Y. M. C. A. Rennison and Assistant Foremen Jesse W. Adams, Willard H. Logan, Richard R. Holder, and others also came there.103 At these gatherings Mooers "had a stack of names that he brought in from the plant on sheets, typewritten, that he would keep checking over, and he, had his letters [signed by Ade, inviting employees to return to work] stacked in a bureau, and he would lay his letters in front of him and look the letters over and name a name and ask me how that certain person was, and so forth, and if it was no good he would put a cross on it, and just so on." After this was done Mooers gave "each man a certain amount of names to investigate and sign them up so that he could mail the letters." Mooers also checked with Pal is at his home and Betz "went with him once or twice on different occasions where they was, checking m names. 51104 3. Rejection of U. A. W. adherents In the selection of employees for reinstatement the respondent rigidly excluded U. A. W. leaders. Every officer, committeeman, the chief plant steward, and the captain stewards of the U. A. W. were denied reinstatement.105 Although a complete list of the U. A. W. shop or deputy stewards was not introduced into evidence, the record indicates that with few exceptions these employees were also ex- 108 Except for Adams , who merely testified about a disturbance that occurred during the hearing, none of these employees took the stand 104 Paris denied this testimony. 108 These Included Baron De Louis , president ; Henry Rees , vice president ; Walter Williams, recording secretary ; Patrick Monroe , financial secretary , Ray Dunn , treasurer ; Paul Jamerson , trustee ; iEdward R Lamport , trustee, Frank Be11, trustee ; Archie Jenkins, sergeant at arms ; L. L Oliver , guide ; Homer Kelly, Gordon Green , and Clyde McD.mmels, members of the exe cutive committee from the body construction department ; Jack England, Emil Sechtor, and Gene Minshall , members of the . executive committee from the trim department ; L. L. Oliver, Archie Jenkins , and Ray Roberts, members of the executive committee from the paint department ; Carl Axthelm , Earl Tosh , and Leonard Guempelemn, members of the executive committee from the chassis department ; Leo Nicola! , Herschel Sanders , and Dean Simpson , members of the executive committee from the maintenance department ; J W. Morgan , Frank Bell, and Ray Phelps , members of the executive com- mittee from the stock department ; Joseph D Clark and Horner Kelly , members of the grievance and bargaining committee from the body construction department ; Donal Taylor and William S Moore , members of, the grievance and bargaining commlttee from the trim department ; , Floyd Eddv and Archie Jenkins, members of the gi mevance and bar- gaining committee from the paint department ; Leonard Guempelein and Sam R Harri- son, members of the grievance and bargaining committee from the chassis department; Dean Simpson and William Black , members of the grievance and bargaining committee from the maintenance department ; Henry R Eldringhoff and John Young , members of the grievance and bargaining , committee from the stock department ; Ray L Rairdon, chief plant steward; Edward R Lamport , Gene Minshall , Harold Suess , Early Tcwell , Theodore. Neff , and Fred Dreis , captain stewards. . 1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cluded.106 Other employees, fortunate enough to be invited to return to work, were refused reinstatement when their opposition to the Blue Card Union or their continued loyalty to the U. A. W. were discovered. Thus, on Sunday evening, November 21, 1937, as Betz and Mooers entered the Blue Valley Branch of the Y. M. C. A. where Mooers resided, they were approached by Chester Demaree and Ralph Martin, two employees, who alleged that "there was a man sitting there that had a telegram to come to work, and that they was talking to him and that he was a hot C. I. O: man, and they wanted to know what we were going to do about that." 107 They identified Walter Cheek as this employee. Mooers indicated to Betz that he should speak to Cheek and see him after he had finished. Betz then ap- proached Cheek, remarked that he understood he had received a telegram inviting him to return'to work, and asked Cheek to join the Blue Card Union. Cheek answered that-he did not have to join. To this Betz replied that the "telegram is no good to you unless you sign up." But Cheek remained adamant and Betz left him and re- ported to Mooers that "there was' nothing I could do with him." Mooers then took Betz to see Paris, president of the Blue Card'Union, and explained the "situation" to him. Paris then decided to tele- - phone Martin Moehleman, factory service manager, but to make the call from town as Paris lived in the suburbs and did not want this telephone call recorded. Betz then drove Paris and Mooers to a telephone booth in Kansas City proper. While Betz did not hear the conversation, Paris told him at its conclusion ,hat it was "all fixed." 108 When Cheek reported for work on Monday' morning, November 22, 1937, he was advised by Carl Add, personnel director, "that the telegram was a mistake, and that under the present set-up they were not ready" to employ him: Other employees were turned away by the respondent when they reported for work wearing U. A. W. buttons. Everett Jones, Fred 155 Such exceptions included Walter Long and Frank Betz who joined and assisted the Blue Card Union. 1°T Although both Demaree and Martin were reemployed, Martin did not testify during the hearing and Demaree, whose testimony was introduced by stipulation, did not deny Betz ' s testimony ' - los Moehleman did not testify during the hearing Paris, however, denied this portion of Betz's testimony. But Betz's testimony was corroborated by Walter Cheek Cheek explained that he had received a telegram calling him back to work and that he exhibited this telegram at the Blue Valley Branch of the Y. M C. A When Ralph 'Martin saw the telegram he told Cheek that "I would have to line up with the Blue Card, or if I got in, I would have to line up very shortly thereafter." Martin then called Betz and "they asked me what about joining the Blue Card " But Cheek refused As set forth in the text, Cheek was denied reinstatement when he reported for work on Monday morning, November 22, 1937 Leonard Swearingen, assistant general foreman of-the chassis de- partment, denied any knowledge of the circumstances under which Cheek was refused employment, and, although he claimed to have participated actively in the selection of employees for reinstatement, he testified that he did not know why Cheek had been sent ,a telegram recalling him to work FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1041 Paxton, and Hencel Tinker had similar experiences of this character. Tinker received, his letter on November 16,1937; he reported at the plant immediately, wearing his U. A. W. button. While he was filling out employment data, as was required of all employees at this time, he was approached by Eaton and Mooers. They informed him that the. letter, recalling him to work was a mistake and that they would notify him later. Neither Eaton nor Mooers testified during the hearing. Nor was Tinker reemployed subsequently. Paxton was also recalled to work on November 16, 1937, but he reported wearing two U. A. W. buttons. Paxton filled out his employment data and received a medical examination. Thereafter, Edward F. Dustin, an assistant foreman, called Paxton aside and.advised him that "there wouldn't be any more union; no more grievance men or committeemen, and •all I would need to work inside the plant was a button like he was wearing-a new Ford badge on his jacket." Paxton then removed the U. A. W. buttons. He was subsequently denied reinstatement by 'Carl Ade; the respondent's employment manager.109 Neither Dustin nor Ade testified during the hearing. Jones received a telegram' to return to work on December 2, 1937. He also reported wearing a U. A. W. button. In the plant Raymond Beechner, a Blue Card Union organizer, stopped him and inquired if he was a member of the Blue Card Union. When Jones replied that he was not a member, Beechner asked him to join, but Jones refused. About one-half or three-quarters of an hour later Jones conferred with Ade, who in- formed him that there had been a mistake, that the respondent had reference to another man named Jones, and that he could not be employed at that time.110 Beechner did not testify during the hearing. In the light of the uncontradicted testimony of Tinker, Paxton, and Jones, we find that they were denied reinstatement because of their appearance at the plant in possession of U. A. W. buttons. Employees seeking reinstatement we're specifically advised against associating with members of the U. A. W. Thus, when Dean Simp- son, a member of the U. A. W. grievance committee, telephoned Settles, general foreman' of the maintenance department, and inquired about- reinstatement, Settles replied that Simpson could return only if he resigned as "committeeman" and informed Carl Ade, personnel di- rector, of his resignation. Acting upon this suggestion, Simpson wrote to Ade that he had resigned as "grievance committeeman" of the '09 In an offer of proof ( see Section III-F-1, infra ) the respondent alleged that upon being recalled Paxton demanded work as a leadman when' be was advised that there was not any such job available , he'declined to accept reemployment 110 In an offer of proof ( see Section III-F-1, snfra ) the respondent alleged that when Jones was recalled to work he informed Raymond Frederick, general foreman of the trim department , and Carl Ade that "he had done a number of things in the summer of 1937 to arouse feeling against him and that he had decided that it would be advisable for him not to attempt to return to work at respondent's plant " Jones then left the plant 1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD U. A. W. Ade acknowledged receipt of this letter."1 Simpson tele- phoned Settles again the day after he had heard from Ade. Settles reported that the respondent had been "about ready" to reinstate him but that someone had informed Ade that Simpson had been at U. A. W. headquarters. Settles added that "if you are going to hang around that bunch of communists, you- might as well forget about the whole thing." Simpson was never reemployed. Victor La Plante went ^o far as to join the Blue Card Union after he had been advised that "that is the only way I could ever get back to work" and thereafter showed his memhership card to Mooers,'Blue Card Union organizer. But Mooers claimed that "he had complaints at the factory that I was still too active ... in the C. I. O. organization, to put me back to work." La Plante was not reemployed. Harry M. Hattey was re- called to work about November 20, 1937. Everett J. Gregg, general foreman of the chassis department, advised him, after he had reported, "that there had been a mistake." He instructed Hattey to return home and await a further call. "In the meantime," he added, "don't hang around over at the union hall." 4. Discharges and other forms of discrimination against the U. A. W. in the plant Employees recalled to work before they had joined the Blue Card Union were openly solicited during working hours by Blue Card Union organizers and various supervisory officials. These employees were warned that they could-hold their jobs only if they joined the Blue Card Union. Thus, Orveal F. Robinson, an assistant foreman, ad- vised Jess Crandell that "there has been three bad reports in on you today" and "the best thing you can do is to get signed up." Clinton Hays, a section foreman, told Victor Sullivan that "it would be best to join up, and go along with the boys," and Jerry Morton, also a sec- tion foreman, informed him that "if I wanted my job I had better get a blue card." Clarence J. Mueller, another section foreman, also so- licited Sullivan to join the Blue Card Union. Pete Fromholz was told by an organizer for the Blue Card Union "by the name of Brown" that "if I was going to join it I- would be on the right side, and if I joined it they would help me hold my job." He was also asked to join by Harlan O. Peret; an assistant foreman.112 • On Tuesday morning, November 23, 1937, the day after Betz ,had returned to work, Mooers instructed him and David Rennison, one "'The Board introduced Ade's letter into evidence . The respondent did not produce Simpson's letter to Ade 112 None of the foregoing evidence concerning solicitation in the plant was denied during the hearing . The record is replete with many other, such instances of solicitation by Blue Card Union organizers and supervisory , officials of the respondent. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1043 of the leaders in organizing the Blue Card Union, to see Walter Gard- ner, an assistant foreman in the body construction department,, as Gardner "had a couple of men he wanted to look up and investigate that accidentally got in through some letters that were sent before the men were signed,up, and he wanted to get them signed up." 113 Gardner indicated, by their badge numbers, two employees whom he wanted investigated. These numbers were 1202 and 1203.114 Betz spoke to 1202, "put him wise to what was happening, and told him that he had to sign up." Both this employee and 1203, whom Rennison "investigated," joined the Blue Card Union. Shortly before noon on the same day, Eaton and Wessel, general and assistant general foreman of the body construction department, respectively, asked Betz and Rennison to solicit Lewis G. "Pedro" Young, an are welder, and "get him to sign up" with the Blue Card Union. Young, however, refused to become a member and, this Betz and Rennison reported to Eaton and Wessel.115 Rennison recom- mended to Eaton "to get rid of him," but Eaton explained that he could not possibly do that as he did not have an employee he could "break in right away" to do arc welding. To this, Wessel added that "Pedro is all right; he is just bull headed. - He won't cause no trouble., During the meantime, if he signs up we will consider, it and let him work." To make certain that there might not be any revival of interest in the U. A. W., the respondent specifically warned employees it reinstated that they could not wear U. A. W. buttons in the plant."' In addition, these employees were told not to associate with members of the U. A. W. As we described below, Frank Grindley was dis- charged after Betz reported seeing Grindley "across the street talking to a bunch of the C. I. 0. boys." During lunch hour Bert H. Michael, 113 Neither Rennison nor Gardner testified during the hearing 114 George W. Brinklow and Fred D. Burden owned badge numbers 1202 and' 1203, respectively. 115 Young corroborated Betz in his description of his interview with Rennison He added that Rennison continued to solicit him to join the Blue Card Union up to December 10, 1937, when , as we explain below , Young struck with other members of the U. A. W. no The following are typical of the warnings against wearing U. A. W. buttons in the plant . When Harold Langer , who was recalled , reported for work he was told by David Franklin , an assistant foreman , that "there wasn ' t going to be any union in the plant, only the Ford button-and he pointed at the badge " Franklin also told Oren C Long that "we recognize only one button here in this plant , and that is this one," indi- cating his badge . And he gave Lee E Marshall the same advice on the first day after he had returned to work when he pointed to Marshall ' s badge and said, "that is all you need to work here You don t need anything else but this." ' Oran Holmes , an assistant toreman, told Bert H Michael that "there would be no more C I 0 ; we only needed our badge to work Ct the Ford Motor Company • we didn't need any union buttons," and Walter C Gardner , an assistant foreman , instructed other employees to take Michael's U A. W button away from him Edward F Dustin , an ass • stant foreman , informed Victor Sullivan , when he returned to work , that "there would be no more C. I. 0 in there , and I would have to do away with my button " Clinton Hays , a section foreman, advised several employees "that if you want to work here, now, you got to, throw your button out You have your choice of your button or your fob " 441943-42-vol. 31--67 1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an employee who had been "recalled to work, walked across the street from the plant to obtain his lunch which he had left in his car. When he returned he was stopped and told, in the presence of Walter Gardner, an assistant foreman, and two other employees, that "I wasn't supposed to go out of the plant; I' wasn't supposed to walk across the street or talk to any of those boys." 1"; If an employee refused to join the Blue Card Union, or if, by associating with U. A. W. members or wearing a U..A. W. button, he exhibited a continuing interest in the U. A. W., he was promptly, discharged. The following employees were discharged under such circumstances. Frank R. Grindley. Grindley was flu st employed by the respondent on September 29, 1925, and worked continuously in the body construc- tion department after January 6, 1932. He joined the U. A. W. In April 1937. In the beginning of 1937 he was receiving 90 cents an hour as a metal finisher; as part of a general wage increase, his hourly wage rate was raised 5 cents an hour on June 19, 1937. On November 18, 1937, after the plant reopened, Grindley was reemployed at the same wage 95 cents an hour. Eight days later, on November 26, 1937, he was discharged, allegedly for "unsatisfactory work." 11s Grindley testified that on November 26, 1937, while he was working. David Rennison, a Blue Card Union organizer, approached him and remarked that he had heard that Grindley's "sympathies were with the boys on the outside.", When Grindley replied "yes, so what?" and added that the "boys on the outside" were all his friends and that "they are out of jobs," Rennisou retorted that "that is their hard luck. We opened this plant, and intend to keep it open." Some- time previous to this conversation Sam T. Craig, an inspector, had warned Grindley "confidentially" that he should not cross the street to U. A. W. headquarters . A while after his discussion with Rennison, Grindley was reprimanded by Willard H. Logan, an ?ssistant foreman, for "a job that had a little high metal in it" and was told that his work was unsatisfactory and that Logan could no longer use him. This was the first time that Grindley had been criticized in all of the 5 years he had been engaged as a metal finisher . Logan then took Grindley to Eugene Eaton, general foreman of the body construction department , who arranged for his dismissal without further dis- "I Gardner did not testify during the hearing 116 His employment jacket contained the following notations signed by Eugene Eaton, general foreman in charge of the body construction department: "Leadman Logan called to my attention on several occasions the unsatisfactory nature of this man's work as a metal finisher on solder joints on pleasure bodies. Leadman Logan stated he called the matter to the attention of Grindley on numerous occasions- but he failed to correct his mistakes and continued to allow imperfect work to pass through I also warned him about his unsatisfactory work-when these warnings failed their purpose , I brought Grindley to, the employment office for disposition " FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1045 cussion. • Grindley was formally discharged by the respondent's per- sonnel department.19 Frank Betz corroborated Grindley's testimony. He explained that -as he came to work on the morning of November 26, 1937, with Mooers and Rennison , "we saw Grindley standing across the street, [where U. A. W. headquarters were located] talking to a bunch of C. I. 0. boys and then he walked in the front door and went to work." When Betz and Rehnison arrived at the plant they reported Grindley's association with the U. A. W. to Assistant Foreman Logan, and Jesse W. Adams. Logan replied, "we will have to get rid of him." He then "walked down the line a little ways" and "crossed three jobs with chalk," to indicate "bad order jobs," and asked,Betz to watch "that nobody rubbed those marks off or got the jobs mixed up" while he would see "what he could do about Grindley." During Logan's ab- sence both Rennison and Betz spoke to Grindley. Betz testified that he asked Grindley "why he was talking to those men across the street," and that Grindley replied that "they were all his friends and he had a right to talk to anybody he wanted to." Later in the day Logan informed Betz that Grindley had been discharged for "insufficient [unsatisfactory] work." Faced with this corroborated account, the respondent chose-not to produce the testimony of any of the employees identified as having participated in Grindley's discharge. Neither Logan, Adams, Mooers, Rennison, Eaton, nor any representative of the personnel department took the stand to deny or explain either the testimony of Betz or Grindley. Roger M. Cocks, an assistant foreman in the body con- struction department, testified that Grindley was discharged for fail- ing to hammer down the metal along the edges of the coupe upper deck joints in preparing these joints for the solder wipers. But the respondent's employment jacket confirms that it was Logan who repri- manded Grindley for his work and Eaton who discharged him.120 Certainly it was incumbent upon the respondent if it sought to refute Grindley's testimony, to produce either or both Logan and Eaton 121 Moreover, when we consider, in the light of the uncontradicted testi- mony, that formally years Grindley had worked at his job as a metal finisher without, complaint, that he was reemployed as a satisfactory worker, and that he was discharged 8 days after his reinstatement (of . which only 6 were work days), we are convinced and find that _the re- spondent discharged Grindley because he favored and associated with members of the U. A. W. "'While Grindley did not know the name of the, personnel representative who discharged him, it was probably Carl Ade, personnel director 120 See footnote 118, supra 121 See The Press Co, Inc v N. L R B, et al , decided December 9, 1940 (C. A of D. C.) inodify'g and enf'g Matter of The Press Co, Inc, et al, and Tri-City Newspaper Guild of Albany, Troy, and Schenectddy, New York, 13 N L. R B 630 1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Virgil Lee Simrell. Simrell was first employed on December 11, 1934, and worked continuously as a welder in the body construction department., He joined the U. A. W. in March 1937. In the begin- ning of 1937, he was earning 75 cents an hour. He received one 5-cent increase on March 15, 1937, another on June 1, 1937, and a third, an automatic increase, on June 19, 1937, bringing his hourly wage to 90 cents an hour. Simrell was reemployed at the same wage, after the plant reopened for production, on November 19, 1937; he was dis- charged on November 29, 1937122 Before he was reemployed, Simrell testified, Orveal F. Robinson, an assistant foreman in the body construction department, had advised that 'he should see Loren C. Morgan, an organizer for the Blue Card Union, as the respondent would reinstate him only if he would "get right" by joining the Blue Card Union. Simrell' called upon Morgan at his, home; Robinson, William Sproat, also a Blue Card Union organizer, and another employee were present. After Simrell joined the --Blue Card Union, Morgan told. him that he was now on the, "right side" and would be reemployed in a few days. Two days later, Simrell was recalled to work. Neither Morgan nor Robinson took the stand during the hearing. Sproat testified and admitted that he was at Morgan's home when "Robinson brought Simrell up there" and that Morgan told Simrell, with reference to the Blue Card Union, that he was on the "right side." Sproat denied, however, that Morgan advised Simrell that now "he could return to work." We are convinced and find, nonetheless, that Morgan not only informed Simrell that he was on the "right side" but added that.he would be rehired in a few days; in addition, we find, as a result of joining the Blue Card Union, Simrell was recalled to work. On or about the first day Simrell worked in the plant, Richard Ray Holder, an assistant foreman who aided the Blue Card Union,, "let out some big oath about me being there and told me there would be no more C. I. O. doings in there." Thereafter, Willard H. Logan. another assistant foreman who assisted the Blue Card Union, asked Simrell if he was a member of the Blue Card Union and "kept nagging , M0 to "see if I had any affiliation with the C. I. O. ai a recent date." Logan was followed by Raymond Beechner, an organizer for the Blue Card Union, who wanted to know if Simrell had the Blue Card 122 Eugene Eaton, general foreman of the body construction department , noted in Simrell's employment jacket : "This man is a welder and I have been having a lot of trouble with his work. Inspectors refuse to accept his work necessitating a complete reworking In the face of these conditions this employee has displayed a lack of interest and seems uncon- cerned at the rejections . In view of these conditions it was necessary for leadm `an, Robb inson, to spend an undue amount of his time supervising this man's work, thereby taking the leadman away from other urgent and pressing matters. The act which caused "me to come to the conclusion that I could not use him any longer was his repeated failure to cut flange on bottom of DeLuxe skirt panels I took him to employment office for disposition." _ FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1047 Union "right down in the bottom of my heart." A few days, later, Holder, Logan and Jesse W. Adams, another assistant foreman, ques- tioned Simrell about the U. A. W. Holder demanded to know how Simrell had been reinstated. When he was told that Robinson was' responsible for Simrell's reemployment, Holder "called Robinson up and asked him what he meant by calling me in there, that he knew I was a C. I. O. man." While Holder was speaking to Robin- son, Simrell "ran up to him and I told him I had one of his Blue Card Union card-s.11 Holder replied that "that wouldn't do me any good either, that there was he and about three or four hundred others in there that was going to see to it that there wasn't any damned union at all in that place." On Friday, November 26, 1937, Simrell visited U. A. W. head- quarters and "told the boys what was going on in the body shop." On Monday, November 29, 1937, without any previous warning, Eugene Eaton, general foreman of the body construction department, escorted Simrell to the office of Carl Ade, personnel director, and instructed him to wait for- Ade. When he arrived, Ade informed Simrell that he had received complaints about his work. Simrell protested that he had not heard anything about these complaints and that "always before when any work hasn't been right I have heard about it on the floor upstairs." Ade then offered to let Simrell speak to Martin Moehleman, factory service manager, who affirmed, after Simrell conversed with him, that "the only course I see to take with you is- terminate you." Simrell was then discharged. Not only did Morgan and Robinson fail to take the stand but neither Eaton, Moehleman, Ade, Holder, Logan, Beechner, nor Adams testified during the hearing. We can place no credence in the notatibn on Simrell's employment jacket 123 It is hardly credible that within 8 days after reinstatement an employee who received three separate wage increases in 1937 would have so repeatedly failed "to cut flange on bottom of DeLuxe skirt panels" as to merit discharge. Upon the entire record, we are convinced and find that the respondent dis- charged Simrell because he was suspected of favoring the U. A. W. George W. Jones. Jones began to work in the body construction de- partment of the respondent's plant at Kansas City on February 27, 1933. He had previously worked for 5 years at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri. From the body construction department, Jones was trans- ferred to the loading dock of the chassis department and then to the maintenance clean-up department where he was employed first as a janitor and later as a sweeper. Jones joined. the U. A. W. on April 3, 1937.. He was reemployed on November 16, 1937, as a sweeper; 1 week later, he was-discharged. On his employment jacket, Ralph W. 121 See footnote 122, supra. 1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD Settles, general foreman of the maintenance department,124 made the following notations : "This man left a very serious fire hazard of rags and waste inside of wheel oven when cleaning it and o. k.'d same to be started. If this had been done a serious fire might have resulted with loss of oven and perhaps even more far reaching effects. His clean-up job was also poorly done. Having proved that he was not trustworthy on his assignments, I instructed the leadman to take this employee to the employment office for disposition." Jones alleged that either on the day in November 1937 that he was recalled to work or the day after, Harry Lawhon, an organizer for the Blue Card Union, asked him to join. Jones refused. On the same day, Clarence J. Mueller, section foreman in the maintenance depart- ment, spoke to Jones about the Blue Card Union after complimenting him as "the best man I ever had here." But Jones again refused to join, adding "to hell with them." He was also solicited by David Rennison, Cecil Burnett, and Kenneth Paris, president of the Blue Card Union, but remained firm in his determination not to affiliate with the Blue Card Union. At- a later date Edward F. Dustin, an assistant foreman, approached Jones and advised him that "from now on there is not going to be any Grievance Committee, there is not going to be any shop stewards" and "you are not going to have but one master to serve and that is Mr. Ford." Dustin warned, "take it or leave it." On November 23, 1937, the day Jones was discharged, Dustin sent him away from his work on an errand. While he was gone, Mueller "hollared" for him to return to Dustin. When he returned, he found three new towels he ,had left "lying on a bench in the oven," as was customary, "thrown all over the floor," and the bench "kicked over." Jones denied responsibility when questioned by Dustin. But Dustin took him to Ralph W. Settles, general foreman of the maintenance department, and reported that "here is the fellow that is no good." Settles remarked, "If you can't use him, I can't. Take him to the factory service.", Jones was then taken to Carl Ade, personnel director, and promptly discharged. As in the previous cases, the respondent failed, for the most part, to deny Jones' testimony concerning the reason why or the manner in which he was discharged. Neither Dustin nor Mueller, who were most immediately involved, testified. While Settles took the stand, he did not refute the testimony which Jones gave. Burnett merely asserted ,that neither he, Rennison, nor Paris had solicited Jones to join the Blue Card Union. Upon the entire record, we are satisfied and find that-the respondent discharged Jones because he refused to join. the Blue Card Union. - ' . - '4 Settles was in charge of both the maintenance and the maintenance clean-up depart- Inents - FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1049 James Thomas Clifford. Clifford was hired to work in the main- tenance clean-up department on June 22, 1936; he joined the U. A. W. in March 1937. Clifford was discharged on November 22, 1937, 6 days after he had been reinstated on the reopening of the plant. His em- ployment jacket contained the following reasons for his discharge: "This man was very careless with his work. He was cleaning stairs and left them in a deplorable condition. Then on a sweeping job he failed to use wet sawdust, sweeping compound, as instructed, spoiling considerable wet paint in the room. He was assigned to painting equipment. On this job he painted over dirt, spoiling the job. After he had been cautioned by the leadman several times on these matters, he was taken to the employment office for disposition." 125 These charges were signed by Ralph W. Settles, general maintenance foreman. On November 16,1937, the day he returned to work, Clifford testified, lie was told by Clinton C. Hays, a section foreman "if I wanted to work I had to understand one thing, and that was that I could have but one boss and, that was Henry Ford and not John L. Lewis." A day or two later, Rennison solicited Clifford to join the Blue Card Union. Clifford replied, "nothing doing." He gave the same answer the following day when William Hurst, another organizer, approached him about the Blue Card Union. On November 22, 1937, Jerry Mor- ton, an assistant foreman, instructed Clifford to paint some trash barrels in the basement. After Clifford had completed two barrels, Morton sent him to the south yard to obtain additional barrels. While Clifford was in the south yard, Morton "came running out after me and asked me what was the idea of ruining the barrels." When Clif- ford denied that he had ruined the barrels, Morton accompanied him to the basement where Clifford observed that "someone had thrown sand all over thg wet. paint." Morton accused Clifford of responsi- bility and immediately escorted him to Settles: Settles in turn took Clifford to Carl Ade, personnel director, who discharged him. Once again, the respondent failed to produce either Morton, Hays, or Rennison to explain or deny Clifford's testimony. Nor did Settles or Hurst refute Clifford's testimony although they took the stand during the hearing. Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent discharged Clifford because he refused to join the Blue Card Union. 125 In an offer of proof concerning Clifford's discharge, (see Section III-F-1, infra) the respondent includes, of these charges, only the allegation 'that Clifford failed to u,e wet sawdust in sweeping . It adds that Clifford deliberately threw "a bucket full of sand on a large number of freshly painted barrels ," upset 5 gallons of paint and then refused to clean up the paint , loafed on his job , and threatened to assault Edward F Dustin, assistant foreman of- the maintenance clean -up department , when instructed coucern.rg his work 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Williairn J. Snider. Snider was engaged by the respondent on February 5, 1928. He worked first in the chassis department and then in the maintenance department as a welder. Snider joined the U. A. W. on April 3, 1937. When the plant reopened after the lock- out, Snider was recalled on November 16, 1937. He was discharged on November 26, 1937. Settles, the general foreman of the maintenance department, noted on his employment jacket: "I have been receiving complaints from millwright leadman for the past week on this man's carelessness and lack of interest in his work. I transferred him to the machine shop this morning and am now advised that he is either un- willing or unable to cooperate with the machine shop leadman. In view of the fact that he is not cooperating, we do not wish to keep, him in our department. This man was taken to the employment office for disposition." 128 Snider testified that when he'reported for work on November 16, 1937, Settles noticed that he was wearing a U. A. W. button and directed him to remove- it, adding that "Ford won't recognize any -union in this plant." Snider removed his button. On Saturday, November 20,1937, two employees, whose names Snider did not know, called upon him at his home and inquired if he was ready to join the Blue Card Union. Snider refused to join. He explained at the hearing that he made his refusal "short and sweet" and "slammed the door." On November 26, 1937, Settles stopped Snider while he was working and took him to Carl Ade, personnel director. Settles reported to Ade that "here is that man." After remarking to Snider that "I understand your general attitude isn't O. K.," Ade promptly discharged him. Snider had received no previous complaints about his work. In this case, unlike the preceding cases, the respondent produced Settles to explain Snider's discharge. Settles claimed that Snider had been tried on several operations and failed to perform his work properly. As a result, Settles took Snider to Ade's office. Settles also denied that he had spoken to Snider about his T. A. W. button. However, we are not impressed with Settles' testimony. For many years Snider had been employed by the respondent, apparently with- out complaint, and he was selected'for reemployment when approxi- mately 1,000 other employees were rejected. He was discharged only 10 days after he had been reemployed following his appearance in the plant with a U. A. W. button and his refusal to join the Blue 220 In an offer of proof concerning Snider's discharge, (See Section III-F-1, infra) it is alleged that Snider cursed his superior, A. S Maxon, when cautioned about staying away from his job, deliberately burned a large number of hinges with his torch, refused to work in -the machine shop, and loafed on the job It is further alleged that Settles spoke to Snider about these complaints and instructed him to-remain at his job When Settles continued to receive complaints, he again spoke to Snider who told him that he did not care whether he ever did any work. Settles then took Snider to the employment office and recommended his discharge. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1051 Card Union. We find that the respondent discharged. Snider because he failed,to become 'a member of the Blue Card Union. - Glenn C.' Brown. Brown was employed by the respondent on March 25, 1933, in the stock department. He 'joined the U. A. W. in April 1937. , In the beginning of 1937, he was earning 75 cents an hour; he was raised to 80 cents on June 1, 1937, and to 85 cents, as part of an automatic increase, on June 19, 1937. The respondent reemployed Brown on November 18, 1937; he was discharged 4 days later, on November 22, 1937. George R. Ball, general foreman of the stock department, signed the following notation on Brown's em- ployment jacket: "This man was stalling on -the job and not trying to keep up his end of the work. He was also careless in handling material; by handling cab doors too roughly he caused dents to be made in the metal which necessitated reworking by the metal finishers, causing additional expense. The ' same condition was reported in handling a truckload of truck cowls, causing cowls to fall from the Lruck and reworking was necessary by the metal finishers. Due to this man being cautioned several times on the carelessness of his work, which failed to improve, he was taken to the employment office by the leadman for disposition." When Brown reported for work on Thursday, November 18, 1937, he testified, he was wearing a U. A. W. button. Charles Lemon, an assistant foreman, advised him that he did not need "that button to work there." Brown, however, continued to wear his U. A. W. button in the plant. Moreover, he did not join the Blue Card Union. On Monday, November 22, 1937, as Brown was about to leave work, Robert L. Gleaves, an assistant foreman, stopped him and remarked that "I though you wanted to work." Brown replied that he did. Gleaves then said that Brown did not have the "right attitude" and 'without explaining what he meant by the "right attitude," arranged for Brown's dismissal. ' Gleaves denied that he had noticed that Brown possessed a U. A. W. button and Lemon did not "recall" advising him that he did not need a U. A. W. button to work in the plant. Gleaves admitted, however, that he had told Brown that he diet not have.the "right attitude." But he alleged that he explained to Brown that his "attitude" was not "right" in that he continually "loafed on the job," maintained a slow pace, and showed carelessness in handling stock. Brown admitted that Gleaves had reprimanded him on the day he was discharged for allowing a load of "cowls" to fall from the truck. Nevertheless, we are convinced'that when Gleaves commented that Brown did not have the "right attitude," he had reference to Brown's, persistence in wear- ing his U. A. W. button, after Gleaves and Lemon had advised him to the contrary, and his failure to join the Blue Card Union. - Gleaves 1052' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - admitted that Brown was a "good worker" and he was discharged only 3 work days after he had been selected for reinstatement while approximately 1,000 other employees were excluded. _ It is not likely that the "attitude" of an etriployee of many years' standing would have changed perceptibly in 3 workdays or that the respondent would have discharged him so promptly. It is'our conclusion that the respond- ent discharged Brown because of his continued adherence to the U. A. W., as manifested in his open possession of a U. A. W. button, and, correlatively, by his failure to join the Blue Card Union. We find, in the light of our discussion, that the respondent discrim- inated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Frank R. Grindley, Virgil Lee Simrell, George W. Jones, James Thomas Clif- ford, William J. Snider, and Glenn, C. Brown, and thereby discour- aged membership in the U. A. W., encouraged membership in the Blue Card Union, and interfered witli, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Frank Betz. Betz continued the activities we have described above until December 31, 1937. Shortly prior to that day Jesse W. Adams, an assistant foreman, called him into the cloakroom, shut both doors, and remarked that he had heard Betz was "carrying information" to the U. A. W. Adams also inquired of Betz "how I [Betz] stood." When Betz protested that he was "0. K.," Adams replied that "if -you are all right I will stick by 'you, but if I find out you are wrong all I got to do is say the word and these men will fix you up." Wh.e^n Betz reported- for work on the following day, he noticed that there was "ill feeling,amongst the men and me." On that day, December 31, 1937, he left the respondent's employ and did not return thereafter. The complaint alleges that Betz was "forced to resign" from the re- spondent's employ because of his membership and activity in the U. A. W. We are not satisfied that this allegation of the complaint is sustained by the record and-we shall, accordingly, dismiss the com- plaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated against Betz because of his membership and activity in the U. A. W. The complaint also alleges that the respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Herman H.. Binger aild George E. Lenington. Both em- ployees were rehired after the plant reopened and discharged shortly thereafter. However they both joined the Blue Card Union after they had-been reinstated and neither, so far as the record discloses, main- tained any active association with the U. A. W. In view of these facts, we shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it charges that the respond- ent discriminated against Binger and Lenington. The complaint also contains the names of six employees whose dis- charge is alleged to have been discriminatory.127 These employees 'ar These employees are : Edward R. Cranfill , Herbert Daniel , James 0. Hardy , Marion E. - John, William R. McBride , and Lloyd R. White FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1053 were discharged or quit at various dates in November and December 1937, and January 1938. However, none of these employees testified during the hearing and the evidence in the record is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the respondent discriminated against them. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the names of these employees from the complaint.l28 5. Results of the respondent's activities As a direct result of the foregoing activities of the respondent, the Blue Card Union completely replaced the U. A. W. upon the reopening of the plant for the 1938 model. Although the U. A. W. had a sub- stantial membership when the plant closed for the seasonal shut-down on September 17, 1937, practically every employee reinstated on the 1938 model-had either joined the Blue Card Union before he was recalled or immediately after his reinstatement.' 29 Of the employees reinstated on the 1938 model, "most all," as one of the respondent's witnesses described, wore Blue Card Union buttons instead of, as formerly, U. A. W. buttons. As we have mentioned, every officer, 1:B There were, in addition, 12 other employees named in the complaint who did not testify It appears from their employment records, however, that these employees' went, out on strike on or after December 10, 1937. See Section III-E-2, infra. 129 Of the 369 persons who testified during the hearing, 105 had joined the Blue Card Union before they were recalled and 58 after they had been reinstated Of the remaining 206 persons, 39 were either supervisory employees ineligible for membership in the U A W or the Blue Card Union or persons who were not in the respondent's employ. As to an additional 87, the record fails to disclose whether or not they had joined the Blue Card Union The remaining 80 employees can be classified as follows : 40 never joined the Blue Card Union and were not recalled ; 7 were recalled and then, as we find herein, discharged for failing to join the Blue Card Union or for other similar reasons ; 19 joined the Blue Card Union but were not recalled ; and 14 were recalled although they failed to join the Blue Card Union either before or after their reinstatement In this latter group, however, there were four employees who responded to the strike call on December 10, 1937, and six employees who were assistant foreman or leadmen (David Franklin, Robert Gleaves, Charles Lemon, Edward Mehrer, Ralph Siney, and-Alva Watts) The 19 employees who joined but failed to obtain reinstatement included such active members of the U. A w as Dean Simpson, grievance and bargaining committee member ; Edwaid R' Lamport, captain steward and trustee ; Victor La Plante, who was advised after he had joined the Blue Card Union that he was "still too active" in the U. A w to return to work ; Vinton Piper, steward ; Ralph W Rohrs, whose- picture on a U, A W. picket line had been printed in the newspapers ; Marion Smith, who picketed for the U. A. W and solicited others to picket ; and Elmer C Hastings, who was advised that because he had been active in the U. A. W "it would be hard for me to get back to work" There were also Willard F Smith, who did not join the Blue Card Union until February 1938, at which time the respondent had completed hiring for the 1938 model ; Leroy Hulse, Jr,, who joined in the early part of January 1938; and William E Emily, who affiliated with the Blue Card Union just.before December 25, 1937 In addition to the employees who testified during the hearing, evidence concerning 134 employees was introduced by stipula- tion between counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent. Of this number, 49 employees had joined the Blue Card Union before returning to work and 50 after having been reinstated As to four of these employees Who joined the Blue Card Union, the record did_not disclose whether they affiliated before or after reinstatement As to an additional 20 employees, the record failed to reveal whether or not they joined the Blue Card Union. Six employees did not join or return to work, two joined but were not re- called, and three employees were recalled but did not join the Blue Card Union 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD committeeman, the chief plant steward, the captain-stewards, of the U. A. _W., and practically every- shop or deputy steward- who ,re- mained loyal to this organization failed to obtain reemployment. Not only were all Blue Card Union officers and organizers reinstated, but at least 39 of its leaders were "rewarded" with substantial wage increases. We find that the Blue Card Union leaders were "rewarded," for, in view of the entire record, we can place no other- interpretation on the wage increases granted in December 1937, after the Blue Card Union had replaced the U. A. W., to employees who were almost without exception instrumental in organizing 'and establishing the Blue Card Union. As we have mentioned previously, the Blue Card Union began to organize after its meeting at the Pickwick Hotel on September 22, 1937.130 At this meeting, as Gentry Donald Gross, an organizer for the Blue Card Union and a witness called to the stand by the respondent, affirmed, Kenneth Paris, president of the Blue Card Union told the employees present, in constituting them a membership committee, "that the men in the Dallas [Texas] plant [of the respond- ent] were without a C. I. O. organization and as a reward they-had received a 15-cent an hour increase in wages." The organizers of the Blue Card Union obtained their "reward" in December 1937 after the U. A., W. had been eliminated. There were approximately 63 wage increases granted in December 1937. The respondent was then employing over 1,000 men. At least 39 of these increases were awarded to employees primarily responsible for the creation of the Blue Card Union.131 The relation of the 1 ecipients of these wage increases to the Blue Card Union is significant. All officers of the Blue Card Union-its president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary-were granted increases.132 Those identified as the authors of the Independent Order of Ford Workers, prede- cessors of the Blue Card Union-Beechner, Byard, Hurst, Martin, Paris, Rennison, and Sproat-all received raises. Of approximately 14 employees in attendance at the first meeting of the Blue Card Union on September 13, 1937, all but 2 were granted wage increases. Of the estimated 30 persons present at the meeting on September 22, 1937, 24, 110 See Section III-B-2, supra. 131 An additional 13 were given to factory service employees engaged in watching and protecting the respondent 's property. As to the remaining 11, it is not possible to determine from the record whether or not the recipients were active in behalf of the Blue Card Union. These employees include : Tony Bradley , Carl Core (who joined the "Blue Card Union in November 1937 ), Edward F. Dustin , ( an assistant foreman who received only a 5-cent increase ) David Franklin , ( an assistant foreman ) Bernard Fugate , Roy M . Jeffrey, R. S. Messinger , Bob Land, Joseph H. Mersman , Roy W . Sager, ( who received only a 5-cent increase ) and Louis C Smith (who received only a 5-cent increase) 'ii Olin W. Murphin , who was originally elected secretary but who resigned in favor of Lewis E. Oelklaus, was not recalled to work. Oelklaus received a wage increase. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1055 in addition to the 2 attorneys, were identified in the record, and 20 of these employees received wage increases. The respondent customarily grants wage increases of 5 cents an hour. During the production of the 1937 model almost every em- ployee in the plant received at least one wage increase, and, with very isolated exceptions, these increases did not- exceed 5 cents an hour. Herman Kemper, assistant foreman in the chassis department, ex- plained that it would be "rare" for an employee to obtain more than 5 cents and "unusual" if he received 15 cents an hour. However, the leaders of the Blue Card Union raised in December 1937 were all given increases of 10 cents an hour; Kenneth Paris, president of the Blue Card Union, was an exception. He received an increase of 15 cents an hour.133 _ The respondent asserts that these raises were awarded for increased efficiency on the' 1938 model.131 But Kenneth Paris received his "unusual" increase on December 6, 1937, 3 days after he returned to work. No claim was made that a' different procedure from that customarily followed' was employed in granting Paris his increase. And Bush's description of this procedure. adds to the absurdity of- the respondent's contention that Paris merited a 15-cent increase for the improvement he had shown in his work on the 1938 model. Ordinarily, Bush explained, the assistant foreman w')uld recommend the wage increase to his general foreman. If satisfied with this recommendation, the general foreman -,gould notify Bush, who in turn would review and, if he approved, transmit this recommendation to the respondent's home office in Dearborn. If and when Dearborn gave its approval, the raise was placed into effect.135 In December 1937, Bush testified, he asked his foremen to recommend employees for wage increases. Bush identified George Ball as the, assistant foreman who recommended an increase for Paris. But Ball asserted that C. W. Deister, general foreman of the stock department, "handles all the raises" and Deister was not called upon to testify. ' 6. Bargaining with the Blue Card Union In December 1937, with the U. A. W. successfully displaced, the respondent opened bargaining relations with the Blue Card Union. Although, the Blue Card Union made all its requests 'and presented its grievances in writing, it was, nonetheless, strikingly successful in '33 Paris was first employed in December 1936 at 75 cents an hour. In June and again in August 1937 he was raised 5 cents an hour. His 15-cent raise brought his hourly earnings up, to $1, an increase of 331k percent over December 1936 2$4 On its records the respondent had entered such explanations for these increases as "handling duties in a very efficient manner " ' 'x' Two persons in Dearborn, Folland and Weismyer, have to initial the wage increases, Bush explained 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD securing concessions from the respondent. Thus, the Blue Card Union submitted to Carl Ade, personnel director, a written request for a cafeteria; a month or 6 weeks later this cafeteria was installed. It also obtained a parking lot, additional time clocks, and the enlarge- ment and improvement of the fans in the plant. Paris was asked if the respondent had recognized the Blue Card Union as the bar- gaining agent of its employees. ' He replied, "I wouldn't say so, no sir." But whether or not the Blue Card Union received formal recognition of the kind usually granted labor organization's, the respondent's award of such material gifts as a cafeteria and a parking lot, simply in response to the written request from the Blue Card Union, was ample notice to employees that the respondent viewed the Blue Card Union with considerable favor. E. The strike of December 10, 1937 1. The conference Despite expectations implanted by Gillespie on October 12, 1937, the U. A. W. realized, soon after the plant reopened, that it was being swiftly replaced by the, Blue Card Union. To ascertain its,status, the U. A. W. sought a conference with the respondent. It was not at first successful. As Walter Williams explained, "we tried various ways to get a conference. We called by telephone with no results. We went to the factory service door, employees entrance, demanding entrance, and were denied. And we sent an open telegram to Mr. Doss asking for a conference." 138 William F. Motsinger, an assistant foreman in the factory service department, telephoned the respondent's answer to this last request. He reported that Doss was out of town but that Martin Moehleman, factory service manager, and Carl Ade, personnel director, would meet with the U. A. W. De Louis, Williams, Rees, Oliver, Dunn, and Monroe appeared at the respondent's plant as the U. A. W. representatives to this con- ference. Moehleman received this committee but refused to allow Monroe to enter, explaining that "you boys can come in; you are mem- bers of the committee, and working here; but Pat Monroe can't come in, as he is not working here." 137 The committee, without Monroe, then met with Carl Ade and the conference proceeded. Williams, 136 This telegram stated : EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF LOCAL 249 UAW APPEAL 10 YOU AS MANAGER OF FORD PLANT OF KANSAS CITY DIVISION FOR CON- FERENCE ON BEHALF OF 2300 EMPLOYEES INVOLVED AND OUR CITY AS. A WHOLE WE ASK FOR THIS CONFERENCE IN GOOD FAITH WE FEEL THAT OUR GRIEVANCES SHOULD BE SETTLED AROUND CONFERENCE TABLE AS TO PLACE FORD CONFERENCE ROOM TIME TEN AM MONDAY [Novemoer 20, 1937]. 137 Monroe, it will be recalled, secured a leave-of absence in May 1937, to assume an office in the U. A W. A FORD MOTOR- COMPANY 1057' whose testimony we find to be true, described this conference as follows : 138 We first asked Mr. Ade if he was in authority to settle grievances and he replied, "No"; that he didn't know anything about any grievances. Then we asked him who was in. authority to settle grievances-if Mr. Bush was-and he said, "no." Then we told him we wanted to speak to Mr. Doss, and he said Mr. Doss was not in town ; and he said , "What are your grievances?" And' we told him that over 1500 men had been discriminated against by the Ford Motor Company; that we had an agreement with Mr. Bush to bring these men in according to their seniority, and he said he didn't know anything about any seniority, and we explained the agreement we had with Mr. Bush, and at this time he asked us if we had any other grievances . We told him we had a griev- ance against the factory service; that they were organizing this company union on the inside of the plant, and intimidating the men on the inside and forcing these people to sign a company union card, and that this was done with their knowledge; and he denied it. We then went into the matter of seniority again, and every time-at every mention of seniority Mr. Moehleman or Mr. Ade-neither one of them knew anything about it. 2. The strike Despite the unsatisfactory nature of this meeting, the U. A. W. con- tinued to seek an additional conference, but without avail. Finally, on December 10, 1937, with the sanction of the International Union of the U. A. W., the U. A. W. declared a strike. Williams explained that the strike was called "because we had attempted on numerous occa- sions to gain a conference with the Ford management to arbitrate across the table our differences; and our membership were being dis- criminated against almost in its entirety, and we felt that such action was necessary." There were at least 46 employees who had been re- instated and who responded to the strike cal1:139 The respondent subsequently discharged all of them.'4° ma While Bush denied that the U. A. W. had called upon him during this period, Doss admitted that the U. A. W had sent a telegram requesting a conference and that, in his absence, Moehleman had conferred with the U A. W. Neither Moehleman nor Ade tes- tified during the hearing . Williams also identified Motsinger and C C Swenson , assistant chief clerk , as having been present at this conference . But Motsinger did not testify and although Swenson took the stand , he did not mention the conference '8° Of this number 34 testified during the hearing . They are all listed in Appendix B Group I contains the names of these 'employees who testified while Group II contains the names of those who did not William Graham , deceased , has been excluded from this list inasmuch as his estate, under the terms of our order, would not be entitled to any back-pay award - i40 This was done pursuant to a so-called "five day quit" rule whereunder any employee who did not report to work for 5 days was automatically discharged. 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The so-called "caravan" system; manufacture of blackjacks and "knucks" in the plant; discharge of Sanford A. Darling Beginning about November 26, 1937, and continuing for many months, employees came to work in one of two so-called "caravans." The caravans were composed of automobiles, owned and operated by the respondent's employees, which were gathered at a designated place each morning, formed into a long line, and, with one police car leading the procession and others flanking the line, driven through- the streets of Kansas City to the respondent's plant. Each evening, employees were taken from the.plant in the same manner. The employees in these automobiles.equipped themselves with shotguns, revolvers, black- jacks, "knucks," 141 and other weapons. On December 20, 1937, at the direction of the chief deputy sheriff of Jackson County, Missouri, one of the caravans was searched and 11 shotguns and a large collec- tion of revolvers and blackjacks confiscated from the employees. A large quantity of the blackjacks and "knocks" were manufac- tured in the plant. The blackjacks consisted of foot-long strips of air and water hose filled at one end with lead or a large bolt. The "knucks" were made up of solder lead bent in an oval-shape suitable for grasping. Betz testified that he saw employees in the machine shop "cut off a hunk of hose and go back up in and put solder in it." Jess Crandell observed Walter C. Gardner, an assistant foreman, (who did note testify) furnishing employees with the "stuff" out of which they fashioned these weapons.- On several occasions, as he left the plant, Betz secured a blackjack. Several of the blackjacks and two pairs of "knucks" which he thus obtained, were introduced into evidence. Other employees corroborated Betz and Crandell in their testimony concerning the manufacture and distribution of blackjacks and "knucks" in the plant. In permitting the manufacture of these weapons in its plant for use in connection with a labor dispute, the respondent has, we find, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.142 Despite the elaborateness of the caravan system, witnesses for the respondent claimed that the caravans "just happened." that they were without plan or design. But other employees asserted that they had been instructed to ride in the caravans and one employee, Sanford 1u These are described below. 143 Cf Matter of Ford Motor Company and H . C. McGarsty, an individual, et al., 26 N. L. It. B 322. A FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1059 Darling,, was discharged after continuously refusing to come to work in the caravans.'`1 Sanford A. Darling. Darling was first employed on September 5, 1935, as an electrician in the maintenance department. He retained the same position all the time that he worked for the respondent. In the beginning of 1937, he was earning 80 cents an hour. He received one 5-cent increase on June 1, 1937, and another, an automatic increase, on June 19, 1937. Darling joined the-U. A. W. in April 1937. He was reinstated, after the plant reopened, on November 18, 1937, at the same wage he had been earning, 90 cents an hour. On December 1, 1937, he was dismissed from the respondent's employ, allegedly for "carelessness." 144 In the plant, Darling testified, he was solicited to join the Blue Card Union by Harlan O. Peret, assistant foreman, and Charles Beck, an employee. He was signed up by Charles Keating, an organizer for the Blue Card Union, in the "oil house." Although he joined the Blue Card Union, Darling failed to ride in the caravans after they were instituted on or about November 26, 1937. On the morning of his discharge, Leonard M. Carlson, chief electrician, asked Darling "why I wouldn't go back and forth in the caravan." Darling replied that this was a free country and that "I was going to leave and enter the Ford plant like I had always done, or not at all." A while later, Carlson returned with Settles; together they complained that his work was unsatisfactory and then took him to the office of Carl Ade, per- sonnel director. There, Ade discharged Darling. As with most of the discharges discussed above, the respondent failed to present the testimony of the persons primarily, involved. Neither Carlson, Peret, Beck, nor Keating took the stand during the hearing. And while Settles appeared, he did not refute Darling's testimony. Moreover, Pete Fromholz, an employee who was recalled to work and left when the strike was declared, confirmed that Peret told him that Darling "got in trouble" because "he wouldn't ride the caravan; he would walk up over the hill and talk to some of the C. I. O. members." Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent dis- charged Darling because he refused to ride in the caravans. We are. 143 On separate occasions, Walter C. Gardner, an assistant foreman, directed Jess Crandell, George Lenington, and Chester A Farley to ride in the caravans. Gardner also arranged to secure a ride for Lewis G. Young David H Franklin, also an assistant foreman, advised Lee E. Marshall that "you want to get you a ride fixed up because you are not supposed to come walking in here any more " 1'4 Settles signed the following notation on Darling's employment jacket : "We are unable to use this man as an electrician due to his carelessness and disinterest in his work. The electrician leadman criticized him several times on his work, but no improve- ment has been shown and today it became necessary to remove and replace some of the electrical conduit he had installed. In view of the fact that improper electrical installa- tions constitute a serious fire hazard, we cannot use workmen who are not dependable in the electric department. Due to the above facts, this man was taken to the employment office for disposition." 441843-42--,ol. 31 68 1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD also convinced and find that the respondent sponsored the caravan system and required employees to use the caravans in coming to and going from their work., In discriminating against Sanford Darling, we find, the respondent has discouraged membership in the U. A. W., encouraged membership in the Blue Card Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. The caravan system of employees riding to and from the respond- ents plant, loaded with deadly weapons and escorted by the police, was an expression of open defiance of the U. A. W. Nor was any showing made that it was necessary for employees to use the caravans in order to get to work. Lulled into security by Gillespie's guarantee on October 12, 1937, that the plant would reopen if the U. A. W. re- moved its pickets, the U. A. W. did not again place pickets in front of the plant until after it, had declared a strike on December 10, 1937. The caravan system originated 2 weeks before that date. In addition, as Bush testified, there were between 150 and 200 police officers in front of the plant each morning and evening, as employees arrived and returned from work. Far from assisting employees in reaching or leaving, the plant, the caravan system, with the intensity of feeling engendered by the events described in the preceding sections, seryed only to encourage strife between the employees in the caravans and the U. A. W. members who had not been recalled to work. U. A. W. members tossed rocks and bricks at the caravans and employees in the caravans replied in kind. Williams averred that on one occasion, U. A. W. members were forced to keep "ducking" in order to avoid bullets from the caravans. We cannot with certainty determine the respondent's motive in originating the caravan system; whether, as is suggested in From- holz's testimony, to prevent employees from fraternizing with U. A. W. leaders at union headquarters across the street from the plant, or to impress upon the people of Kansas City the necessity of urgent meas- ures to cope with the U. A. W., or as a symbol of U. A. W. defeat in order to demoralize employees who remained loyal to their union. It is sufficient for the purpose of this decision to state that the caravan system was originated by the respondent and that the strife which followed was a consequence of its intrusion upon the background of a ruthless campaign to eliminate the U. A. W. 4. Police assistance The 150 or 200 policemen stationed in front of the respondent's plant each morning and evening appeared in response to assurances of ``police protection" which H. F. McElroy, city manager, extended when he visited the respondent's home office in Dearborn, Michigan. A FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1061 "Police protection" took other forms in addition to the assignment of a contingent of police officers to the plant. We have mentioned that the police led and flanked the caravans as they drove to and from the plant. On December 10, 1937, when the strike was declared, the U. A. W. sent between 8 and 15 pickets to the respondent's plant. Shortly thereafter, Captain Reddish of the police department ap- peared at U. A. W. headquarters and advised that unless the U. A. W. removed its pickets, they would be arrested. De Louis protested that the U. A. W. had declared a strike and was entitled to picket. To this, Reddish replied that he did not recognize that a strike existed at the respondent's plant. The U. A. W. also conferred with Otto P. Higgins, 'director of police, but he also asserted that "he couldn't see any strike at the Ford plant, and that we did not have no right to picket at the plant.""' - When Reddish left U. A. W. headquarters, he at once made good his threat to arrest the pickets. The U. A. W. then sent out another group of eight pickets. But they were also arrested immediately. In all, approximately 40 pickets were arrested on that day. Finally Reddish, accompanied by, Lieutenant Bates (who did not testify), ad- vised the U., A. W. that if it sent any additional pickets, "they were going to beat their heads in-they weren't going to arrest them." The U. A. W. then stopped dispatching pickets. However, on December 13, 1937, a Monday, the U. A. W. again sent groups of pickets to the plant and again they were arrested by the police. On this day, the police arrested approximately 300 pickets. Reddish, also informed "the women and the men who had their children down there if they did not keep their children off the picket line he was going to take them away from them and send them to reformatories or orphan homes." 146 On December 14, 1937, after the U. A. W. again sought unsuccess- fully to picket the plant, a committee called on H. F. McElroy, city manager. McElroy advised the U. A.W. to secure "an injunction, re- marking that "he would be damned glad to wash his hands of the matter." The police, nonetheless, persisted in arresting U. A. W. pickets as soon as they were placed in front of the plant. This con- tinued until December 27, 1937, when the police advised that they would allow the U. A. W. to maintain 12 or -15 pickets providing they would "walk within about 100 feet of the drive-out door." This arrangement was observed thereafter. Shortly prior to Christmas, employees were solicited for contribu- tions which eventually found their way to the police. Frank Betz testified that Willard H. Logan' and Richard Ray Holder, assistant foremen, asked him "for the dollar that each man was supposed to give 146 Neither Reddish nor Higgins testified during,the hearing 146 None of the pickets were convicted of any offense nor were any charges leveled against them . They were invariably dismissed shortly after their arrest. 11 11 1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the police department." William Edgar Wait confirmed that "my foreman came up and asked me fora dollar for a Christmas present for the police department." He also alleged that he was asked to contrib- ute 5 cents towards a "broken glass" fund. This money was used to repair automobile windshields smashed as a result of strife between employees in and out of the -caravans. Robert Gleaves, an assistant foreman, called as a witness by the respondent, admitted that he had taken up a collection "about the 20th of December" for the "broken glass" fund. He testified, in addition, that he "understood later that some of the money,-there was a donation made to some of the [police] officers." 147 The record does not disclose who made this "donation" or the amount thereof. Since, however, a collection was made in the respondent's plant,, under its auspices, and by its supervisory offi- cials, we must consider that the "donation" to the police came from the respondent. Inasmuch as the police undertook unduly to inter- fere with the right of employees "to engage in concerted activities," the respondent has by this payment, aside from any agreement with McElroy, ratified and adopted the course of interference pursued by the police.148 We find, accordingly, that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 5. The interviews in March and April 1938; the "voluntary dismissals" During the pendency of the hearing in this proceeding, the respond- ent directed supervisory employees, from general foremen down, and Blue Card Union leaders to visit,the homes of employees listed in the complaint to ascertain if they knew that they were named therein and if they desired to allow their names to remain in the complaint. Em- ployees were also invited to make a "statement" on the issues in the case. Tho§e interviews were sponsored by the respondent's attor- neys.149 With few exceptions, the supervisors interviewed employees who had formerly worked under their direction. 147 In addition , Oglesby B. Johnson testified that he was paid by the respondent to serve police at a restaurant he maintained across the street from the plant He alleged that the police were regularly served at a restaurant near his owned , by a Mr. Lanning Since, however, this restaurant closed early in the evening, Captain Reddish of the police depart- ment , asked Johnson to serve the police at his place . Reddish directed Johnson to honor meal tickets that the police officers would present and agreed that "he would take them to the [respondent 's] plant and turn them in himself " But Reddish failed to secure pay- ment for these tickets and Johnson was obliged to present them to the respondent himself. For eight tickets which lie turned in, he received a check for $8 in return None of this testimony was denied. It will be recalled , in addition , that Doss admitted that in October 1937, the respondent paid ' about $100 to feed the police. ' See footnote 56, supra. 118 Cf Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al and Steel Workers Organizing Com- mittee, 14 N L. R B 539 ; Matter of Chicago Casket Company and Casket Makers Union, No 19306, affiliated with the American Fedetatlon of Labor, 21 N L R. B 235 149 None of the respondent 's attorneys testified concerning these interviews. A -FORD-MOTOR COMPANY - 1063 The representatives of the respondent who engaged in these inter- views insisted, when called to testify, that they merely asked employees if they were aware that they were named in the complaint and if they wished to withdraw therefrom. If the employee answered affirma- tively, he was, taken to the respondent's attorneys. If he declined to withdraw, the interview was dropped. The Board, however, produced over 70 employees who had been interviewed and who testified, with variations, that they were told that they would not have a chance for reinstatement if they continued their "suit" against the respondent. This was explained to Thomas P. O'Meara in the following way : "If I was working for you and I sued you, you know you are going to get rid of me as soon as possible and Mr. Ford is going to do the same if you don't withdraw." In addition, it is said, there were open hints of reemployment "when business picked up" if the employees agreed to drop their names from the complaint. Despite the respondent's assertion that these interviews were re- stricted to inquiries concerning the employees' desire to have their names in the complaint, several of these representatives of the re- spondent admitted that they had been asked about the chances for reemployment. And there was more than a suggestion in the testi- mony of these witnesses that they held out to employees they inter- viewed the possibility of a job. Thus, while John McDaniel, foreman in the stock department, was not certain if he informed John Newman that he would be reemployed when production increased, he admitted that "if I didn't make that statement, I would tell him that." 150 William Sproat, an organizer for the Blue Card Union, admitted that he told William O. Black that "the, reason he wasn't working" was that "production was slow." 151 When Charles R. Lemon and Walter R. Cantrell, assistant foremen, called on Grover S. Stoddard, they asked him, Cantrell admitted, "how he felt about going back to work." 152 After John C. Cantrell, assistant foreman, had made two calls upon Lester Hunt without finding him home, Hunt came to Cantrell's house and inquired if he could secure a job. Cantrell testi- fied that "I told him he could if production picked up." 153 Herman C. Kemper testified that.he informed John T. Young that "I heard his name was on the complaint and wanted to know how he felt about it" and that Young replied, "I would go to work-if they would-call me tomorrow." Obviously Young would not have answered 5O The respondent allegedly would not rehire Newnan "regardless of state of production " See Section III-P, infra. iu The respondent allegedly would not rehire Black "regardless of state of production." 153 Cantrell claimed that they visited Stoddard "to see if we could find a place to fish." But when Lemon was asked if he was looking for a fishing place, he replied, "No,i sir. I went down to see Stoddard about his name on the complaint." The respondent allegedly would not rehire Stoddard "regardless of state of production." lea The respondent allegedly would not rehire Hunt "regardless of state of production." - 1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in this way if there had not been some discussion about reinstate- ment.154 The respondent persuaded a total of 272 employees to sign these "voluntary dismissals" as they were entitled 155 Since, by signing these dismissals, the employees ostensibly forfeited any opportunity of reinstatement through a Board order, it is likely, as the witnesses called by the Board testified, that they',were told they could, secure reinstatement only if they dropped their "suit against the respondent and that this warning was accompanied by half-promises of reinstate- ment if they did withdraw from the proceeding. That the respondent sent supervisors on these interviews with authority to recommend employees for reinstatement ]ends support to our finding that em- ployees were warned to withdraw from this proceeding in order to obtain reinstatement. As presented to these employees, whose union had been systemati- cally replaced by the Blue Card Union, this inducement to sign dis- missals was tantamount to a requirement that,-they abandon their union as well as their right to seek redress from the Board.15, Under the circumstances, we find that in seeking to persuade employees to withdraw from the complaint in order to qualify for reinstatement, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent is of the opinion, apparently, that the Board cannot make any remedial award in favor of the employees who signed these "voluntary" dismissals. The Act, however, does not confer "a private right to the unemployed man to be surrendered for a price." 157 It is designed to eliminate obstructions to commerce resulting from the denial by employers of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Congress did not intend that employers could, through private settle- The respondent allegedly would not rehire Young "regardless of state of production " The respondent used a printed form which provided : "Comes now ( name of em- ployee ) and states that he is the (employee ) mentioned in the Exhibit attached to the complaint in the above-entitled case, and asks that his name be stricken from said Exhibit and complaint and that said complaint be dismissed as to the undersigned for the reason that undersigned did not authorize anyone to place his name on said Exhibit and has no complaint against the Ford Motor Company " 158 These employees were, in addition , particularly sensitive to the inducement which they were offered. As stated in National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corporation and Independent Chemical Workers Union , 113 F. ( 2d) 232, "One would be blind to the spirit which dominates his creative life in his company not to realize the destructive effect on the laborer of the loss of his place in the organization. 'Not to belong' has in it all the poignant misery that O'Neil has shown in his tragedy of the Hairy Ape. The loss of a job means much more to an American Laborer than the absence of his pay check. There is the deeper fear that he aiid his family may become one of the permanent class of the jobless and indigent ." It was from these employees who did not "belong" that the respondent sought its "voluntary" dismissals. 157 National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corporation, et at., 113 F . ( 2d) 232. See also Amalgamated Utility Workers , Affiliated with Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Congress of Industrial Organizations v., Consolidated Edison Com- pany of New York, Inc., et al., 309 U. S 261 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1065 ment with their employees, relieve themselves of the obligations im- posed by the Act. These dismissals,'in consequence, cannot in any way operate to divest the Board of its authority to inquire whether the respondent has committed any unfair labor practices and, if it is found that the respondent has, to order it to cease and desist therefrom-and take such affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of the Act. F. The respondent's contentions as to its method o l reinstatement 1. The Board's motions The complaint alleges that the respondent "locked out" and "refused to reinstate" 967 named employees because they "joined, formed, and assisted" the U. A. W. and refused to join the Blue Card Union. In defense to the charge that it discriminatorily "refused to reinstate" members of the U. A. W., the respondent introduced evidence to prove that after the sit-down strike on April 2, 1937, these employees engaged in a slow-down strike, intentionally damaged tools, parts, and ma- terials, refused to obey their supervisors, improperly performed their jobs, frequently left their places of work, and engaged in other forms of misconduct and insubordination. It was also alleged that the U. A. W. forced employees to join the U. A. W. or to pay dues after they had joined by deliberately interfering with their work.'58 These activities were open and notorious, the respondent claims, but because the U. A. W. continuously threatened a sit-down strike when disci- plinary measures were suggested, it was unable to discharge or other- wise punish any of these employees during production of the 1937 model. In November 1937, however, when the plant reopened for production of the 1938 model, the respondent allegedly selected em- ployees for reinstatement on the basis of their record on the 1937 model. For the 1938 model season, the respondent required approxi- mately one-half as many employees as it had on its pay roll during production- of the .1937 model.- But it is not merely that the re- spondent claims to have preferred one employee over another in light of the drop in production. The respondent named 704 employees whom allegedly it would not reemploy "regardless of state of produc- tion." 1e9 The respondent maintains that these employees were denied reinstatement in November 1937 and barred from future employment primarily for their activities from April to September 1937.100 "'We elaborate on the details in Section III-F-3, infra - _ ""These employees are listed in Appendix A. This Appendix contains the names of those 704 employees whom the respondent allegedly would not reinstate "regardless of state of production" in Group I ; Group II lists the names of those employees whom the respondent allegedly did not need , or who resigned, or for some other reason, unrelated to any acts of misconduct , were not reinstated. 180 The respondent also claims to have considered the activities of certain of these em- ployees during the plant shut-down from September 17 to October 12, 1937 , and again when the plant reopened in November 1937. See the section entitled "The Remedy." 1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The presentation of this defense with respect to the employees in the chassis department, one of the six major departments, consumed over 12,000 pages of testimony in addition to many exhibits. Shortly after the respondent had begun to introduce similar evidence with respect to the trim department counsel for the Board made a two-fold motion addressed to "the future course of evidence to be admitted in this hearing." This motion was first to strike those portions of the complaint charging that the respondent had refused to bargain with the U. A. W. and secondly to preclude the respondent from intro- ducing additional evidence as to the manner in which it selected em- ployees for reinstatement. And in view of the dismissal of the alleged refusal-to bargain, counsel urged that evidence of whether the U. A. W. had an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate unit was immaterial. In support of The motion to bar additional evidence on the manner of reinstatement, counsel for the Board explained that since it was charged that the respondent had "locked out" its employees in order to discourage membership in the U. A. W., the respondent should be directed, if this allegation was sustained, to reinstate all employees to the positions they held prior to the effective clay of the lock-out. The method of selection for reinstatement after the plant reopened, counsel averred, "goes to the remedy and not to the problem of unfair labor practice in itself." Since the manner of reinstatement related only to remedy, counsel explained, the charge in the complaint that the respondent had "refused to reinstate" 967 named employees meant merely "that these men are not now back at work and have not been back at work, and the respondent has not reinstated them." In other words, as clarified by counsel for the Board, the charge that upon reopening the plant the respondent discriminated in selecting em- ployees for reinstatement within the meaning of Section 8 (3) was dropped from the complaint.1d1 Counsel for the Board also explained that "The motion does not include any request for a ruling at this time upon the admissibility of evidence offered to prove that any particular individuals were guilty of misconduct or sabotage, when such evidence is offered for the Board's consideration of what an appropriate remedy might be in respect to such individuals. Counsel for the Board, of course, re- serves their right to make any objection to the admissibility of such evidence, or other evidence when offered, upon any grounds which they may deem proper." 'a In this connection , counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to allege that the respondent discriminated against the - employees . named therein on October, 15, 1937, and not on November 15, 1937, as originally stated. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 2. The Trial Examiner 's ruling "1067 The Trial Examiner made the following rulings on the Board's motion : - 1. Granted the motion to strike the alleged refusal to bargain. 2. Granted the motion to amend the date of the alleged dis- criminations from November 15, 1937, to October 15, 1937. - 3. Ruled that "evidence of poor work, inefficiency, insubordina- tion, interference with the work of others, leaving work, sabotage, violence, etc., will not be admissible for the purpose of showing coercion in securing members or in collecting dues for the U. A. W. A."_ 4. Ruled such evidence inadmissible as a defense to the charge that the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. ' 5. Ruled such evidence inadmissible as a defense to the charge that the respondent dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Blue Card Union or contributed financial or other support to it within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. - 6. Ruled such evidence inadmissible as a defense to the charge that the respondent discriminatorily "locked out" employees on October 15, 1937. 7. Ruled such evidence cumulative and therefore inadmissible "as showing the basis of selection for reinstatement as of about November 15, 1937." 1S2 8. Ruled-such evidence inadmissible "with respect to the issue of back pay in the event that the Board should decide such persons should be reinstated. The same rule of exclusion would apply to the issue of reinstatement except that evidence of sabotage and violence will be, received." 9. Ruled that lie would not strike such evidence already in the record but would not permit the Board "to rebut, explain or deny such testimony." 162 With respect to this ruling, the Trial Examiner indicated ',for the guidance of the parties how previously given evidence would have been affected if the ruling had been in effect when evidence respecting the chassis department was being offered. The respondent would have been permitted to offer the testimony of General Foreman Gregg to establish generally the procedure he followed , that he talked'with various assistants regarding all men terminated about October 15, 1937 , and selected the men to work based on his appraisement of their respective efficiency , experience , ability to do combined operations ,,and so, forth ; but evidence respecting what was said about any individual or the individual appraisement of workers would have been rejected . The respondent would have further been permitted to offer testimony of the men with whom Gregg discussed the workers to establish the fact that such discussions were held, their number, the times and places of such discussions, but the details of the discussions as to the individual men would be rejected." 1 1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10. Ruled that offers of proof of the evidence rejected would be received. The respondent, of course, offered no objection to the dismissal of the alleged refusal to bargain 163 although it requested leave to file motions to strike evidence no longer competent on the complaint -as amended 164 It did object to the amendment changing the date of the alleged discrimination from November 15, 1937, to October -15, 1937, as a fundamental "change in theory" since "it was plain" that when the complaint was issued "the discrimination, thereby in- tended to be alleged was alleged discrimination in rehiring and in refusing to rehire" and that "no lock-out or dischaege could have been thereby intended." This objection, however, flies in the teeth of the allegation in the complaint that the respondent "locked out" its employees in order to discourage membership in the U. A. W. and of the evidence introduced by the Board during the hearing. We believe and find that it is without merit. The restriction of evidence of poor w ork,'inefficiency, insubordina- tion, and interference,'in order to show that the U. A. W. possessed a coerced majority was proper, of course, in the light of the dismissal of the alleged refusal - to bargain. It is clear, also that the Trial Examiner was correct in refusing to receive such evidence as a defense to alleged violations of Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Act in so far as it was charged that the respondent interfered with. restrained, and coerced its employees or dominated, interfered with, or supported the Blue Card Union in respects other than its manner of reinstatement on the 1938 model. Nor is such evidence a proper defense to the alle- gation the- the respondent "locked out"' its employees on October 15, 1937, in order to discourage membership in the U. A. W. - Before passing on the Trial Examiner's ruling that such evidence is cumulative with respect to the "basis of selection of reinstatement as of about November 15, 1937," it is well to consider an amplification of this ruling which the Trial Examiner made -at the request of the re- spondent. We have mentioned that counsel for the Board stated that the complaint, as-clarified, charged as an unfair labor practice that the respondent "locked out" its employees in order to discourage member- ship in the U. A. , W. but not that the.respondent discriminated in- selecting employees 'for reinstatement within the meaning of Section 8, (3) of the Act. ,The manner of reinstatement, counsel for the Board urged,'"goes to the remedy and not to the problem of unfair labor prac- pus The U A W objected to the Board's motion Its objection is hereby overruled 104 The respondent explained that "We have to move to strike that evidence .. . or otherwise we might subsequently be is the position of being charged with admitting the truth of it merely because we failed to rebut it " These and other motions to strike were subsequently filed ; the Trial Examiner granted several parts of these motions and rejected the rest. His rulings ,are hereby affirmed. ' FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1069 tice in itself." In his discussion of these matters, the Trial Examiner stated that if the Board determined that the respondent had discrim- inatorily "locked out" its employees, then "as I see it the Board would (1) determine the bona fides of the reduction of production of the 1938 model; (2) would ascertain and include in its order a general or spe- cific statement of the method to be used in any laying off of men with- out discrimination." In devising such a non-discriminatory method of reinstatement, the Trial Examiner added, the Board would con- sider, inter alia, the method of reinstatement used by the respondent in November and December 1937. In other words, if it is found that the respondent "locked out" or discharged its employees on October 15, 1937, in order to discourage membership in the U. A. W., then all the discharged employees would be entitled to reinstatement. However, if there were not a sufficient number of jobs available for all em- ployees, then as many employees as necessary would be laid off, "with- out discrimination," so long as jobs were not available for them. If the respondent had proceeded without discrimination in selecting em- ployees for reinstatement in November 1937, that would of course be the same as reinstating all employees and then laying them off "with out discrimination." We therefore agree, as is implicit in the Trial Examiner's ruling, that evidence of the respondent's method of reinstatement is material in the determination of an appropriate rem- edy whether or not it is charged as an unfair labor practice in the complaint."(',' - , Consequently, (1y-en though counsel for the Board dropped the charge that the respondent-had infringed Section 8 (3) of the Act in rein- stating employees on its 1938 model, the Trial Examiner's ruling spe- cifically retains the respondent's method of reinstatement on its 1938 model as an issue in connection with the remedy for the alleged lock- put. Thus, in its objections to the Trial Examiner's ruling, counsel for the respondent urged that the additional evidence it sought to in- troduce was relevant on the question of remedy, as well as with respect to other issues remaining in the case.166 And, pursuant to the Trial Examiner's ruling, the respondent prepared and tendered elaborate offers of proof of the evidence it intended to introduce concerning the alleged acts of misconduct committed by the employees named in the complaint. 1.117 In view of the respondent's objections, we shall reverse the Trial Examiner's ruling, admit these offers of proof in evidence, 161 Counsel for the Board argued, as an alternative basis for the motion, that if it was established that the respondent had discriminatorily "locked out': its employees, then evi- dence of its method of reinstatement was immaterial we need not elaborate on this point as it was not adopted by the Trial Examiner in his ruling lee That is, the alleged violations of Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Act '' The hearing was adJourned 2 months in order to enable the respondent to prepare these offers of proof They occupy 14 volumes and thousands of pages of typewritten material. .. • 1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I and consider them as the testimony of the witnesses named therein in so far as they relate to the matters excluded by the Trial Examiner as cumulative.168 The Trial Examiner was also asked to clarify his ruling that evidence of "sabotage and violence" would be, received on "the issue of reinstatement." In response he explained that if the Board decided that the respondent had "locked out" its' employees on October 15, 1937, "it would, as I see it, in carrying out its functions under the Act, determine if their reinstatement would effectuate the policies of the Act as provided in Section 10 (c). As bearing on this deter- mination or exercise of discretion the decisions show that the Board has permitted employers to present certain types of evidence such as the commission of a felony or destruction of respondent's property during a labor dispute." At that time, he also revised his ruling to provide that, such evidence would not be received until after the com- pletion of the alleged unfair labor practice issues of the case. Subse- quently, the Trial Examiner suggested that the respondent submit offers of what it intended to prove under the so-called issue of "sabo- tage and violence" so that he could rule upon its admissibility. In accordance with this ruling, the -respondent reoffered its offers of proof of employee misconduct allegedly considered in selecting em- ployees for reinstatement, an offer of proof concerning the sit-down 'strike on April 2 and 3, 1937, an offer of proof concerning the events that occurred between September 17 and October 12, 1937, and all the oral testimony previously tendered 169 In his ruling on these offers, the Trial Examiner rejected the written offers of proof "insofar as they present matters on which testimony or evidence has not been received" 170 and admitted the oral testimony "only to the extent that such testimony and evidence is in the record; otherwise it is rejected.'. To the extent that we have previously reversed the Trial Examiner and received the respondent's offers of proof on employee misconduct, his ruling on the question of the Board's discretion in reinstating 368That is, "evidence of poor work , inefficiency, insubordination , mteiference with the work of others , leaving work, sabotage , violence , etc." The offers of proof purport to con- ,tain the testimony of the general foremen of each department and the supporting testimony ,of• assistant foremen, leadmen , and individuals in each department . For a typical offer of proof , concerning one individual , see footnote 189, infra. 1W The offers of proof on the sit-down strike and the events between September 17 and October 12 , 1937, were previously tendered as a result of the following exclusionary rulings of the Trial Examiner After considerable evidence had been introduced concerning the sit;down strike, the Trial Examiner ruled "as immaterial and irrelevant any further testimony with reference to the happenings of April 2nd ' and April 3rd, 1937; and that includes the question of damage." The Tiial ' Examiner excluded additional evidence of the events between September 17 and October 12, 1937 , upon the respondent's admission that further evidence of that character would be "cumulative." We have reviewed these offers of proof and consider the evidence therein contained , in so far as it was excluded by the Trial 'Examiner's rulings , as cumulative . We aflrm'these 'rtilings of the Trial Examiner. 170 That is, rejected under previous rulings of the Trial Examiner. FORD MOTOR -COMPANY 1071 employees found to have been discriminatorily dischai ged is modified. .In all other respects, we affirm the Trial Examiner 's ruling. In our section entitled "Remedy," we consider the evidence in the record on the question of reinstatement. 3. The alleged misconduct of the U. A. W. According to the respondent, the U. A. W. commenced its course of misconduct, interference, insubordination, and sabotage immediately after the sit-down strike. It continued in this way without inter- ruption, it is said, until the plant closed on September 17, 1937, for the seasonal change of model. As we have observed, although these activities of U. A. W. members were supposed to have been open and notorious, the respondent admits that none of these employees were discharged or disciplined in any other way during this period. In explanation, the respondent has asserted that the U. A. W. in- variably threatened a sit-down strike when disciplinary measures were suggested and consequently that it was unable to punish em- ployees until after it reopened its plant in November 1937. Then, as we have noted, 704 were allegedly barred from all future employ- ment "regardless of state of production" primarily because of the. manner in which they had conducted themselves during the period from April 5, 1937, to September 17, 1937. - Although the misdeeds ascribed to each of these 704 employees varied in extent and frequency, there were certain offenses common to a majority or a large number of empluyees.171 For one thing, over 450 employees were charged with deliberate participation in a slow- down strike which materially interfered with production and fre- quently brought the assembly lines to a complete stop. In its offers of proof, the respondent described the slow-down strike as follows: 171 [They] began to slow down in [their] work shortly after the sit-down strike of April 2, 1937. .. . [They] frequently left [their] operation without permission and loafed iii other sections of respondent's plant. [They] loafed on [their] job so much of the time that it was fre- quently necessary to have a utility man or other employee do [their] work.173 "' In tootnote 189, infra, we have set forth an entire offer of proof covering the alleged misdeeds of one employee during this 6-month period 172 The offers of proof, as we have said, include all departments but the chassis which was covered by direct evidence during the hearing The evidence introduced, by the respondent concerning the chassis department, is similar in all material respects to the matters contained in the offers of proof The stock department was covered in part (luring the hearing In its offer of proof concerning the stock department, the iespoudent restated its complaints against the employees of that depaitment 173 The offers of_proof treat each employee separately However, we have interposed the plural for the singular wherever the one statement. as above, applies to many employees 1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - In addition, it is said, these employees instructed others to slow down in their work. Througliout the summer, and more particularly for the first few months after the sit-down strike, the respondent'claims, the U. A. W. conducted its organizing campaign in the plant during working hours, in a manner that seriously interfered with production. At least 200 employees were accused of this breach of discipline, described in the offers of proof as follows : Beginning shortly after April 2, 1937, and continuing through- out the summer [they] circulated through the maintenance [or body-construction, chassis, paint, stock, and trim] department, soliciting respondent's employees to join the U. A. W. ' A. and threatened said employees with bodily harm or with loss of em- ployment or both if they refused to join said union. Said solic- itations took place during working hours at respondent's plant, and interfered with the work of the men so solicited and inter- rupted the normal operation of the respondent's plant. [They] repeatedly told the respondent's employees that they would be subjected to physical violence if said employees refused to join the' UAWA. Said threats took place during the spring and summer of 1937. Dues were collected in like manner, it is charged : Beginning shortly after April 2, 1937, and continuing throughout the summer [they] habitually collected dues in respondent's plant from respondent's employees during working hours. [They] forced said employees to pay dues in the UAWA against their wills by threats of physical violence to said employees or to their families or both; or by threats to said employees of expulsion from the plant and loss of their, employment. When employees refused to join the U. A. W. or pay their dues, the 'respondent claims, the U. A. W. immediately enforced its threat of physical violence and bodily harm. Nuts and bolts were thrown at these recalcitrant employees, glue was poured in their clothing, tacks placed on their stools, heated rivets placed in their pockets, and weld- ing arcs applied to parts of their body. In addition, it is claimed, U. A. W. members deliberately interfered with their work. Their tools were damaged or hidden; equipment on which they were work- ing was destroyed; parts which they had installed were removed. Thus, in its offers of proof, the respondent has alleged that a "large number" of U. A. W. members- repeatedly tormented and interfered with the work of other em- ployees who had refused to join UAWA Union No. 249, or to pay dues to said union, by hiding, damaging and putting glue and FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1073 grease on their tools and stock, by damaging automobiles and equipment on which said employees were working, by forcibly taking them away from their operation, and by threatening them with bodily harm, and thereby so frightened, coerced and intimi- dated many employees that they joined or paid dues to said union involuntarily and against their wills. During the summer of 1937 [they] tormented and interfered with the work of more and more employees in the respects above mentioned and thereby so frightened, coerced, and intimidated many employees that they paid dues involuntarily .to said U. A. W. A. Union No: 249.' 74 Not only was the respondent unable to impose disciplinary meas- tires to curb any of the foregoing practices, it is said, but the U. A. W. emphatically instructed employees that it was unnecessary for them to obey their supervisors. Thus, the respondent has alleged in its offers of proof that U. A. W. members "told respondent's employees that the UAWA was running the plant and that they did not have to obey, or take orders from respondent's foremen, leadmen, or others in au- thority." In fact, foremen were told repeatedly that they "no longer had any authority at respondent's plant" and "that the Union was giving orders." On several occasions during the summer, it is alleged, Baron De Louis "told L. E. Shepard, assistant foreman in charge of No. 4 trim line, that he (De Louis) and other UAWA union men intended to make Shepard's job so difficult for him that Shepard would be forced to quit work or to resign and that Henry Rees would then be made foreman as Shepard's successor." When foremen attempted to perform their duties as supervisors, they were threatened with bodily harm. Thus, it is alleged,- Oscar C. Chance "repeatedly told Walkenhorst [V. G. Walkenhorst, assistant foreman] that he (Chance) was a steward and that he would physically assault Walken- 114 Thus, it was alleged that Oscar Chance "continually interfered with the work of Lawrence Brooke , who operated the air press in which the padding and springs were pressed together , by pushing Brooke away from the air press and thereby pieventmg him from performing his operation" ; that Vestel Millington "continually tormented J G Fonts, who hauled glass boxes to the second floor by throwing empty boxes in front of his truck, greasing the handles of his truck , tripping him while be was pushing his truck, pulling cotter keys trorn his truck axles and refusing to help him unload heavy boxes" ; that Earl Francis "dropped or closed desk [ sic] lids which were left open at the time the car bodies reached the hardware line and thereby caused Frank Young who installed the luggage compartment shelf board to be delayed in his work since Young had to open tile desk [ sic] lids in order to perform his operation . . " ; that Ralph Malone "continually tormented Henry McCreary who installed door panels , by placing door fasteners in the holes in the doors before the car bodies passed down tile conveyor to McCreary It was necessary in such cases for McCreary to remove these door fasteners before he could complete his operation " ; that Ellis C Storms "deliberately bad ordered the work of Emerson Moyer, turn -table man , by hitting the patent plate with a hammer, thereby making it necessary for Moyer to install new plates" ; that George W Bishop "continually tormented Jack Park , who, placed the mouldings inside the car -bodies, by removing the mouldings or hiding them and then accusing Park of not having done his work " 1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD horst and drive him out of the plant if Walkenhorst again attempted to, give orders or instructions to Chance or any other steward." Persuaded that "foremen no longer had authority ," it is alleged, employees completely disregarded their supervisors . When A. H. Wirth was told that' he was not painting stripes on automobiles the proper color , the respondent claims, he replied that "I am painting them the color I like and neither you nor the Ford Motor Company are going to tell me what color to paint the strip." Floyd Eddy, it is alleged , "refused to sand small parts on special jobs such as headlights and tail lights and he told Holmes [Oran Holmes, assistant foreman] that if he, Holmes, wanted them sanded he would have to get somebody else to do it." So, also , the respondent has stated in its offers-of proof, Chester Taylor "refused to pull printed fenders by himself , although it was customary for one man to pull primed front fenders (3 to a bar ) and for two men to pull rear fenders (5 to a bar ). He stated he had orders not to do so and that wasn't going to pull prime along, [sic] although he had done so prior to the sit-down strike, always being able to handle this job unassisted, or in case of rear fenders with one man working with him." Others, allegedly, refused to trade jobs , repair imperfect work, run errands, remove "tobacco juice" they had expectorated on cars , or disregarded the instructions of their supervisors in other respects. The threat of a sit-down strike, the respondent maintains, was used both to prevent the imposition of disciplinary measures and to enforce U. A. W. demands upon the respondent . Thus , the offers of proof allege , "on one occasion when Eighinger asked Ben E. Southwick to help Howard J. Allen install top decks on a 'B' panel job, Minshall walked over to Southwick, cursed him, grabbed him by the arm and ordered him to go back to Southwick 's operation on the jobs. Minshall then told Eighinger that he would call a sit- down strike if Southwick attempted to help Allen. " So, too, it is said, the U . A. W. "threatened a sit-down strike on one occasion after Shepard had ordered John R. Stallcup, an employee on No. 4 trim line, to go home for the day following Stallcup 's refusal to change a wrong moulding which Stallcup had installed in ' a car body. On the occasion in question Rees, Walter P. Mitchell , and several other men on No. 4 line [announced ] that they would declare a sit-down strike unless Stallcup was permitted to remain . Shepard, after re- ceiving instructions from witness to allow Stallcup to remain, re- ported that the above men had remained idle for about ten minutes- until Shepard had recalled his order to send Stallcup home for the day and that production fell behind , seven jobs as a result of the delay." The 'offers of proof and the record abound in other instances of threatened sit-down strikes by the U. A., W. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1075 Virtually all of the 704 employees whom the respondent allegedly ,would not reinstate "regardless of state of production" were accused of performing their work improperly. Some were said to have been careless and negligent and as a consequence their operation had to be repaired or reworked by others. Thus, the offers of proof state that .Roy Kneale "repeatedly failed to properly weld the left half of the rear section to the middle section of the underbottom in that he omitted many' welds and made many incomplete welds by hurrying through his work." Cecil D. Jent, it is claimed, "placed a number of headliner retainers too high or too low and thereby caused'poor door fifs and made.-it impossible to properly install headliners." In many cases, as a result of such negligence and carelessness, the-re- spondent maintains, automobile parts or equipment and factory tools were damaged or destroyed. Thus, it is charged that -Stanley G. Street "used his electric screwdriver so carelessly that he tore many header cloths and scratched the paint eff the brackets through which the screws were driven"; that Walter E. Benz and a number of other employees in the trim department "dropped many screws in the glass runs and window' regulators, thereby breaking or chipping the glass and damaging the regulators"; that Willie C. Eckinger "frequently reset his rheostat which governed the pressure of the welding appa- ratus so high that he burned holes in the floor pan and panels"; that Raymond Wilson frequently "put his foot on the control handle of the riveter while the riveter was lying on the floor unused and thereby battered the heads of both the set or base at the end of the plunger as well as the plunger itself... '. [and] then stood and laughed about the damage he had done." Not only were employees negligent in the performance of their duties, the respondent claims, but many entirely omitted portions of the work assigned to them. Thus, in its offers of proof, the respond- ent has alleged that Willard L. Wood "continually left screws out of window regulators . . . [and] repeatedly failed to oil door hinges and remote controls"; that Melvin D. Forrester "failed to clinch the scuff plates on the front end . . . in order to hold them tightly and to prevent rattles . . . [and] failed to install many door bumpers"; that John P. O'Neil "neglected to blow off many of his jobs and re- peatedly failed to use a cleaner on jobs that were soiled ... [and] omitted to steam many mohair jobs and thereby left many cushions in a wrinkled condition." When an employee performed his work negligently or omitted por- tions of his job, he interfered with other employees working on the same assemblyline. In its offers of proof, the respondent has alleged, typically, that "Pike left out m 'any dome light wires and thereby in- terfered with the headliner men, who were not supposed to install headliners until the light wires were installed. On some occasions the 441843-42-vol 31-69 1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD headliner men did not notice that the light wires were not in 'the jobs. It then became necessary for the utility men to remove a part of the headliner in order to install the wire." So , also, it is said, Lawrence S. Buchanan "failed to tighten the nut on the aerial on the inside of the body." In such cases it was necessary to 'remove [the] entire windshield header in order to reach the aerial and to tighten the nut. - Other employees , as we have mentioned above, were said to have "frequently left [their ] operation without notifying [their] foreman or any of the utility men ." Instead of working, the respondent claims, these employees loafed in the plant, played baseball , slept during work- ing hours , "shot craps ," matched nickels , manufactured blackjacks and cool-machine slugs, and wasted their time in various other ways. Many employees were accused by the respondent of wanton destruc- tion of tools and materials or other serious and costly breaches of in- dustrial discipline . Thus, in its offer of proof concerning the trim department (and the body construction , chassis, maintenance , mainte- nance clean-up, paint, and stock departments were said to have been equally as bad), the respondent has alleged , for example , that E. Gene Glines "on several occasions threw his glass jig" and "2x4 boards or braces into the conveyor and thereby broke the conveyor chains, and the sprocket" as well as the glass jig itself; that Mack J. Roper "dam- aged many drill motors and drill bits by throwing motors on the floor" ; that Joe P: Woolf "became angry on repeated occasions and threw seats to the floor with such force as to break the seat boards and damage the sides "; that Orville Hammer "deliberately pushed car- bodies off the turn table at the end of the line and thereby damaged 'deck lids and other parts of the carbodies"; that William H. Monroe "frequently became angry and pushed cowls off the line and thereby damaged them"; that William A. Sayles "deliberately punched holes through the headliner with his punch, although 'his operation had no connection whatever with the headliners "; that Ralph Malone "fre- quently ripped windcords from the car bodies or cut them with his scissors , although his operation had no connection with the wind- cords"; that Earl Francis "wrote vile and vulgar phrases derogatory to Henry Ford on the car bodies" and "repeatedly scratched the car bodies with sharp instruments while writing phrases of various kinds on the bodies"; that although Claude Jeter "did not handle either glue or grease on his operation he repeatedly smeared glue and grease _on carbodies and on the upholstery"; that Baron De Louis "told Clyde Gottstein whose job it was to number the cushions and seat backs, to mix up the numbers in order to slow down operations in the cushion department" ; that Steve Ardito "rubbed out or changed the numbers on lazy backs" which were "written in chalk on the cushion to corre- spond with the number of-the job to which it belongs "; that although FORD MOTOR -COMPANY- 1077 it was Carter E. Page's duty to read the bad order tags placed on damaged or imperfect cars by the inspectors and to make the repairs noted thereon, "he repeatedly tore off the tags and threw them away, without making any repairs whatever on the bad order job"; that Cecil M. Thompson repeatedly cursed Wadsworth [James W. Wads- worth, a fellow employee in the glass section of the trim department] because Wadsworth did not slow- down and rubbed off the markings which Wadsworth placed on the windshield to indicate that he had in- stalled it"; that Everett Jones "frequently pulled the safety cable and stopped the line without permission from any foreman or anyone in authority." Despite the seriousness and extensiveness of the offenses of U. A. W. members which we have just described, the respondent admits, as we have mentioned, that none of these 704 employees was punished or disciplined when these offenses were committed. For- 6 months, the respondent would have us believe, this U. A. W. campaign of miscon- duct, interference, insubordination, and sabotage continued without restriction despite the fact that the respondent was fully aware of the names of the employees guilty of these offenses. Only in Novem- ber 1937, when it reopened its plant, the respondent claims, was it pos- sible to eliminate these 704 employees for their deliberate misdeeds in the plant during production of the 1937 model. 4. Contradictions in the respondent's defense a. Classification of employees named in the complaint Although the respondent allegedly determined upon reopening 'its plant in November 1937 that it would- not reinstate 704, employees "regardless of state of production," it failed to advise these employees of this decision. Even as late as October 1938, the respondent was reluctant to state that these employees had been barred from all future employment because of their misdeeds during production of the 1937 model .115 Before the respondent had identified for the record those of the employees named in the complaint whom it would not rehire "regardless of state of production," it sent supervisors and various 145 Under a Missouri statute , an employer is required , upon request , to furnish an employee who has been discharged with a letter "setting forth the nature and character of service rendered by such employee to such corporation and the duration thereof, and truly stating for what cause , if any, such employee has quit such service . " ( italics ours). In August , September , and October , 1938, over 500 employees who were not rehired on the 1938 model requested and obtained such "service " letters from the respondent None of these letters contains any mention of the offenses allegedly relied upon by the respondent to bar these employees from all future employment "regardless of state of production " despite the requirement of the statute that the respondent state the "character of service rendered by such employees to such corporation " All of the letters aver that the services of these employees were terminated on October -15, 1937, "for the reason that production was discontinued." 1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Blue Card Union organizers (mainly during March and April 1938 while the Board was presenting its case) to visit employees named in (he complaint in an effort to persuade them to sign, a form statement-, purporting to withdraw their names from the complaint. As we have described above,," the employees were advised, as an inducement to subscribe to this apparent forfeiture of their opportunity to secure reinstatement through a Board order, that if they withdrew their names from the complaint, the respondent would rehire them. Only after the respondent had solicited employees to sign these dismissals, did it name for the record those 704 employees it allegedly would not reinstate "regardless of state of-production." It also listed, at the same time, a second category of 259 employees whose failure to obtain reemployment on the 1938 model, the respondent alleged, was unrelated to any acts of misconduct during the 1937 model.177 The services of a majority of these employees, it is said, were not needed as long as production was below the 1937 level.178 Others, allegedly, had obtained employment elsewhere or were otherwise unavailable for reinstatement.179 In its offers of proof relating to the body construe- lion, , inspection, maintenance, paint,'stock and trim departments, the respondent has set forth its division of the employees in these depart- inents into the two categories of employees "qualified" 180 and "un- qualified" 181 for future employment. These offers of proof were introduced into evidence in May 1939. The chassis department and portions of the stock department were covered by direct evidence during the hearing. Such evidence was introduced at times between May 12, 1938, when the respondent began the presentation of its defense, and November 1, 1938, when its evidence on the chassis department was completed.182 In soliciting employees to withdraw their names from the complaint in order to obtain reinstatement, the respondent's representatives did not distinguish between those employees subsequently marked "un- qualified" for reinstatement "regardless of state of production" and employees thereafter labeled "qualified" for reemployment. Em- plOyees in both categories were approached. There is, we believe, " See Section III-E-5 177 These figures include all of the employees named in the complaint who were locked out on October 11, 1937, and not rehired upon the reopening of the plant in November 1937. 178 There were 185 employees in this category 179 This category included 74 employees 180 That is, the employees whose services were unnecessary and those who were not available 181 That is , those employees the respondent would not reinstate "regardless of state of production." 182 The respondent ' s classification of the employees in the chassis department was sum- marized in an exhibit which the Trial Examiner rejected we shall overrule the Trial Examiner and accept this exhibit in evidence. This exhibit does not include the loading ,clock division of the chassis department. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1079 a significant relation, between the respondent's classification of the employees named in the complaint and the interviews it had conducted in March and April 1938. According to the evidence introduced by the respondent, 272 employees were induced to sign these "voluntary dismissals." Although, as we have said, the respondent solicited em- ployees in both categories, it thereafter marked 216 of these 272 em- ployees as "qualified" for reinstatement. On the other hand, 647 of the 695 employees who failed to sigh dismissals were subsequently labeled "unqualified" for reemployment. Stated otherwise, of the 259 employees marked eligible for future employment 216 had previously signed dismissals whereas only 57 of the 704 "unqualified" employees had agreed to withdraw their names from the complaint.183 The number of "qualified" employee's among those who signed dis- missals was consistently high in each of the departments in the plant. Further, among, the employees classed as unnecessary as long as pro- duction -was "below the 1937 level, over 90" per cent' had previously signed dismissals. A lower percentage prevailed among the employees who the respondent claims were not available for immediate employ- ment on the 1938 model. Again, the number of the employees who signed dismissals in each of these categories (that is, those unnecessary and those unavailable for reinstatement) was equally high in all departments. This will appear from the following table which also reveals, for each department, the small number of "unqualified" em- ployees among those who agreed to withdraw their names from the complaint. From the table below, it can be seen that only 17 of those employees whose services were supposed to have been unnecessary on the 1938 model and only 29 of the employees alleged,to have been unavailable for reinstatement, failed to sign dismissals. It is significant, we believe, that according to the respondent's offer of proof all of these employees, with the exceptions noted below, were "unavailable for reinstatement on the 1939 model 184 In other words the entire list of "qualified" employees is composed either of employees who had previously signed dismissals or those who were not available for reemployment on the 1939 model. 11s Of the 57 employees who signed releases but were nonetheless marked ineligible for future employment , 10 took the stand before they had been classified by the respondent and testified that they were induced to sign the releases either because they were promised reinstatement or warned that they would be forever disqualified from employment with the respondent if they failed to sign ; 2 others had been union stewards or officials ; 3 had. signed releases after they had been classified as "unqualified " for reinstatement. 1w, The record fails to reveal which of the " qu;ilified" employees in the 'chassis and stock department were reinstated on the 1939 model The chassis department and most of the stock department were covered by direct evidence before the respondent had commenced production of the 1939 model. Although the respondent subsequently introduced an offer of proof coveiing the entire stock department it neglected to state therein which of the employees in that department were rehired on the 1939 model. 1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The employees dis- charged on Oct 15, 1937, and not rehired on the 1938 model The employees al- legedly unavail- able for reinstate- ment on the 1938 model The employees the respondent al- legedly would not reinstate''re- gardless state of production" The employees whose services allegedly were unnecessary on the 1938 model D t tepar men Number of such employ- ees named in com- plaint Number who signed "volun- tary dis- missals" Number of such employ- ees named in com- plaint Number who signed "volun- tary dis- missals" Number of such employ- ees named in com- plaint Number who signed "volun- tary.dis- missals"- Number of such employ- ees named in com- plaint Number who signed "volun- tary dis- missals" Chassis -------------- 215 76 148 20 55 48 12 8 Loading------------- 35 15 20 2 12 11 3 2 Body---------------- 208 39 175 10 26 25 7 4 Trim--------------- 199 61 135 7 50 44 14 10 Paint---------------- 146 38 112 5 30 28 4 4 Stock---------------- 90 21 69 8 6 6 15 7 Maintenance-------- 61 15 41 4 5 5 15 6 Inspection_ ------- 8 6 3 1 1 1 4 4 Power House-------- 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1963 272 704 57 185 168 74 45 i There were four other employees named in the complaint, two in factory service, one in the chassis, and another in the paint department , Thom the respondent failed to consider during the hearing Two of these employees signed "voluntary dismissals." It appears, then, that in classifying those of the employees named in the complaint who were locked out on October 11, 1937, and not rehired upon the reopening of the plant in November 1937, the re- spondent marked the employees who signed dismissals or were un- available for reinstatement on the 1939 model as "qualified" for rein- statement and labeled the great majority of the employees who failed to withdraw their names from the complaint as "unqualified" for future employment. As we have noted, these "voluntary dismissals" were obtained several months after the respondent had allegedly con- cluded, upon reopening its plant in November 1937, that 704 named employees should be barred from all future employment "regardless of state of production." b. The failure to retain any written record of the alleged misdeeds; the entries on October 1(., 1937 As we have said, the respondent claims that it determined in No- vember 1937, upon reopening its plant, that 704 named employees should be barred from all future employment "regardless of state of production" because of the manner in which they had conducted them- selves during production of the 1937 model. In making this deter- mination, the respondent has stated, it relied merely on the recollec- tion of its supervisors and other employees, as orally reported, after, the plant had reopened in November 1937. No written records of the alleged misdeeds of these 704 employees during the period from April' through September 1937 were retained. In discharging an employee, however, the respondent customarily notes on his employment jacket the reason for his termination. It also answers with a "yes" or a FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1081 "no" the question , printed on each employment jacket, "Does em= ployee merit consideration for future employment ?" These elaborate files are maintained , presumably , so that the respondent can accu- rately determine, since its annual pay roll normally exceeds 2 ,000 em- ployees, whether particular employees should be rehired . The re- spondent would have us believe , however, that it made no effort to record the alleged offenses committed by members of the U. A. W. so that it would have an accurate guide to determine which employees, at such time as it could take disciplinary measures without fear of re- prisals, should be discharged. It is well to compare the respondent's failure to keep any written account on which to predicate this decision so vital to 704 employees with its meticulousness in completing all em- ployment jackets when it decided to abandon production at its plant in Kansas City on October 15, 1937. Then, it took pains to note on each employment jacket whether the particular employee merited consid- eration for reemployment. . For all employees discharged on October 15, 1937, the respondent answered "yes" to the question , "Does employee merit consideration for reemployment ?" C. C. Swenson , assistant chief clerk , averred that he had made these entries. He testified that upon being advised that the plant would be closed, "I started making out these termina- tion slips and there wasn't anyone else there to tell me what to put on there, so I just,used my own initiative and I put that in there be- cause I didn't know anything about the various individuals ." There- after, he called upon all general foremen to sign each employment jacket. Swenson testified that he assured these foremen that "if there was an occasion to rehire that they could give consideration at that time." All this was done while Swenson was hurriedly preparing to move the respondent 's books and records from Kansas City to, Omaha, Nebraska. If the general foremen were expected, in the event that the plant reopened , to `,`give consideration at that time " to whether particular employees merited consideration for reinstatement , then we cannot believe that Swenson would have undertaken to place a meaningless "yes" on each employment jacket and to require each general fore- man to sign or initial the employment jacket of every employee in his department." ' Swenson 's intent upon completing the jackets is, we believe, subject to one of two conclusions , each in derogation of the respondent 's defense . Either we can accept these records at their face value and find ,that the respondent recognized on October 15, 1937, that each employee discharged on that day merited consideration for reemployment or we can hold, if we assume that Swenson filled out each employment jacket in accordance with the respondent 's practice of maintaining complete records, that the activities of the U. A. W. 185-There were approximately 2,000 employment jackets. 1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - from April to September 1937 were not sufficiently serious to prompt the respondent to keep a record thereof in writing. c. The wage increases During the continuance of the alleged U. A. W. disorders, the re- spondent granted a series of wage increases which made no distinction whatever between employees subsequently reinstated and those allegedly, barred from all future employment. On June 1, 1937, almost 400 employees of approximately 2,000 employees then on the respondent's pay roll received increases of 5 cents an hour. Of this number, more than one-half were denied reinstatement in November 1937. The respondent noted on the employment jackets of these recipients that the raises were awarded for "increased efficiency." On June 19, 1937, an automatic wage increase was granted, with few exceptions, to every employee in the plant. There were over 2,000 employees on the respondent's pay Ioll at that time. Again in August 1937, the respondent awarded 5-cent raises for "increased efficiency" to approximately 144 employees.- Of this number, over 50 were refused reinstatement in November 1937. The explanation Bush gave for these wage increases was patently absurd. He testified that it was customary for the general foremen to recommend wage increases for employees "in their department. In the latter part of March 1937, Bush alleged, he requested all gen- eral foremen to submit the names of employees they belie` ed entitled to an increase. In compliance, the foremen submitted a list of deserv- ing employees on "the basis of increased efficiency." The sit-down strike in the first part of April 1937 intervened, however. and Bush did not consider wage increases again until the early,part of May 1937. At that time, he testified, he decided "to check into the older men to see whether or not it would be practical to give them an increase, and by so doing raise the morale, which was rather low at that time." Accordingly, he instructed one of his assistants to "give me the approximate number of old men in the plant." But after this assistant "had gone to work on that detail for about a week, I stopped him and told him that I didn't think that idea would work out so well." 186 Instead, Bush testified, he decided to award raises iea Bush identified an exhibit introduced into evidence by the Board as a copy of "the list that Pat O 'Neill [ his assistant ] worked up for me ." This exhibit , composed of three pages, contains the names of 52 employees in the body construction department with the date on which they were hired and the length of their service in months and days as of May 1 , 1937. Baron De Louis identified this exhibit as a seniority list which Bush had given him with the explanation that it would be completed at a later date Bush denied that he had given De Louis this list and claimed that it had disappeared from his desk, This exhibit , however, has more the appearance of a seniority list than a list of the "approximate number of old men in the plant ." Instead of containing the "old men" In the body construction department , it lists the names of employees in the order of their badge numbers beginning with 1101 . In addition , this exhibit of 3 pages and 52 names hardly represents the result of work "on that detail for about a week." FORD MOTOR COMPANY' 1083 to those employees recommended for an increase in March 1937. He then returned to each general foreman the lists- they had prepared with instructions to "recheck" these lists to eliminate the names of employees who had been laid off meanwhile. Bush testified that he directed the foreman not to makeany other changes. After "recheck- ing," the lists were submitted, to Dearborn, approved, and the increases granted on June 1, 1937. While the raises were ostensibly awarded for "increased efficiency," as noted on the employment jackets, Bush explained that this was a "standard phrase" and that the raises were in fact granted to "raise the morale." To accept -Bush's testimony, we must believe that the respondent awarded over 200 wage increases to employees whom it would have discharged but for the repeated U. A. W. threat of a sit-down strike. We consider this premise untenable. In the first place, it is highly improbable that the respondent would have granted any wage increases during the continuances of conditions such as were described in the preceding section. But if it did award increases to "raise the morale," as Bush testified, certainly it would not have selected employees allegedly responsible for bringing it down. Inasmuch as the March recommendations were returned to the general foreman, it would have been simple for them to strike from their lists the names of those employees whose conduct since the original recommendations dis- qualified them from increases for "increased efficiency." Allegedly, the foremen were instructed to remove only the names of those em- ployees who had since, been laid off. But this could have been ac- complished more expeditiously by the personnel director who main- tained complete employment statistics. Moreover, it is likely that if these lists were returned to the general foremen, they would have questioned the increases for employees guilty of dischargeable offenses. The record, however, fails to disclose that this apparent incongruity `disturbed either Bush or any of the general foremen. The automatic wage increase on June 19, 1937, for practically every employee in the plant, issued from the respondent's home office in Dearborn. No further explanation of this wage increase was offered by the respondent 117 It was admitted, however, that Dearborn was continuously advised of conditions at the plant in Kansas City and it would have known,. consequently, of the deplorable situation allegedly brought about by the U. A. W. It is difficult to believe that under such circumstances Dearborn would have granted a general wage increase for over 2,000 employees. The August increases,'Bush claimed, were made in order to equalize the wage rates of employees performing. the same work. But again, we cannot believe that 1 187 It will be recalled that in settling the sit-down strike, Gillespie stated that he would try to secure wage increases for the employees at the Kansas City plant . See Section III-A-2, supra. 1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , month before the plant closed for the seasonal-change of model the respondent would have undertaken to grant increases to employees marked for discharge. Included among those whom the respondent allegedly would not rehire "regardless of state of production" were seven employees who secured all three of the increases granted during the period from April to September 1937. Virgil M. Craig, Fred Dreis, John Fugate, William J. Hinkle, Jack Jenkins, Herbert R. Rushton, and Russell Thompson all received increases of 5 cents an hour on June 1, 1937, again on June 19, 1937, and once more in August 1937.188 During the hearing the respondent explained the alleged basis for its unwilling- ness to rehire Hinkle, and in its offers of proof the respondent listed the alleged reasons for its refusal to reinstate the other six employees. It is interesting to consider the averments in the offer of proof con- cerning Fred Dreis, set forth in the margin, in the light of the three wage increases which the respondent gave Dreis.189 The offers of 188 According to the records introduced Into evidence , Jenkins received his third increase on September 22, 1937, 5 days after the plant had closed for the seasonal change of model. iii According to the offer of proof , George Ball , general foreman of the stock department, would have testified that "Franklin , Lemon, Woerner [ assistant foreman] and various employees of the stock department , during the year 1937 , and during the period when men were being considered for reemployment on the 1938 model , made the following complaints regarding the work and conduct of Dreis: (1) He began to slow down in his work shortly after the sit-down strike of April 2, 1937, and told other employees to slow down '(2) He frequently left his operation without permission and loafed in other se'tions of respondent ' s plant. (3) He frequently stated that the foremen no longer had any authority at respond- ent's plant and told other men to pay no attention to the orders of their foremen (4) He loafed on his job so much of the time that it was frequently necessary to have a utility man or other employee do his work (5) Beginning shortly after April 2 , 1937 , and continuing throughout the summer he circulated through the stock department soliciting respondent 's employees to join the U. A W A and threatened said employees with bodily harm or with loss of employment or both if they refused to join said union . Said solicitations took place during working hours at respondent 's plant , and interfered with the work of the men so solicited and Interrupted the normal operation of the respondent ' s plant. (6) He repeatedly told respondent ' s employees that they would be subjected to physical violence if said employees refused to join the U A W A. Said threats took place during the spring and summer of 1937. (7) Beginning shortly after April 2 , 1937 , and continuing throughout the summer he habitually collected dues in respondent 's plant from respondent 's employees during working hours . He forced said employees to pay dues in the U A W. A against their wills by threats of physical violence to said employees or to their families or both ; or by threats to said employees of expulsion from the plant and loss of their employment. ( 8) During the summer of 1937 he told respondent's employees that the U. A W. A. was running the plant and that they did not have to obey or take orders from respond- ent's foremen, leadmen, or others in authority. (9) He repeatedly left his operation without notifying the foreman and he would be gone for a considerable time. This occurrence would take place several times a day during the'summer of 1937. (10) He left his operation and would go to other parts of the department , or the plant, and visit with other men Such occurrences would take place several times a day throughout the summer of 1937. - (11) He was one of a large number of U. A. W. A union men who, during, the spring and summer of 1937, repeatedly tormented and interfered with the work of FORD MOTOR COMPANY '1085 proof relating to the other five employees and the evidence introduced during the hearing concerning Hinkle contain similar criticisms of the work of these six employees. other employees who had refused to join or to pay dues to U A W A Union No. 249, by hiding and damaging their tools and stock , by damaging automobile parts, supplies and equipment on which said employees were working , by forcibly 'taking them away from their operations , and by threatening them with liodily harm, and thereby so frightened , coerced and intimidated many employees that they joined or paid dues to said union involuntarily and against their wills. During the summer of 1937 he tormented and interfered with the work of more and more employees in the respects above mentioned , and thereby so frightened , coerced and intimidated many employees that they paid dues involuntarily to said U A W A Union No 249. n e (18) He was one of a large group of men who participated in the sit -down strike of April 2 , and April 3, 1937, and forcibly , and without the permission or consrnt of respondent , seized and took control and possession of respondent 's plant and with- held the control and possession thereof from respondent during the period of said strike , and refused to leave or evacuate said plant when requested so to do by respondent , and encouraged and incited other men to participate in said strike, and in many cases forced other men by actual physical violence or threats of physical harm to remain inside said plant during the period of said strike. (19) He was one of a large group of men who , during the period of said sit down strike , deliberately dented many panels by striking and beating them with hammers and other tools, made deep scratches on painted car bodies with sharp instiuments, thereby necessitating many complete re-paint jobs , cut and slashed new strips of hose, damaged wrenches , drill motors, disc grinders , welders, and other tools and equipment by slamming them on the floor or throwing them from the windows of respondent's plant , cut and ripped headliner cloth , cushions , seat backs , arm rests , and windeord, and dented , scratched , cut, smashed or otherwise damaged automobiles , automobile parts , tools and equipment. (20) He was one of a group of U. A . W A. men, who on or about August '23, 1937, attacked and severely injured Gilbert Allen for the reason that he had not and would not sign up in the U . A W A organization. (21) He was one of a group of UAWA men who called upon Gilbert Allen shortly after his first slugging and informed Allen that if he did not withdraw the criminal charges filed against the men who had attacked him, he would be beaten up again., (22) He was one of a group of UAWA men who interfered with the work of Gilbert Allen and others by throwing lumber, nuts, bolts and dum dum balls at him during working hours. (23) He refused to obey the orders of the foreman at respondent ' s plant and on one occasion told J. E McDaniel that he ( Dreis) was going to bring in six stock checkers for duty the next day whether McDaniel liked it or not (24) He refused to obey the orders of Dave Franklin to get back on his job, but told Franklin that he would go to Joe Bush if necessary , to keep from having to stay on his operation. (25) He told experienced employees of one section of the stock department that they would have to take time off during the shut -down ( September 17 to October 11, 1937) so as to allow Inexperienced employees of other nonworking , departments to get in some' additional time ' ' (26) He ordered respondent 's employees to put not more than 50 springs on a load where 125 springs had been previously considered a reasonable load prior to the sit- down strike. (27) Ile was one of a group of UAWA men who first agreed that Ray Shriver should be discharged for inefficiency and refusal to obey orders . Then when steps were taken to discharge him, they reversed themselves and threatened to pull a sit -down strike if Ray Shriver was discharged. (29) He would fail to ' properly perform his operation of checking hardward and trim but would open the door , look inside , then tell them to go ahead and unload it and would mark his list , "checked" without further checking (30) Ile was one of a group of UAWA men who threatened to pull a sit-down strike if their demand as to who should work during the inventory shutdown were not met. 1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD d. The respondent's contentions in the light of its bargaining relations with the U. -A. W. As we have mentioned, the respondent claims that it withheld -dis- ciplinary, measures for the misdeeds•Aeseribed in the preceding section for fear that the U. A. W. would retaliate with a sit-dawn strike. For 6 months it absorbed these offenses without complaint; then, in November 1937, upon reopening its plant, it concluded as to 704 named employees that they should be barred from,all future employment "regardless of state of production" for their misconduct in the plant from April to September 1937. This defense must be viewed in the (31) He was one of the group of UAWA men who threatened to pull a sit-down strike if their demands as to who should work during the, shutdown (September 17 to October 11, 1937) (32) He was one of the group of UAWA men who threatened to pull a sit-down strike if Leo Brown was not permitted to continue on the job of operating the elevator. (33) He refused to help unload a carload of frames and threatened to pull a sit- down strike if-'any-effort was made to discharge him'on account of his refusal to obey orders. Ball allegedly would have testified that he observed the following neglect of work and misconduct on the part of Fred Dreis : (1) He began to slow down in his work shortly after the sit-dawn strike of April 2, 1937, and told other employees to slow down. • (2) He frequently left his operation without permission and loafed in other sectdons of respondent's plant. (3) He frequently stated that the foremen no longer had any authority at respond- ent's plant and told other men to pay no attention to the orders of their foremen (4) He loafed on his job so much of the time that it was frequently necessarly to have a utility man or other employee do his work. (5) Beginning shortly after April 2, 1937, and continuing throtughout the summer he circulated through the stock department soliciting respondent's employees to join the UAWA and threatened said employees with bodily harm or with loss of employ- ment or both if they refused to join said union. Said solicitations took place during working hours at respondent's plant, and interfered with the work of the men so solicited and interrupted the normal operation of the respondent's'plant• (6) He repeatedly told respondent's employees that they would be subjected to physical violence if said employees refused to join the UAWA Said threats took place during the spring and summer of 1937. (7) Beginning shortly after April 2, 1937, and continuing throughotit' the summer he habitually collected dues in respondent's plant from respondent's employees during working hours Ile forced said employees to pay dues in the UAWA against their wills by threats of physical violence to said employees or to their families or both ; or by threats to said employees of expulsion from the plant and loss of their employment. (8) During the summer of 1937 he told respondent's employees that the UAWA was running the plant and that they did not have to obey or take orders from respondent's foremen, leadmen, or others in authority. (9) He was one of a large number of UAWA union men who, during the spring and summer of 1937, repeatedly tormented and interfered with the work of other employees who had refused to join or to pay dues to UAWA Union No. 249, by biding and dam- aging their tools and stock, by damaging automobile parts, supplies and equipment on which said employees were working, by forcibly taking them away from their operations, and by threatening them with bodily harm, and thereby so frightened, coerced and intimidated many employees that they joined or paid dues to said union involuntarily and against their wills. During the summer of 1937 he tormented and interfered with the work of more and more employees in the respects above mentioned, .and thereby so frightened, coerced' and intimidated many employees that they paid dues involuntarily to said UAWA Union No. 249. s • e (15) FIe was one of a group of UAWA men who first agreed that Ray Shriver should be discharged for inefficiency and refusal to obey orders, then when steps were taken FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1087 light of Bush's description of his relations with the U. A. W. after the sit-down strike. As drawn by the respondent, the picture includes its own rejection of every proposal made by the U. A. W., -without any reprisals by this union,- together with U. A. W. lawlessness so extensive and effective as to prevent the respondent from discharging 704 employees. We believe, as we have stated above, that these posi- tions are inconsistent on their face.190 Certainly if the U. A. W. continuously threatened a sit-down strike to restrain the respondent from discharging delinquent employee, it would not have remained idle while Bush repeatedly affirmed that its committee was not tho "legal bargaining agency." We have found, however, that beginning with the sit-down strike, the respondent bargained extensively with the U. A. W.; that together they concluded a variety of agreements and settled a multitude of grievances. This finding, which we believe amply supported by the record, not only casts a serious doubt upon the respondent's entire defense but forcefully contradicts its con- tention that the U. A. W. committed the offenses described above or threatened sit-down strikes to prevent the impositioh'of disciplinary measures . Moreover, if any 'serious misdeeds were practiced by members of the U. A. W., we would expect that the respondent would have presented these matters to the U. A. W. at one of their bargaining conferences. Even if we accept Bush's testimony of only four meet- ings with the U. A. W., there is nothing to suggest that the-respondent mentioned U. A. W. misconduct or sought, on any grounds, to secure its ' discontinuance: 91 11 to discharge him, reversed themselves and threatened to pull a sit-down strike if Ray ^Shiiver was discharged ,(16) He would fail to perform his operation of checking hardward and trim, but would open the -door , look inside , and tl . en tell them to go , ahead and unload it and would mark his list "checked " without , further checking (17) He was one of the group of UAWA men Rho threatened to pun a sit-down strike If their demand as to who should work dining the inventory shut-down' were not met (18) He was one of the group of TJAWA men who threatened to pull a sit-down strike if their demands as to who should work during the shutdown ( September 17 to October 11, 1937). Witness [ Geoige Ball], by reason of the facts and circumstances hereinabove stated, would not recommend Fred Dreis for reemployment at any time , regardless of state of production We have omitted such alleged improprieties as did not occur in the plant during the period from April to September 1937 110 See Section III-B-4, supra 1.1 Although the- respondent claims to have withheld disciplinary measures to avoid a sit-down strike, it did in fact discharge many en ployees during the period from April to September 1937 without any sit -down strike resulting therefrom At least 145 employees were laid off on or about Apiil 15, 1937, 'and James Claughton (discharged on July 15, 1937), Cleo M Lingle ( discharged on June 4, 1937 ), and Clifton E Bryant ( discharged on May 5 , 1937 ), all members of the U A W, were discharged for stealing without any sit-down strike in protest . When Cecil Burnett , a leadman on the loading dock, was asked about Lingle ' s discharge , he remarked , after admitting that there had been no sit-down strike, that "I don't think they would expect the company to keep a man that was caug' t stealing" See , also, Section III-A-3, supra 1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD e. The production statistics With the plant disrupted by disorders as serious and extensive as those described in the previous section, we would expect that there would be a sharp drop in the number of automobiles assembled and a marked rise in the cost of production. But the respondent admits that during this entire period it was able to assemble the number of auto- mobiles scheduled for production each day. 192 It maintains, however, that after the sit-down strike production costs exceeded their norm. In support of this contention, the respondent introduced into evidence a comparative graph of its man-hour production costs per unit for the 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938 automobiles. This graph, reprinted below, indicates the number of hours of productive labor required to assemble each unit at the Kansas City plant from the beginning of the model season to its conclusion.193 As the graph reveals, the hourly cost per unit decreases as the model season progresses. The men become more familiar with their oper- ations and can perform them with greater dispatch. On the 1937 model, however, the hourly costs "flattened out" in April and May, though decreasing slightly, and then rose during June, July, and Au- gust approximately 1 hour per unit." Then, from August to Sep- tember 17, 1937, when the plant closed for the seasonal change of model, the curve- dropped rapidly. Edgar McCullough, time-study man, explained that there is a "tendency" for the curve "to drop con- tinually except for some specific reason." He admitted, however, that the curve of the 1937 model was not "abnormal" until it reached June; on the 1936 model, as he recognized, the curve also "flattened out" during April and May. McCullough gave, as the "specific reason" for the rise in the curve after June 1937, the respondent's forced assign- ment of "borrowed men from the non-productive departments to the productive" to compensate for U. A. W. disorders. To prove that it was obliged to transfer employees from the main- tenance department (non-productive) to various productive depart- ments, the respondent introduced into evidence a summary of the IL2 Leonard Swearingen , assistant general foreman of the chassis department , alleged that the respondent would occasionally fall three or four cars behind the scheduled 491 cars a day but that this deficiency was always made up within the next day or two. 193 As we have mentioned in the preceding section, the respondent claims that members of the U. A. W . deliberately or through carelessness damaged and spoiled tools and ma- terials However, the respondent admitted that if any tools or materials were damaged or spoiled that this would be charged to various "account numbers " Thus , Edward Bresette, head timekeeper , testified that if cushions were torn , that would be charged to account number 1225-B, if materials were damaged in loading , that would be entered on account number 893, etc. While these accounts would have afforded the best basis for comparing damage and spoilage in the 1937 model year, before and after the sit-down strike and with other model years, the respondent failed to introduce them into evidence. 1B} That is , at the end of August 1937, when the highest hourly costs in 3 months was reached, the curve was 1.hour above the hourly costs of April and May 1937. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1089 Unit qq 1 a3 it r' n Hour cost Oct. Diov . Dec. Jan. Feb . Mar. Apr , June Jul Aug. Se t. 2002 It ^a 40-00 TART NG DA9 ES 1935 d l N e 1 19o e ove r 39.00 - 1936 odel Octo er 1935 - - 1937 odel Octo er 26 1936 1938 el Dece ber 3 1937 00 37, DD 00 35, DD 1.fl 34.00 I o33.00 2.00 I v I 100 T P 30.00 29 25 29, 28 , 27 26, 25, ^0 1 24. 2 22, 21 x(,.73 1090 DECISIONS I OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hours of work borrowed and loaned from one department to another. These statistics indicated that from January 1 to March 31, 1937, the maintenance department borrowed 69893/4 hours from other depart- ments while lending only 34691/4 hours. During the next 6 months, from April 1 to September 17, 1937, honk ever, the maintenance depart- ment loaned a total of 10,8601/2 hours to production while in turn borrowing only 3690 hours. In other words, for the first 3 months of the year, before the advent of the U. A. W., the maintenance department borrowed 35201/2 hours more than it loaned but during the next 6 months, with the U. A. W. in the plant, it loaned 71701/2 hours more than it borrowed-"' I These statistics might be persuasive if Bush had not otherwise accounted for the increase in hours borrowed from the maintenance department. Bush explained that after April 15, 1937, if employment was terminated "due to sickness, compensation, resignation, and so forth," the respondent would fill the vacancy with an employee from the maintenance department 196 And from April 15 to September 17, 1937, approximately 75 employees in productive departments left the respondent's employ "due to sickness, compensation, resignation, and so forth." In order of months, these terminations occurred as follows : 16 in April, 13 in May, 14 in June, 4 in Jnly, 13 in August, and 15 in September 1937. Without computing the oxact-number of hours these transfers took from the maintenance department, 'it is apparent that they more than compem-ated for the increase in hours borrowed from the maintenance department after kpril 1, 1937. The "specific reason" then, for the increase in the hourly cost of production in June 1937 and thereafter, if the hours of. work trans- ferred from maintenance to production caused this increase, was related not to the U. A. W. disorders but to the respondent's policy of filling vacancies in production with employees from the main- tenance departments. But whether or not the assignment of main- tenance employees to productive departments increased production costs, we believe that the respondent's hourly cost statistics, as re- flected in the above graph, forcefully belie its description of U. A. W. disorders after the sit-down strike. For one thing. the respondent maintains that the U. A. W. began these disorders immediately after 1"a It is also claimed that the commercial body department was forced to work a total of 12483/4 productive hours and 14461/4 non-productive hours on Fridays , while the plant was on a 4-day week, to make up for the U A W interferences ""Baron De Louis testified that the U. A W asked Bush to fill the vacancies "due to sickness , compensation , resignation, and so forth" from the ranks of those employees who were laid off on or about April 15 , 1937, but that Bush refused this request on the grounds that he had been directed by Dearborn not to hire any new employees and that "the only manner in which they could be replaced w culd be to take them out of maintenance and place them on the production line " While Bush denied that Dearborn had 40 instructed him, he admitted that the respondent followed,that procedure. FORD MOTOR COMPANY - 1091 the sit-down strike on April 2, 1937. Yet, as McCullough admitted, the "flattening" of the curve during April and May 19137 was not "abnormal" and in fact practically identical with the curve of the 1936 model. For 2 months, then, despite the alleged obstructive prac- tices of the U. A. W., the respondent met its daily production schedule at-an hourly cost that was not "abnormal." Even if the respondent had not urged that the hourly cost of pro- duction increased during June, July, and August, 1937, as a result of the transfer of employees from maintenance to production, this rise is explainable on grounds other than the alleged disorders of the U. A. W. As we have found above, with the inception of collective bargaining, the respondent agreed to the establishment of a steward system for the disposition of grievances: 91 Under this system, there were well over 100 shop or deputy stewards, lieutenant stewards, and members of the grievance committee who functioned during working hours. Their duties frequently required them to leave their, places of work. And during this period, the grievance committee of five members met with Bush almost daily. While the steward system in- ereased production costs, it was one of the concessions the U. A. W. obtained from the respondent in bargaining collectively. There were, moreover, other concessions which added to the hourly costs. Relief and utility men were assigned to assist employees in production and certain overtime work was eliminated. We would expect, also, that until the employees had accommodated themselves to the change, the, intrusion of a labor organization into a plant of 2,500 unorganized employees would affect the precision of this mass-production factory.198 In addition, the respondent instituted a 4-day week in the latter part of May 1937. It is possible that this reduction might have affected production 'costs. Further, the rise in the hourly.uni_t cost during June, July, and August, 1937, hardly reflects the alleged deliberate misdeeds of 704 employees as described in the previous section. When it reached its peak in August 1937, the rise was only approximately 1 man-hour per unit above the costs of April and May 1937. At all times, the hourly costs were considerably below the lowest costs of the 1935 model. While the respondent maintains that one model cannot be compared with another, it is difficult to believe that the production costs of the 1937 model would have remained over 2 hours per unit under the costs of the 1935 model if 704 employees had conducted themselves as the respondent alleged.199 Not only would costs have risen more 184 See Section III-A-3, supra. "'See Section III-A-3, where we discuss the U A W.'s bargaining relations with the respondent from April to September 1937 1DB McCullough explained the rise in hourly costs in August 1938 on the 1938 model as follows : "During that period from the latter part of June to the end of August there was a rotating period; a number of the men, instead of being laid o8-there were approximately 441843-42-vol. 31-70 1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sharply, but in,all probability the "respondent would not have been able to meet its daily production schedule. The respondent maintains that, the U. A. W. disorders continued without abatement up to the plant shut-down on September 17, 1937. The hourly cost curve , however, dropped sharply during the month of September . In explanation of this decrease , McCullough alleged that as the "system" was emptied at the conclusion of the model season, various departments that had already ceased production would be credited for automobiles subsequently completed . 200 This would be true, however , for all model years. Yet the rate of decline in September on the 1937 model was greater than the decline on both the 1935 and 1936 models . While the credit that accrued from the emptying of the "system" might account for the general decrease at the conclusion of all model seasons, it does not explain the sharper decline on the 1937 model. f. The inspection reports From random inspection reports on the 1936 model, it appears that inspectors discovered defects on that model similar to those described by the respondent as current on the 1937 model. Thus, an inspection report for September 16, 1936, typical of other inspection reports in- troduced into evidence, lists the following "items caught Monday on Chassis Line" : Muffler rubs on frame (Comm'l). Running Board Bar loose. Fix Gimp Rear fender. Scratches entire job. Gap rear fender to Body at Trunk. Rear corner of sills shot & not polished-Dull. - #2 Body bold not seated down properly. Holes passenger front body floors. Scratched Passenger rear body sills. Dings passenger front roofs (Trim Shop). Passenger Gear Levers and hand brakes marred. 250 men who were rotated two weeks about. Take one department with, we will say 25 men extra-they would lay them off for 2 weeks and at the end of 2 weeks another 25 men would be laid off and the first 25 would return. Then during the last week of July and the first 2 weeks of August was the inventory shutdown, so the men who were lined up to he laid off the last 2 weeks in August had already lost the first two weeks in August. Therefore they were kept on during those weeks rather than have them laid off a full month while the other men lost 2 weeks." 200 McCullough testified : "When the last body is built in the body department the time on those departments stops but they get credit for all the bodies coming off the chassis line , which would be five or six hundred Jobs,' which would be credited there as being produced during that month after the productive body departments had ceased to operate " FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1093 2 Commercial bad order radiators; same leak at hose connection. Scratches on commercial door pans. Gas line to dash clips loose. Pits on roof side and low Bks. Dirty Glass. Glue on cowl tops. Rear Running Board bolts not tight (Pickups). Universal joint housing cap bolt lock washers B. O.-6. Cotters shy front baffle plate-2 R houdi lock washer shy-5 Water pump zekrs shy-3 Rear hub caps screws not tight. (trucks)-5 Speedo gear studs loose at drive shaft. Paint on zekrs, front axle. Running board bolts loose. No inspection reports on the 1937 model were introduced into evi- dence.201 There was, however, a departmental communication of June 28, 1937, listing certain items which required "immediate attention." For the chassis department, this communication showed the following defects: 1. Bad hood fit. 2. Gimp on front fenders not lined up. 3. Spark plug nuts loose. 4. Cable riding on motor (light switch) especially on 60 motor. 5. Front fender bolts loose. 6. Steering rod to steering a"rm nut loose. 7. No rubber washer on No. 2 body bolts. 8. Left rear fender brackets to fender bolts loose. 9. Hood stay rod bent. 10. Be sure to use lock washer under bolt at rear end of hood side. From this communication, sent during the height of the alleged U. A. W. disorders, it would appear that the defects discovered on the 1937 model were not any more serious or extensive than those on the 1936 model. 201 The Board introduced 11 inspection reports on the 1936 model in addition to the departmental communication discussed below Counsel for the Board stated, after these reports had been received in evidence, that "It is the Board's position that the company has a copy of all the inspector's reports and they could very easily show the defects as they existed in 1937 as compared with any other year as to whether the defects or the bad order work were more than usual-if they want to show the chaotic condition they contend existed in the plant. The Board ' s contention is the plant was in better condition than it ever had been after the union went in there The records will bear me out." The respondent , nonetheless , failed to produce its inspection reports for the 1937 model. 1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G. Conclusions Upon the entire record, we are convinced and find that the respond- ent did not consider the conduct of employees in the plant during the period from April to September 1937 in selecting its staff for the 193 model .202 Nor do we believe that U. A. W. misconduct after the plant had closed on September 17, 1937, was a factor in the respondent's determination, of which employees it should reinstate.203 Above we have detailed the affirmative evidence that the respondent reinstated leaders and members of the Blue Card Union, rejected adherents of the U. A. W., discharged employees it reinstated but found unwilling to join the Blue Card Union or abandon the U. A. W., and "rewarded" the organizers of the Blue Card Union for their successful displace- ment of the U. A. W.204 Further, the respondent's assertion that it considered employee-misconduct on the 1937 model in selecting em- ployees for reinstatement was forcefully contradicted-by the manner in which it classified the employees named in the complaint as "quali- fied" or "unqualified" for future employment, by its failure to retain any written record of the alleged U. A. W. misdeeds on which to predi- cate its refusal to reinstate 704 named employees "regardless of state of production," by its recognition on October 15, 1937, that these em- ployees merited consideration for reemployment, by the wage increases it granted to the very employees, it refused to rehire in November 1937, by its bargaining relations with the U. A. W. during the continuance of the alleged U. A. W. disorders, and by the failure of its production statistics to reflect that the U. A. W. had engaged in the offenses and misdeeds it described. Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent failed, in rein- stating employees upon the reopening of its plant in November 1937, to remedy the consequences of its discriminatory lock-out on October 11, 1937. G. Conclusions with respect to the Blue Card Union The evidence in the record definitely marks the respondent as the sponsor of the Blue Card Union. Upon opening its drive for mem- bers, the organizers of this union were advised that the respondent had "rewarded" employees at its plant in Dallas, Texas, with wage ,in- creases as "the men in the Dallas plant were without a C. I. O. or- ganization." And when the Blue Card Union successfully replaced Zoe We do not find, of course, that employees did not commit any of the offenses described in the previous section or that they did not spoil or damage tools and materials. We do conclude , however, that the respondent ' s description of these matters was grossly exagger- ated and that they were not thought sufficiently serious by the respondent to warrant any employee 's discharge during production of the 1937 model 203 See Section III-B-3 and Section entitled The Remedy " 204 See Section III-D. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1095 the U. A. W. at its plant in Kansas City, Missouri, the respondent likewise "rewarded" the officers and organizers of this union with substantial raises. The Blue Card Union-was not, however, merely the recipient of illicit support; it was the primary component of a .determined campaign,to.destroy-the U. A. W. In appraising the Blue Card Union we must view its role in this campaign. The respondent's hostility to the U. A. W. was immediately apparent upon the formation of this union in January 1937. Employees were warned against affiliating and a U. A. W. leader was transferred to "keep him from working for the union." When these measures failed to curb the U.i A. W.'s growth, the respondent availed itself of a decrease in production as a pretext for eliminating members of the U. A. W. In protest against these discriminatory lay-offs, approxi- mately 350 employees remained in the plant from the conclusion of work on April 2, 1937, to the evening of the following day. Upon the advice of Ed Hall, international representative, the U. A. W. evacu- ated the plant in order to hasten a settlement of the strike. With Gillespie acting for the respondent, the U. A. W.. then concluded an oral agreement, since Henry Ford would not "allow" a written agree- ment with a labor organization, providing that all employees would be reinstated and that further lay-offs would be, considered with the U. A. W. before they were imposed. With the successful settlement of the strike, the U. A. W. came into the "open." Its members commenced to wear union buttons while at work and it rented offices across the street from the plant. The U. A. W.'s position was further strengthened by the gains it secured in bargaining collectively with the respondent. A grievance pro- cedure for the settlement of grievances was established, disc grinding and the so-called "kitty" system were eliminated, utility and relief men were `added to assist, production workers, the cooling system Was extended, and other concessions were granted. This continued, with slight interruption, up to the plant shut-down on September 17, 1937, for the seasonal change of model. In July 1937, however, with the distribution of two documents bitterly attacking labor organizations-"Ford Gives Viewpoint On Labor" and the Ford Almanac for July-it became apparent that the respondent had not abandoned its original hostility to the U. A.• W. But the respondent's drive against the U. A. W. did not take form until after the plant had closed on September 17, 1937, for the seasonal change of model. The Blue Card Union conducted an organizational. meeting a few days before the shut-clown, but 'it did not actively begin to solicit members until after its meeting at the Pickwick Hotel on September 22, 1937. From that day until the respondent closed its plant on October 11, 1937, and then, on October 15, 1937, discharged 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD every employee on its pay roll and moved its operations to Omaha, Nebraska, the organizers of the'Blue Card Union knowingly warned employees, in soliciting them to join, that the plant would not reopen with the U. A. W. To this "sales talk" of the Blue Card Union, there was added the rumor, which Bush instigated, that the respondent intended to erect a new plant at St. Louis, Missouri, and transfer a sizable portion of its operations from Kansas City. In the latter part of September 1937, it became evident that the respondent was not observing an agreement it had made with the U. A W. before the shut-down as to which employees were to work in the plant and shortly thereafter, when the U. A. W. protested, Bush asserted that he had been instructed by Dearborn not to deal any further with the U. A. W. These activities in the latter part of September and the early part of October 1937 were climaxed by the lock-out on October 11, 193 7. We believe that it is clear, as we have found, that the respondent locked out its employees on this day and then officially discharged them on October 15, 1937, as part of its plan to destroy the U. A. W. The respondent's assertion that the U. A. W. threatened to place 1,000 pickets about the plant unless the respondent, signed a closed- shop contract finds no support in the record. It is belied not only by the implausible testimony which Bush gave in explanation of the lock-out but in addition by the positive indicia that a lock-out was contemplated long prior to October 11, ,1937,-the forewarning of Blue Card Union organizers that the plant would not reopen with the U. A. W., the rumors of a new plant in St. Louis. the breach in the relations between the respondent and the U. A: W., Gillespie's presence in Kansas City, and the measures undertaken to prepare the plant to withstand the physical stress of a lock-out. Although the respondent indicated on October 15, 1937, that its plant in Kansas City would be closed permanently, the Blue Card Union did not relent in its campaign to enroll members. The lock- out, in fact, was used as part of the membership drive. For now Blue Card Union organizers advised employees that the plant would re- open if they abandoned the U. A. W. and joined the Blue Card Union. Kenneth Paris, president of the Blue Card Union, impressed this upon employees in a letter to Baron De Louis which he publicized in the newspapers. When the plant finally reopened in November 1937, the respondent and the Blue Card Union worked in close collaboration in the selec- tion of employees for reinstatement. Blue Card Union organizers werein effect delegated the employer's prerogative of hiring employees during this period. As Frank Betz, whose testimony was almost entirely undenied, described, the respondent reinstated employees upon FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1097 advice from the Blue Card Union that they were "0. K." 205 All U. A. W. officers and committeemen as well as "hot C. I. 0." men were rejected. Outside the plant, Blue Card Union organizers and super- visory officials informed employees that membership in this union was a necessary prerequisite to reinstatement while, inside-the plant, dur- ing working hours, they warned employees who had been recalled to work before they had joined the Blue Card Union that they would have to join this union if they wished to retain their jobs.206 Em- ployees were also advised by Blue Card Union organizers and super- visors not to associate with U. A. W. members or to wear U. A. W. buttons in the plant. Those employees who associated with U. A. W. members were' either dismissed or denied reinstatement'; others who reported for work with U. A. W. buttons were immediately rejected by the respondent. In the place of U. A. W. buttons, "most all" em- ployees wore buttons of the Blue Card Union. And employees who were reinstated but resisted efforts to have them abandon the U. A. W. and to join the Blue Card Union were promptly discharged. So thoroughly was this attack on the U. A. W. carried out by the respondent and the Blue Card Union, that the U. A. W. was com- pletely replaced by the Blue Card Union as the representative of the employees who were reinstated when the plant reopened in November 1937. With the Blue Card Union substituted for the U. A. W., the respondent further impressed upon employees its approval of this or- ganization by installing a cafeteria and a parking lot simply in re- sponse to a written request from the Blue Card Union. To insure the effective exclusion of the U. A. W., the respondent organized a caravan system, permitted the manufacture of blackjacks and "knucks" in its plant, and,accepted and approved of police support in restrain- ing employees from picketing in protest against the way employees were reinstated. The efforts of the U. A. W. to secure a conference the respondent rejected or granted only to the extent of allowing the U. A. W. to meet with subordinate officials without authority or knowl- edge of the U. A. W.'s previous relations with the respondent. Finally, with the U. A. W. completely eliminated, the respondent "rewarded" the organizers of the Blue Card Union. - 21: While thus assisting the Blue Card Union 'and the respondent , with the knowledge of Eugene Eaton , general foreman of the body construction department , Betz was paid the equivalent of one-half day's work at the plant. 20 Aside from any authorization of these activities, imlmcit in the close collaboration between the respondent and,the Blue Card Union in the selection of employees for rein- statement , the respondent would be responsible , nonetheless , for the°conduct of its super- visory officials, from leadmen up, in so far as they interfered with the rights guaranteed employees under the Act. International Association of Machinists ; Tool and Die Makers Lodge No 35, etc , v. National Labor Relations Board , decided by the Supreme Court on November 12, 1940, aff'g 110 F (2d) 29 (C. A. for D. C.) enf'g Matter of The Serrick Car_ poration and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 459, 8 N L. R B. 621. 1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find, upon the basis of the entire record, that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Blue Card Union and has contributed support to it, and that by such domination, interference, and support, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced' its employees in- the, exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The strike which the U. A. W. declared on December 10, 1937, we find, was caused and prolonged by the respondent's unfair labor practices and the employees retained their status as employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. 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;t',and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the, respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Blue Card Union and con- tributed support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the respondent's employees from such domination and inter- ference, and the effects thereof, which constitute continuing obstacles to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Blue Card Union and disestablish it as collective bargaining repre- sentative of its employees. We have found that on October 15, 1937,207 the respondent dis- charged all employees then on the pay roll in order to destroy, the U. A. W.205 We have also found that upon reopening its plant in, November 1937, the respondent selected employees who joined the Blue Card Union and refused 'to 'reinstate employees who remained 207 We use the date of the discharges, October 15 , 1937 , rather than the date of the lock-out, October 11, 1937 , since on the latter date the employees , though carried on the respondent ' s pay roll , were not actually working =0 It appears that several assistant foremen, watchmen , powerhouse employees, and possibly a few others were retained. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1099 with the U. A. W. Under the circumstances,209 we are of the opinion that the employees so discriminated against should be -reinstated. The respondent contends that the Board may not order any em- ployee reinstated without first finding. that he has not obtained sub- stantially equivalent employment elsewhere. Assuming, however, that some or all of the employees who were discriminatorily discharged thereafter obtained regular and substantially equivalent employment within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, the question arises whether we should order that they be offered reinstatement, the normal remedy appropriate to neutralize the effects of unlawful discrimination. The precise question we are called upon to deter- mine, in' the exercise of our discretion, is whether it will effectuate the policies of the Act to direct that offers of reinstatement be made to such employees.210 The policies of the Act, expressly declared in the public interest, are to encourage `the practice and procedure of collective b'aigaining and to protect the exercise by employees of full freedom of self- organization. To withhold the normally appropriate remedy of rein- statement merely because the object of discrimination has obtained compensatory employment would not effectuate these public policies; indeed, it would reduce them, contrary to the intent of Congress '211 to mere vindication of private rights and restitution for private wrongs. Our power to order affirmative relief was conferred, and it is our duty to exercise it, to the end that conditions permitting free exercise of the publicly significant rights of self-organization and collective bargaining shall, when destroyed or disrupted, be restored. The Act postulates, and the fact is readily verified by common ex- perience, that " anti-union' discrimination exercises a coercive effect not on'ly upon the immediate victim, but upon all present or future em- ployees of the particular employer; it impresses upon them the danger to their welfare and security associated with membership in or activity on behalf of a labor organization. Accordingly, the pur- pose of the order to offer reinstatement is not only to restore the victim of discrimination to the position from which he was unlawfully excluded, but also, and more significantly, to dissipate the,deeply coercive effects upon other employees who may desire self-organiza- 20.1If, upon reopening its plant in November 1937, the respondent had reinstated employees without regard to their union membership we would have considered that its obligation to reinstate the remaining employees discharged on October 15, 1937, would have been suspended so long as there were no jobs available for them The respondent would have been required , however, to place them on a preferential list and offer them employ- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment became available and before other persons were hired for such work . See Section III-F-4-g Z10 Our power to reinstate such employees was sustained in, Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 313 U. S. 177, decided April 28, 1941. 2n Section 1 of the Act ; House Report No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p 24; Amalgam- ated Utility Workers v . Consolidated Edison Co , 309 U. S 261 , 266, 269 ; National Licorice Co v. National Labor, Relations Board, 309 U S. 330, 362 1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, but have been discouraged therefrom by the threat td them implicit in the discrimination. This essential reassurance can be- afforded-freedom can be reestablished-only by a demonstration that the Act carries sufficient force to restore to work anyone who has been penalized for exercising rights which the Act guarantees and protects; the acquisition of equivalent employment is no more relevant to this purpose than the acquisition of non-equivalent employment, or of no employment at all. - Further, it is a demonstrated fact of which we take notice that necessity almost inevitably compels a discharged employee to seek the best available other employment. If reinstatement were rendered inappropriate by reason of success in that search, the employer would be able, through elimination of union adherents, at once to impede or terminate exercise of the right of self-organization in his plant and at the same time to perpetuate-his advantage by relying upon the victims' necessity of earning a 'livelihood elsewhere to assure their permanent riddance. This would afford a ready means for complete and final ouster of those prominent in the employees' efforts at self- organization. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the mere obtainment of substantially equivalent' employment, and evidence pertaining thereto, is irrelevant to considerations decisive of the question whether reinstatement effectuates the policies of the Act. These decisive coii- siderations do not vary from case to case. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to require the respondent to offer reinstatement to all individuals who we have found were victims of discrimination, whether or not they, or any of them, may have obtained other regular and substantially equivalent employment. We shall, therefore, direct the respondent, with the exceptions noted below, to reinstate to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, all the employees who we have found were discriminatorily discharged on October 15, 1937, and thereafter were refused reinstatement '212 dis- missing, if necessary, all persons hired since the plant reopened in November 1937, who were not on the respondent's pay roll immediately prior to October _15, 1937. In this latter category we include new, employees, employees who had not worked for the respondent during production of the 1937 model, and employees who had been laid off ,or discharged or resigned during production of the 1937 model.213 If, after dismissal of all such employees, there are, by reason of a reduc- 2" The employees covered by this provision are listed in Appendix A. For reasons ex- plained below, the employees listed in Appendix C are also included we also include Patrick D Monroe and Charles Richeson in this category. See Section III-A-4 a" There were, for example, approximately 25 employees who had been laid off during the production of the 1937 model, whom the respondent reinstated on its 1938 model. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1101 tion of force, insufficient positions available for 'all employees rein- stated'pursuant to our order, the respondent shall, in accordance with its usual method of reducing its force, lay off from among the.em- ployees remaining on its pay roll those employees for whom, positions -are not immediately available; without discrimination against any 'employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following a sys- tem of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of its'business.214 Employees thus laid off shall be placed on a preferential list and offered employment to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. Ordinarily, when employees have been discriminatorily discharged, we have ordered the employer to make them whole with back pay, by paying to each of them an amount of money equal to that which he would have earned with the employer from'the date of the discrim- ination to the date of reinstatement pursuant to our order, less his net earnings during the same period. The objective is, of course, to re- store the' situation, as nearly as possible, to that which would have obtained but for the illegal discrimination. Our order in the present case is designed to achieve the same objective, but the peculiar factual situation here presents unusual difficulties in fashioning our remedy so as to restore the status quo. For production of its 1938 model, as we have mentioned, the respondent required only one-half as many em- ployees as it had required on its 1937 model. It follows, therefore, that only approximately one-half of the employees who were locked out on October 15, 1937, would have received any earnings from the' respondent during production of the 1938 model.215 If the respond- ent had selected employees for its 1938 model without regard to their union affiliation, we would have ruled that the remaining employees should not receive back pay from the time the respondent reopened its plant, at least as long as there were no positions available for them. As production increased, it would have been the respondent's duty to reinstate those of the locked-out employees it had not yet recalled; if it failed in this obligation, back pay would have'then commenced to run in favor of employees thus denied reinstatement.' We have found, however, that upon reopening its plant in November 1937, the respond- ent selected employees who organized and joined the Blue Card Union and rejected adherents of the U.A. W. If we could ascertain which 21* While, as we have found above, the U. A. W. obtained an oral agreement from the respondent concerning the application of certain principles of seniority in laying off, dis- charging , and promoting employees , we do ' not believe that it is desirable Ito use this agree- ment, which was never reduced to writing, as the standard by which the respondent should be required to decrease its force Cf Matter of West Oregon Lumber Company and Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 3, International Woodworkers of America. et al , 20 N. L R. B. 1 asc The record does not disclose the number of employees on the respo'ndent's Day roll for the 1939 or 1940 models. % 1 1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the employees named in the complaint would have been reinstated if union membership had not been considered, we could restrict our award of back pay to those employees. However, in laying off and recalling employees, the respondent has observed no standard capable of objective application. Since we cannot determine accurately the amount of money the employees named in the complaint "would have earned" if the respondent had reinstated without regard to union af- filiation, we have turned to a method of calculation which we deem at once equitable and practicable and in consonance with the policy of the Act.216 Although we cannot identify the employees the respondent would have hired if it had proceeded without considering union member- ship, we can and do assume that of the employees named in the coin- plaint the respondent would have reinstated a number proportionately equal to the number of employees on its pay roll immediately prior to, October 15, 1937. Thus, there were 1,997 employees discharged by the respondent on October 15, 1937. The complaint contains the names of 975 employees who Were among these 1,997 employees. These 975 employees were not reinstated upon the reopening of the plant in November 1937.217 If the respondent had reinstated employees with- out regard to union membership, we assume that 975/1997ths of the available jobs would have been allotted to the employees named in the complaint. Thus, if production required a full staff of 1,997, em- ployees, then all of the 975 would have been recalled. Since there appears to have been positions for only about one-half that number, then 487 or 488 of these employees should have been reinstated. This, we believe, is as close as it is possible to come in reconstructing the probable situation, absent the respondent's discrimination. z"e We were faced with a similar situation in Matter of Eagle-Picker Mining of Smelting Company, a corporation , and Eagle-Picker Lead Company , a corporation and International Union of Mine, Mills of Smelter Workers, Locals Nos. 15 , 17, 107, 108, and 111, 16 N. L. R. B. 727 There the respondent broke a strike with a back -to-work movement and then selected for reinstatement only from among employees who joined a company -dominated union, also called the Blue Card Union . We said in that case : We might with some logic order the respondents to reconsider their course of rein- statement , putting aside the discriminatory factors which they have employed, and to determine now which employees they would have taken back after July 5, 1935, bad they been acting legally ; back pay would then be due to those of the claimants who would have been called , and nothing would be due to those of the claimants whom the respondents now decide they would not have reinstated 4 years ago Among other cogent objections to this procedure is the fact that this determination would be sub- stantially impossible , and the question of back pay would entail endless negotiation and speculation , with attendant delays when a solution of the problems has already been too long delayed Further , in the light of the whole record , we do not believe that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act thus to permit the determination of the back pay due to rest almost wholly within the discretion of the respondents, with no objective standards available by which a third party could test their, determination We reject this method, and turn to the only solution that seems fair, workable, and calculated to serve the purposes for which it is intended. zi' This includes all the employees listed in Appendix A and, for reasons explained below, C. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1103 Having determined that the employees named in the complaint would have received 975/1997ths of the available positions, we shall direct the respondent to compute a lump sum -consisting of all wages, alaries, and other earnings paid out by the respondent to all persons hired or reinstated upon and after the reopening of' the plant in November 1937, up to the date on which the respondent complies with our order, plus,.for reasons set forth in the margin, an amount equal to its average monthly expenditures for wages; salaries, and'other earn- ings during production of the 1938 model,218 and credit 975/1997ths of this sum to, the employees named in the complaint.21a' This sum shall then be apportioned among the employees named in the com- plaint in accordance with their hourly wage rate prior to the plant shut-down on September 17, 1937. That is, if an employee was paid at the rate of 7 5 cents an hour, he Shall receive only three-quarters of the amount credited to an employee who had been earning $1 an hour. After the sum each employee is entitled to receive has been com- puted, a deduction shall be made for a portion of the net earnings 220 of each individual from October 15, 1937, to the date of his reinstate- ment or placement on a preferential list.221 Ordinarily we would ''F'or 1 month , from October 15, 1937 , to November 15, 1937, as we have found, the respondent' s plant at Kansas City was closed as a result of the discriminatory lock-out At its other plants throughout the country the respondent commenced assembling the 1938 model during the month of October 1937 Thus , the employees at Kansas City lost 1 month 's work on the 1938 model as a result of the respondent's discriminatory practices But again , we do not know which employees would have been recalled if the respondent had reopened its plant as scheduled , nor do we know the amount of money these employees would have earned during this period . Under the circumstances , we shall require the respondent to add an amount equal to its average monthly expenditures for wages , salaries , and other earnings during pioduction of the 1938 model to the lump sum to be computed as-specified above 119 If at any time during the period covered by our order , the number of employees on the respondent 's pay roll exceeds 1,997 , then only the earnings of 1,997 employees (to be computed by multiplying by 1,997 the average wage paid during such periods ) shall, so long as the respondent ' s pay roll is at or above 1997 employees , be added to the lump sum We place this limitation on the lump sum to be computed since the employees named in the complaint are entitled only to what they would have earned if the respondent had not discriminated against them. If we were to give them 975 /1997ths of the wages, salaries , and other earnings expended during, such times as production exceeds the September 1937 level; then they - would obtain an amount in excess of what they would have earned if they had been reinstated . Under the terms of our order, as limited in this manner , they will obtain credit for an amount equivalent to full back pay for those periods when production is at or above the September 1937 level rm By "net earnings" is meant earnings less Oxperses, 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 his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590 , 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., decided by United States Supreme Court , November 12, 1940. ' R' We allow a "deduction of net earnings from October 15, 1937, instead of from November 15, 1937, since, as explained above, the employees named in the complaint are to be compensated for their loss of earnings during the continuance of the lock-out from October 15 to November 15, 1937 1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD allow all net earnings to be deducted. But here 975 employees (at least during the 1938 model) are sharing a back-pay award that 487 or 488 would have received if they could be identified. Were we able to ascertain which employees would have been reinstated if the respond- ent had proceeded without regard to union affiliation, then we would award those employees full back pay. In that event -their full net earnings would be deducted. Since employees are receiving only a partial share of the monies they would have obtained if they had been reinstated, the net earnings to be deducted, we believe, should be re- duced in like proportion. To establish this proportion, the aggre- gate of the average wage paid during, the pay-roll periods between the reopening of the,plant in November 1937 and the date on which the' respondent complies with our order shall be computed. This. will serve as the full sum each employee named in the complaint -would have earned if he had been reinstated. The relation of this sum to the amount of money to be allotted to each employee named in the complaint pursuant to our order shall constitute the proportion of the net earnings to be deducted. Thus, if an employee is entitled to re- ceive $500 under our order and the average wage of employees after November' 1937, amounts to $1,000 then 500/1000ths of his net earn- ings shall be deducted from his award .2 2'2 We have found that as a result of the respondent's unfair labor practices the U. A. W. declared a strike on December 10, 1937. Ordi- narily, when employees voluntarily leave their positions in strike, although in protest against unfair labor practices, we require the respondent to offer these employees reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, upon their application, and we award back pay only from the date of the respondent's refusal to com- , ply with our order.223 Here, however, the employees named in Ap- pendix A were without employment as a direct result of the respond- ent's unfair labor practices. The declaration of a strike, under these circumstances, amounted merely to an expression of protest against the discriminatory exclusion of U. A. W. members." It should not dis- qualify the employees named in the complaint from reinstatement with back pay from the date of the discrimination.22' z2i It appears from the respondent 's offers of proof that Artbui C Rouse died in May 1938 Under the circumstances , his back -pay aPard , which shall be reduced proportionately, shall be paid over to his estate . N. L. R B . v. Hearst, et al., 102 F. ( 2d) 658 ( C. C. A. 9) enf'g as mod Matter of William Randolph Hearst, et al and American Newspaper Guild, Seattle Chapter, 2 N. L. R. B . 530; Matter of Republic Creosoting Company, et al. and Creosote Workers Union , Local No. 20483, 19 N L. R. B. 267. 'Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No 325, 23 N. L R B 342; Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Uniopa, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 406, 18 N. L R B. 167 'Matter of Somerset Shoe Company and United Shoe Workers , of America, 5 N. L. R: B. 480,'as amended , 12 N. L. R. B. 1057, enf'd as modified in National Labor Relations Board V. Somerset Shoe Company, 111 F. (2d) 681 ( C. C. A 1). FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1105 Moreover, when an employer has imposed an illegal condition to reinstatement for employees who have declared a strike, we have ruled that it is unnecessary for these employees to apply for. reinstatement, in order that back pay may accrue in their favor.121 Here, however, the, illegal condition that employees renounce the U. A. W. and join the Blue Card Union to-obtain reinstatement was imposed before the strike was declared; the strike, as we have found, was a protest against this requirement. But since such an illegal con- dition relieves striking employees from applying for reinstatement, by the same token the declaration of a strike in protest against this illegal condition cannot in any way deprive those employees who were discriminatorily excluded from obtaining back pay from the date of the discrimination. Further, the respondent's method of reinstate- ment amounted, in effect, to a discharge of the employees who were excluded. In fact, the respondent has alleged that it would not rein- state 704 named employees "regardless of state of production." Where striking employees have been discriminatorily discharged, Nye award back pay from the date of the discharge inasmuch as the discharge precludes an application for reinstatement 226 The employees named in Appendix B are in a different category. They were reinstated and then left their jobs when the strike was de- clared. As to them, our usual rule shall apply. We shall ord'er' the respondent to reinstate these strikers, upon application, to their for- mer or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. In determining whether there are positions available for these employees, however, the respondent shall consider them together with the employees named in Appendices 225 Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union Local 2511, Onalaska, Washington, et at, 2 N L R B. 248. enf'd, N. L R B v Carlisle Lumber Company, 04 F (2d) 138 (C C A. 9). cert denied 304 U. S. 575; Matter of Sunshine Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, 7 N L R B. 1252 ent'd, N L R B v Sunshine Mining Company, 110 F. (2d) 780 (C C A. 9) Matter of Jacob A Hunkele, trading as Tri-State Towel Service and Local No 40, United Laundry Workers Union, 7 N L R B. 1276: Matter of the Grace Company and United Garment Workers; 7 N L. R. B 766; Matter of Eagle-Picker Mining & Smelting Company, et at and International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Locals Nos. 15, 17, 107, 103, and 111, 16 N L R B 727. 30 In Matter of Sunshine Mining Company, cited above, where the respondent's method of ieinstatenient resulted in the discriminatory exclusion of employees who had served on a picket line, the Circuit Court of Appeals , in sustaining the Board ' s order held : "As the ac- tual effect of respondent's conduct was to discharge those, employees , the circumstances'dis- pensed with the necessity of application for reinstatement." See also N L. R. B. v. Gulf Public Service Company, decided January 8, 1941, (C. C. A. 5) modfy'g and enf'g Matter of Gulf Public Service Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 190, 18 N. L. R B. 562; Matter of El Paso Electric Company, a oorpoi ation and Local Union 58$, International Biotherhood of Electrical Wei Acts, and N. P Clay, et al, 13 N L. R B. 213 See also Remington Rand . Inc v N L R B, 94 F. (2d) 862 (C C A 2), cert denied 304 U S 576 enf'g Matter of Remington Rand, Inc and Remington Rand Joint Protective Board of the District Council Office Equipment 1Voihers, 2 N. L. R. B 626: Black Diamond Steamship Corporation v. N. L. R B, 94 F. (2d) 875 (C. C.' A. 2), cert. denied, 304 U S. 579, enf'g Black Diamond Steamship Corporation and Marine Engineers ' Beneficial Associ- ation , Local No 33, 3 N L R B 84. 1106 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A, and ( for reasons explained below) C. As we have provided, if, by reason of a reduction in force, there are not sufficient positions avail- able for all these employees , the respondent shall then , in accordance with its usual method of reducing its force , lay off from among the employees remaining on its pay roll those employees for whom posi- tions are not immediately available , without discrimination against, any employee because of his union affiliation or activities , following a system of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of its business . Employees thus laid off shall be placed on a preferential list and offered employment to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions , as such employment becomes available 'and before other persons are hired for such work . Unlike the em- ployees named in Appendices A and C, however , these strikers shall be made whole only for any loss of pay occasioned by the respondent's failure to reinstate them or place them on a preferential list pursuant to the terms of our order . Back pay, in each of these cases, shall consist of a sum of money equal to that which the indi- vidual in question would normally have earned , during the period or periods of its computation , less his entire net earnings during such, period or periods. The employees named in Appendix C were reinstated after the plant reopened and then, as we have found , discharged because they refused to join the Blue Card Union or for other similar reasons . Under these circumstances , we could order the respondent to reinstate these em- ployees and award them back pay from the date of their discharge to the date of their reinstatement . It is possible , however, that if the respondent had selected employees in November 1937, without regard to their union affiliation , these employees would not have been rehired immediately . Furthermore , our general order of reinstatement, which allows the respondent to lay off those employees for whom it does not have jobs available, and the lump sum back -pay award , discussed above, will , we believe , provide adequate relief for these employees. We shall therefore include them with the employees named in Appendix A. The complaint also lists the names of 72 employees who were laid off in April 1937 , 2 in February 1937 , and 1 in May 1937 .' It is admit- ted that the respondent did not then or thereafter discriminate against these employees because of their membership or activity in the U. A. W. Their names were included in the complaint , however, in order to pro- tect their right to reinstatement in the event that jobs should ever be- come available for them. They would be entitled to reinstatement after the respondent had absorbed all employees discharged on October 15, 1937 . Since the respondent 's employment requirements had not approached the 1937 level during the hearing, there was no evidence FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1107 in the record that the respondent has discriminated against these em- ployees. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that it is neces- sary for us to make any provision for them in our order. The respondent claims that irrespective of its unfair labor practices, the 704 employees named in Appendix A, group I have so conducted themselves as to be ineligible for reinstatement. In an offer of proof., in support of this contention, the respondent, in effect, tendered every adverse statement about these employees contained in the record or -in its offers of proof.227 In general, its criticisms fall into three classi- fications : (1) acts of misconduct in connection with the sit-down strike on April 2, 1937, and in the plant after the sit-down strike to Sep- tember 17, 1937; (2) acts of misconduct between September 17 and the discharges on October 15, 1937; (3) acts of misconduct in connection with the reopening of the plant in November 1937. With respect to the period from April to September 1937, the respondent had full opportunity to discharge any employee guilty of misconduct. As we have stated, we do not believe that the respondent withheld discipli- nary measures during this period because it feared a sit-down strike in retaliation. Nor do we believe that these alleged offenses were suf- ficiently serious to warrant dismissal when committed or that any of the offenses were considered in November 1937 upon the reopening ofthe plant.228 . In the period from September 17 to October 15, 1937, and again when the plant reopened, as we have found, the respondent was engaged in a determined campaign to destroy the U. A. W. Through the'organizers of a union it had sponsored, employees were warned that the plant would not ieopen with the U. A. W. The erection of a new plant in St. Louis, Missouri, was rumored through- out the community and relations with the U. A. W. were abruptly terminated. This was climaxed by the lock-out and then, in No vember 1937, by the careful elimination of the U. A. W. leaders and adherents while the organizers of the Blue Card Union were reinstated and "rewarded" for their successful displacement of the U. A. W. A caravan system which proved to be an open invitation to conflict was formed under the respondent's supervision in collaboration with the police who otherwise interfered with 'the employees' freedom of organization for mutual aid and protection.229 Such disturbances as occurred during this period were, for the most part, of a kind likely to occur during any labor dispute; particularly is this true of a dispute directly incited by the respondent's unfair labor practices. The record fails to disclose, moreover, that there were any convictions 221 See Section III-F-1, supra, et seq. 223 See Section III-F-1, supra, et seq. 121 See Sections III-B-3 and III-I7-3 and 4, supra. 441843-42-vol. 31-71 1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for criminal offenses during the periods under question.230 We are of the opinion, consequently, that there is no justification in the record for withholding from the employees named in Appendix A, group I, a remedial order of reinstatement.211 Since we have found that the respondent has not discriminated against the employees named in Appendix D, we shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges the contrary. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local Union No. 249, and Independent Union of Ford Workers, and its-predecessor, Independent Order of Ford Workers, are labor organi- zations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of the employees listed in Appendices A and C, and thereby discouraging membership in International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local Union No. 249, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in -unfair labor practices, within- the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ' 3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and' adminis- tration of Independent Union of Ford Workers, and its predecessor, Independent Order of Ford Workers, and contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair`-labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2)' of the Act. 4. 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. - 230 Where , as here, a relatively large number of individuals are charged with misconduct, the Board , in determining the appropriateness of an order of-reinstatement , does not try individual accusations of disorder or violence which have not resulted in convictions Republic Steel Corporation v National Labor Relations Board , 107 F ( 2d) 472 (C C A 3), cert denied April 8 , 1940, enf'g as mod Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L R B 219 The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals was modified by the Supreme Court on November 12, 1940 , but only as to the work-relief provisions of the order. zn National Labor Relations Board v Stockpole Carbon Co . 105 F ( 2d), 167 (C C A 3), enf'g Matter of Stackpole Carbon Company and United Electrical V Radio Werteis of America, Local No. 502 , 6 N L R B 171 ; National Labor Relations Board V Art/ii L Colten and Abe J Colman , Co-Partners doing business as Kiddie Kover .ifanufatlwiinq Company. 105 F (2d) 179 (C C A 6), enf'g Matter of Arthur J Colten and' A J Colman, Co-Partners, doing business as Kiddie Kover Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , 6 N L R B 355; Matter of Electric Boat Company and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Worbers of America , Local No 6 7 N L R B 522; Republic Steel , Corporation v National Labor Relations Boryrd, 107 F ( 2d) 472 (C C A 3), cert . denied April 8, 1940 , enf'g as mod Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L R B 219 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1109 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 '(6) and '(7) of the Act. ^6. The respondent has not discriminsied in regard to hire or tenure of employment or' the terms and conditions of employment of the employees listed in Appendix D, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. - ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and, conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Ford Motor Company, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union United Auto- mobile Workers of America, Local Unien No. 249, or any other labor organization of its employees, or encouraging membership in Inde- pendent Union of Ford Workers, or any • other labor organization of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment; (b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Inde- pendent.,Union of Ford Workers, or th€, formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, or contributing support to Independent Union of Ford Workers, or to any other labor organization of its employees; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to - sel f-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively througn representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual- aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Natibnal Labor Relations Act. , 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : •(a) Offer to the employees named in Appendices A and C who have not already been reinstated, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, such offer to be effected in the following manner : The number of persons hired after October 15, 1937, who were not on the respondent's pay roll immediately prior thereto, shall be discharged. If by reason of a reduction in force there are not sufficient jobs available, the respond- 1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD t nt shall then lay off as many employees as is necessary in accordance with its usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination against any employee because of his union affiliation or activities. following a system of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees thus laid off, for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed upon a preferential list.;-prepared in accordance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence and shall thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment as it becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work; (b) Upon application, offer to the employees named in Appendix B, who have not already been reinstated, immediate and full rein- -.statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with- `out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,- such `.offer to be effected in the manner provided for the employees named in Appendices A and C, as explained in the Section entitled "The Remedy," placing those employees for whom no employment is im- mnediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth above and, thereafter in said manner offer them employment as it becomes available'; - (c) Make whole all persons listed in Appendices A and C, in the manner set forth in the Section entitled "The Remedy"; (d) Make whole the employees named in Appendix B for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the respondent's refusal to re- instate them or place them on a preferential list pursuant to the terms of our Order by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each normally would have earned as wages during the period from five (5) days after the date of his application for reinstatement to the date of the respondent's offer of employment or placement upon a preferential list, less his net earnings during that period ; - - (e) Withdraw all recognition from Independent Union of Ford Workers as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em- ployment, and completely disestablish Independent Union of Ford Workers as such representative; (f) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Kansas City, Missouri, plant, and maintain for a. period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1111 Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or re- main members of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 249, and the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (g) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has, taken to comply therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the employees listed in Appendix D. ' APPENDIX A (Employees discharged on October 15, 1937 and not rehired upolE the reopening of the plant in November 1937.) Group I (Employees whom the respondent allegedly would not reinstate "regardless of state of production.") 1. Body Construction Department Albrecht, A. E. Alford, Lee Alumbaugh, Frank Anderson, Lloyd E. Anderson, Milo H. Argo, Samuel A. Bales, R. E. Becker, Clifford C. Benn, Warren C. Bennett, Ben Birdsong, Elwood P. Blair, Thomas A. Blunt, Clarence Bogue, Floyd E. Boney, Fred B. Boney, James Bowers, C. A. Bowles, Roy L. Brinkley, Guy F. Brown, Dwight Bunch, Carlus J. Callaghan, Wm. J. Catron, Burd W. Clark, Joseph D. Clark, Wm. J. Clayman, Schultz Cogswell, Donald W. Cogswell, Richard, G. Cook, Byron R. Cook, Harry E. Cooper, Ford Cox, Arthur D. Cox, Roy E. Craine, Raymond V. Cringan, David E. Dahler, Fred Davidson, Victor Davis, Edward H. Dennis, Walker DeVine, Fred Dykes, John H. Eckinger, Willie C. 1112 - DECISIONS OF Elting, Merle E. Eskew, John F. Everett, Frank Fields, LeRoy Fila, Andrew E. Finley, Clyde H. Fletcher, Charles J. Floyd, Lawrence Fowler, Eugene Fuller, Marshall J. Galle, Cecil P. Gartman, Robert H. Garvin, Atirbria W. Geary, John Gillman, Gilbert E. Gipson, Claud A. Glines, R. D. Goff, James E. Grant, Francis N. Green, Gordon Greenstreet, Fred Hawn, John M. Heath, John H. Heinz, Louis M. - Hite, Phil T. Hodges, John W. Holmes, Maurice Hovermale, Wiley B. Hovis, Donald P. Hudgens, Hukell Islimael, Carol Jacobs, Joseph Peter Johnston, John T. Jones, Curtis Jones, Wm. O. Justice; James H. Kautz, Lester Kelley, Homer A. Kidwell, Ralph Kindred, Virgil Kneale, Ray Laird, R. H. Lamport, Ed. R. Langton, Wm. O. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LaPlante, Victor Lee, Clyde Leslie, Finis A. Locke, Jerry Long, Alby F. Lute, Floyd A. McCarthy, Wm. E. McCarty, Gus F. McCoy, Eugene M. McDaniel, Clyde Mabe, Charles J. Macku, Paul Maddux, Gerald Magnuson, Ernst F. Mansfield, Earl N. Meyer, Ray Michaelson, A. H. Miller, Victor Mobley, Willard K. Mowry, Verne D. - Needles, C. C. Nethercutt, Alfred E. O'Donnel, Dave R. -Olive, Jack Orei idorf, Harry E. Osborn, Harvey M. Owen, Martin E. Page, Raymond A. Peters, Delmar R Phelps, Lester E. Phelps, Raymond E. Phillips, Gale Phillips, Palmer C. Pierard, Rene Potter, John Putthoff , Richard Randel , Theodore Reid, Kenneth M. Renfro, Clarence E. Renfro, Edwin T. 'Renfro, Emmett L. Reynolds, Irwin Rezin, Joe Rhodes, James L. Rice, Virden P. Riggs, Robert W. Rinkenbaugh, Floyd Rinkenbaugh, John E. Ross, Al L. Sallee, Frank Sampson, Albert F. Samsel, Ross R. Sandridge, James F. Sandstrom, John F. Schaeffer, Geo. W. Schamback, Forrest Schell, Richard E. Schroeder, August Schroller, Clarence L. Sharp, Melvin Simpson, Robert Sledge, Arthur J. Smith, Albert L. Smith, Ben J: Smith, George C. Smith, Herbert R Smith, Lonnie B Affolter, Lawrence T. Allison, James F. Anderson, Pete Aura, John E. Ax1 helm, Carl F. Bagby, Arthur J. Banelli, John. Banks, Earl N. Bates, Vernon H. Baule, Fred C. Beverstock, Bard Big] ow, John A. Blosser, James R. Bridges, Edward F. Broyles, Clifton W. Buck, Frank - Bugg, George F. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Smith, Marion W. Stoutamore, Jim W. Tally, Glen ' Teter , Fred K. Tinker, Hancel Toronto, Joseph A. Tye, Lawrence J. Tye Sherman G. Vaughn, Win. M. Wainscott , Newman Walker, Luther A Ward, James L. Weaver, Fred Weeks, Paul E. White, Manual F. Whitmer, Earl D. Whitt, Wayne Williams, Odis Williams, Walter H. Wilson, Raymond Wood, Dorsey E. Wcody, Charles D. 2. Chassis Department A. Chassis Bumgarner; Robert R. Cathey, Glenn Cathey, Richard - Cheek, Walter T. Childers, Bruce Clayburg, Floyd F. Cline, Edward A. Coburn, Herbert M. Cogswell, Wayne E. Collins, Thomas Cox, Lester Crabaugh; Johii H. Davidson, James F. Davis, Russell Day, Wm.- A. Deal, Ralph S. Dickenson, Warren G. 1113 1114 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Donnell, Edward Dunn, Ray Eckinger , Charles L. Elleman, Robert S. Farner, P. C. Foley, Troy Forster, J. M. Fuller, Henry Gardner, W. E. Gilbert, Wm. W., Gray, James F. Griffin, Aubrey V. Guempelein, L. E. Gwartney, George G. Hacker, John L. Hague, Riley IT. Hall, Carl L. Hall, J. E. Hamburg, Joseph S. Harkins, Wm. L. Harris, Thomas Harrison , Clyde W. Harrison, Sam R. Mart, Merle F. Hayward, Emmett J. Hayward, Glen C. Hotchkiss , Edward Hudlemeyer , John H. Hudson, Jess Hudson, John P. Huff, Chas. C. - Jackson, Ancil F. Jensen, Arnold Jewell, J. E. Johnson, Charles E. Jones, Merle G. Kellner, Harry R. Knoche, Wm. Kenzer, Denny Richard Kuklenski , Steve J. Lamport, John Linenbringer, Oliver H. Lowder, Samuel Luff, Arthur LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lusher, Roy McCollum, Pearl McCollum, Vernie E. McDonald, Berry E. McGrath, ;Bert L. McKinley, W. J. Marra, Michael L. Martin, Samuel E. Maxwell, 'John H. Medlock, Carl O. Mellon, Robert W. Melvin, James Wycoff Millington, Jack Mize, Herbert Moroney, Jack C. Morrison, W. R. Myers , Harold C. Naylor, Harry Nelson, Arthur J., Jr. Nordyke, Lawrence I. Norgaard, S. E. O'Connor, Charles E. Page, Max Petty, Charles Phelps , Richard Price, Vernon E. Rairdon, Ray L. Rails, Carl Rector, Geo. Reedy , Claud E. Richards, H. R. Rising, Wm. S. Robbins, Fred Roberts, Curtis Rohrs, Ralph W. Ross, Eugene N. Russell, Lee C. Scarborough , Russell H. Schmidt, Steve Scott, Clyde J. Sever, Louis E. Shinn, Wm. B. Simpson, Charles D. Sims, Fred 13 Smith, Clarence B. Smith, John Snider, Fred J. Sousley, Lem T. Stafford, Robert M. Stalcup, Lloyd A. Stansberry, Harry H., Stephens, Roscoe Stevinson, John W. Strack, Edward J. Sumner, Chas. R. Thompson, Kenneth Titsworth, Richard A. Brown, Henry J. Bryant, Wallace.D. Corpeny, Elbert J. Cowan, Henry C. Daniels, Kenneth Hill, Lewis L. Hinkle, Wm. J. Jamison, Earl Johnson, Oglesby B. Kiger, John E. Burton, Wm. Cherry, Emmett A. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Tolliver, Colin M. Toloso, Richard L. Tosh, Earl C. Voyles, Raymond L. Waters, Mike C. Westfall, Max Wilbur, Fulton I. Williams, Jay P. Williams, W. L. Wilson, Grover E. Wyble, Loren A. Young, H. Clay Young, Lawrence B. Loading Dock Lee, Halyn L. McCready, Frank B. Mahan, Sam. H. Moss, David A. Piper, Raymond A. Rakes, Harold E. Roach, Chas. A. Stephens , Daniel L. Stutzman, H. B. Young, John T. 3. Inspection Department Clayman, Wm. D. 4. Arnold, C. C. Bash, Phil W. Black, Wm. O. Bounds, Walter H. Clayman, Ben Coates, Don E. Davidson, George Donaghe, John Goudy,' Orville C. Jones, L. W. Nicolai, Leo M. Maintenance Department A. Maintenance Orendorff, Geo. R.- Ottley, Conrad H. Reitz, Harold J. Rousseau, Frank C. Schmitt, Orville W. 'Simpson, Dean P. Taylor, Aaron Walton, James J. Warren, Thomas Wilkerson, James A. Wilson, W. Lee 1115 1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Maintenance clean-up Blundell, Harry L. Carpenter, Robt. N. Copple, James L. Coston, Aubrey H. Doane, George C. Haynie, Ray M. King, Monroe Kuhn, Julius A. Marshall, Elmer E. Miller,_Robert E. Moberly, J. Earl Moore, Mack J. Moran, Robert C. Neff, Theodore C. Perdue, Will E. Powell, Kenneth J. Sanders, Hursel Silvey, Herschel R. Turk, Joe A. 5. Paint Department A. Paint Abramovitz, Thos.' Annis, Alvin A. Atkins, Tom F. Baldwin, Herbert M. Ballou, James Beshore, Allie Beshore, Buford Bitting, Earl S.' Black, Mearl W. Coil, Albert W. Comstock, Clyde R. Cook, Frank P. Coon, Gerald M. Dowell, Ralph E. Eddy, Floyd M. Egender, Selby E. Elston, Robert S. Filson, Kenneth C. Fisher, Wm. O. Fowler, Walter L. Frazier, Fred H. Fugate, John Ganzer, Arthur W. Geier, Fred J. Gerber, Clyde E. Goss, John C. Griffin, O. S. Griffin, Willis Halcombe, Garland W. Hanson, Ernest E. Harmon, Geo. W. Harris, Velvey Hattey, Chas. A. Hayes, Thomas E. Hedden, Clyde H. Herzog, Louis Hess, Cleo A. Horner, Eugene S. Husselton, Delmar W. Jackson, Owen F. Jenkins, Archie Jenkins, Robert C. Johnson, Claude H. Jones, Charles A. Kennedy, Wm. R. Kline, George Kulik, Anthony Kyle, Hollis R. Lightfoot, James R. Lucas, Ed Lucas, Thomas A. McMains, Wentworth D. McPherson, Emmett B. Martin, Squire Mehner, Herbert E. Minor, Clifford Mitchell, Jud Nelson, John E. _ FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1117 Newcomb, Dannie Nichols, Richard R. Nisser, Robert Oliver, L. L. Oliver, Robert L. Parkman, Thomas Parrish, Donald C. Patterson, Harry D. Peachey, Henry Peterson, Lee C. Popplewell, James W. Postel, Ludolph G. Reynolds, Carl H. Roberts, Ray H. Ross, Chas. Rusk, John D. Ryerson, Kenneth W. Sanders, Earl A. Scarborough, Raymond C. Scarborough, Woodrow B. Adair, Jack Ar(-lereck, Robert F. Bennett, John W. Chamberlain, Myron Clark, S. C. Covie, James C. Eaton , Vernon D. Haller , Floyd A. Robinson , Anthony Allingham, Robt. E. Anagnost, John E. Baker, McBride Belcher, Frank Bell. Frank Brown, Leo L. Burkett, Harvey R. Carlisle, Earl D. Carter, Chas. C. Schejbal, Thomas Shrout, Dean C. Sinclair, Geo. P. Smith, Chester L. Smith, Harley Sintth, Isom Smith, J. N. Stanfill, Will H. Stone) Wm. H. Suess, Harold O. Thompson, Carl Wa j , Walter W. Williams, John H. Williams, Lester H. Wilson, Floyd J. Waiter, Alvin C. Woody, Albey E: Wu,h,A.H. Youngblood, Clarence E. Enamel Kreinbring, Leonard C. Lucy, Lonnie L. Mehner, Edmund O'Neal, Ambrose - Roddy, Clarence B. Stagg, James E. Taylor, Chester 6. Power House -7. Stock Department Colley, Paul F. Craig, Virgil M. Curby, Erwin D. Davis, Don Davis, Tony G. Deakins, Donald Dreis, Fred Eldringhoff, Henry R. Eldringhoff, Ted E. O 1118 DECISIONS OF Fairman, Decherd B. Farm, Roy O. Goebel, Wm. O. Goodwin, James M. Gregg, Wm. C. Heater, Clarence A. Herbst, Fay J. Hewitt, Ray Hockensmith, H. D. Hockensmith, Harry F. Huff, Lee Hughes, Everett Hunt, Lester Jeffries, B. E. Jerkins, Jack Ketner, George Lathrom, Elmer C. McCormick, Virgil C. Martin, Harry B. Meador, Cecil G. Meredith, Albert T. Mielke, Albert Morgan, John W. Mortimeyer, Elmer R. Nelson, Harvey Newman, John NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Parker, Philip L. Pennington, Jess A. , Phelps, Robert E. Pieper, Amiel H. Quarti, Chesco Y. Reardon, Edgar L. Reed, Glenn B. Reitz, Walter F. Reynolds, Ralph Reynolds, Roy R. Robinson, Joseph H. Rushton, Herbert Sommer, Claude E. Stoddard, Grover S. Stubbs, Edward E. Swofford, John H. Thompson, Russell Van DeBergh,.Henry Vassholz, Frank Warren,, Roxey Webber, Woodrow W. Willis, Marma D: Wilson, Win. H. Zucca, Martin H. Zuklin, J. H. 8. Trim Department Adkins, Claude D. Aldridge, Everett Allen, Robert (Tom B.) Ardito4 Steve Argo, Edgar Baker, Perley Barton, Beauford C. Beamon, Denver S. Bearden, Max Beasley, Jinx Bell, Win. Harvey Bennett, Wilbor M. Benz, Walter E. Bickford, Lester O. Bishop, George W. Blankenship, Lewis Bowen, Harold Brown, Aubrey Brow 'ii,, David W. Brown, Floyd L. Buchanan, Lawrence S. Buckingham, George F. Bunten, George Carter, Norman T. Chance, Oscar C. Cobb, Emmett Coffman, Virgil A. Connor, Stephen F. Cooper, Chas. H. Cox, Ed Crenshaw, Carl L. Daniel, Leland M. Daniel, Terry C. Davis, Paul Davisson, John D. DeLouis, Baron Derr, Carl W. Dore, Willie L. Dowell, Roy Earp, Cecil Elder, James Roy Elleman, Walter C. Ellis-'john W. Ellison, Dow N. England, Jack C. Ewing, Elmer B. Ford, Frank Forrester, Melvin D. Francis, Earl F. Freynik, Frank Gatten, Jasper Glines, E. Gene Gottstein, Clyde F. Groom, Stark A. Hale, Wm. I. C. ,Hamilton, Robert Hammer, M. Orville Hatfield, Glenn W. Hayward, Joe W. Heinzman, Cecil - Helms, Delbert - Henderson, Clement Henschel, Harry W. Hollopeter, M. V. Jackson, Carl W. Jamerson, Paul C. Jensen, Geo. J. Jent, Cecil D. Jeter, Claude Jiovenale, James Jones, John L. Jones, Vernon W. Kahl, Wm. E. Kelley, Walter R. Krapes, Leo W. Leach, 'Chesley L. 'FORD MOTOR' COMPANY Liggett, Geo. W. McAlexander, H. T. McClure, Andrew F. Malone, Ralph Martin, Joseph J. Martin, Vincent A. Masoner, Harold P. Maxwell, Herman A. Megredy, Frank W. Jr. Miles, Denver Millington, Vestel Mineo, Ross Minsliall, Gene Mitchell, Walter P. Monroe, Wm. H. Moore, Wm. S. Morgan, J. LeRoy Morrissey, Delbert Mulky, Wm. I. ° Mullen, Jas. P. Mynatt, Dorsey Norris, Gerald E. O'Dell, Frank C. O'Meara, Tom P. O'Neil, John P. Oster, Allen- W. Page, Carter E. Persel, Clarence C. Pike, Ted D. Ragland, Easter Rees, Henry Rees; Viet D. Rhoades, O. E. Root, James A. Roper, Mack J. Rush, John E. Say]es, Wm. A. Sechter, Emil Sharp, Lester L. Simpson, Cecil Sousley, Clyde T. - Spreitzer, Leonard J. Stafford, Evan Stallcup, John R. 1119 1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Storms, Ellis C. Street, Stanley G. Tann, Leslie W. Taylor, Donald Taylor, Miner R. Thomason, Osman Thompson, Cecil M. Upchurch, Robt. A. Van Wormer, John R. Wachtler, Charles L. Walker, Loris N. Watson, Gaylon W. Womack, Felix Wood, Willard L. Woolf, Joe F. Group II (Employees whom the respondent allegedly failed to reinstate upon reopening its plant in November 1937 either because they were un- available or unnecessary so long as production was below the 1937 model.) Arttle, Clemens Boswell, J. A. Burnell, Sam Corlew, Jesse Cross, Lloyd H. Davis, Edwin H. Dorwick, Walter Evertson, Harry W. Fields, Herbert H. Freels, Wayne B.. HilehTian, Wilbur J. Hobbs, Robert F. Irvin, Bert L. Jundy, Leslie P. Kettle, Earl S. Knopf, Karl F. Lancaster, Homer Anders, Alfred L. Antle, Carl C. Ban d, Albert Bartkoskie, Clayton Beals, Clark Clifford Boman, James M. Bowen, G. C., Jr. 1. Body Construction McClurg, John Mein, E. G. Miller, Bernard P. Mitchell, John' Qualls, Tilbert C. Rice, Acier R. Rinkenbaugh, Russell Russell, Ray F. Sanders, Charles E. Scott, Andrew, Simone, Albert Srader, Burton F. Stetler, Harry A. Stuart, Arol Winegar, L. T. Yates, Clarence H. 2. Chassis Department A. Chassis Braun, John Brockman, Howard C Brow ping, Wm. M. Bryson, Robert Buxton, Rodger C. Cottle, James Crowley, Daniel Davison, Win. H. Duchesne, Edward G. Duncan, RaymonI Emily, Wm. Evleth, Paul L. Foote, Merle Ginther, Wm. J. Goddard, Earl E. Goodhue, John J. Gordon, John L. Harbison, Dorset C. Harris, Paul E. Hastings, Elmer C. Hedrick, Granville N. Henry, Lawrence D. Hodges, Claude G. Humbird, Wm. L. Hunk, Howard D. Johnson, Wallace M. Karg, Clifford Knisley, Ray C. Lascot, Joe Lauffer, Harold Lowe, Guy W. Lyerla, Artie McGraw, Herbert Martin, Bryan John Audiss, Claude Barnes, Evert Bernard, Claude Croff, Win. J. Davis,_Elzie A. Dever, Harvey L. Green, Fred A. Holmes, George C. Arnold, T . M. Grindinger , Paul H. Hale, Edgar E. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Meyer, Dan - Munkirs, Frank Murfin,.Olin U. Nipp, Durward C. Parrott, Rodney B. Payne, Clifford L. Porter, Charles E. Rafferty, James Reardon, Francis M. Rickey, Harold C. Ross, Robert B. Sandage, C. A. Schrock, L. S. Short, Vaughn Shutt, LeRoy Smith, Edgar Smith, Willard Smittle, Noel A. Sturgis, Kenneth L. Trimble, Henry Earl Tull, Melford W. Webb, Farrell Welch, Vernon Worden, Russell Wray, Cornelius O. Zimmerman, Ernest J. ,B. Loading Dock Houser, Fred L. Massey, Guy H. Oversby, Oliver H. Parre, Theodore Rusk, Win. Russell Russell, Oral . Zollman, William C. 11 3. Inspection Department Rickey, Glenn Weisner, L. A. 1121 1122 DECISIONS Cato, Roy William Crisp, W. D. Erickson, Elmer F. Fields James W. Good, Harold Bartlett, Joe E. DeRusette, Clarence Fisher, LeRoy Gregg, Clarence M. Harper, Walter W. Herring, Earl A. Crockett, Russell W. Dunlap, Jay Hunsburger, Derwin R. Hunsburger, Melvin L. Johnson, Floyd King, Edward J. Kopp, Francis H. Krouse, Harry Kure, Leo N. McMullen, Roy McWilliams, Carl D. Mabry, Homer Church, Thos M. Coleman, Roy Cooper, E. V. Day, Louis Fritschie, Myron Arzberger, Glen Brady, T. E. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD 4. Maintenance Department A: Maintenance Higgins, James F. McDonald, C. T. Magargee, J. Charles Price, Everett B. Maintenance Clean-up Means, Frank E. Paxton, Fred L. 'Shriver, Ray. L. Wilson, Eugene P. Wyatt, Terrell 5. Paint Department 6. A. Paint Moore, Luther Novotny, John S. Perdue, Elmo C. Planck, E. N. Rodgers, Richard O. Shannon, Alvan B. Stauffer, Eugene Uphouse, Albert Vohs, Al Wade, Hugh S. Ward, Charles T. Wilson, Sam A. B. Enamel Goodner, Otis H. Inzenga, Anthony Rutledge, Raymond F. Scarborough, Lee W. Taton, Wm. F. Stock Department Brown, D. L. Gee, George S. Gilliam, Charles Gillespie, Geo. Heater, Albert V. Hildreth, James F. Hughes, Herbert J. Hulse, LeRoy, Jr. Keepes, Albert J. Lile, Cecil McCormick, Robert L. Adkins, Chas. Arbuckle, Clare Aitley, George,O. Atkeson, Grady. Barr, Wm. C. Blythe, James Bock, Lloyd E. Bowen, G. C. Brockway, John W. Brown, Robert Bruce, Cecil R. Bruce, J. D. Cassidy, John Conley, Orville D. Copek, Stanley Corlew, Curtis ° Davenport, Henry P. Denton, Chas. F. Derr, Louis W. Dwyer, Fred C. Ellsworth, Hubert I. Fishback, Raymond Flippin, John B. Fouts, James G. Gemes, Guy Gerber, Paul M. Hoots, Joseph E. Hurley, James Ingle, Fred W. Jones, Everett Lamberson , Kenneth O. Leskera , Frank R. 441843-42-vol 31- FORD MOTOR COMPANY Meuwissen; Alex Piper, Vinton Quick, Lonnie Reardon, Ed Rouse, Arthur C. Sparr, Clifford J. Wall, James Leonard Woody, Alfred 7. Trim Department Long, Pete McCarty, A. J. McCorkendale, Durward McCullough, Geo. W. McInnis, Neal C. Mackey, Harold H. Maxon, Lewis Meek, Tom Meyer, Fred W. Moise, Lafayette A. Moran, Wm. M. Morris, Geo. W. Moyer, Emerson R. Ober, David W. O'Donnell, Earl O'Neal, Ray Price, Dean V. Pyper, L. Donald Radmall, Geo. Radmall, Marland G. Raines, Melbourne R. Sanford Francis E. Simmons, Cecil W. Simmons, Jerry D. Storms, Ralph D. Taylor, Ed J. Tharp, Jesse-R. Threlkeld, Joe M. Todd, Ross E. Wadsworth, James_ W. Weller, Carl E. Wilkinson, Glen M. 1123, 1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Group III (Employees whom the respondent failed to classify either as "quali- fied" or "unqualified " for future employment.) Drake, Ralph C. (factory service employee)., Hinton, John J. (factory service employee). Payne, John B. (chassis department employee). White, William (paint department employee). Group IV (Employees included in this category under the terms of our order.) Richeson, Charles Monroe, Patrick D. APPENDIX B (Employees who struck on or after December 10, 1937.). Group I (Employees in this category who testified during the hearing.) -Brown, Hugh A. •Crandell, Jess L. Davisson, Amos L. Duff, Ray E. Dunlap, Leonard N. Farley, Chester A. Fromholz, Pete ,Giangreco, Joe Harris, Jack Hattey, Harry M. Hays, Harry F. Hendrix, Edgar Hinkle, Frank G. Lallier, Henry Long, Oren C. Malee, Theodore J. Marshall, Lee E. Mayhew, James Michael, Burt H. Moor, Oren D. Moore, Ainsworth D. Pritchett, A. C. Ramey, Owen G. Roper, John M. Sakaly, Frank Seaton, William R. Scifner, Joe Stone, Roy L. Strack, Ignatious P. Sullivan, Victor Thompson, Frank L. Todd, Oren E. Wait, William Edgar Yotmg. Lewis G. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1125 Group II (Employees in this category hearing.') Bland, Raymond Brinklow, George W. Burden, Fred D. DeWolf, F. G. Fisher, Clarence A. Hicks, Kenneth who did not testify during the Kelley, Joe L. Lynn, Elmer C. Mabry, William Murray, Russell V. Pemberton, William L. Taylor, Kasimiez APPENDIX C (Employees who were discharged for union activity after they had been reinstated upon the reopening of the plant for the 1938 model.) Brown, Glenn C. Clifford, James Thomas Darling, Sanford A. Grindley, Frank R. Jones, George W.2 Simrell , Virgil Lee Snider , William J. APPENDIX D (Employees whose names are plaint.) Betz, Frank, Jr. Binger, Herman H. Cranfill, Edward B. Daniel, Herbert Hardy, James O. John, Marion E. King, Wesley hereby dismissed from the , com- Lenington, George 3 Lykke, E. D. McBride, William R. Ormon, Wiliam B. Pearson, Carl E. White, Lloyd R. 1 William A. Graham, deceased, has been excluded from this list . See Section III-E-2 2In the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order heiem , the name of George W. Jones was Inadvertently included in Appendix D although the Board had found that he -,ias discharged for union activity. 3 In the proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order herein, the name of George Lenington was inadvertently included in Appendix C although the Board had found that he was not discriminatorily dischaiged.