General Engineering, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Engineering , Inc., and Harvey Aluminum and Richard
Quatier, Merle Quatier , and Matt Baldwin . Cases Nos. 36-CA-
875, 36-CA-876, and 36-CA-904. December 10, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 18, 1959, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices but
had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions 2 and briefs,3 and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.'
' we find, in agreement with Respondents' contentions that the Trial Examiner erred in
refusing to grant Respondents' request for the production by witness Miller of his notes,
which he used to refresh his recollection at the hearing. N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products
Corporation, 258 F. 2d 403 (C.A. 2) ; 124 NLRB 641. However, we shall not rely on the
testimony of Miller herein, and, therefore, we do not find the Trial Examiner's error
prejudicial.
2 The General Counsel filed a motion to strike the exceptions of Respondents as not in
conformity with the Board's Rules. As we find the Respondents' exceptions sufficient
under the Board's Rules, the motion is denied.
' Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, because in our opinion the record,
including the exceptions and briefs, adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of
the parties.
4 We find no merit in the Respondents' contention that the Trial Examiner was biased
or prejudiced.
Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's finding of a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act in Personnel Manager Brunt's warning to Dilworth that any recurrence of the
work stoppage of November 12 would result in the discharge of the employees involved.
Respondents contend that the work stoppage of November 12 was not protected concerted
activity because the employees did not take proper precautions to prevent spoilage of
materials during the stoppage, and Respondents were, therefore, privileged to threaten
reprisals for any recurrence of such unprotected activity. However, the record shows that
there was no danger of any spoilage during a stoppage of only a few hours' duration, such
as occurred here, and it is admitted by Respondents that there was in fact no spoilage.
Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's violation finding.
In affirming the Trial Examiner's finding that both Respondents constitute a single em-
ployer, we rely on the evidence of common ownership and common control of both Re-
spondents which was adduced in the representation proceeding cited in the Intermediate
Report, and of which we take official notice. The functional integration of the Respond-
ents' operation, while not sufficient alone to warrant a single employer finding, provides
additional support for such a finding.
125 NLRB No. 74.
GENERAL ENGINEERING , INC., AND HARVEY ALUMINUM 675
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, General En-
gineering, Inc., and Harvey Alluninum, their officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Aluminum Workers Council, of
The Dalles, Oregon, or in any other labor organization, of their em-
ployees by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of their employment.
(b) Discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate em-
ployees for the reason that they engaged in concerted activities pro-
tected by the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Aluminum Workers Coun-
cil, of The Dalles, Oregon, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Matt Baldwin, Richard Quatier, and Merle Quatier
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
(b) Make whole the above-named employees in the manner set
forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Rem-
edy," for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them.
(c) Post at their plant at The Dalles, Oregon, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondents' representatives, be posted
by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by them for a period of 60 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted..
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps they
have taken to comply herewith.
. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
other than herein found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Aluminum Workers
Council, of The Dalles, Oregon, or in any other labor organiza-
tion by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em
ployment, or any terms or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discharge, or discriminatorily refuse to reinstate,,
any of our employees for engaging in concerted activity protected
by the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Aluminum
Workers Council, of The Dalles, Oregon, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that, such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure.
Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to Matt Baldwin, Richard Quatier, and Merle
Quatier immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any sen-
iority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
GENERAL ENGINEERING , INC., AND HARVEY ALUMINUM 677
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 ( a) (3) of the
amended Act , as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 . We will not discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any such labor organization.
GENERAL INGINEERING , INC., AND ]-LLRVEY ALUMINUM,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding' with all parties represented, was heard by the duly designated
Trial Examiner in Portland, Oregon, on March 24-27, 1959, on complaint of the
General Counsel and answers of General Engineering, Inc., and Harvey Aluminum.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The Respondents, Harvey Aluminum and General Engineering, Inc., for some
time prior to the issuance of this complaint have been engaged in the business of
constructing and operating a plant at The Dalles, Oregon, for the purpose of reduc-
ing aluminum ore to aluminum and aluminum products. Harvey Aluminum, herein
referred to as Harvey, has for some years operated an aluminum plant in the State
of California. In the course and conduct of these California operations during
the 1-year period ending December 31, 1958, Harvey received in excess of $100,000
for products sold and shipped to points outside the State of California. During the
same period General Engineering, Inc., herein referred to as General, received in
excess of $100,000 for labor, material, and services performed at The Dalles plant.
The evidence establishes that General was organized at the request of Harvey for
the purpose of erecting this aluminum plant at The Dalles, Oregon, for Harvey.
The work performed by General was performed pursuant to a "purchase order"
between Harvey and General with the understanding that when the plant was built
it would be surrendered to Harvey for operation. In the construction of the plant
a corps of Harvey key employees were on the construction site to insure that the
operations of General were in the best interest of Harvey. Upon all the evidence
in this proceeding, I find that the two companies constitute a single employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
At the time of the hearing herein, the parties were awaiting a decision of the
Board in General Engineering, Inc., and Harvey Aluminum, 123 NLRB 586. In
that representation case the question of whether Harvey and General constituted
one or two employers was litigated at length. On April 2, 1959, the Board issued
its Decision and Direction of Election in the cited case, supra, holding that General
was not an independent contractor and that the two corporations constituted a
single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. I hereby take
judicial notice of the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and on that basis
also find that the two companies constitute a single employer within the meaning of
the Act. Hereinafter, this employer is referred to as the Company or the Employer.
3 Case No. 36-CA-930-Robert E. Buckley, an individual, and the above-named Re-
spondents-was dismissed at the hearing, upon motion of the General Counsel.
535828-60-vol. 125 44
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Aluminum Workers Council, of The Dalles, Oregon, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act admitting to membership employees
.of the Employer.2
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The issues to be resolved are whether or not: (1) the Company discharged dis-
criminatorily employees Matt Baldwin, Richard Quatier, and Merle Quatier; and
(2) whether or not certain of the Employer's supervisory force, namely, Matteson,
Hitchcock, Wallis, and Brunt engaged in specific conduct constituting interference,
restraint, and coercion of employees.
The Company denied the commission of unfair labor practices and as an affirma-
tive defense alleged that the three employees were discharged for cause. It was
the Company's contention that Baldwin was discharged because he was "not suitable
for permanent supervisory or leadman employment; had failed to maintain efficient
organization of his crew. Efficiency had been declining for 60 days in spite of
repeated warnings, displayed a lack of interest in responsibility, limited knowledge
of the job, and he made no attempt to increase his ability for the job; poor co-opera-
tion; and required followup on assigned instructions."
As to Merle Quatier the Company contended that he was discharged because he
was "away from assigned jobs on numerous occasions for long periods, holding
conversations with other men and thereby interfering with their performance of
duties, and not performing his own duties." The Company also contended that
Richard Quatier was discharged because of, "extreme carelessness. He did not
rectify any of his careless mistakes after numerous warnings, failure to perform
.assigned work, repeated absences from his place or assignment of work." 3
B. The work stoppage; the discharge of Baldwin
It is the contention of the General Counsel, that Baldwin was discharged on
November 18, 1958, because he was the spokesman for a group of employees who
engaged in a work stoppage on November 12, 1958. The Employer contends that
Baldwin's discharge was unconnected with any role he played in the walkout and
was due to his unfitness for permanent employment, as set forth above..
Baldwin, who testified, admitted that he had a criminal record. In November
1948 he was convicted of the crime of accessory to grand larceny and sentenced to
Oregon Penitentiary. He was released on parole in October 1949 but was convicted
of first-degree burglary in Idaho on April 5, 1950. After serving his term in Idaho
he was returned 'to Oregon as a parole violator on April 7, 1951, and was released
on December 18, 1951. In the course of an interview with Colonel Lynn Wallis,
security officer of the Employer, he disclosed this record but was hired and began
work in April 1958. Apparently Baldwin's work was satisfactory because of the
recommendation of his foreman he was promoted to the job of leadman on approxi-
mately September 1, 1958.
It is undisputed that in the fall of 1958 a considerable turnover of personnel
occurred at the plant due to reduction in force and discharges. About the same
time the Union first evidenced an interest in organizing the employees. The manner
in which these discharges, or reductions in force, were effected caused grave concern
to the employees, and eventually resulted in the work stoppage which occurred
at 3 a.m. on November 12. It is undisputed that among the men who stopped
work were Baldwin and William T. Dilworth, both of whom testified at the hearing
and who stated that before the work stoppage occurred they were elected spokesmen
by the group of employees. Dilworth furnished a clear and accurate account of the
facts of the work stoppage, which pis corroborated by the testimony of Baldwin, and
is not at substantial variance with the testimony of company supervisors.
Dilworth testified that he arrived at the plant about 11:30 p.m., on the night of
November 11, and immediately learned from the employees that the men on the
4-12 shift, the B shift, had engaged in a work stoppage. He was told that the B
shift had stopped work in protest of the discharge of some of their men, and that
the men h^.d been kept on the job as a result of the employees' 'action. This news
9 The designation AFL-CIO has been stricken from the name of the labor organization,
upon motion of the Company, for the reason stated in the Board's Decision and Direction
of Election, supra.
3 Transcript, pages 107-108.
GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., AND HARVEY ALUMINUM 679
had special significance to the men of the A shift, because they were disturbed by
the discharge of an employee named Cruse on the day previous, and by the dis-
charge of an employee named Teel on the day before that. The manner in which
all discharges were accomplished at this .time was the cause of the men's dissatis-
faction. It is undisputed that these discharges were effected without prior notice
to the men involved, by the simple device of taking the man's timecard out of the
timecard rack. When he inquired where his timecard was, he was told that he had
been discharged. In consequence of this system when the men clocked in, they
made inquiry as to whether anyone of the shift members' cards had been "pulled."
On this night, when they clocked in, the men of the A shift held a meeting and
decided that they would try to get in touch with Legault, the plant superintendent,
for the purpose of discussing with him the basis of the discharge of the men, and
why some notice could not be given to the men to be discharged. At this meeting
Dilworth and Baldwin were elected spokesmen, and the men voted to stop work
at 3 a.m., in a body, unless they had a talk with Superintendent Legault in the mean-
time. The men then went to work, and Baldwin and Dilworth spoke to Foreman
Christen, their immediate supervisor.
They told Foreman Christen that they would like to speak to Legault to find out
if the men could have some kind of a grievance committee which might talk to the
Company about job security, and obtain some idea for the men of what was going
on. They also told Christen that the men on the shift would stop work at 3 o'clock
if Legault did not talk to the men as a group before that hour.
Christen immediately relayed the men's message to his superior, Foreman Dave
Schrader, who in turn passed it to Assistant Superintendent Matteson. Legault did
not appear, so at 3 a.m. the B shift stopped work. Matteson went to the men and
ordered them to go to work or leave the plant. When the men refused to do either,
he threatened to call the plant guards and have them ejected from the plant. How-
ever, when the men persisted in their demand to talk to Legault, he did not carry
out his threat. He then told the men that if they would go to work he would try
to arrange a meeting with Legault in the morning. Dilworth agreed to put this
proposal to a vote of the -men, but when this was done the men unanimously rejected
the proposal, insisting that they wanted to talk to Legault -then and there. Finally,
Matteson phoned Legault, apprised him of the situation, and Legault arrived at the
plant about 3:30 a.m.
Legault took the men into the cafeteria and told them he was very much disturbed
because they had required his presence at the plant at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Dilworth and Baldwin then told Legault what the men wanted; they wanted to
know what was going on, why he discharged Cruse and Teel, and how the Company
picked the men to be discharged, and whether they shook the names of the men up
in a hat, or on what basis discharges were made. Legault said that the reason
some men were terminated was either the Company's or the men's personal business,
and that some of the men had quit. Dilworth and Baldwin told him they thought
that a man who had eight children just wouldn't quit for no reason whatever, and
that at; far as they could see, Teel, the man referred to, had been a good man, and
the men were scared of losing their jobs. They also said that the men did not want
to have the welfare of their families dependent on a job from day to day. After
some talk Legault promised to take up with management the question of permitting
the men some kind of a grievance committee. Near the end of the talk Baldwin
and Dilworth asked Legault to agree that there would be no reprisals against any
of the men who had engaged in the work stoppage, and Legault promised them
that there would be no reprisals. Thereupon the men went back to work.
A few minutes after the men had begun work Legault sought out Baldwin and
Dilworth. Legault asked Baldwin and Dilworth what they thought should be done
about the men being docked for the time that they had not worked. Dilworth and
Baldwin told him that they hadn't been authorized by the men to speak on that
subject. Dilworth said that he knew there were 8 hours of work that had to be
done, that they were an hour and a half behind, and he thought that the men would
have to make up that hour and a half. Dilworth finally said that if Legault looked
over the job in the morning, and things didn't look as good then as they had on any
other morning, Legault could take the time from the men.
Dilworth finished the shift without further event. On the next day when he
went to work he was told that he was wanted in Brunt's office. When he reported
to Brunt, who is personnel manager, the latter told him that the work stoppage of
the previous night had not put Dilworth in a very good light with the Company.
Dilworth replied that he wasn't in the work stoppage for personal gain, but that the
men had decided as a whole to take that action. He felt that they were justified so
he had gone along with them, and they had chosen him as one of their spokesmen.
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dilworth said that he thought the men had handled the work stoppage "just about as.
neat" as they possibly could. Brunt said the Company couldn't put up with such
conduct and that if anything like that happened again the men involved would be
fired. In the course of this discussion Dilworth suggested that the Company install
a bulletin board, and, by notices, keep the men informed and give them some
advance notice of discharges or reductions in force.
On the next workday when Dilworth came to work he learned that Baldwin's
timecard had been "pulled," and that Baldwin was talking to Cronkrite. At approxi-
mately 9 a.m., he learned that Baldwin had been discharged. Dilworth asked
Foreman Christen if he would arrange for him to see Assistant Superintendent
Matteson, and Christen agreed. Matteson came to see Dilworth a few minutes
later. Dilworth asked Matteson why the Company had fired Baldwin. Matteson
said that as a leadman Baldwin was in a supervisory position and he was leading
the men in the wrong direction. Dilworth told Matteson that he thought Baldwin
was a good workman and knew his job, and that when he was working he was
strictly business. Matteson agreed that Baldwin was a good workman and said that
the only reason he could give for Baldwin's firing was that he was a union man.
Matteson then proceeded to tell Dilworth about the Union and what a phony outfit
it was. Dilworth told Matteson that he would investigate the things which Matteson
told him and if he found out that the Union was a phony outfit he would be just as
much against it as Matteson was. Then Matteson left. A week later Dilworth
voluntarily quit his employment with the Company.
Baldwin also testified as to the events of the walkout. He testified that when
Legault came to meet the men he asked why he had been roused from his bed at
3 o'clock in the morning. Baldwin told him that it was no "unhandier" for him to
come to the plant at 3 o'clock in the morning to talk to the men, than it was for
the men on the shift to come to work at midnight to find out they had been dis-
charged. He told Legault that the men wanted a system of seniority in regard to the
discharges. Legault said that men who worked in the plant less than a year
deserved no seniority, and the books of the Company weren't set up to the point
where they could keep seniority. Baldwin told Legault that the men also wanted
a grievance committee to discuss these matters with Legault. Legault said he would
not consent to a grievance committee, but that the men could send two or three
representatives to him occasionally, instead of straggling in one at a time when
an individual had a problem. Baldwin also told Legault the men wanted him to
agree that there would be no reprisals against any man for the work stoppage, and
Legault assured them that there would be none. After that the men went back to
work. Baldwin completed the shift and then had a 3-day period, a "long change,"
during which he did not work.
When he next reported for work the guard at the plant gate told him to see
Colonel Wallis before he went to work. When he arrived at Wallis' office the
colonel told him that Cronkrite would speak to him. In a few minutes Cronkrite
appeared. Cronkrite said that he understood there was a ruckus in the plant the
other night and that Baldwin was the instigator of it. Baldwin told Cronkrite that
there was no ruckus; that he wasn't the instigator; that he had been elected spokes-
man; and that the men had asked Mr. Legault for three things-a seniority system,
a grievance committee, and no reprisals for the walkout, and Legault had agreed
to give the men those three things. Cronkrite said that he would abide by that
arrangement as best he could, but that he did not have any time for a troublemaker;
the plant was not on a paying basis and consequently Baldwin had to go. Baldwin
said that he was merely the spokesman for the group, and asked if there was any
chance of him keeping his job, if that fact was established. Cronkrite said there was
that chance, but that he would have to investigate further. Thereafter Baldwin
was no longer employed by the Company. The testimony of Dilworth and Baldwin
is mutually corroborative as to the facts of the work stoppage. I credit their
testimony in this regard fully.
Robert C. Christen, who was Baldwin's foreman at the time of the work stoppage,
also testified as to those events. His version of this incident coincides with the
version furnished by Dilworth and Baldwin. Christen also said that Baldwin was a
good worker, that he had recommended the promotion of Baldwin to leadman in the-
first instance, and that he had been fully satisfied with Baldwin's performance of duty
up to the time that Baldwin was discharged.
Dave Schrader, the foreman next in line above Christen at the time of the walkout,
also furnished testimony as to this incident. He said that about mdinight, Foreman
Christen told him that Dilworth had informed him that the A shift was going to
walk out at 3 o'clock if they didn't get a chance to talk to Legault. He replied that
he thought the meeting could be arranged easily because both Legault and Matteson
GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., AND HARVEY ALUMINUM 681
were then present in the plant. Schrader called Mack Holt, another foreman, and
they looked for Matteson. When they found him Schrader told Matteson, "the
fellows would like to talk to Legault and get things straightened out." Matteson
replied, "Let them walk out. I'll not disturb Legault." Schrader said that he
thought that would be a mistake and they should contact Legault. Matteson said
that he would handle it and Schrader had no right to go over his head. In
consequence Schrader reported to the men that he had conveyed their message and
the matter was out of his hands.
Schrader also testified that he had promoted Baldwin to the position of leadman
upon the recommendation of Foreman Christen, and after consultation with Fore-
man Osborne, and in his opinion Baldwin's performance of duty had justified his
confidence in the man. Schrader also testified that when Baldwin was discharged,
Schrader asked Matteson why Baldwin was fired. Matteson answered that "some-
body had figured that Baldwin wasn't qualified to be a leadman when he would walk
out and participate in a walkout."
Assistant Superintendent Clarke D. Matteson also testified concerning the walk-
lout. He said that he was in his office about 3 a.m. when somebody told him the
men on the A shift had quit work. He went out and saw the men gathered in the
aisleway. He asked what was wrong, and four men did most of the talking, Baldwin,
Dilworth, Salsbury, and Roberts. They explained that the men were upset by the
discharge of Wilmer Cruse, and that they were not going to work until he was
reemployed. Matteson testified that he couldn't understand why they were upset
about this particular discharge because at that time the Company was effecting a
reduction in force. The men demanded to know why Cruse was discharged. Mat-
teson told them that it was "none of their business," that his discharge was a personal
matter between Cruse and the Company and he refused to discuss any employee's
personal business with them. They asked about several other former employees and
he gave them the same answer. He then told them to go back to work or to go
outside the gate. They said they weren't going out and that he couldn't throw them
out. He explained that he wouldn't throw them out personally, but he could call
the plant guards to do it. About that time Legault showed up and took over.
Matteson testified that no employee was discharged because he had participated in
the walkout.
Legault's version of the walkout is substantially the same as that furnished by
Dilworth and Baldwin, except that Legault testified, as had Matteson, that there
were four men who were spokesmen for the group. These spokesmen were Baldwin,
Dilworth, Roberts, and Salsbury. Legault said that no disciplinary action was taken
against any participants in the walkout: Dilworth quit about a week later of his own
accord and Roberts and Salsbury were still employed at the Company. According
to Legault the men "wanted to be represented, and also they said they had some
grievances, they wanted to elect some of them to represent the other employees in
order to improve some conditions, seniority of the employees in the plant, that
was I think the overall basis of the conversation."
Andrew B. Cronkrite, general manager of General, testified that he made the
decision to discharge Baldwin. Cronkrite testified that immediately prior to the
discharge of Baldwin he made a thorough review of Baldwin's file, his aptitudes, his
conduct, and his capacity, and had discussed these factors with Baldwin's immedi-
ate supervisor, and that he had come to the conclusion that Baldwin was unfit for
permanent employment as a leadman or a salaried supervisor, so he had discharged
him. Cronkrite also testified that he personnally discharged Baldwin, in these words,
"I personally discharged Matt Baldwin because I was aware that he had participated
in an unruly employee group a few days before, and rather than let his termination
take a normal course with respect to his supervisor, I felt duty bound to do it
myself, so that I tried not to have the reasons misconstrued or misinterpreted." 4
C. The discharge of Merle and Richard Quatier
Merle and Richard Quatier, brothers, testified that they both began their employ-
ment with the Company in the spring of 1958. Apparently their employment was
uneventful until approximately September 1, 1958, when Lawrence A. Holly, an
organizer for the Union, visited the motor court where the Quatiers lived, and asked
if they would help him organize the employees at the plant by having the employees
sign some union application cards. Merle and Richard both agreed, and Holly left
some union application cards with them. Thereafter Merle signed up about 15-20
men on union cards. As these were completed he gave them to Holly or mailed
4 Transcript , page 723.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them directly to the Union. Around the middle of September, Holly told the
Quatiers that the Union was going to hold a meeting at the Community Club, a
public tavern, that the beer would be on the Union, and that he would like all the
employees interested in the Union to come to the meeting. The Quatiers spread
the word to the employees in the plant and attended the meeting, which was held at
midnight when the B shaft came off duty. At the appointed time approximately
10-12 employees gathered with Holly at a table in a corner of the barroom. The
brothers both testified that at the meeting they noticed that one of the uniformed
guards from the plant was seated at the bar, and that Foremen Al Miller and Francis
Holden were also seated at the bar, near the guard. The meeting lasted until shortly
after 1 o'clock.
At that point in his employment Merle Quatier had a job as "siderammer" of
pots; William A. Brady was his leadman, and Foreman Miller, his immediate super-
visor. Miller in turn was under Foreman Hitchcock, who in turn reported to As-
sistant Superintendent Matteson. On the next night, while at work, Foreman Miller
told Merle Quatier that the Company had obtained all the badge numbers of the
men at the meeting. On this night also, the union adherents met again at the trailer
court where Holly, the union organizer, lived. At this meeting the Union furnished
the men with union buttons which read, "Aluminum Workers Council, AFL-CIO."
Both Quatiers accepted buttons and wore them on their hats at work thereafter until
they were discharged on September 23.
Merle Quatier testified that none of the foremen made any remarks about the
buttons. Both Quatiers testified that prior to their discharge, neither had been
criticized nor reprimanded for inferior or unsatisfactory work. Both were discharged
by identical telegrams sent by the Company and received by the Quatiers on
September 23, 1958. The telegrams were worded as follows:
Your employment with this firm is being terminated Sept. 23, 1958 for the rea-
son that your work is unsatisfactory.
GENERAL ENGINEERING,
ANDREW B. CRONKRITE,
General Manager.
Francis I. Holden, the shift foreman previously mentioned, testified that he was
first employed by the Company on August 10, 1958, as a shift foreman and that he
was terminated on November 20, 1958, in a reduction in force of supervisory per-
sonnel. He said that Merle Quatier worked under his direction and that he did not
recommend Merle's discharge. He considered Merle a satisfactory worker. Holden
learned that Merle was discharged when he came to work on the shift of September
23. Prior to that time he had no indication that Merle was to be fired nor was he
consulted about the discharge. Holden also testified that on the night of the Union's
beer party and meeting at the Community Club, he overheard a conversation be-
tween Foreman Hitchcock and Leadman Brady. In this conversation Hitchcock told
Brady to go to the Community Club and to take the names of the employees that
were there and bring them back to him. When Holden himself quit work he went
to the tavern. When he entered he noticed that there was one of the uniformed
plant guards seated at the bar. He sat at the bar next to the guard. He noticed
that Holly, the union organizer, was in one corner with a group of employees. He
spoke to the guard saying that he didn't know there was a union meeting there, or he
wouldn't have been there. The guard replied, "What the hell do you think I'm doing
here?" Holden noticed that both Merle and Richard Quatier were in attendance at
the meeting. A day or two later Holden saw the same guard looking around in-
side the plant. Holden talked to him, and the guard said that he was matching
names with faces. Holden also testified that for a few days prior to their discharge
he noticed that the Quatiers were wearing union buttons on their hats.
On September 23, when Holden reached the plant and learned the Quatiers had
been discharged, he asked his superior, Foreman Miller, why the Quatiers had been
discharged. Miller replied that he did not know.
William A. Brady also testified that he was Merle Quatier's leadman and that
Merle was working for him at the time of Merle's discharge. Brady said Merle's
work was above average and that he had no occasion to warn Merle about unsatis-
factory work. He had seen Merle wearing a union button a few days before he was
discharged.
Brady testified that on the night the Union met at the Community Club he had a
conversation with Foreman Hitchcock. Hitchcock told Brady that he wanted him
to go the Community Club, that Slim Holly of the Union was buying the beer, and
that he wanted Brady to report to him in the morning as to which of the employees
were attending the meeting. Brady testified that he agreed to go to the tavern but
GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., AND HARVEY ALUMINUM 683
he didn't agree to report any names or numbers. When he arrived at the tavern he
noticed that Foreman Holden and a uniformed guard from the plant were sitting
at the bar, so he sat down at the bar with them. He noticed that Holly and a group
of employees including Merle and Richard Quatier were gathered in a corner of the
barroom. On the next morning Brady was called into Assistant Superintendent Mat-
teson's office. When he arrived, Beale, another leadman, Foreman Hitchcock, and
Matteson were there. Matteson then proceeded to ask the men if this particular
man, or that particular man, was at the meeting at the Community Club. In the
course of the meeting Hitchcock said that he was sorry that the Quatier boys were
mixed up with the Union because he liked their work. Matteson asked Brady if
several men, mentioning them by name, were at the meeting, but Brady told him
that those particular men were not there. In the course of this meeting, Matteson
and Hitchcock both told Brady that they didn't want a union in the plant and that
he was to keep his eyes and ears open for any talk about the Union.
Albert R. Miller testified that he was employed from August 1, 1958, until
March 3, 1959, as a line foreman. Merle Quatier worked directly under him, but
Richard Quatier worked under another foreman on the same shift. Merle was
working for him at the time he was discharged. Miller said that Merle Quatier was
large in build and was slow, but he tried very hard and was a very good worker.
Once he had the idea of how a job should be performed, he performed it very well.
Miller said that he never had ocasion to criticize Merle or warn him about unsatis-
factory work and that he had not recommended his discharge. Miller said that the
first he knew of the discharge of Merle Quatier was when he checked his shift and
found that Merle and his brother had been discharged. He was upset by the dis-
charge so he went to Matteson, his immediate supervisor, and asked him why Merle
had been discharged, and why, if Merle was one of his men, he did not know about
it. Matteson answered that he had not been notified of the discharges in time to
notify Miller before they went on shift; also, that he only worked there, the same as
Miller did. Matteson also said something about Merle's work being inferior and
about him being away from the job. Miller told Matteson that it was funny that he
had not observed any of those things. Matteson then replied that the Union had
their men and the Company had theirs.
Richard Quatier testified that on the day he was discharged he learned from em-
ployee Alex Wilson that he and his brother were to be discharged that day. He
stopped in his work and was talking to Matt Baldwin on this subject when Super-
intendent Matteson came along and told him to get back to his place of work, that
he didn't want to catch Quatier in any more of this "damn soliciting around here,"
so Richard Quatier broke off the conversation and went back to his post.
Assistant Superintendent Clarke D. Matteson testified that he has worked in the
aluminum industry for 21 years. He said that at the time the plant began manu-
facturing operations a reduction in force was necessary. In this reduction the Com-
pany followed seniority, if all things were equal between the men, but the Company
sought to retain those individuals which it deemed the best workers. Matteson said
that he did not consult with his foremen about the individuals to be discharged in a
reduction in force or for cause, because he was not too satisfied with the perform-
ance of work of the foremen; they were largely new in the industry and he did not
think that they followed up on the men enough. Although he did not consult with
the foremen immediately prior to discharge, he tried to keep in touch with all the
employees by frequent on-the-job consultations with the foremen as to how the
various employees were progressing in their training and performance of work. He
said that in that way when it came time to reduce forces or to discharge individuals,
he had a good idea of the employees to be discharged, without consulting with the
foremen immediately prior to discharge.
Matteson said that he chose Richard Quatier for discharge because he had com-
plaints from various foremen on Richard's lack of ability to do certain types of work
and his lack of adaptability. He said that while Richard was a nice fellow, and he
was never insolent or insubordinate, he was "rather inept doing a lot of things, such
as handling equipment and spilling the tar in the basement," and so forth. Also
Matteson noticed that at one time Richard seemed to be very interested in his job
but later on seemed to become disinterested, and he wouldn't stay at his post. Mat-
teson said that on a couple of occasions on his tours through the plant he noticed
that Richard was away from his assigned post. The last of these occasions occurred
on the day Richard was discharged. He first saw Richard talking to some employees
around 7:30, and when he came around again at 8 o'clock, Richard was still there
talking to other employees. He told Richard to get back to his post and stop dis-
tracting other men.
-684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Matteson also testified that Merle Quatier was discharged because he felt that
Merle was not giving the Company the best effort of which he was capable. Mat-
teson explained that Merle had worked in the aluminum industry before coming
to the Company and, because of this experience, Matteson had expected Merle to
progress faster in his training than the other men. However, contrary to his expec-
tations , Merle had not adapted himself to the work and did not stay at his post of
duty. Matteson said that the start of operations in an aluminum plant is critical, and
that neglect of duty by an employee could cause serious damage. Under the cir-
cumstances, he decided to let Merle go.
Matteson also said that he consulted with Legault and Cronkrite as to the dis-
charge of the Quatiers, prior to taking that action, because he was not sure that he
had authority to effect the discharges.
The above narrative is a summary which sets forth the highlights of testimony
in the case. All the testimony and exhibits have been considered, but brevity re-
quires that reference to some testimony and some exhibits be omitted.
D. Concluding findings
1. The discharges
It will be noted in a perusal of the above that the General Counsel' s case is based
almost entirely on the testimony of former employees and former supervisors of
the Company, whose services have been terminated for one reason or another.
One of these men, Brady, admitted frankly when asked that he was "bitter"
toward the Company. In addition, Baldwin, one of the General Counsel's principal
witnesses , has a criminal record and since his discharge has been a paid employee
of the Union here involved. Because of such factors the Company urges that these
witnesses are not worthy of relief. I agree that these are elements which should
and must be considered in evaluating the reliability of a witness and the trust-
worthiness of his testimony , but in this record I can perceive no valid reason for
rejecting the testimony of any of these former employees or supervisors. Without
exception they appeared to be men who were telling the truth, regardless of their
personal feelings toward the Company , the Union , or the individuals involved.
Their testimony was mutually corroborative and as a whole convincing. Therefore,
I have credited their testimony.5
As to the facts of the work stoppage, the testimony of Dilworth, who later quit
voluntarily, is practically undisputed in this record. According to Dilworth and
Baldwin, whom I also credit on this point, the men agreed at the beginning of the A
shift that they wanted an explanation from Legault as to the reason for certain
-discharges, and an explanation of how the Company chose men for discharge.
They also wanted the Company to agree to a grievance procedure. These are all
lawful objectives of concerted activity under the Act. They determined in concert
that if the explanations were not furnished by Legault, they would stop work in
concert until they were. At midnight, according to the testimony of Christen and
Schrader , this message was transmitted to Matteson , at a time when Legault was
still in the plant . However Matteson determined to handle the situation himself,
,so at 3 o'clock the men stopped work. Then, belatedly, Matteson called Legault
and a conference between Legault and the men reached an amicable agreement on
all the points involved.
The complaint alleges that this work stoppage, walkout, or strike was caused by
the unfair labor practices of the Company set forth in paragraph VII of the com-
plaint, which alleges various acts of the named supervisors, claimed by the General
Counsel to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' I can find no evi-
dence in this record that will support the claim that any of the conduct alleged in
paragraph VII caused this walkout. Rather, the undisputed evidence establishes
overwhelmingly that the decision of the men to seek an explanation for the dis-
charges of employees , an explanation of company policy on seniority , and the
institution of a grievance procedure was a spontaneous expression of the men's
concern for their own and their families' welfare in the light of the present circum-
stances. In Solo Cup Company,6 the Board had before it for consideration a similar
5 These witnesses are : Merle B. Quatier, Francis S. Holden, Richard L. Quatier, William
A. Brady, Robert C. Christen, William T. Dilworth, Dave Schrader, Albert R. Miller, Melvin
W. Gillespie , and Matt Baldwin , with the reservations set forth in the body of this
report.
114 NLRB 121, enfd . 237 F. 2d 521 (C.A. 8).
GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., AND HARVEY ALUMINUM 685
work stoppage , in which employees sought an explanation from management as to
the reason for the discharge of a fellow employee . In that case , the Board found
that the employees were engaged in concerted activities for their own mutual aid
and protection, and were therefore within the protection of the Act. In my opinion,
the reasoning of the Solo Cup case is controlling here on almost identical facts.
Therefore I find that the walkout, or work stoppage, of November 12 was a pro-
tected activity under the Act? It is equally clear, and I find, that Baldwin was
discharged by the Company, not for unsatisfactory work, but because he had been
a spokesman for the men in the walkout and because General Manager Cronkrite
had concluded upon the basis of his own investigation that Baldwin had instigated
the protected activity of the men. No other conclusion can be drawn in the light
of Cronkrite's explanation of why he felt compelled to discharge Baldwin personally.
Upon the credited testimony of the Quatiers , and their immediate supervisors, I
also find that Merle and Richard Quatier were discharged because they were active
adherents of the Union, and not because their work was unsatisfactory. Any
deficiencies which they might have displayed must have been trivial, for they
escaped the notice of their immediate superiors who considered them good workmen
and who were surprised by the Quatiers' discharge. On the other hand it seems
extremely unlikely that Matteson , who had some 20-35 foremen assisting him in
the work of supervision, had any detailed knowledg of how individual workmen
performed their tasks. In the light of all the evidence I am convinced that it was
their union adherence and not their deficiencies that motivated Assistant Superin-
tendent Matteson to discharge the Quatiers.
Therefore, I find that the General Counsel has established by a preponderance
of the evidence that the discharges of Baldwin and the Quatiers constitute violations
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Interference , restraint , and coercion
Upon the credited testimony of the witnesses named below , I find that certain
of the Company's supervisory force have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the following conduct:
Upon the testimony of William A. Brady, I find that Foreman Hitchcock in-
structed Brady to keep a union meeting under surveillance and to report to him
the names of employees who attended said meeting, and that Assistant Superintendent
Matteson interrogated Brady as to the names of employees who attended said
meeting.
Upon the testimony of William T. Dilworth, I find that William S. Brunt, per-
sonnel manager, in the course of a conversation with Dilworth, told him that if
there were any more walkouts the men involved would be discharged.
Baldwin testified that Colonel Lynn Wallis, security officer, instructed him to
keep under surveillance employees who engaged in union activity and to report
their names to him . Wallis, apparently a man of unblemished record , denied
Baldwin 's charge. A rebuttal witness, Roland Welker, testified that Wallis told
him that if he heard of any employees taking part in union activity he was "to put
the finger on him," and Wallis would get rid of him. Welker was a member of
the Union at the time he was hired by the Company and at the time he testified.
The Trial Examiner finds this rebuttal testimony unpersuasive , and so resolves the
conflict between Baldwin and Wallis in favor of the latter. I find therefore that
the General Counsel has failed to establish by credible evidence that Wallis in-
structed employees to engage in surveillance of other employees.
I also find upon review of the record as a whole that the evidence is insufficient
to establish that Assistant Superintendent Matteson threatened to discharge em-
ployees if they attended union meetings or that Foreman Hitchcock threatened an.
employee with discharge if he did not withdraw his union application.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III , above, occurring in con-
nection with its business operations described in section 1, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several,
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce,and
the free flow of commerce.
° See also, N.L .R.B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, 167 F. 2d 983 (C.A 7),,
cert. denied 335 U.S. 845.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Company has committed certain unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Company discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure
of employment of Matt Baldwin, Richard Quatier, and Merle Quatier by discharging
them because of their union and concerted activities, it will be recommended that
the Company offer to each of the above-named employees immediate and full re-
instatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his former rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of
a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages,
from the date of his discharge until his reinstatement as ordered above, less his
net earnings during this period. The loss of earnings shall be computed in accord-
ance with the formula of the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
It is also recommended that the Company be ordered to make available to the
Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
amount of earnings due.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Company are
of such a character and scope that in order to insure the employees their full rights
guaranteed them by the Act it will be recommended that the Company cease and
desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in their rights to self-organization.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aluminum Workers Council, of The Dalles, Oregon, herein referred to as
the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,
which admits to membership employees of the Company.
2. General Engineering, Inc., and Harvey Aluminum are a single employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, and conditions of employment
of Matt Baldwin, Richard Quatier, and Merle Quatier, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the aforementioned Union, and labor organizations generally, the Com-
pany has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (3) 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 Company has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Piezo Manufacturing Corp. and District #15, International
Association of Machinists. Case Yo. 2-Cf1-6367. December 10,
1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 19,1959, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Intermediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative. action, as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a
supporting brief.
125 NLRB No. 83.