Goodyear Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 3, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 1340 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 856 (CIO)
Case No. 8-C-1662.-Decided October 3, 1945
Mr. William O. Murdock, for the Board.
Mr. Walter E. deBruin, of Akron, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Max W. Johnstone, of Akron, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Louis R. Mercado, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on June 28, 1944, by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local 856 (CIO), herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio),
issued its complaint dated October 20, 1944, against Goodyear Aircraft
Corporation, Akron, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint together with notices of hearing
thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that, on or about March 6, 1944, the respondent demoted
and transferred Henry T. Hoyt and has since failed and refused to
reinstate him because of his union activities and concerted activity
with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection; (2) that, on or about
April 3, 1944, the respondent discharged Charles D. Schrader and
has since failed and refused to reinstate him because of his union
activities and concerted activity with other employees of the respond-
ent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
63 N. L. R B., No. 208
1340
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1341
protection; and (3) that, since on or about September 1, 1943, and
continuing to the date of the complaint, the respondent vilified, dis-
paraged, and expressed disapproval of the Union, questioned and
interrogated its employees regarding their activities in behalf of the
Union, and advised, urged, and warned its employees to refrain from
assisting, joining, becoming, or remaining members of the Union,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On or about November 1, 1944, the respondent filed its answer in
which, among other things, it denied that it engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and stated that Hoyt "is employed
at his present work by his own volition" and that Schrader "was dis-
charged for violation of company rules and specifically for refusal to
obey the orders of his supervisor and for insubordination."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Akron, Ohio, on November
9 to 25, 1944, inclusive, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the re-
spondent, and the 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 on the issues
was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the respondent
moved to strike from the complaint the paragraph which alleged that
the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. This motion was
denied by the Trial Examiner. The respondent further moved for
a bill of particulars; 1 the Trial Examiner denied this motion, stating
that, in case the respondent found itself surprised by evidence pre-
sented by the Board, he would entertain a motion for continuance of
the hearing. No such request was made by the respondent. At the
conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Board, the Trial
Examiner denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the Board had not "presented evidence sufficient to
make a case on the matters listed in the complaint." At the conclusion
of the hearing, the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss the com-
plaint, which was denied by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate
Report. The Trial Examiner also made rulings on other motions and
on objections to the admission of -evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 23, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the re-
1 The motions referred to had been previously filed with the Regional Director and
denied by him.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thereafter, the re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. On June 26, 1945, the Board heard oral argument at Wash-
ington, D. C. The respondent and the Union participated in the
argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions and brief of the respondent
and the entire record in the case, and, insofar as the exceptions are
inconsistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order
hereinafter set forth, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS CF THE RESPONDENT 2
The respondent, Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, a Delaware cor-
poration having its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio, is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of aircraft and air-
craft parts. During the calendar year 1943, the respondent purchased
in excess of $5,000,000 worth of duralumin, aluminum, magnesium,
steel tubing, andrubberized fabrics, of which a substantial portion
was shipped from points outside the State of Ohio to the respondent's
plants at Akron, Ohio. During the same year, the respondent manu-
factured products valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which a sub-
stantial portion was delivered, after sale, to points outside the State of
Ohio.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
'Implement Workers of America, Local 856 (CIO), is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and
admits to its membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In January 1942, after a consent election, the respondent entered
into a collective bargaining contract with the Union for 1 year. In
April 1943, the respondent and the Union executed a new contract
which contained provisions for submission of certain issues to the
2 The findings in this section are based on a stipulation of facts and on allegations in the
complaint admitted by the respondent in its answer.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1343
National War Labor Board, herein called the WLB, for decision, and
for amendment of the contract by execution of supplemental agree-
ments incorporating such decisions.3 With respect to such issues,
the WLB issued an Interim Directive Order on September 27, 1943,
and a Supplemental Directive Order on January 4, 1944. On the
respective dates of issuance thereof, or shortly thereafter, the re-
spondent and the Union incorporated agreements embodying such
decisions in the April 1943 contract, retroactive to that date. These
several agreements are collectively referred to herein as "the contract."
The 1942 contract contained a provision for the handling of griev-
ances with the respondent's lesser supervisors and in the event of
failure to reach an agreement, for successive appeals through a
hierarchy of management, the Union to be represented by a hierarchy
of representatives having jurisdiction corresponding to that of
management representatives 4 The contract further provided that
union representatives could handle grievances requiring "immediate"
attention within their respective jurisdictions during working hours
without loss of pay.5 Shortly after execution of the 1942 contract,
the respondent became dissatisfied with what it believed to be flagrant
abuses by union stewards with respect to the amount of time they
purportedly spent handling grievances and the respondent refused to
include a similar provision in the contract of April 1943. The matter
of company payment for time spent by union representatives in the
handling of grievances was one of the issues submitted to the WLB
for decision. As indicated above, in the interim, the respondent con-
tinued its practices under the 1942 contract with respect to the issue
pending settlement. In its Interim Directive Order of September 27,
1943, the WLB directed the respondent to pay for off-work time
spent without abuse by stewards handling "legitimate" grievances
requiring "immediate attention," and directed that the respondent and
the Union negotiate, within 30 days from the date of the directive, an
agreement placing limitations upon the amount of time so spent for
which the respondent shall be obligated to make payment.
The respondent unsuccessfully sought to bargain with the Union
with respect to such limitation of time and, as a result, became con-
vinced that the Union was pursuing dilatory tactics. On March 9,
1944, the respondent unilaterally issued a so-called Standard Practice
' The new contract also provided that current practices relating to the issues in dispute
should continue,in effect in the interim
4 Namely, group steward with departmental supervisor ; chief steward with general fore-
man ; plant committeeman with plant personnel manager ; chairman of the executive griev-
ance committee with plant superintendent ; executive grievance committee with the re-
spondent ' s personnel manager ; higher officers of the local or national union with higher
officers of the respondent.
a The contract contained no provision limiting the liability of the respondent to pay
for the amount of time so spent by union representatives.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Letter in which it limited its obligation to pay union representatives
for time spent in handling grievances to instances in which the union
representative complied with stated requirements designed to provide
a check upon abuse of time purportedly spent in the handling of
grievances at the expense of the respondent.° As a result, on April 9,
1944, the respondent and the Union agreed that the respondent's
liability be limited to payment for 750 hours a week,7 and that the
Union pay any claim submitted over that amount. It was further
agreed that stewards would notify their respective foremen when
leaving work to handle grievances and upon resuming work there-
after.
B. The discriminatory demotion of Henry T. Hoyt and refusal to
reinstate him 8
Henry T. Hoyt - was first hired by the respondent in July 1942
as a grinder at 75 cents an hour in Department 305 of its Wheel
and Brake Division . During the course of his employment he received
several merits raises and , in March 1943, was classified as a Grade
1022-A tool maker at $1 .40 an hour .9
There is some conflict in the testimony as to the quality of Hoyt's
work. According to Hoyt's testimony , he was complimented by his
superiors several times on the quality of his work and was assigned
tasks which required regrinding tools for "special jobs" and making
"special" tools. On the other hand, Foreman Ray F . Cook, one of
Hoyt's supervisors , testified that Hoyt was not efficient on work of a
$ Under the Standard Practice Letter, for example, a union steward was required, as a
condition to imposition of liability upon the respondent to pay for time spent in handling
grievances , to obtain a "Union Representation Time Slip " showing an entry by his foreman
with respect to the time of the steward ' s leaving , and return to, work, and entries by all
management representatives , who conferred with the steward concerning a grievance, show-
ing the amount of time spent by the steward in conference with due allowance for time
required to "carry out whatever action may be necessary to complete the negotiations."
The Standard Practice Letter placed limitations only upon the respondent 's obligation to
pay for time spent by union representatives in handling grievances , it placed no restriction
upon the amount of time which union representatives could devote to such activity.
' This figure was based on a current pay roll of 18,000 employees , and was to fluctuate
With the number of employees.
8 The events hereinafter referred to occurred for the most part in Departments 301
and 305 of the Wheel and Brake Division in the respondent 's Plant B Charles Zimmerman
Was manager of the Wheel and Brake Division . J H. Dent was general foreman in Depart-
ment 301 . His assistant was William J. Ovendorf . Under Dent and Ovendorf were
Foremen Ray F. Cook and Ivan Anop . Under Cook was Supervisor Julius Fitch Under
Anop were Supervisors Elmer Percy , Ardon S. Chardon , and Clifford Parsons Nelson G.
Ball was assistant personnel manager of all the respondent 's plants. Under Ball was A. B.
Matthews , personnel manager of Plants A and B in Akron . Charles Reamer was manager
of labor in plants A and B until December 23, 1943, when he was succeeded by Frank W.
Lewis.
9 The classification of Grade 1022 -A tool maker is also referred to in the record as
Grade "A" tool maker. The Grade "A" work was usually occasional and normally con-
sumed only part of an employee 's time. This work involved the mole difficult tool -making
and sharpening tasks. The simple and routine tasks were assigned to Grade 1022-B tool
makers, also referred to in the record as Grade "B " tool makers.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1345
complicated nature. Nevertheless, Hoyt held the highest classification
as tool maker and was in the highest pay-rate bracket in his depart-
ment. Hoyt was also assigned as temporary leader and instructor in
charge of personnel and equipment in his departmentl° Moreover,
Hoyt's testimony as to the quality of his work is corroborated by that
of Russell Gardner, a leader on the third shift, who testified without
contradiction that his superior, Supervisor Vamke, spoke highly of
Hoyt's ability and characterized him as "the most efficient on form
tools . . . ," tools which were required to be handled on Hoyt's shift
because they were "troublesome tools." Furthermore, the respondent
conceded Hoyt's ability to perform satisfactorily Grade A tool-making
tasks when, on May 26, 1944, it offered to classify Hoyt as a Grade A
tool maker, as hereinafter more fully set forth. Like the Trial Exam-
iner, we credit Hoyt's testimony and find that he was a competent and
efficient Grade "A" tool maker.
Although a member of the Union, Hoyt did not become particularly
active therein until the end of February 1944. On or about February
255 1944, during the lunch period, he observed Rachel Palmer, who had
received instruction as a grinder from Hoyt, distressed. He learned
from her that she was confused as a result of her unfamiliarity with
her duties in a new assignment in the tool crib given her by Super-
visor Fitch. Hoyt interceded with Fitch's immediate superior, Cook,
who referred Palmer to Fitch. The next evening, when Palmer asked
Hoyt to intercede again for her, Hoyt advised Palmer to interview
Fitch. This, she did. Later, however, when Hoyt found Palmer in an
hysterical condition as a result of her interview with Fitch, Hoyt
advised Palmer to communicate with her union stewardess, Hazel
Selden. Palmer followed Hoyt's advice and- thereafter the matter
was adjusted to Palmer's satisfaction by the assignment of an expe-
rienced employee to assist her in her new duties.
Thereafter, Hoyt conferred with Stewardess Selden, Chief Steward
Charles F. Schrader, and Plant Committeeman H. E. Stanyard, and
expressed a desire to become a steward. Later that evening, on Feb-
ruary 26, 1944, during a lunch period, the union representatives con-
ducted an election for ste'ivard in Department 305, which Hoyt won.
Fitch observed the election."- Two days later, on Monday, February
28, 1944, Fitch and Cook criticized Hoyt for calling in the union
stewardess to intercede for Palmer. Fitch apparently assumed at the
10 Hoyt's immediate superiors had recommended Hoyt to higher management for perma-
nent assignment to such duties but, as hereinafter more fully appears, Hoyt discontinued
his duties as leader and instructor when the respondent selected Fitch as supervisor of
the department and delegated such functions to him.
11 According to the testimony of Hoyt and Schrader, which we credit, during the election
process, Fitch was sitting at his desk on one side of the room facing the proceedings. We
are convinced and find, as did the Trial Examiner , notwithstanding Fitch ' s denial, that
Fitch knew that the men in the department were electing a shop steward at the time.
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time that Hoyt was a work leader, because Fitch then stated that he
did not like Hoyt's attitude as a work leader. Hoyt protested that he
had not been approved as work leader and was corroborated in this by
Cook, who stated, in Fitch's presence, that Hoyt had reverted to the
status of an ordinary tool maker since Fitch's appointment as super-
visor. At the conclusion of this interview, Hoyt displayed his union
steward badge and Cook remarked, "I wondered if you were going
to be man enough to show me that. I don't recognize you as
steward. . ." 12
On March 1, 1944, about 4 p. m., Fitch approached Hoyt and asked
Hoyt to surrender his second-shift badge. Hoyt gave Fitch the badge
as requested. About 15 minutes later, Fitch returned and gave Hoyt
a first-shift badge without explanation except that Fitch was acting
on orders from Cook. There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether
Hoyt had been notified by the respondent prior to March 1, of a pro-
posed transfer to work on the first shift. Cook testified that he had
had a conversation with Hoyt about a month and a half earlier at
which time Cook suggested to Hoyt the possibility of a transfer to the
first shift in order that Hoyt might be trained to operate a new ma-
chine, called the Wickham Grinder; 13 Cook further testified that he
could not reineber Hoyt's answer but that Hoyt "didn't say he would"'
and "definitely did not say he would not" agree to the change 14 Fitch
testified that he had not previously advised Hoyt of a proposed trans-
fer but that Hoyt had remarked to Fitch that Hoyt had been offered an
opportunity to learn how to operate the Wickham Grinder and that
he had not "decided definitely to accept the transfer." On the other
hand, Hoyt testified that he first learned of the proposed transfer on
March 1 when Fitch handed Hoyt the first-shift badge. Like the Trial
Examiner, we credit Hoyt's testimony.
After receiving the first-shift badge, Hoyt notified Chief Steward
Schrader of the proposed transfer. Schrader advised Hoyt that the
transfer was contrary to the existing contract.'-' They proceeded to
the labor department where, together with Plant Committeeman Stan-
yard, they related the grievance to Lewis. Lewis stated that the con-
tract provided for notification in writing of the selection of stewards
and that management had not been so notified of Hoyt's selection.
13 It had theretofore been the practice for the Union to notify the respondent in writing as
to the name of its stewards . The Union at this time had not yet notified the respondent in
writing of Hoyt's election as steward
iS The manufacturer who supplied the machine to the respondent had agreed to furnish,
an instructor to help familiarize the respondent's employees with the operation of the
machine The instructor was unable to visit the respondent 's plant at hours other than
those included in the first shift.
14 Labor Manager Lewis testified that it was the established practice of the respondent
not to compel the transfer of employees , and that such a proposed transfer would be
"actually up to the individual."
15 The pertinent provision of the contract is as follows • "No union representative will be
transferred , except on a temporary basis in case of emergency , without first obtaining
agreement with the Union."
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1347
Schrader and Stanyard disagreed, asserting that this was "an
emergency matter." Lewis suggested that the Union file a grievance
in writing, and departed.
Immediately after Lewis left the labor department, on the night of
March 1, Cook and Fitch appeared there and engaged in an acrimonious
argument with Hoyt, Schrader, and Stanyard. During the conversa-
tion, Schrader protested against the proposed transfer on the basis of
the contract. Cook asserted that he "didn't recognize [Hoyt] as a
steward"; that he "didn't give a damn what it says in the contract. I
am boss here"; and that Hoyt "didn't have a grievance." Cook closed
the interview by ordering Hoyt to report to work on the first shift.16
Later, on the evening of March 1, Stanyard telephoned Lewis at
his home. At first, Lewis insisted that he could do nothing without
written notification from the Union of Hoyt's election. However,
after obtaining assurances of Hoyt's election as steward, Lewis said
that Hoyt could return on the next day to the second shift provided
that such a letter of notification was presented to Lewis at that time.
The next day, the Union presented such a letter to Lewis. When
Hoyt appeared for the second shift on March 2, he was criticized by
Cook for disobeying his orders to report on the first shift. When
Hoyt explained that the labor department had authorized his action,
Cook said, "The labor department ain't got a damn bit of jurisdic-
tion over my department. I run this office." Thereupon, they went
to the office of Personnel Director Matthews. There, Cook asserted
that Fitch's appointment as supervisor had eliminated Hoyt's job
as Grade "A" tool maker on the second shift, and he, Cook, planned
to transfer Hoyt to the first shift in time to install the new Wickham
Grinder, which was then on a flat car in the respondent's receiving
department .' Hoyt stated that his wife was ill and that he could
not work on the first shift because he had to care for his two small
children during that period of the day. After discussion, Matthews
offered Hoyt three choices: (1) a transfer to the first shift at his
present classification and rate; (2) a transfer to the tool and die di-
vision on the second shift with his present classification and rate;
or (3) a reclassification to Grade B tool maker on the second shift
10 This finding is based on Schrader's testimony, which the Trial Examiner credited, re-
jecting Cook's denials. When the grievance concerning Hoyt's proposed transfer was
thereafter presented by Schrader and Stanyard on March 2, General Foreman Dent re-
marked, according to Schrader's testimony which was denied by Dent, "Why this Hoyt is a
trouble maker . . . He has caused a lot of trouble in the department, we want to get him
over on the first shift where we can watch him " Schrader also testified that when he
protested that the purpose of the transfer was to eliminate Hoyt as a steward on the
second shift, Dent replied, "Do you know what we do with union representatives around
here? . . . If they are any good we make supervisors out of them . . If they are no
good, we get rid of them." Dent denied that he made this statement. Like the Trial
Examiner, we credit Schrader's testimony.
17 In its brief the respondent states that the Wickham Grinder was so complicated that it
desired the employee, who was to be trained to operate it, to observe its installation in
order that he might learn more about the machine.
662514-46-vol. 63--86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Department 305, his present department. Hoyt stated that he
did not wish to transfer to the first shift because of his domestic
problem, mentioned above; that the tool and die job was unattractive
to him because he "didn't know the boys there" and because he thought
that promotion might be slow; and, that reclassification to Grade
"B" tool maker entailed a pay cut of 25 cents an hour." Hoyt did
not commit himself to a choice and was given until the following
Monday to decide, but, in the meantime, he was permitted, in ac-
cordance with a proposal by Matthews, to continue work on the
second shift. On Monday, March 6, Hoyt appeared for work on
the second shift. Hoyt was told by Cook that he assumed that Hoyt
was accepting the Grade "B" tool maker job. Hoyt refused to ac-
cept a transfer to any other shift or department or to accept the
pay cut. Thereupon, Cook sought instructions from Matthews, who
advised Cook to give Hoyt a pass "for the day." Cook testified at
one point that, when he delivered the pass t6 Hot, he told Hoyt "to
go home for the day" and, at another point, that he "didn't recall"
saying anything when he delivered the pass to Hoyt. Hoyt testi-
fied that he was sent home by Cook without any intimation that
the respondent might recall Hoyt. We credit Hoyt's testimony, as
did the Trial Examiner.
During the following week, Union Executive Committeeman Harry
Noland advised Hoyt that his time card might be "pulled" on the
seventh day of his absence, in accordance with the respondent's rules
governing absences, unless Hoyt reported that he was ill. Accord-
ingly, Hoyt promptly notified the respondent's plant police that he
was ill, although that was not true is
On March 7, Chief Steward Schrader submitted to the respondent
a written grievance protesting Hoyt's transfer to the first shift on
the ground that Hoyt's union position gave him top seniority in his
department on the second shift and that the proposed transfer vio-
lated the contract.20 The respondent replied on the next day that
the job of Grade "A" tool maker did not then exist on the second
shift and reiterated its previous offers to employ Hoyt. Represent-
atives of the Union and the respondent had an extended conference
.concerning Hoyt's grievance, but no solution was reached, the respond-
ent insisting that the job of Grade "A" tool maker no longer existed
on the second shift and the Union contending that it did and that
Hoyt's position as steward gave him top seniority, entitling him to
18 Hoyt earned $ 1.40 an hour as a Grade "A" tool maker The Grade "B" tool maker
rate ranged from $ 1.15 to $1 .25 per hour . At this time Hoyt had not been offered the top
pay of Grade "B."
is In view of such conduct on the part of Hoyt, 'rhich we do not condone , we have con-
sidered his testimony with added caution . The respondent did not know of this deception
'until Hoyt admitted it on cross -examination at the hearing In any event, the respondent
aloes not contend that it was motivated by such deception in its treatment of Hoyt.
20 Schrader assumed that Grade "A" tool-making work was available on the second shift.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1349
shift preference. However, the respondent and the Union agreed
that a joint job study should be made of the tool-making work in
Department 305 by representatives of the Union and of the respond-
ent. The respondent initiated such a study and made appointments
with union representatives to make the job study, but, except for a
cursory survey by a union representative, the Union failed to carry
out its agreement to make the job survey or to keep any of the appoint-
ments that it made with the respondent. The record does not dis-
close whether Grade "A" tool-making work was available on the
second shift during the approximately 3-month period immediately
preceding May 26, 1944, except that management representatives tes-
tified that none existed. Therefore, unlike the Trial Examiner, we
find that insufficient Grade "A" tool-making work was available dur-
ing this period on the second shift to justify the employment of a
Grade "A" tool maker.
On March 17, 1944, the Union conferred with Matthews to seek
a solution to Hoyt's grievance. On that date, an agreement was
reached that Hoyt would be reinstated on the second shift as a Grade
"B" tool maker' and that a determination as to his wage rate would
be postponed for later decision. When Hoyt reported to the plant
on March 17, Cook, not having been informed that Hoyt had "reported
to the plant police that he had been sick, told Hoyt that he would
have to be rehired rather than reinstated because his absence had
exceeded 7 days. At Hoyt's instance, Cook checked with the plant
police and found that Hoyt had reported sick as he claimed. Cook
then proposed reinstatement at $1.15 an hour, the lowest Grade "B"
rate. Hoyt and the Union insisted on the highest rate, $1.25. On
appeal, Matthews fixod the higher rate and Hoyt wis thereupon rein-
stated. Later, when he asked Dent what "his prospects" were on
the second shift, Dent stated, according to Hoyt's undenied testimony
which we credit as did the Trial Examiner, "As long as [you] behave
[yourself] and didn't cause any trouble down there that it would not
be long before [you would be] back up where [you were] making
S1.45 ." 21
Upon reinstatement, it was understood by the respondent and by
Hoyt that he was to do the same type of work that he had been doing
before his lay-oft, except that Supervisor Fitch was to continue being
responsible for leader work and training of personnel. However,
when Hoyt returned to work on or about March 17, the respondent
-redistributed existing Grade B work between Hoyt and two other
Grade B tool makers on the second shift. Witnesses for the respond-
ent testified that, as part of the redistribution Hoyt was assigned to
21 This figure includes a 5-cent an hour bonus which Hoyt had received for working the
second shift.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the manufacture of new tools, believed by management to be the
more desirable work, but that his new assignment did not include
work from 'Department 301 and other work which Hoyt had previ-
ously done. Hoyt testified that, after March 17, he was assigned
only "miscellaneous work" and that he was not assigned, work of
a Grade B grinder.22 When Hoyt returned to work, according to
Hoyt's further testimony, which we credit as did the Trial Examiner,.
Fitch instructed Hoyt : "Henry, you are not to leave the department;
be sure to only go to the rest room and under no circumstances go
to Department 301, that there was no need for [your] going in 301,
that [your] tool grinding job had been given to Wade Hackett, and
there would be no necessity for [your] going out there, he would
handle all tool grinding out there." 23 On one occasion, at Fitch's
insistence, Hoyt had to grind tools by hand on an inefficient wheel,
which resulted in overheating of the tools and caused burns on Hoyt's
fingers; the job could have been done on a milling machine with a
saving of much time. Incensed as a result , Hoyt took a vacation
of several days. Also, Hackett, who had been assigned just recently
to Grade "B" tool grinding work, was permitted to learn to operate
the Wickham Grinder, but Cook refused Hoyt's request to learn to
operate the machine, although Fitch favored it24 Other than Hoyt's
generalized complaint that he had been assigned "miscellaneous" jobs,
that he was once required to grind tools by an inefficient method, and
that he was not permitted to learn the operation of the Wickham
grinder, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the assignment
of manufacturing new tools was not the substantial equivalent of
the work which Hoyt had previously done. Unlike the Trial Exam-
iner, we are convinced and find, that the respondent committed no,
unfair labor practice by its redistribution of the Grade "B" tool
making work between Hoyt and the other two tool makers.
After Hoyt's reinstatement, his grievance arising from his reclas-
sification to Grade "B" tool maker was handled at regular weekly
grievance meetings. On the first occasion, a heated discussion ensued
between Manager Zimmerman and Union President McCoy and,
22 The respondent admits that Hoyt is now assigned to Grade B work, contending that,
after Grade A work became available , as it did , it assigned such work to Wade Hackett
whom it regarded as a better workman When acting as a leader , Holt had trained Hackett
as a grinder, and Hackett had only recently , been theretofore classified as a Grade B
worker.
22 i, itch denied that he had issued to Hoyt any order restricting the nature of his work.
24 When Holt had refused to transfer to the first shift, John Soffels, a Grade "B" tool
maker, was asigned to learn to operate the Wickham Grinder as a Grade "B" tool maker.
Later, when the third shift was to be discontinued , Gardner, a Grade "A" tool maker on
that shift , was instructed by Soffels to operate the grinder on the first shift, temporarily,
each keeping his respective ' grade while operating the Wickham Grinder. Hackett learned
to operate the grinder partly on his own initiative Cook testified that he rejected Hoyt's
request to be allowed to learn the operation of the Wickham Grinder because the respondent
did not feel justified in incurring the expense of training a third employee.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1351
after an exchange of acrimonious words, Zimmerman left 25 At a
second meeting, on or about May 26, 1944, Zimmerman represented
that conditions in Department 305 had again changed so as to permit
the respondent to restore Hoyt to a Grade "A" tool maker's classifi-
cation at the $1.40 an hour rate and offered to do so provided that
Hoyt and the Union would sign a written agreement which would
permit the respondent to discharge Hoyt without protest by Hoyt
or the Union in the event that management found him guilty of mis-
conduct in the future.26 Hoyt and the Union objected to this condi-
tion on the ground that it meant surrender of "a Union man's rights,"
and the meeting closed without agreement. Sometime early in June,
Assistant Personnel Manager Ball resubmitted the respondent's pro-
posed written agreement to Hoyt and the Union with the objection-
able condition reworded. As reworded, it provided that the discus-
sions concerning his grievance constituted adequate warning to Hoyt
that any future misconduct on his part would justify immediate dis-
missal.27 The revised version was unacceptable to both the Union
and Hoyt, who argued that there was no substantial change in effect
from the condition as originally written. Under McCoy's leadership,
a final meeting was held with the respondent's officials in an attempt
by the Union to have Hoyt reclassified as a Grade "A" tool maker.
However, the respondent insisted on the imposition of the objection-
able condition previously incorporated in the written settlement
agreement proposed by Zimmerman and Ball. There were no further
attempts at settlement by direct negotiations.28
Concluding findings with respect to Hoyt
The respondent contends that Hoyt's classification as Grade "A"
tool maker rested on his responsibilities as acting leader on the second
shift rather than on the character of his duties or his ability as a tool
maker and that, when Fitch was appointed supervisor and relieved
25 Zimmerman questioned McCoy's right to remain at the hearing, as McCoy pointed
out in the meeting, the contract expressly provided that the union president could attend
grievance meetings.
16 Section 7 of the proposed written agreement submitted by the respondent dated May 26,
1944, provided :
The Union and the employee agree , if Hoyt shall at any time in the future be guilty
of insubordination or unexcused absenteeisms or violation of the rules of the Com-
pany, that upon approval of the manager of the Labor Department, he will be removed
from the pay roll of Department 305 without protest by the Union or by the employee.
' Section 7 as redrafted by the respondent provided:
It is agreed that the discussions leading to this settlement constitute adequate
warning to Hoyt that any future actions of insubordination, rules violations, and
unexcused absence from work will constitute grounds for immediate dismissal from
the employ of the Company.
28 At a meeting of the parties in June before United States Conciliator Paul Fuller, the
respondent and the Union discussed the Hoyt case, but no agieement was reached.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hoyt of his duties as instructor and leader, the need for a Grade "A"
tool maker on the second shift no longer existed. The testimony
of the respondent's witnesses is uncontroverted that there was insuffi-
cient Grade "A" tool-making work to justify retention of a Grade
"A" tool maker on the second shift until May 26,1944. The respondent
offered Hoyt his existing classification, Grade A, on a different shift
or substantially equivalent work on the second shift in a different
department, both at his present rate of pay, or a Grade "B" classifica-
tion and rate of pay in the same department and shift. Hoyt arbi-
trarily refused to accept any of the proffered assignments until March
17, 1944, when he accepted the Grade "B" classification and rate on
the second shift. Since we have found that Grade "A" tool classifica-
tion was unavailable on the second shift until May 26, 1944, unlike the
Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent did not engage in any
unfair labor practice with respect to Hoyt's lay-off, transfer, or sub-
sequent reinstatement with Grade "B" classification and rate of pay.
However, when sufficient Grade "A" tool-making work again became
available on the second shift to justify a Grade "A" tool maker's classi-
fication, on or about May 26, 1944, and thereafter, the respondent
refused to assign Hoyt to Grade A classification unless he and the
Union accepted certain onerous conditions. According to the re-
spondent's original proposal, Hoyt's reinstatement to Grade A classi-
fication was conditioned upon acknowledgment by Hoyt and the
Union that Hoyt had been guilty of insubordinate conduct in the
past and upon their agreement that the respondent might discharge
Hoyt in the future on management's determination that lie had been
guilty of misconduct, without any right of protest by Hoyt or the
Union. As modified, the respondent conditioned such reinstatement
upon an agreement that Hoyt had been adequately warned that future
misconduct would constitute grounds for immediate dismissal.
Viewed as a whole, the respondent thus proposed that it be given full
freedom to discipline Hoyt in the future without restraint of any
character and without protest by Hoyt or the Union, and the Union
and Hoyt so understood the modified proposal. Thus viewed, the
proposal by its terms called upon Hoyt to waive the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act to protect his tenure of employ-
ment, and acceptance of the proposal would have constituted an admis-
sion on Hoyt's part that he had been guilty of misconduct. We find,
like the Trial Examiner, that these p;-oposed conditions were in dero-
gation of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and hence violative
of Section 8 (1).
In addition, Fitch and Cook had showed hostility toward Hoyt's
union activities. As set forth above, both had criticized Hoyt for
interceding on behalf of Palmer, and Cook had refused to recognize
Hoyt as steward on the technicality that he had not received written
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1353.
notification of this election from the Union, although the respondent
knew of. Hoyt's election. At the time of the consideration of the
grievance with respect to Hoyt's transfer to the first shift on March 2,
Cook again refused to recognize Hoyt as a steward and remarked that
"he didn't give a damn what it says in the contract. I am boss here."
During the conference on March 2, when Schrader and Stanyard were
presenting Hoyt's grievance, General Foreman Dent accused Hoyt
of being a "trouble maker," asserted that he wanted to transfer
Hoyt to the first shift "where we can watch him," and stated that if
union representatives were any good "we make supervisors out of
them" and that, if they were not, "we get rid of them." It is.thus
evident from the record that Fitch, Cook, and Dent resented Hoyt's
intercession on behalf of Palmer and his election as union steward
and regarded him with hostility as a result of his union activities.
None of the respondent's witnesses testified to conduct on Hoyt's part
prior to the Palmer incident and Hoyt's election as shop steward
which the witnesses regarded as objectionable. In suggesting the un-
lawful conditions, set forth above, we are convinced and find that the
respondent sought to pave the way for Hoyt's eventual elimination
from its employment because of its resentment against Hoyt's union
and concerted activities.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the respondent suggested
the proposed unlawful conditions for Hoyt's reinstatement, as set
forth above, and refused to reinstate Hoyt to Grade A classification
without acceptance of such conditions, thereby in effect demoting
Hoyt, because of his union and concerted activities. By such conduct
the respondent discriminated in regard to terms and conditions of
Hoyt's employment to discourage membership in the Union, thereby
interfering with, coercing, and restraining its employees in the exer=
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further
find that, by the statements of Ray F. Cook and J. H. Dent on
March 2, 1944, set forth above, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8 (1) of the Act.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Charles D. Schrader
Charles D. Schrader was hired by the respondent. in September
1942, in Department 384 as an assemblyman on Navy air strips at 75
cents an hour. By 1943, he was receiving 98 cents an hour, the top
scale in Department 384 being $1 per hour. Schrader had been a
member of a C. I. 0. affiliate in a rubber plant in which he had
previously been employed. Upon taking employment with the re-
spondent, Schrader transferred his membership to the Union and,
prior to his discharge on April 3, 1944, he had served successively in
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent's plant as steward, chief steward, plant committeeman,
and as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Union's executive committee and
ex officio member thereof.
In September 1943, it appeared that employment prospects in
Department 384 were slackening in view of the fact that the respond-
ent's contracts for the'manufacture of air strips were in process of
completion. As a result, Schrader sought a transfer to Department
301 of the Wheel and Brake Division in which he could earn up to
$1.50 per hour. To obtain the transfer, Schrader talked to manage-
ment representatives, including Plant Manager Beamer and General
Foreman Dent. Beamer and Dent were satisfied with Schrader's
recommendations and offered to train him as a turret lathe operator'21
a job which they described as a "bottleneck" operation in the machine
shop. Beamer and Dent testified that they informed Schrader of the
"bottleneck" character of the operation and that the respondent was
unwilling to train Schrader for the job unless he abandoned his
union activities during working hours and devoted a full 8-hour
period each shift to the turret lathe job. Beamer insisted on a letter
from the Union consenting to Schrader's resignation as plant com-
mitteeman before effecting the transfer. Conservations. were held
between Manager Beamer and Union President Burroughs, Vice-
President Fowler, and Schrader, who, after "a stiff argument," re-
luctantly agreed to Schrader's resignation as plant committeeman,
and the Union wrote Beamer to that effect. Schrader's version as
to these several conversations was that the turret lathe job was never
referred to as a "bottleneck" that Beamer's and Dent's demands
centered on his being ht work 8 hours a day; that he was never directly
asked to cease his union activities or resign as plant committeeman,
but that he did so because he gained the "impression" that such was
the "wishes" of Beamer and Dent "during the training period."
The Trial Examiner credited Schrader's testimony and found that
he did not agree to abandon his union activities during company
time and work the lathe 8 hours a day. The Trial Examiner further
found that the respondent's efforts to exact from the Union and
Schrader a promise that Schrader would not engage in union activity
on company time while on the turret lathe job to be in derogation of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. We disagree with these
findings. Beamer and Dent testified with positiveness that Schrader
promised to work the turret lathe 8 hours a day and the Trial Ex-
aminer found, as the record shows, that subsequent events "demon-
strated" that Dent sincerely believed that Schrader had agreed to
operate the turret lathe 8 hours each day. Schrader was cross-
^examined in considerable detail with respect to what he had agreed
29 Schrader had no previous experience as a machine operator.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1355
to. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we find Schrader's testimony that her
did not agree to work the turret lathe 8 hours. a,, day to. be. uncon-
vincing. Schrader was extremely evasive on the point, and twice-
during cross-examination, he admitted that he was told by Dent dur-
ing these discussions that he would have to work the turret lathe
8 hours a day.30 It is reasonable that management should seek to^
place limitations on the amount of time spent on union affairs during
company time by the operator of a "bottleneck" machine. In view
of the fact that Schrader resigned as plant committeeman of the
Union and the fact that the Union accepted his resignation after a
vigorous contest of the matter, we are convinced and find, contrary to,
the Trial Examiner, that Schrader agreed to work the turret lathe
8 hours a day.
Likewise, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the
respondent violated Section 7 of the Act by exacting a promise from,
Schrader to resign his post of plant committeeman and to abandon
the handling of grievances on company time. Schrader admitted
that he was told by Beamer : "It doesn't mean that you can't be-
Sergeant-at-Arms." 31 The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
the turret lathe job was a "bottleneck" operation which vitally affected
the flow of production in the machine shop. By the 1942 contract,
the respondent had entered into a broad agreement with the Union
to pay for the time spent by union representatives during working
hours handling "necessary" grievances, but it did not contain any
limitation on the amount of time so spent by the union representa-
tives. In a plant which employs 18,000 persons, we take notice that
certain operations are key or "bottleneck" jobs which determine the
flow of production in various parts of the plant. Under such cir-
cumstances , it is entirely proper for management to seek by negoti-
ation with the Union limitations on the amount of time to be spent
on union matters during working hours by union representatives who
are employed on such key operations. As we have heretofore found,.
both Schrader and the Union agreed to the limitation through open
negotiations. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we are convinced and
find, that the agreement between the Union and management that
Schrader would devote full time to the turret lathe operation and'
abandon union activities during working time was a proper and law-
ful agreement arrived at within the sphere of collective bargaining,
and was not violative of Section 7 of the Act.
In the course of making arrangements for Schrader's transfer to.
Department 301, Schrader assumed that he would continue to work.on
80 Burroughs did not testify ; Fowler did not testify as to this point.
n Beamer testified that, when he made this remark, he was under the impression, con-
trary to the fact, that the position of Sergeant -at-Arms was an honorary one, not involving-
any duties that would require Schrader to leave his machine during working hours.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the first shift and was given a first-shift badge, but when he reported
for work on his new job, Foreman Ovendorf told Schrader that turret
lathe work was available only on the second shift and instructed him
to report for work on the second shift. Schrader accepted the second-
shift assignment after a vigorous protest. Later, Schrader sought to
be transferred to the first shift and filed a grievance in writing to that
effect on November 5, 1943. He based his grievance on a provision in
the existing contract giving union representatives shift preference and
upon his union position as Sergeant-at-Arms and ex officio member of
the union executive committee. In response to Schrader's complaint,
the respondent relied on a further provision of the contract which, it
claimed, made the shift-preference provision inapplicable for a period
of 6 months after transfer during which an employee served a proba-
tionary period, as Schrader was doing. After considerable contro-
versy, Schrader abandoned the grievience and the respondent did not
transfer him to the first shift. During the discussions concerning the
grievance, according to Schrader, Dent and Schrader engaged in a
heated argument in which Dent accused Schrader of being "a double-
crosser and a liar," and of having made Dent the "laughing stock of
the whole division." Schrader further testified that he was told by
Dent that he did not want Schrader "around"; that Dent was going to
transfer Schrader "to hell out of here"; and that Dent did not "give a
damn what it says in the contract." In his testimony, Dent denied the
substance of the remarks attributed to him, but he admitted suggesting
to Schrader that he transfer to another department and "start all over
again." We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Dent made the
statements attributed to him substantially as testified to by Schrader.
A month after beginning work in Department 301, at the suggestion
of Schrader's supervisor, Elmer Perry, who was on friendly terms
with Schrader, he obtained a transfer to work on another turret lathe
operation, carrying a higher classification, which enabled Schrader to
earn more money.
Shortly after his transfer to Department 301, Schrader engaged in a
series of disputes with his new supervisors in an effort to obtain passes
to attend meetings of the union executive committee in his capacity as
Sergeant-at-Arms and ex officio member thereof. During his employ-
ment in Department 301, Schrader made no effort to attend the first
two committee meetings. He secured a pass from Foreman Anop to
attend the third meeting. When Schrader applied for a pass for the
fourth meeting, Anop refused to issue it because of an order by Dent;
but Schrader obtained a pass by appealing to Personnel Manager
Matthews who telephoned Dent to issue the pass. At the same time
Matthews told Schrader that Dent planned to transfer him 32 After
82 This finding is based on substantially uncontradicted testimony of Schrader , which we
credit as did the Trial Examiner.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1357
this executive committee meeting, according to Schrader's testimony,
Perry told Schrader : "You had better check your wheel and make sure
everything is right, because they are watching you. They will dis-
criminate against you just like they tried to do with me." Perry
denied that he made such a statement to Schrader. Perry testified
that Schrader had complained to Perry that higher management
officials "were after him" and that he advised Schrader that he could
not be discriminated against so long as he did his work well. Unlike
the Trial Examiner, we credit Perry's denial. Two weeks later
Schrader requested a pass from Anop, Ovendorf, and Dent, respec-
tively, and each refused. Dent accused Schrader of breaking his
promise to work the lathe 8 hours a day. Schrader then appealed to
Manager Zimmerman who issued a pass apparently without question-
ing Schrader, but, on the next day, Zimmerman accused Schrader of
breaking his word to Dent and advised Schrader that he would obtain
no more passes. In order to adjust the matter Union Representatives
Fowler, Burroughs, and McCoy conferred with Dent. They con-
vinced Dent that Schrader's presence was needed at the executive com-
mittee meetings and an agreement was reached that Schrader could
attend the meetings during working time not more than twice in any
1 month, but on the average of once a month.33
Ili December 1943, notwithstanding Schrader's agreement with
management to operate the turret lathe 8 hours a day and not to
handle union grievances during working hours, Schrader consented to
be a candidate for steward of Department 301, and was elected to that
office. Thereafter, Schrader energetically performed his duties as
steward and filed between 25 and 30 grievances within the next 3
months. Schrader's failure to abide by his agreement not to handle
union grievances aroused Dent's resentment. The bulk of these griev-
ances involved minor adjustments in computation of bonus payments
and were settled by having the respondent's timekeeper, one Hobday,
who was in charge of the bonus program, recompute the earnings of
the employee. None of the grievances involving the amount of bonus
due an employee was carried beyond Hobday. The respondent asserts
that Schrader spent an excessive amount of time handling such griev-
ances. While the respondent concedes that other stewards abused the
privilege of handling union grievances on company time, it regarded
Schrader as the worst offender in this respect. At one conference called
to consider grievances, at which Fowler, Burroughs, Stanyard, and
Schrader were present, according to Schrader's testimony, Dent char-
acterized grievances, which Schrader had just presented, in belittling
and vulgar language; Schrader defended them as justified, but Dent
accused Schrader of double-crossing and lying, asserted that he, Dent,
could not do business with Schrader, and threatened to transfer him
83 Some union meetings were held outside Schrader ' s working hours.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to another department or to relieve him from work on. the turret
lathe.34
After this conference, according to Schrader's testimony, Schrader
was told by Perry that he had "orders from the office" to discriminate
against Schrader by withholding promotions from him. Perry denied
this. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we credit Perry's denial.
During the month of March 1943, when the dispute concerning
abuse of the amount of time spent by stewards in handling grievances
was acute, Schrader submitted several time cards reflecting 2 hours or
more time spent in handling grievances, including two cards which
reflected more than 5 hours in time so spent. Considerable haggling
ensued between the respondent's representatives and union officials
concerning payment of these claims. Dent demanded that Schrader
account for his off-work time, but Schrader refused, stating that he
could not reveal the nature of the union business involved. Dent com-
plained that frequently he did not know where Schrader was and that
a check of Schrader's claims for time spent by him handling union
grievances were without basis in some instances. Matthews questioned
Schrader concerning the amount of working time spent on union mat-
ters and requested an accounting of such time. In one instance,
Schrader claimed to have spent 11/2 hours in Zimmerman's office, but
Zimmerman estimated that their interview took from 5 to 10 minutes;
in another instance, Schrader claimed that he spent an hour and a
half with Lewis, but Lewis denied that he had any transaction with
Schrader at the alleged time.' In any event, the respondent and the
Union, on April 9, entered into the agreement, previously mentioned,
which limited the respondent's liability for such claims to 750 hours a
week and required all union representatives to report to their fore-
men time spent in handling grievances. As part of the agreement, the
respondent paid in full all prior claims, thus settling the matter.
After Schrader had completed 6 months' service in Department 301,
about the middle of March 1944, in the presence of Stanyard, Dent
told Schrader, according to Schrader's testimony, "Well, your 6
months is up now. You can go over on first shift if you want to."
Schrader further testified that, when he asked Dent whether he
wished to get rid of Schrader, Dent replied, "Hell, I would give $200
any time to get rid of you." Dent denied this. Stanyard corroborated
Schrader's testimony and further testified that Dent also stated that
"it may be worth it" even if he would have to pay Schrader 6 months'
back wages. Dent admitted making substantially such a statement.
We credit Schrader and Stanyard as to their mutually corroborating
84 Dent denied the substance of this testimony although he admitted that he was angered
by Schrader ' s conduct and that he suggested that Schrader transfer to another department.
We credit Schrader's testimony , as did the Trial Examiner.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1359
testimony, as did the Trial Examiner, and find that Dent made the
statements in substance attributed to him by Schrader and Stanyard.
The incident leading directly to Schrader's discharge occurred on
Saturday night, April 1, 1944. It had been the respondent' s estab-
lished practice in Department 301 to devote the last half hour on the
.second shift each Saturday night to cleaning the production machines,
and to have each employee enter on his time card time so spent as clean-
up time. On the night in question, Foreman Anop, on his own initia-
tive, reduced the time to be spent by the employees in cleaning their
respective machines from .5 of an hour to .3 of an hour, and instructed
Supervisors Chirdon and Parsons to notify all the machine operators
of the change. With one exception, all machine operators were notified
before 11 or 11:15 o'clock to make the change. When Schrader was
notified by Parsons of the change in schedule just prior to 11: 15 p. in.,
Schrader had prematurely ceased production and was engaged in
cleaning his machine and Schrader stated to Parsons that he, Schrader,
had always taken half an hour to clean his machine and that he was
going to continue that schedule. After Parsons left, Schrader talked
to most of the other machine operators in the department and advised
them, in substance, that he believed that a change in the clean-up
schedule should be negotiated with the Union before being put into
effect, and admonished some of the men, "If you go along and put
down .3 hour here, take it lying down, without objection, it will be
that way from then on." 35 Six employees, including the one who had
not been notified of the change, entered .5 of an hour clean-up time on
their cards, and, thereafter, as was customary, deposited the cards just
before the end of the shift in the supervisor's box provided for that
purpose. About 10 minutes before midnight, Foreman Anop discov-
ered that the time cards were marked .5 of an hour clean-up time. He
immediately assembled the machine operators and accused Schrader
of being the ringleader of the men and the instigator of their dis-
obedience and asked Schrader why he did not do as his supervisor
directed. Schrader replied, "Sure, I do, but if he told me to jump
off the viaduct, do you think I would do it ?" When Anop refused to
approve the cards, Schrader stated, "Just leave it there and we will
take it up Monday. Whose orders are these?" Anop stated that they
56 The machine operators received an hourly wage and a "soft" bonus calculated on a
piece-rate basis. The evidence discloses no discernable reason as to why Schrader or any
other machine operator should object to a reduction in the amount of time spent on cleaning
the machines at the close of the Saturday night shift . A reduction in the amount of time
spent at non -productive operations would tend to increase their bonus earnings. On these
,occasions, a thorough cleaning of the machines was not required ; the accumulation of metal
'filings was removed by means of an air hose, which took a brief time, the balance of the
time being spent by the employees in wiping grease and oil from the machines with oily
rags . Some machine operators who had adhered to the old clean-up schedule testified at
the hearing that management required no specified amount of cleaning to be accomplished
during the period and that it was of no consequence to them whether they spent .5 or 3
hours in cleaning the machines.
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were his, to which Schrader replied, according to his testimony,
credited by the Trial Examiner, "That is what I thought. It is about
time that you fellows learn that you have got to negotiate these things."
The respondent's witnesses, not credited by the Trial Examiner, testi-
fied that Schrader's last repsonse was, "Who the hell is giving orders
around here. The sooner you learn who is running this place the better
off you will be." Unlike the Trial Examiner, we credit the respond-
ent's witnesses.
On the following Monday, Anop complained to Ovendorf and Dent,
and the Union prepared a written grievance supporting Schrader.36.
At a meeting arranged to handle the grievance before Lewis,-Anop
again accused Schrader of causing five employees to enter .5 of an
hour clean-up time on their time cards. This, Schrader denied. The
men were called in and they all stated that Schrader had not so directed
them,37 asserting that they did so on their own account, but admitting
that Schrader had discussed the matter with them. During this Mon-
day interview, Dent accused Schrader of making a lot of trouble; Anop
and Dent stated that Schrader was a bad influence and caused dissen-
sion among the employees, and Ovendorf stated, "You know, Schrader,
you cause a lot of trouble around here and dug, up a lot of dirt." 3s
When the Union indicated that it had nothing further to present,
Labor Manager Lewis discharged Schrader, and he was thereupon
escorted from the plant by a member of the respondent's police, force.
Thereafter, Ovendorf gave to the Union written notice of Schrader's
discharge which stated, in part, that ". . . Schrader was discharged
today for insubordination." The respondent's written answer, dated
April 4, 1944, to the grievance filed by the Union protesting the dis-
charge, stated, in substance, that Schrader was discharged for "insub-
ordination" and "abuse of employee representation time." 39 There-
after the Union preferred charges before the Board.
"Schrader defended his action by -relying on the following provision in the contract:
"The Company agrees to meet and bargain with . . . the Union . . . on all subjects of
employer-employee relations ." The respondent ' s representatives countered by relying on
the following provision of the contract : ".. . the schedules of production , the methods,
processes , and the means of manufacturing used, are the Management ' s prerogative "
" Lewis laid off these men, except the one who had not been notified of the change in
schedule , for the subsequent day without pay, but, on Wednesday, he ordered that the men
be paid for the 8 hours.
$8 This finding with respect to what was said at the Monday conference by Dent, Anop, and
Ovendorf is based on the testimony of Schrader and is not specifically denied. Like the
Trial Examiner , we credit this testimony of Schrader.
39 The pertinent part of the respondent ' s answer is as follows
Although the dismissal of Mr. Schrader grew out of the placing of this change into
effect the reason for his dismissal is attributed to insubordination on his part More
specifically , lie was discharged because of abuse of language and an utter lack of
willingness to recognize or take instructions from his supervisors . The discharge is
a culmination of the use of these tactics over a long period of time . Mr Schrader's
conduct has been of such a nature that he was breaking down the morale of the
employees through the promotion of a feeling of disrespect for his supervision. Mr.
Schrader has opposed any attempt on the part of supervision to enforce discipline in
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1361
Concinding findings with respect to Schrader
The respondent contends that Schracler was discharged on April 3,
1944, for "insubordination" in his refusal to follow instructions to
limit the time spent in cleaning his machine to .3 of an hour and to
enter that fact on his time card and, in inducing other machine opera-
tors likewise to disobey management's instructions with respect to the
change in schedule. The Trial Examiner found that the' respondent
had "no legitimate reason for Schrader's discharge on the controversy
over clean-up time." We do not agree. Schrader was an experienced
union steward; he was thoroughly familiar with the grievance proce-
dure provided by the collective bargaining contract, having had 2
years' experience as a steward, chief steward, plant committeeman,
and member of the executive committee. He and the other machine
operators were notified between 11 and 11: 15 o'clock of the change in
schedule. Schrader, as shop steward, had ample opportunity to
notify management through the regular grievance procedure that a
grievance existed with respect to the change in schedule. On no
previous occasion had Schrader hesitated to leave his machine at any
time and to complain vigorously to management with respect to
grievances. Instead, Schrader refused to obey his supervisor's order,
counseled other machine operators to disobey management instruc-
tions, and used abusive language in talking to his supervisor when
confronted with such disobedience.
Instead of following the regular grievance procedure and notifying
management that neither he nor the other employees were willing to
follow the production schedule set by management, Schrader and the
other operators continued on a production schedule of their own
choice,- leaving management to discover that fact at the close of the
shift when the employees submitted their time cards. Schrader's
conduct in refusing to follow the production schedule established by
management and in following one of his own choice, without notifica-
tion to management that a grievance would be pressed with respect to
the establishment of the new schedule, and his use of abusive lan-
guage, as set forth above, furnished the respondent with a legitimate
ground for his discharge. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we are
convinced, and find, that the respondent discharged Schrader for
his insubordinate conduct in connection with management's revised
the department . The above reasons, along with his abuses of employee representation
time, are the reasons for his discharge.
On cross -examination Lewis insisted that "insubordination" was the sole reason for
Schrader's discharge and that the controversy over union representation time had "nothing
to do with his immediate discharge " He denied having had anything to do with the
preparation of the respondent 's answer to Schrader 's grievance or that he had knowledge
thereof.
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production, schedule. We shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint as
to Schrader.
D. Interference, restraint, and coercion
We find that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by
engaging in the following course of conduct, more specifically set
forth above. During the course of the argument with respect to Hoyt's
grievances, Foreman Cook stated that he "didn't give a damn what
it says in the contract"; and that he regarded Hoyt as a trouble
maker, and "wanted to get him over to the first shift where he could
watch him." General Foreman Dent characterized Hoyt as a
"trouble maker" and asserted that if union stewards "are any good
we make supervisors out of them . . . if they are no good, we get
rid of them." Upon reinstatement of Hoyt as a Grade "B" tool
maker, Dent told Hoyt that if he "behaved" himself and "didn't cause
any trouble" that it would not be long before he would be making
his old wage of $1.45 an hour. As a condition precedent to reinstat-
ing Hoyt to Grade A classification when such work became available
on or about May 26, 1944, the respondent insisted that Hoyt and the
Union surrender their right to protest in the event that the respond-
ent determined to discharge Hoyt for future misconduct, or that Hoyt
admit that he had adequate warning such as to entitle the respondent
to discharge Hoyt for future misconduct. General Foreman Dent
stated to Schrader during an argument with respect to his attendance
at a meeting of the Union's executive committee that Dent was going
to transfer Schrader "to hell out of here" and that Dent "didn't give
a damn what it says in the contract." On another occasion when
Schrader presented grievances to Dent, he threatened to transfer
Schrader to another department or to remove him from the turret
lathe operation. In another instance, General Foreman Dent told
Schrader and Stanyard that he, Dent, would "give $200 any time"
to get rid of Schrader and that "it would be worth" while to pay 6
months' back salary to Schrader to get rid of him. The respondent
thus made clear, among other things, that it had no intention of
observing its obligations under the contract with'the Union, and that
it regarded employees, such as Hoyt and Schrader who pressed it to
perform such obligations, as having thereby subjected themselves to
close surveillance, demotion, and eventual elimination from employ-
ment as a result of their union activities. We find, that by such
course of conduct, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1363
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 respond-
ent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
'Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
terms and conditions of employment of Henry T. Hoyt, thereby in
effect demoting him, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, for the
reason that he joined and assisted a labor organization and engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of
the Act. We shall, therefore, order that the respondent offer Hoyt
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
,equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges. We shall further order that the respondent make
Hoyt whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by reason
of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to the amount that he normally would have
earned as wages from May 26, 1943, the date of his discriminatory
demotion, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings 40 during said period.
The respondent's whole course of conduct discloses a purpose to
defeat self-organization and its objects among its employees, and the
culmination of its activities to achieve that purpose, the demotion and
refusal to reinstate Hoyt, "goes to the very heart of the Act." 41 Be-
cause of he respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose,
we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for 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., 311 U. S. 7
11 N. L. R. B. v Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. (2d) 532, 536 (C. C. A. 4). Cf N. L. R. B. v.
Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 116 F. ( 2d) 350, 353 (C. C. A. 7), where the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed : "No more effective form of
intimidation nor one more violative of the N. L. R . Act can be conceived than discharge of
an employee because he joined a union... .
662514-45-vol. 63-87
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that
danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
the respondent's conduct in the past.42 The preventive purposes of
the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the
threat. In order therefore to make effective the interdependent guar-
antees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices,
and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs
commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order
the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, Local 856, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of
employment of Henry T. Hoyt, thereby discouraging membership in
a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, Akron, Ohio, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local 856, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,.
42 See N L. R . B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1365
or any other labor organization , by demoting and refusing to rein-
state any of its employees , or by discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or
condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist International Union, United!
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,,
Local 856, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Henry T. Hoyt immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make'whole Henry T. Hoyt for any loss of pay,that he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his dis-
criminatory demotion to the date of the respondent's offer of rein-
statement , less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post at the respondent's plants at Akron, Ohio, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , insofar as it alleges (1)
that the respondent discriminated against Henry T. Hoyt between
March 6 and May 26, 1944; and ( 2) that the respondent discriminated
against Charles D. Schrader, within the meaning of Section 8 (3),
of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, Local 856 (CIO), or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other-rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Henry T. Hoyt
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate 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.
GOODYEAR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,
By ------------------ ------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------------
NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharged from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.