Grand Central Aircraft Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1114 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO) , REGION 6
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO) , PETITIONER . Cases Nos.
21-CA-1101 and 21-RC-1813. March 206, 1953
Decision and Order
On July 3, 1952, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also recom-
mended that the election held in Case No. 21-RC-1813 on April 20,
1951, be set aside. The Trial Examiner further found that the Re-
spondent had not e:lgaged in certain other unfair labor practices and
recommended that these allegations in the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The General Counsel and
the Union filed briefs in reply to the Respondent's brief.
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' con-
'In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings, we have accepted his resolutions of credi-
bility Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enforced 188 F. 2d 362 (C. A.
3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 190 F 2d 429 (C. A. 2).
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent made no
showing of the availability of certain supervisory personnel as to whose statements and
conduct there was testimony by the General Counsel's witnesses. The record shows that
Jackson was in the employ of the Respondent until sometime before the close of the
hearing, that Inscoe, though in Wichita, Kansas, still works for the Respondent, that no
explanation was offered as to the failure of Horn and Johnson to testify, and that as to
the others, with the exception of Watson and possibly Fillman, their whereabouts were
known to the Respondent. The Respondent made no showing that it had attempted to
obtain their appearance at the hearing or otherwise secure their testimony. Moreover,
the failure of these individuals to testify was but a factor in the Trial Examiner's credi-
bility determinations. Accordingly, the Respondent's exceptions are without merit.
103 NLRB No. 101.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1115
clusions, and recommendations, with the following additions and
modifications : 2
1. In its brief, counsel for the Respondent asserts that the "General
Counsel and/or the Union" bribed a witness of the General Counsel
to get favorable testimony, and "there is no reason to believe that this
procedure was not followed in obtaining other such testimony." Coun-
sel for the Respondent submits no affidavits but alleges that the wit-
ness John G. Crisman, a former foreman of the Respondent, who testi-
fied for the General Counsel, "was heard by disinterested and reliable
persons to state that he had been offered $5,000 by the Union to testify
on its behalf, that he was going to accept this cash offer, and receive
payment the next day." Counsel for the Respondent further asserts
that he turned this information over to the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation while the hearing was still in progress, and "an investigation
presumably is being made. Respondent has not as yet been informed
of the results." The General Counsel and the Union maintain that
these allegations are unsupported by any substantial evidence, should
be stricken as scandalous and indecent, and counsel for the Respond-
ent subjected to appropriate disciplinary action.
Although counsel for the Respondent now alleges that he obtained
information as to alleged bribery of Crisman by the "General Counsel
and/or the Union" during the hearing, it was not until 9 months
after the close of the hearing with the filing of his brief before the
Board that he informed the Board or the General Counsel of the
charge of bribery. Counsel for the Respondent did not seek to im-
peach Crisman at the hearing by confronting him with the "disin-
terested and reliable persons" with all parties under oath and with
full opportunity to cross-examine on both sides. Nor does counsel
for the Respondent now seek to reopen the record to receive evidence
related to the charge of bribery. Instead, he in effect urges the Board
to give weight to his initiation of an FBI investigation of Crisman,
the Union, and the General Counsel. We therefore turn to the FBI
investigation.
Sometime after the hearing the Regional Office of the Board learned
that some of the General Counsel's witnesses had been questioned by
an FBI agent. The Chief Law Officer of the Region interviewed the
FBI agent and wrote a report to the Regional Director covering this
2 The following corrections in the Intermediate Report do not affect the Trial Examiner's
findings or our concurrence therein: ( 1) The jackhammer used by Sayre weighed between
75 and 100 lbs. (2 ) The Respondent 's no-solicitation bulletin referred to "personal"
rather than personnel reasons. ( 3) Jesse G. Oliver testified for the Respondent contrary
to the Trial Examiner's footnote reference ( 18) as accounted for elsewhere in the Inter-
mediate Report . ( 4) The Union began to distribute circulars outside the Respondent's
plant in July 1951.
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interview, under date of June 18, 1952, copy of which was filed with
the reply brief of the General Counsel. As of February 29, 1952, the
FBI agent reported to the Department of Justice on the results of his
investigation substantially as follows : Shortly after the close of the
hearing, counsel for the Respondent turned over to the FBI an anon-
ymous letter which stated that the writer had heard Crisman make
the statement in a hotel bar that the Union was giving him 5 or 10
thousand dollars for his testimony against the Respondent in the
Board proceedings. The FBI agent conferred with Hemler, one of
the top plant officials, who stated that he knew who had written the
letter but had promised not to divulge this person's identity. The FBI
agent learned that the writer of the letter was Mrs. Stevens, wife of
an employee of the Respondent, who, upon being interviewed, said
that she had seen Crisman talk to the General Counsel and the union
representative in the hotel bar and that Crisman later came over to
talk with her. Mrs. Stevens became vague concerning Crisman's
alleged claim that he was paid for his testimony, stating that she
might have been mistaken as to what he said. She said that the letter-
writing seemed a good idea to her husband who had, before the letter
was written, given his version of his wife's conversation to Hemler.
The FBI agent interviewed Crisman and the union representative
and was satisfied that they were telling the truth when they informed
him that Crisman had been paid only his loss of wages for the time
spent testifying. It was Crisman's belief that he might have said
words to the effect that his testimony would be worth a lot to the
Union, from which Mrs. Stevens either drew an improper inference or
had one suggested to her by her husband. The FBI agent ascertained
that Stevens had gotten a promotion and concluded that probably
his motive in carrying through with the letter was to obtain just such
a promotion. The FBI agent read the entire testimony of Crisman
and concluded that it was not uniformly favorable to the Union or
the General Counsel and that it was inconceivable to him that any
substantial sum of money would be paid for such testimony. The
agent did not communicate with the Regional Office because he did
not consider that his investigation justified going into the matter any
further. He was explicit in stating that there had been no claim of
misconduct or knowledge of misconduct on the part of the General
Counsel.
It is clear from the report of the FBI agent that as early as Feb-
ruary 29, 1952, counsel for the Respondent had available to him the
results of the investigation which he initiated. Had he taken the
trouble to learn of this report, counsel for the Respondent would have
ascertained that the "disinterested and reliable" witnesses whom he
claimed provided the basis for the charges of bribery had indulged
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1117
in a fabrication. Manifestly, counsel for the Respondent by the man-
ner and timing of his charges, his failure to endeavor to support such
charges by sworn record testimony or even by affidavits, his unquali-
fied statements in the brief that the "General Counsel and/or the
Union" engaged in illegal conduct, and his indifference as to the out-
come of the investigation of the charges by the FBI, exceeded the
bounds of reasonable advocacy and cast aspersions upon the integrity
of the General Counsel and the Union. We reject as completely un-
founded the Respondent's charges of unlawful and improper conduct
on the part of the General Counsel and the Union and deny all excep-
tions based thereon.3
8 The Respondent also alleges in its brief that "the General Counsel and/or the Union"
intimidated the Respondent 's witnesses . The Respondent asserts that one of its witnesses
was a married woman employee who had committed some indiscretions during her married
life, that the General Counsel had the man with whom these indiscretions were committed
present in the hearing room for a day and a half while this woman employee was waiting
to testify, and that "this implied threat of disclosure to her husband was successful
because the woman employee was so .. . afraid . . . she could not testify." The Re-
spondent further maintains that the Trial Examiner was informed , off the record , of "this
misconduct on the part of the General Counsel and/or the Union" but refused to reprimand
the parties "and prevented the Respondent from showing such intimidation in the Record."
The General Counsel and the Union contend that the Respondent 's assertions are unsup-
ported by any evidence and not urged in good faith. The record shows that the man in
question , an employee of the Respondent , was called by the Respondent and queried as
to his reasons for attending the hearing . Upon objection by the General Counsel to this
line of questioning, Respondent' s counsel stated that he was pursuing the matter because
of intimidation by the General Counsel of the Respondent' s witnesses , whereupon the
following ensued:
TRIAL EXAMINER SPENCER : No one should be discouraged from attending this pub-
lic hearing by intimidation from any party. It would be just as bad coming from
the union as from you
Mr. LUND [Counsel for the Respondent ] : I understand . There is no objection to
anybody attending the hearing.
TRIAL EXAMINER SPENCER. I think I will have to ask you why you are pursuing this
line of inquiry. I will do that in the absence of the witness , however.
(Discussion off the record.)
TRIAL EXAMIER SPENCER: Now , Mr. Lund, we have had some discussion off the
record, which by consent of the parties, I believe should not be spread on the record.
I can only say that with respect to Mr. -, that I will exclude you from questioning
Mr - as to his attendance at this hearing, which gives you an exception. Of
course, if you want to examine him for any other purpose, that is entirely a matter
of your discretion.
Mr. LUND. No further questions.
It is clear from the foregoing that the man in question attended the hearing as any
other individual might attend a public hearing, and that his reasons for so doing were not
subject to inquiry by the Respondent . The Respondent was free to call the female wit-
ness whenever it chose in presenting its defense. Obviously, If the General Counsel there-
after called the man and sought to adduce testimony from him concerning the alleged
indiscretions , the Respondent 's witness would have been amply protected by sustainable
objection that the private life of the female witness was immaterial to any genuine issue
or question of credibility in the case. This proper course the Respondent chose not to
follow. It cannot now on baseless speculation claim that its witness was intimidated.
Accordingly, we affirm the Trail Examiner 's ruling.
Finally, upon an examination of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, the
Respondent 's added allegations of improper conduct on the part of the field examiner, the
Chief Law Officer, and the Regional Director as well as bias and prejudice on the part of
the Trial Examiner , are found to be without merit.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, as set forth in detail
in the Intermediate Report, that in the period immediately preceding
the election held on April 20, 1951, the Respondent committed nu-
merous violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 4 and interfered with
the free choice of a bargaining representative by its employees .5 In so
finding, however, we do not rely upon the written preelection propa-
ganda published and distributed by the Respondent to its employees
and summarized by the Trial Examiner as containing "express and
implied threats of `trouble,' disruption of harmonious employer-em-
ployee relations, the closing of the plant, and loss of job security...."
We regard the views expressed in such written statements as falling
within the protective ambit of Section 8 (c) of the Act .6
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's pro-
hibition of the distribution of union literature on its premises outside
the plant, the blanket rule against solicitation within the plant, the
confinement of employees Nevitt and Williams to their work sta-
tions with instructions not to converse with their fellow employees,
the issuance of a corrective interview against Williams, and the
disparity of treatment as between prounion and antiunion employees,
independently constituted violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
and interference with the election. Contrary to the Trial Examiner,
however, we do not place any reliance therefor upon the Bonwit-
Teller doctrine.'
4. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the Re-
spondent discharged employees Charles Atherton and Eldridge Ar-
nold, and discriminated in regard to employee Robert Sayre's con-
i The Trial Examiner found violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, leadman Coover's
statement in the course of a conversation with employee Romero that if the Union became
the bargaining representative It could have any employee fired and "no questions asked."
We agree. Romero also testified credibly that Coover said that "if the union didn't go
in that all the union members or who had any activity with the union would be fired."
We further find this added threat of reprisal violative of the Act.
5 The Respondent argues that with knowledge of the incidents now alleged to constitute
election interference, the Union chose to proceed with the election and therefore must be
held to have waived its objections . The Trial Examiner found that the Union did not
have adequate knowledge of the totality of the Respondent 's conduct and therefore refused
to apply the doctrine of waiver . In view of the recent decision of the Board in The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1374 , knowledge by the Union of the
Respondent 's interference in the period following execution of the stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election is immaterial and the Board has considered the interference on
the merits though the charges were filed subsequent to the election . For this reason we
find the Respondent's exception without merit.
, we do not thereby disturb the Trial Examiner 's findings of violations of the Act and
interference with the election predicated upon oral statements and verbal conduct by the
Respondent 's supervisory personnel and agents . We further find, relying in part upon
the letters on these subjects to its employees, as did the Trial Examiner , that the Respond-
ent granted general wage increases and altered its insurance benefits as inducement for its
employees to vote against the Union.
We adopt the TriaJ Examiner 's finding that Personnel Director Fry 's request that em-
ployee Volckman report to him on the union activities of other employees violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, we do not adopt his further finding that this incident
which occurred in November 1950, 5 months before the election , constituted election
interference.
7 Bonwit-Teller, Inc. v . N. L. R. B ., 197 F. 2d 640 ( C. A. 2), enforcing 96 NLRB 608.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1119
ditions of employment in order to discourage membership in the
Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act .s
In connection with the discharge of Atherton, the Trial Examiner
found that leadman Crisman testified that 3 or 4 days before the cor-
rective interview was issued, Ranger, head of inspection, said that
Atherton was going to be "bothersome" because of his union activities
and the best thing to do was to get a corrective interview on him and
then the first thing he did wrong, to discharge him. In its excep-
tions, the Respondent asserts that Crisman's testimony was that
Ranger made this statement 30 days before Atherton's corrective
interview and that the corrective interview issued 3 or 4 days before
the termination of Atherton. While we credit the testimony of Cris-
man in the same manner as did the Trial Examiner, we agree with
the Respondent that the record shows that Crisman placed Ranger's
statement as having been made 30 days before Atherton's corrective
interview and that the corrective interview preceded Atherton's dis-
charge by 3 or 4 days. However, contrary to the Respondent's fur-
ther exceptions, we do not in any way minimize by virtue of the 30-
day interval the weight attached by the Trial Examiner to this evi-
dence of the Respondent's intention to discharge Atherton for his
union activities. Indeed, Crisman's further testimony, which we
credit, was that regularly during a period of 30 days before the elec-
tion, certain of the Respondent's supervisory staff, including Harris,
Biagi, Urban, and Crisman gathered in the engine overhaul office and
discussed the activities of the Union, how to curb the union leaders,
and what the supervisory personnel were finding in their respective de-
partments as to who was going to vote for the Union. Crisman testi-
fied that at these gatherings Charles Atherton and Sayre "were men-
tioned in almost every discussion that came up about the union," that
Harris and Biagi said of "Atherton, particularly, more than one oc-
casion . . . that the thing to do is to get a corrective interview on
them, for something; and then any time after that if they make a bad
wriggle, fire them."
It is clear therefore that the Respondent, in adherence to a pre-
conceived plan, was determined to rid itself of those most active in
the Union's organizational efforts and of Atherton in particular.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in detail in the Inter-
mediate Report, we reject the grounds assigned by the Respondent
for Atherton's termination and find that the Respondent discharged
Atherton because of his union activities.'
8 We find without merit the Union's exceptions including those to the Trial Examiner's
dismissal of the complaint as to Duty and Aldridge.
9It appears that United States Air Force security regulations prohibited the use of
Atherton's production records and, contrary to the Trial Examiner , we therefore base no
inference on the Respondent 's failure to produce these records. However, this factor does
not alter our concurrence in the Trial Examiner 's finding that Atherton 's production was
satisfactory.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Grand Central Aircraft
Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of
them; by transferring, isolating, or confining any of them; or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire, tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Promulgating or enforcing any rule prohibiting its employees
from engaging in union activities on company property on their own
time, or requiring its employees to obtain its permission for engaging
in such actvities on their own time; promulgating or enforcing any
rule prohibiting the distribution of union literature on company prem-
ises outside the plant wherever the distribution of public notices of
any kind is generally permissible; interrogating its employees con-
cerning their attitudes and views on union representation, their at-
tendance of union meetings, their reasons for favoring or not favoring
union representation, and any and all matters relating to their union
views and beliefs; threatening that union representation would result
in the plant closing, and loss of job; inducing or seeking to induce its
employees to oppose union representation by offering or promising
increased insurance and wage benefits, transfers, promotions, and im-
proved working conditions; enforcing disparity of treatment as be-
tween prounion and antiunion employees; inviting its employees to
report to it on the union activities of fellow employees and suggesting
to employees that their union activities are kept under surveillance;
requesting its employees to remove union buttons or other union in-
signia; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in 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 condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1121
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Charles Atherton and Eldridge Arnold immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social-security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due.
(c) Post at its plant in Tucson, Arizona, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked "Appendix A."" Copies of such notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
Los Angeles, California, shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized 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 Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it alleges that the Respondent : discriminated in regard to the hire,
tenure, and conditions of employment of Marion Duty and Plez Al-
dridge; promoted, demoted, transferred, isolated, or confined Eldridge
Arnold, Robert Atkinson, N. Straley, and Bruce Rice; promoted or
demoted Carroll Williams; promoted, demoted, or transferred Harold
Nevitt; promised benefits to employees if they would remove their
union buttons; caused the Union to be hung in effigy; and questioned
leadman Knapp and Barbara Ruffin concerning their union activities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that objections to the election numbered 5
and 7 be dismissed.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the April 20, 1951, election be, and it hereby
is, set aside, and that Case No. 21-RC-1813 be remanded to the Re-
gional Director for the Twenty-first Region for the purpose of con-
ducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
w In the event that this Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , 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."
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix A
NOTICES 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 INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO) , REGION 6, or in any
other labor organization of our employees, by discharging any of
our employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
their employment.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce any rule prohibiting our
employees from engaging in union activities on company property
on their own time, or requiring that they obtain our permission
before engaging in such activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce any rule prohibiting the
distribution of union literature on company premises outside the
plant at any and all places where notices are generally distributed.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce any rule , or engage in any
practice, which denies to our employees who favor union repre-
sentation , any privilege granted to employees who oppose union
representation, or which discriminates in any manner between
those who favor and those who oppose union representation.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
views, attitudes, or activities.
WE WILL NOT invite or request our employees to report to us
on the union views, attitudes, or activities of other employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activities of
any of our employees.
WE WILL NOT induce or seek to induce any of our employees to
give up or refrain from union activities, by promising or granting
increased wage and insurance benefits, transfers, promotions, or
better working conditions.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closing the plant
and loss of job in the event a majority of them choose union rep-
resentation.
WE WILL NOT invite or request any of our employees to remove
buttons or other insignia indicating their approval or disapproval
of a labor organization.
WE WILL make whole Charles Atherton and Eldridge Arnold
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them and offer them immediate and full re-
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1123
instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges.
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 the hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC.,
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
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, and an answer having been
duly filed by Grand Central Aircraft Co., Inc., herein called variously the Com-
pany, Grand Central, and the Respondent, a hearing involving allegations of
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136), herein called the
Act, was held in Tucson, Arizona, on various dates from October 2, 1951, to Jan-
uary 8, 1952, both dates inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. By
order of the Board, consolidated with said hearing was a hearing on objections
to an election conducted by the Board at Respondent's Tucson, Arizona, plant on
April 20, 1951, filed on April 27, 1951, by International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO),
Region 6, herein called the Union or the UAW-CIO. All parties were represented
at the hearing where they were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to
argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and/or proposed find-
ings and conclusions of law. All parties participated in oral argument and on
or before March 1, 1952, filed briefs or memoranda on legal points.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint as amended at the hearing
alleges and the answer, as amended , denies that the Respondent : (1) In viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, discharged Eldridge L. Arnold,
Charles M. Atherton, Marion M. Duty, and Plez Aldridge, and transferred Robert
Sayre and caused him to work under conditions imposing unreasonable hard-
ships; and (2) in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act engaged in acts of
interrogation concerning the union activities of its employees ; warnings of ad-
verse changes in conditions of employment and loss of job security which would
result from support of the Union ; offered wage increases and other inducements
for the purpose of discouraging union activities ; requested employees to remove
their union buttons and promised additional wage increases if they would do
so; conducted a campaign against the Union during working hours and urged
and induced employees to join in such campaign ; promoted, demoted, transferred,
isolated, and confined employees to discourage membership in the Union ; per-
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mitted the hanging of the Union in effigy on company premises ; and prohibited
union solicitations on company premises.
The objections to the election, in addition to duplications of matters alleged
in the complaint, alleged that the Respondent posted "voluminous" amounts
of antiunion literature while denying the posting of union literature and pro-
hibiting the distribution of union literature on company premises ; represented
the status of leadmen as nonsupervisory, thus causing them to be included in the
voting unit, whereas in fact they were supervisory and should have been ex-
cluded ; and misrepresented provisions of the Act relating to employee rights. At
the close of the General Counsel's case, the allegation on misrepresentation of
the status of leadmen was struck on motion of the Respondent.
Various motions of the Respondent for bills of particulars were granted in
part, but for the most part were denied ; its motion for a severance of the consoli-
dation of cases was denied ; over its objection, questions calling for the conclusion
of the witness as to whether or not he or she had been coerced by the Respondent
were excluded ; and various motions to strike or dismiss allegations of the
complaint, in whole or in part, were denied or ruling thereon was reserved.
The reserved rulings are disposed of by the findings below. The General Coun-
sel's motion, at the close of the hearing, to correct the transcript at page 451,
upon which ruling was reserved, is granted ; his motions to correct the transcript
at pages 589 and 4551, respectively, are denied. Respondent's motion to strike
subparagraph (h) of paragraph 8 of the complaint, renewed in its brief after
having been denied during the hearing, is denied.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
On the basis of the undenied allegations of the complaint with respect to the
Respondent's business I find :
Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged at its Tucson, Arizona, and
Glendale, California, plants in the overhauling and reconditioning of aircraft
for the United States Government and private corporations.
During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint (dated
August 2, 1951), Respondent in the conduct of its operations, contracted with the
United States Government to furnish materials and perform services in excess
of $10,000,000 in value in the overhauling and reconditioning of military aircraft
essential to the national defense, and during this same period, in the conduct of
its operations, caused a substantial amount of materials to be transported in
interstate commerce from and through States other than Arizona and California,
to its plants at Tucson, Arizona, and Glendale, California, respectively.
The Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
' Paragraph 8 (h) : "conducted a campaign against the Union during and after working
hours and requested , urged and induced employees to join in such campaign against the
Union " I am now of the opinion that this allegation is too general and vague to con-
stitute proper pleadings and that a more orderly presentation would have been had had I
granted, instead of denied, Respondent's motions for a more definite statement with
reference to it. No prejudice has resulted from this ruling, however, for as Respondent
admits in its brief all matters presented under this allegation were fully litigated.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1125
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory note
The issues in this case arise in large measure from an organizational compaign
instituted under the direction of George W. Arnold, the Union's representative,
in August 1950, not long after Respondent's Tucson plant was placed in opera-
tion,' and climaxed by a bargaining election on April 20, 1951, conducted by the
Board's agents pursuant to a consent-election agreement. This election the
Union lost by a ratio of approximately 3 to 18
Beginning in August the Union made periodic distributions of organizational
literature, much of which was critical of the Respondent's wage structure, em-
ployee insurance coverage, and personnel policies. At some time during the cam-
paign, it also broadcast its appeals over a local radio station. As the election
approached, the tempo of organizational activities was accelerated and the Re-
spondent reacted by openly and aggressively opposing union representation of
its employees. In its campaign against such representation, the Respondent
caused much literature to be published and distributed, some by posting on its
bulletin boards, some by mailing to the homes of its employees ; it also utilized
newspaper and radio media for conveying its antiunion propaganda to the public
and to its employees. The allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion
are based for the most part on the character and scope of the Respondent's mili-
tant preelection campaign and incidents of transfer, promotion, demotion, and
other changes bearing on terms and conditions of employment which it is claimed
were effectuated as part of the Respondent's drive against the Union.
In the hearing in this proceeding, which lasted over a slightly more than
3-month period (inclusive of several recesses), much of the printed election
propaganda of both Union and Respondent was received in evidence, and some 140
witnesses gave testimony on the issues. It is not practicable to embody in this
Intermediate Report the full context of the election propaganda of which notice
is taken, or to set forth in detail the hundreds of conflicts in testimony on both
major and minor issues. This entire matter has been carefully considered and
evaluated, and the findings that are made herein are based upon a consideration
of the entire record after personal observation of each witness who testified, a
careful and painstaking reading of the entire transcript, and the comprehensive
briefs filed with me.
Preliminary to an examination of the evidence on alleged violations of the Act,
findings will be made on disputed classifications in the Respondent's supervisory,
hierarchy.
B. Supervisory personnel`
During periods material to an examination of the issues, and to the extent that
we are here concerned, Respondent's managerial staff was composed as follows :
Robert C. Denny, president; P. A. Johnson, executive vice president; C. C.
Moseley, chairman of the board ; William B. Birren, plant manager ; H. J. Hemler,
assistant plant manager ; Sam A. Wilburn, production superintendent ; B. B.
2 The Respondent 's principal offices and "home" plant are located at Glendale, Cali-
fornia, and are not directly involved in this proceeding.
2 Of the approximately 1,800 employees in the voting unit, some 1,726 voted, 67 by
challenged ballot. Of the valid votes counted, 1,198 were cast against, 461 for, the Union.
4 Section 2 (11) of the Act : "The term 'supervisor' means any individual having author-
ity, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer , suspend , lay off , recall , promote, dis-
charge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to
adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with
the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature,
but requires the use of independent judgment."
257965-54-vol . 103-72
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jackson, assistant production superintendent ; John O. Harris, night superintend-
ent; Hugh O. Fry, director of personnel.
In charge of the numerous shops and departments were foremen and under
them assistant foremen and supervisors. No serious issue is raised on the super-
visory status of foremen and assistant foremen, and it is abundantly clear from
the testimony that employees bearing the title "supervisor" had and exercised the
authority, in the interest of the employer, responsibly to direct and discipline
other employees in matters requiring the application of independent judgment
Accordingly, I find that persons classified as supervisors were supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
There remains personnel classified as leadmen.'
On the basis of credible testimony to the effect that certain leadmen, all of
whom were in charge of crews ranging from 4 or 5 employees upward, assigned
other employees to their work, responsibly directed them in their work, in some
instances prepared the rating sheets which furnished the basis for a determina-
tion of wage increases, and transferred or effectively recommended transfer of
employees, it is clear that in some instances, at least, leadmen were supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.7 It is equally clear that this is not true of all
employees bearing that title. An example is Louis Liggins, who was made a
leadman shortly before the April 20 bargaining election but who continued to do
manual work to the same degree as prior to receiving the title and who is not
shown to have exercised authority other than of a merely routine nature.
It is not found, therefore, that all persons bearing the title of leadmen were
supervisors within the statutory definition of the term. Adopting the language
of Respondent's counsel in oral argument, "Some obviously were and some
obviously were not." Where it is necessary to make an exact finding on the
point, such finding will be based on the evidence as it applied to the individual
under consideration. However, in determining whether the Respondent is
bound by statements and conduct of leadmen, it is not necessary to make find-
ings on the point because it is abundantly clear that whether or not leadmen were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, they were held out by the Respond-
ent to its employees as representatives of management ; along with other super-
visory personnel they were furnished with badges in which there was a red
wedge-referred to in the testimony as a "piece of pie"-as a visible identification
of managerial status and attended, by personal invitation, in company with the
upper echelons of managerial personnel, supervisory meetings where their duties
5 For example, the corrective interview, a form of written reprimand, appears to have
originated, usually, with the supervisor, and it is further seen, as in the case of Charles
Atherton discussed infra, that the supervisor may effectively recommend discharge. These
are but instances among many shown in the testimony where supervisors discharge
functions which bring them within the statutory definition.
6 Respondent's counsel conceded that leadmen were supervisors in the general sense of
the word, but declined to stipulate that they, as a classification, were supervisors within
the statutory definition.
7 Leadman Lee W. Knapp testified credibly that as leadman he filled out rating sheets on
employees in his crew, and was advised by his supervisors that this was the only way of
determining whether a wage increase was justified. Leadman (later, Foreman) Crisman
testified that leadmen could effectively recommend transfer of employees, and Foreman
Michael F. Biagi, Respondent's witness, testified that he would effectuate transfer "on the
recommendation of the leadman." That leadmen were regarded as vested with some disci-
plinary authority is established in the testimony of Night Superintendent John O. Harris
who admitted that he suggested the use of the corrective interview to leadman Crisman.
It is needless to review in detail the testimony of rank-and-file employees on the observed
scope and application of leadman supervisory authority, but sufficient to note that it
establishes that in many instances leadmen did little or no manual labor and responsibly
directed the work of their respective crews.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1127
and obligations to convey the policies and viewpoint of management to rank-and-
file employees were specifically pointed out to them. The fact that they were
not excluded as a classification from the voting unit agreed on by the parties,
in some instances voted in the bargaining election , in some instances were so-
licited to join the Union, and in some instances joined, are circumstances that
cannot prevail over the fact of their specific designation by management as rep-
resentatives of management . As will be seen hereinafter , leadmen provided the
conduit for channeling information on rank-and-file employees and how they felt
about the Union to the higher levels of the supervision, and, in some instances,
were specifically reminded that they were in the most advantageous position for
obtaining such information. Clearly, the Respondent is bound by their acts and
statements to the same degree as if they were in all instances supervisors within
the meaning of the Act' Connecticut Chemical Research Corp., 98 NLRB 160;
Bell Bakeries , Inc., 97 NLRB 1423.
C. Interference, restraint, coercion
1. Written and printed matter
The Respondent, in opposing the Union, caused to be distributed among its
employees, or published to them, numerous circulars, pamphlets, and letters, and
also addressed them-and the public-through the media of newspaper adver-
tisements and programs broadcast over the local radio stations. The radio broad-
casts may be disposed of rather summarily. They employed as their theme song
a composition which the older generation, at least, will recall as having gained
currency during the First World War-"Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You."
While I am by no means persuaded, as is naively suggested, that the Respondent
was imbued with patriotic fervor in resurrecting this venerable ditty for use
in connection with antiunion propaganda, neither am I persuaded that it em-
bodied threats such as to render it coercive within the meaning of the Act or un-
lawful interference with the election. Actually, its significance in this proceed-
ing is that it equates those associated with the Union's organizational activities
with those subversive elements in the First World War who sought to undermine
the war effort, and in doing so becomes an integral part of a much larger prop-
aganda picture in which the Respondent portrayed the Union as a communistic,
strike-breeding, trouble-making organization whose success at the polls could
only result in injury to employee morale and security.
The bulk of the pamphlets and other printed material distributed by the Re-
spondent may also be disposed of with brief mention, its materiality resting
8 Assistant Foreman William P. Curtis testified that at supervisory meetings new
leadmen were introduced and welcomed and informed by Personnel Director Fry that they
were regarded by management as supervisors , and were supplied with a red badge as an
indication of their authority so that the employees would know they were in a position
to issue orders and show authority. Leadman Crisman testified that at one of these
meetings , H. J. Hemler , assistant plant manager , explained to newly appointed leadmen
their responsibilities in a supervisory capacity and mentioned that the red wedge on their
badges was a designation of authority and "The Company would expect them to more or
less handle the Company 's end of the business in getting to the men ." Leadman Knapp
testified that at these meetings leadmen were informed that they were responsible for
the quality and quantity of the work of their respective crews ; that it was their duty to
handle grievances and if unable to dispose of them, to refer them to their respective
superiors . The foregoing testimony was largely undisputed , was consistent with the
actual conduct of leadmen as disclosed by the entire testimony , and is fully credited In
a publication addressed to its employees ( Union's Exhibit No. 15 ), the Respondent included
leadmen in its various classifications of supervisory personnel whom rank -and-file em-
ployees were to regard as their "leaders."
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
largely on its disclosure of the texture, scope, and intensity of Respondent's
opposition to the Union and the fact that it is an integral part of a total picture
without which the specific incidents alleged to be unlawful could not be viewed
in their proper perspective.
Among this material is a series of cartoons whose central figure is a gross
gorilla-like figure labeled the "Labor Boss" who is portrayed as interested solely
in the dues and assessments he can extort from the working man' In one, the
archetype of them all, the "Labor Boss," with his huge cigar, diamond stud, and
coat embossed with the dollar sign , is represented as declaring to a cowering
employee who is handing him a sheaf of currency : "YOUR DUES COME FIRST
CHUM-YOUR RENT, DOCTOR BILLS, WIFE AND CHILDREN ARE NO
CONCERN OF MINE," and at the bottom of the cartoon the Respondent ad-
monishes its employees in this language :
DON'T LET THE UNION BOSSES GET THEIR CLUTCHES ON YOU
WITH THEIR "PHONEY PROMISES"
THEY JUST COLLECT & THREATEN YOU & YOUR COMPANY
THEY DON'T SIGN YOUR PAY CHECK OR CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR
GROUP INSURANCE
This series is supplemented by a reprint from the February 1951 issue of The
Wage Earner, which purports to be "An Analysis of Labor Boss Income," and
which concludes with these words concerning the "Labor Boss" : "HE IS THE
GREATEST RACKETEER EVER TO APPEAR IN THE HISTORY OF THE
WORLD." 10
There is nothing particularly novel in this series of exhibits and this type of
propaganda and nothing that may be adjudged, per se, an unlawful interference
with employee rights under the Act, but with the use of the "Labor Boss" as a
symbol of the dangers and pitfalls of unionization, the Respondent through the
circulation of other literature, both its own and reprints from various periodicals,
developed at least three lines of propaganda which, it may be argued , impeded
and perhaps occluded a free expression of employee preferences at the polls.
The first of these is what the Respondent calls "The Strike Terror." Linked with
this is the more vague and generalized implication that unionization means
"trouble." And, finally, also closely interlinked, is the implication that the
Union is communistic and therefore subversive. Specific references to these
publications, distributed to its employees by the Respondent mostly through the
mails, will be made.11
Union's Exhibit No. 4 is a reprint from the National Wage Earner, which pur-
ports to be an editorial under the title, "VIOLENCE AND BLOODSHED," re-
counts disturbances attending a strike by the TWUA (CIO) in Greenville, South
Carolina, and embodies such conclusions as, "It is painfully clear that where
there is a CIO organizer there will be trouble," and "They [CIO organizers] go
in to kill if necessary ..." Union's Exhibit No. 5 is a reprint from a publication
of The Wage Earners Committee, headed "LABOR BOSS' THUGS INVADE
CALIFORNIA" which includes, inter alia, an account of "HOW LABOR BOSS
SEIZES INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT." (It appears that the "Labor Boss"
referred to is none other than Walter Reuther of the UAW-CIO.) The "Labor
Bosses" are further described in these terms, "It is their job to stir up trouble,
organize slowdowns, sabotage the machinery, destroy as much finished goods as
9 Union's Exhibits Nos. la-1j, inclusive.
w Union's Exhibit No. 2.
n Reference will be made by exhibit number in order that the full contexts of the
various publications readily may be made available to interested parties.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1129
-possible and convince the worker that it is to his benefit to pay tribute to the
Labor Boss for the right to work." The slogan appearing at the bottom of the
reprint is : "FIGHT LABOR BOSSISM AND DEFEAT COMMUNISM, SOCIAL-
ISM, FASCISM!" Union's Exhibit No. 3 is a reprint from the February 1951
issue of The Wage Earner entitled "THE STRIKE TERROR" where, again, the
"Labor Boss" gets most of the editorialist's attention, and is referred to as a
crook and a swindler who "is interested in following the Communist Line because
it gives him power and money." Union's Exhibit No. 43 is a reprint of a drawing
from The Daily Worker of March 31, 1941, which shows a stalwart laborer mili-
tantly marching with a flag on which is emblazoned the C. I. 0., in one hand,
and a tool of some sort, which may be said to resemble a hammer, in the other,
and bears this text : "C. I. O. BACKGROUND . . . Note that this COMMUNIST
publication `GLORIFIES' the C. I. O. in this Cartoon." Union's Exhibit No. 46
is a booklet issued over the copyright, 1944, of the Constitutional Educational
League, Inc., New York, New York, and under the title, "VOTE CIO and Get a
SOVIET AMERICA." General Counsel's Exhibit No. 13 shows reprints from
the Labor Herald of January 30, 1951, and the Daily People's World of April 4,
1951, respectively, the former representing an attack on the CIO as a "Jim-Crow,
white-supremist, dictatorship ruled by a handful of top brass," which purged the
"leftist" unions, not because of "adherence to any `Moscow line'" but because
"they insisted on following the line of inter-racial liberalism which the CIO fol-
lowed before it got fat and greedy" ; the latter an attack on the UAW for the
alleged "lily-white character" of its leadership. Needless to add, there was a
substantial number of Negroes among Respondent's employees and as will be
seen hereinafter, some of them were leaders in the Union's organizational drive.
By its distribution of these various reprints and publications, the Respondent
gave them its endorsement and held out to its employees that the views expressed
therein were its views. Therefore it is liable for their reasonable impact upon
the minds and emotions of its employees to the same degree as if this material
had originated with it.12 An extension and repetition of the same views, gen-
erally phrased in more moderate language, appeared in advertisements which it
caused to be printed in local newspapers and in its own letters and bulletins
addressed directly to its employees.
In a series of newspaper advertisements covering from one-half to a page
each in a local newspaper, the Respondent had reproduced letters addressed
by its top officers to employees in which the arguments of the Union are examined
and answered, and some answering letters purportedly from employees (with the
latter's names deleted) agreeing with the Respondent's position. The publica-
tion of such matters was privileged under Section 8 (c) of the Act, and whatever
significance there is in this series of advertisements lies in the fact that at the
bead of each, in bold type, appears this language :
The possible Unionization of Grand Central's employees implies the threat
of a strike (and possible violence).
This threat does not now exist under Grand Central's "Open Shop"
policy. No employee of Grand Central has ever lost one cent or one day's
work by reason of a strike, lockout or work stoppage, since the company was
formed years ago.
Grand Central's management recognizes fully its responsibility to the
welfare of this community. Therefore it is running this series of ads in
the interest of better understanding of what a Union at Grand Central would
mean to Tucson.
12 N. L. R . B. v. Bibb Manufacturing Company , 188 F . 2d 825 (C. A. 5).
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In one of these advertisements covering one full page, appears the reprint
from The National Wage Earner, entitled "The Strike Terror," referred to above.
It is in this page advertisement that the impact of the Respondent's payroll on
community welfare is emphasized, that the public is counseled to understand how
important it is to the entire community, that "NO STRIKE THREAT SHOULD
EVER EXIST," and the election appeal is made that "NO VOTE is a guarantee
against `Strike Terror.' "
In a series of letters addressed directly to employees over the names of C. C.
Moseley, chairman of the board, and other top officials of Respondent, the same
themes are reiterated. In particular, the "strike threat" is stressed and, al-
though disavowing any intention of discriminating against employees because
they belong or do not belong to a union, the Respondent predicts that their
future "will be much happier and more secure without such outside influence,"
(Union's Exhibit No. 8) and admonishes them that they have until April 20 to
decide whether they want to maintain the security of their present job "with no
danger whatsoever of a strike" stopping their pay, or by voting for the Union,
thereby giving up their "independence," their "right to work unmolested," and
"present security" (Union's Exhibit No. 17). In its letter of April 5, it closes
with these words : "Strikes and violence are unheard of at Grand Central. We
can all continue to work in harmony for years to come if everyone at Grand Cen-
tral votes NO and keeps the union out." (Union's Exhibit No. 19.) In its
letter of April 14, this appears : "We repeat, that as long as there is no union,
the possibility of a strike is positively unthinkable. Wherever the UAW-CIO
crowd has been voted into a plant the probability of a strike has immediately
become an overwhelming threat. It can happen here if you don't vote NO, and
it can happen to you!" In its letter of April 7 (Union's Exhibit No. 20), we
find this : "The work you are doing is important for the defense of this country
and to do a good job requires as much of your concentrated effort as is humanly
possible. These outside disturbances-such as this Union drive-is certainly
not good for you or your company."
As in the literature which it caused to be distributed among its employees, so
in its own letters, the Respondent implies that the Union is communistic. Thus,
in its letter dated April 2 (Union's Exhibit No. 17) appears this paragraph:
There has been a flock of national propaganda put out by the CIO that
they are now as pure as the driven snow and that they have finally decided
to purge their Union of Commie traitors. This chest-beating and bragging
resulted in your management making a careful study of Communism in the
CIO and we have turned up some very, very interesting facts. We are not
going to accuse the CIO of being Communistic but we are going to supply
you with certain reliable information and let you make up your own mind.
This paragraph is followed by what purports to be an analysis of communism and
communistic practices from which, presumably, the employee is supposed to infer
that such practices are identical with the organizational techniques of the Union.
In its letter of April 7 (Union's Exhibit No. 20), this appears:
To come to an honest decision as to whether the CIO is Communistic or
not, it is necessary to look into their history. We are enclosing a booklet
entitled, "VOTE CIO" [as seen above the booklet is actually entitled, "VOTE
CIO and Get a SOVIET AMERICA"] published in 1944. We urge you to
study this carefully to get a good background of the CIO. We have other
documentary evidence, recently published, which we will forward you at
a later date after you have studied the background of the CIO.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1131
Other references to the Union 's alleged communistic leanings appear in letters
dated April 11 (Union's Exhibit No. 21 ) and April 14, respectively . The former
queries whether the Union started its purge of Communists before or after the
passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, and the latter refers to a 1948 report of a
committee of the California State Senate on "Un -American Activities in Cali-
fornia," finding some 19 CIO unions "to be so thoroughly entrenched with Com-
munist leadership as to be dominated by the Stalinites in America."
As a concrete example of the dangers inherent in unionization , Respondent's
letter of March 26 (Union's Exhibit No . 15) informs its employees:
It probably isn't generally known at Tucson , but practically every tool
and piece of equipment at Tucson came from a company that Grand Central
bought out that had a Union "closed shop" and all employees had been
given the usual big "whoopdeedo" build-up about what the Union was going
to do for them . In spite of all that this company went flat broke and every-
one at Tucson is now working with equipment formerly owned by that
company.
The company referred to in this letter was the Aviation Maintenance Corporation
of California and this incident , as will be seen hereinafter , became a topic in
numerous antiunion arguments advanced orally by Respondent's supervisory
personnel to rank-and -file employees.
Finally, and in keeping with the general tenor of its antiunion propaganda, the
Respondent distributed prelection circulars or "stickers" with the following text
printed in white against a red background :
DANGER OF STRIKES AND TROUBLE
VOTE qx NO
and smaller stickers , displayed in some instances inside the plant on clothing
worn by supervisory personnel , bearing the text :
KEEP
TROUBLE-MAKERS
OUT
VOTE qx NO
The subject matter of Respondent 's written and printed antiunion propaganda
was reiterated and in many instances embellished and extended orally by its
supervisory staff , and should be no more isolated in our consideration of the issues
herein than it was isolated in the minds of the employees to whom both the
written and the oral statements were directed . We turn next, then , to a review
of oral statements which are alleged to constitute interference , restraint, and
coercion.
2. Interrogations ; interviews ; antiunion statements
In the period immediately preceding the election , meetings attended by all
supervisory personnel were addressed by Moseley , chairman of the board (re-
ferred to in the testimony as Major Moseley) ; Johnson , vice president and
general manager ; Fry, director of personnel ; Hemler , assistant plant manager ;
and others . At these meetings newly appointed leadmen were introduced, and
were advised that they now constituted a part of the supervisory hierarchy.
Concerning Hemler 's remarks on one such occasion , Crisman gave this credited
testimony :
Well, he gave a welcoming talk , welcoming them into supervision at Grand
Central . He explained that their duties would be changed now, that they
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were part of the supervisory family, and that they would have more leeway
themselves ; and that they would be expected to be the company' s contact
with the men under them. That if the company had any particular ideas
to get over to the workers, that the leadman was the best intermediate that
the company had; that the leadman would be expected to relay the com-
pany's message to the men, and, by the same token, the men's message to
the company.
Concerning Moseley's address at the meeting of April 17, 3 days before the
election, Crisman gave this credited testimony :
He said that the Air Force were particularly interested in plants working
on subcontracts, on contracts where the union was involved, and that they,
when they let out a contract, they were particularly anxious that the contract
be finished on the promised date, and that they were worried that if the
union got into Grand Central that there would be a work stoppage, and that
they would not be able to produce aircraft according to schedule and if they
failed to produce aircraft according to schedule, they wouldn't get any more
contracts and the plant would shut down.
Concerning General Manager Johnson's remarks at the last supervisory meet-
ing prior to the election, Knapp gave this credited testimony :
Mr. Johnson mentioned the subject on the equipment the outfit was using
out here and the place where it came from and that it had come from another
aircraft company that closed up because the union had taken it over and
now we had the same situation at this plant with agitators at this plant ;
that this plant possibly would do the same thing."
It was Curtis' credited testimony that at one of these meetings attention was
directed to the literature which the Respondent was distributing to its em-
ployees ; supervisory personnel was directed to read it, and to bring it to the
attention of employees.
Attention has been directed at this point to these meetings of supervisory per-
sonnel, not because it is considered unlawful or inappropriate that Respondent
should present its arguments against the Union, and express its hostility
toward the Union to its own supervisory staff," but because such statements as
those quoted above, in conjunction with the printed matter which the Respond-
ent was publishing to its employees, explain the inspiration, license, and force
which lay behind the pattern of interrogations, threats, and other harassments
of rank-and-file employees believed to favor the Union.
The next step in an overall pattern of managerially directed interference
occurred when supervisory personnel was directed to ascertain by personal con-
tact with rank-and-file employees, the views of the latter concerning the Union
and the outcome of the bargaining election of April 20. Night Superintendent
John O. Harris told Foreman Michael F. Biagi 36 that he should ascertain
through leadmen what the vote on the Union would be in his department. Fore-
man Lawrence A. DiLucchio asked his assistant foreman, William P. Curtis, to
ascertain how his men were going to vote but to be "careful and discreet" in
going about it. Curtis made such inquiries through supervisors whom he knew
to be antiunion, Homer Dodds and William Barnes, and reported back to DiLuc-
18 Neither Moseley nor Johnson testified.
14 It is noted, however, that although all leadmen were invited to attend these meetings,
not all of them were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. As such nonsupervisors
they were employees entitled to all the protection afforded by the Act.
15 Biagi, though denying this testimony by Crisman, admitted that he told his leadmen
of his own strong personal bias against unions.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1133
chio. Supervisor Nelson, who worked in DiLucchio's department, told lead-
man Louis Liggins that orders had been handed down to him for Liggins to
find out how employees felt about the Union. Other incidents of similar im-
port will be noted hereinafter. When Employee Nina Volckman transferred
from personnel to the instrument shop, Personnel Director Fry told her that he
knew the transfer would help her and he wanted her to help him in return by
coming in frequently and reporting on how production employees felt about the
Union 36
I do not propose to review in detail, all of the interviews between rank-and-
file employees and supervisory personnel about which testimony was given, but
reference will be made to a sufficient number, and in sufficient detail, to
reveal their general trend and pattern.
Within a period of a few weeks immediately preceding the April 20 election,
Sam A. Wilburn, production superintendent who had general authority over all
supervisory personnel in production„ singled out employees whom he knew
to be union leaders for the purpose of engaging them in discussions on their
attitudes, and the Respondent's attitude, toward the Union. In some instances,
as in the case of employees Robert Sayre, Carroll Williams, and Wayne Kirk-
patrick, the employees were summoned from their jobs to his office where the
discussions took place. Wilburn prefaced his conversation with Williams by
telling him that he did not want Williams to reveal any "union secrets" but
wanted him to hear the Company's side of the controversy. He then asked
Williams what the latter thought the Union could get for the employees that
they hadn't already got, or could get, through the Company and after Wil-
liams had replied, having stated his reasons for supporting the Union, Wilburn
countered with arguments supporting the Company's viewpoint. In this he was
assisted by Hemler, who had joined in the conversation. Hemler spoke of the
Aviation Maintenance Corporation (referred to in the literature noticed supra)
which had become bankrupt after the Union had organized its employees ; how
most of the tools Grand Central employees were using came from this bankrupt
plant ; and how if the Union organized Grand Central "the inevitable thing"
was that Grand Central would go broke, also, because they could not meet
union demands ; and how before Moseley would allow himself to go broke he
would close Grand Central and move back to Glendale or some other place where
he could operate without a union . At the conclusion of the interview Wilburn
exhorted Williams to tell the employees the Company's side of the issue.
The conversation with Sayre and Kirkpatrick followed a similar pattern.
Wilburn told Sayre that he was unable to find out why the "boys" wanted a
union and thought maybe Sayre could tell him. Having drawn Sayre into a
discussion of his "grievances" and why he favored a union , Wilburn countered
with the Respondent's routine arguments . This discussion was joined in by
John 0. Harris, Respondent 's night superintendent, who spoke of losses suffered
by his brother in a strike-bound plant. Wilburn assured Sayre that nothing
he had said during the conversation would be held against him. Kirkpatrick
was summoned to Wilburn's office by B. B. Jackson, Wilburn' s assistant super-
intendent, who told Kirkpatrick that Wilburn wanted to present the Company's
view on the Union. Wilburn asked Kirkpatrick what his grievances were and
told him that the only thing the Company demanded was that the employees
"see" the Company's side. He asked Kirkpatrick why he, an educated man,
should stick his neck out with a bunch of union guys; called attention to his
qualifications , and said that there was plenty of room at the top for good men.
He also recounted Moseley's humble beginnings and how he had worked up,
10 Volckman 's undisputed testimony.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and said that Moseley was so opposed to unions that he would not tolerate an
organized plant. Wilburn concluded the conversation by saying that if the
employees wanted a union for them to go ahead and vote it in ; it wouldn't make
any difference to him ; he would still be there.14
It is of significance that in these conversations on the Union with Williams,
Sayre, and Kirkpatrick occurring in his office, Wilburn either promised or made
implied promises of advancement or improvement in working conditions. Kirk-
patrick's qualifications were extolled and he was reminded that Respondent
had plenty of room at the top for good men ; Sayre was asked if he still wanted
a transfer from a night to a day shift, a transfer which he had previously sought
in vain, and was told that in the future he might bring his grievances to Wilburn ;
Williams was actually granted a transfer pursuant to his request. (Additional
detail on the Sayre and Williams incidents appears in subsequent sections of
this report.) Of similar import were conversations between B. B. Jackson,
Wilburn's assistant production superintendent, and Williams, in which, after
questioning Williams as to what he thought the outcome of the election would
be, Jackson said that he thought the Union would lose, and added, "You know
we have been checking these things up the same as you people are." Jackson
then said that it would be better for Williams to keep on the side of the Com-
pany ; that the Company needed men with Williams' qualifications. This same
Jackson, having initiated a conversation about the Union with Kirkpatrick,
inquired what the latter's "gripes" were and why he was a "union man," and,
on Kirkpatrick's complaint, was instrumental in having his classification card
changed from that of a "helper" to that of an A & E mechanic. Later, having
taken care of some of Kirkpatrick's grievances, Jackson asked him if he had
changed his mind about the Union and when Kirkpatrick replied in the negative,
directed him to Wilburn's office where the interview with Wilburn described
above occurred.1°
The overall pattern of managerial interference with the organizational rights
of employees is further illustrated by conversations occurring in Respondent's
instrument shop where some 15 employees worked on the night shift. Here, in
the 2 or 3 weeks immediately preceding the election, Supervisor Robert E.
Lundberg and leadman John Wesley Rainsberger engaged most and perhaps all
those employees believed to favor the Union in conversations designed to elicit
from them information concerning union meetings and organizational objectives.
Such interrogations served as a springboard for the presentation of the Respond-
ent's antiunion arguments.
Lundberg questioned employees Duty, Romero, and Volckman on their attend-
ance at union meetings and concerning their reasons for favoring the Union, and
said the Respondent knew what went on at union meetings and the identity of
employees attending them. He argued with Volckman that with a union caus-
ing strikes and lockouts the Government would cancel its contracts with the
Respondent and then there would be no work and no jobs, and that this would
not bother Moseley because he had a plant in Glendale, California, and would
in any event close down if the Union came in ; made the same or similar argu-
11 Wilburn had previously worked at the Glendale plant.
1$ Findings on the Jackson conversations are based on undisputed testimony. Jackson
left the Respondent 's employ at sometime prior to the close of the hearing, but there is no
showing that he was unavailable to the Respondent as a witness. Other supervisory
personnel who did not testify and concerning whose statements and conduct there was
testimony by the General Counsel 's witnesses , are : George Watson or Wasmuth, Carl
Johnson, Sykes, Fillman, Oliver , Roy Watson , Inscoe, Mateo , and Horn . Although no
longer employed at Respondent 's Tucson plant at the close of the hearing, no showing
was made of their unavailability as witnesses.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1135
ment to Duty and Romero ; and made reference to the bankrupt Aviation Main-
tenance Corporation having gone broke because of union demands . Rainsberger's
interrogations followed the same pattern. These conversations occurred in the
instrument shop during working hours, and lasted for periods of time varying
from 15 minutes to an hour or longer
Other incidents involving, inter alia, conversations in which employees who
wore union buttons or were otherwise known union men, were called from their
jobs during working hours and engaged in conversations concerning the Union
by supervisory personnel , are summarized below.
Foreman Howard W. Scott, instructed leadmen Horn and Carl Johnson to
find out how the men in their respective crews were going to vote, questioned
employee Sayre concerning his reasons for favoring the Union , and in response
to Sayre's claim that if there were a union shop in the plant he would have had
earlier action on a transfer he had applied for, referred to the fact that Grand
Central equipment came from the AMC, a firm which had gone bankrupt be-
cause of the union ; questioned employee Lawrence Lillywhite concerning the
latter's reasons for favoring the Union, and in the course of the conversation
which ensued stated that Grand Central was just a hobby with Major Moseley
and that Moseley would close it down if the Union came in. Johnson asked em-
ployee Hamilton how the latter thought the election would go and was overheard
by employee Francisco asking two other employees how they were going to vote,
explaining as he did so that he had to have the information that night1B Lead-
man Johnston J. Elliott asked Lillywhite how he was going to vote and suggested
that if the Respondent was not "giving justice" the employees could form a
union of their own .21
Assistant Production Superintendent B. B. Jackson engaged employee Richard
Amis in numerous conversations about the Union, solicited his viewpoint on the
Union, told the latter that he knew Amis was signing up men, and offered argu-
ments against the Union, referring to it as a racket. Supervisor Sparks, under
Jackson, asked Amis how he felt about the Union, if he was receiving the Com-
pany's "literature," and what he thought about it. He told Amis that he was
going to interveiw all the men in his crew. Sparks told Roy Brown that he did
not want Brown to tell him how he was going to vote, but asked his opinion
about the Company's literature and what he thought the outcome of the elec-
tion would be.
Assistant Foreman Gilbert L. (Gil) Burgan, of the sheet metal department,
some 2 or 3 days prior to the election called employees Robert J. Evans and
Harold Nevitt, respectively, from their work stations during working hours,
took them for a walk to an area where they would have privacy, expressed Re-
spondent's opposition to the Union, and questioned them concerning their
"grievances." To Evans he said that he had been sent by the "Big Boys" in the
office to find out about the "gripes" of the men under him ; that he would talk
to as many as he could before the election ; that the main reason for the con-
versations was that he had been sent to find out how the men felt about the
Union and to talk them out of voting for it. At the close of the conversation with
Evans, Burgan, who had expressed interest in Evans' grievances, asked him if he
was still going to vote for the Union.
19 Johnson did not testify.
aD The Respondent elicited testimony from several witnesses to the effect that they had
not observed Elliott talking to Lillywhite in a group of employees, as Lillywhite testified.
Elliott, however, admitted that he spoke to a group of employees about the Union and
that Lillywhite was one of those present in the group. He denied, however, questioning
the employees about their votes or making statements attributed to him by Lillgwhite.
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Leadman Leland L. (Joe) Coover questioned employee Hamilton concerning
his attendance at union meetings, how he intended to vote, how he thought the
election would go, and told him that he had heard from "higher up" that the
plant would be moved to Glendale if the Union came in ; asked employee Lilly-
white what he thought about the outcome of the election ; told employee Sayre
that if the Union came in the Army would withdraw its contracts and Moseley
would shut down the Tucson plant ; and engaged employees Romero and Duty
in conversations, during which he questioned them concerning their reasons for
favoring the Union, and informed Romero that if the Union became the bargain-
ing representative it could have any employee fired and "no questions asked." n
Leadman John Staley Copenhaver engaged employee Kirkpatrick in a conver-
sation pro and con the Union ; reminded him that Grand Central got its equip-
ment from a plant in California (AMC) which went broke because of the
Union, and said that Moseley disliked unions so much that before he would stand
for one he would "close up and go back to California.""
Supervisor Sykes having engaged employee Williams in a conversation on the
Union, referred to the AMC and how the Union had made it " go broke," and
suggested that Grand Central would fare no better if it had to deal with a
union : that if the Union came in Moseley would close the Tucson plant and go
back to Glendale or elsewhere"
Closely associated with these conversations and so-called interviews on griev-
ances, were suggestions or directions of supervisory personnel that employees
remove union insignia from their clothing. When employee Liggins was made
a leadman a few weeks before the election, Foreman DiLucchio told him that,
having been made a leadman, with attendant wage increase, the first thing he
was to do was to remove his union badge. This was a large badge or button
some 3 inches in diameter. Liggins did not thereafter cease altogether in his
union activities, but he removed his badge and gave it to a fellow employee, Plez
Aldridge. In being made leadman , Liggins was assigned no duties which would
raise him to the status of a supervisor within the statutory definition, and there-
fore Respondent had no license to require neutrality of him. DiLucchio later
directed Aldridge to remove the badge and Aldridge complied. He also directed
employee Ward, who wore a number of union buttons, to take them off because
"he looked like a Japanese general."" Leadman Erwin or Lott, in the presence
of Supervisor Sinkler, remarked to employee Joseph LeMaire, who wore a union
button, "You don't like your job very well," and when LeMaire asked why, replied
"Wearing a button." When employee Williams was granted a transfer by
Superintendent Wilburn, Foreman Watson called his attention to the fact that
no one else in the department to which he had been transferred wore a union
badge and suggested that Williams remove his. He reiterated the suggestion on
later occasions and at one time reached to remove the badge but was pushed
aside by Williams" Supervisor Sykes also asked Williams to remove his badge,
this latter request being made in the context of antiunion statements set forth
n Thereby echoing Respondent's bulletin (Union's Exhibit No. 6) wherein the Respondent
advised its employees that the Union could have them discharged for many reasons.
22 Copenhaver admitted that he commented to Kirkpatrick on the latter's wearing of a
union button and that in the period shortly prior to the election he engaged in a number
of conversations in which the Union was mentioned. It was his further testimony that
Kirkpatrick questioned him about the "rumor" that AMC had gone broke on account of
the Union and expressed the opinion that the same thing would not happen at Grand
Central. Copenhaver replied that he thought it might . I have found Kirkpatrick's
version of the conversations more credible.
u Sykes did not testify.
" Credited testimony of employee Boyd.
25 Watson did not testify.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1137
in the paragraph next above. After conversing with employee Bruce Rice about
the Union, a conversation apparently initiated by Rice's facetious inquiry if he
would be discharged because he was wearing a large union button Superin-
tendent Wilburn said that if the "wrong party" saw Rice wearing the button
there was "liable to be trouble." '8 Supervisor Jesse George Oliver told employee
Arnold that if he did not stop "messing" around with the Union and remove his
union buttons , he would be transferred back to "washracks," a comparatively
unskilled job. (The context of this incident is developed in the discussion, infra,
on the alleged discriminatory discharge of Eldridge Arnold.)
At the height of the organizational campaign some 2 or 3 weeks prior to the
election, the Respondent brought certain of its employees or supervisors from
Its Glendale, California, plant, among them two Negroes referred to in the testi-
mony as the Morgan brothers. They appear to have been among the Respond-
ent's older employees, and it is clear from the testimony that their function as
visitors to the Tucson plant was to extol the benefits they had received at the
Respondent's hands sans union representation. They were introduced to the
supervisory staff at one of the supervisory meetings close to the election date,
and were permitted to circulate through the Respondent's plant during and outside
working hours for the purpose of engaging employees in conversations designed
to persuade them to enlist in the Respondent's campaign against the Union. They
appear to have been particularly active in the washrack area where most or all
the employees were Negroes, questioned these employees concerning their attitude
toward the Company and the Union, spoke of the benefits derived from working
for the Respondent, and, according to the credited testimony of Louis Liggins,
argued that the Air Force would be afraid of strikes if the Union "took over"
and therefore Moseley would be unable to get contracts, whereupon Grand
Central would close" They were also introduced to the assembled employees
of the washrack area at meetings held on the eve of the election and displayed pins
or other insignia identifying them as old employees. They were introduced by
Major Moseley who was accompanied by Vice-President Johnson, Hemler, and
other high-ranking managerial personnel, and who addressed the meetings.
In his address Moseley referred to his early experiences, the difficulties en-
countered in establishing his business enterprise; discussed the policies of the
Company and how "he and his wife and all the employees of the Company
were as being one big family" ; the employees' privilege of carrying their griev-
ances through all levels of supervisory personnel and how , if unable to obtain
redress, they might write him a letter and he would give their grievances his
personal attention;8 said that if the Union came in he would be unable to get
Army contracts "to keep going" ;'B made reference to his reliance on the coopera-
51 Wilburn admitted the conversation occurred, but did not "recall" having made this
statement attributed to him by Rice.
aT Neither of the Morgan brothers testified.
as Credited testimony of General Counsel's witness , Boyd, who was not questioned
generally on his recollection of this speech but answered specific questions directed to him
concerning topics discussed by Moseley . His testimony is not , therefore , in any way in
conflict with testimony of Liggins or other witnesses whose recollection embraced
other topics.
"Credited testimony of General Counsel's witness, Liggins , whose further testimony
that Moseley stated that he would close the plant if the Union came in is, I believe, the
witness' not entirely unreasonable conclusion drawn from what was said rather than
Moseley's actual statement , inasmuch as I credit Moseley with being too astute to make
an open unqualified threat to close the plant . Moseley's alleged concern over Army con-
tracts in the event of a union victory at the polls, however, was articulated by him at
supervisory meetings and echoed by supervisory personnel. The probabilities are that he
would employ this argument and that he did so is not specifically denied by any of the
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of the employees and how he could not operate the plant without it ; and
spoke of the secrecy of the ballot how employees were free to vote as they chose,
and how he had some employees at his Glendale plant who were "strictly union
men" but whom he did not fire when the Union failed to win an election at
that plant 30
During the period immediately preceding the election, Foreman DiLucchio also
addressed employees of the washrack area over whom he had general supervision
with respect to the Union and the election, but other than the reasonable assump-
tion that on such occasions he presented the viewpoint of management I am
unable to make specific findings on the character and scope of his remarks inas-
much as they were not clearly delineated either in his testimony on cross-exami-
nation or the testimony of other witnesses. Liggins' testimony that he spoke of
"equalizing" wages up to a standard, I credit, but there is not sufficient context
to permit an intelligent appraisal of the significance of this statement.
It was also shown, and admitted by the Respondent, that the Respondent's offi-
cers questioned employee Barbara Ruffin on a report it had reecived that her name
had been forged to a union-authorization card. I find that under the circum-
stances giving rise to the incident this interrogation was lawful. It was made at
a time when the Union's claim to a sufficient number of authorizations to require
a Board-directed election was pending in the Board's Regional Office at Los
Angeles, and I credit Respondent's witnesses to the effect that it received reports
that this employee's name had been placed on an authorization card without her
consent. It would appear that the matter might more properly have been sub-
mitted to the Board's agents for whatever interrogation was required and that
in such manner any chance of intimidating the employee by interrogation by
Respondent's officers might have been avoided, but I am not persuaded that Re-
spondent was required to take this course. Whether or not this employee's name
was actually forged, or whether she testified truthfully in the matter, is irrele-
vant to any issue herein.
I further find that on the basis of leadman Knapp's credited testimony, that
shortly before the election, Night Superintendent Harris summoned him to Harris'
office and there questioned him on his attendance at union meetings, his reasons
for favoring the Union, gave him Respondent's stock arguments against unioniza-
tion, and spoke of his opportunities for promotion. I do not find that these inter-
rogations and the implied promise of promotion in supervision if Knapp would
refrain from union activities unlawful, because I am convinced on the basis of
Knapp's testimony on his duties that as leadman he was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, and for that reason Respondent, if it chose to do so, could
lawfully require neutrality of him.
On the morning following the April 20 election there was observed in Re-
spondent's plant a "dummy" hanging from a pole outside of hangar 3 with a sign
or placard on it bearing the letters CIO. Crisman, a leadman whose duties and
functions constituted him a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, testified
that he saw this dummy at about 2: 30 a. in., at the close of the night shift as he
started home. Production Superintendent Wilburn saw it between 7: 30 and
5 a. in. and immediately instructed a foreman to have it removed. It seems self-
several witnesses called by the Respondent . Neither Moseley nor Johnson testified, and
of rank-and-file employees testifying for the Respondent, one testified only that the speech
was "humorous ," another admitted that he was partially deaf and heard little of it, and
a third , John A . ( Old Man ) Ward , also partially deaf but who wore a hearing aid, did not
recall references to the secrecy of the ballot, upon which findings are made, until his
memory was "jogged" by Respondent 's counsel.
30 Testimony of Respondent 's witness , John A . Ward , a union steward prior to the
election.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1139
evident that this dummy could not have been fashioned and hung inside the
plant without the knowledge and acquiescence of at least someone of supervisory
status. Crisman who had supervisory status but in only a minor capacity saw
the dummy but did not take any steps to have it removed. Wilburn did, however,
have it removed at or about the start of the day shift, and as soon as he was
informed of it. It appears to me that his prompt action in having the dummy
removed was in effect a disavowal and repudiation of the incident.
Credibility Findings
Findings above, unless otherwise noted, have been based on the credited testi-
mony of the General Counsel's witnesses. In certain instances, specifically noted,
this testimony was undisputed. In others it was disputed by Respondent's wit-
nesses, most of whom were supervisory personnel. In all instances, aside from
oberving the demeanor of the witness, I have considered his or her possible bias.
With respect to witnesses for the General Counsel I have considered that for the
most part they were strongly prounion. With respect to such witnesses as Curtis
and Crisman who were not shown to have either prounion or antiunion animus, I
have considered that the former was discharged by the Respondent and that the
latter, though voluntarily severing his employment, admittedly had some "misun-
derstanding" with the Respondent. I have considered that in some instances the
testimony of some of these witnesses contained exaggerations or was colored by
their prounion bias, and such portions of the testimony as appeared to me to
bear this taint, I have not credited. I have considered also the possible bias of
Respondent's supervisors who contradicted these witnesses and their incentive to
make no admissions injurious to an employer whose hostility toward the Union
was notorious, and who for the most part gave their testimony in the presence
of their department heads or officers of the Respondent. I have considered the
logicality or lack of it of these supervisors making the statements and engaging
in the conduct attributed to them by the General Counsel's witnesses, and the
Respondent's bitterly fought campaign against the Union as disclosed in its
written and published propaganda has been an element in this cosideration 31
More specifically, I have considered the inherent plausibility, or lack of it, in
their own testimony and denials. For the most part, though not in all instances,
there were admissions that the conversations testified to by the General Counsel's
witnesses occurred. Plant Superintendent Wilburn admitted that he had em-
ployees whom he regarded as union leaders summoned to his office for "inter-
views" and that these interviews had as their purpose the presentation of the
Respondent's "side of the picture," but the extent of his candor, as well as that
of Assistant Plant Manager Hemler, is revealed by their inability to recall, or
denial, as the case may be, that Moseley and Johnson in addressing supervisory
meetings made any mention of a labor organization in connection with the bank-
rupt AMC of California, and the denial of the former that he had at any time
heard this connection made, although it is clear both from Respondent's letter
to its employees dated March 26 and the overwhelming predominance of credible
testimony on oral conversations, that the Respondent in its antiunion campaign
capitalized to the utmost on the fact that this bankrupt firm from whom it pur-
chased equipment for Grand Central, had a union shop. Wilburn, Lundberg,
Burgan, and some others testifying for the Respondent, while admitting that the
2111 ... In this campaign to organize the union the employer was set against it ;
and . . . every equivocal act that was done may be properly viewed in the light of Respond-
ent's animus toward the effort to organize its men ." N. L. B. B. v. Houston and North
Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 193 F. 2d 394 (C. A. 5).
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conversations occurred, would have it believed that their questioning of em-
ployees was solely concerned with "grievances" although it is clear that employ-
ees subjected to these interviews were those most actively prounion, and Burgan
could give no explanation of why he should be questioning employee Evans about
the latter's "grievances" when he admittedly had never received a report that the
employee had a grievance. Obviously these witnesses equated "grievances" with
union activities, and their testimony actually stands as an admission that they
interrogated employees on their reasons for favoring the Union. Lundberg, his
subordinate Rainsberger, and others, would have it believed that their expres-
sions of antiunion views followed questioning by the employee involved, but in
view of the propaganda Respondent was mailing to employees at their homes and
otherwise publishing to them, it would hardly seem necessary for employees to
inquire of their supervisors concerning the Respondent's views on the Union.
Denials of department heads and foremen that they instructed their leadmen or
supervisors to ascertain the voting preferences of rank-and-file employees, I have
generally discredited because the interrogations did occur and their incidence
being multiple and occurring within a comparatively short period prior to the
election may not reasonably be attributed to isolated and spontaneous action of
minor supervisors. Foreman Scott admitted that he queried leadman Johnson
on the percentage of union men in his crew, but testified that when informed that
Johnson was compiling a list showing how each employee would vote, he in-
structed him to cease because such questioning was contrary to company policy.
This testimony was obviously designed to fill the breach opened by undisputed
testimony on Johnson's activity, being, as it was, without corroboration, and
contrary to the overall picture which shows that not only was neutrality not
required of supervisory personnel but that they were encouraged, if not directed,
to interrogate employees on their union views. The impression Lundberg and
certain other supervisors would convey, that their questioning of employees con-
cerning their attendance at union meetings for "doughnuts and coffee," was
merely a playful exchange, can hardly be regarded as such in the light of sug-
gested surveillance made by these supervisors, or some of them, who informed
employees that the Respondent had ways of finding out about attendance at union,
meetings and how the employees could be expected to vote. Night Superintend-
ent Harris' specific denials of Crisman's testimony concerning instructions given
to leadmen to ascertain how rank-and-file employees would vote, becomes less
convincing in his further testimony on cross-examination concerning discussions
of the Union among supervisory personnel : "It was a topic of interest, naturally,
a very important topic. I don't recall just what the discussions were." It is in
the light of these and kindred considerations that I have, for the most part, cred-
ited the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses concerning the interroga-
tions, conversations, and "interviews" described in this section of the Interme-
diate Report. The undisputed testimony alone is sufficient to reveal the pattern
of employer-interference.
3. Alleged promotion, demotion, transfer, isolation, and confinement
It is alleged in paragraph 8, subparagraph "i," of the amended complaint that
the Respondent "promoted, demoted, transferred, isolated and confined em-
ployees because of their union activities and in order to discourage membership
in the Union," and in particulars furnished by the General Counsel at the
hearing this allegation is related specifically to the following employees : Carroll
Williams, Eldridge Arnold, Robert Atkinson, Harold Nevitt, N. Straley, and
Bruce Rice.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1141
I find no substantial evidence to support the allegation insofar as it relates
to Atkinson , Straley, and Rice. Straley did not testify ; Atkinson 's testimony if
credited in full would afford no support for this allegation ; and Rice testified
only on rebuttal and to a point unrelated to this allegation . It does appear that
Rice was transferred to the paint shop at or about the same time Carroll
Williams was transferred , and it is clear from Supervisor Charles B . Green's
testimony that prior to this transfer both Rice and Williams were known to
supervisory personnel as actively prounion , but assuming that the transfer was
disadvantageous to Rice, there still is no substantial basis for finding it dis-
criminatory . This transfer , as to Williams , was developed in detail , but it has
little or no "carry -over" significance in the case of Rice. The allegation as it
applies to Arnold will be discussed infra in connection with his discharge. There
remain for discussion here the cases of Williams and Nevitt.
Carroll ( Willie ) Williams was employed by the Respondent in August 1950.
Previously he had had his own aircraft and engine shop in Denver , Colorado,
where he did inspections and overhauling of aircraft and aircraft engines. He
had a license from the Civil Aeronautics Administration , known as an A & E
license, signifying that he had passed tests qualifying him for overhaul and
repair of aircraft and aircraft engines.
Williams was first assigned by Respondent to familiarize himself with the
B-29 airplane and Army regulations , known as TO ' s, on the installation, over-
haul, and repair on all the different parts of an airplane . He spent about 3
months in this work and was then assigned to the rigging of aircraft. Later
Williams and a fellow employee , William P. Curtis , were designated to set up
procedures on rigging the airplane cables and installing control surfaces, and
taught other employees the rigging job. In January or February , Robert Light-
ner, Williams ' supervisor , stated that inasmuch as the rigging procedures were
set up in a satisfactory manner Williams was to transfer to a different operation
involving the installation of a flap and anti-icing system. Then in February
Williams was transferred to the paint shop. This last transfer is alleged to
have been discriminatory.
Pursuant to this latest transfer , Williams reported to Foreman Ralph D.
Sweet, who at that time had general supervision over sheet metal , paint, and dope
shops and various other shops. It is Williams ' credited testimony that Sweet
informed him that more men were needed in the paint shop and that Williams'
application stated that he was a paint and dope sprayer , to which Williams
replied that his application did not state that specifically , but did state that he
had an A & E license and such a license required , inter alia , proficiency as a dope
and paint sprayer. Williams was put to work in the paint shop spraying control
and other aircraft surfaces . He testified that the job involved getting the dope
mixture on his body and clothing and that it affected his health to the degree
that he began spitting blood . He reported to first aid and informed the nurse
that he had had pneumonia-a fact stated on his application-and, on the
nurse's recommendation , 32 he was transferred to the dope shop , a division of
the same department . When his supervisor , Ernie Stevens , told him of this
change, Williams replied that it was like going from the fire into the frying pan,
but Stevens said he would have to try it, and he did. After about a week in the
dope shop he encountered the same reaction previously experienced in the paint
shop and after some delay , again on the recommendation of the nurse, was
transferred to sheet metal.
22 Williams testified that the nurse told him she had reported to Sweet on his condition,
but the nurse , Patricia O'Neal, testified that she only reported to her own superior. I do
not regard that this conflict in the testimony impairs the credibility of either.
257965-54-vol. 103-73
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In sheet metal he was instructed by Assistant Foreman Burgan not to talk
to fellow employees during working hours and to remain at his workbench.
When parts were needed, he was instructed, his leadman would bring them to
him. While in sheet metal he was summoned to Production Superintendent
Wilburn's office where a conversation concerning his union affiliation ensued.
Williams was one of the most active of the union leaders among the em-
ployees. He attended the conference at the Board's Regional Office in March
1951, as a representative of union employees on the day shift. This conference
involved the execution of a consent-election agreement and was attended by
representatives of the Union and of management. Prior to this conference,
Willliams had worn union buttons and for this and other reasons I have no
doubt his union activity was well known to supervisory personnel. Charles R.
Green, a supervisor prior to the bargaining election of April 20, testified that at
the time Williams was engaged on the installation and rigging of flaps he had
complaints from members of the crew that Williams' "bunch" were pressuring
them to sign union cards. This was prior to Williams' transfer to the paint
shop and establishes that his union activities had already come to the attention
of supervisory personnel prior to that date. Wilburn admittedly singled out
employees that he recognized as union leaders, such as Sayre and Williams.
for conversations in his office in which he attempted to persuade them to give up
their union affiliation. These conversations have been dealt with elsewhere in
this Intermediate Report and it is sufficient here to state that during the con-
versation Wilburn asked Williams about his experience and, on learning that
Williams had an A & E license, asked him where he would like to work. Wil-
liams indicated a preference for the flight line where the reconditioned air-
craft were tested for "squawks"; i. e., given a final checkup and adjustment.
Wilburn instructed him to report there for work on the following morning, stat-
ing that he, Wilburn, would take care of the transfer as
On the flight line, Williams was repeatedly asked by his supervisors to re-
move his union buttons but refused to do so. Supervisor Watson stated that
in the hangar he may have had grievances justifying his union activities, but
there was so such need on the flight line, although there had been union activity
there until supervisory personnel convinced the employees "the other way."
Supervisor Sykes also attempted to persuade Williams to give up his union
activities and made statements which I have reviewed elsewhere in this Inter-
mediate Report. Despite these efforts to prevail on him to yield his union
affiliation, Williams remained openly active for the Union and was perhaps its
outstanding leader on the day shift in the organizational campaign which pre-
ceded the election of April 20.
The main incident arising in connection with Williams' work on the flight
line, which requires notice here, involves the issuance against him of a corrective
interview " which stated in effect that Williams had engaged in a "union" dis-
cussion during working hours thereby holding up production. It is the General
Counsel's contention that the Respondent's supervisors arranged to involve
Williams in a discussion during working hours in order to have a pretext for
taking disciplinary action against him. Leadman Paul J. Flynn, Supervisor
88 Wilburn admitted that Williams' qualifications were discussed at this meeting, but
did not recall a discussion of the various transfers that Williams was subjected to and
denied that he ordered Williams' transfer to the flight line.
"A corrective interview was a written reprimand carrying a warning that a repetition
of the offense giving rise to the interview would be considered cause for layoff or discharge.
It was normally issued only after the employee had been warned verbally.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC . 1143
Roy Watson, Foreman Tommy Sykes, and Supervisor Richard F. Swailes were
supervisory personnel implicated in the incident.35
Employee Frank Kennon testified that on Williams' transfer to the flight line
he was assigned to leadman Flynn's crew. Kennon was in the same crew and
testified credibly that when Flynn was off the job, he, Kennon, was left in charge
of the crew. Flynn instructed Kennon to watch Williams and make sure that
he was not off during working hours talking for the Union. As to the specific
incident which now engages our attention, Kennon testified that Flynn told him
and employee SanAngelo that Williams would be given an assignment in the
bomb bay ; that other men would be there also ; that they should involve Williams
in a discussion on the Union ; and to remember everything that was said be-
cause they might later be called as witnesses. Kennon also testified that inside
the bomb bay, in addition to Williams, were men from other flight line crews
who had never worked there before ; that SanAngelo started the conversation
with Williams about the Union ; and that, after the conversation had lasted some
time, Flynn and Sykes appeared and broke up the meeting. It appears from
Kennon's testimony and from the testimony of Williams and Respondent's wit-
nesses that some 10 or more employees were in the bomb bay at the same time and
admittedly several of them did not work in Flynn's crew and were out of their
regular working areas.
SanAngelo admitted that he received the assignment from Flynn to work in
the bomb bay on the occasion in question, but denied that Kennon was present
when he received the instructions ; admitted that Kennon entered the bomb bay
at the same time he did, but denied that Kennon was present when the conver-
sation concerning the Union ensued between Williams and other employees
present; 'a and further testified that after the conversation had lasted about
half an hour, Flynn, Swailes, and Watson came to the bomb bay and broke up
the conversation, whereat all of the employees in the bomb bay at that time,
except the five who were assigned to work there, "scattered." He denied that
Flynn instructed him to engage Williams in conversation concerning the Union
and to remember what was said because he might be called as witness.
Flynn also denied Kennon's testimony on the circumstances of his assignment
of Kennon and SanAngelo to the bomb bay. Swailes testified that on the day
preceding the bomb bay incident, on being informed by Flynn that Williams had
been out of his working area twice that day, he instructed Flynn to keep Williams
on the job "because he was an A & E man" and there was pressure to get the
plane out" On the day in question, he testified, on a tour of inspection of the
various planes at his station he noticed that a number of employees were in the
bomb bay of one ship, apparently idle, and when after more than 20 minutes by
his watch the group still had not returned to work, he instructed Flynn to get
into the bomb bay and investigate. He followed Flynn into the bomb bay and
Foreman Watson joined him at that time. Swailes testified that he was almost
knocked down by the men coming out of the bomb bay. Flynn reported that
the men had been engaged in "some sort of union discussion." Swailes, after
receiving Wilburn's approval, directed that a corrective interview be made out
against Williams. Swailes testified that because he regarded Williams as one
80 Watson and Sykes did not testify, both having left the Tucson plant prior to the
close of the hearing. See footnote 18, supra.
ae However , James B. Nash, Jr., a witness for the Respondent , testified that Kennon was
present in the bomb bay.
07 Flynn testified that he received reports from employees , crew chiefs, and super-
visors that Williams was wandering from his job and causing men to get into a huddle
discussing union problems . Williams admitted that he solicited for the Union and that
some of these solicitations occurred during working time.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the strong union men he considered the case unusual, and for that reason
several employees were asked to sign the corrective interview as witnesses. At
least three of the so-called witnesses were not in Flynn's crew.
The circumstances attending the issuance of this corrective interview, aside
from Kennon's testimony and as shown by testimony of the Respondent's wit-
nesses, make a pattern which is inconsistent with these same witnesses ' belabored
efforts to have it appear that supervisory personnel was innocent of unlawful de-
sign in this but flimsily accounted for gathering in the bomb bay. There were four
or more employees present in the bomb bay who were out of their usual working
area, and had they been there because of work assignments to expedite the
clearance of this plane, there would have been no occasion for them to have
'.scattered" when supervisory personnel appeared, as SanAngelo, Respondent's
witness, testified they did, or to have come out in such a rush that they almost
ran over Swailes, as Swailes testified they did. At the least, they were away
from their work stations and were not working when Flynn, Swailes, and
Watson came upon them, and since Williams was hardly engaging in a monologue
inside the bomb bay, it must be assumed-indeed it is shown-that they, equally
with him, were conversing, but not only did these employees not receive a cor-
rective interview or even a reprimand, so far as the record shows, but they were
asked to sign, as witnesses, the corrective interview which was issued against
Williams ! It also seems somewhat odd that at a time when, according to Re-
spondent's witnesses there was such urgency in the expediting of work on the
flight line, Swailes, Watson, and Flynn should all happen to be on the spot at the
critical time when, by Swailes' watch, the group had been in a time-wasting
huddle for 20 minutes or longer. The same pattern, however, fits very appro-
priately Kennon's testimony that he and SanAngelo were instructed by leadman
Flynn to get in the bomb bay with Williams, engage him in conversation about
the Union, and remember what was said in order later to act as witnesses.
This explains logically the unusual gathering in the bomb bay, the broaching
of the subject of the Union by one of those present in a manner calculated to
draw Williams into a defense of the Union," the corrective interview against
Williams which involved Wilburn's calling several employees to his office for
the purpose of having them sign the interview as wvitnesses," and the fact that
though these same witnesses were engaged in the same time -wasting discussion
as was Williams, they received neither rebuke nor reprimand. In view of all
these circumstances, as well as my observation of the witnesses, I credit Ken-
non's testimony and discredit the testimony of Respondent's witnesses to the
degree that their testimony is inconsistent with his, and find that the incident
of the bomb bay was deliberately planned by Respondent's supervisory personnel
for the purpose of affording a pretext for the issuance of a corrective interview
against Williams, and was planned and executed for the purpose of intimidating
and coercing Williams in his union activities. This conclusion is not to be
qualified by the fact that Williams had previously engaged in organizational
discussions during working hours, because if such were the case it still did not
38 SanAngelo testified that the conversation on the Union started "all of a sudden," that
someone referred to a union leader from Los Angeles as crooked , that somebody asked
Williams questions about the Union. Williams testified that be was asked questions about
the Union by some of those present , and Nash, Jr ., a witness for Respondent, testified
to the same effect.
29 Employee Nash , Respondent 's witness , testifying in the presence of his superiors,
gave the patently fictitious testimony that while he was in Wilburn 's office for the purpose
of signing the corrective interview , Wilburn said , "Don't think that I am trying to sway
you from the union or trying to tell you how to vote."
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1145
license the Respondent to provoke an argument with him and then punish him
for his participation in it.
I further find that Wilburn's action in directing Williams' transfer to the
flight line, at the latter's request, and following a discussion initiated by Wilburn
in which he sought to influence Williams to join the Respondent in its cam-
paign against the Union, was in furtherance of this objective and of the nature
of an inducement or bribe to give up his union activities. The fact that im-
mediately following his transfer to the flight line Williams was importuned to
remove his union insignia strengthens the conclusion That the transfer did
not yield the desired result, does not alter the fact of inducement. The cir-
cumstances attending Williams' earlier transfers from rigging to the paint shop
and thence to sheet metal, are such as to arouse suspicions of discriminatory
treatment,'° but in view of character and number of other transfers made at or
about the same time, that there was no reduction in pay, and that Williams was
readily transferred out of the paint shop when he developed symptoms showing
that the fumes were having an adverse effect on his health, I am not convinced
that the General Counsel has carried this point by a predominance of the evi-
dence."
Harold Nevitt was employed by the Respondent in August 1950, and was first
assigned to work in the sheet metal shop. After several weeks there he was
transferred to plexiglas, a unit within the sheet metal shop, where he continued
to work until about 3 weeks prior to the bargaining election of April 20 when
he was transferred out of the plexiglas unit into sheet metal. It is alleged that
this transfer was made because of his union activities. It does not appear that
the transfer involved any change in his pay and there is little basis for a finding
on the comparative skills required in the two operations. Nevertheless, the
change from one operation to another may have been distasteful to the trans-
feree, and it appears that here it was, and may have been discriminatorily moti-
vated even though it involved no change in pay and the level of skills required.
I credit Nevitt's testimony that he first wore a large union button and engaged
in a distribution of buttons among employees on the day prior to this transfer,
and since he began distributing union pamphlets outside the plant in late
January, one of the few who first participated in the distribution, I would as-
sume in any event that his union activities were known to a management that
was alert to every manifestation of organizational activity. I also credit his
testimony that lie was given to understand by supervisory personnel that his
transfer from plexiglas would be temporary whereas, as it developed, it was
permanent. These are circumstances that, in association with the Respondent's
known opposition to the Union which was demonstrated with increasing em-
phasis during the weeks preceding the election, arouse suspicions that Nevitt's
transfer to plexiglas may have had an unlawful purpose, but it further appears
that two other employees were transferred from plexiglas at about the same
40 While the application of dope to the control surfaces doubtless required some skill,
it is apparent that it was not of an order of skill requiring the services of one holding an
A & E license, in fact, Foreman Sweet admitted that he would not knowingly transfer an
employee holding an A & E license to doping control surfaces except in a situation of
urgency, and there is no showing that at the time of Williams' transfer there were no posi-
tions where his higher skills as an A & E mechanic could have been utilized to advantage.
41 Williams had been promoted to a supervisory position at the time of the hearing, but
the promotion came after the issuance of a complaint in this proceeding and carries little,
if any, weight as evidence of a lack of antiunion bias in Respondent's earlier acts and con-
duct with respect to him That he had the status of a supervisor at the time of testify-
ing does, however, strengthen my confidence in the truthfulness of his testimony in all
essential respects, for as a supervisor he bad a strong incentive to give testimony favorable
to the Respondent.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time and remained in sheet metal, and that others were transferred to sheet
metal from outside the department, and there is no showing or claim made that
the Respondent had a discriminatory motive in effectuating these other trans-
fers. The weight of the evidence supports the Respondent's position that
Nevitt's transfer was effectuated because of economic requirements.
There is more substantial support, I find, for the further allegation that fol-
lowing this transfer to sheet metal Nevitt was "isolated and confined" because
of his union activities. It is not doubted that more supervision was required
in the large open space where a substantial number of employees were engaged
in sheet metal work than in the small plexiglas unit, but the degree of con-
finement, to which Nevitt was subjected immediately after his transfer and
after he had worn a conspicuously large union button, is not satisfactorily ex-
plained by credible testimony of Respondent's witnesses, among whom were :
Burgan, assistant foreman under Sweet who, as will be developed in the dis-
cussion, infra, of the discharge of Eldridge Arnold, was foreman over sheet metal
and numerous other shops as well ; Justice C. Gates, supervisor of sheet metal ;
and Charles Arnold and William L. Dean, leadmen.
A day or two after the transfer, when Nevitt had returned to his workbench
after borrowing a tool from another employee-a practice prevalent in the de-
partment-Burgan instructed him that he was not to leave his bench for any-
thing; that his leadman, Arnold, would handle the parts needed in his work and
do all his "running" for him. Burgan also warned him against talking. As a
result of not being permitted to take parts to the spot welder, materials ac-
cumulated on Nevitt's bench to the extent that his production was seriously
affected. It was only when he complained to Arnold that the accumulation of
materials on his workbench prevented him from working satisfactorily that he
was permitted to take parts on which he had worked to the spot welder. Nevitt
credibly testified that he was "watched" by Gates, Burgan, and Sweet, and that
Burgan warned him about "getting out of line," stating that if he did he would
be "through," but that so long as he stayed in line he was all right. A day or two
before the April 20 election, Burgan called him from his work, asked him to
accompany him to an open space outside the hangar, and there engaged him in a
conversation, initiated by Burgan, stating his own and the management's op-
position to the Union and then questioning him at length on his "grievances""
That restrictions were placed on Nevitt's movements to a degree adversely
affecting his production, is borne out by Arnold's admission that he "slipped
up" now and then in removing parts from Nevitt's workbench, and Gates' testi-
mony to the effect that when he criticized Nevitt for spending too much time
"just standing at his desk," Nevitt complained that materials he had already
worked on were accumulating because of his confinement to his workbench.
Gates testified :
He had received those pieces in a semi-finished, semi-made up state, and
he was finishing them up and then he was stacking them for transfer to the
42 Burgan either denied or could not recall that he gave any instructions to Nevitt rela-
tive to remaining at his work station, denied that he instructed him not to talk, admitted
that he called him outside the hangar to discuss his grievances, but denied that the Union
was mentioned. He testified that he would not normally give disciplinary instructions
directly to an employee but would relay such instructions through the employee' s leadman.
I have no doubt this was his normal practice because as assistant foreman under Sweet
he had supervision over several shops and therefore a large number of employees, but that
be departed from this normal practice in the cases of Nevitt and Williams, I also have no
doubt. Burgan's denial that be discussed or mentioned the Union and the bargaining
election in the three instances in which he is shown to have called employees away from
their jobs to talk to them about their "grievances ," and his testimony that these talks
represented routine personnel practices, make him unworthy of credence.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC . 1147
spot welder. Well, his desk was filling up with these parts ready for spot
weld, and the parts he had not finished yet were also on the desk, and it
was piling up.
While several rank-and-file employees testified for the Respondent to the
general effect that they had been instructed not to engage in unnecessary con-
versations during working hours and to remain at their workbenches, it is clear
from their testimony, and particularly the straightforward testimony of Laverne
Boisvert, one of these witnesses called by the Respondent, that employees were
normally given access to the tool crib and the various machines, and, with the
exception of obtaining raw stock which was supplied to them by the leadmen,
were given freedom of movement in matters relating to their jobs :a It is clear
that Nevitt was, for a period at least, denied such freedom.
Gates admitted that he kept a close watch on Nevitt after he had discovered
that he was not working steadily, but testified that although Nevitt continued
to waste time over a period of some 2 weeks he never spoke to him about it
because he had been instructed by either Burgan or Sweet or both not to do
anything that might be considered "coercion or threats" or an attempt to in-
fluence employees who would be voting in the election. This testimony, ap-
parently given in explanation of why, as Nevitt testified, Gates kept Nevitt under
surveillance, was an obvious fabrication as shown by the witness' demeanor when
so testifying, his confusion on cross-examination as to the time, sequence, and
context of these alleged instructions, and the extreme improbability that such
instructions would have been issued by Burgan who himself called Nevitt and
others from their jobs in an attempt to influence them in the matter of the
election.
I find that Nevitt and Williams, both known to the Respondent as leaders in
the organizational movement, were, upon their transfer to sheet metal, and
because of their union activities, isolated and confined to a degree not visited on
other employees of the department.
4. Alleged unlawful restriction of organizational activities
The character and scope of Respondent's antiunion activities, with the excep-
tion of cases of alleged discrimination to be discussed hereinafter, has been
reviewed in preceding sections of this report and findings made thereon. The
Union's campaign was characterized by the distribution of circulars outside
Respondent's plant beginning in September, but mainly in the 3 months preceding
the April 20 election ; the mailing of written or printed propaganda to the homes
of a limited number of employees whose addresses it was able to obtain from such
sources as signed authorization cards, addresses which frequently became obso-
lete in a short time ; a limited use of radio broadcasting time and newspaper
space, and in the week or two immediately preceding the election, speeches de-
livered from a sound truck outside Respondent's plant ; from about January 1951,
the distribution in and out of the plant of union buttons of various sizes ; and
the usual contacts between organizers and employees at union meetings, and
between employees in and out of the plant.
The Union attempted on a number of occasions to distribute its publications
at or near the entrance to Respondent's plant which affords ingress to Respond-
ent's parking lot, and where buses transporting employees are loaded and un-
48 Richard Brock, who was made a leadman shortly before testifying, testified that he
went to the spot welder only when directed to by his supervisor but admitted that there
was seldom occasion for him to use this machine . To the extent that his testimony is at
variance with that of Boisvert, it is not credited.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
loaded, but on each of these occasions its representatives were ordered off
Respondent's premises to a distance of some 70 feet from the entrance gate, by
plant guards." It was also forbidden to bring its sound truck on company
premises. It is argued that there was no showing that the Respondent authorized
this action or had knowledge of it, but plant guards because of their offices had
the ostensible authority to issue such directions and there was no showing that
they were not specifically authorized and directed to issue these orders. Officers
of the Respondent viewed the distribution of union literature as they passed in
and out of the plant entrance and plant guards delivered copies to their offices.
It strains credulity to believe that they were unaware of the action of plant
guards with respect to the distribution of that literature-every reasonable in-
ference is to the contrary,
Because of the prohibition against distributions on company premises, the main
distribution of union circulars and pamphlets perforce was accomplished by
handing or thrusting them into the moving cars as they approached the Respond-
ent's gate, or by placing them in such cars as were parked in areas adjacent
to railroad tracks, presumably off company premises. No opportunity was
afforded the Union to reach employees whose transportation to and from the
plant was by bus. One witness for the General Counsel. Plez Aldridge, testified
that with the knowledge of his supervisor he distributed a few circulars to fellow
employees in the wasbrack area ; Williams and Nevitt also took some circulars
inside the plant ; and certain union "stickers" bearing the text "Vote CIO"-or
words to that effect-were pasted on cabinets in the paint shop and covered
with doping liquid which, obviously, made them difficult to remove. There was
some further testimony that union stickers appeared in the lavatory and other
places within the plant and photographs were introduced showing 1 or 2 stickers
pasted against the wall and still intact. All that this evidence stands for, in my
opinion, is that in some instances, with or without acquiescence of supervisory
personnel, union adherents were able to get a few of the Union's stickers up in
the plant. There is no reason to infer that distribution of the Union' s campaign
literature inside the plant was generally permissible and, in view of Respond-
ent's action in forcing the distribution outside the plant off company premises
and the paucity of credible evidence of distributions within the plant, every
reason to conclude, as I do, that distribution of union literature anywhere on
company premises was generally forbidden. And while an occasional union
sticker may have appeared on a departmental bulletin board, no prounion publi-
cation appeared on any 1 of the 12 official bulletin boards kept under lock and
key and in the custody of Personnel Director Fry, where bulletins and notices of
plant-wide application were posted, and where the Respondent posted certain of
its antiunion publications.
With respect to union solicitations within the plant and distribution of union-
authorization cards and buttons, it is clear from the testimony of Liggins
and Williams, union leaders, that some activity of this character was carried
on within the plant both outside and during working hours. There is no evidence
that permission was either asked or granted. There is evidence that it was
officially forbidden. Under date of February 14, 1951, and over the name of
William B. Birren, plant manager, the Respondent issued and posted a bulletin
addressed to all employees and bearing the following teat :
44 Credited testimony of Arnold, Sayre, and Williams. Respondent's plant, being located
several miles distant from residential facilities, it is reasonably inferred that a large
majority, if not all, of its employees were transported to and from their work in automo-
biles or buses. It was Representative Arnold's undisputed and credited testimony that a
majority of employees using cars parked in the Respondent 's parking lot.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1149
NO SOLICITATIONS, RAFFLES, LOTTERIES OR EMPLOYEE COLLEC-
TIONS FOR PERSONNEL REASONS WILL BE PERMITTED ON COM-
PANY PREMISES UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE MANAGEMENT.
Witnesses for the Respondent testified that this notice was not directed
against union activities and was promulgated to stop raffles, collections, and
kindred matters within the plant. Assuming that this was its origin and pur-
pose, there is no evidence that such clarification was ever made to the employees,
and on its face it may reasonably be construed as prohibiting union solicitations
also. Were it designed for the stated purposes only, it would be complete with-
out the word "solicitations" and this wording, being one of general meaning, is
reasonably construed to include solicitations for signatures to union-authorization
cards and related purposes. The prohibition is absolute, there being no distinc-
tions drawn between working and nonworking time and, without some showing
of special circumstances justifying the requirement, employees may not be
required to obtain their employer's consent for union solicitations on their own
time. This is settled law. Accepting arguendo Respondent's explanation of the
source and purpose of the notice, there remains the ambiguity in its text, an
ambiguity which the Respondent was under a duty to remove through clarifica-
tion. The Respondent having failed in this duty, the notice, appearing as it
did at a time when organizational activities were being "stepped up" and the
Respondent was releasing its own antiunion propaganda, imposed an unlawful
restraint upon the employees' rights of self-organization. When an employer,
in the midst of an organizational campaign, abjures neutrality and takes up the
cudgels against the union, it may expect that its contemporaneous acts will be
viewed in the light of its partisanship and, so viewed, may have a force and
effect that would be lacking did the same acts occur in an environment of
neutrality.46 It may be argued further that the order was not enforced, but,
as has been seen and as will be seen hereinafter, certain employees who engaged
in such solicitations were subjected to punitive action, one employee, at least, was
told by leadman Arnold that the rule applied to union solicitations,4B and, in any
event, no announcement was ever made that the rule would not be enforced as
to union solicitations outside working hours. Assuming without finding, there-
fore, that the rule was never enforced in this respect, sans such an announcement
a considerable amount of time would have been required for this fact to have
become self-evident and in the interim, at least, the unlawful restraint stemming
from the notice itself was present.
That the Respondent forbade prounion activity during working hours, is shown
specifically by the corrective interview issued against Carroll Williams, and
instructions admittedly issued by Foreman Norman C. (Tex) Ranger to Charles
Atherton-to be discussed hereinafter. On the other hand, the antiunion activi-
ties of its leadmen and other supervisory personnel were prevalent during work-
ing hours.
5. Alleged unlawful increase in wage and insurance benefits
a. Wage increases
Maintenance operations began at the Tucson plant in June 1950, and the first
production work on aircraft began in July. The first completed aircraft was
delivered from the Tucson plant in October.
15 See footnote 31, supra.
11 Credited testimony of Harold Nevitt.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to Respondent's wage policy, the minutes of its board of directors,
dated July 21, 1950, contains this statement :
Since the demand for personnel by Pacific Coast aircraft plants is in-
creasing rapidly, it was agreed that aircraft workers at Tucson should be
brought up to the Glendale wage scale as rapidly as they can be trained so
they will not leave Tucson for Coast employment. However, they should
be hired on at as reasonable starting rates as possible so that the cost of
labor to the government would not be excessive during the early period or
training portion of the program. Our local Tucson management should be
apprised of this policy immediately and take every precaution to avoid
Grand Central being criticized for paying too high a starting wage scale
in relation to the quality of the workmen.
... It was agreed that . . . every effort be made to carry out these
policies during the transitional period of, probably six to nine months.
It is the Respondent's position that it was in the effectuation of the policy
thus stated that it granted, successively, the wage increases listed below and not
for the purpose of inducing its employees to oppose the Union, as alleged by the
complaint. The table of increases follows :
Percentage Average of Percentage Average of
of produc- the increase of produc- the increase
tion and granted tion and granted
Month maintenance produc- Month maintenance produc-
employees tion and employees tion and
receiving maintenance receiving maintenance
increase employees increase employees
1950 1951
August--------------- ----------- -------------- March --------------- 93 15 4September ------------ 17 7 0 April 1-19 ----------- 5 10 7
October-------------- 44 9 0 April 20-30----------- 3 7 8
November -- 80 15 9 May ----------------- 6 9 0
December 89 9 9 June--------------------- 3 7 7
July---------------- 10 6 5
1951 August --------------- 7 7.1
January -------------- 40 8 7 September ------------ 13 7 2
February------------- 93 11 6
The increases thus granted are referred to by the Respondent as "merit
increases ," but the Respondent had only three classifications for all wage in-
creases : reclassification increase , merit increase , and transfer increase. Under
this terminology a general wage increase affecting every employee on its payroll
would be classified as a "merit" increase , and therefore the designation of "merit"
increase had no meaning apart from "general" or "blanket" increase without
evidence showing that the increase was based on an actual evaluation of the
work of the individual employee to whom the increase was given . Theoretically
at least, Respondent 's system governing the granting of merit increases provided
for such an evaluation . This system called for the rating of every employee at
90-day intervals , and appropriate printed forms covering a complete analysis of
employee performance and attitude were issued . The attention of the employees
was directed to the rating system by a letter from Respondent 's president , Robert
0. Denny, dated August 18, 1950, enclosing the rating forms. This letter stated :
Every 90 days you are carefully graded and all reports are reviewed. Any
employee that is falling below standard is then warned to improve or be
relieved . All employees meeting or exceeding standards are placed in order
of grading for merit increases in pay and for promotion.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1151
This letter, postdating the formulating of a wage policy by Respondent's board
of directors on July 21, 1950, can only be understood as expressing the modus
operandi by which the Respondent originally planned to effectuate that policy.
The Respondent in its brief argues persuasively that the system of wage review
and ratings set forth in the August 18 letter to employees being identical with
the system in effect at the much older Glendale plant, would necessarily undergo
some changes and variances in the comparatively new plant, and that one varia-
tion was that new employees had their ratings reviewed every 30 days during the
first 90 days of their employment. Such an argument would not, however, account
for the virtual abandonment of the individual rating system during the period
of the Union's organizational activities if such abandonment were indeed the
fact, and I think it was the fact.
That 80 percent of all production and maintenance employees received increases
in November 1950; 89 percent in December 1950, only 1 month later ; 93 percent
in February 1951; and 93 percent again in March 1951, together with substantial
increases given during the months of October and January, raises a very strong
presumption that these were not increases based upon the 90-day or 30-day
evaluation and review of the merits of the individual employee, according to
Respondent's announced formula, but blanket increases to which the inter-
changeable descriptive term "general" increases may properly be applied. There
is little or no credible evidence to rebut such a presumption and a good deal, both
negative and affirmative, to support it. Of all the many supervisory employees
who testified for the Respondent, those to whom the grading and rating reviews
were necessarily entrusted, not one testified with specificity concerning the actual
grading or rating of any individual employee during the period in question and
Production Superintendent Wilburn, who approved all increases for production
employees, admitted that some of the increases were based, not on current ratings
and reviews, but on ratings which had served as the basis of a prior increase.
Otherwise his testimony as to the actual methods used for determining increases
during this period, was evasive and unenlightening. Assistant Plant Manager
Hemler, while testifying that the so-called merit system was applied to all in-
creases, gave this illuminating testimony on cross-examination :
Q. . . . Do you mean that you personally took into account the merit grade
given to each man at the time you did approve an increase for him?
A. On the large increases, there were too many at this time to take into
consideration each and every increase. A basic standard had been reached
by the superintendents of divisions, we have about four at the time, and
they were to operate to that. I only questioned the large ones. We con-
sidered a large one 15 cents or more, which we used to check to determine
the man had a grade and that he had a substantial one.
Q. You don't mean to imply, do you, that a man received a separate merit
review grade for each increase that he got?
A. I don't imply that, no ; didn't intend to imply it.
That increases were given during this period without individual rating of
employees, is further indicated in employee Richard Amis' undisputed testimony
that B. B. Jackson, assistant to Wilburn, told him that the Respondent was
giving out "blanket" wage increases; that previously he looked them over (i. e.,
rating sheets) and signed the ones he thought were right, but with the blanket
raises coming through he just signed them all without looking at them. In
similar vein, Supervisor Copenhaver told employee Roy Brown that he had once
filled out grade reports on his men, but later stopped doing that because Re-
spondent made blanket increases without bothering him to fill out the forms.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These admissions by supervisory personnel serve but to fill in and clarify what is
evident from the testimony of Assistant Plant Manager Hemler : that the large
wage increases granted in the months preceding the April 20 election were not
based on the individual merit rating of the employee but what Hemler called
"weighted averages" determined by department heads. Such a procedure marked
a virtually complete abandonment of the formula set forth in Denny's letter of
August 18, 1950 , and is hardly consonant with Respondent 's notice to its em-
ployees dated February 5, 1951, that the Respondent 's "wage policy will continue
as in the past based upon the merit system."
The abandonment of the merit system as it was initially formalized was
obviously necessitated by the haste by which the Respondent in successive stages
conferred substantial wage benefits on a very large percentage of its employees,
but this does not dispose of the issue because whether they be regarded as merit
or general increases , if economically motivated , the wage increases were law-
fully given . The abandonment of the merit system therefore is but one factor
to be considered among others . It is entirely credible that starting its Tucson
operations with comparatively unskilled labor, the Respondent would not
choose immediately to pay the same wage scale paid to the experienced em-
ployees of its Glendale plant, and that it would plan to increase its wage scale
as its Tucson employees acquired experience . It is not unreasonable that with
some 700 employees on its payroll in October 1950 and some 2,000 in April 1951,
the normal system of advancement of newly hired personnel would be reflected in
substantial changes in the wage structure . Respondent's counsel also argues
cogently that the increased living costs following the outbreak of military opera-
tions in Korea, together with the fact that employers generally were giving
substantial wage increases , required that the Respondent protect its competitive
position by bringing its wage scale to the level of other comparable industries.
There can be no doubt, and I fully agree , that economic justification existed
for changes in the wage structure and I have no doubt that some adjustments
upward in the wage structure would have been made had there been no organi-
zational campaign ; in my opinion , however, there were no successive develop-
ments of economic pressure within the comparatively short period between
November 1950 and April 1951, which would explain why the Respondent would
grant a substantial increase to 80 percent of its employees in November and an
even more substantial increase to 89 percent of its employees only 1 month later,
and then, after having granted the by no means negligible increase to 40 per-
cent of its employees in January , reach a new peak by bestowing wage benefits on
93 percent of its employees in February and, just 1 month later , again bestowing
wage benefits on 93 percent.
The Respondent in its brief argues that the comparative hiatus in the wage
hike which occurred in January was due to the absence of Hemler and Birren
from the plant during this month and the Government wage freeze order on or
about January 25, but if the increases were being given on a merit system ac-
cording to established formulae they would not have been halted by the ab-
sence of Hemler and Birren and indeed were not halted altogether, and Re-
spondent in its notice to employees dated February 5, 1951, states : "Our wage
scales have been published with the Air Force and therefore meet the require-
ment of the new Government policy." Respondent argues, but not very con-
vincingly , "While it was first thought that wage stabilization presented no prob-
lem (citing the notice of February 5), the continuation of the program was then
delayed until late in February when it was determined that wage stabilization
regulations would permit the further wage increases ." I think the Respondent
had determined that fact to its satisfaction , at least, before it posted the no-
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1153
tice of February 5, and I think there is no satisfactory explanation for the tim-
ing of successive and very substantial wage increases, affecting 93 percent of
the employees, in February and March, except that organizational activities of
the Union had then reached their peak, a petition for certification as bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees had been filed in the Board's regional
offices in February, and on March 21, 5 days prior to the granting of a majority of
the March increases, the parties had signed a consent-election agreement stipu-
lating that the election would be held on April 20. It is a little too "pat" for
credence that it was just at this point and for economic reasons alone that, as
Respondent argues, "The (wage) program was then completed with the weighted
average at the Tucson plant then being within a few mills of the weighted av-
erage rate at the Glendale plant."
Because of the abandonment of a merit system based on ratings of the
individual employee, the hasty manner in which the increases were effectuated
causing the abandonment of the requirement that supervisors fill out the rating
sheets normally used, the closely spaced intervals in which they were given,
the fact that within 5 months of the April 20 election 4 successive and nearly
plantwide increases were granted, and particularly the timing of the February
and March increases affecting 93 percent of all production and maintenance em-
ployees, I am convinced that although valid and substantial economic reasons
existed for the Respondent's altering of its wage structure upward, it was not
economic persuasion alone that dictated the order, manner, timing, and scope
of these wage increases, but that Respondent's deep-seated and aggressively
prosecuted opposition to the unionization of its plant, also played an active role
in these determinations.47 True, as Respondent argues in its brief, the "mere
fact that substantial wage increases are given during a union organizing cam-
paign does not establish a violation of the Act," and it is also true that an em-
ployer is not prohibited by the existence of organizational activity in his plant
from granting such wage increases as he would normally grant, in the manner
and at such times as he normally would grant them, but he may not employ this
perhaps most effective of all economic weapons for the purpose of affecting the
outcome of a bargaining election. "Interference is no less interference because
it is accomplished through allurements rather than coercion." Western Car-
tridge Co. v. N. L. R. B., 134 F. 2d 240, 244 (C. A. 7), cert. denied 320 U. S. 746.
b. Insurance benefits
Prior to the establishment of its Tucson plant the Respondent had in effect at
its Glendale plant group medical and hospitalization insurance policies, and on
occasion the benefits provided thereunder had been liberalized. As of July 1,
1950, these policies were extended to cover employees of the new Tucson plant,
with identical provisions except for a lower hospital benefit because of lower
hospital charges prevalent in the Tucson area. Toward the end of 1950 the
Respondent began discussions with its insurance carrier and broker relative
to a further liberalization of benefits for all of its employees to meet higher med-
ical and hospital costs. Further discussion followed in January 1951, and on
February 2, 1951, the insurance company wrote the Respondent a letter setting
forth recommended changes.
The letter stated in effect that inasmuch as the additional benefits were
proposed on a basis of no increase in premium costs "it will be necessary to wait
47 In reaching this conclusion I have accorded no weight to the testimony of Edna Conrad
who, at one time, was employed as secretary to Barren and Hemler but who quit because
of dissatisfaction. In my opinion her testimony was too vague to furnish a reasonable
basis for findings of fact.
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for a month or two until we get the final breakdown of the 1950 premiums and
claims figures." By letter dated April 3, 1951, the insurance company over the
signature of L. W. Hunt, gave a "brief report" on the operation of Respondent's
insurance plan for the year 1950, congratulated the Respondent on "company
practices and policies which are undoubtedly responsible for the unusually happy
atmosphere which seems to prevail at Grand Central," and referred to "increases
in benefits which you are again providing this year." Hunt admitted that this
letter did not constitute "an official report," and that the insurance company
did not "usually make an official report for several months" after the end of
the insurance year, in this case January 1.4' By letter dated April 5, Douglas
Farrell, insurance broker who handled Respondent's account, stated that be had
received the "Annual Report and Survey" of Respondent' s insurance plan
whereas he actually had reference to the Hunt letter dated April 3 which Hunt
admitted was not "an official report" ; praised Respondent' s insurance plan as
"substantially more liberal than the general average" ; and advised the Respond-
ent : "This letter will confirm that you hereby authorize us to increase certain
of your employee benefits." There follows a table listing the present benefit and
the new benefit, showing an increase in hospital benefits and charges, surgical
benefits, and a new item not previously covered by Respondent' s policies-
maternity benefits. By letter dated April 9, 1951, this same insurance broker,
on request of Respondent's president and purportedly on the basis of an analysis
of insurance plans at various named aircraft and aircraft engineering companies,
submitted his finding that Respondent' s insurance program was "superior to the
insurance provided by any of the above-named companies." The above-named
companies were, according to Respondent's letter to its employees dated April 11,
10 "UAW-CIO organized aircraft companies." Enclosed with Respondent's
letter of April 11 was a folder which included Hunt's letter of April 3 and
Farrell's letters of April 5 and 9.
It was not until May 22 that the insurance company itself officially notified
the Respondent of its agreement on the revision of benefits described in Farrell's
letter of April 5, and informed the Respondent that " as long as the experience
under the above policy continues to be favorable, it will be possible to make a
revision in benefits as outlined below." The effective date of the increased
benefits, stated the letter, would be April 5. By letter dated May 29, Farrell noti-
fied the Respondent that it should attach the May 22 communication from the
insurance company to the policy to "serve as evidence of this increased protec-
tion" because "this letter is more than a memorandum, it is actually your
authorization to construe benefits as detailed." There was testimony that a
claim under the increased benefits schedule was processed on April 17, and that
official endorsement of benefit changes may lag months behind the effective date
of the changes. It is quite clear, however, that Farrell's letter of April 5, de-
scribing a schedule of increased benefits, did not bind the insurance company
but merely stated that the Respondent had "authorized" It to increase certain
employee benefits, and it is equally clear from Farrell's letter of May 29 that
the insurance company's endorsement of increased benefits dated May 22 was the
"actual" authorization for Respondent "to construe benefits as detailed."
48 Hunt's testimony :
Q. Do you recall when, with reference to the first year that policy was in effect,
the year 1949, you or your company rendered to the Grand Central Company a report
as to the experience for the preceding year?
A. Well, out of my memory I don't recall it, but normally, it would have been at
least four or five months after the end of the policy year.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC . 1155
The issue is whether Respondent 's April 11 announcement of increased benefits
contained in a letter to its employees in which the Respondent continued its
attack on the Union , was made at this time and in this manner for the purpose of
affecting the outcome of the election of April 20 . There can be but one answer.
Had this been an announcement of increased benefits such as Respondent would
have made in the normal course of its operations, without intention or purpose of
inducing employees to refrain from or give up their union activities, it ob-
viously would have been made without reference to the Union or the Union's
claims. Asa matter of fact, the Union's propaganda circular of April 3 criticized
the Respondent 's insurance plan and pointed out that a good example of the
faults of the policy "is the lack of maternity benefits . . ." As has been seen,
Respondent 's announcement of increased benefits included an item not pre-
viously covered by Respondent's policies-maternity benefits. By the method
it employed in its announcement , embodying the announcement in a letter which
constituted one of a chain of letters it was addressing to its employees in its
drive to defeat the Union, the Respondent clearly labeled the announcement of
increased benefits an inducement for employees to vote against the Union,
thereby sparing us the necessity of probing further."
6. Conclusions on objections to the election ; interference restraint, coercion
We are not here concerned with the exaggerations and conflicting claims of the
parties, the charges and countercharges such as not infrequently accompany a
contest at the polls. Nor are we primarily concerned with distortions and mis-
representations such as appear , for instance , in Respondent ' s question and
answer bulletin ( Union's Exhibit No. 6) where it advises its employees that
the Union can have them discharged for many reasons , whereas, in fact, the
proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act strictly limits the power of a labor or-
ganization with respect to discharge . Nor is our particular province ethical
considerations involved in such matters as Respondent's portrayal of the Union
as a Communist-dominated organization whereas it is common knowledge in the
labor relations field that officers of the UAW-CIO were among the most in-
sistent and aggressive of leaders responsible for expelling certain unions from
the Congress of Industrial Organizations because of what these leaders believed
to be "left-wing" tendencies . With regard to such matters, the Board has said
that it "prefers to leave to the good sense of the voters the task of appraising
such propaganda ." Trinity Steel Co., 97 NLRB, 1486.
It is true, as the Union's attorney argues in his brief, that the Respondent is
a company which owes the existence of its Tucson operations to contracts which
it is able to negotiate with its Government , and that many aspects of its antiunion
propaganda appear to run counter to the policies of that Government "to promote
industrial peace by encouraging the making of voluntary agreements governing
relations between unions and employers" (N. L. R. B. v. American National
Insurance Co., 343 U. S. 395 ), but I am not persuaded that there is any license
in the Act for requiring a higher standard of conduct of employers whose
revenues flow from Government contracts, and therefore the taxpayers' pockets,
than of employers generally , and I have been guided by the same criteria here
that would govern in any other case.
49 "What is unlawful under the Act is the employer 's granting or announcing such bene-
fits (although previously determined upon bona fide) for the purpose of causing the
employees to accept or reject a representative for collective bargaining." Hudson Hosiery
Company, 72 NLRB 1434, 1436-1437.
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the Board will not "police" its elections in the general sense of the
word, it is its particular province and function and perhaps its most important,
to protect , to the extent of its authority , its election processes from interferences
which create an environment of fear foreclosing an uncoerced expression of choice
at the polls . I am of the opinion that the Respondent has created such an
environment.
It has been seen how the Respondent through its publications sought to instil
fear into the minds of its employees-fear of association with a subversive or-
ganization , fear of being victimized by the "Labor Boss," fear of the "strike
terror," fear of "trouble ." Because of the character , scope, and intensity of this
propaganda employees were led to believe that disruption of harmonious em-
ployer-employee relationships and loss of job security would inevitably stem
from a union victory at the polls. In voting for the Union , they were told,
they would be giving up their " independence ," their "right to work unmolested,"
and their "present security ." Reference was made to the bankrupt AMC of
California and the employees were reminded that the Respondent 's equipment
was bought from this firm whose bankruptcy , it was implied , resulted from union-
ization of its employees . We have seen how this written propaganda was taken
up by Respondent 's supervisory staff and extended and embellished orally. Em-
ployees were informed by their supervisors that what happened at AMC could
and probably would happen at Grand Central if the employees became unionized.
They were told that if the Union won the election , because of the United States
Army's alleged fear of strikes , the Respondent would not be able to get contracts
and the plant would close. They were told that Grand Central was a hobby
with Major Moseley and that before he would deal with a union he would close
it and remove its operations to Glendale where the Respondent has long success-
fully resisted organizational efforts among its employees . Thus, what for the
most part was merely implied in the written propaganda became the express
threat in the spoken word, and it could hardly have been otherwise , for when an
employer embarks on an antiunion campaign and carries its written propaganda
to the outermost limits of what it believes to be lawful persuasion , it would be
the exception rather than the rule if some among its supervisory staff, not so
well versed in the technicalities of the law, did not extend it beyond the
dividing line between what is lawful and what is not. This is particularly true
in a plant where not only is supervisory personnel not directed to observe
neutrality but is encouraged to carry the employer 's antiunion viewpoint to the
employees.
It is true , as argued by Respondent 's counsel , that in at least three written
communications addressed to its employees, the employees were advised by the
Respondent that there would be "no reprisal , coercion , or intimidation against
any employee because of his views ," that they were free to vote as they chose and
the Respondent would abide by the election results. Aside from the fact that in
a very large majority of Respondent ' s publications no such assurances were
given, statements on the inevitability of disruption of harmonious employer-em-
ployee relationships following a union victory , and threats of the plant closing
in such event, together with Respondent's attacks on the patriotism and in-
tegrity of the Union , completely nullified such assurances and marked them in
the employee mind as no more than lip service to a legal duty. It is also idle
to argue that statements of the category of those appearing above were mere
predictions of what might result from a union victory at the polls. "When
statements such as these are made by one who is a part of the company manage-
ment, and who has the power to change prophecies into realities , such state-
ments, whether couched in language of probability or certainty, tend to impede
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1157
and coerce employees in their right of self-organization. . . ." N. L. R. B. v.
W. C. Nabors, d/b/a W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272 (C. A. 5), enforcing 89
NLRB 538. Respondent's argument that because its statements were effectively
answered by the Union there was no unlawful interference is "a bit of verbal
logic from which the meaning of things has evaporated." Phelps Dodge Corp. v.
N. L. R. B., 313 U. S. 177. The Respondent is hardly to be relieved of liability
for its own acts and utterances and their reasonable impact on the minds and
emotions of its employees, because the Union, in its counterpropaganda, says
"taint so."
It is found that by its express and implied threats of "trouble," disruption of
harmonious employer-employee relation, the closing of the plant, and loss of
job security in the event of a union victory at the polls, appearing in its written
and spoken antiunion propaganda, the Respondent coerced its employees in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and interfered with their freedom of choice
at the polls. Onondaga Pottery Company, 94 NLRB 58; Roxanna of Texas, Inc.,
98 NLRB 1151; Schwarzenbach Huber Company, 85 NLRB 1490, and cases cited
therein.
It has been seen how employees wearing union insignia or who were otherwise
conspicuous because of their activities on behalf of the Union, were called from
their jobs by supervisory personnel and questioned concerning their views on
the Union. In the light of this record, these interrogations may not reasonably
be regarded as accidental, spontaneous, nor sporadic. They were part of a closely
integrated plan directed by top management. Meetings of the supervisory staff
were addressed by top officials who expressed the Respondent's position on the
unionization of its plant and at these same meetings newly appointed leadmen,
not all of whom were supervisors within the meaning of the Act, were reminded
that they were the best intermediaries for conveying the Company's message
to rank-and-file employees and reporting back to the Company on the views of
these employees. We have seen how department heads directed their subordinate
supervisors to ascertain how the employees in their respective departments would
vote, and we have seen how some of these interrogations were carried out. It is
no defense to say, as some of the Respondent's witnesses testified, that some of
these interrogations were on the subject of employee grievances, for it is plain
that in this context "grievances" is to be equated with "union activities" and
that the real purpose of these interrogations was to "sound out" the employees
on their reasons for favoring the Union in order that the Respondent might
marshal its arguments against the Union in a manner most likely to persuade the
employee to change his mind. Not infrequently these interviews were ac-
companied by direct questioning of the employee's attendance at union meetings,
how he intended to vote, and what he thought the result of the election would be.
Such interrogations, entirely aside from accompanying statements constituting
threats or promises of reward, were an unlawful invasion of the employee's
right to privacy and freedom from employer interference in his organizational
activities. Joy Silk Mills v. N. L. R. B., 185 F. 2d 732, 740 (C. A. D. C.), cert.
denied 314 U. S. 914; N. L. R. B. v. Norfolk-Southern Bus Co., 159 F. 2d 516, 518
(C. A. 4), cert. denied 330 U. S. 844; N. L. R. B. v. J. G. Boswell Co., 136 F. 2d 585,
590 (C. A. 9) ; N. L. R. B. v. Lettie Lee, Inc., 140 F. 2d 243, 245 (C. A. 9). The fact
is that such interrogations were on occasion accompanied by intimations or di-
rect threats that the plant would be closed in the event of a union victory at
the polls, and on some other occasions the employee was given assurances that his
grievances would receive favorable consideration, or that some desired change
in his working conditions, such as transfer from a night to a day shift or from
one department to another, would be granted. Such promises or implied
257965-54-vol. 103-74
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promises, made in a context of argument against the Union, are reasonably
construed, as they must have been construed by the employee affected, as an
inducement to give up his organizational activities. At the conclusion of one
such conference, the employee, after having been granted a desired transfer, was
told to go back to the employees and "talk company" for a change. In others,
after having expressed the Respondent's antiunion viewpoint and promised
consideration of employee grievances, employees were asked if they had changed
their minds about supporting the Union. Threats and promises of reward rest
on the same legal footing ; one creates fear of reprisal, the other is a bribe.
"The presentation of economic benefits to employees in order to have them forego
collective bargaining is a form of pressure and compulsion no less telling in its
effect on employees because benign." Hudson Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1434,
1436.
It may be argued that the action of supervisors in calling employees from
their jobs during working hours for the purpose of engaging them in discussions
during which the supervisor urges the viewpoint of management, is of the same
order of legal significance as an address delivered to an assemblage of employees
by plant management. Aside from the fact that in neither situation is the
employer privileged to interrogate the employees concerning their union ac-
tivities and views, or to make threats or promises of reward, I think there is a
difference. "When rank-and-file employees are brought to the company office
in small groups, they do not deal in an `arms length' relationship with the
company officials they are directed to see. Antiunion opinions, and the sugges-
tion that the employees reject the union, when uttered in that locus of final
authority in the plant, take on a significance they do not possess under other
circumstances. The coercive effect may be subtle but it is nonetheless there.
And it is that much stronger when, as in this case, the employees are also brought
into the office individually." General Shoe Corporation, 97 NLRB 645. An
illustration of how a rank-and-file employee felt on being interviewed by Super-
intendent Sam Wilburn in the latter's office, is afforded by Respondent's witness,
James B. Nash, Jr., who testified, ". . . when you are in Sam's office you get
warm under the collar ; it is just the fact that you are talking to the big boss,
and you are a workman. ..:'
I find that by interrogating its employees concerning their attendance at union
meetings, how they intended to vote, what they thought the outcome of the
election would be, what were their reasons for favoring the Union, and what they
expected to gain through union representation ; by calling its employees from
their jobs individually and subjecting them to so-called interviews in which the
Respondent sought to induce them to give up their support of the Union ; by
suggesting or directing that employees remove their union insignia ; by induce-
ments in the form of transfers, promises or implied promises that their griev-
ances would be taken care of and that working conditions would be better if the
Union were kept out ; and by each of the aforesaid courses of conduct, the
Respondent coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
and interfered with their freedom of choice at the polls. I further find that
Respondent's action in granting successive wage increases to 93 percent of its
maintenance and production personnel within a period of approximately 2
months preceding the April 20 election, was timed for its maximum effect on
the outcome of the election and constituted unlawful inducement within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and interference with the employees'
freedom of choice at the polls. The announcement of increased insurance bene-
fits made in a context of antiunion statements and arguments was likewise made
for the purpose of influencing the election results, and was therefore unlawful
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC . 1159
election interference and violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. May De-
partment Stores Company v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376, 386; N. L. R. B. V,
Wytheville Knitting Co., 175 F. 2d 238; Western Cartridge Co. v. N. L. R. B., 134
F. 2d 240, 244 (C. A. 7), cert. denied 320 U. S. 746; England Bros., Inc., 99 NLRB
258.
Personnel Director Fry's request that employee Volckman report to him on
the union activities of other employees, and statements of managerial personnel
to the effect that the Respondent had ways of informing itself on attendance at
union meetings and of ascertaining how employees would vote, constituted
employer invasion of "an area guaranteed to be exclusively the business and
concern of his employees." Standard-Coosa-Thatcher, 85 NLRB 1358. It is
found that this verbal conduct constituted election interference and was violative
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. N. L. R. B., 156 F.
2d 416, 419 (C. A. 7), cert. denied 329 U. S. 810; Swan Fastener Corporation, 95
NLRB 503; Roxboro Cotton Mills, 97 NLRB 1359, and cases cited therein.
In the Bonwit Teller case (Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608) the Board ex-
pounded the doctrine that "an employer who chooses to use his premises to
assemble his employees and speak against a union may not deny that Union's
request for the same opportunity to present its case, where the circumstances
are such that only by granting such request will the employees have a reasonable
opportunity to hear both sides." It is argued by the General Counsel and the
Union that this doctrine is applicable to the case at bar.
We have seen how the Respondent used its premises during and outside
working hours for the dissemination of its antiunion propaganda. Moseley and
other top officials addressed rank-and-file employees on the day preceding the
election. Respondent's supervisory staff, including leadmen who were not in
all instances supervisors within the meaning of the Act, was given free rein
and in fact encouraged to carry Respondent's antiunion propaganda to rank-
and-file employees in and out of the latter's working hours. Respondent brought
certain of its Glendale employees to Tucson and gave them the run of the plant
for the purpose of arguing the Respondent's case against the Union to rank-and-
file employees. Certain of Respondent's antiunion publications were posted on
its bulletin boards which were kept under lock and key and on which no pro-
union publications appeared. In contrast, the Union's representatives were
prevented from distributing their pamphlets on company premises and were
required to stand back some 70 feet from Respondent's plant entrance when
engaged in this activity. In view of this prohibition, it is obvious that such
union literature as was handed out inside the plant, or posted there-and the
paucity of the showing in this respect has been commented on-represented
occasional and sporadic efforts of a few union adherents from which no reason-
able inference can be drawn that the Respondent would have tolerated wide-
spread activity on this sort, or activity comparable to its own. All reasonable
inferences are to the contrary. No showing of necessity for prohibiting the
distribution of union literature on Respondent' s premises outside the plant
having been made, this prohibition constituted an unlawful invasion of employee
rights. N. L. R. B. v. Le Tourneau Company of Georgia, 324 U. S. 793; Caldwell
Furniture Co., 97 NLRB 1359. It has been seen that organizational activities
were further restricted by Respondent's rule on solicitations which, lacking
clarification to the effect that this rule did not apply to union solicitations,
constituted an unlawful restraint on employees' rights of self-organization. Of
similar character was Respondent's confinement of Nevitt and Williams to their
work stations with instructions not to converse with their fellow employees,
and the issuance of a corrective interview against Carroll Williams. These are
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matters which lie outside the Bonwat Teller doctrine and independently and
separately constitute election interference and violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. It is so found.
I would also find that the Respondent by licensing and encouraging its super-
visory staff, including some who were not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, to campaign against the Union in the plant during working hours, while
prohibiting prounion activities of the same scope and character and penalizing
some who engaged in it, created a disparity inimical to employee rights under
the Act. The Respondent may well argue that its working time belongs to it
and if it chooses to utilize it in a noncoercive campaign against the Union it
is privileged to do so. This may be true but only within certain limitations.
The Respondent could not argue with cogency that it could license rank-and-file
employees to engage in activities against the Union while denying prounion em-
ployees an equal opportunity to prosecute their cause, for preferential treatment
accorded rank-and-file opponents of a union is clearly unlawful. Cherry Rivet
Company, 97 NLRB 1303. And when we penetrate the appearance of super-
visory authority vested in certain of its leadmen, some of whom admittedly were
not supervisors within the statutory definition, we find that some of these were
scarcely more than "leaders," with little or no actual supervisory authority. I
think the Respondent may not by the expedient of naming a rank-and-file em-
ployee its agent and clothing him with the semblance but not the substance of
supervisory authority, set him free and encourage him to engage in antiunion
activities during working hours while denying this privilege to prounion em-
ployees, for if this were permissible an employer could create and enforce dis-
parity between its prounion and antiunion employees at will and with impunity.
Accordingly, I find that by its disparity of treatment as between prounion and
antiunion employees, the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act and interfered with freedom of choice at the polls.
In accord with the Bonw-it Teller doctrine, as I now understand it in the light
of later decisions not available to me at the time of the hearing, I find that the
widespread use the Respondent made of its time and premises for indoctrinating
its employees with its antiunion propaganda, and the restrictions which it im-
posed on dissemination of prounion sentiment on its premises, together consti-
tuted interference with freedom of choice at the polls, inasmuch as the employees
were not afforded a reasonable opportunity for hearing both sides of the issue.
Metropolitan Auto Parts, Inc., 99 NLRB 401; Massachusetts Motor Car Co., Inc.,
99 NLRB No. 74. Clearly, such reasonable opportunity for the employees as a
whole did not flow from the Union's use of radio time, such distribution of
literature as it was able to make outside the plant and off Respondent's premises,
the utilization of a mailing list that was partial and inaccurate, and the efforts
of a few of its proponents among the employees to carry on their organizational
activities inside the plant. It is true that the Union did not specifically ask
for the privilege of addressing the employees inside Respondent's plant, of
carrying on its solicitations inside the plant, or of posting its literature on Re-
spondent's bulletin boards, and had such requests been made the issue would now
be more clearly defined. However, in view of the character and scope of Re-
spondent's attack on the Union through its published literature and its prohibition
of the distribution of union literature on company premises, I think the Union
would reasonably conclude that such a request would be futile. I am not
persuaded therefore that such requests were required in order to make the Bonwit
Teller doctrine applicable to this case.
It is argued that with knowledge of incidents now alleged to constitute election
interference, the Union chose to proceed with the election and therefore must
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1161
be held to have "waived" its objections, and Denton Sleeping Garment Mills,
Inc., 93 NLRB 329, is cited as a case in point. The doctrine of that case has
no proper application here. It may be assumed that prior to the election the
.Union had knowledge of the pamphlets and letters Respondent was distributing
among its employees, its newspaper advertisements and radio broadcasts. No
doubt it was also informed, to some degree, by rumor or otherwise, of the inter-
rogations of employees occurring in the plant and various other incidents now
relied on. In a plant of this size, however, and with interference appearing in
multiple form and continuing to the eve of the election, it may not reasonably be
inferred that the Union was fully or adequately apprised of the totality of such
conduct prior to the election, or was informed in such matters as the accounta-
bility of Respondent for the activities of its leadmen. Under such circumstances,
I find that it would be in derogation of the public interest to apply the doctrine
of waiver.
More than a year having passed since the election was held, and the Union
now being free to file for a new election, it may be considered unnecessary to
declare the April 20, 1951, election void and set it aside. My opinion, however,
is that the public interest is best served by an unequivocal declaration on the
character and scope of election interference found herein to have occurred, and
that because of that interference the employees should be accorded a tabula rasa.
Accordingly, I recommend that the election be voided and set aside.
D. Discrimination
1. Charles M. Atherton was employed by the Respondent in September 1950,
and from about November 1950 worked on the night shift in the Merlin engine
inspection department as a magnaflux and zyglo inspector.00 Atherton was the
only licensed inspector, certified as such by the Air Force, on the night shift,
and drew the highest nonsupervisory wage paid in the department. Working
with him at the time of his discharge on April 10, 1951, was Tony Camacho, a
trainee inspector, and, in some subordinate but less clearly defined capacity,
Paul Sackos. Prior to a date in February when he was transferred to the day
shift, Fred Redmon assisted Atherton as a trainee inspector. Shortly before
Atherton's discharge, Redmon qualified as a licensed inspector and, upon Ather-
ton's discharge, he was transferred back to the night shift where he replaced
Atherton.
Supervisory personnel directly or indirectly involved in Atherton's discharge
or the circumstances leading to it, were : Norman C. (Tex) Ranger, head of
inspection ; Peter John Urban, supervisor of inspection on the night shift ; Carl
Martin, a supervisor ; John G. Crisman, leadman over Merlin inspection ; Michael
F. Biagi, assistant foreman over Merlin engine overhaul but with no supervisory
jurisdiction over inspection ; and, to some degree, John O. Harris, night plant
superintendent. Atherton was not called to testify, although available to do so,
and the General Counsel's case as to him rests, in the main, on the testimony of
Crisman, Atherton's leadman and a witness for the General Counsel.
Crisman had been instrumental in causing Atherton to be discharged by an
employer for whom they both worked prior to being employed by Grand Central.
The hostility there engendered continued throughout the time that Crisman was
Atherton's leadman in Respondent's inspection department. The following ex-
60 Magnaflux is a metallic inspection through the use of liquid and magnetism to disclose
if there are cracks in the parts being inspected. Zyglo inspection is a process of "dry"
inspection by the use of a light to discover the same or similar defects where existent, its
arse being limited principally to aluminum and magnesium parts.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerpt from Crisman's testimony is illustrative of his frame of mind toward
Atherton:
Q. Do you today have any use at all for Atherton?
A. None at all.
Q. You still dislike Atherton?
A. Thoroughly.
Subsequent to Atherton's discharge by the Respondent, Crisman was promoted
to the position of a foreman in production, was hospitalized in June 1951, and
did not thereafter resume active employment with the Respondent, having
voluntarily severed this employment on or about September 1951.
According to testimony of Supervisor Urban, who recommended Atherton's
discharge, the discharge was precipitated by repeated outbursts of temper in
which Atherton threatened bodily injury to Crisman. Ranger, who approved
and effectuated the discharge, testified, in substance, that the discharge resulted
from Atherton's frequent and continued absences from his work and his depart-
ment during working hours, despite reprimands and warnings. Other reasons
advanced for his discharge were absenteeism and reporting to work in an in-
toxicated condition.
Crisman's testimony, and that of witnesses for Respondent, establishes that
absenteeism was a problem with Atherton as early as November 1950. And in
December, prior to Christmas, it appears that some difficulty arose between him
and Crisman when he came to work smelling of liquor and was argumentative.
Crisman, according to his testimony, at that time told Atherton "to knock off his
work and go on home and come back in the next morning," but after Atherton
had pleaded with him not to have him discharged, consented for Atherton to
remain at his job. Respondent refers to this incident as having constituted an
actual discharge which was then rescinded by Crisman ; however, it is by no
means clear from Crisman's testimony that he intended it as a discharge. Cris-
man testified that he was not aware at that time that Atherton was active on
behalf of the Union.
On a date not definitely placed but apparently in early March, Crisman ad-
dressed a memorandum to Ranger in which he stated in substance, according to
Ranger, that Atherton had been absent from his job engaging in union activities
and had also been drinking. Ranger instructed Crisman to revise the memo-
randum, omitting all references to Atherton's union activities, but testified that
he did not receive the revised copy. Respondent was unable to produce either
the original or the revised copy of this memorandum at the hearing . Ranger
testified that in discussing the matter with Crisman, Crisman admitted that he
merely smelled liquor on Atherton's breath and did not know why Atherton
was out of his department. "So," testified Ranger, "then I instructed Crisman
as far as I was concerned all I was concerned with was whether the man was
either drunk, in which case he should have a professional nurse come over and
make an examination of the man, or he should just state, when he is complaining
about the man leaving the job, that he was off the job. That was all I was
interested in." About 2 weeks after receiving this memorandum from Crisman,
according to Ranger, he received a second memorandum with respect to Ather-
ton. This latter memorandum, received in evidence and dated March 17, 1951,
stated that Atherton had reported at his regular starting time in what Crisman
took to be, but could not prove to be, an intoxicated condition. The memorandum
further states:
If he was tight it was not the first time that he has come in that way. He
came to me at 10 to 7 and said that he was so sleepy that he could not keep
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC . 1163
his eyes open and would like to go home. At first I was not going to permit
him to leave but then I reconsidered and OK'd his leave at 7 P. M. He
knew that we were in a bind at Magnaflux and wanted every piece possible
from that operation but when we want him most he fails us. He has proven
to be 100% undependable. I submit this for your information.
A short time after he had received this second memorandum from Crisman,
Ranger learned that some defective engine heads had been passed through in-
spection, on a Saturday night shift, and questioned Atherton concerning them.
During the course of this conversation, Atherton referred to his feud with
Crisman and to the fact that he had been removing copies of production records
in order to "protect" himself. Ranger instructed him that it was not permis-
sible for him to remove any records from the inspection department and that
he would have to stop this practice. Ranger, according to Ranger's testimony,
also reprimanded him for drinking and absenteeism and warned him that if he
continued these practices he would be discharged. Ranger also referred to
Atherton's absences from his department during working hours and informed
him that while it was his privilege to engage in union activities it was not
permissible for him to carry on these activities in the plant during working
hours.
Crisman testified that following Ranger's warning and reprimand Atherton
ceased his complained of practices, but testified further that Atherton appeared
to know that something was afoot and that he, Crisman„ made no special effort
to check up on him.
On the evening of April 7, Crisman received a complaint from Biagi, production
foreman , that Atherton was in the latter's department engaging employees of
that department in conversation and, at Biagi's urging, issued a corrective inter-
view on Atherton, the first corrective interview thus far issued against him.
Crisman testified concerning this incident : "I had overlooked a number of things
that Atherton had done previously to this. But inasmuch as the production su-
pervisor [Biagi] came to me and complained, there was nothing I could do but
make up the corrective interview." As to the complaint, Crisman testified that
Biagi came to him and said, "Cris, you are going to have to do something with
Atherton. He is over in production. He has no right over there at all. He is
doing some union agitation over there. He had four or five fellows in a group,
talking union to them."
A corrective interview is of the nature of a written reprimand which normally
is placed in the employee's personnel file and serves as a warning that a repetition
of the offense may result in disciplinary action. The interview which Crisman
had prepared on this occasion bore the following text :
I have found it necessary at least once previously to warn Chas. Atherton
about conducting union activities during working hours. Today I find it
necessary to again reprimand Atherton for the same activity. This time the
activity was carried on continuously to such a point that the fellow worker
he had been harassing was forced to ask for a transfer to day shift to get
away from hints, taunts and disparaging remarks 61 The fellow worker is
100% conscientous (sic) and will not be transferred but rather will be allowed
to continue his work under proper conditions. Added to this, just tonight
Atherton, during working hours, was circulating through the engine over-
51 This reference was to Atherton's helper , Camacho. In substantial variance was Cris-
man's testimony that Camacho gave as one of his reasons for desiring a transfer to another
shift, his fear that because of his close association with Atherton, the Respondent would
concludo that he shared Atherton's prounion views. Camacho did not testify.
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
haul department advising the men that what the company has been furnish-
ing them in the way of information was all a lot of propaganda. Herein I
wish to inform Atherton that any further such activities of anything less than
100% full co-operation with other workers at his own station will be suffi-
cient reason for immediate dismissal.
Furthermore, the employee has been advised that any repetition of this
offense or any other circumstances which call for disciplinary action to be
taken may result in dismissal from Grand Central Aircraft Co.
This document was signed by Crisman as supervisor and by Biagi and Camacho
as witnesses ' A copy was shown to Atherton and he was asked to sign it but
refused, claiming that he was being "framed" because of his union activities "
On the same evening, Crisman issued a corrective interview against Paul G.
Sackos, who worked with Atherton in Merlin inspection. It bore the following
text:
On one previous occasion it became necessary to reprimand Paul Sackos
for failure to remain at his station of work. At that time he had been spend-
ing too much time away from his department roaming through the plant.
Today his complicity in an agitation deal became so bad that a fellow worker
in his department asked to be transferred to day shift to get away [from] the
hints, taunts and disparaging remarks. The fellow worker is 100% con-
scientous (sic) and will not be transferred but rather will be allowed to work
under proper conditions. Union activities during working hours in this
department will not be tolerated.
Sackos, like Atherton, refused to sign the interview, claiming also that it was
a "frameup." Crisman admitted that he had received no specific complaint on
the occasion of the Sackos interview and questioned "How did you happen to
prepare this corrective interview for Sackos?" testified:
Well, it was more or less of a little hotbed there in the Magnaflux [inspec-
tion] department, and I figured we would clean it all up at that time.
Q. What kind of a hotbed?
A. Oh, between Atherton and Sackos it was pretty much-I don't hardly
know how to say it, but Sackos was agitating and circulating through the
plant the same as Atherton was.
Q. What do you mean by agitating?
A. Oh, he was talking union b4
Following Crisman's issuance of the corrective interview, Atherton went to
Supervisor Urban's office where he charged that Crisman was "framing" him
because of his union activities. Previously Urban, knowing of the ill-feeling
existing between Crisman and Atherton, had instructed Atherton that any time
he felt aggrieved to bring his grievance to him, Urban, instead of debating it with
Crisman. Urban, according to his testimony, informed Atherton that Crisman as
leadman had no authority to issue a corrective interview and that Atherton
521t was explained that witnesses to the corrective interview were witnesses to the
giving of the interview and not necessarily to the incidents related in the interview
u3 The testimony was that Atherton gave as his excuse for his absence from his depart-
ment, on this occasion , that he was returning some money he had borrowed from a fellow
employee.
6' No unlawful conduct is alleged with respect to Sackos and Sackos did not testify. The
circumstances of the Sackos interview are set forth because they closely parallel those of
the Atherton interview and therefore afford appropriate context for a determination of the
motive underlying action alleged to be unlawful.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1165
should regard the one issued as void 6° Nevertheless, without any new incident
having arisen involving Atherton, Urban caused to be issued against Atherton a
new or revised corrective interview, also signed by Crisman and witnessed by
Biagi,6e bearing the following text :
I have found it necessary on one previous occasion to warn Chas. Atherton
about disrupting other workers by talking to them on outside activities,
not connected with their work, during working hours.
Tonight I find it necessary to reprimend (sic) Atherton for the same
activity. Added to this, just tonight Atherton, during working hours, was
circulating through the engine overhaul dept. drawing several workers into
conversation and holding up their work to the extent they complained to
their immediate supervisor, who in turn put in a complaint to me.
A repeat of the above-mentioned complaint by Atherton will be sufficient
reason for immediate dismissal.
The revised corrective interview issued against Atherton, like the original,
bears the date April 7, but it appears that Urban actually served the revised
interview on Atherton on Monday, April 9. Significantly, the text of the revised
interview omits all mention of Atherton's alleged harassment of a fellow em-
ployee. Atherton, upon being served with the revised interview, again claimed
that he was being "framed" and refused to sign the document. The cor-
rective interview on Sackos was similarly rescinded by Urban, and a new one,
omitting all references to union activities, served on Sackos, who signed it.
According to Urban, Atherton reacted to the service of the second or revised
interview in such a belligerent and threatening manner, that he then, and only
then, decided to recommend his discharge. Urban's superior, Ranger, approved
his recommendation and when Atherton called in Tuesday afternoon to report
that his wife was ill and that he would not be on duty that evening, Ranger
informed him that he was discharged.
Turning now to a closer scrutiny of the causes advanced for Atherton's dis-
charge, as reflected in the testimony, it is observed that the chief complaint
as to his absenteeism was registered prior to December 1950. In November, or
earlier, Carl Martin, then a supervisor in inspection, complained of Atherton's
absenteeism, particularly with reference to his taking Saturdays off, and Ranger
told him to do what he could to get Atherton "straightened out," but that, in
any event, he would have to struggle along as best he could since Atherton
was the only licensed magnaflux operator on his shift. Crisman testified that
Atherton's absenteeism was most marked when Atherton was on the day shift,
which would have been in the early fall of 1950, and it is clear from both
Crisman's and Ranger's testimony that beginning with December Atherton's
record on absenteeism improved. In fact there is very little specific evidence
of absenteeism after December 1950. There is the reference in Crisman's memo-
randum of March 17 to Atherton's request that he be permitted to leave early,
a request approved by Crisman, and this may be considered absenteeism, but if so
it was excused absenteeism. Whether it was on this occasion or a later one
that some defective parts were passed through inspection on an evening when
Atherton was absent at least a portion of a shift, is not clear. But assuming
that they were different occasions, the evidence of absenteeism during the
months preceding his discharge is negligible, and this despite the fact that,
55 Harris. however, who as night superintendent outranked Urban, testified that he ques-
tioned Crisman why he had not issued a corrective interview against Atherton.
so At Camacho's request he was excused by the Respondent from witnessing the revised
interview.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
according to Ranger's testimony, when he conferred with Atherton during the
latter part of March concerning the faulty inspection, he informed him that if
he was "continuing to or going to start up" taking Saturday nights off and
leaving early he would be discharged. Obviously the Respondent had available to
it at the time of the hearing, records showing the attendance of its employees
and had absenteeism constituted a serious part of its contentions on Atherton's
discharge, it doubtless would have produced them, as it did in the case of
Plez Aldridge. I conclude that absenteeism was not a material problem with
respect to Atherton at the time of his discharge, nor for a substantial period
prior thereto.
The contentions with reference to his intoxication appear to me to fall in
much the same category. It was one of Supervisor Martin's complaints in
October that Atherton had come on his job several times smelling of liquor and
the difficulty with Crisman, in which Crisman threatened to send him home,
arose before Christmas, in December 1950. After that we have Crisman's
memorandum of March 17 in which Crisman admitted that he could not prove
intoxication, but complained that Atherton had that appearance. In testifying,
however, Crisman stated that although Supervisor Martin had recommended that
he reprimand Atherton for coming to work with liquor on his breath, he had not
done so because he would never reprimand a man for doing something which he
did openly himself. Crisman had reference particularly to supervisory meetings,
where intoxicants were served and, according to credible testimony, some super-
visors after imbibing freely returned to their jobs on the night shift in a condi-
tion of dubious sobriety. From this it may be inferred that the Respondent
had no strong moral aversion to intoxicating drink. I do not, however, intend
to deal with this matter lightly and were it shown that within reasonable
proximity to the date of his discharge Atherton was neglectful of his work or in
any way disrupted plant discipline by reporting for work in a condition of even
partial intoxication, I would regard this as constituting at the least a plausible
cause for discharge. This is not the case. While there can be little doubt
that during periods of his employment Atherton on occasion did report with
whiskey on his breath and on occasion left his job early on this account, there
is no substantial evidence, nor any at all in fact, that he committed this offense
at any time after he was warned and reprimanded by Ranger.
The gravamen of the defense appears to be Atherton's absences from his de-
partment during working hours. Ranger testified that in February Production
Superintendent Wilburn reported that Atherton had been talking to employees
on washrack, but admitted on cross-examination that he regarded this report as
"just one of those things." He further testified that Biagi complained that
Atherton was "coming up in the Merlin shop area there and getting the boys
upset," but on the one occasion specifically delineated in the testimony that
places Atherton in Biagi's department during working hours, to the knowledge
of supervisory personnel, Biagi complained to Crisman and the corrective inter-
view issued. Employee Hamilton, who testified that he was once an officer of a
union local but ceased to be when he became a Christian (because he con-
sidered union activities incompatible with his religion), testified that Atherton
annoyed him at his job by trying to persuade him to sign a union card and that
he signed one in order to be rid of Atherton. Redinon testified that he wore a
union button as long as he was working with Atherton in order to get along with
the latter, and Crisman testified that Camacho asked to be transferred to a day
shift because he was afraid the Company would identify him with Atherton as
actively prounion. Night Superintendent Harris testified that he observed
Atherton out of his department and in January or February spoke to Crisman
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC . 1167
about it. Crisman, according to Harris, replied that he was having trouble with
Atherton and should have discharged him in December before Christmas on the
occasion when Atherton reported to work in an intoxicated condition. Harris
then inquired if Crisman had issued a corrective interview against Atherton.
Finally, Crisman's own testimony would indicate that Atherton was frequently
absent from his job and department during working hours. He admitted, how-
ever, that there were occasions when Atherton's work would take him out of
the inspection department during working hours, and that he never followed
to ascertain where he was or what he was doing on the occasion of his absences.
The weight to be accorded the evidence on Atherton's absences from his
department must be qualified in the light of certain factors :
1. His production, on the whole, appears to have been satisfactory. On the
one occasion when certain defective parts had passed inspection, it appears that
Atherton was absent for some if not all of the shift on which the defective parts
were passed and Ranger testified on cross-examination that Atherton's helper,
Camacho, admitted that he thought he may have stamped these parts during
Atherton's absence. Ranger also admitted on cross-examination that Winn
Shanks, a leadman during some period of Atherton's employment, though com-
plaining that he had observed Atherton reading a magazine, conceded that
Atherton's work was good both from the standpoint of "quantity and quality."
Crisman testified that he never had any complaints that Atherton was not keep-
ing up with production requirements E' Finally, it is apparent that production
records were maintained in the inspection department because Atherton was
reprimanded for removing a copy of them from the plant in order to "protect
himself," but no records were produced to substantiate a claim that Atherton's
production was not satisfactory at all times. It may well be questioned how it
was possible, were he absent from his department as frequently and for such
lengthy periods as it is expected that we shall infer from this record, he was
able at all times to maintain the level of production required of him.
2. There is not a single instance when Atherton was out of his department,
allegedly conversing with other employees during working hours, that any super-
visor of the department in which he was thus engaged directed him to leave
the department and it does not appear that any of the employees outside his own
department with whom he was conversing during working hours, were criticized,
warned, or reprimanded for stopping their work to listen to him or to engage in
conversation with him. I think we may reasonably assume that it takes at least
two to make a conversation.
3. Although portions of Crisman's testimony and memoranda that he wrote as
Atherton's leadman would indicate that he had reprimanded or warned Ather-
ton a number of times about being absent from his department, as it seems he
would have had these absences been so numerous and flagrant, the corrective
interview by Urban merely states that one time previously Crisman had spoken
to Atherton about this matter. This interview hardly represents an understate-
ment of the facts. And given Crisman's admitted state of hostility, it may further
be questioned why, if Atherton's conduct was all the Respondent's witnesses now
claim it was, Crisman did not earlier accede to Harris' suggestion, by way of
inquiry, that he issue a corrective interview against Atherton. In sum, I incline
to the belief that the testimony on Atherton's absences from his department dur-
m This testimony Is not In accord with Crisman's memorandum to Ranger of March 17
but Crisman 's admitted strong bias against Atherton must be borne In mind as well as the
further fact that between the writing of the memorandum and the time of testifying he
Dad severed his employment with the Respondent.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing working hours on matters not necessary to his work, is properly discounted to
a substantial degree, and that the Respondent's real concern lay elsewhere.
That Atherton was a leader in the Union's organizational campaign and
that the Respondent's supervisory personnel were aware of this, is firmly es-
tablished. He signed a union card in October 1950, wore his union buttons
openly, distributed union literature on the approaches to the Respondent's plant,
and, according to the credited testimony of George Arnold, the union's represen-
tative, spoke for the Union from the sound truck which the Union used outside
the plant during the closing weeks of the election campaign. His identification
as a union leader is further shown in Redmon's testimony that he wore a union
button in order "to get along with Atherton," and that, following an occasion in
December when Crisman threatened to discharge Atherton, he, Redmon, told
Atherton that he "should watch his step about the union activities because he
would get in trouble," and in Camacho's concern lest he be identified with
Atherton in the latter's union activities.
As noted elsewhere in this Intermediate Report, the Respondent and its su-
pervisory personnel, including leadmen, were deeply involved in their efforts to
prevent the Union from winning the bargaining election of April 20, and were
alert to all manifestations of the Union's organizing drive, from which it might
properly be inferred, lacking direct testimony, that due notice was taken of
Atherton's open espousal of the Union's cause. This, however, is not neces-
sary, for it was Crisman's credited testimony that in discussions centering on
the Union which lie had with Harris, Ranger, and Biagi, Atherton was the name
most frequently mentioned. Crisman further testified that 3 or 4 days before
the corrective interview was issued, Ranger said that Atherton was going to be
"bothersome" and the best thing to do was to get a corrective interview on
him and then the first thing he did wrong, to fire him. In his further examina-
tion on this topic, Crisman testified, concerning Atherton, "He is a troublesome
character. He will breed trouble wherever he is. Tex [Ranger] figured that he
was going to breed trouble for us."
Q. Trouble in what way?
A. We knew that he was agitating for the Union."
Urban, in testifying on the reasons which prompted him to rescind the cor-
rective interview issued by Crisman and to cause it to be reissued with a revised
text, was unconvincing to the degree that it was unmistakable that he was
deliberately withholding the actual reasons which prompted the revision.
Throughout his examination he testified that the reason for this action was that
the interview issued by Crisman was unauthorized and therefore unofficial,
though obviously if he approved the action taken by Crisman all he had to do to
make that action official was to indicate his approval. Superintendent Harris'
inquiry of Crisman in January or February as to whether or not he had issued
a corrective interview against Atherton would suggest on this point that a lead-
man of Crisman's status might properly initiate a corrective interview. Be that
as it may, the true reason for the withdrawal of the first and the substitution
of the second interview, as plainly disclosed by the texts of the respective inter-
views and the testimony of Urban's superior, Ranger, was that Ranger directed
Urban to delete from the interview all mention of Atherton's union activities.
Urban's withholding of the facts which actually prompted this action, together
with his confused and at times inconsistent testimony, renders his testimony as
S8 Ranger denied that he gave Crisman Instructions to get a corrective interview on
Atherton and then fire him, and Harris and Biagi denied similar statements attributed to,
them.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1169
a whole unreliable . Ranger 's testimony, although more forthright in the mat-
ter of the revised interview , does not in all respects square with the ascertain-
-able facts.
Ranger testified that he instructed Urban to rewrite the corrective interviews
issued by Crisman against Atherton and Sackos because he "Didn 't like the
wording of the correction interviews ," and because Crisman did not actually
overhear Sackos and Atherton "unionizing" the men, he instructed Urban to
leave these matters out of the corrective interview . Ranger further testified
that although Biagi reported to him on Atherton's "altercation" with employees
in Biagi 's department, Biagi said he did not know what Atherton was doing out
of his own area. Crisman , however , testified that Biagi reported that Atherton
was in his department "carrying on union agitation ," and Biagi testified that
when Atherton had left his department one of the employees of the group with
whom Atherton had been talking said , "He [Atherton] was giving us the same old
ballyhoo , don't believe the crap the company is sending you through the mail;
how cheap can you fellows get ? You let them feed you with a nickel raise." It
is obvious from this that Biagi knew the subject matter of the discussion between
Atherton and employees of his department , and I find credible Crisman 's testi-
mony on the report that Biagi made to him on Atherton's activities and find not
credible Ranger's testimony that Biagi reported to him that he did not know
the nature of Atherton's activities outside his own department.
I also find unconvincing Ranger's testimony to the effect that he was not
interested in the nature of Atherton's activities , but only in the fact that he
was away from his work station during working hours. The interview which
he had with Atherton some weeks prior to the latter's discharge discloses
Ranger 's interest . This was the occasion on which he reprimanded Atherton
for coming to work with liquor on his breath, for absenteeism, and other alleged
misconduct . "And," testified Ranger concerning this interview , "Charlie was
wearing a big union button so I discussed the Union with him." Ranger initiated
this phase of the interview by saying , "I see you are wearing a steward 's button,"
and then informed Atherton that while it was his privilege to engage in union
activities he must confine them to nonworking hours. It is significant , I think,
that in this same conversation in which Ranger drew attention to the fact that
Atherton was wearing a "big union button," he chose to reprimand the latter
and to warn him of discharge.
Upon consideration of the entire testimony , the situation that existed in the
Respondent 's plant just prior to the April 20 election , and what I believe to be
an almost complete absence of candor in the testimony of Respondent 's witnesses
concerning Atherton's discharge, I credit Crisman' s version of the circumstances
attending the issuance of the April corrective interviews against Atherton and
Sackos, including statements attributed by hinn to Ranger and Biagi in that
connection. Assuming arguendo, however, that the April 7 corrective interview
was not issued against Atherton to serve as a springboard for his discharge, as
testified to by Crisman, it did not itself constitute a discharge , made no reference
to practices now complained of other than Atherton's absence from his work
station during working hours, and stated : "A repeat of the above-mentioned
complaint by Atherton will be sufficient reason for immediate dismissal." With
Atherton, however, there was no repetition of the offense complained of but
nevertheless he was discharged after service of the single corrective interview.
We have, then, in justification for this action , Urban's testimony that the dis-
charge was precipitated by Atherton's intemperate reaction on being served
with the revised or substitute interview.
1 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On three occasions in rapid succession , according to Urban , Atherton claimed
he had been framed and threatened to do bodily injury to Crisman. The first of
these occurred when Atherton reported to Urban that Crisman was framing
him in the issuance of a corrective interview ; the second when Urban served
Atherton with the revised interview which omitted all reference to his union
activities ; and the third when Atherton returned to the plant after having been
advised by Ranger that he was discharged . Obviously, the last of these could
have had no bearing on a discharge already decided upon, and Urban admitted
on cross-examination that he had no clear recollection of this final conversation
with Atherton . Atherton 's feud with Crisman was known to the Respondent
as one of long standing , and as far back as December 1950 there appears to have
been an exchange of angry words . Redinon testified that following an argument
between them at or about that time, Atherton threatened to wrap a piece of pipe
around Crisman's head. It also appears that Atherton did not like being super-
vised by Crisman and on occasion stated that he needed no supervision. Such
an attitude and such statements , however, become more rational when it is
borne in mind that Atherton was a licensed inspector whereas Crisman ad-
mittedly knew very little of magnaflux inspection when he started on the same
shift with Atherton , and that as a licensed inspector Atherton could not be
required to substitute the judgment of a supervisor for his own in matters of
inspection . Finally, as Redmon admitted , Atherton obeyed instructions issued
by Crisman and Crisman himself testified that on occasions when he informed
Atherton that production requirements would have to be increased , Atherton
would respond , "Okay Cris , that's fine." In short, there is no evidence of actual
insubordination by Atherton and it would appear from Urban's action, soon
after becoming a supervisor in inspection , in directing Atherton to bring his
differences with Crisman directly to him, that the Respondent recognized that
not all the differences existing between the two were chargeable to Atherton.
When on the evening of April 7 Atherton came to Urban with his complaint that
Crisman was framing him with a corrective interview , it was because Urban had
instructed him to bring his grievances against Crisman to him , and it may well
be that Atherton "let off steam" during this interview . However, had Urban
taken his threats against Crisman seriously , he would hardly have sent him
back to his work station under Crisman that same evening . Whether or not
the service shortly thereafter of the same corrective interview in revised form
was a calculated effort to provoke him into another outburst, it certainly might
reasonably have been calculated to have that effect, and I am unable to credit
Urban's testimony that because of Atherton 's intemperate reaction to the service
of a second interview in so short a time, he actually feared that he would inflict
bodily injury on Crisman and therefore decided to recommend his discharge.
It is far more reasonable under all the circumstances to conclude , as I do con-
clude, that Atherton 's flare of temper on this occasion furnished the pretext for
ridding the department of its outstanding union advocate according to the
preconceived plan suggested by Ranger to Crisman.
The argument may well be made, and it will not be entirely lacking in force,
that conceding Atherton 's discharge was for union activities , it was nevertheless
for union activities carried on during working hours and in violation of the
February rule forbidding solicitations in the plant . The rule, as I have found,
was unlawful and invalid , and while , as the Board has often found, working time
is for work, I question whether this Respondent can successfully raise this
defense inasmuch as during the period preceding and following Atherton's dis-
charge, through its supervisors it was conducting a campaign in the plant against
the Union , calling employees from their work in an effort to persuade them to
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1171
vote against the Union, and generally showing a willingness to sacrifice produc-
tion to the cause of defeating the Union at the polls. I think in this situation
its position that its concern with Atherton was the loss of productive time oc-
casioned by his visiting outside his department, must fall before a realistic
appraisal which shows that its primary concern was not the loss of productive
time but the fact that Atherton was openly and aggressively advocating the
Union. In short, it was not his absences from his department during working
hours that gave rise to his discharge because despite such absences his produc-
tion was satisfactory, and on no occasion did the Respondent reprimand or
criticize those with whom he allegedly was conversing outside his department
during working hours; it was the organizing character of his activities that
caused his discharge. I accordingly find that his discharge was in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act 69
2. Eldridge L. Arnold was employed by the Respondent about August 7, 1950,
and was discharged on April 12, 1951. For the major portion of his period of
employment he was engaged in torquing and lubrication under the immediate
supervision of Jesse George Oliver. The foreman of the department was Quaite
Dodson. Arnold was very active on behalf of the Union, signed a union card
in September 1950, served as a union steward, distributed union handbills out-
side the plant during the months immediately preceding the April 20 election,
passed out union-authorization cards in the plant, and wore union buttons
including a steward's button. He received wage increases on the following
dates : October 16, 1950; December 9, 1950; January 5, February 27, March 28,
1951. His increase sheet of October 16 shows his grade average as 90, whereas
the average grade was 84.2. It is his credited testimony that his work at
torquing and lubrication was never criticized, and Oliver, his supervisor, ad-
mitted that his work was satisfactory.80
In February 1951 Oliver suggested that he remove his union button, but he
refused to do so and continued openly in his union activities. On receipt of his
February 27 wage increase, he complained to Oliver that he received an increase
of only 5 cents an hour, whereas his helper, Carl Turpin, received an increase
of 15 cents, which made Turpin's total wage higher than his. Oliver replied
that he was lucky 'to get the 5-cent increase ; that he was the first Negro ever to
work in the hangar ; and that if he did not stop "messing around" with the Union
and take off his union buttons he would be back on washracks. All, or substan-
tially all, of the washrack personnel were Negroes."
9 I have considered that Atherton did not testify though available to do so, and what
inferences I should draw from that fact, and after consideration have concluded that the
order and quantum of evidence presented to support an allegation is discretionary with
counsel and that the findings should be made on the record as submitted. To go beyond
this would be to engage in fruitless speculation.
60 Turpin testified that Arnold left his job frequently to engage in union activities, but
Dodson and Oliver testified to only one occasion when he was absent from his job for a
period, according to them, of 2 hours. It appears that they did not question him concern-
ing this absence. Arnold denied absence of 2 hours but admitted that on one occasion
he spent about 45 minutes at first aid
ei These findings are based on Arnold's credited testimony. Oliver admitted the con-
versation about the wage increase occurred ; testified that he explained that the amount
of the increase was controlled not by the man making the recommendation but by the
"people above" who decided whether an increase should be given; and denied all reference
to Arnold's union activities or that he had previously told Arnold to refnove his union
button. This witness, on cross-examination, was evasive, first testified that he was unable
to recall conversations with employee Sloan about the Union, but in further testifying
revealed that he did recall such conversations, and generally gave the impression of with-
holding information through the stock answer, "I don't remember."
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly after his conversation with Oliver, on about March 7, 1951, Arnold
was transferred to fabric teardown , while Turpin remained on torquing and lu-
brication. Other employees were transferred to teardown at about the same
time and there was credible evidence that large -scale production on a contract
for the repair of control surfaces was commenced at about that time. 2 This does
not, however , explain why Arnold, who was experienced in torquing and lubri-
cation and whose work had been satisfactory , should have been chosen for this
transfer , whereas Turpin , with less seniority and experience , was retained on
Arnold's old job. Particularly in view of Oliver 's threat that if he did not
stop his union activities he would find himself back on washracks , the transfer
gives rise to conjecture that it may have been motivated by his union activities.
There was , however, no change in rate of pay and the degree of difference in
the skills required on the two jobs is not fully delineated . I am not persuaded
that the allegation of discriminatory transfer is proved.
Supervisory personnel in teardown was : T. J. Jones, acting leadman ; Howard
Pearson, supervisor ; Ralph D. Sweet , foreman.
Shortly after his transfer to teardown, Arnold was reprimanded by Pearson,
who, according to Arnold's credited testimony, complained that while other em-
ployees in teardown were removing 2 control surfaces each, Arnold had removed
only 1. Arnold thereupon turned to Mickey Scholnick , also a new transferee
to this department , and asked him how many surfaces he had completed . Schol-
nick replied , "only one." 63 Nevertheless , Pearson caused a corrective interview
to be issued against Arnold bearing the notation , "Too sarcastic and production
unfavorable. Also too much loss of time." This interview, dated March 12, was
signed by Pearson, witnessed by Jones, and approved by Sweet. Arnold refused
to sign it . In explaining the notation relative to "sarcastic ," Pearson testified
that Arnold spoke in an angry tone of voice and did not "act like a gentleman."
It was Scholnick 's testimony , as Respondent 's witness , that Arnold spoke to
Pearson in obscene and insulting language . I do not credit Scholnick 's testimony,
believing as I do that had Arnold addressed Pearson in the words as testified
to by Scholnick , he would immediately have been subjected , and properly so, to
disciplinary action far exceeding a written reprimand.
On March 22, 10 days later, Pearson caused a second corrective interview to
be issued against Arnold for smoking in a restricted area. It was the testimony
of Respondent 's witnesses , Jones, Pearson, and Sweet, that Arnold, near or at
the close of a rest "break," was observed smoking within a few feet of a box
containing inflammable discard fabrics and bearing a no-smoking sign. Arnold
admitted smoking on this occasion, denied that he was smoking in a posted
or restricted area. He and several other witnesses for the General Counsel testi-
fied that the rules against smoking in restricted areas were not strictly enforced.
Arnold refused to sign the second corrective interview. Sweet testified that in
its issuance he had the approval of his superior, Sam Wilburn.
Shortly after receiving the second corrective interview, Arnold complained to
Sweet that Pearson apparently "had it in for him" and requested that he be
transferred to the dope shop.' This transfer was effectuated. Other transfers
from fabric teardown to the dope shop occurred at about the same time.
From the date of the transfer to Arnold's discharge on April 12, the dope shop,
like fabric teardown and various other departments or shops, was under Sweet's
"This contract required the removal of fabric from the control surfaces of airplanes,
recovering the surfaces , and painting and doping the new fabric.
&' Scholnick did not specifically deny this testimony but did testify that during the first
days of his transfer he was able to complete 11/2 to 2 control surfaces.
6 4 This finding is based on Sweet's testimony.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1173
general supervision .8° The immediate supervisor was Charles E. (Ernie ) Stevens,
and, under him, leadman Edward (Bud) Kern. Arnold's job in the dope shop
was to apply the liquid material known as "dope" to control surfaces. This was
done with a brush, about six coats being applied to each surface.
On the day of Arnold's discharge, Arnold was using a movable steel cabinet,
called a rollaway, on which he could place the materials used in doping the
control surfaces. This rollaway was owned by employee Leonard Billotte, who
had loaned it to Arnold during a period when Billotte was temporarily engaged
in other work. Shortly after the lunch break on April 12, Billotte came to
where Arnold was working to remove some equipment he needed from the
rollaway cabinet and during the time that he was engaged in removing this
equipment Arnold paused in his work. Billotte returned to the area where he
was occupied and almost immediately after he had left Arnold at the rollaway,
Sweet and Stevens came to Arnold and informed him that he was discharged
for "loafing." Arnold inquired if he was being discharged because of his union
activities and Sweet replied that he was not. He was taken to Wilburn's office
where his termination papers were prepared. Arnold, according to his credited
testimony, after having been refused a copy of his termination papers,6° asked
Sweet to give him a written statement of the reasons for his discharge, but this
also was refused. The Respondent's position at the hearing was that he was dis-
charged for repeated absences from his job during working hours.
The giving of the corrective interview of March 12 was not satisfactorily ex-
plained by Respondent's witnesses. At the time it was given Arnold had been
in fabric teardown only a few days and had no previous experience in that work.
Obviously, it would not be expected of him that he would immediately be able
to produce as efficiently as one experienced in this work, and yet Pearson, who
gave the interview, testified on cross-examination that he had no knowledge at
that time of whether or not Arnold had previous experience in fabric teardown.
Assuming. however, that his production was not satisfactory even for a newly
transferred and inexperienced employee, he would not normally have been
subjected to a corrective interview carrying with it a warning of discharge, until
after receiving an oral reprimand or criticism. If it is Respondent's position that
the interview was provoked by insolence, I am convinced that it was Arnold's
refusal to sign the interview, and thereby to admit his own negligence, which
constituted the sole basis for the claim of insolence.
I have some doubts that the second corrective interview for smoking in a
restricted area would have been issued against him except for his union activi-
ties, because there is much testimony that at the time this interview was issued,
the rule against smoking in restricted areas was not enforced, and there is no
evidence that Arnold had previously violated such a rule. I incline to the view
that normally no more than an oral reprimand would have issued, but at a later
date corrective interviews and disciplinary layoffs were made for such an in-
fraction of plant rules, and for this reason and because of what may well be
termed a lack of predominance of credible testimony on either side, I do not
find that this interview was unlawfully given.
Supervisors Jones, Pearson, and Sweet each testified that during the com-
paratively brief period that Arnold was in fabric teardown, he was repeatedly
absent from his job during working hours. Jones testified that he would be
86 At this time, Sweet was foreman over sheet metal , machine, welding , fabric, dope, and
paint shops.
ro It was contrary to Respondent's policy to furnish a discharged employee with a copy
of his termination papers and none of the termination papers on employees allegedly dis-
charged for union activities were offered in evidence during this proceeding.
257965-54-vol . 103-75
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
absent as much as 30 minutes at a time, 5 or 6 times a day, but admitted that
he did not know where Arnold went on these occasions. Pearson testified that
Arnold went to the tool crib in excess of the number of times other employees
found it necessary to make this trip, but testified concerning these alleged ab-
sences:
Q. You never asked him what he was doing at the tool crib did you?
A. Well, no.
Q. You never asked where he was going when he left his work area, did
you?
A. If he had a drill motor in his hand I presumed that he was going to
the tool crib.
Q. The fact is that you never did ask him where he was going or why he
was going any other place, is that correct?
A. I don't recall.
Concerning Arnold's absences from his job during the little more than 2 weeks
that he was in the dope shop, we have the testimony of Sweet and Kern, which,
if credited, would indicate numerous daily unexcused absences, and here again,
it appears that no serious effort was made to investigate the destination, object,
or circumstances of his many alleged "wanderings," there being only Kern's
testimony that Arnold was uncommunicative in the matter 87 Stevens, who
testified more forthrightly on incidents occurring in the dope shop, although
repeatedly instructed by Foreman Sweet to keep an eye on Arnold and see that
Arnold stayed on the job, on no occasion found it necessary either to criticize,
reprimand, or warn Arnold.
It appears from Sweet's testimony that he, also, kept Arnold under close
surveillance during the period that he was in the dope shop for he testified that
on several occasions he observed that Arnold was absent from the shop at least
once a day and that several times on the morning of the day of Arnold's dis-
charge he observed Arnold out of his department, observed Arnold visiting
other men in his department, and observed Arnold in the department but not
working. When it is considered that in addition to being foreman over the dope
and paint shops, Sweet also had jurisdiction over sheet metal, machine, welding,
fabric, and wood shops, it must be assumed that not content to rest on the in-
structions that he had given Stevens, whose supervisory jurisdiction was re-
stricted to the dope and paint shops, he himself was taking an extraordinary
interest in the working habits of Arnold 88 It is his further testimony that on the
day of Arnold's discharge, on observing that Arnold was idle, he specifically
suggested to Stevens that he direct Arnold to go to work and that Stevens did so
through his leadman, Kern. Further, according to Sweet, after working about
5 minutes, Arnold stopped and talked to an employee who came to remove equip-
ment from the rollaway which Arnold used for carrying the materials necessary
to the doping process. Observing that Arnold remained in that position after
this employee had left, Sweet said to Stevens, who was with him at the time,
"Let's terminate him." Arnold was thereupon discharged.
The circumstances attending Arnold's discharge were delineated in the testi-
mony of the witnesses with sufficient specificity for a close appraisal of the facts,
67 Arnold admitted that he left the dope shop on occasion to have his hands treated at
Respondent's first aid station. That this was not unusual is shown by the testimony of
Respondent's witness, O'Neal, the nurse, who testified that Bruce Rice came to her to have
his hands treated because of a condition caused by handling the doping materials.
61 The fact that the dope shop was in an open area of the hangar through which Sweet
passed some 10 times a day on his round of inspections , hardly accounts for his close
observation of the work habits of 1 employee.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1175
and when that appraisal is made it is clear that Arnold was discharged almost
immediately after he had paused in his work to permit employee Billotte to re-
move certain supplies from the rollaway which carried the doping materials.
Billotte, a leadman at the time he testified but a rank-and-file employee at the
time of Arnold's discharge, gave testimony which corroborated Arnold's in all
substantial respects : that Billotte was at the rollaway only a few minutes ; that
while he was walking away he saw Sweet and Stevens approach Arnold ; and
that, later, he saw Stevens go with Arnold toward the tool crib. Although
Respondent's supervisors observed this entire incident they did not speak to
Billotte concerning it before or after discharging Arnold.
It is difficult to understand precisely what it is in this incident that the Re-
spondent would have it believed constituted the "last straw" (Respondent's brief)
precipitating Arnold's discharge. If Billotte remained at the rollaway 5 minutes
or longer as indicated by Respondent's witnesses, and engaged in conversation
with Arnold during this period, it would appear that he was equally involved with
Arnold, and yet he was not even questioned concerning the incident and inasmuch
as Arnold was applying the dope from a bucket which rested on the rollaway, it
can hardly have been considered that he was derelict in his duties when he paused
long enough for Billotte to remove the materials he wanted from the rollaway.
Finally, it is clear from Billotte's testimony as well as Arnold's, and not sub-
stantially at variance with the testimony of Respondent's witnesses, that a negli-
gible amount of time elapsed after Billotte left the rollaway until Arnold was
discharged, and therefore there was no prolonged period of idleness such as would
normally constitute grounds for even the mildest of reprimands °°
I am convinced that the rollaway incident was not a precipitating cause or
factor in Arnold's discharge, but served merely as a pretext for getting rid of an
employee no longer considered desirable. Although admittedly a satisfactory
employee up to the date of his transfer to fabric teardown, an employee whose-
successive wage increases are substantial proof of his efficiency, we are asked,'
to find, on the basis of testimony that for the most part is of a flimsy unconvincing
character, with few exceptions unrelated to specific time, place, and circumstances,
that in the 30-odd remaining days of his employment he was habitually and
repeatedly, day in and day out, with the knowledge of his supervisors, absent
from his job during working hours, engaged in wandering-his supervisors knew
not where-and generally neglecting his work. I am unable to credit this
testimony.
It is needless to reiterate here Respondent' s antipathy toward the Union and its
campaign to defeat union representation of its employees at the polls. There can
be no question that Arnold, who distributed union pamphlets outside the plant,
who in the period immediately preceding the election addressed employees from
the Union's sound truck just off company premises , and who wore a large stew-
ard's button, was known to Respondent' s supervisory personnel as one of the
Union's leading advocates.40 Assuming that during the last 30 days of his em-
0 There was much conflict in the testimony as to whether Arnold was leaning or reclining
against the rollaway , as Respondent 's witnesses testified and as was indicated in Billotte's
testimony , or standing clear of the rollaway , as Arnold testified , but although litigated as
if it were an issue of major importance it seems to me to have small , if any, significance,
exactly what Arnold's position was during the brief period that Billotte was engaged in
removing materials from the rollaway.
70 Respondent 's brief refers to the fact that there was 70 to 72 union stewards among
the employees and some 25 to 30 employees who distributed handbills outside the plant.
It is apparent however from the testimony of the Union 's representative and that of other
witnesses that Arnold was 1 of the 2 or 3 most active union leaders among the Negroes,
and the Respondent was enough concerned about the organizational activities among its
Negro employees that it brought 2 Negroes from its Glendale plant to campaign actively
among the employees on washracks against the Union.
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployment, he was absent from his job on some occasions not accounted for in his
testimony, such absences would have occurred at a time when many of Respond-
ent's supervisors were calling employees from their jobs during working hours
to present the Company's viewpoint on the Union. As in the case of Charles
Atherton, discussed supra , it may well be questioned in the light of these facts
whether Respondent's concern was his absences from his job or the conviction
that while thus absent be was engaging in organizational work.
Upon consideration of the entire testimony, I am convinced that at least
from the date of Arnold's transfer to the dope shop, Sweet had him placed under
surveillance and that this action was taken not because of Arnold's neglect of
his work but because of his open advocacy of the Union which he had refused
to yield even when advised to do so by his supervisor, Oliver. Accordingly, I
find that Sweet's repeated instructions to Stevens to keep an eye on Arnold,
and Sweet's own frequent observations of Arnold, together with the corrective
interview of March 12, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. I further find that his discharge
was effectuated because of his union activities, and for the purpose of dis-
couraging affiliation with a labor organization, and therefore was violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. Plez Aldridge was employed by the Respondent in August 1950 for work
in the washrack area where he was engaged for the most part in interior cleaning
and brightening. During the period material to a decision on the issues herein,
Larry DiLucchio was foreman of the washrack area ; Hilding Nelson was super-
visor of station 3; and "Pappy" Hawks was another supervisor in the area.
Most or all of the hundred or more rank-and-file employees of the washrack
area, including Aldridge, were Negroes. Aldridge testified that he was a union
steward serving under Chief Steward Louis Liggins. Liggins was made a lead-
man some 2 or 3 weeks before the April 20 bargaining election and, according
to his credited testimony, at DiLucchio's direction removed his union badge upon
becoming a leadman. He testified that he gave this badge or button, a large one
approximately 3Y2 inches in diameter, to Aldridge. Aldridge testified that he
wore this button and that on the evening before the April 20 election DiLucchio
told him to take it off, whereupon he hid it under his jacket. Liggins, however,
testified that Aldridge stopped wearing the large button 2 or 3 weeks prior to
the election, following a visit to DiLucchio's office. Aldridge also testified that he
was given a 5-cent wage increase about the time he removed his union button and,
after appearing uncertain as to whether this increase was given before or after
he removed the union button, testified, "I got the raise, a little after I had taken
and hid the button was when I got the raise ." Aldridge also testified that on
occasions when union circulars were distributed outside the plant that he would
take some inside with him and hand them to employees of the washrack area.
He testified that both Nelson and Hawks had observed him doing this.
Aldridge was discharged by DiLucchio on April 24 a few days after the
election and the reason given for his discharge and now asserted as its cause,
was absenteeism. Admittedly his work in all other respects was satisfactory.
The Respondent introduced Aldridge's timecards for the period January 2 through
April 24, 1951, and these records show that during that period Aldridge was
absent a total of 10 times. The timecards of no other employees of the washrack
area were introduced and therefore there is no record basis for comparing his
absenteeism with that of other washrack employees. It was established in the
testimony of the witnesses, however, that absenteeism was prevalent in the
washrack area and that it was most marked on Saturdays and Mondays. Several
of these witnesses testified that Aldridge's absenteeism was higher than that of
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1177
the average among washrack employees . It also appears that DiLucchio warned
washrack employees on absenteeism . DiLucchio testified that he talked to
Aldridge personally 5 or 6 times over a period of months about the latter's
absenteeism and that about a month before the election he warned him that if
he continued being absent on Mondays he would be discharged. Aldridge's time-
cards show that of the 10 absences recorded, 7 were on Mondays, 1 on a Friday,
and 2 on Saturdays . His timecards further show that he was absent on 2
consecutive Mondays, April 2 and April 9, and 2 consecutive Saturdays, April 14
and April 21. DiLucchio testified that about 2 weeks before the election he
again reprimanded Aldridge for absenteeism. On the Saturday following the
April 20 election Aldridge was again absent and he was also absent on the
following Monday. DiLucchio testified that when he had not reported for work
by noon on Monday, April 23, he decided on his discharge after checking with
his supervisors, Nelson and Hawks, and learning from them that Aldridge had
not reported by telephone, or otherwise, on his absence. He testified that he
then called Superintendent Wilburn's office and instructed the secretary there
to make out termination papers for Aldridge.
On Tuesday, April 24, Aldridge reported for work , found his timecard in its
usual place, and worked for 2 hours. Supervisor Nelson, who had been advised
on the previous day by DiLucchio that Aldridge was discharged, on seeing Al-
dridge at work inquired of DiLucchio if the latter had changed his mind about
discharging Aldridge. On receiving an answer in the negative, Nelson, according
to his testimony, then advised Aldridge that he was discharged for absenteeism
and gave him directions for checking out.
Aldridge, who obviously had a poor recollection for dates, testified that he was
discharged about 2 weeks after the election and gave a somewhat involved
explanation concerning his absences on the Saturday and Monday immediately
preceding his discharge. It appears that all employees on washracks were
required to furnish certificates of citizenship and, according to Aldridge, his
absences on these dates were due to his efforts to obtain this certificate. He
testified that on the Saturday of his absence he talked to Supervisor Hawks and
told him that he would not be in that day because he had to take his birth
certificate or some document concerning it, which he had received from his
native State of Mississippi, to be notarized . He testified further that he tele-
phoned DiLucchio on Monday, a little after noon, and told him that he was
unable to get the matter attended to on Saturday and that he was attending to
it that day, and that DiLucchio instructed him to report to Hawks at the plant.
Aldridge did so, saw Hawks, showed him the letter that he had received from
Mississippi concerning his birth certificate, and, according to his testimony,
Hawks accepted his explanation for his absence. Aldridge then saw Liggins,
who told him, as it appears from Aldridge's confused and almost incoherent
testimony, that the letter which he had received was not sufficient inasmuch as
he still did not have his birth certificate. Aldridge then went home and did not
return to the plant until Tuesday at his usual checking in time. He found his
timecard in the rack, went to work, and worked until 9 o'clock, when Supervisor
Nelson notified him that he had been terminated. Nelson then took Aldridge to
the tool crib for checking in his tools, after which, according to Aldridge, he
directed Aldridge to Wilburn's office. Aldridge was unable to see Wilburn and
returned to washracks, where he met Nelson. His testimony as to the difficulties
encountered in obtaining his final wages is somewhat difficult to follow, but,
it appears that after several trips between Wilburn's office and the personnel
office, he was finally instructed by a woman in personnel to return the following
afternoon for his money. He testified that he returned on the following day
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and, after attempting to go back to his job, was sent to personnel where he
received his final pay and turned in his badge. Hawks did not testify, but
DiLucchio denied that he had any telephone conversation with Aldridge con-
cerning his absences and further testified that before discharging Aldridge he
checked with both Hawks and Nelson and they both informed him that Aldridge's
absence was unreported. Nelson testified that he was not consulted in the matter
of Aldridge's discharge although normally he was consulted in such matters.
In my opinion Aldridge's testimony does not afford a reliable basis for a finding
that he was discharged because of his union activities. I have credited his
testimony, over DiLucchio's denial, that the latter advised or instructed him to
remove the large steward's button which had been given to him by leadman
Liggins, because this is consistent with the credited testimony of Liggins that
DiLucchio required him to remove a steward's button on becoming a leadman
and other testimony that DiLucchio also suggested or directed employee Ward
to remove his union buttons, and for the further reason that I am convinced
that DiLucchio actively participated in the Respondent's campaign against the
Union. Directing the Negro employees to remove conspicuous union buttons
would have been consistent with his attitude of hostility to the Union, and con-
sonant with the Respondent's antiunion policy. I have found that DiLucchio's
actions in suggesting and directing employees to remove union insignia was
interference within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Aldridge's
testimony as a whole, however, is not persuasive. If he removed his union in-
signia at DiLucchio's direction, as he testified he did, it would appear that
thereafter there was less rather than more incentive for the Respondent to
discharge him for union activities. His testimony on the wage increase, which
after much wavering placed the increase as having been obtained immediately
after he removed his union button, would, if believed, afford further reason for
concluding that he had satisfied the Respondent that he was no longer an active
union adherent. If, however, he only removed the union button on the evening
before the day of the election, as he testified he did, he could not have received
a wage increase thereafter because he did not work for the Respondent there-
after, having been discharged on the Tuesday following the election. This would
not necessarily follow, however, were it a fact that he was not discharged until
some 2 weeks after the election, this also according to his testimony. Such was
not the fact and when his entire testimony on the several dates is related to the
dates as actually shown by the record, something more than a suspicion arises
that his testimony on a wage increase immediately following the removal of his
steward's button, was a deliberate falsification.
I further find unconvincing Aldridge's testimony in explanation of his absences
on the Saturday and Monday following the election. It appears unlikely that
2 days away from his job would have been required for what appears to have been
no more than a notarization of a single document, and furthermore I am by
no means convinced that his efforts to obtain a certificate of citizenship occurred
on dates given in his testimony. It was Liggins' testimony on rebuttal that
Aldridge spoke to him about the matter of getting a notarized birth certificate
in April or March after a bulletin had appeared right before or right after the
election. Liggins, however, showed uncertainty as to these dates, and, prior
to appearing on the witness stand, gave Respondent' s counsel a written statement
that Aldrige had contacted him in this matter some 2 or 3 weeks before the
election. Under examination by the General Counsel, however , Liggins testified
that he recalled that this colloquy with Aldridge occurred on the Monday follow-
ing the election . He testified that his recollection was refreshed by the fact that
Aldridge was not at work on the day that he spoke to shim concerning this matter.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1179
As a matter of fact, Aldridge was absent on successive Mondays and Saturdays
preceding his discharge. It is my opinion that Liggins' testimony is too wavering
and uncertain on this point to afford valid corroboration of Aldridge in the latter's
version of circumstances attending his discharge. Finally, it appears unlikely
that DiLucchio would have excused Aldridge's absence on Monday and discharged
him on Tuesday, or, had Aldridge's union activities been the cause of the dis-
charge, that DiLucchio would have waited until just after the bargaining election
to have effectuated it n
I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges the dis-
criminatory discharge of Plez Aldridge.
4. Marion Duty was employed by the Respondent in October 1950. He was
first assigned to the installation of instrument panels and equipment on the flight
line in hangar 2, under the supervision of John Sinkler, and after about a month
and a half there was transferred to the instrument shop, where he worked as a
machine mechanic until the date of his discharge, June 27, 1951. The super-
visory personnel in the instrument shop, directly or indirectly involved in his
discharge, were: John O. Harris, night superintendent; Michael (Mike) F. Ready,
assistant foreman ; and Robert Lundberg and Jack Rainsberger, supervisor and
leadman, respectively, of the instrument shop.
At the time of his employment Duty stated on his written application that he
suffered from a 50 percent disability resulting from services in the armed forces,
and requested work in the instrument shop because it would enable him to
remain seated most of the time. The nature of his injury caused him discomfort
when working in a standing position. After taking a trade test , he was directed
to Supervisor Sinkler who asked him if he could work on the flight line installing
instrument panels and instruments. Duty replied that he would try it for a
while but was not sure that his injured foot would stand up under the strain.
After his transfer to the instrument shop, according to his testimony, he was on
some 15 to 20 different occasions again sent to the flight line for temporary work
there along with certain other employees.
After his transfer to the instrument shop, on a date placed variously by the
several witnesses as occurring in late January or February or later, Duty, in
concert with employees of the instrument shop, Romero, Rose, and Huckaby,
sought a wage increase. They were directed to Sam Wilburn's office where dis-
cussion of their proposals ensued. Duty and Romero testified that they wore
union buttons at the time, whereas witnesses for the Respondent testified either
that they did not recall seeing union buttons on these employees or that union
buttons were not worn. The discussion that occurred in Wilburn' s office does
not appear to have significant bearing on the issues here, but it is contended that
this incident served to identify Duty as an active and leading union adherent,
provoking discriminatory treatment which led ultimately to his discharge.
On February 6, 1951, a corrective interview was issued against Duty and
bore the following text in penciled handwriting:
Making unnecessary conversation with other employees resulting in work
stoppage for both above-named and other employees . . . the lack of coopera-
tion in his work and with his superiors causing hardship in supervision and
production.
Lundberg and Rainsberger testified that this written reprimand was issued only
after they had repeatedly observed Duty away from his workbench engaging
71 Respondent sought to impeach Aldridge 's testimony by showing that be had been
convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude . The findings herein would be the same
had this evidence not been offered.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In conversations with other employees of the instrument shop, and after he had
been warned that if he did not stop these practices a corrective interview would
be issued against him . Superintendent Harris also testified that he had ob-
served Duty loitering after the close of lunch and smoke breaks and that he had
spoken to Lundberg about putting a stop to this practice of loitering. The cor-
rective interview was signed by Lundberg, Rainsberger, Harris, and Duty.
Some weeks thereafter, according to Lundberg, Rainsberger, and Harris, a
second corrective interview was issued against Duty, with contents similar or
identical with the February 6 interview. According to these witnesses, the
second interview was issued when Duty continued wasting his time and that of
other employees by engaging in unnecessary conversations during working
hours. Harris testified that following complaints on this score from Lundberg,
he had Duty brought to his office where he warned him that if he continued his
complained-of practices he would be discharged. According to Harris, Duty
said that Lundberg and Rainsberger were "stacking the cards against him,"
and he responded by telling Duty that out of respect for his feelings in this mat-
ter, he would not send a copy of the second corrective interview to personnel for
filing, but would retain it in his own possession. Duty testified on direct exam-
ination that he did not "recall" a second corrective interview having been Issued
against him, and on rebuttal denied that the meeting in Harris' office occurred, as
testified to by Harris, or that a second interview was issued. He testified that
on the issuance of the first corrective interview, Lundberg informed him that he
would not file the interview with personnel but would hold it in his private file.
Assuming that the second interview was issued, the Respondent's inability to
produce it left the date of its issuance in doubt, but the testimony was that it
followed the issuance of the first by a matter of weeks.
As noted elsewhere, an election was held on April 20 and the Union was de-
feated in its bid to become the employees' bargaining representative. There is
very little evidence of continued union activity among the employees subsequent
to that date. Duty testified that he continued to wear his union buttons, but
there is no further evidence of continuing union activity on his part.
On June 19, 1951, Lundberg caused to be circulated among the employees of
the instrument shop, for their signatures, a notice bearing the following text :
It has been noted that too much time is being wasted during hours, before
and after break and lunch time around the dial painting table.
Effective immediately all employees will refrain from loitering around
the dial painting table at any time during working hours. They are not to
go to the dial table except to pick up or leave work.
The dial table was set in a cubicle off the main floor of the instrument shop
and 3 or 4 female employees were regularly engaged in work there. A good
deal of testimony involved the amount of time spent by Lundberg as well as
some of the other male employees, including Duty, at the dial table.
Respondent's witnesses testified that despite the issuance of two corrective in-
terviews and repeated warnings, and the circulation of the June 19 notice, Duty
continued to disregard instructions and to engage in unnecessary conversations
with other employees during working hours. According to these witnesses, on
the night of his discharge Duty left his workbench shortly before the whistle
blew for the 12:30 break and walked to the inspector's table where he began
reading a newspaper. These witnesses differ as to the exact time when Duty
began reading the newspaper but it appears that it was not more than 15 minutes
before the break. Assistant Foreman Ready, who had a desk in the instru-
ment shop, though he did not spend a major portion of his time there, testified
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1181
that he came to his desk about 12 : 15 and noticed Duty leave his workbench. A
few moments later he observed Duty reading the newspaper at the inspector's
desk . Directing Lundberg to accompany him, he walked to where Duty was
reading the newspaper and told him that he was discharged.
It is the Respondent 's position that Duty's discharge was caused by his dis-
regard of numerous reprimands and warnings concerning his practice of wasting
his own and the time of other employees by engaging in unnecessary conversa-
tions in the instrument shop , the noncooperative attitude reflected by this course
of conduct , and the generally disruptive effect of his disregard of shop discipline.
Among other things, the Respondent relies on the loud and distracting noises
Duty made in applying the air hose which he used in drying machine parts after
he had cleaned them . The testimony as to these distracting and unnecessary
noises being undisputed and not inherently incredible , is credited . It is not
believed that this constituted a major factor in his discharge , particularly since
it was never the subject of a specific reprimand or warning from any of his
superiors with the possible exception of leadman Rainsberger , but it may well
have been a contributing factor and was not, in my opinion , a matter of no
importance . Granted that this was no more than a sort of sport engaged in
by Duty and all in good clean fun, and that there were other distractions at
times in the instrument shop such as a barber shop quartet and two radios
with different programs turned on at the same time, nevertheless it was shown
to my satisfaction that some of Duty's fellow employees were disturbed in
their work by these unnecessary noises and , in association with other evidence
indicating that Duty was endowed with something less than a stern devotion
to duty, their occurrences may well have caused his supervisors to regard this
practice as still another example of disruptive and noncooperative conduct.
Passing to the more substantial aspects of the case, I am unable to find that
Duty's temporary assignments to work on the flight line on some 15 to 20 oc-
casions after his transfer to the instrument shop were discriminatorily motivated.
There can be no doubt that his supervisors knew that he disliked working on
the flight line and I think they were acquainted with his physical infirmity. It
is also clear from the testimony of Byron Brees , an acting leadman on the
flight line during the period in question , that employees from the instrument shop
objected to these assignments , and his testimony that some of them changed
the clothes they otherwise would have worn in the instrument shop corroborates
Romero's testimony that flight line work was "dirty" as compared with work
in the instrument shop. It is clear , however , that several instrument shop
employees were on occasion assigned temporarily to the flight line, and I am
not convinced that Duty's physical handicap was such that his occasional assign-
ments to the line imposed an unreasonable hardship . He worked for a month
and a half on the line before transferring to the instrument shop and it is not
shown that he suffered any injury from this work , and 15 to 20 assignments
over a period of more than 6 months would not appear to reflect a punitive
purpose.
I am also unable to believe that Duty's visit to Wilburn 's office with 3 other
employees of the instrument shop , in the matter of a wage increase , started a
chain of discriminatory acts against him. The spokesman for this group was not
Duty but Rose, and this record contains but scant evidence of discriminatory
practices directed against Rose or Huckaby and Romero , the other 2 em-
ployees of the group . Duty was insistent that on this occasion he and the
other employees wore union buttons , and testified with equal certainty that the
visit was made prior to the date on which he received his first corrective inter.
view . This corrective interview was issued on February 6 and Duty did not
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign a union card until March 7. I think it is improbable that he was very
active in the Union more than a month before he signed a card, and I am of the
opinion that the interview in Wilburn's office on wages occurred on a date sub-
sequent to February 6.
The testimony of Respondent's witnesses on Duty's continued disregard for
the instructions and warnings of his supervisors all the way up to the date of
his discharge on June 27, despite the issuance of a second interview accompanied
by a warning of discharge if the practices continued, represents, I have no doubt,
an exaggerated account of his actual misconduct, and is properly discounted not
only because of what I believe to be the obvious character of the exaggeration but
because it is clear that at least up to a date shortly before Duty's discharge,
discipline was slack in the instrument shop and there was a great deal of
conversation among employees during working hours. This was particularly
true during the weeks immediately preceding the April 20 election when there
was much discussion of the Union, discussions initiated in many instances by
Lundberg and Rainsberger. Also, for a period employees were permitted to leave
their work stations for coffee and for relaxation from the close and confining
work in which they were engaged.
I find also that in the month or two preceding the election it was known to
supervisory personnel that Duty favored the Union. This was fully revealed
in discussions he had with his supervisors in which he was questioned concern-
ing his "grievances" and answered the arguments they advanced against union
representation. Duty, however, was only one of a group of prounion employees
in the instrument shop and it does not appear that he was any more active for
the Union than were others in the group or that Respondent would have regarded
him as a union leader.
I do not find the testimony of Respondent's witnesses on the second corrective
interview convincing. It allegedly was made out in Harris' handwriting and
was kept in Harris' desk, but Harris was unable to produce it and his testimony
concerning its contents is an accurate description of the first corrective inter-
view. Furthermore, if a first corrective interview had been issued and Duty
ignored it and continued his objectionable practices, I doubt that Harris would
have had such concern for Duty's cry of persecution that he would have agreed
not to make the second corrective interview a matter of record by having it
placed in Duty's personnel file, as was customary. I think it more likely that
Lundberg, who had worked on the flight line with Duty and with whom he had a
pleasant association in the past, would have agreed to withhold the first corrective
interview from filing, as Duty testified he did. While doubting the accuracy of
Respondent's version of a second corrective interview-a doubt strengthened by
my conviction that neither Harris, Lundberg, nor Rainsberger answered fully
and without equivocation questions put to them on their preelection conversations
with employees concerning the latter's union activities-I did find convincing
Harris' testimony on a conversation he had with Duty concerning Duty's failure
to observe shop discipline. Harris was not a candid witness but neither was he
a glib one, nor one likely to improvise convincingly, and his testimony on what
he said and what Duty said on that occasion impressed me as his actual recollec-
tion of an actual conversation.
Next there is the testimony to the effect that not only Duty but several
other male employees spent a considerable amount of time during working hours
at the dial table talking to the girls who worked there and further testimony
which placed Lundberg himself at the dial table for long periods of time con-
versing with Hilda Dupont. The underlying current of this latter testimony
was that he was not conversing with her about matters pertaining to her work,
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1183
but I think it is equally evident that neither was he conversing with her about
her union activity or lack of it." It is material, however, to consider and to
weigh whether Duty's absences from his workbench were any more frequent and
prolonged than was customary among employees of the instrument shop, and
after discounting to an appreciable degree the testimony of his supervisors, there
is enough residue of credible evidence remaining to convince me that they were.
The issuance of a corrective interview as early as February 6, is one factor that
leads to this conclusion; his playboy diversions with the air hose another; and
another is that his discharge came months after the Union had been defeated at
the polls and there is no substantial evidence that he engaged in any union ac-
tivities after April 20, the date of the bargaining election ; finally, and most im-
portant, well in advance of his discharge, measures had been taken by the super-
visory personnel to tighten shop discipline, to stop, among other things, unex-
cused absences outside of break periods for the purpose of visiting the coffee-
shop, and, by Lundberg's memorandum of June 19, to stop loitering during work
hours around the dial painting table." These are factors which distinguish
very materially the actual circumstances attending Duty's discharge from those
attending the discharge of Arnold and Atherton, previously discussed, although
otherwise there is some parallelism to be observed in the cases.
Except for these factors, and what I believe to have been Duty's continuing
indifference to shop rules even following the circulation of the June 19 memo-
randum, I would regard with considerable skepticism the circumstances which
precipitated his discharge. I am convinced that immediately preceding his dis-
charge Duty was standing at the inspector's desk reading a newspaper, and do
not credit his testimony to the contrary, but whether this was 5 minutes or 1G
minutes before the break period when he would have been free to leave the shop,
it was nevertheless no longer period of time than normally might have been,
allowed instrument shop employees for relaxation from close and confining work,
and except for a course of conduct which had already aroused the censure and
resentment of his superiors would not, I am sure, have been considered cause for
discharge. Under the circumstances of this case, however, his reading of the
newspaper before the rest period, i. e., during working hours, may indeed have
been the proverbial last straw.
In reaching these conclusions I have not ignored testimony which I shall now
allude to, briefly, testimony which if fully credited would tend to establish a
discriminatory motive in the matter of Duty's discharge. Ernest Romero, an
employee of the instrument shop and 1 of the 4 employees who went to Wilburn's
office seeking a wage increase , testified concerning numerous conversations he
had with Lundberg concerning the Union, and these generally followed the pat-
tern of supervisor-employee discussions of the Union preceding the April 20
election as disclosed in the testimony of several credible witnesses. I have no
doubt that these conversations occurred and occurred substantially as testified
to by Romero. Not equally convincing was his further testimony that Lundberg
told him that if he continued his union activities he would be transferred to the
'+' I have not understood why counsel found it necessary to spend much time and energy
in debating through their witnesses whether or not Lundberg spent more of his working
time talking to Hilda Dupont than Duty spent in talking to Nina Volckman, since it is
evident that in either case, accepting the testimony at its full value, it establishes nothing
except that there was an attraction at the dial table which was social rather than political
in its implications.
48 There is no evidence and, as I understand it, no claim that this rule was designed to
stop union discussions or had any bearing on union activities. It is clear from Romero's
testimony , and Volckman 's testimony , that some of the employees resented what they
believed to be favored treatment accorded Hilda Dupont , and that factionalism and friction
between groups, rather than union activities , gave rise to the June 19 memorandum.
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
flight line , presumably on a permanent basis, despite the fact that he was suffer-
ing from ulcers ; that following the election, Lundberg accused him of slowing
down in his work because the Union was not successful at the polls ; that in May,
in a conversation which occurred in a local cafe, Lundberg told him that Wilburn
and Harris were mad because he and others had gone to see Wilburn about a
wage increase , also mad about his union activities, that they were having him
watched ; that in a later conversation, Lundberg said that Duty and Rose were
going to be fired, but that Huckaby and Romero would be kept on the job, that he,
Lundberg, had talked Harris and Wilburn out of firing Romero and Huckaby;
that after Duty had been discharged, Lundberg said, "You know what happened.
You had better watch your step or it will happen to you," and further said that
Duty had been fired because he was an observer for the Union at the April 20
election. It strains my sense of credulity to believe that Lundberg would so
unburden himself to a rank-and-file employee whom he knew to be an active
union member, and there is nothing in the testimony of any of the other wit-
nesses which would indicate that Lundberg was so rash. Furthermore, it is
shown that Huckaby quit his employment prior to the April 20 election and
therefore it can hardly be believed that in a conversation occurring in May,
Lundberg made the references to him as testified to by Romero. Finally, in
view of Lundberg' s denials and the inherent improbability that he made the
statements attributed to him by Romero, and the generally diffuse and uncer-
tain manner in which Romero testified in these matters, I am unable to give full
credit to Romero's testimony or to draw conclusions on Duty's discharge adverse
to the Respondent from it. More convincing is Duty's own testimony that about
a month prior to his discharge he asked leadman Rainsberger when he could
expect another wage increase, his last having been granted in March, and at
Rainsberger's suggestion the conversation continued in the privacy of the stock-
room where Rainsberger told him in effect that because of his participation in the
recent union drive, his pay was as high as it would ever he with the Respondent,
that his chances were no good, and he should attempt to get a job somewhere else.
Rainsberger admitted the conversation concerning a wage increase occurred and
that he told Duty that if he was not satisfied he should seek work elsewhere, but
denied the further implications of Duty's testimony. I credit Duty's testimony
as to the substance of that conversation and find that Rainsberger' s statements
were coercive, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, but this warning by a
minor supervisor, though not without significance, is, in my opinion, of insufficient
weight to overbalance the several positive factors, set forth above, which convince
me that Duty's conduct, aside from his union activities, furnished sufficient
provocation for his discharge and was responsible for it.
After sifting and weighing carefully the testimony of Romero, Volckman,
Lundberg, Rainsberger, Ready, Harris, Wilburn, and Duty himself, the principal
witnesses in the matter, none of whom, in my opinion, testified entirely without
bias and its attendant exaggerations and equivocations, and the entire record in
the case, I conclude that the General Counsel has not established by a predomi-
nance of credible evidence that Duty was discharged in violation of the Act.
5. Robert Sayre was employed by the Respondent in August 1950 as an aircraft
anechanic and worked on the night or swing shift until a date in May 1951, when
he was transferred to the day shift. He early identified himself with the Union's
organizational drive and was openly and conspicuously active on behalf of the
Union throughout the campaign which preceded the bargaining election of April
20. In March he represented the night shift employees in a conference with
representatives of the Respondent which was held in the Board's Regional Office
at Los Angeles, for the purpose of executing a consent-election agreement. Some
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1185
time between the date of this conference and the April 20 election he was directed
to Superintendent Wilburn's office, where Wilburn engaged him in a conversation
on the advantages and disadvantages of union representation . Night Super-
intendent Harris participated in the discussion.
I have found elsewhere in this report that Wilburn summoned several union
leaders among Respondent 's employees to his office where he unlawfully ques-
tioned them concerning their reasons for favoring the Union. Among other
matters, Sayre, when questioned by Wilburn as to his grievances, referred to the
fact that because of the pregnancy of his wife and her ill health attending that
condition he had attempted in vain to obtain through Harris a transfer from
the night to the day shift. It is Sayre's credited testimony that in response to
this complaint Wilburn said that any time in the future that he had a grievance
he could bring it directly to Wilburn. Wilburn also asked if he still wanted the
transfer to the day shift, and Sayre responded that he was no longer interested
because his wife was in improved health and he wanted the differential in wages.
obtained on the night shift.
A few days before May 10, the day his child was born, the transfer to the day-
shift was effectuated. Because of the wage differential Sayre did not at that
time desire a permanent transfer to days. It is his credited testimony that
Harris informed him that the transfer would be on a temporary basis. After
having been transferred, however, he was advised by his leadman that the
transfer was permanent.
When he had been on the day shift for some 3 weeks, he was transferred from
hangar 1 to hangar 3 but continued to work on superchargers , as formerly. His
supervision in hangar 3 was Quaite Dodson, Jr., foreman ; Inscoe, assistant fore-
man ; Hanna , supervisor ; and Fillman , leadman . On June 25, a Monday , Inscoe
informed him that he was being transferred that day to teardown and gave no
reason for the transfer . Hanna told Sayre that his work was satisfactory and
that he knew nothing about the transfer. Fillman, in Sayre's presence, told
Dodson that he thought Sayre's transfer was a mistake, and Inscoe told Dodson
that it was not Sayre, but another employee, that he wanted transferred. Dodson
replied that there was no mistake and the transfer could not be changed because
the "orders had come from higher up." Inscoe directed Sayre to report to
DiLucchio, foreman in charge of teardown and washracks.74
From DiLucchio's office Sayre was sent to report for work in the teardown
area, and, after being questioned concerning his experience, was first assigned
to dismantling superchargers. He had been on this job only a short time when
he was assigned to work on top of the wing of a plane where he was engaged
in removing equipment. Previously, his work had been on the inside of the
hangar ; his work in teardown was in the open and at a season of the year when
temperatures ran high in the vicinity of Tucson. Assigned with him on the
wing job was John T. Baron, an employee experienced in this work. Baron,
who had been informed that he was getting a helper, explained to Sayre how
the work was done. He continued to work with Sayre on top of the wing until
after the lunch break, when Assistant Foreman W. P. Curtis took Baron off the
wing and assigned him to other work, leaving Sayre alone.
Work on top of the wing in this climate and at this season exposed the worker
to the excessive heat of the aluminum surface of the wing. When Baron was
called off this job, he informed Sayre that the latter would have to remain on
that job because orders had been issued to keep him on top of the wing in the
74 These findings are based on Sayre's credited testimony . Inscoe and Flilman did not
testify. Hanna and Dodson gave different and, in some respects, conflicting versions of
circumstances attending the transfer.
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sun for the rest of that day. Sayre remained at the job until the 2: 15 rest
period, when he received leadman McMahan's permission to leave his job for the
purpose of going to the restroom. Sayre continued, however, to Wilburn's office
where he saw Wilburn and asked the latter why he had been transferred to
teardown. Wilburn replied that he should see either Curtis or DiLucchio.
Sayre then left Wilburn's office, but before he had returned to his job Curtis
questioned him about his absence and received Sayre's admission that he had
visited Wilburn's office to complain about his assignment and had not received
permission to be absent from his job for that purpose. Because of the unexcused
absence, a corrective interview was issued against Sayre, stating that he had
left his work area without permission, and Sayre signed it. The form of the cor-
rective interview bore a warning that a repetition of the offense or "any other
circumstances which call for disciplinary action" might result in dismissal.
After receiving the corrective interview Sayre returned to his assignment on
the top of the wing where he remained for the balance of that work shift. He
testified credibly that the surface of the plane was hot enough to blister his
hands on touch, that no shade of any kind was provided, and there was no pro-
tection between his feet and the hot metal except his socks and shoes. He
further testified credibly that although there were 15 to 20 employees in tear-
down at that time, he was the only one working on top of a wing.
When he reported for work on the following day, he was asked if he under-
stood how to operate a jackhammer and replied that he did not. Nevertheless
he was instructed to get the larger of 2 jackhammers, weighing approximately
200 pounds, and Supervisor Barnes then directed him to a spot between 2 pits
sunk in a concrete surface where a steam boiler was to be installed, and told him
that he was to start digging a ditch in the direction and according to the speci-
fications given him by Barnes. The purpose of the ditch was to provide con-
nections between utility lines and the new installation. After Barnes had shown
him how to operate the jackhammer and Sayre started digging , he complained
that the bit was dull. Barnes attempted to get a sharper one but was unable
to find one and Sayre was required to continue with the dull bit. According to
Sayre's undisputed testimony, after he had operated the jackhammer about an
hour, Supervisor H. H. Hawks told him that the water pipe with which the ditch
was supposed to provide connection would be about 3 feet from the line where he
was digging. Sayre continued, however, according to Barnes' instructions, and
was hampered by having to remove the dirt and debris from the ditch as he
proceeded, inasmuch as he was afforded no helper. He testified credibly that
his feet were blistered from contact with the surface of the plane on the previous
day and that the vibration of the jackhammer hurt his stomach (Sayre was 5
feet 10% inches in height and weighed 266 pounds). At about 1: 30 he went to
the first aid station where the nurse in charge authorized him to go home.
When he reported back for work on the following Monday, he started to go
back on top of the plane. Barnes told him that if it got too hot he should come
down and work under the wing and then go back on top, but not to carry on
throughout the day. He testified that he remained on top of the plane until noon
that day. On the following day he was again put on the jackhammer, this
time to dig mooring holes in concrete. Sayre informed Supervisor Barnes that
he did not know how he would be able to keep up that kind of work because the
blisters on his feet still had not healed. At the morning break, Sayre went back
to first aid where the nurse again authorized him to go home. It is not alleged
that he was thereafter subjected to discriminatory treatment.
As to Sayre's transfer from hangar 3 to teardown, DiLucchio testified that he
requested Wilburn for additional help in teardown and the transfer was ef-
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO.) INC. 1187
fectuated pursuant to this request. Wilburn denied that he designated Sayre as
the transferee. Dodson testified that the request for a transfer came to him
from B. B. Jackson, Wilburn's assistant superintendent, who advised him that
a man was needed with teardown experience. Dodson testified that upon inquiry
he learned that Sayre had teardown experience. It appears that Sayre worked
for a short time in teardown when first employed by Respondent. Dodson denied
that he stated to anyone that Sayre was selected for the transfer on orders from
"higher up." Hanna denied that he had any conversations with Sayre relative
to the latter's transfer. Curtis, DiLucchio's assistant foreman, testified that on
the Friday preceding Sayre's transfer on Monday, DiLucchio informed him
that they were getting a man in teardown that they wanted to put to work in
the sun and to assign to hard labor so that he would appreciate his job in the
hangar and also for the reason that they wanted to discourage him to the extent
that he would quit. Baron, a witness for the Respondent, testified on cross-
examination that Curtis told him they were being watched with respect to Sayre
and that he, Baron, had better not have anything to do with Sayre or otherwise
he might lose his job.
Curtis' testimony, denied by DiLucchio, was somewhat confused and not
convincing in all its details," but Baron was a forthright and convincing witness
whose testimony I credit in toto and there is no reasonable explanation for
Curtis having warned him with respect to Sayre were Sayre's transfer merely a
routine one. Nor does the record explain satisfactorily why it was necessary to
transfer Sayre to teardown. There was no showing that the work to which he
was assigned required a high degree of skill, or skill requiring prior experience
in teardown, or that his services were particularly needed there. Baron, to
whom he was assigned as a helper for a brief time, testified that he was not behind
the rest of the teardown crew in his work, and Barnes admitted that at the
time Sayre was assigned to operate the jackhammer it was not a rush project,
although it later became one. Assuming, however, that there were economic
reasons for the transfer, this would not explain why Sayre, who had been in
Respondent's employ for many months and who apparently had given satisfactory
service," should have been assigned, on transfer, to work of a particularly
arduous and punishing character. Although Curtis credibly testified, and in
this was to some degree substantiated by Barnes, that a new employee in tear-
down was ordinarily afforded different assignments until it was ascertained
where he could work to best advantage and that he normally would work with
an experienced employee for a substantial period of time, Baron was not per-
mitted to work with Sayre for more than a few hours before he was called off
of that job and assigned to another. Baron testified that when he started in
teardown he was assigned to work with an experienced man who helped him
learn the job and that the two of them worked as a team for a week or two after
his employment. He denied, on questioning by the Respondent, that he was
permitted to help Sayre in the same manner that he himself had been helped
when he was broken in.
The issuance of a corrective interview against Sayre when, without permis-
sion, he went to Wilburn's office, is further evidence of a punitive design. Prior
to the bargaining election, when Wilburn was attempting to persuade him to
yield his allegiance to the Union, Wilburn appeared sympathetic to his plight
1" I do not, however, regard his testimony that he was taller than Sayre, which was not
the fact, as having a serious bearing on his credibility. The difference in the proportions
of their respective physiques may well have given him that impression.
W As indicated by successive wage increases prior to the election, and the fact that, as
he credibly testified, his work was never criticized.
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in being unable to obtain a transfer to a day shift , and invited him in the future
to bring whatever grievances he had to the production superintendent 's office,
but when Sayre came to inquire why he had been transferred to teardown the
only response he got from Wilburn was to see his immediate supervisors in tear-
down , and because of the unauthorized visit to Wilburn 's office he was subjected
to a corrective interview, although he had received no prior reprimand or warn-
ing during his substantial period in Respondent 's employ
Finally , his assignment to the jackhammer despite his inexperience and un-
fitness for such a job arose out of no emergency because Barnes admitted that
it was not a rush job at the time he was given the assignment , and is inconsist-
ent with the contention that Sayre's transfer from hangar 3 to teardown was
effectuated because of a need of additional employees in teardown with tear-
down experience-a basis on which Dodson testified Sayre was selected for
transfer. Leadman McMahan admitted that superchargers were dismantled
every day during this period, and it would appear that if experience meant any-
thing Sayre would have been given this assignment regularly because of his
familiarity with superchargers.
Much testimony was adduced, and photographs offered, on the point of
whether Sayre was assigned to the correct location for opening the concrete
with a jackhammer. Curtis testified that DiLucchio indicated the spot where
Sayre was to start digging and said that although it was the wrong place, it
would discourage Sayre and cause him to quit. This was denied by DiLucchio.
Barnes testified that he assigned Sayre to the job and had him start digging at
a spot between the two pits where he "judged" the pipe to be. Although there
were maps which showed the exact location of the pipe and DiLucchio had
knowledge of them, Barnes admitted that he had never seen the maps at the time
he showed Sayre where to begin. There is also Sayre's undisputed testimony
that Supervisor Hawks told him that the pipe was some 3 feet from where he
was digging and, if I have read DiLucchio's testimony correctly, it stands for an
admission that the ditch started by Sayre did not lie where the ditch providing
the connections was ultimately dug. In any event, it seems doubtful that with
maps available showing the exact location of the underground pipes and con-
duits, the assignment to drill through concrete would have been made in such
careless fashion had it been made in good faith. The circumstances attending
the incident support and corroborate Curtis' testimony that the assignment was
a deliberate attempt to discourage Sayre to a degree that he would quit his em-
ployment, and I find that this was the fact .17
Sayre's assignment to the jackhammer immediately following assignment to
the top of the plane in heat severe enough to blister his feet-preceded by many
71 In reaching the conclusions herein I have considered carefully the testimony of
Respondent 's witnesses who testified as to customary practices of working on top of the
wing during hot months and in operating the jackhammer In the main, they give little
support to Respondent 's position . Robert W. Serino, who was made a leadman while the
hearing was in progress , admitted on cross-examination that most teardown crews had
their work scheduled so as not to be on top of the plane during the hottest part of the day,
and that jackhammer asslpnments were handled on a voluntary basis, with 1 man
working % to 1 hour at a time. James A. Jackson admitted that it was left to him
insofar as he was able to, to adjust his work so as to work under the wing during the hot
part of the day, and on top during the cooler parts. Walter Racki, who received a wage
increase during the hearing, testified that he had to stay on top of the wing until he got
the job done, regardless of summer heat, and with respect to the jackhammer, testified
both that he received a helper when using the large jackhammer and that he operated it
without assistance . It was Curtis ' credited testimony, however, that Racki was hired
mostly for construction work and that when he ran the large jackhammer it was cus-
tomary to give him a helper.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC. 1189
months of indoor work-with disregard of his physical unfitness for such work,
in contravention of normal practices, and without consideration of his experience,
shows clearly the punitive motive underlying his transfer, the desire and intent to
discourage and harass. I am unable to find anything in this record which would
satisfactorily explain such a motive and such an intent except the fact that Sayre
resisted Wilburn's efforts to persuade him to support the Respondent in its
campaign against the Union and continued openly and actively in his union
affiliation.
The Respondent argues that with the election past and the Union defeated at
the polls, such a motive no longer existed, but the facts in Sayre's case require
the conclusion that not all of Respondent's union animus evaporated with the
Union's defeat. To the point is an incident involving employee Edward B. Casey
and Supervisor Hershal E. Ellis. Prior to the election, Ellis, in attempting to
persuade Casey to give up his union affiliation, related his own experience as a
shop steward in a place of prior employment where, after having filed a grievance,
he was given an assignment drilling holes in concrete and when he stopped to
rest was discharged. "That is liable to happen to you," Ellis told Casey." Fol-
lowing the election, B. B. Jackson, assistant to Wilburn, to whom Ellis had
related the story he had told to Casey, in the presence of other supervisory
personnel directed Casey to draw the sledge hammer and star drill from the
toolroom and remove an obstruction in the concrete. When Casey actually
started to work on the job, Jackson relieved him of the assignment amid laughter
of the supervisory personnel. Ellis testified that the whole incident was treated
as a joke but it could hardly have been a joking matter to Casey inasmuch as
the reasonable effect of it was to humiliate and demean him before his fellow
workmen. This incident and Ellis' statements to Casey I find constituted coercion
and restraint in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. With Sayre, the
succession of punitive assignments held no pretense of levity.
I find that by its transfer on June 25 of Sayre from hangar 1 to teardown, by
the assignments which followed the transfer as set forth above, and by the cor-
rective interview issued against him, the Respondent discriminated in regard
to Sayre's conditions of employment in order to discourage membership in a labor
organization, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and thereby interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
To effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that the Respond-
ent cease and desist from engaging in conduct found herein to constitute unfair
labor practices, and take the following affirmative action :
Offer to Charles Atherton and Eldridge Arnold immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
as Ellis' testimony, calculated to pass this entire incident off as a joke , is not credited.
His union animus was apparent and his testimony glib and nonpersuasive.
257965-54-vol. 103--76
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of discrimination to the date of offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period (Crossett Lumber
Company, 8 NLRB 440). The back pay shall be computed in the manner estab-
lished by the Board, and the Respondent shall make available to the Board
payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of the amount due (F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289).
Post notices addressed to its employees stating that it will not engage in the
conduct found herein to constitute unfair labor practices.
The character and scope of the unfair labor practices engaged in indicates an
intent generally to interfere with the organizational rights of employees and
constitutes, potentially, a threat of commission of other unfair labor practices in
the future. The remedy should be coextensive with the threat. It will there-
fore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act. (May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.)
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CoNCLusIoNs of LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, and conditions of employ-
ment of Charles Atherton, Eldridge Arnold, and Robert Sayre, thereby discour-
aging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of 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 (a) (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.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practies by discriminating
in regard to the hire, tenure and conditions of employment of Marion Duty
and Pies Aldridge ; promising benefits to employees if they would remove their
union buttons ; causing the Union to be hung in effigy ; questioning Barbara Ruf-
fin and leadman Knapp concerning their union activities ; transferring, isolating,
or confining Robert Atkinson, N. Straley, and Bruce Rice.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
VALENCIA SERVICE CO. and UNIDAD GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES DE
P. R. Case No. 24-C.4-227. March 25, 1953
Decision and Order
On February 5, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, a copy of which
103 NLRB No. 108.