Grove Regulator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1102 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GRovE REGULATOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LoD(ie No. 115
Case No. 20-C-1300.-Decided March 25, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 21, 1945, the Trial Examiner 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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent and the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the respondent also filed
a supporting brief.
On February 26, 1946, the Board heard oral argument at Washing-
ton, D. C., in which the respondent and the Union participated. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
with the modifications, additions, and exceptions noted below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged
in a course of conduct in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In
so doing, however, we do not rely on his finding that the respondent
sent employee Martens to a union meeting presumably for the pur-
pose of espionage. In our opinion, the record fails to support this
finding. Nor do we adopt the Trial Examiner's interpretation of
General Manager Grove's speech of January 11, 1945, that the re-
spondent would not tolerate unionization of its employees. However.
we find that this speech. like the preelection speeches, reflected the
respondent's hostility to unions and constituted, as found by the
Trial Examiner, an inseparable part of the respondent's coercive
course of conduct, which is fully described in the Intermediate
Report.
66 N. L. R. B., No. 135.
1102
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1103
2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent "unjustly"
reprimanded Thornton for union activities on company property.
The record shows that the respondent allowed other employees to
engage in anti-union activities on company premises during work-
ing hours. Thus, as indicated in the Intermediate Report, shortly
after the Union filed its original charge herein, the respondent per-
mitted employees Smith and Morris to circulate, for almost an entire
day on company time and property, a petition addressed to the
Board, stating in effect that the election of January 10, 1945, was
fairly conducted without the respondent's interference, and request-
ing that the Union's charges be dismissed. That the respondent had
knowledge of the circulation of this petition and tacitly approved
and encouraged it, is not only a reasonable inference to be drawn
from its open and continuous character, but is also shown by the
credible testimony that supervisory employees were present at the
time of the circulation of the petition.' We find that such disparity
of treatment also constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion
within the meaning of the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner found that on April 6, 1943, the re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged Bartleman because of his
union activities on behalf of the Steelworkers. We do not agree.
The uncontradicted evidence discloses, as the Trial Examiner found,
that from April 2 to April 5, 1943, inclusive, Bartleman remained
away from work without notifying the respondent, although Bartle-
man admitted on cross-examination that it would have been "the
right thing" to notify the respondent. Consequently, when he re-
turned to work on April 6, he was duly reprimanded by his foreman,
Davidson, for his absence and neglect in reporting it. This led to a
heated exchange of words between them. Later that day General
Manager Grove, who had been apprised of Bartleman's unexcused
absence, his neglect to notify the respondent thereof, and his ensuing
argument with his foreman, ordered Davidson to terminate Bartle-
man's employment. Thereafter, at the close of the shift, Davidson
discharged Bartleman.
Concededly, the absence in question was not an isolated instance
of Bartleman's irresponsibility; on the contrary, Bartleman ad-
mitted at the hearing before the Trial Examiner that he had on other
occasions taken "a day off once in a while," and failed to report, it.
It does not clearly appear that Bartleman, at the time of his dis-
charge, protested against this action, much less asserted that he was
being discharged because of his union activities. Apparently, neither
t Although we find that this petition was circulated with the knowledge and tacit con-
sent of the respondent 's supervisory employees , the evidence does not establish, as the
Trial Examiner stated in the Intermediate Report , that the circulation was "Admittedly
* * * with the knowledge and tacit consent of [General Manager] Grove."
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Steelworkers nor Bartleman himself seriously considered the dis-
charge to be discriminatory. Although 2 months thereafter the
Steelworkers filed a charge on his behalf, that charge was with-
drawn.2 No further action on this matter was taken by anyone until
some 18 months later, when the Union amended its original charge
herein, evidently as an afterthought, so as to include the case of
Bartleman. Under all the circumstances, while the question is not
free from doubt, we are not convinced that Bartleman's discharge
was motivated by anti-union considerations. We shall, accordingly.
dismiss the complaint as to him.
4. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (3) of the Act, forced Scott to resign because of
his activities on behalf of the Steelworkers. He based this finding
upon testimony that, for a time prior to Scott's separation, the re-
spondent discriminatorily assigned disagreeable jobs to Scott in
order to induce him to quit, and that Scott quit because of such
assignments. We do not agree.
Scott did not testify that any disagreeable duties were ever imposed
upon him; on the contrary, he frankly admitted that all his assign-
ments fell within the normal scope of his employment. In view of
these facts, we are of the opinion, and find, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that the nature of the work assigned to Scott was not the
proximate cause of his resignation. Significantly, Scott did not re-
gard his treatment to be discriminatory, as is apparent from the
delay of more than 18 months in the filing of a charge herein on his
behalf. Under all the circumstances, we are not convinced that
Scott's termination of employment was violative of the Act. Accord-
ingly. we shall also dismiss the complaint as to him.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has violated the Act by, among
other things, (a) including in employment application forms a ques-
tion relating to union membership which applicants were required to
answer; (b) interrogating applicants for employment concerning
their union affiliation; (c) carefully "screening or analyzing" appli-
cants with union sympathies and background and subjecting them to
a more thorough and critical interview than applicants without such
sympathies and background; (d) interfering with the consent elec-
tion of January 10, 1945, by threats of economic reprisal for selecting
the Union as the bargaining agent; (e) permitting the circulation
of a petition on company time and property, absolving the respondent
of election interferences; and (f) discriminatorily reprimanding em-
ployee Thornton for her union activities on company property.
2 Case No 20-C-1196; charge withdrawn September 11, 1943.
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1105
Upon the entire record, we infer and find that the respondent's
illegal activities mentioned above disclose an intent to defeat self-
organization and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the
purposes of the Act. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct
and the underlying purposes manifested thereby, we are convinced
that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the
unfair labor practices prescribed by the Act, and that danger of
commission in the future of any or all of the unfair labor practices
listed in the Act is to be anticipated from the respondent's action in
the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless
our order is coextensive with the threat.3 In order, therefore, to
make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent
a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist
not only from the unfair labor practices herein found, but also from
in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Grove Regulator Company,
Oakland, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Requiring applicants for employment to furnish information
concerning their union affiliation; interviewing, in a discriminatory
manner, applicants who are union members or have union sympa-
thies or background; discriminatorily reprimanding its employees
because of their union membership or activities;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of Ma-
chinists, District Lodge No. 115, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
8 See N . L R. B. v. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U . S. 426 ; May Department
Stores Co. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
686572-46-71
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board find-
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Delete from applications for employment the question concern-
ing the employee's union affiliation ;
(b) Post at its plant in Oakland, California, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked Appendix "A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed, insofar as it alleges that the respondent has dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Archi-
bald Bartleman on April 6, 1943, and of Ben Scott on June 28, 1943.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER
of the National Labor Relations Board. and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify
our employees that :
We will delete from our applications for employment the question
concerning the employee's union affiliation.
We will not (1) require applicants for employment to furnish
information concerning their union affiliation : (2) interview.
in a discriminatory manner, applicants who are union members
or have union sympathies or background; and (3) discrim-
inatorily reprimand our employees because of their union mem-
bership or activities.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 115. or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1107
protection. All our employees are free to become or remain
members of this union, or any other labor organization.
GRovE REGULATOR COMPANY,
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
Mr. John Paul Jennings, for the Board.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, by Messrs. Maisliall P. Madison and Melvin E.
3lensor, of San Francisco, Calif., for the respondent.
Mr. K. C. Apperson, of San Francisco, Calif, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a first amended charge duly filed on February 27, 1945, by International
Association of Machinists, District Lodge 115, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor,' herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region (San Francisco, California), issued its complaint, dated March 5, 1945,
against Grove Regulator Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (R) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, the original charge, and the first amended
charge, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly seried upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at
the hearing.2 alleges in substance that the respondent: (1) on or about April B,
1943. discharged Archibald Rartleman, and on or about June 28, 1943, dis-
charged Reu Scott, or required him to resign his position, and thereafter
refused to reinstate them, or either of them, because of their membership and
activities in behalf of the United Steelworkers of America, herein called Steel-
workers; (2) since early in 1943, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees ht the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
by (a) requiring the employees to state open employment the names of any
labor organizations of which they were members: (h) questioning the
employees regarding their union affiliations. (c) spying upon the employees
in order to ascertain their union affiliations, (d) refusing to hire applicants for
employment who were active union members; (e) discharging and laying off
active union members; (f) badgering known active union members and unjustly
I The formal papers herein designate the charging union as "District 115, International
Association of Machinists , A. F of L." Pursuant to Board 's motion to conform the
pleadings to the proof, the undersigned has corrected the names to read as above.
At the opening of the hearing , Board's counsel moved to amend the complaint to in-
clude certain specified allegations of unfair labor practices . The motion was granted
over the objection of the respondent Respondent's counsel then moved to have its
answer deemed amended to include a denial of the new matter.
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
criticizing their work in order to force them to resign their jobs ; (3) conducted
a systematic campaign for the purpose of preventing its employees from
selecting a collective bargaining representative of their own choosing by (a)
entertaining them at a party on December 17, 1944; ( b) entertaining their
at a party on December 22, 1944, where gifts to the employees were distributed
and a cash bonus of $25 was given each employee , and at the same time warn-
ing the employees that the harmony then existing between the employees and
the respondent would be impaired , and that they would lose certain benefits
if the employees persisted in selecting a union as their bargaining representa-
tive; (c) granting wage increases on December 9, 1944, to approximately 50
employees ; and (d ) giving the employees a holiday with pay at time and
one-half on December 23, 1944 . The answer duly filed by the respondent on
March 16, 1945, admits all the allegations of the complaint pertaining to the
corporate existence of the respondent and the nature, character , and extent of
the business transacted by it and certain other factual matters, but denies all
the allegations of the complaint with reference to the engagement by the
respondent in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on March 20, 21, 23, and 24, 1945,
at San Francisco , California , before the undersigned , Howard Myers, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel , and the Union by one of its officials
All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity t.)
be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues . At the conclusion of the hearing , Board's counsel
moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to minor inaccuracies,
such as typographical errors, misspellings , and the like . The motion wa,
granted over the objection of respondent 's counsel. Oral argument , in which
counsel for the Board and respondent participated , was heard at the conclusion
of the taking of the evidence and is part of the record. The parties were
granted leave to file briefs with the undersigned on or before April 6, 1945
A brief has been received from the respondent 's counsel
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witness-.
the undersigned makes, in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
Grove Regulator Company is a California corporation, incorporated in 1938,
with its principal place of business at 1190-07th Street, Oakland, California
Prior to 1942, the respondent operated one plant at the address stated above.
and since 1942 has operated a second plant close to the original plant at 652tl
Green Street, Emeryville, California. The respondent is engaged in the manu-
facture of high pressure regulators used on flame throwers, fluid control device,
automatic life raft releases, specialized valves and regulators, and other
devices. The respondent purchases annually raw materials valued at in excess
of $500,000, a substantial portion of which is delivered to the respondent from
points outside the State of California. The respondent's sales are in excess
of two million dollars, annually, of which between 80 and 90 percent represents
sales and deliveries to points outside the State of California.
t The findings in this section are based upon a written stipulation entered into by coon
sel for the Board and for the respondent.
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1109
For the purpose of this proceeding, the respondent stipulates that it is
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 115, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor and United Steelworkers of America, affili-
ated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference, restraint , and coercion ; the discriminatory discharges of
Bartleman and Scott
A. Chronological sequence of events
In the early part of 1943, the Steelworkers commenced a campaign to organ-
ize the respondent's employees. Some 2 or 3 months later, the Union also
commeiced a similar campaign. The Steelworkers' campaign was short-lived.
The record does not disclose exactly when its campaign ceased, but there are
indications therein that this happened in the summer of 1943. While the
Union's drive did not cease, the intensity thereof was greatly slackened about
the time that the Steelworkers ceased its organizational efforts, and it remained
in a desultory state until the fall of 1944, when the Union renewed its cam-
paign. That the respondent disapproved of these attempts to organize its
employees is evident from the conduct of its officials and supervisory employees
set forth below.
Archibald Bartleman and Ben Scott Joined the Steelworkers in February or
March 1943, and both became very active advocates thereof among their fellow
workers. Although each denied soliciting during working hours, each admitted
discussing the Steelworkers at all convenient times in and out of working
hours. Bartleman and Scott remained active members until their respective
terminations of employment, which are discussed immediately below.
At a meeting of the Steelworkers held on March 31, union buttons were
distributed and a five-man negotiating committee was elected, Bartleman being
one of the five. Along with many other Steelworkers' adherents, Bartleman
wore his union button at work the next day. During the day, he felt ill and
so informed Davidson, his foreman He remained absent for the next three
work days.' According to Bartleman's uncontradicted and credible testimony,'
when he returned to work on April 6, Davidson asked him why he had been
absent and why he did not inform him that he would not be at work. Bartle-
man replied that he had been ill, that in the past he had never advised the
respondent when he intended to remain away, and that he knew of no rule
which required an employee to advise the respondent of an intended absence.
Bartleman testified and the undersigned finds, that during the conversation
with Davidson the latter said that he should "lay off" the Steelworkers and
"not to get too active in it." At the end of the shift that day, Davidson told
Bartleman that he had received orders to discharge him for absenteeism and
for remaining away without advising the respondent.
4 Bartleman was absent on Friday, April 2, Saturday, April 3, and Monday, April 5
6 At the time of the hearing , Davidson was not in the employ of the respondent and
was not called as a witness . However, the record discloses where he was then employed
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Arthur Creek' was first employed by the respondent on February 20, 1943,
as a utility maintenance mechanic On April 16, 1943, he was made mainte-
nance supervisor with a crew under his supervision which varied from 5 to 20
persons. As supervisor he had authority, like all respondent's foremen, to
hire employees in conjunction with Charles B Stevens, the personnel director,
and to discharge employees without consulting any one. Creek testified as
follows regarding a conversation which he had with Stevens within a month
after Bartleman's discharge :
Q Will you tell me what Mr. Stevens said to you at that time about Mr
Bartleman?
A. Yes, he stated that Bartleman had been in the locker rooms before
going on shift, agitating for the formation of the CIO Union. That
was attempting then to organize the plant. Also, that he was being
a little tardy, he was being tardy in corning down to the plant floor
from the locker room to go to work when his shift started and that
lie was using that time to discuss Union organization before the seven
o'clock whistle to go to work and that he was allowing it to interfere
with his work, consequently Mr Davidson had terminated him for those
reasons.
MR. MADISON (Counsel for respondent) : Davidson had what?
THE WITNESS : Terminated him, discharged him for those reasons.
I called it termination because it was final approval before complete
discharge by the Personnel Director.
Q. By Mr. Jennings (Counsel for the Board) • Was there any discussion
with Mr. Stevens about Bartleman having been fired for absenteeism?
A. Yes, lie had been oft on a couple of different occasions for r, few days,
a couple of days-he was probably off two o days one time and maybe
three to five days another, and Mr. Stevens told me at that time that
they found out that he had visited Union headquarters on that time off
and that is why he had taken the time off, that it wasn't as he pre-
tended that he was sick, but that it was ostensibly to go down and
confer with Union headquarters as to the organizing campaign that
went on.
Q Did Mr. Stevens indicate to you whether or not the known Union activi-
ties of Bartleman had anything whatsoever to do with his discharge?
A. Yes, that he had been considered to be a thorn in their side, that is,
Union activities had made hire undesirable from the standpoint of the
Company ; that if he had kept his nose clean, as it were, to use the
slang expression, if lie had conducted himself otherwise, his work was
of such calibre and his know ledge of the work that had been done,
that the man was valuable to them.
Bartleman, although admitting that he discussed the Steelworkers with his
co-workers in the locker room and elsewhere before and after working hours,
during rest periods, and during the lunch hour, denied that he was ever late
for work. As to the claim that lie had been guilty of being absent from work
a great many times, he testified that, except for the 3 days he was away on
account of illness immediately prior to his discharge, he took "a day off once
in a while"' Stevens, in effect, denied that lie had ever had any conversation
'Creek is presently employed by the California Department of Education as an in-
sti actor in supei visors' conferences From July 27, 1920, to August 15, 1942, he was
employed by the Crocker First National Bank, San Fiancisco, California, as messenger
boy, as stock transfer clerk, and lastly as counter teller in the trust department.
7 Bartleman was first employed by the respondent In November 1940. He quit in June
1942, was rehired in October 1942, and was discharged on April 6, 1943.
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1111
Avrtii Creek about Bartleman. The undersigned was not favorably impressod
with the sincerity of Stevens' testimony nor with his demeanor while on the
,rand On the other hand, Creek impressed the undersigned as an honest and
forthright witness, and his testimony was not materially shaken on cross-
examination. The respondent contends that Creek's credibility has been
impeached because he was discharged and therefore no credence should be
given his testimony This contention can only be given weight on the theory
that Creek was inspired in his testimony by antagonism and bias against his
former employer. Such antagonism and bias cannot be assumed in the absence
of some clear evidence to support them. The record contains no such evidence
On the other hand, Creek's conduct on the occasion of his discharge indicates
no antipathy toward the respondent but, on the contrary, an attitude of fair-
ness to it that is impressive. The record shows that when Creek was informed
on December 1, 1943, that his services were being terminated allegedly because
he was not qualified for the job he held, he volunteered to remain until the
respondent could break in a new man ; that his offer was accepted ; and that
presumably Creek's purpose had been accomplished when he left the plant on
December 6, at which time he was given a sum of money representing approxi-
mately 2 months' separation pay. The undersigned finds that the contention
is without merit. The undersigned finds that the above-quoted conversation
took place as related by Creek and that his version of it is substantially correct.
Furthermore, Marvin H. Grove, the respondent's general manager, after whom
the Company was named, testified that Bartleman was discharged upon his
orders after Foreman Davidson told him that Bartleman , upon his return to
work on April 6 after being absent without notifying the respondent, had gotten
"into rather a nasty argument with" him. Grove further testified that,
although Bartleman was "a very good worker," he did not "get along with
the foreman" and he therefore told Davidson to discharge him. According to
Stevens, Bartleman's termination slip states that he was discharged for
absenteeism. The records introduced by the respondent show that Bartleman,
besides the 3-day absence immediately prior to his discharge , was absent only
on February 13 and 20, 1943. The respondent maintained at the hearing that
its records prior to February 1943, with respect to absenteeism , were not avail-
able. No evidence was introduced to show that Bartleman remained away
from work more than any other employee.8 Furthermore, no evidence was
introduced that Bartleman had been advised that he was remaining away
from work too much or that he had been cautioned against being absent too
often. It cannot be said, moreover, that, because Bartleman was away from
work on two occasions in February, he was an habitual absentee.' Bartleman's
testimony that there was no rule which required the employees to notify the
respondent when they were not going to be at work, finds support in the fact
that shortly after Bartleman's discharge notice was given the employees that
in the future they were to notify the personnel director that they were going
to be absent. The undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Bartleman was
not discharged for the reasons advanced by the respondent, but was discharged
on April 6, 1943, because he was a member and active on behalf of the Steel-
workers. This finding, moreover, is buttressed by the fact that Davidson was
told by Bartleman on April 1, the day prior to Bartleman's absence, that he
Creek was not Bartleman's foreman and knew nothing of Bartleman's attendance
record
6 The record-shows that Ben Scott was absent from work more frequently than Bartle-
man and was not discharged for that reason. His case is hereinafter more fully dis-
cussed.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was not feeling well. Davidson could not therefore have been too concerned
over Bartleman's alleged dereliction of duty in not reporting "off."
Ben Scott was first employed by the respondent on February 2, 1943. He
quit on June 28, 1943, under circumstances which, as will be shown below,
amounted to a constructive discharge. Scott worked in the maintenance crew,
first under Davidson and, at the time- he left the respondent's employ, under
Creek. Scott joined the Steelworkers shortly after he commenced his employ-
ment and, as above found, became very active on its behalf. His activities
were immediately known to his supervisors. He wore his union button at
work on and after April 1.
Creek testified that In the latter part of April or early in May, he advised
Stevens that Scott was absent; he and Stevens discussed whether Scott was
sick or was visiting the Steelworkers' headquarters ; he suggested to Stevens
that he would call at Scott's home to ascertain whether or not Scott was
actually sick ; he called at Scott's home on two occasions ; he advised Stevens
that on one occasion Scott was at home and that on the other occasion he was
not; Stevens then said that in all likelihood Scott was at the Steelworkers'
headquarters; about 10 days thereafter Stevens advised him that he had
received information that Scott had been to the Steelworkers' headquarters
during one of the periods he was away from the plant ; he and Stevens then
decided to discharge Scott, If they could find a reason to do so, or to give him
distasteful duties to perform in order to force him to quit ; he decided upon
the latter course; within a short time after this decision, he had a talk with
Scott wherein he told Scott that "either he had to play ball * * * as I saw
it," or he would be subject to discharge ; Scott replied, "Well, I might as well
quit as be fired"; he then made out a termination slip and tendered it to Vice-
President Harold Wolpman for action ; 10 Wolpman then questioned him about
Scott's job and his union activities ; Wolpman then said that he would hold
up the termination slip until "we found a good valid reason for letting him
go" or until Scott decided to quit ; on June 28, he and Scott had another con-
versation wherein he told Scott that he was not doing his job right because
he was allowing his union activities to interfere with his work ; Scott replied
that he would rather quit than be discharged ; and Scott thereupon resigned
and his resignation was immediately accepted. Creek further testified that
for about a month prior to Scott's resignation he had Scott perform distasteful
jobs ; that he did so at the behest of Stevens who told him that he had "to get
rid of Scott because he was * * * `red hot', that the man was too active in
Union organization ; that he was creating too much activity * * * too much
interest in the Union on company premises, and that it was desirable to remove
him from the scene." Stevens denied that he ever had a conversation with
Creek regarding Scott. For the reasons stated above, the undersigned rejects
Stevens' denial and finds the facts and circumstances surrounding the termina-
tion of Scott's employment with the respondent to be substantially as testified
to by Creek. Wolpman admitted talking to Creek about Scott's work, but
denied that he instructed Creek to give Scott distasteful jobs in order to force
him to quit. The undersigned does not credit Wolpman's denial and finds that
Wolpman approved Creek's action in giving Scott distasteful jobs. The under-
signed further finds that Scott did not resign his job of his own free will and
accord but was in effect forced to do so on account of his union activities."
is This was a discharge slip.
u On direct examination , Scott testified that for the first 3 or 4 months of his employ-
ment it was his job to put tags on machinery and furniture ; that he continued this work
until about a week before he quit; and that then he was assigned to do "all kinds of
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1113
Creek also testified that there appeared on the application for employment
which he filled out the question "Membership in Clubs, Societies , and Unions"
and that that question appeared on all application blanks during his entire
employment with the respondent." Regarding the hiring of applicants for
employment, Creek testified that when a foreman was in need of additional
help he would notify the personnel director, and when a person whom the
personnel director considered suitable for employment made application for
a job, he would notify the foreman and send him the applicant's application ;
if after the foreman had examined the application he believed that the appli-
cant had the desired qualifications, he would then interview the applicant in
the personnel department ; in cases where the applicant failed to answer the
question regarding his union affiliations, the foreman would then question him
about them ; if it developed that the applicant was or had been a union mem-
ber that matter was then taken up by the foreman with the personnel director ;
if the applicant stated on his application blank that he was or had been a
union member, the foreman then would discuss the matter with the personnel
director ; and if the foreman and the personnel director decided that the appli-
cant was an active union man, with strong union sympathies, he would be
carefully "screened or analyzed" before being employed, as it was the respond-
ent's policy to hire persons who had no union affiliations when possible.
Creek further testified that, sometime in the fall of 1944, a girl applied for
a job as a welder or drill press operator, and that Stevens asked him to inter-
view her, saying that during his talk with her she had indicated she was "a
rabid union member" and that she had probably been sent to the respondent
to ascertain whether she would be hired after her union affiliations were made
known. With respect to his interview with the applicant and his subsequent
talks with Stevens, Creek testified as follows :
I interviewed her and then, at Mr. Stevens' suggestion, I asked her to
come back the following morning, that we were in doubt as to whether,
in my particular case, it would be possible to put a woman on the crew
doing maintenance work. So I discussed that with him, and also her
general impression that I had received, and the conversation I had with
her regarding her union affiliation when I questioned her about that
particular subject. She wanted to know the type of work that she might
be employed in, and the rates of pay in connection with it. When she
came back the following morning I again interviewed her with the under-
things, off and on, some of that and some of the other. " This testimony is corroborated
by Creek . On cross -examination , Scott testified that his duties never varied throughout
his employment. The undersigned does not construe Scott's testimony on cross-examina-
tion as a contradiction of his earlier testimony but regards his general statement as
referring to his job classification rather than to the details of the work he was actually
called upon to do.
19 Creek was in respondent 's employ from February 20, 1943, until his discharge on
December 6, 1944. The record shows that the above-quoted question appears on the
application blanks used by the respondent since early 1942. The respondent maintains
that the question was put on the application blank pursuant to instructions of the Navy
Department . On the contrary, what occurred is this : By letter, dated January 22, 1942,
the Navy Department advised the respondent that it had had a survey made of its plant
and based upon that survey it recommends that certain changes be made "which will be
of value in protecting" the plant . One of the suggested changes refers to an application
form which "will incorporate the information on the personnel data form attached" to
the letter. The personnel data form attached to the letter is mimeographed and recom-
mends that "an employment application form be adopted which will develop the following
information ." Among the 27 questions on the recommended application blank appears
the question , "A list of all organizations to which employee belongs, including trade,
professional , social , and fraternal , giving the names and addresses of such organizations."
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
standing with Mr. Stevens that I was to discourage her from going to work
there by the offering of a rate that would be unattractive to her. My
understanding with Mr. Stevens was that we were not to give her the
impression that we didn't want her there, because of her union affiliations,
that we would not [reject] her application on that ground ; but that we
would give her a reasonable hearing, grant her an interview, but that we
did not want to hire her.
The applicant refused the offered job because the offered wage was too loww.
Stevens admitted that he asked Creek to interview this applicant but denied
that he made the statements attributed to him by Creek. He also denied that
he discussed the union affiliation of any employee with Creek or with anyone
else and that an applicant's union affiliations played no part in the respondent's
determination to hire a prospective employee.
Plant Superintendent Leonhardt'a and Foreman John Pagendarm testified
that when interviewing an applicant they do not pay any attention to the
answer regarding the applicant's union affiliation and that when hiring a
person for employment they do not discuss that persons' union affiliations.
They also testified that an applicant's union affiliations play no part in their
decision when hiring a person. They further testified that they had not di,,-
cussed any applicant's or employee's union affiliation with Stevens or any other
official of the respondent. The undersigned discredits Stevens' denial and finds
that he made the statements as testified to by Creek. Neither Leonhardt nor
Pagendarm were credible witnesses and the undersigned discredits their
testimony.
The undersigned further finds that an applicant's union affiliations was one
of the determining factors in considering a person for employment. These
findings are buttressed by the following incident which occurred in April or
May 1944: A man named Laviviere, his wife, and his step-son applied for
jobs. Laviviere, who sought a job as carpenter, indicated upon his application
that he was a member of three different affiliates of the American Federation
of Labor. Stevens, according to Creek, after talking to Laviviere and being of
the opinion that lie would make a suitable employee, asked Creek to interview
him, because Stevens was fearful of hiring Laviviere because of his union
affiliations ; after carefully interviewing Laviviere, Creek and Stevens came
to the conclusion that Laviviere, to quote Creek, "wasn't there for any particu-
lar personal objective or particular union activity or purpose"; Laviviere, his
wife, and his step-son were hired, and several months later, Stevens told Creek
that Gretchen Lins, the respondent's secretary-treasurer, to quote Creek, "called
him on the carpet because there [were] too many union people being employed"
and that Laviviere was one of the persons about whom Lins had complained.
Stevens denied that he had been "called on the carpet" by Lins or any other
official for hiring too many union people or that he had so told Creek. Lins
and Grove both testified that they never had called Stevens or anyone else
"on the carpet" for hiring too many union members. The record shows that,
as hereinafter discussed, both Grove and Lins were hostile to the unionization
of the employees and that whenever possible they made known their hostility
to the employees. As already found, Creek impressed the undersigned as a
sincere and straightforward witness. The undersigned credits Creek's testi-
mony and discredits the denials of Grove, Liiis, and Stevens At the hearing,
moreover, Grove admitted that he was not in favor of a union in the plant.
Creek also testified to several conversations that he had in the spring of
1943, with President Paul Flehr and the respondent's former attorney, wherein
Also referred to in the record as Albert Lenhardt
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY ills
he had been questioned by each of them regarding the union affiliations of the
employees and had told them which employees were active union members.
Some of these conversations , Creek stated , were with the attorney in Flehr's
presence and some with the attorney alone . Flehr testified that he had never
questioned Creek about the union affiliations of the employees , that Creek
never told him who among the employees were active union members, and that
he never heard the attorney speak to Creek about unions. The attorney did
not testify . The undersigned finds that both Flehr and the attorney questioned
Creek about the employees ' union affiliations and that he told them which
employees were active union members.
According to the undenied and credible testimony of Kay Thorsted , a former
foreman now employed elsewhere , Vice-President Wolpman, sometime in the
summer of 1944 , told him that Carl Martens ( Wolpman's brother-in-law),
would report for work late that evening because he was attending to some
business of the respondent . He further testified that when Martens reported
for work that evening , Martens told him that "he was down to the union
meeting for Miss Lins." Lins, although called as a witness by the respondent,
was not questioned about this incident . Grove, although not charged with
sending Martens to a union meeting , testified that he occasionally had Martens
attend to certain personal business for him and that he remembered sending
Martens out of town on a personal mission in the summer of 1944 . Martens
did not testify . The undersigned credits Thorsted 's testimony and finds that
Martens was sent to a union meeting by Lins.
Thorsted further testified that in September 1944, the following incidents
occurred:
Q. Do you recall a conversation you had with Mr. Wolpman a few days
after that meeting?
A. Yes, I recall that . I asked him what we should do about this organ-
izing that was going on. Mr. Wolpman told me, if anything, not to
get involved in it. But I told him that it was pretty hard, because
they approached me on it several times , the employees had. He said
not to encourage it and , if anything , to discourage it, which I did.
Q. Did employees approach you with regard to the union thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. On how many different occasions?
A. I imagine three or four times. I can remember three times exactly
myself that they asked me about it.
Q. And what did the employees say to you , and what did you say to them?
A. They asked me if I thought the union was going to come in. I told
them I didn't think so, but I told them straight outright then and there
that I thought it was a pretty nice place to work, which it was. I said,
"I don't think we need a union in here." I told them I was an AFL
member and had been for 8 years , but I didn 't think we needed a union
at that time
Regarding this testimony , Wolpman testified as follows:
Mr. Thorsted asked me what he should tell the employees if they asked
him about the Union . I told him he was not allowed to talk to the
employees about the Union because he was a supervisor ; and if they did
he was to discourage any conversation with him.
It is of no great importance to the issues herein whether Wolpman's instruc
tions were as testified to by Thorsted or were as stated by Wolpman. The
fact remains that on either version the statements made by Thorsted were,
under the circumstances , coercive in nature and are attributable to the respond-
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent.11 Furthermore, Thorsted was but restating the respondent's established
anti-union policy when he told the employees, "I don't think we need a union
here."
By letter, dated December 5, the respondent advised the San Francisco
Regional Office of the Board that on December 2 it had received a letter from
the Union wherein the Union stated that it represented the majority of the
production employees and desired to meet with the respondent to discuss a•
collective bargaining contract. The respondent's letter concluded with the
statement that it would not deal with the Union until it had been certified
by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the production
employees.
On December 17, the respondent entertained the employees at a lavish party
at one of the best hotels in San Francisco, after which the employees were
invited by the respondent to attend a performance at a nearby theater. On
December 22, a party was held at the plant for the employees on company time.
At that time, prizes were awarded to the employees who had won them at the
December 17 party, a cash bonus of $25 was given to each employee, and a
prepared speech was delivered by Grove. The speech is quite lengthy and
deals with various topics." Board's counsel contends that certain portions
thereof, viewed in the light of the` respondent's conduct as a whole, were
coercive and therefore violative of the Act. He also contends that Grove
made the speech in order to impress upon the employees the futility of joining
any union and the loss to them that would result from so doing and that the
employees so construed the speech. Particular emphasis was laid by Board's
counsel upon the following statement in that speech :
Anything which interferes with anything which doesn't allow me to
devote my full time and energy to this task [of turning out first class
products] is going to mean sooner or later (and of this I am convinced)
the ruination of this company as such.
Grove testified that when he made reference to interference he was referring
to bankers to whom he had made reference in the early part of his speech.'°
During December 1944, a Board agent and the representatives of the re-
spondent and the Union met on. several occasions for the purpose of process-
ing the Petition for Election and Certification previously filed by the Union
On January 2, 1945, the respondent, the Union, and the Steelworkers entered into
a consent election agreement 17 The parties therein agreed, among other things,
that all the production and maintenance employees constituted an appropri-
ate unit; that those in that unit were eligible to vote at an election to be
held under the auspices of the Board on January 10; that the employees were
to select the Union or the Steelworkers as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative, or "none." The undenied credible evidence discloses that at the
time the consent election agreement was being discussed by the Board's agent,
,14 See International Association of Machinists v N. L It B, 311 U S. 72 . The re-
spondent contends that its supervisors were instructed to refrain from interfering with
the employees ' union activities and that for that reason it should not be held accountable
for any of their anti - union statements or activities . This contention is without merit
Thorsted ' s statements , like those of other supervisors , more fully set forth below, were not
made in an atmosphere of neutrality . The employees , moreover , were not advised by
published notices, or otherwise , of the respondent 's policy of neutrality or of its instruc-
tions to its supervisors to remain neutral.
15A copy of this speech is hereto annexed and marked "Appendix A."
18 The contentions of the parties with respect to this speech are discussed below under
"Concluding findings."
1T At the time of the execution of the agreement the Union represented 126 employees
in the agreed appropriate unit.
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1117
representatives of the respondent and the two unions, the respondent took
the position that the name of the respondent should appear on the ballot in-
stead of the word "none" as the third choice of the employees. After a
discussion wherein the Board's agent informed the respondent's representa-
tives that the name of the respondent could not appear on the ballot because
the election was being held for the purpose of permitting the employees to
select a collective bargaining representative, if they desired one, Lins said,
"If I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it."
About 4 or 5 days prior to the election, according to the testimony of em-
ployee Horace Baugh, Foreman Lyle Loeser said to him, during a conversa-
tion regarding the Union, "Well, of course, the Union might be a very good
thing, and everything, but, after all, we have a very nice cafeteria here and
you couldn't sign a contract for us, for the Grove Regulator Company to
maintain the cafeteria. You couldn't force them to furnish music for us 18
A ` * If they choose to close the cafeteria why there is nothing you could
put in your contract to say that they would have to open it, or keep it
open." Regarding this conversation, Loeser testified as follows:
Well, at one time, I guess it was about the time, about five days before
the election, there had been it rumor going around the shop that the
cafeteria would be closed, and you know how those things start, and
he came up to me and asked me about it Barney is rather argumenta-
tive I guess he wanted to argue about the thing. I just gave him some
answer, "Yes or No," or, I didn't know, or something. I just let it go at
that.
Q. Did you tell him that if the Union came in that the cafeteria would
be closed?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you know anything about that?
A. I didn't, I did not know
The undersigned is satisfied, and therefore finds, that Baugh's version of the
conversation is substantially correct. The undersigned finds that at the time
of this conversation there was a rumor circulating through the plant to the
effect that the cafeteria would be closed if a union won the election.
On January 9, the eve of the election, the employees were assembled in the
cafeteria on company time where Grove delivered a prepared speech "' Board's
counsel contends that this speech, like portions of the one delivered by Grove
on December 22, was coercive in nature and therefore violative of the Act.
The respondent takes the position that what Grove said on this occasion
falls within the privilege of the Bill of Rights"
On January 10, the election was held. The result was as follows :
Eligible voters . ...... . .. . . ....... .. .. ............... 187
For the Union ............ . . ..... .. ... ..... ....... 53
For the Steelworkers . ... .. . ......... ... ............ . . 12
For "None" ... .. ..... ....... . ......... ... ........ . .... 104
Void ballot ... ...... ....... .. .... . ....... .. .. ...... 1
Challenged ballots ................... .... ....................
After the ballots were counted and it was determined that the unions had
been defeated, the respondent's elation over the results was manifested by
"The record shows that recorded music was broadcast during working hours
19 The speech is annexed hereto and marked "Appendix B."
2 The contentions of the parties with respect to this speech are discussed below under
"Concluding findings."
1118 DECISIONS 01' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the actions of Lins and Grove. According to the testimony of Baugh, Lins,
on the night of the election, congratulated Grove on the outcome and patted
other officials on the back in a congratulatory manner and then went to a
union member, patted him on the back, and said, "We won. We won." Lins
denied that she had patted anyone on the back but admitted that she was
happy over the results of the election and so stated to Grove. The under-
signed finds that Lins openly displayed her gratification at the defeat of
the unions and signified her happiness over the results of the election b}
congratulating Grove, patting other officials on the back in the presence of
some of the employees, and patting at least one employee on the back an1l
saying to the latter, "We won. We won." Grove expressed his own satis-
faction by delivering a speech to the employees on Company time the day
following the election. Board's counsel contended that Grove, in effect, thanked
the employees for heeding the advice to repudiate the unions which he had
given them in his speeches of December 22 and January 9, and that his
January 11 speech confirms the Board's contention that Grove's previou,
speeches were delivered for the purpose of defeating the unionization of the
employees. The respondent contended that Grove's remarks were not viola-
tive of the Act since they were made after the election and therefore coulu
not have affected the result?'
On the day following the election, the Union's shop stewards removed the
steward's buttons they were wearing at work, and up to the time of the
hearing had not resumed the custom of wearing them.
On January 12, according to the undenied and credible testimony of eno-
ployee Pearl Thornton," Wolpman came up to her while she was working
and said, "Well, Pat, I guess you don't feel as happy over the outcome of the
election as we do," and she replied, "Well, it is over now and if everybody
could forget it the better we'd all be off." Thornton also testified that on
either January 12 or 13, Plant Superintendent Leonhardt came to her ma-
chine while she was working and stated, among other things, that in his
opinion the election was fairly conducted ; that its employees had voted ac-
cording to their wishes; and that, while unions had accomplished good things,
the Country would be better without them. Leonhardt testified that he re-
membered talking to Thornton about the election being fairly conducted, and
the employees having voted according to their wishes, but said he could not
recall that anything else was discussed. Thornton impressed the undersigned
as the more credible witness and therefore finds that the conversation above
referred to was substantially as testified to by her.
Donald Smith, who, according to the undenied and credible testimony of
Thornton, is employed in the inspection department and in the absence of
the head inspector, "tells the other employees [of the inspection department)
what to do, checks their work to see if it is right," spent almost the entire
day of January 18, without loss of pay, going through the plant openly re-
questing the employees to sign a petition addressed to and advising the Board
that the election of January 10 had been fairly held and had been free from
inference by the respondent, and that the charges filed by the Union with
the Board that the respondent had unlawfully interfered with the election
be dismissed. At the end of the day shift, according to other credible testi-
mony, Smith handed the petition over to employee Alyce Morris, who solicited
21 The speech of January 11, is hereto annexed and marked "Appendix C " The conten
tions of the parties with respect to it are more fully discussed in "Concluding findings."
22 Thornton, commonly referred to at the plant as "Pat," joined the Union on October
24, 1944, and was elected a shop steward the following December 5.
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1119
signatures from employees on the swing and night shifts. Admittedly this
petition was circulated with the knowledge and tacit consent of Grove and
other officials of the respondent. On the following day, Grove caused to be
posted in the plant the following notice-
It has just come to my attention that a petition is being circularized for
signatures. The objective of the petition, I am told, is to call the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board's attention to the fact that a number of the
employees do not feel that the charges filed with the Board by the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor are justified. This petition, I understand, is to
be forwarded direct to the National Labor Relations Board.
I wish everyone to know that I very much appreciate this gesture-that
I am deeply touched and more than grateful I earnestly request, how -
ever, that the petition not be forwarded to the Board, as it might create
an awkward situation for the employees who signed the petition and
might also in some manner prejudice the company's position.
Neither Smith nor Morris was reprimanded for circulating the petition On
the other hand, on the day the petition was being circulated, Thornton wwaa
called to Grove's office and there , in the presence of Lins and Wolpman, Grove
read to Thornton the following:
I have asked you to come in here Mrs. Thornton because I have received
personally several complaints about you. A number of people from the
shop have come to me and have told me that you are continually corner-
ing them-in the women 's dressing room and in the shop proper-they
have told me that they do not like it and that they wish I would see
to it that it be stopped. Now, I have not and do not wish to control
your activities away from the plant, but I am permitted by law to de-
mand that these activities cease on the company property and on the
company time. And I am demanding that they cease. This plant is at
the present time producing goods that are vitally needed by the Arml
and the Navy-it is your job and the job of the rest of the people in
the shop to produce them . They cannot be produced as well or in the
quantities required if people in the shop are continually bothered dur-
ing working hours. Now, I am asking that you cease these activities im-
mediately during working hours. If you will not and do not cease I
will be forced to ask you to leave.
When Grove finished reading the prepared reprimand , Thornton admitted
that she had conducted organizational activities on company property, but
denied that she had done so on company time . She also denied badgering
or annoying any employee. Grove then replied, according to Thornton, that
this was the first time that anyone had ever been reported to him for annoy-
ing the employees. Grove testified that he called Thornton to his office on
the same day that a female employee had reported to him that every time
she "started to walk to the rest room Mrs. Thornton followed her and started
badgering her about joining the union "; that he had received previous com-
plaints from other employees about Thornton 's badgering them about joining
the Union ; and that several foremen had reported to him, about 10 days prior
to January 18, that some girls had complained to them about Thornton's
badgering them. On cross-examination , Grove admitted that the only com-
plaint he had received about Thornton from any non-supervisory employee
was the one he received on the day he reprimanded Thornton.
1 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Concluding findings
As found above, the efforts to unionize the employees were made by the
Steelworkers in the spring of 1943. The respondent's disapproval was evi-
denced by its discharge of Bartleman and Scott, two active union members,
shortly after the advent of the Steelworkers in the plant. When, a few months
later, the Union commenced its drive, the respondent continued to demon-
strate its hostility to that union also. The Union, however, did not com-
pletely abandon its efforts but the intensity of its drive was greatly reduced.
In the fall of 1944, the Union again openly campaigned for members. This
activity brought from the respondent renewed efforts to prevent unionization.
'The respondent displayed to the employees its antipathy and hostility for the
unionization of its employees by (1) requiring applicants for employment to
answer the question to what "Clubs, Societies and Unions" they belonged
which appears on the application form; (2) questioning applicants for em-
ployment regarding their union affiliations ;=' (3) refusing to hire the female
applicant who applied for employment in the fall of 1944, because of her
union affiliations and activities with respect thereto; (4) the anti-union re-
marks of Thorsted; (5) sending Martens to a union meeting; (6) Grove's
anti-union speeches of December 22, 1944, and January 9 and 11, 1945; (7) the
anti-union remarks of Loeser to Baugh ; (8) interfering with the employees'
free choice of a collective bargaining representative at the election of Janu-
ary 10, 1945; (9) the statements and actions of Lins on the night of January
10, 1945; (10) the anti-union remarks of Wolpinan and Leonhardt to Thornton;
(11) permitting Smith and Morris on company time and property to solicit
employees' signatures to a petition addressed to the Board; (12) unjustly
reprimanding Thornton. Upon the basis of the above findings and upon the
entire record, the undersigned finds that the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent, relying upon the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit in N. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. (2d)
993, cert. denied, 320 U. S. 768, argues that the messages contained in Grove's
speeches of December 22, 1944, and January 9 and 11, 1945, are not violative
of the Act but, on the contrary, are privileged under the First Amendment
to the Constitution. This contention is without merit. In the first place,
unlike those under consideration in the American Tube Bending case, the
speech of January 9, delivered on the eve of the election, contained specific
appeals to the employees who were members of the competing unions to
repudiate their membership at the polls. It also pointedly sought to impress
upon the employees generally the futility of organization by stating that (1)
neither union would be able to procure for them benefits which they them-
selves could not obtain; (2) the harmonious relations then existing in the
plant might he jeopardized if the respondent was compelled to enter into a
contract with a union because, to quote from Grove's speech, "no union can
possibly make a contract that will cover harmonious relations. You know
that harmonious relations depend on you and depend on me"; and (3) that
the employees might lose their jobs because, as Grove stated, "Unions tell
23 See Matter of D. W Onan t Sons , 50 N. L R. B. 195 , enf'd 139 F . ( 2d) 728 (C. C
A. 8), where the Board found violative of the Act the use of a question , in an applica-
tion blank , concerning membership In any organization , lodge, or society despite the
Company 's contention that the Navy Department had suggested the procuring of such
information fioin applicant - See also Matter of Peter Freund Knitting Mills, 61 N. L.
R B. 118,
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1121
you what a fine place their shops are, but look in the newspapers. Practi-
cally all of them are advertising for additional employees. We very seldom
have to advertise, we get good employees without advertising and there
must be a reason for that. I think it is mainly because we have a good place
to work, and It Is a pleasant place because I have made it so and have tried
to keep it so. If the Union has a contract from that time on it is the Union's
responsibility-it is no longer mine It will be in their hands completely."
But even if these differences were overlooked and it were assumed that the
speech here involved is identical with the message considered in the cited
case, the principle announced In the latter is plainly without application here.
The communications addressed to the employees in the American Tube Bend-
ing case were, as the Court carefully pointed out, isolated utterances by the
employer against unions, wholly divorced from "a history of anti-union ac-
tivity" and in themselves devoid of any "intimation of reprisal" against those
employees who favored unions. The record in that case, the Court stated,
contained nothing but "the letter and speech [of the employer] together with
the occasion-a coming election-on which they were uttered." The Court,
relying upon the N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric case, 374 U. S. 46), con-
cluded that since the message was in itself free from "intimation of reprisal"
and had not been delivered against a background of anti-union activity from
which the Board might have drawn the inference that the message conveyed
at least "a covert threat to recalcitrants," it was privileged as free speech.
Little elaboration is required to show why that case is not here controlling.
What was lacking in the American Tube Bending case is here plainly to be
found. The speech of January 9, followed upon the heels of the coercive
conduct of the respondent's officials and supervisory employees, as more fully
set forth above. So viewed, as it must be, in this context, the speech amounted
to more than an attempt to persuade by an appeal to reason. As part of
the pattern of anti-union activities, the speech intimated to the employees
a covert threat of reprisal. Accordingly, it exceeded the permissible limits
of free speech and constituted, as the Supreme Court said in the Virginia
Electric case, "pressure exerted vocally by the employer [which] may no
more he disregarded than pressure exerted in other ways."1' By the speech
of January 9 Grove clearly indicated to the employees that the phrase "any
interference" used by him In his December 22, 1944 speech meant unions and
that he would not tolerate any union within the plant. In his January 11
speech, delivered on the day following the election, Grove reiterated therein
that the respondent would not tolerate the unionization of its employees. The
three speeches of Grove were addressed to the employees after the respondent
had created an atmosphere of hostility toward unions and their adherents.
By discriminatory discharges and other coercive acts it brought home to its
employees its continuing opposition to unions and, if need be, to invoke eco-
nomic sanctions against those who joined or remained members of unions.
These speeches, moreover, were but a part and parcel of the respondent's
scheme to defeat the employees' self-organization The speeches cannot be
considered separately. They cannot properly be considered as isolated in-
stances of an employer's expression of opinion. They are one of the con-
geries of facts which must be considered in the light of the entire record. So
24 See also N L R B. v M. E. Blatt Co., 143 F. (2d) 268 (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied
323 U S. 774; Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. N. L. R B, 142 F. (2d) 371 (C. C. A 8), cert.
denied 323 U. S. 722; N. L. R. B V. Laister-Kauffman Aircraft Corp., 144 F. (2d) 9
(C C A. 8) ; N L. R B v Trojan Powder Co , 135 F. (2d) 337 (C. C A. 3), cert.
denied 320 U. S. 768; cf Thomas v Collins, 323 U. S. 518.
686572-46-72
1122 DECIS IONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
viewed, only one conclusion can be reached: the speeches constituted an in-
tegral and inseparable part of a continuous course of conduct designed to
forestall the employees' organizational activities. Moreover, the constitutional
guarantee of free speech does not confer upon an employer the privilege of
expression of opinions which amount to pressure exerted vocally where the
employer's whole course of conduct, as here, evidenced in part by oral state-
ments, constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion
The undersigned finds that the evidence is insufficient to support the al-
legations of the complaint, as amended at the hearing, that the respondent
for the "purpose of preventing its employees from selecting a union in a col-
lective bargaining election" did the following: (1) On December 9, 1944,
granted wage increases to 42 employees; (2) entertained its employees at a
lavish party at a hotel in San Francisco, California, on December 17, 1944;
(3) entertained its employees at a second party held in the respondent's plant
on December 22, 1944, and distributed gifts to its employees at the said party
and gave each employee a cash bonus of $25; and (4) gave its employees
a holiday on December 23, 1944, with pay at the rate of time and one half
Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the allegations of the com-
plaint, as amended at the hearing, with respect to the aforesaid matters, be
dismissed.
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 such of them as have been found
to be unfair labor, practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Archibald Bartleman and Ben Scott , the under-
signed will recommend that the respondent offer to Bartleman and Scott im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
The undersigned will also recommend that the respondent make Bartleman
and Scott whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the re-
spondent's discrimination. The discharges of Bartleman and Scott took place
on April 6 and June 28, 1943, respectively. The first charge alleging such dis-
charges was filed on February 27, 1945, on which date the first amended charge
herein was filed 28 No reason appears for this delay of almost 2 years. It
will therefore be recommended that the respondent make Bartleman and Scott
zs See N. L. R. B. v. Federbush, 121 F. (2d) 954, 957 (C. C. A. 2).
se An earlier charge was filed in or about June 1943, alleging, inter alia, the dis-
criminatory discharge of Bartelman . This charge , however, was withdrawn in or about
September 1943, without prejudice.
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1123
whole only for the period from the date of the filing of the first amended
charge herein, February 27, 1945, to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement by payment to each of them of a sum equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages, less his net earnings 29 during such
period
By (1) granting wage increases to 42 employees on December 9, 1944, (2)
entertaining its employees at a lavish party at a hotel in San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, on December 17, 1944, (3) entertaining its employees at a second party
held in the respondent's plant on December 22, 1944, and distributing gifts
to its employees at the said party and giving each employee a cash bonus of
$25 and (4) giving its employees a holiday on December 23, 1944, with pay
at the rate of time and one-half, the respondent did not violate the Act and
accordingly the undersigned will recommend that the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, be dismissed as to those matters.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 115, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, and United Steelworkers of America, af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Archibald Bartleman and Ben Scott, thereby discouraging membership in Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District Lodge 115, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor and in United Steelworkers of America, af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent did not violate the Act by (1) granting wage increases
to 42 employees on December 9, 1944, (2) entertaining its employees at a
lavish party at a hotel in San Francisco, California, on December 17, 1944,
(3) entertaining its employees at a second party held in the respondent's plant
on December 22, 1944, and distributing gifts to its employees at the said
party and giving each employee a cash bonus of $25, and (4) givuia its em-
ployees a holiday on December 23, 1944, with pay at the rate of time and
one-half.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
27 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R B. 440 Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered
as earnings. See Republic Steel Corpoiation v N L. R. B, 311 U. S 7.
A
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 13OARD
undersigned recommends that respondent, Grove Regulator Company, Oak-
land, California, its agents , successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge 115, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, in United
Steelworkers of America, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or in any other labor organization of its employees by laying off, discharg-
ing, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees and from refusing to employ
a member of any union, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist International Association of Machinists, District
Lodge 115, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or United Steel-
workers of America, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Archibald Bartleman and Ben Scott immediate and full re-
instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Archibald Bartleman and Ben Scott for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment by payment to each of them of
a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned
as wages from February 27, 1945, to the date of the offer of reinstatement.
less his net earnings during said period;
(c) Post at its Oakland and Emeryville, California, plants, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix D." Copies of the notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by it immedi-
ately 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) Delete from the application blanks the question concerning the appli-
cant's union affiliations ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, with respect to (1) granting wage increases to 42 employees
on December 9, 1944, (2) entertaining its employees at a lavish party at a
hotel in San Francisco, California, on December 17, 1944, ( 3) entertaining
its employees at a second party held in the respondent's plant on December
22, 1944, and distributing gifts to its employees at the said party and giving
each employee a cash bonus of $25, and (4) giving its employees a holida}
on December 22, 1944, with pay at the rate of time and one-half, be dismissed
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1125
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notify said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of
the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12,
1944, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pur-
suant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the
Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the
filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for
the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties and shall tile a copy with the Regional Director. As further pro-
vided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing within ten (10)
lays from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
HOWARD MYERS,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 21, 1945
APPENDIX A
ADDRESS GIVEN By MR. M. H. GROVE ON DECEMBER 22, 1944
Well, Harold, I knew I was going to be called upon to make a speech, but
I didn 't imagine that my speech would be prefaced by such a glowing in-
troduction. I really will have to take exception to that 80% of the company
remark-that's very flattering but absolutely untrue. I can remember, though,
Harold, back to the time when I was a whole 100% of the company-it had
to be that way as the company only consisted of me and an idea, and it had
to be that way for the usual reason-lack of funds.
Just thirteen years ago this month I was retired from the United States
Navy due to a physical disability. My last assignment in the Navy was
in the Submarine Service and it was there that I began to toy with the idea
of a new type of pressure regulator-mainly because of the fact that we had
so damn much trouble with this particular piece of equipment. And so, when
I was retired from the Navy I determined to try my hand at designing an
entirely new and revolutionary type of regulator. I won't bore you with a
long detailed resume of the trials and tribulations which I then experienced,
but after repeated efforts I did finally arrive at the right solution, and so
was born the original Grove Regulator. I then tried to find a manufactur-
ing concern to put the thing over, but everyone I tried wanted to make it
their way-the old conventional way. Then and there I decided that there
was only one way to successfully market this regulator-and that was to do
it myself without interference from anyone-and so the Grove Regulator Com-
pany was born-and that is where Harold Wolpman came into the picture
Very shortly after more people came into the organization , many of whom
are still with us today. From that point on we have grown in the normal
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
way that a small business operating on a limited amount of capital grows.
We could have expanded more rapidly, but we chose to do it slowly without
suffering the interference that outside capital would have meant. It has
always been my firm conviction that in this type of business you cannot have
more than one head. I saw this when I started. My original idea was not
an ordinary item which could be manufactured by ordinary manufacturing
establishments. That had already been proven by my lack of success with
these types of establishments. The whole organization that we have noun
built up has been on the principle of exclusive patented products designed
in an entirely original manner. This means that we must continually put
profits back into research and design in order to always have ready new
and better products. Banks and bankers are interested primarily, as they
should be no doubt, only in quick profits. We are not building nor have
we ever built for quick profits. We are and always have built for the future
and for future security. The only security in the kind of business we are
in is to make something better. There is no security in making conventional
articles that other manufacturers can and are making. It then becomes a
simple question of arithmetic as to who can make it the cheapest. This, in
my opinion, places too heavy a burden upon the people working in the shop.
We have avoided placing that burden on the people in our plants by the in-
tense effort put into the design of the article in the first place. We are
beyond all the troubles that beset most business in the matter of competi-
tion with the ups and downs of depressions and good times. Harold said
that I was in his opinion 80% of the Grove Regulator Company at its incep-
tion and that I am still in his opinion 80% of the organization. This is an
absolute fallacy. We could not and would not have weathered these war
time years with all their abnormalities if it had not been for the loyal coopera-
tion of every individual in the two plants. I constantly regret that the war
has prevented us from devoting our time and energy to the products which,
in the normal course of events, would have been manufactured and on the
market long before this. I don't mean, of course, that I regret being able to
do our part in the war effort, but it is only natural that we woud have pre-
ferred to proceed with the final design and manufacture of the many useful
peace time products which were on the drawing boards and in the experi-
mental laboratory when war was declared. The first three years of the war
were devoted almost entirely to the design and production of special types
of articles specifically requested by the Navy. The past year, however, has
allowed us to devote considerable time to the proving of the designs that were
on the drawing boards when war came and to the development of many new
ideas. It looked for a while-when the Navy program was fairly well under
way-that we might be allowed to proceed with the manufacture of some
of these ideas for civilian use. However, we found that Government restric-
tions on materials, manpower, etc., were not relieved to the point where we
could enter into such manufacture. We found it necessary, therefore, in
order to keep our people busy and happy to develop another war time product,
and this we did, as you all know, by designing a regulator to be incorporated
on the pack type flame thrower. Here again we tried to make a better regu-
lator designed in a different manner and we were successful . So successful
in fact that we now have the only regulator authorized by the Chemical War-
fare Service of the United States Army. I am really proud of this regulator
and I am proud of the way it is being turned out in our plant. It must be
good because the Chemical Warfare Service has recently informed us that
all other regulators on units already in the field will be replaced by Grove
(,ROVE REGULATOR, COMPANY 1127
Regulators . This regulator again is not a competitive article. Frankly, it
sells for more money than the regulators we are replacing in the field. The
material in it isn't any more expensive than the material in the regulators
we are replacing , but perhaps the other concerns turned their regulators out
more quickly and could therefore afford to sell them for less. We don't manu-
facture articles like that . We don't compete and we don ' t ask our shop per-
sonnel to compete with other shop personnel. We make a better article
because we design it better in the first place , and we can therefore sell it
for more money. If we sell it for more money, we can have many advan-
tages A better product means a better plant ; better equipment to make the
product with ; more advantages for everyone and the thing we seek above
all for everyone connected with the organization-more security . There is
actually no security at all if you must manufacture an article in tight com-
petition . I don't know how much security the manufacturers of the regulators
which we are replacing have, but I do know one thing for sure-Nye are not
and will never as long as I ani in a position to govern things, be placed in
a similar position . Emerson said that "if you can build a better mouse trap,
People will beat a path to your door." Our business is founded on the prin-
ciple of building a better mouse trap or none at all. I firmly believe that
this policy spells security with a capital "S" for me and my family and you
and your families. I think, however , that Mr. Emerson should have added
that in order to build a better mouse trap you must be allowed to devote
your entire time and energy to the designing of that better mouse trap. We
designed a flame thrower regulator that was better than any other on the
market and now the shop is busy and has been busy for the past six months
building those regulators This has given me the opportunity during these
same months to work pretty much night and day improving and redesigning
and redesigning again those products which we intend for the commercial
field but which we cannot manufacture until war time restrictions are lifted
This job of perfecting designs :c a funny business You don't design it om e
You don't design it twice. You do it over and over and over again It ieally
and truly requires the utmost concentration to turn out a first class product
Anything which interferes with and anything which doesn't allow ine to de-
Note my full time and energy to this task is going to mean sooner or later
(and of this I am convinced) the ruination of this company as such \ly
first interest lies in designing better products and I can't help but take con-
,iderable pride in the knowledge that these products are recognized world
wide as better products. The design is of first importance in making a better
product, but no one can underestimate the importance of first class manufac-
ture of the product itself. I think we design a better product and I think
our shop manufactures a better product, but I know we have one of the best
groups of design engineers in the country and I know we have one of the
beat manufacturing plants. I know furthermore that Nye have one of the
finest groups of people working in that manufacturing plant-we ought to
know; we picked every one. We are it relatively small concern in fact there
aren't more than 312 employees in both plants combined , and in a small con-
cern, particularly , one of the prime requisites for success is a tight knit or-
ganization with compatable people-people who are happy and cooperative
and secure . We have tried to make you happy. You have proved you ate
cooperative And we think we have proved by our past record that you are
secure.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
ADDRESS GIVEN BY MR. M. H. GROVE OF JANUARY 9, 1945
Tomorrow will be an important day for all of us. An election will be
held in this plant tomorrow to determine whether the production and mainte-
nance workers desire to change this shop from a non-union shop to a shop
represented by either the A. F. L. or the C. I. O. This is an election to de-
termine whether all of you will have for your exclusive bargaining agent
the A. F. L., the C. I. 0., or whether you want to continue with no union to
represent you.
I should like very much at this time to make clear to you my position
regarding the open shop. We have been for the past ten years an open shop
in the true sense of the word. Ever since the day the company started there
have been union members working here. We have never made any distinc-
tion between members of labor unions and non-members of labor unions. We
have never discharged nor discriminated against an employee because he was
a union member.
Now, for some time there has been an active campaign carried on to organ-
ize this shop. Certain letters have been addressed to employees during this
campaign period, and quite a number of these letters have been turned over
to me by some of you. I appreciate this very much, as it gives me an op-
portunity to set you straight on a few points that have been raised. These
letters deal mostly with the accusation that the company has tried to "stall"
on this election. Here are the facts. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gleichman of
the A. F. L. came to see us on December 4, 1944 and requested that we sign
an agreement with the A. F. L. to represent you people without the formality
of an election. I would not agree to that. I felt that all of you should have
the right to express your preference by a vote and, therefore, on December
5, 1944 (one day later) we addressed a letter to the National Labor Relations
Board asking that an election be held. Those are the facts. Certainly it
would have taken less time to sign an agreement with Mr. Thompson of the
A. F. L immediately, but I did not think it right to do so, and I still do not
think it would have been the right course to take. If there are those among
you who wish union representation, surely an election is the best and fairest
way to decide the issue.
In these letters and in this campaign no specific charges, other than the
question of "stalling" have been raised. For the very good reason, no doubt,
that there are no charges than can be substantiated. Not one single grievance
has been brought to me or to my foremen. A number of you have come to
me about rumors that have been started, however. Now, it is very easy,
particularly among those of you who have not been here so very long, to
start rumors about something that supposedly happened before you came. I
ask you to stop and think before you place any credence in such rumors.
Judge for yourself. What has been the record of the company in the past?
Is there anyone that you actually know who has gotten a "raw deal" or who
has been discriminated against in any way whatsoever? Have I been un-
fair or arbitrary? This, as I have told you before is a one man organization.
Nothing that affects the welfare of any of the employees is acted upon with-
out my say so. No one is discharged unless I know all about it. Therefore,
it follows that if there has been unfairness or arbitrariness, I alone am to
blame. I do not believe I have been unfair, I have tried not to be, and I hope
that I have succeeded
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1129
The election which will be held tomorrow will be by secret ballot, and as
nearly as possible will be conducted like a national presidential election. As
you know it does not make any difference in a national presidential election
whether you are registered as a Democrat or a Republican-you may be
registered as a Republican and still vote the Democratic ticket. This elec-
tion is conducted in exactly the same manner. This election is by secret
ballot so that you can vote in accordance with your own desires regardless
of whether or not you belong to a union, or whether or not you signed an
application card, or signed an authorization card, or anything else. You are
actually voting on who you want to have for your leader. You have three
choices. First on the ballot is the C. I. O. Second on the ballot is the A. F. L.,
and last on the ballot is the present management of your company, which
means me. You should ask yourself before you vote if either of the unions
can do more for you than you and I working together have been able to do
in the past. You should ask yourself why it is that total strangers have
become so interested in your welfare. Who are they? What have they done?
And what more can they do for you than you have already done for your-
self? You should ask yourself whether your interests and the company's are
the same, or whether your interests and those of either union are the same.
In ether words, it boils right down to this. Is your status under my leader-
ship something that you can improve by choosing someone else for your leaders
Now I want to impress upon you the importance of voting tomorrow. The
outcome of this election will be determined by a majority of those voting,
so be sure to vote so that the election will really show your wishes. Re-
member if you do not vote it is the same as letting someone else decide who
will represent you ; in other words, a failure to vote is almost the same as a
vote for the candidate you do not want. You know what this place is like
now. You know that no union can possibly make a contract that will cover
harmonious relations. You know that harmonious relations depend on you
and depend on me. The unions tell you what fine places their shops are, but
look in the newspapers . Practically all of them are advertising for addi-
tional employees. We very seldom have to advertise, we get good employees
without advertising-and there must be a reason for that . I think it is
mainly because we have a pleasant place to work , and it is a pleasant place
because I have made it so and have tried to keep it so. If the union has a
contract from that time on it is the union's responsibilty-it is no longer
mine. It will be in their hands completely.
Once more, let me point out the importance of voting tomorrow . For many
of us it will be the most important election we have ever voted in. It bears
directly on your welfare and that of those dependent on you. To what kind
of leadership are you going to entrust your future with the company. . Is it
unselfish or is it not? Is it interested in your personal, individual welfare,
or is it self-seeking? On the basis of its past record is it open and above
board and dependable, or don't you know? These are the questions you should
think about. I am not making any promises or any claims whatsoever-I just
ask you to stop and think about what you have now. Do you or do you not
want to change that?
APPENDIX C
ADDRESS GIVEN BY MR. M. H, GROVE ON JANUARY 11, 1945
Yesterday was an important day for all of us. An election, as you all know,
was held in the plant and the election determined that this shop would remain
113U DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a non-union shop. I am naturally pleased and not a little proud. I actually
feel somewhat as Mr. Churchill must have felt when Parliament gave him not
long ago a vote of confidence. I feel the same way-I feel as if you all have
given me a vote of confidence. I also feel an even greater sense of responsibility
than heretofore, and I am sure you can understand my feeling that way. It
is difficult for me to express to you clearly how pleased, proud and worried
I am all at the same time. I am really on the spot. I just can't let you down
now-not that I ever wanted to-but now you have made that once and for all
absolutely impossible.
It has been decided by vote that this will not be a union shop in the accepted
sense of the words union shop. I earnestly hope that we may be a united
shop in the truest sense of the words, however. I personally like the sound
of the words "united shop". We have been a united shop in the past and
there is no real reason why we cannot be an even more united shop in the
future. In the little talk I gave you the night before the election I told you
that we had had union members and non-union members working side by side
ever since the inception of the company ten years ago. I like it that way-
I want to keep It that way !
We are all of us individuals, and as individuals we have differences of
opinion, different beliefs, different ideologies, but we must always remember
to respect the other individual's right to a different set of views on any given
subject. I know that I have all or at least my share of the common human
weaknesses and frailties, but I like to pride myself on having the virtue of
being able to see the other fellow's viewpoint. If he sincerely believes in his
principles-no matter how different they may be from mine-I have nothing
but the utmost respect and liking for him. I ask that all of you here remember
that. Let's all try to bear in mind that just because the other fellow does not
agree with you that is no reason for condemning him.
And let's bear one other thing In mind-we are all working together for the
same end . That doesn't mean that you are working for me. You aren 't. You and
I are working together . I am a worker too , and I can prove it-I even have
a social security number ! Nov we all have something to complain about
concerning our jobs. The worst feature of my job is the fact , as I have men-
tioned before , that it keeps me digging away pretty much night and day
plugging at just the one thing. This means I must neglect other things. I
can't see as much of all of you as I would like to. At present and for some
time past every minute of my time has been spent on designing new products
and re-designing old products. Designing is a hard taskmaster and requires
the utmost concentration . Because of this, I can 't see as much of all of you
as I would like to-I can't spend as much time in the shop as I would like to-
I can 't even spend as much time with my family as I would like to. I hope
that some day soon, however, the picture will change, and that I, along with
a lot of other people , will be able to go back to a more normal way of living-a
way of living that will give us all more time to spend doing the things we
enjoy.
I want to say one more thing to all of you before I close and that is that
I will earnestly strive to be worthy of the trust you placed in me yesterday. I
sincerely hope that I will be able to prove to you that you did not elect the
wrong candidate . Please bear with me, however, and remember that no matter
how hard I may try I am bound to make mistakes. But I am going to try!
Abraham Lincoln put it better than anyone else I think when he said "You
can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of
the time , but you can't please all of the people all of the time." Well, I am
GROVE REGULATOR COMPANY 1131
going to try to prove Mr. Lincoln wrong-I am going to try to please all of
the people all of the time!
APPENDIX D
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE REco iMENnATIONS OF A
TRIAL EXAMINER
of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Association of Machinists , District
Lodge 115, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or United
Steelworkers of America , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of this
discrimination.
Archibald Bartleinan
Ben Scott
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such
labor organization.
GRovE REGULATOR COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated . .... ....... .. By ....... ...................................
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.