Illinois Tool Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, A CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE
A. F. OF L.
Case No. C-1318.-Decided November 07, 1939'
Tool Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion : employ-
ment of labor spies ; intimidating statement by supervisory employee at union
meeting-Discrimination : discharge for union activities , charges sustained-
Reinstatement Ordered: of employee discharged-Back Pay: awarded for period
from date of discharge to date of Intermediate Report and from date of Order
to offer of reinstatement.
Mr. Albert P. Wheatley and Mr. Jack G. Evans, for the Board.
Gardner, Carton d Douglas, by Mr. Edwin W. Roemer, of Chicago,
Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. J. W. Ramsey, of Rockford, Ill., for the Union.
Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Association of Machinists, affiliated with the A. F. of L., herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chi-
cago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated April 22, 1939, against
Illinois Tool Works, a corporation, 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 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of
the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, was duly served
upon the respondent and upon the Union. Thereafter the respondent
filed its answer to the complaint.
The complaint alleged in substance that on or about December 23,
1938, the respondent discouraged membership in the Union by dis-
charging Harrison S. Van Delinder, one of its employees, because he
17 N. L. R. B., No. 98.
1016
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1017
joined and assisted the Union; that the respondent employed labor
spies in its Chicago plant continuously since July 5, 1935; and that by
these and other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The answer of the respondent admitted the allegations of the com-
plaint as to the nature of the respondent's business and its connection
with interstate commerce, denied the allegation of unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of Section 8 (3). of the Act; denied the
employment of labor spies since January 4, 1937; failed to deny such
practice from July 5, 1935, to January 4, 1937; and denied all other
material allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice duly served on the respondent and the Union,
a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on May 8 and 9, 1939, before
Horace G. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the
Union by its representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On June 23, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties. He
found that the respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
submitted a brief in support of its exceptions. The respondent sub-
mitted a brief to the Board in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has duly considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and briefs filed by the parties and finds the exceptions of the
Union" meritorious in so far as they are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an Illinois corporation, having plants in Chicago
and Elgin, Illinois, and Toronto, Canada, and sales offices in Chicago,
Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged in the design, manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of cutting tools and screws. In 1938
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent purchased materials worth more than $25,000 for use
in its Chicago and Elgin plants and sold products manufactured at
the same plants worth more than $100,000. The respondent obtained
approximately 50 per cent of the raw materials from outside the
State of Illinois, and shipped approximately 75 per cent of the
finished products to States other than Illinois.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
:affiliated with the American Federation of Labor admitting em-
ployees of the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Employment of labor spies
From March 21, 1934, until January 4, 1937, the respondent, a
member of the National Metal Trades Association, successively em-
ployed at its Chicago plant two operatives, Blair and Ekstrand,
supplied by that Association. The second operative was discharged
the day after the report of the United States Senate Committee
investigating violations of civil ;liberties was published.' The,
respondent's vice president, Frank W. England, testified that Blair
and Ekstrand submitted to him two or three reports weekly, but that
he destroyed the reports iminediately after reading them. According
to his recollection the reports contained information about "various
shop conditions," and "also if there was any radical, communistic atti-
tude in our plant." When asked whether these operatives were sup-
posed to report on labor activities, England testified that he did not
know, since "those instructions would come from the National Metal
Trades and not from me."
The respondent admits by failing to deny, either in its answer
or in its brief, that it employed labor spies in its Chicago plant
prior to January 1937, but contends that it has not done so since
that date, either in Chicago or the Elgin plant, and that therefore
the allegation should be dismissed. The Trial Examiner accepted
this contention and in its Intermediiate Report recommended the
dismissal of this allegation. However, the discontinuance of the
employment of labor spies supplied by an outside agency offers no
1 Report of the Committee on Education and Labor pursuant to S. Res . 266 (74th Con-
,gress ), A Resolution to Investigate Violations of the Right of Free Speech and Assembly
and Interference with the Right of Labor to Organize and Bargain Collectively , Senate
Report No. 6 , Part 4 (76th Congress , 1st Session).
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1019
assurance that the practice may not be carried on by the respond-
ent's own employees or that the practice may not be resumed in the
future.2 We find that the respondent employed operatives for the
purpose of maintaining surveillance of its employees' union activi-
ties, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Interference with the organization efforts of the Union
On December 12, 1938, Joseph Ramsey, an organizer for the
Union, arrived in Elgin and called on Harrison S. Van Delinder,
an employee, whose subsequent discharge by the respondent is dis-
cussed below. The two men arranged for an organization meeting
to be held on December 15. Van Delinder, Papay,3 and a few other
employees attended this meeting. Those who attended joined the
Union and took application cards with the intention of soliciting
other members. At the next meeting held on December 20, few
employees, if any, were present in addition to the original group.
At this time the group decided that Ramsey should write letters:
to all the employees in the plant and invite them to attend a meeting
on January 3, 1939. Van Delinder furnished a list of respondent's
employees and the letters were mailed out to them on December 26.
At the meeting of January 3, 1939, the same group of employees
was in attendance, with the addition of the foreman of the plating
department, William F. Voss. Ramsey did not send Voss a letter,
but Voss had seen letters sent to the men employed in his depart-
ment and had told them that he intended to attend the meeting.
At the door of the meeting hall an argument ensued between Voss
and Ramsey as to the former's eligibility for membership in the
Union. At first Voss objected to being questioned before the meet-
ing started, but then stated that his purpose in .attending the
meeting was merely to find out what the Union had to offer the
platers. Thereupon he was invited in. As soon as the meeting was
called to order, Voss arose and stated :
Now, I want you to know who I am, what my job is at the
Tool Works, and if there is anything that you don't want me
to hear, now is the time to say so, because if you think that
I am here for a purpose, why, I wish that you would just tell
me to get out. Now if there is anything said in this meeting-
if you allow me in the meeting, if there is anything said in
this meeting that someone oh the outside, anyone, ever asks
2
Matter of Consolidated Edison Co ., et al., 4 N. L. R . B. 71, enf'd as modified in Consoli-
dated Edison Co. V. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 197.
3 Papay subsequently voluntarily left the respondent 's employ.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
me what went on here, I'll tell the truth about it. Now if
you don't want me to hear anything under them conditions,
why, I would be glad to step out.
On the following morning, General Foreman Frank Havlik asked
Voss in the presence of employee Frantz whether he attended the
meeting. After Voss replied in the affirmative, Havlik asked him
who else had attended the meeting and Voss told him. , Havlik
testified that, having seen some of the letters sent by Ramsey,4 he
knew of the meeting and "was just interested to see how much
attention and how much interest there was over there."
Although Voss had not been invited to attend the meeting, he
was admitted by Ramsey after the latter learned his identity.
Under the circumstances we do not view his attendance as an unfair
labor practice. However, the statement Voss made after the meet-
ing had been convened, that if permitted to remain he would dis-
close whatever transpired at the meeting, was clearly intimidatory.
It faced the employees present with the alternative of antagonizing
one of their foremen by requiring that he leave, or risking that their
union activity be made known to the respondent's officials. Voss
testified that he went to the meeting of his own volition and with-
out the knowledge' of the officials but when questioned about his
conversation with General Foreman Havlik about the meeting he
stated that "it was general knowledge that I was there at the meet-
ing." Whether or not the respondent authorized or even knew the
action taken by Voss, the fact is that because of his position as
foreman he was looked upon by the other employees as a' repre-
sentative of the respondent. Voss' statement at the meeting and
Havlik's action in questioning Voss concerning the meeting in the
presence of Frantz were acts designed to discourage union activities.
The Trial Examiner bases his recommendation of dismissal of the
allegation upon an erroneous finding by him that "the uncontra-
dicted testimony of Voss is that he was not interrogated by any
supervisory employee of the respondent as to the meeting and did
not volunteer any information." General Foreman' Havlik admit-
tedly questioned Voss the morning after the meeting. We find that
by the foregoing actions of Voss and Havlik, supervisory employees,
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharge of Van Delinder
Harrison Van Delinder was employed by the respondent' at its
Elgin plant from June 1, 1938, until his discharge on December 23,
4 Havlik apparently attached sufficient importance to the letter to bring it directly to the
attention of Superintendent Ehrhard Bertbelson.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1021
1938. He worked in the shipping department; his efficiency and
ability are not questioned by the respondent.
Van Delinder was the first to join the Union on December 13,
1938. He served as the organizer's contact with the men in the
plant, solicited membership, and furnished the list of employees to
be invited to the meeting of January 3. A week before his dis-
charge he asked his foreman, Anthony R. Harper, to join the Union,
telling Harper that he had already interested about 25 employees
in the Union. The record indicates that the respondent's officials
were kept well informed of organizing activities in the plant. We
find that the respondent had knowledge of Van Delinder's union
activities.
The respondent contends that Van Delinder was discharged be-
cause of his consistent violation of a safety rule which required
all production employees to wear goggles. This rule was put in
effect in the Elgin plant because its enforcement had led to sub-
stantial reduction in the number of eye injuries in the Chicago
plant. A notice was posted in the plant listing penalties for viola-
tion of the various safety rules. The penalty for not wearing
goggles was stated in the notice to be a 2-day to 2-week lay-off ;
only "habitual safety rule violators" and those "disinterested in
safety" were to be penalized by discharge. However, no one except
Van Delinder was ever disciplined for the violation of a safety rule
at the Elgin plant.
Van Delinder had frequently been reprimanded by General Fore-
man Havlik for his failure to wear goggles. In the beginning of
November he and Frank Frantz,5 another employee of the shipping
room, were called in to Superintendent Hanneman's office and were
warned by Hanneman that if they were caught without goggles
again, they would be laid off for a week. Shortly thereafter, Berth-
elson succeeded Hanneman as superintendent. Berthelson testified
that he, also, warned Van Delinder about a week prior to his dis-
charge, after Havlik's repeated warnings were of no avail. Van De-
linder denied this and Havlik testified that he knew nothing about
it. It seems unlikely, if Berthelson did reprimand Van Delinder,
that Havlik should not have known about it, since Berthelson as-
sertedly acted upon Havlik's complaint.
When Berthelson discharged Van Delinder on December 23, he
asked the latter to sign a termination slip which stated that the cause
of the discharge was his failure to wear goggles. Van Delinder re-
fused to sign in spite of Berthelson's promise that if he would sign,
he might get his job back in a few months. At the hearing Berthel-
5 Frantz has violated the rule requiring the wearing of goggles just as often as Van
Delinder . He was also frequently reprimanded by Havlik. He failed to wear his goggles
on the day of Van Delinder 's discharge.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
son offered no explanation why Van Delinder's reemployment was
made contingent upon his signing the termination slip.
Although Van Delinder undoubtedly violated the rule requiring
that goggles be worn, we do not believe that the respondent invoked
the drastic penalty of discharge against him for that reason. Not
even a short lay-off, the penalty set out in the respondent's posted
rules, had theretofore been imposed for similar infractions.,, In the
light of Van Delinder's conspicuous union activity in the period im-
mediately preceding his discharge and the respondent's interference
in the self-organization of its employees we believe that the respond-
ent seized upon Van Delinder's failure to wear his goggles as a pre-
text for discouraging membership in the Union by discharging him..
Upon the entire record we find that on December 23, 1938, the re-
spondent discharged Harrison S. Van Delinder for the reason that he,
joined and assisted the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to,
his hire and tenure of employment, discouraging membership in the
Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Van Delinder had earned about 40 cents an hour prior to his dis-
charge, averaging 45 to 50 hours of work a week. Since his dis-
charge he has been employed as taxi driver and has earned approxi-
mately $60.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to the trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing:
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged and is engaging in
unfair labor practices we shall order the respondent to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore as nearly as possible
the conditions which existed prior to the unfair labor practices.
We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Harrison S. Van Delinder. We shall require the respondent
to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
. 6It will be recalled that when Hanneman warned Van Delinder a one-week lay-off was
the suggested penalty . Frantz, warned the same day , was not discharged , or even laid off.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1023
and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary to effectuate
such reinstatement, any person hired since December 23, 1938, to take
his place. We shall also require the respondent to make whole Van
Delinder for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his
discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his dis-
charge to the date of the Intermediate Report, and from the date of
this Decision to the date on which the respondent offers him rein-
statement, less his net earnings during such, periods 7 Inasmuch as
the Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint as to
Van Delinder, the respondent will not be required to pay him back pay
from June 23, 1939, the date of the Intermediate Report, to the date
of this Decision."
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Harrison S. Van Delinder, and thereby .discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
7 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation and room
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. It . B. 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal, State , county , municipal , or other work-relief projects
are not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
sMatter of E. R. Haffelfinger, Inc. and United Wall Paper Crafts of North America,
Local No. 6, 1 N. L. It . B. 760, and subsequent cases.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the International Association
of Machinists, or in any other labor organization of its employees by
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Maintaining surveillance over the activities of its employees
in connection with the International Association of, Machinists or
any other labor organization;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to,
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively with
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Harrison S. Van Delinder immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or a substantially equivalent position with-
out prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, dis-
missing, if necessary, any person hired since December 23, 1938, to
take his place;
(b) Make whole Harrison S. Van Delinder for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages from December 23,
1938, the date of his ' discharge, to June 23, 1939, the date of the
Intermediate Report, and from the date of this Order 'to the date
of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 9
during such periods; deducting, however, from the amount other-
wise due to him moneys received by him during said periods for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, or other work-relief'
projects and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate.
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other gov-
ernments which supply the funds for said work-relief' projects ;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its plant and offices and maintain such notices for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease
and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a), (b), (c), that it will
9 See footnote 7, supra.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1025
take the affirmative action set forth in Section 2 (a) of this Order,
that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain mem-
bers of the International Association of Machinists, and that the
respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of
membership or activity in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.