L. C. Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 872 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
L. C. Products, Inc. and June Blake, Cecil Boll, Cletus Castor,
Mary Jean Chesser, Gertrude I. Cox, Zelpha Dever, Grace E vans,
Mary Gardner, Zoda May Hobbs, Catherine Hunt, Zaluma Idle-
wine, Opal Lee, Hazel Shaffer, and Wanda Young. Case No.
35-CA-428. May 24,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 1954, Trial Examiner Charles L. Ferguson issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed as to these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, with
supporting briefs.'
The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, because the
record and exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present
the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions 2 and briefs, and the entire record
in this case and hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications :
THE REMEDY
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to
recommend the issuance of a broad type cease and desist order. We
find merit in this exception.'
We have found, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by engaging in
the following conduct :
'The Geneial Counsel moved the Board to strike certain statements contained in the
Respondent's brief to the Board which were alleged to be scurrilous and unrelated to any
of the issues we hereby deny the motion to strike but do not thereby indicate our belief
that all of the statements were in good taste
2 The General Counsel excepted to the dismissal by the Trial Examiner of certain of the
8 (a) (1) allegations contained in the complaint Inasmuch as we adopt the Trial Exam-
iner's findings that the Respondent has engaged in other conduct violative of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act iihich, as we hereinafter find, warrants the issuance of a broad cease
and desist order, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the meats of the General Counsel's
exceptions in this regaid
Member Rodgers would adopt the Tiial Examiner's ieconmiended older He does not
believe that a broad cease and desist order is indicated or warranted in this case.
112 NLRB No. 115.
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 873,
1. Surveillance of a union meeting by Plant Supeilntendent Etchi-
son.
2. The systematic interrogation of employees concerning their at-
tendance at union meetings and other activities on behalf of the
Union by Etchison and Night Foreman Bambough.
3. Threatening to close the plant if the Union were successful in
organizing it. These threats were not isolated in nature but were
made to several individual employees on various occasions by both
Etchison and Bambough. Typical of these statements was one by
Etchison in which he urged an employee to persuade his fellow em-
ployees not to organize a union in the plant because Respondent's
president, Lewis, had told him that the Respondent "would not have
a union in here, and . . . would close this plant up first." In the
same vein is Bambough's remark to employee Gertrude Cox in which
he stated, "I see they are trying to get a union, and if I were you and
could stop it, I would stop it, because you know I would be out of a
job as well as you, because they will move out if it is left up to the-
union."
The Respondent's conduct in this respect did not consist merely of a
few isolated instances of interrogation and noncoercive remarks by
minor supervisors. Rather it shows that the Respondent was display-
ing an inordinate interest in the concerted activities of its employees
and was determined to nip the Union's organizational campaign in
the bud by repeatedly warning its employees through its top super-
visory officials that their activities on behalf of the Union could only
redound to their economic detriment because the Respondent would
close the plant rather than deal with a union.
We are convinced that the unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondent are potentially related to other unfair labor practices pro-
scribed by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past.
The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is
coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, we shall order the Respondent to cease and desist
from engaging in the unfair labor practices found and from in any
other manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by
the Act.4 We shall also order the Respondent to take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
4 See Babcock R Wilcox Company, 108 NLRB 1622, Nashua Manufacturing Corporation
of Texas, 108 NLRB 837, enfd as nod 218 F 2d 886 (C A. 5) ; The C H Bailey G-rocery
Co . 100 NLRB 576, Calcasieu Paper Co , 99 NLRB 794; Lerner Shops of Alabama, 91
NLRB 151.
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 L. C. Products, Inc., its agents, officers, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Surveillance of any meeting, or place of meeting, of its em-
ployees in connection with the formation of a labor organization, or
the exercise of other rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act,
and the interrogation of its employees concerning their attendance at
such meetings and their membership in the Union.
(b) Threats of economic reprisal against its employees because of
their membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organization.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist a labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own free choice, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its office and place of business in Elwood, Indiana,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 8
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by it for a period of 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 Re-
spondent to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply therewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint insofar as it alleges that Mary
Gardner, Mary Jean Chesser, Zaluma Idelwine, and Jnne Blake were
discriminatorily discharged, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, and that by promises to its employees of an increase in wages and
5In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Ordei" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Couit of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 875
improvement in working conditions Respondent engaged in inter-
ference, restraint , and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, be and thereby is dismissed.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision 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, as amended, we hereby notify the employees that :
AVE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of any meeting, or place
of meeting, of our employees in connection With the formation of
a labor organization or the exercise of other rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act, and we will not interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their attendance at any such meeting or meet-
ings, or any other union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals
because of their membership in or activities on behalf of a labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere With, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their free
choice, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become and remain members of any
labor organization or to refrain from any such activity.
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FINDINGS
This proceeding had its beginning with the filing of separate charges by 14 indi-
viduals , on various dates, as follows:
On March 16 , 1953, the separate charges of Cecil Boll , Wanda Young , Cletus
Castor , Gertrude I. Cox, Opal Lee , Hazel Shaffer , and Mary Jean Chesser were filed.
Each of the 7 complainants charged that the L. C. Products , Inc., "terminated" her
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment with that Company, at its Elwood, Indiana, plant, "because of her mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of a labor organization, and at all times since such
date has refused . to employ" her. The Chesser charge stated that such discharge
occurred "on or about March 7, 1953," the Shaffer and Boll charges "on or about
March 9, 1953," and the remaining 4 charges that the discharge occurred "on or about
March 11, 1953 "
Separate charges, in the same and identical language as the preceding charges, were
filed by Zelpha Dever, Catherine Hunt, Zoda May Hobbs, Zeluma Idlewine, Grace
Evans, and Mary Gardner, on March 17, 18, and 23 and April 6, 22, and 29, 1953,
respectively, each, except Grace Evans, who fixed the date as March 9, stating that
she was "terminated . on or about March 11, 1953." A charge signed by June
Blake was filed April 15, 1953, stating that "on March 31, 1953, L. C. Products, Inc.,
refused to reemploy" her "at the end of her sick leave because of her membership in
and activities in behalf of a labor organization, and at all times since such date has
refused . . . to employ" her.
Under date of August 20, 1953, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board,' by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio),
issued a complaint, based upon the said 14 separate charges, against L C. Products,
Inc. While each of the 14 Charging Parties had stated in the charge filed by her
that she was discharged "because of her membership in and activities in behalf of
a labor organization," the complaint named but 3 of the 14 Charging Parties as hav-
ing been discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act, alleging that "on or about March 3, 1953," Mary Gardner,
Mary Jean Chesser, and Zaluma Idlewine were discharged "because of their lawful
strike action and other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection, and since said date Respondent has failed and
refused to reinstate said employees." Later, apparently on August 28, the com-
plaint was amended by adding the name of Charging Party June Blake in this allega-
tion, making a total of 4 of the 14 Charging Parties alleged to have been discharged
in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
By way of 8 (a) (1) violations, the complaint alleges that, "commencing on or
about January 1, 1953, and at all times thereafter, Respondent, through and by its
officers, agents, supervisors and authorized representatives interfered with restrained,
and coerced ... its employees [at its Elwood, Indiana, plant] in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act," by: (a) "Questioning its employees
in regard . to membership in, sympathy for, affiliation with, and activities on
behalf of the Union"; (b) "Threatening and warning its employees to refrain from
assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union"; (c) "Surveil-
lance" of union meetings and "the activities of its employees on behalf of the Union";
(d) "Promising its employees an increase in wages and improvement in working
conditions in order to forestall the organization of the Union among its employees";
and (e) "Threatening" to move its plant from Elwood, Indiana, "before Respondent
would allow its employees to be organized by the Union or any other labor organiza-
tion."
The complaint further alleges that "On or about February 27, 1953, the employees
of Respondent [at its Elwood, Indiana, plant] ceased work concertedly and went on
strike." which "was caused and prolonged by the unfair labor practices of the Re-
spondent."
A letter dated August 7, 1953, from the attorney who represented the General
Counsel at the hearing, directed to counsel for Respondent, advised that it had been
"determined that the charges filed by Mary Gardner, Mary Jean Chesser, and Zaluma
Idlewine, alleging violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act are meritorious We
also feel that all the charges have merit insofar as they allege violations of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act." I note here that none of the charges alleged any independent
8 (a) (1) violations whatever.
A letter or notice from the Regional Director, dated August 20, 1953, the date
of the issuance of the complaint, directed and sent to the Charging Parties, Cecil Boll,
Cletus Castor, Grace Evans, and June Blake, advised them, and each of them, that
"upon careful investigation it does not appear that there is sufficient evidence to war-
rant further proceedings in regard to the 8 (a) (3) allegations in your charges at this
time and I am, therefore, refusing to issue complaint so far as your discharges are
concerned." Apparently, however, there was shortly a reversal of this conclusion
'The term General Counsel as used herein in reference to the hearing, includes the
attorney repiesenting the General Counsel at the hearing The National Labor Relations
Board is referred to herein merely as the Board
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 877
as to June Blake, and on August 28, 1953, an amendment to paragraph numbered
7 of the complaint to include the name of June Blake therein, along with Mary
Gardner, Mary Jean Chesser, and Zaluma Idlewine, was issued and served on the
appropriate parties, so that the complaint, as thus amended, alleged that those 4, of
the 14 Charging Parties, were discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. I necessarily infer, and this inference is sustained by statements of the attorney
representing the General Counsel at the hearing and later referred to, that the same
finding made by the Regional Director, in respect to the charges of Cecil Boll, Cletus
Castor, and Grace Evans, that is, that there was not sufficient evidence "to warrant
further proceedings in regard to the 8 (a) (3) allegations" of their charges, which
was the sole violation alleged in any of the 14 charges, was after "careful investiga-
tion" likewise made as to the 8 (a) (3) charges filed by Gertrude I. Cox, Zelpha
Dever, Zoda May Hobbs, Catherine Hunt, Opal Lee, Hazel Shaffer, and Wanda
Young, as none of them was named in the 8 (a) (3) allegation of the complaint.
On August 31, Respondent filed an answer admitting the commerce allegations of
the complaint, and that "the United Construction Workers of America, a division
of the United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act," as alleged in the complaint, but Respondent asserts
that neither the United Construction Workers nor the United Mine Workers has
complied with the provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, and that the
charges filed herein "were instituted by said labor organizations by subterfuge and
deceit in order to obtain jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board despite"
their refusal to comply with the requirements of said Section 9 (f), (g), and (h).
Further answering Respondent denies that it committed the 8 (a) (1) and/or 8 (a)
(3) violations alleged in the complaint. Specifically answering the 8 (a) (3) allega-
tions of the complaint Respondent avers that the strike mentioned in the complaint
"was an unlawful strike" and that all employees participating therein were "offered
the opportunity of returning to work by a certain day and that others were hired to
fill the places of those who refused" to do so "because of the necessity of the Respond-
ent to fulfill a schedule of delivery of certain goods iequired by the National Defense
program."
On September 21, 1953, "Pursuant to the request of counsel for the General
Counsel and agreement of Respondent's counsel," the hearing which had been set
for October 5, 1953, at Indianapolis, Indiana, was rescheduled to October 19, 1953,
at Elwood, Indiana. On September 25, 1953, the Regional Director issued an
order indefinitely postponing the hearing herein, and on October 2, by letter to
counsel for Respondent, the Regional Director overruled Respondent's objections
to the order indefinitely postponing the hearing. In this letter, the Regional Di-
rector advised that he "had declined to issue a complaint based on several of the
(14) alleged 8 (a) (3) charges," that "several of the individuals affected" thereby
"have filed requests for reviews," and that "after the ruling of the General Counsel
on the appeals" a "date for the hearing in this matter" would be set. Apparently
the General Counsel sustained the refusal of the Regional Director to issue a com-
plaint based upon certain of the 8 (a) (3) charges, and the matter was left as it
then stood, that is, that the evidence, developed in the course of the investigation
made, was deemed insufficient to sustain 10 of the 14 8 (a) (3) charges filed herein.
On December 1, 1953, the Regional Director issued an order rescheduling the
hearing for January 11, 1954, at Elwood, Indiana, and the parties were notified
accordingly. Pursuant to such notice a hearing was held, commencing on that
date, at Elwood. Indiana, before me, Charles L. Ferguson, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner to conduct same. All parties appeared,
were represented at said hearing, and were accorded full opportunity to be heard,
produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, introduce evidence relevant to the
issues, present oral argument upon the record at the conclusion of the evidence, and
thereafter file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respond-
ent filed a brief and same has been carefully examined and considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, L. C. Products, Inc , is an Indiana corporation operating two
manufacturing plants, one at Indianapolis, and another at Elwood, Indiana The
Corporation was organized and commenced operation at Indianapolis in February
1944. The "main product" manufactured at the Indianapolis plant is "an automo-
bile water pump, which is a replacement item to service all motor cars and trucks."
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Later, and to the time of the hearing, the Company also, and in addition to its "main
product," manufactured a "fuel nozzle for the English Sapphire jet engine" at its
Indianapolis plant "on a subcontract basis." The "main product" of the Indianapolis
plant is sold and shipped to "Sears Roebuck, Western Auto, Western Tire, and jobbing
outlets throughout" the United States, and "practically the entire output" of this
plant is sold and shipped directly "in interstate commerce."
In the fall of 1951, the Company "contracted on a subcontract basis with the
Chicago Electric Company and the Royal Vacuum Company to manufacture the
M-174 fuse body, which is used by the chemical warfare branch of the United
States Government on the 4.2 chemical shell " This contract necessitated additional
plant facilities and to meet the situation the Company acquired a building at Elwood,
Indiana, and in November 1951 set about repairing and remodeling same, and the
installation of the machinery and equipment required for the manufacture of the
M-174 fuse body. This Elwood plant commenced production in March 1952.
The M-174 contract was completed in the "early part of October 1952," whereupon
the Elwood plant was "shut down for a period of a little more than two months in
order to change the tooling and redesign certain jigs and fixtures for the produc-
tion of the M-502 fuse body." The undertaking to manufacture the M-502 fuse
body was "as a subcontractor for 3 different companies, The International Busi-
ness Machine, Westclox, and Gruen Watch. The tooling on the job was furnished
by Westclox and Gruen," with the reservation that in the event the L. C. Products,
Inc., failed to meet delivery schedules, Westclox and Gruen could cancel the sub-
contract and "move out the tools." The M-502 fuse body is manufactured for
the United States Army Ordnance. Having completed the retooling, the Elwood
plant resumed operation, with the production of the M-502 fuse body about the
middle of December 1952, and later the Company entered upon the manufacture
at that plant of signal containers for the submarine branch of the United States
Navy, in addition to the manufacture of the M-502 fuse body. At the time of
the hearing the Elwood plant was still engaged in the manufacture of these two
items, the M-502 fuse body for the United States Army Ordnance, and signal con-
tainers for the submarine branch of the United States Navy. The products of the
Elwood plant are sold and shipped directly "in interstate commerce."
The main office of the Company is, and at all times has been, at its Indianapolis
plant, where all of its fiscal records and all of its records of every kind, including
employment, payroll, accounting, production, and costs, covering both plants, are
maintained. The president of the Company testified that the two plants are oper-
ated as one business, and "as an intergrated unit."
The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that during the past 12 months,
and during each 12-month period material hereto, the Company sold, shipped, and
delivered brass fuse pieces valued in excess of $50,000, from its plant at Elwood,
Indiana, directly to points outside the State of Indiana. While the maximum value
of the products annually sold and shipped in interstate commerce from both plants,
or either separately, was not shown or approximated, counsel for Respondent stated
of record that the Company's gross income from goods sold, shipped, and trans-
ported directly in interstate commerce from both plants, in the course of its busi-
ness, "is far in excess of $250,000 a year."
I find that the nature and extent of the Company's output flowing directly into
interstate commerce is such as brings this proceeding within the category of cases
in which the Board asserts and exercises its jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America,
mentioned in the complaint, and hereinafter referred to either as the Union or as
the United Mine Workers, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
It was stipulated that, "United Construction Workers is a part of District 50 of the
United Mine Workers," and that "it is in fact the United Mine Workers." The
testimony is conclusive that the union organizational campaign among the employees
of Respondent's Elwood, Indiana, plant, to which alone the complaint herein relates,
including the strike which accompanied same, was initiated, promoted, and carried
on by, and under the direction and supervision of, the agents and representatives
of the United Mine Workers. Throughout the testimony the witnesses, including 12
of the 14 Charging Parties who testified at the hearing, as well as other witnesses
who joined or signed union authorization cards, identified and referred to the Union
involved as the United Mine Workers. It is here noted that the United Mine Workers
had not at any of the times material herein, and has not to this time, complied with
the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, nor has the United
Construction Workers ever come into compliance therewith.
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 879
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Elwood plant operation
The events giving rise to this case occurred at, and are confined to, Respondent's
Elwood plant alone. At the time this course of events began the Company operated
two shifts, a day shift and a night shift, at this plant. The day shift worked from
7 a. m. to 3:30 p. m., and the night shift from 4 p. m. to midnight. The total number
of employees, supervisors excepted, at that time was not given with exactness, but
was estimated as ranging from 70 to 75, about equally divided between the two
shifts with perhaps "a few more on the day shift."
The Company recognized three classifications of employees. "The repair, recon-
ditioning, and remodeling" of the buildings taken over for the Elwood plant had
not as yet been fully completed and a crew of four men and a foreman, John Craig,
classified as the maintenance crew, were still engaged on that work and other like
work necessary to the maintenance of the building and plant generally. The pro-
duction line "was a fully automatic machine operation." All of the machine operators
are women. A machine operator's work was described as "mainly to insert a piece
of work, press the switches, and remove the piece of work. No more skill is required
than the dexterity of movement" which "comes with daily operation." The Company
classified these machine operators as production or production line workers. It is
not entirely clear but, as I understand, the inspectors, numbering approximately 12,
who, except the chief inspector, were all women, were also classified as production
line workers and it is my impression that most, but perhaps not all, of the workers
at the "burr table" were women and that those workers were also classified as pro-
duction line workers. The third classification was broadly stated as "nonproductive
help," workers "who do not produce machinewise." Apparently most of the so-called
nonproductive workers, if not all, were men. It thus appears that practically all
,of the so-called production workers and an overwhelming percentage of the employees
were women.
The management and supervisory personnel who most prominently figure in
the evidence are- Arthur I. Lewis, president of the Company, whose home was at
Indianapolis, some 45 or 50 miles distant from Elwood; a Mr. Greenlee, chief
engineer for the Company; Melvin Etchison, superintendent of this Elwood plant
and day shift foreman; and Joe Bambough, foreman of the night shift.
B. United Mine Workers organizational campaign begins
I shall, as did the witnesses and counsel for the General Counsel and the Company
alike, refer to the Union involved in this matter as the United Mine Workers, and
shall abbreviate that to UMW. So far as appears none of the employees solicited
the UMW to interest itself in the organization of the plant, and apparently that
Union entered upon the undertaking of its own initiative the evidence does not
disclose that any employee or group of employees was delegated, or assumed or
exercised, any particular leadership or responsibility in promoting the UMW cam-
paign Two UMW representatives or agents were outstanding throughout the whole
period involved. Neither the first names nor even the initials of these two men
was anywhere mentioned, and they did not testify at the hearing. They are referred
to in the testimony as, Mr. Cassidy, a UMW organizer, and Mr. Cartwright, regional
director of that Union, who are hereinafter referred to merely as Cassidy and
Cartwright. A third UMW organizer participated to some extent in the campaign,
apparently a sort of an assistant to Cassidy. He did not testify and was referred
to in the testimony, and is herein, merely as Hershel. Cassidy was the on-the-ground
man directly in charge of the campaign.
All dates hereinafter mentioned, unless otherwise noted, are in the year 1953.
It is not clear just when the union campaign first got under way other than the
witnesses are in agreement that it was during the month of February. The earliest
in that month that any witness called by the General Counsel places the approximate
time that she first heard about the UMW proposal to organize the employees was
the testimony of Gertrude Cox, a night shift worker, one of the Charging Parties,
that her first knowledge of the matter was "two or three weeks before the strike,"
which commenced on February 27 when Cassidy called at her home. Three weeks
before the strike would have been February 6. However, the testimony of the other
11 Charging Parties, called as witnesses by the General Counsel, indicates that none
of them learned of the UMW proposal earlier than sometime during the workweek
beginning Monday, February 9, the earliest apparently being about February 11 or
12 of that week. From that time, as will be related, the enterprise moved rapidly
and within a period of about 2 weeks to its culmination, on Friday, February 27,
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in a strike for recognition called, conducted , and managed by the UMW through
Cassidy, Cartwright , Hershel , and other UMW agents and representatives.
The only employees mentioned in the testimony as having joined the Union, or
as having signed the union authorization cards, were women, and , so far as appears
from the evidence , the UMW organization at this plant was composed wholly of
women employees , as were the picket Imes during the strike. While there is nothing
in the literature or circulars distributed by the UMW so indicating nonetheless
apparently the organization , insofar as it had progressed during the time herein
involved, was limited to so -called production line workers , including inspectors, all
of whom, as has been noted , were women , except that perhaps some workers at
the "burr table " may have been men, about which I am not sure.
The UMW organizational efforts seem to have commenced , as has been stated,
around February 11 or 12, with visits by Cassidy and Hershel to the homes of some
of the women employees seeking to enlist their interest in the UMW undertaking
to organize and their signatures to union authorization cards. On about February
13, Grace Evans , a day shift worker and a Charging Party, signed an authorization
card. One of the women employees visited at this time, apparently by Hershel, was
Catherine Hunt, a day shift worker and one of the Charging Parties, who signed a
card. Hershel asked her permission to hold a meeting at her home to which she
assented . This meeting was held, at best I can approximate the date, Friday night,
February 13, or Saturday night, February 14. Hunt said she did not "personally
invite anyone" to this meeting except her "sister," but she did not say that her sister
attended the meeting . It appears from the testimony of Zaluma Idelwine, a Charging
Party, that she is a sister of Hunt, however she did not say that she attended this
meeting. Idelwine did say that she "signed a card at Catherine Hunt 's home a week
before the strike," which I surmise may refer to a later meeting at the Hunt home
on Monday , February 23, to which a mere passing reference is made in testimony
and which will be mentioned later. It is not said how many women were present
at this meeting held at the Hunt home on February 13 or 14. Both Cassidy and
Hershel "talked at the meeting ," and "the meeting lasted about an hour." But two
women, other than Hunt, mentioned this meeting: Wanda Young, a day shift worker
and a Charging Party, said she attended and "signed up with the Union that night,"
and Zoda May Hobbs, a day shift worker and a Charging Party, said she attended
the meeting . It appears that this was the first union meeting held.
C. Events from February 14 to 27, when the strike commenced
1. Week of Monday , February 16, through Saturday , February 21
During the workweek beginning on Monday , February 16, the union effort was
considerably intensified culminating in a union meeting at the city hall , also referred
to as the city building, on Saturday night , February 21.
On Monday, February 16, June Blake , one of the 4 Charging Parties for whom
reinstatement is asked, signed a union authorization card. The circumstances under
which she signed are not stated . On February 17 a representative of the Union
called at the home of Mary Ann Sparks , a day shift worker, not a Charging Party,
and called as a witness by Respondent , and solicited her to sign a union authorization
card. That was the "first" she "had heard" of the union efforts to organize at the
plant. She told this union representative , whose name she could not recall, that she
"was not interested ," thereupon "he said, if he got a majority of the workers" to sign
he "would come back to see" her . "He never came back." Mary Jean Chesser, 1
of 4 Charging Parties for whom reinstatement is asked, said , and I credit her undenied
testimony to that effect , that during the week of February 16 Etchison , the plant
superintendent , "asked me if I had heard a rumor about any of the women wanting
to form a union , and I told him I hadn't . . because I hadn't at that time ." Chesser
was later solicited and did sign a card for the Union , apparently before the February
21 meeting , although the specific time and circumstances are not stated . Apparently
Zoda May Hobbs , a Charging Party, also signed an authorization card sometime
during that week prior to the February 21 meeting.
Lewis, president of the Company , said that shortly prior to February 19 he "had
heard rumors" that there was talk of "a union in the plant ," and that he "first learned"
about these rumors from Etchison, the plant superintendent , but that "the first posi-
tive information that any [union ] activities" were going on came to him on February
19 in the course of conversations on that date with employees Catherine Hunt, Zoda
May Hobbs , and Wanda Young ( all Charging Parties ). Lewis, Hunt , and Hobbs
are in substantial agreement as to how this contact came about. On that day Hunt
and Hobbs , both day shift workers, had finished the day's work and left the factory.
Later as they were going in the Hobbs' automobile to the Zimmer company's plant,
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 881
whose premises adjoin the L. C. Products premises, to pick up Mrs. Hobbs' husband,
Robert C. Hobbs, who worked at Zimmer's, at the close of his day's work, they met
Lewis and Greenlee leaving the L. C. Products plant "in Mr. Lewis' car" with Lewis
driving. Mrs. Hobbs, who was driving the Hobbs' car, said: "He [Lewis] was going
one way, and I was going the other, and he waved his hand to me to stop, I stopped,
and Mr. Lewis stopped his car, and said he would like to talk to us." From this
point as related by Hunt, she and Mrs. Hobbs left the Hobbs' car standing at the
side of the street and "went over and got in the car with" Lewis and Greenlee,
however, Lewis "had to pull away from there on account of the traffic," so "he drove
down about 3 blocks to the City park" where Lewis stopped his car and a conversation
ensued. As Hunt related the conversation- "They [Lewis and Greenlee] wanted
to know what all the arguing in the factory was about, what our complaints were,
and what mine personally was, and I told Mr. Lewis that I would like to have higher
wages because I couldn't support my family on what I was getting." She did not
say what reply, if any, Lewis made. Asked to relate the conversation at that time,
Mrs. Hobbs said: "He [Lewis] just wanted to know what the difficulties were in
the factory" and "I just said that we needed a raise." She did not say what, if any,
reply Lewis made. Lewis then drove the two women back to the Hobbs' car, and
they proceeded to pick up Mr. Hobbs and then drive to the Hunt home with Lewis
and Greenlee, apparently by prearrangement, following, and there, as Hunt states it,
"we all went inside [the Hunt home] and talked."
Present at the Hunt home were, Hunt, Mr. and Mrs. Hobbs, Lewis, and Greenlee.
Hunt first stated that all either Lewis or Greenlee said at her home was that Lewis
"said he didn't want outsiders coming in and telling him how to run his business,"
and "he wanted us to talk to the girls," and "try to settle matters without bringing
outsiders into it," and "he did not say anything further " After Hunt had thus stated
what was clearly her impression of the substance of the whole of what Lewis said
at that time, she later gave the following answers to further and subsequent somewhat
leading questions by the attorney representing the General Counsel as to what Lewis
then said:
Q. At the time Mr. Lewis was at your home do you recall if there was any
discussion about overtime?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us what that discussion was?
A. It brings in a lot of personal matters and all that, that I don't like to
discuss here.
Q. Just tell us what Mr. Lewis said and what you said?
A. He offered me more overtime if I would go back to work and not go on
with the strike. Well, he didn't know there was a strike, but go on with union
activities.
Q. What did Mr. Lewis say about overtime?
A. He told me that when there was overtime he would give me all the overtime
he could give me.
Q. And what were the conditions for getting the overtime, if any. Under
what circumstances would you get this overtime?
A. Because I really needed the work while the other girls didn't.
Hunt is a widow. She had told Lewis shortly before, in the conversation in the Lewis'
car near the park, that she could not support her family on the wage she was getting.
I doubt not that she took this opportunity to press her need for increased earnings,
and in that connection asked Lewis about more overtime work, and that Lewis told
her, as she said, that "when there was overtime he would give" her "all the overtime
he could," and that the consideration for that assurance by Lewis was, as is indicated
by the context, her dire need of extra work to meet her personal situation, which
seems to have been discussed The vague, inconsistent, and confusing conclusion
or observation injected in the answer about Lewis offering her overtime work if
she "would go back to work and not go on with the strike" or "union activities" is
not such, in view of my observation of Hunt as a witness, and my judgment as to
her comprehension of the matters involved, and considering the context as a whole,
as can, in my opinion, be accepted as the basis of a finding of a promise of benefits
by Lewis constituting an 8 (a) (1) violation. Later I state my evaluation of Lewis'
testimony, but, and in keeping with the opinion there expressed, it is noted here
that I credit his testimony that he at no time made any promises related to their
union activities to any of his employees
Asked by the attorney for the General Counsel to relate "what the conversation
was" at the Hunt home on this occasion, Mrs. Hobbs (Zoda May) said: "It was
about . . . what the difficulties were at the factory, and that's about all. He [Lewis]
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
just said that nobody was going to run his business , tell him how to do it," and
"He said he wished we would talk to the girls and see if they couldn 't drop the
matter, and get it settled ." The attorney for the General Counsel then inquired:
Q. Drop what matter?
A. He didn't say.
Mrs. Hobbs did not mention hearing any conversation at all between Lewis and
Hunt about overtime work. It will be noted that neither Hunt nor Mrs. Hobbs
undertook to recall or repeat the language used, and were at most stating merely a
sort of general interpretation of Lewis' remarks . I do not consider their testimony
such as to sustain a finding based thereon of interference , restraint , or coercion.
As stated , Robert C. Hobbs, husband of Zoda May , worked at the Zimmer plant.
He had never worked for L. C Products . He summarized the conversation between
Lewis and Hunt and his wife in this way: "He [ Lewis] just asked Zoda and Kath-
erine there what the trouble really was, what they wanted to do a thing like that
for" but "He didn't come right out and say what the thing was " This is pretty
much in line with the testimony of Hunt and Mrs . Hobbs as to the substance of
their conversation with Lewis In addition Hobbs stated that while they were there
at the Hunt home he personally had a conversation with Lewis and Greenlee in the
course of which Lewis told him that "No one was coming in and run his business"
and that "he would close her down first." Mr. Hobbs said that when Lewis made
these remarks , "Mr. Lewis and Mr. Greenlee were talking , they were speaking to
me at the time ," and that in this conversation he (Hobbs ) "explained" to Lewis that
at Zimmer 's "they have a rotating number of employees who meet regularly with
management ," and that he (Hobbs ) "had served on that committee ," and that Lewis
said, "It was a good idea." So far as appears neither Hunt nor Mrs . Hobbs par-
ticipated in this conversation between Mr . Hobbs and Lewis, and neither men-
tioned, in her testimony , hearing any part of it. If in the course of that conversa-
tion Lewis told Mr. Hobbs , as Hobbs said he did, that "No one was coming in and
run his business ," as I doubt not he did , and that he "would close her down first,"
about which I am dubious, as will be later developed , there is no indication to be
found in their testimony that either Hunt or Mrs . Hobbs heard , or prior to the strike
had heard of, these purported statements , or, as has been noted, any part of the con-
versation between Mr. Hobbs and Lewis. It is to be assumed that had Hunt and Mrs.
Hobbs, or either of them, heard the statement about closing the plant, which Mr.
Hobbs attributed to Lewis, certainly the attorney representing the General Counsel
would have developed that fact in the course of their testimony.
Mr. Hobbs said the group was at the Hunt home "for an hour," but Hunt places
the time as about 20 minutes , which seems more likely . Anyway Mr . and Mrs.
Hobbs were the first to leave, and after or with their departure Lewis and Greenlee
expressed the desire to call on Wanda Young , another day shift worker (and a
Charging Party ), but did not know where she lived, whereupon Hunt volunteered
to accompany them "to show them where Wanda lived ." On the way to the Young
apartment Lewis asked Hunt if she "knew how far along they had gone ," the ref-
erence, in context, being to the "union organization ," and Hunt replied that "they had
gone pretty far." I consider this a mere causal and innocuous inquiry not amount-
ing to 8 ( a) (1) interrogation . Arriving at the Young apartment , the four, Young,
Hunt, Lewis , and Greenlee , conversed for a very few minutes at most "standing in
the hall outside the apartment ." The attorney for the General Counsel asked Young
what was said . Her answer was: He [Lewis ] made the statement that his brother
or cousin had a factory , and they had a union in there, and they would never bring a
union in there again. He asked me . . . what I expected at the factory, and I said
I thought . . . I deserved a raise , and he said he could not afford to give us a raise
then. In fact he showed me a paper and told me about the factory . . . going in
the red " Young having thus purportedly related the sum of the conversation, the
attorney for the General Counsel moved with a series of further questions, of a
leading nature , about what Lewis said on that occasion , as follows:
Q Now at this time in the hall way to your apartment was anything at all
said to you about the factory being transferred?
A. Mr. Lewis said he would fold the factory up and move it away.
Q Did Mr. Lewis say under what conditions that would be done?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. Did he say he would close the factory up and move it out?
A. Yes, he said he would never let a union in, he would close the factory up
and move it away first.
It will be remembered that the General Counsel 's witness , Hunt (a Charging Party),
was present in the group standing in the hall throughout the conversation between
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 883
Young and Lewis, but Hunt did not in any respect corroborate Young's supplemental
version of the conversation, set out above, responsive to the further questions of the at-
torney for the General Counsel. Hunt summed up the whole of the conversation in
this manner: "He [Lewis] told her [Young] what he had told us [Hunt and Hobbs],"
and suggested that she [Young] "talk the matter over with the rest of the girls and
try to settle it among us, he did not want no outside interference." It casts a question
on the purported threat to "fold the factory up and move it out," which Young at-
tributed to Lewis, as above set out, that Hunt did not corroborate Young's testimony
to that effect which undoubtedly she would have done had she heard Lewis make
such a statement. Hunt said that at the conclusion of the short visit with Young, in
the hallway, Lewis and Greenlee took her home.
The two instances above mentioned, appearing in the testimony of Robert Hobbs
and that of Wanda Young, constitute the whole of the direct evidence purporting to
show threats by Lewis personally to close the plant if the Union came in. I shall
here and now state my evaluation of Lewis as a witness, and this applies to his testi-
mony as a whole and wherever hereinafter involved. Based upon my observation of
his attitude, conduct, and demeanor as a witness, and as a party very much in interest
and present at the counsel table with the attorneys representing his Company through-
out the entire hearing, it was my impression at the conclusion of the hearing, as it is
now, after a careful analysis of his testimony as a whole, that Lewis was a reliable and
credible witness. His complete candor and frankness, however, affecting the par-
ticular matter at the time involved concurred in creating an impression on my part
that he was not disposed intentionally or deliberately to resort to misstatement. His
forthrightness is demonstrated by a consideration of his testimony as a whole. His
testimony is singularly free of quibbling, attempts at evasion, or double talk. If he
was not sure, as in an instance involving Charging Party June Blake, later discussed,
as to when something occurred or clear as to the details of the matter, he so stated, but
for the most part his accuracy about such things was pretty well confirmed by other
testimony, or by admitted or undisputed facts and circumstances in the case. Lewis
firmly denied that he ever at any time made "any statement," or to that effect, or in
substance, to anyone, "that if the Union were brought into the plant" he "would shut
down and move the equipment to another city or community." Although from earliest
childhood his family had been of pro-union persuasion, Lewis candidly admitted that
he did not want a union in his plants. There has never been a union in the Indianap-
olis plant. Lewis further freely admitted that he had "decidedly expressed" himself,
and his views were well known, that he did not "like a union and did not want a
union" in his plants, as he felt there was no necessity "for outside help" in "a small
plant like we have with the door wide open and employees welcome to come into the
office and make any criticism or ask any questions." Even so Lewis said he had never
contemplated doing so, nor made any threat to any one, at any time, that he would
close a plant if a union organized his employees. In this instance Lewis was well
aware that he could not be required to recognize the noncomplying UMW union, and
he was also aware, by advice of counsel, of the limitations of Section 8 (a) (1), and
specifically in respect to promises of benefits or threats of reprisals, upon an employer
in his opposition to union organization in his plant. Apparently after, and during the
week following, the Hunt-Hobbs-Young conversations there was an instance or two
of loose talk about the possibility of the plant moving away from Elwood if the Union
came in, which will be dealt with later and in due course, none of which was attributed
to Lewis. I am constrained, for the reasons stated, to credit Lewis' testimony that he
never personally entertained or stated anything to the effect that he would close down
or move the plant if the Union came in, and therefore I cannot accept and credit the
testimony of Robert Hobbs and Wanda Young in that respect. I surmise that having
heard of some speculation as to whether Lewis, because of his well-known opposition
to a union in his plants, might close the Elwood plant if the Union came in there, and
having in mind the representations made in at least one of the circulars distributed by
the Union by way of warning to employees that management might promise or
threaten this or that, including closing the plant, and urging them to stand fast against
anything of that kind, Robert Hobbs and Wanda Young in trying to recall, after the
long lapse of time that had intervened, what Lewis said on the two occasions involved,
gave what he did say in opposition to the Union an erroneous construction or inter-
pretation. Further, I again note, others present did not, and apparently could not,
corroborate in any way the Robert Hobbs or Wanda Young testimony in that respect.
A union meeting was held Saturday night, February 21, in the courtroom, on the
second floor of the city hall. Nine of the twelve Charging Parties called by the Gen-
eral Counsel as witnesses, Shaffer, Lee, Boll, Cox, Evans, Hunt, Chesser, Young, and
Hobbs, testified that they attended and Leatha Brewer, a witness called by Respond-
396028-56-vol. 112-57
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent, also attended. It is not disclosed whether this meeting was called as an open
meeting for employees generally or was on a selective basis for those who had to
that time signed union cards, and others invited because they were regarded as in-
terested in the Union and prospective members. While Shaffer's testimony about when
she first heard of the union campaign and when she signed the card is at places con-
fusing, I think the inference is warranted from her testimony as a whole that it was
prior to this meeting, and thus it appears that 8 of the 9 Charging Parties who testified
to attending this meeting had signed a union authorization card prior thereto. The
other Charging Party of those who testified, Cecil Boll, and Brewer, who was not a
Charging Party, did not sign a card until the following week. Boll said she did not
know anything about "a union trying to organize in the plant" until a "short time
before February 21," and that the first time the matter was ever discussed between
her and her fellow employees was "just a short time before" that date. In fact Boll
said she was first told of the efforts of the UMW to organize in the plant by Glenn
Small "shortly before February 21," at which time Small invited her "to come to a
meeting at the City Hall." The context indicates the invitation related to this Feb-
ruary 21 meeting. Glenn Small, as described by Etchison, was "in charge of inspec-
tion" and Lewis said Small was "Chief inspector" with supervision over the inspection
department-all women. The work of 3 of the 14 Charging Parties, Cox, Hobbs, and
Idelwine, seems to have been connected in some measure with inspection but none
of them mention or refer to Small as her supervisor. Hobbs worked on the day shift,
and said Melvin Etchison was her supervisor, while both Cox and Idelwine, night
shift workers, said Joe Bambough was their supervisor Be that as it may, Boll's
testimony indicates, and this also takes into consideration another reference she made
to Small, that Glenn Small favored the Union and was even instrumental in pro-
moting it.
Getting back to this union meeting on the night of February 21, it appears that
Cassidy, assisted by Hershel, was in charge. Boll said she believed Cartwright was
also there. The number of employees in attendance was not given with any cer-
tainty, but Shaffer estimated "about 35 or 40," while Boll said there were "quite a few
present . . . every bit as many as 20." The meeting lasted "about an hour." What
was said at this meeting by the UMW representatives about a strike, if anything, was
not disclosed However, there are indications that prior to or about this time in the
organizational campaign there was talk of a strike as a means of obtaining recogni-
tion of the Union. Catherine Hunt's testimony left the impression with me that even
before the Hunt-Hobbs-Lewis conversations on February 19 there had been talk of
a strike. It will be recalled that, as it appears in the transcript, she said that at the
time of her conversation on that date with Lewis about overtime "he [Lewis] didn't
know there was a strike." It is my impression that what she meant was that Lewis
did not know then that there was going to be a strike. Actual voting on a strike did
begin only a few days later.
An incident supporing the allegation of surveillance occurred in connection with
this February 21 meeting. Main Street is on the north side of the city building and
16th Street on the west. There is an entrance to the building on each of these streets
Wheeler's super market is north of and directly across Main Street from the city
building. This market "stays open at nights almost to midnight." Charging Parties
Shaffer, Lee, Cox, Hunt, Chesser, Young, and Hobbs, all testified that as they came
to the meeting that night, or were entering the building, by the Main Street entrance,
they saw Superintendent Etchison and his wife seated in the Etchison automobile
parked in front of the Wheeler market. Charging Parties Boll and Evans entered the
building from the 16th Street side and could not at that time see the Etchison car
but after arriving at the meeting hall, on the second floor, they looked out a window
on the Main Street side and saw Etchison and his wife parked in front of Wheeler's
Shaffer, Lee, Cox, and Respondent's witness, Brewer, saw Etchison in the vicinity
after and as they were leaving the meeting Shaffer and Cox saw him at that time
"parked across the street [ 16th Street], just around the corner;" Brewer saw him "driv-
ing down 16th Street;" and Lee saw him "stopped for the change of a traffic light at
Main and Madison Streets, a block from the City Building."
Etchison seemed to be completely frank about this incident and I credit his version
of the matter. He said that during the week, "on a pass through the plant," he had
heard that a union meeting was to be held on Saturday night, February 21. That
night he and his wife "came up for some groceries " His wife "went in to buy the
groceries" and he "stayed in the car." About the time his wife returned to their car
with the groceries be saw "Zoda Mae Hobbs and Katherine Hunt pass by in Kath-
erine's Chevy." He had "forgotten all about that meeting until" he saw Hobbs and
Hunt "buzzing by there" and he then "remembered" that there was to be a union
meeting that night, and instead of leaving when his wife came back with the groceries
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 885
he "sat right out there in front of Wheeler's market." Etchison frankly stated that he
stayed on in that position, after his errand was completed, in order to "watch" the
meeting and see who attended it, and that while the meeting was in progress he "shifted
over to the west side of 16th Street" so he could get a "better view" of both entrances to
the building as those in attendance left the meeting. He said no one instructed or
directed him to watch the meeting and that he and his wife did not go to the market
that night pursuant to any predetermined plan on his part to do so While Etchison
claimed that when he saw Hobbs and Hunt pass where he was parked and enter the
city building, which caused him to remember about the union meeting for that night,
he stayed on and watched to see who went in and came out of the meeting to satisfy
his own curiosity. He also stated that when he remembered about the union meeting
that night, "I watched the meeting because I thought it was part of my job to see
what was going on." Whatever Etchison's motive at the moment his conduct was
such, under the circumstances, that the employees attending the meeting might rea-
sonably assume his observation of the meeting would result to their detriment, and was
such as, under the decisions of the Board, must be held to constitute surveillance in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act chargeable to Respondent Company.
Hunter Engineering Company, 104 NLRB 1016; Greeneville Cabinet Co., Incorpo-
rated, 102 NLRB 1677; National Paper Company, 102 NLRB 1569; Lingerie, Inc.,
101 NLRB 1374 (IR); Polynesian Arts, Inc., 100 NLRB 542, Cullman Electric Coop-
erative, 99 NLRB 753; Wood Manufacturing Company, 95 NLRB 633
2. Monday, February 23, through Thursday, February 26
I come now to the week beginning Monday, February 23, and that portion of it
prior to Friday, February 27, when the strike commenced There seems to have
been a union meeting the night of Monday, February 23, at the home of Charging
Party Catherine Hunt, a day shift worker. Vesta Reasbeck, also a day shift worker,
called as a witness by Respondent, testified, and her uncontradicted testimony is
credited, that she first learned that the UMW was trying to organize in the plant
"on Monday morning," February 23, when "Katherine Hunt came to me and told
me they were having a union meeting at her [Hunt's] home at 7.30" that night and
"invited me to attend," but about 3 o'clock that afternoon "she [Hunt] came to
me and told me the meeting was postponed," however, the next morning, Tues-
day, "when we went in to work they told me" that the "meeting hadn't been
postponed" and had been held. What occurred, and who were present, at this
meeting is not disclosed It is not important but I surmise by the time approxi-
mated by Idelwine, Hunt's sister, that this may have been the occasion when she
signed an authorization card "at Katherine Hunt's home "
The afternoon of the following day, Tuesday, February 24, a union meeting was
held at the hone of Charging Party Gertrude Cox, a night shift worker. The
testimony about the date of this meeting was that it was either Tuesday or Wednes-
day afternoon, February 24 or 25. One circumstance that inclines me to believe
it was Tuesday afternoon, as I have stated, is that Cecil Boll, a night shift worker,
who attended that meeting, said she signed an authorization card "on Tuesday or
Wednesday after" the union meeting of Saturday, February 21 at the city building,
but she did not sign the card at this meeting at the Cox home. In view of the
nature of the matters considered at this meeting and action taken, in which Boll
participated, I conclude that she must have signed the card on either Monday,
February 23, or during the morning of Tuesday, the 24th, preceding the meet-
ing According to General Counsel's witness, Chesser, a night shift worker, "be-
tween 6 and 10 of the night shift women" attended this Tuesday afternoon meet-
ing at the Cox home and voted in favor of a strike. This statement that the women
in attendance at this meeting decided to strike is based entirely, but I deem it correct-
ly so, on the testimony of Chesser (a Charging Party), on direct examination by
the attorney representing the General Counsel, whereat when asked how she "found
out about the strike," said, "I knew there was going to be one because T attended
the meeting at the home of Gertrude Cox on Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon
and we voted on it " She stated that the Tuesday or Wednesday referred to was
the next week after the union meeting at the city building on Saturday night,
February 21
The day following the meeting at the Cox home, Wednesday, February 25, Cart-
wright, the UMW regional director, called Lewis by telephone from the regional
offices of the UMW at Marion, Indiana, and informed Lewis that the UMW rep-
resented a majority of the employees at the Elwood plant and stated, as Lewis
related it (Cartwright did not testify), that he (Cartwright) "would like to make an
appointment to present his claim and a contract for signature." Lewis told Cart-
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wright that he (Lewis ) "wouldn't be available until the following Tuesday," March
3, and "made an appointment to meet with him [Cartwright ] at 2 o'clock" in the
afternoon of that day in the Company 's office at Elwood. The next day, Thursday,
February 26, Lewis received a letter from Cartwright , dated February 25, as follows:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of February 25, 1953 in which
we agreed to meet jointly in an effort to iron out the problem of union recogni-
tion with United Construction Workers affiliated with United Mine Workers of
America, the union your employees have chosen to represent them for the
purpose of collective bargaining . This meeting to be held on date of March
3, 1953 in the offices of the L. C. Products Company, Elwood , Indiana at approxi-
mately 2 P. M.
On the same date that this letter reached Lewis, Thursday , February 26, a mimeo-
graphed handbill or circular signed "Your Organizing Committee , United Construc-
tion Workers," and directed to "ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE L. C. PRODUCTS
COMPANY, ELWOOD , INDIANA," was distributed to and among the Company's
employees , by handing or proffering them to employees at the plant gate, and other-
wise, so that a wide and general distribution seems to have been made. This cir-
cular stated , inter alia, that:
A great majority of your fellow employees have already joined the union. If
you have not already signed an application for membership . . . DO SO
IMMEDIATELY . . . among the benefits to be gained by joining the union
are better wages, paid vacations , . . . rest periods, etc ; The Company will
resist your efforts to establish your union . . . by calling you in in small
groups, and discussing what they will do for you if you do not join the
union . . . EMPTY PROMISES . Probably the Company will tell you also
that if you join the union they will move their plant. This is just another way
of discouraging you. The company knows that no where in the United States
can they move their plant and escape unionization by their employees because
the right to form and belong to a union is guaranteed you by both Federal
and State Laws . . . . We have attempted to contact Mr. A. I. Lewis for the
purpose of settling this issue, and we finally did talk with him by telephone on
February 25. He agreed to meet with your representatives on date of March
3, 1953 ( Tuesday ) at 2:00 P. M. but he would not agree to meet sooner. We
know he could have met with us sooner but that he was stalling for time in
order to make an effort to beat down your attempt to organize so do not pay
attention to EMPTY PROMISES . . . A meeting will be held tonight, Feb-
ruary 26, 1953 at 6:00 P. M. in the City Hall. . . At this time, a discussion of
all your problems will be held and ALL EMPLOYEES ARE WELCOME TO
ATTEND THIS MEETING.
It is evident that this circular was prepared and issued after Cartwright 's telephone
call to Lewis on Wednesday , February 25. Pursuant to the announcement a union
meeting was held that night (Thursday ) at the city hall, and on the following day
Friday, February 27, the UMW called the strike and it commenced.
Ruby Irene Frazier , called as a witness by Respondent , was hired and went to
work as a day shift worker on Monday , February 16. She testified that she worked
as an inspector and as such "I work among the machines ," that the machine opera-
tors talk with her, and that she learned from them of the union effort to organize.
In that connection , Frazier said, "The first time I was asked about the Union [Feb-
ruary 191, I told them since I hadn 't worked there very long, and didn't know the
circumstances I would not sign" unless "they could show me that better than half of
the people in there had signed for a union," and that "on Thursday ," February 26,
Grace Evans "came to me and told me that better than half had signed, so I signed,"
and attended the union meeting that night. As has been noted Vesta Reasbeck, a
day shift worker, first heard that the UMW was trying to organize in the plant on
Monday morning , February 23, when Catherine Hunt invited her to attend a unipn
meeting that night at the Hunt home which Hunt later told her had been postponed.
Later Zelpha Dever, a Charging Party, who was not called as a witness , solicited
Reasbeck to sign a union card and she told Dever that "if Laverne Henderson and
Mary Ann Sparks signed" she (Reasbeck ) "would sign a card right along with
them." On Thursday , February 26, when Dever relieved Reasbeck for a rest period,
she told Reasbeck "that these two other women had signed" whereupon Reasbeck
"signed a card ," but "at noon time both" Henderson and Sparks told Reasbeck
"that they had not , and would not, sign a card." Clara May Poole was hired by
Etchison and started to work on the night shift Thursday , February 26. Nothing
was said to her by anyone, either management or any employee , about union activity
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 887
in the plant and the first she learned of it was when she "went out to work" the next
afternoon, Friday, February 27, and found a picket line at the plant gate. Poole said
Etchison never at any time mentioned the Union nor union activity in the plant to
her "in no way, shape, or form." Leatha Brewer, a day shift worker, said she "joined
the United Mine Workers the first of the week in which the strike started."
Grace Evans and Wanda Young (Charging Parties), both day shift workers, testi-
fied that when, on Thursday night, February 26, they arrived at the courtroom on
the second floor of the city building, at which time and place it had been announced
and advertised by the Union that an open meeting for all employees would be held,
they saw four men employees, John Craig, Homer Skirvin, Danny Heflin, all day
shift workers, and Danny Bambough, a night shift worker, in the courtroom. John
Craig was said to be in charge of or foreman over the four-man maintenance crew,
heretofore mentioned, and Skirvin was a member of that crew; Heflin "is a machine
repair man . . . when a machine breaks down he repairs it"; and Danny Bambough,
a night shift worker and nephew of Joe Bambough, the night shift foreman, was a
setup man. A setup man sees that the "machines are set up right . . . and are kept
running . . . that a machine has the right drill . . . that the pieces are running
properly," and "checks all gauges." The attorney for the General Counsel seemed
to take the position that Danny Bambough was a supervisor, but without going
further in detail concerning his work it is my opinion he would not be classed as a
supervisor as that term is defined in the Act. Reverting to Evans' testimony, she
said that when they saw these men in the courtroom some of the girls "didn't want
to go into the meeting on account of those four men there" because "we knew they
wasn't for the Union . . . Mr Cassidy was in the courtroom waiting for us to come
in . . . he came out, and said, 'what's the trouble,' and the girls said that them fel-
lows was against the Union. And he [Cassidy] said, 'I'll go in and ask them if they
want to sign a card ' " After Cassidy went in and talked with the four men they left
the meeting. It does not sufficiently appear as to warrant a clear finding whether or
not any of these men may have gone to this meeting as a result of remarks made that
day by Lewis, and presently set out, in relation to the circular the Union had distrib-
uted among the employees announcing an open meeting for that night and inviting
all employees to attend, and stating that "All employees" would be "welcome." All
of these men went to this meeting on their own time. As noted Craig, Skirvin, and
Heflin were day shift workers and their workday had ended at 3:30 p. in., while
Danny Bambough's timecard for that date shows he did not report for work on the
night shift until 9 p. in
The attorney for the General Counsel laid great stress on the following incident
as tending to show surveillance on the part of Lewis. On Thursday, February 26,
while Cassidy, at the plant gate, was distributing this circular addressed to, and in-
viting, "all employees" of the plant to attend a purportedly open meetine to be held
that night, he handed one of the circulars to John Craig. As Craig entered the plant
Lewis who was standing near the door "asked him [Craig] if" he (Lewis) "might
look at" the circular, and Craig handed it to Lewis. Lewis states what next oc-
curred, and his testimony about this is fully credited:
After reading this circular, I went out to the shop, and there was a group of
people standing there and I handed them the circular and I says, "You fellows
better read this. It looks to me as though the women of this plant are trying
to organize." . I made the remark that if there was to be any kind of an
organization in the plant that it behooved them, for their own protection, to go
down there and find out what kind of an organization they were going to
become a member of.
Lewis did not give the names of the people composing this group, but apparently the
group was composed of men. He did say that he "later learned that" some of the
men went to this meeting and "had been refused admittance." Lewis did not at any
time propose or suggest that the men in this group, with whom he spoke, attend the
meeting and report on same to him, and there is no evidence tending to show that
any of them so understood his remarks. This may afford a smattering of suspicion
but, in my opinion, it falls short of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of
surveillance or attempted surveillance.
Six of the witnesses, all women and all day shift workers, attended this union meet-
ing on Thursday night, February 26, and testified about same. Evans, Hunt, and
Young, Charging Parties, were called by the General Counsel and Reasheck, Brewer,
and Frazier by Respondent. The plant worked, as usual, that night, and none of the
night shift workers attended the meeting. Cassidy, Cartwright, "and another gentle-
man" were present representing the Union. So far as appears they were the only
men there. Apparently Cassidy was in charge of the meeing. The first matter men-
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioned as coming before the meeting was a statement by Vesta Reasbeck to the union
representatives that she had been induced to sign a card about 10 o'clock that morning
by the representation that Henderson and Sparks had signed cards, and that "at
noontime both of them" had told her "they had not signed cards, and would not
sign a card," as has been previously more fully related. Reasbeck told the union
representatives that since learning that she had signed the card under a misappre-
hension she "had washed her hands of the whole affair" and wanted her card back.
Cassidy denied her request saying her card had "already been sent to Washington."
The only other matter mentioned by any witness as coming before the meeting, but
which after all seems to have been the principal, if not in fact the real and sole pur-
pose of the meeting, was a proposal submitted by the union representatives for an
immediate strike. It will be remembered that the UMW representatives were dis-
pleased about Lewis' failure to agree to a meeting with them on their claim of repre-
sentation, and their demand for recognition and a contract, any earlier than March
3, which was evidenced by their statements in the circular they had distributed during
the day of this meeting.
Young said about the strike proposal, "We voted on whether we would go on strike
or not." The vote was taken "by standing." Evans said she could not recall how
the voting resulted, but that when she left the meeting she was "of the opinion there
would not be a strike." Young's testimony on direct examination by the attorney for
the General Counsel, was that she thought "the vote was seven to ten, or six to
eight, something like that," and "the vote was to go on a strike," then that it was
very close," and she could not recall whether the majority was for of against a strike,
however, on cross-examination she said, "It was decided" at that meeting that "we
would strike. . . We voted that way." Brewer said she "voted for the strike," but
that the "vote was too close to make a decision," and it was decided to have another
meeting. Frazier said the meeting "voted not to go on strike," and it was then de-
cided "to have another meeting the following Saturday to get the night force in the
vote." Hunt recalled that a majority voted against the strike, but she could not
remember what the vote was Reasbeck testified, and her testimony was the clearest
and most convincing of the group, that there were 16 employees present and that 9
voted against and 7 for the strike, whereupon Cassidy announced that the meeting
would be "continued until Saturday afternoon (February 28) so they could meet
with the night force present." I recall here that at the meeting on the preceding Tues-
day afternoon at the Cox home, attended by 6 to 10 women, all members of the
night shift, that group had voted to strike.
The night shift women were working the night of Thursday, February 26, and
apparently none of them attended the meeting at the city building that night. How-
ever, that same night, and shortly after the meeting had adjourned, a report on that
meeting seems to have been relayed to them, or some of them, while they were yet
about their work. It is not said how or by whom this report was communicated but
the fact that Catherine Hunt, a day shift worker, who had attended the meeting
afterwards, went to the plant, and participated in a meeting with 4 of the night shift
workers after they left the plant that night, pretty well indicates that she must have
been the source of the information about the city hall meeting earlier that night
attended by some 16 day shift women
At the end of the night shift, about midnight, Thursday night (February 26), at
least three of the night shift workers, accompanied by Hunt and another but un-
named day shift worker, went from the plant direct to the home of night shift worker
Opal Lee. Four of the five women present at this meeting at the Lee home, Lee,
Shaffer, Cox (night shift workers), and Hunt (all Charging Parties) testified about
the meeting. The fifth woman was not named and did not testify Hunt said that
she was not "the only girl there who worked days." While Shaffer estimated that
there were about 7 women employees present at this meeting at the Lee Home, held
after midnight, Thursday, February 26, and in the first hours of Friday, February
27, and Cox estimated "about 5 or 6," 1 have adopted the positive statement of Lee
that the number was 5. Shaffer said the reason for this meeting in the early hours
of Friday morning was that "they didn't like" the indications of the report from the
city hall meeting "that some of the girls were turning chicken" and "weren't going
to go along with the strike," and Lee said they had this meeting because, apparently
in view of the vote at the city hall meeting earlier that night, they were "afraid some
of the girls would drop out of the Union" and would "stay at work," that is, as
Shaffer put it, would not "go along with the strike." About 2:15 a in , Friday
(February 24), the group made a telephone call to Cassidy at Marion, Indiana,
whence he had gone after the adjournment of the Thursday night city hall meeting to
the following Saturday In response to this call Cassidy arrived at the Lee home
"somewhere between three and four o'clock" and the meeting "lasted for about an
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 889
hour or hour and a half" after his arrival on the scene. Hunt said, that when Cassidy
"got there he took charge of the meeting" and "from that time on everything was run
at his direction"; that the women "merely followed his directions," and "it was decided
to have a strike anyway," that decision being unanimous. The attorney representing
the General Counsel asked Lee: "What were the reasons for going on strike9" Lee's
answer was "We wanted better working conditions, they wanted a union in there so
they could get better working conditions" Lee further said that they talked over
the strike with Cassidy. It seems reasonably inferrible that the strategy and plans
for inaugurating and conducting the strike, which were put into execution that after-
noon (Friday, February 27) were discussed and outlined, that is that during the
morning the night shift workers be contacted and notified that the strike was on,
and that they were not to work that afternoon, but be at the plant for picket duty
when the day shift came out from work around 3.30 p m
3. Inquiries, statements, and remarks attributed to Etchison from about February 21
to February 27 and alleged to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
At this point I feel that it will assist in a better understanding of some of my findings
and conclusions in this case to give my impression, based upon my observation of
the demeanor, manner, expression, and attitude of the witnesses in giving testimony,
as well as numerous circumstances, references, and remarks appearing throughout
the testimony, of the relationship existing between Melvin Etchison and the women
employees. Etchison was 28 years of age at the time of the hearing. He had 2 years
of high school, served in the Navy, worked at the National Trailer Company plant
in Elwood before and after his service in the Navy, and until "it went out of business,"
thereafter he worked for two construction companies, and when in November 1951
the repair and remodeling work commenced on the buildings at Elwood taken over
by the Respondent Company for its plant there, Etchison went to work on that job.
He attracted the attention of Greenlee who offered him a job as a foreman at that
plant when it commenced production if he would go to the Indianapolis plant and
"learn the machinery," which offer he accepted. After 5 or 6 weeks at the Indianapolis
plant Etchison came back to Elwood as night foreman at which job he worked until
July 1952 when he was made plant superintendent. As plant superintendent Etchison
was on the job not only throughout the day but also part time at night, often quite
late. I formed the impression, based as aforesaid, that he is inclined to be garrulous,
prone to assert his authority, but intent, and successful, about keeping the work of
the plant moving, and in meeting close and pressing production schedules He is
frank and plain, and sometimes forceful in speech, and not at all times overly choice
in his language. He appears to have been somewhat inclined to pose as perhaps
having more importance and authority in management affairs and policies than he
in fact had, which disposition seems to have been both recognized and discounted
by the women employees, many of whom had worked with him almost, and in fact
in some instances, from the beginning.2 Etchison's relationship with the employees
generally was informal, and for the most part friendly, although there was some
complaint about the type of emphasis he occasionally used in giving orders. The
employees addressed him, and referred to him, as Melvin, and he in turn addressed
them by their first names, or by their nicknames, as, for example, he addressed
Mrs Reasbeck, age 64, as "Dutch," and Mrs Chesser, age 26, as "Short Stuff."
Etchison moved about the plant and talked freely with the employees at their places
of work. Illustrative of this disposition to chat with the employees is the testimony
of Mrs Chesser that "just about each working night . . . during the time that"
she "worked at the plant Melvin would have something to say" to her "about some-
thing," and that "from the time" she "went to work there [in April 1952] until
the strike . . . when he came through" she "talked to him and he talked to" her; "We
talked about everything." Grace Evans said, "Melvin came up to me quite often
and talked. We didn't have any stock boys, and when I would run out of material,
Melvin often times would come up and get material, and put it on the table." The
context indicates that at such times, as well as at other times, Etchison would engage
in conversation with her. It is with this background that I turn to purported con-
versations shortly before the February 21 union meeting, and during the week of
Monday, February 23, prior to the strike on Friday of that week, in which Etchison,
2Among those ssho testified the record shows that Lee, Cox, Bunt, Hobbs, Lucas, Reas-
beck and Bi ewer had worked there since the plant commenced operation in March 1952
Evans and Chesser since Api it 1952 , Shaffei, Boll Idelwine, and Sparks since May 1952
and Blake since June and Young since August 1952 There was, as has been mentioned,
a layoff period for retooling from early in October to some time in December 1952.
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as testified by 6 of the 14 Charging Parties, was said to have engaged in interrogation,
and made certain statements in the nature of threats, relating to the Union coming
into the plant.
About February 16 (Monday), Mary Gardner (a Charging Party) was hired to
work on the night shift. I credit Gardner's testimony, which is not in anywise
denied, in substance, that when, that afternoon, she reported for work "he [Etchison]
rang my card in for me, and then he stood by the clock . just Melvin and I
there . he said where have you worked before, and I told him at Guide Lamp.
He said, `Did you ever belong to a union,' and I said, `Yes, I belonged to the CIO
when I worked at Guide Lamp.' He said, `We don't allow union talk in the plant
here. We don't want a union here, and if there is any way possible we won't have
one.' After that he took me back to Joe Bambough [night shift foreman] and they
showed me my job." It will be noted that Etchison's remarks about a union were
made after Gardner had been hired, and after her timecard had been punched.
Apparently no questions were asked nor anything said about a union at the time
she was hired. Summed up Etchison's remarks amount to little more than the well-
known attitude of Lewis that he did not want a union in the plant, and I do not
consider this as a circumstance supporting the 8 (a) (1) allegation of the complaint.
Wanda Young (a Charging Party) said "a day or two before" the February 21
union meeting she had a conversation with Etchison in the course of which he said
that "if they tried to get a union in there" Lewis would move the factory to Ohio,
and she said, "I can go with them if they move the factory," and Etchison said,
"Well, come on and go." If this testimony is credited, here was an expression of
opinion by Etchison, the plant superintendent, amounting in effect to a threat of
economic reprisal if the employees tried to get a union in the plant, and a violation
of Section 8 (a) (I) of the Act.
Grace Evans (a Charging Party) related three brief conversations with Etchison
on different occasions. She could not remember whether the conversation which is
indicated as being the first was before or after the union meeting of February 21.
At that time, according to Evans, and her undenied testimony in this respect is
credited, she was working at her machine and "Melvin kind of hit me on the back
and said, `Grace, your union man is in the office,' and I looked around and said,
`I don't know what you are talking about Melvin,' and he just laughed and went out."
I am disregarding this bit of banter in arriving at my conclusions on the 8 (a) (1)
allegations The nearest I can fix the date of what is indicated as being the second
conversation is about Monday, February 23. On that occasion Evans had run out
of material and Etchison got some material "and put it on the table" as "he often
times did," and at which times he would talk with her. As Evans stated it, this
"particular time he [Etchison] came up there talking to me, and he told me he had
heard that I instigated the Union there, and I said Melvin, I never had nothing to
do with this union, and don't know anything about it." She had prior to that time
signed a union authorization card. I am not taking this remark by Etchison as
constituting unlawful interrogation. After Evans had related the above purported
conversations with Etchison the attorney for the General Counsel asked her "Now,
do you recall if you heard a conversation with Mr. Etchison with respect to whether
the plant would remain there or not?" She answered, in substance, that she thought
that it was "approximately a week before the strike . . . I don't know exactly
when . Melvin was up to the machine talking with me . . . and said that he
had a chance to go with the Company if they moved the machinery and the Company
out of town " The following question was then asked by the attorney for the
General Counsel, and answer given:
Q. Did Mr. Etchison say what would cause the plant to move out of Elwood?
A. No, he did not.
I take it that nothing at all was said in this conversation about a union, union activity,
or a union coming in the plant, else it surely would have been developed, nor was
what was said in this conversation preceding, or in connection with, if anything,
the purported remark by Etchison, that "he had a chance to go with the Company
if they moved . . . out of town," disclosed which leaves the remark rather mean-
ingless, and the proof here not in my opinion, even under the existing circumstances,
sufficient to make out a threat of economic reprisal if the employees brought a union
into the plant
Catherine Hunt (a Charging Party) testified, and this testimony is not denied and
is credited, that on Monday, February 23, Etchison "came up" to where she was
working and "asked me why I didn't go to that meeting [the union meeting of
February 21 1. 1 said, `How do you know I wasn't there' " and "that was all that
was said " In my opinion, the relationship between Etchison and the employees
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 891
considered, this casual exchange is too inconsequential to support a finding of unlawful
interrogation based thereon.
Mary Jean Chesser (a Charging Party) testified that on Monday, February 23,
Etchison "called me away from my machine . . . he said `short stuff, come here a
minute.' So I went to where he was standing . . . a little way from my machine,"
whereupon, as Chesser related it, the following conversation occurred:
He asked me, "Were you up there at that meeting Saturday night" [February
21] . I said, "Did you see me," and he said, "No," and I said, "Did any-
body tell you I was up there," and he said, "No," and he said, "Well it don't
make any difference to me whether you was or not, but I saw some of the
other girls up there . and know who they are," and he says, "Of course,
what you had better do is . go around and talk to the girls, and try and
talk them out of forming this union because Mi. Lewis has told us . that
he would not have a union in here, and you had better go around and tell your
girls that because he would close this plant up first . before he will have a
union come in here." And he also went on and told me . . . "Now I can go
with Mr. Lewis when he moves this place out but you can't" . and 1 told
him, "Melvin, I ain't gonna do that because they got a mind of their own, and
I can't tell them what to do, and if you want it done, you go around and tell
them yourself," and he said, "Okay," and I went back to my machine.
I do not understand that after the lapse of approximately 11 months Chesser was
purporting, nor do I believe her competent to do so, to quote verbatim the exact
language used by Etchison. But the slightest variation in wording at certain places
would give a somewhat different slant on the remarks attributed to Etchison, for
instance if what Etchison in fact said was that "Mr. Lewis has told us he did not
want a union in here," as Lewis himself had stated it, instead of "would not have
a union in here." While Chesser does not quote Etchison as saying that Lewis had
told him or "told us" that "he would close this place up . before he will have a
union come in" and while, even as stated by Chesser, what Etchison said appears to
have been no more than an expression of his own opinion or speculation about that,
nonetheless, if it be credited, Etchison, being the plant superintendent, it reasonably
must be taken as constituting a threat of reprisal in violation of 8 (a) (1).
Wanda Young said that on this same date, Monday, February 23:
He [Etchison] came up to me and asked me, "Were you at the union meeting
[Saturday, February 211, I didn't see you," and I said "What are you talking
about," and he said, "You know what I am talking about, the meeting at the
City Building," and I said, "I didn't even know they had a meeting," and he
said "Oh, you were there weren't you," and I said, "Curiosity killed the cat,"
and he said, "Well . . . if they get a union, they are going to move the factory,"
and that is all that was said.
If the foregoing is credited it must, in my opinion, be taken as intentional and de-
liberate interrogation coupled with a threat of economic reprisal in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Opal Lee (a Charging Party) first said that she had "no conversation with" Etchison
"concerning union affairs," whereupon the attorney representing the General Counsel
asked her, "Do you recall having a conversation or hearing Mr. Etchison say something
to you in the tool room" Her composite answer to that question, and some inter-
vening questions about the same matter, was:
I went up to the tool room to get a clean wiping rag. Melvin came in the tool
room and started a conversation. He said, "Opal, what is all this talk going on
around here," and I said, "What do you mean." .. . He said, "You girls are try-
ing to start something. . . . If you try to get some outsiders in here we will
take the Company back to Indianapolis or Cincinnati." And I said, "I don't
know anything," and he said, "I guess you are with the girls," and just then
somebody called him, and I went back to my machine.
Lee said the foregoing conversation occurred "two or three days before the strike,"
on Tuesday or Wednesday, February 24 or 25. Lee had not mentioned any other
conversation with Etchison or indicated that anything more than related had been
said in the aforementioned conversation, but straightway and without any explana-
tion or connection as to where or when, or under what circumstances, the attorney
for the General Counsel asked Lee, "Now the second time that you had this con-
versation with Mr. Etchison, was the word union mentioned at all?" [Emphasis
supplied ] Lee answered, "I am not sure " These questions by the General Counsel's
attorney, with Lee's answers, then immediately followed:
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Well, do you recall if Melvin asked you anything about the Union?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Could you tell us what he said?
A. He said, "Opal, are you helping to bring this union in here," and I said,
"what do you mean?" He said, "Well you know they are trying to bring a
union in here, don't you?" I said, "No, I don't," and he said, "Well, you better
let well enough alone"; he said, "I guess you are with the girls, aren't you."
Lee's testimony, as thus developed, is at best a bit confusing and somewhat lacking
in clarity, but if the remark she attributed to Etchison, that "If you try to get some
outsiders in here we will take the Company to Indianapolis or Cincinnati," which in
the light of the surrounding circumstances undoubtedly, and must have been so un-
derstood, referred to the Union, be credited such statement by Etchison must reason-
ably be construed as constituting a threat of reprisal Further her testimony about
interrogation, if credited, discloses interrogation and accompanying remarks of such
a nature, and under such circumstances as to amount to interference, restraint, and
coercion
The foregoing testimony of the Charging Parties represents the sum of the testi-
mony offered by the General Counsel, relevant in time and nature, about statements
and remarks attributed to Etchison concerning the Union or union activity in the
plant. Inquiry along the same line was made of four employees called as witnesses
by the Company, as follows -
Leatha Brewer attended the union meeting held at the city hall on Saturday night,
February 21 Sometime during the next or following week, likely about Monday,
February 23, Etchison came up to her, as she was working at her machine, and asked
her if she had been at that meeting Brewer said, "Yes," Etchison said, "Well, I didn't
see you," and Brewer replied, "I saw you " That seems to have been the whole of what
was said relating in any way to the Union Brewer said that was the only time
Etchison ever talked to her about the Union, but that she had heard him say he
didn't want a union, but never heard him say that they wouldn't have one
Mary Lou Lucas had worked at the plant from the time it commenced operation
in March 1952, but never at any time heard Etchison say anything "to the women or
girls working there about a union or that they might lose their jobs through union
activities." Mary Ann Sparks had worked at this plant since May 3, 1952, "ex-
cept for the layoff during the change over" and never heard Etchison say anything
to the women against a union, nor had she ever heard any antiunion statements made
by any of the supervisory personnel.
Clara May Poole was hired by Etchison on Thursday, February 26, the day
before the strike started. She said that Etchison never, at any time, "mentioned
union to me in no way, shape, nor form," and that Etchison did not, at the time
he hired her, or at any other time, tell her that the "Company didn't want outsiders
coming in telling them what to do," and "never mentioned that there was union
activity in the plant "
Conclusions as to Interrogation and Threats Attributed to Etchison and Not
Heretofore Resolved
On the whole Etchison, as a witness, impressed me favorably and for the most
part he seemed frank and forthright, although in instances his answers were patent-
ly detrimental to some extent to the Company's position or to himself, however he
was not asked specifically about, and consequently did not specifically deny hav-
ing, conversations with any of the six foregoing witnesses, called by the General
Counsel, at the times, places, and under the circumstances, claimed by them. He
made no denial, either specific or general, of the interrogation claimed by them and
his denial that he told any of them that the Company would move away from Elwood
if the Union came in the plant was limited to the following:
Q (By counsel for Respondent on direct examination.) There has been
testimony here by different people alleging that you have made statements in
substance that if the Union came in, the Company would move out, would
move their equipment out, you might have your job but they would be out of
a job altogether. Did you ever make any such statement to any of the em-
ployees at any time)
A. I never made that statement.
As I have gone along I have made final disposition of the testimony of three
of the General Counsel's witnesses, Mary Gardner, Grace Evans, and Catherine
Hunt, offered in support of the 8 (a) (1) allegations of the complaint, holding that,
under the circumstances, the matters related by these witnesses do not amount to
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 893
interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act. Left unresolved is the testimony of Wanda Young, Mary Jean Chesser, and
Opal Lee, involving purported threats of economic reprisal, coupled in some in-
stances with purported unlawful interrogation. In view of the kind and general
nature of the denial made by Etchison, and my conviction that these witnesses did
have conversations with him relating in some measure to the current union activity
in the plant at or about the times, and under the circumstances they relate, I am
constrained to credit their testimony that Etchison in substance made the state-
ments or expressed the opinions, attributed to him, constituting threats of economic
reprisal if a union came into the plant, coupled with improper and unlawful in-
terrogations of them concerning their union activities.
4. Inquiries, statements, and remarks attributed to Joe Bambough from February 23
to 27 and alleged to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
The age of Joe Bambough, the night shift foreman, was not given, but a number
of references clearly indicate that he was an elderly man. He did not testify at
the hearing. While admittedly a supervisor, as that term is defined in the Act,
nevertheless, so far as appears, Bambough had no part whatever in the formula-
tion of management policies or purposes, nor any responsibility other than that in-
herent in his job as night shift foreman. When the union talk got abroad in the
plant Joe Bambough became worried about his job, and feared that out of the union
agitation something might result which would cause him to lose his job, and,
in such event, on account of his age he could not get another job Bambough was
on friendly terms with the women working on his shift, customarily talked to them
about things in general, and, as did Etchison, he addressed them by their first names
and nicknames and they addressed him and referred to him merely as Joe.
Four witnesses, Shaffer, Lee, Cox, and Chesser, all night shift workers and Charg-
ing Parties, testified to statements and remarks which Joe Bambough purportedly
made to them separately concerning the Union and union activity Lee and Chesser
also testified to certain statements attributed to Etchison as hereinbefore set out.
The testimony of these four witnesses follows-
Hazel M Shaffer, 50 years old at the time of the hearing, testified about a con-
versation with Joe Bambough "about three days before the strike," which would
have been Tuesday, February 24. It will contribute somewhat to an understand-
ing of certain phases of my findings hereinafter to set out Shaffer's testimony about
this conversation, as adduced by the attorney for the General Counsel, in question
and answer form:
Q. Could you tell us what he [Joe Bambough] said to you, and what you said
to him"
A I remember he came up [to the machine where she was working] and he
said, "Hazel, what do you think, are you for this strike or not?" And, I said,
"Yes and No."
Mr. DAVIDOW (attorney for Respondent). Would you read that answer,
please
[Answer read ]
Q. (By attorney for General Counsel ) Now, could you tell us what he
said to you, again, as you remember it? [Emphasis supplied ]
A. He said, "Hazel, are you for this union business," and I said, "Yes and no."
This kind of uncertainty, although at times revealing, is found throughout the testi-
mony of the Charging Parties who testified about purported conversations with Etchi-
son and Joe Bambough, and leaves some question as to what was in fact said. Here
Shaffer, on direct examination, no circumstances indicating the least confusion on
her part, in answer to a perfectly plain question as to what Bambough said, answered
that "he said, `Hazel, what do you think, are you for this strike, or not.' " This is
said to have occurred on the night shift, Tuesday, February 24 That very afternoon
there had been a meeting of a group of these night shift workers at the home of Ger-
trude Cox at which it had been decided to strike. Further, as I have pointed out, there
are indications that there had been talk of a strike almost from the beginning It is
not at all unlikely, in view of the manner in which such matters were bandied about
among the night shift workers while on duty, that Joe Bambough had heard of the
strike decision made by some of his night shift workers that very afternoon or at
least some of the more generalized strike talk, and was prompted to ask Shaffer,
one of his older night shift workers both in point of service and years, the very ques-
tion she first said he did ask her. Apparently the reading back of her answer, at the
request of counsel for the Company so emphasized the reference to a strike, that the
'894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attorney for the General Counsel immediately asked the witness to "tell us again
what he said to you"; but in telling again what Bambough is supposed to have said, she
gave an entirely different answer. [Emphasis supplied.]
Shaffer's testimony, in question and answer form, is continued as follows:
Q. Did Mr. Bambough say anything else to you?
A. Well, he said "Hazel, you know in getting the union here, Mr. Lewis does
not consider, and doesn't want a union in here, and if he does he is liable to even
move this place to Cincinnati or Indianapolis."
Q. If he does what?
A. If they put a union in here he won't tolerate a union, and will move it to
Indianapolis or Cincinnati, and I said, "Well, that was his privilege."
Q. Now, did Mr. Bambough say anything else to you?
A. Well he said, "You know you and I are getting old enough that we can't
get a job any place else," and I said, "That's a chance I take."
Q. Do you remember anything else that he said?
A. I can't remember all that he was talking about. We talked about other
things, but I don't remember anything else about it.
On cross-examination Shaffer said while she had other conversations with Joe Bam-
bough the above was the only conversation with him "about any union things."
Certainly Shaffer's testimony as to Bambough's remarks about moving the plant
was not intended, and is not accepted, as being verbatim, and the exact language
used by Bambough, and her own interpretation is clearly interposed at one place.
As I construe the effect of what she said it comes down to this, Bambough said Lewis
-did not want a union in the plant, and then gave it as his opinion that if a union came
in Lewis was "liable" to move the plant to Indianapolis or Cincinnati. I credit this
as the most likely version of this conversation and, Joe Bambough admittedly being
a supervisor even such an expression of opinion on his part, under the existing cir-
cumstances, was in the nature of a threat of reprisal and a violation of Section 8 (a)
Q 1) of the Act.
Opal Lee attended the union meeting on Saturday night, February 21. She testi-
fied that the following Monday afternoon, after the night shift had come on duty,
Joe Bambough stopped at the machine where she was working and said, "Opal, did
you go to the meeting Saturday night," and "I said `Yes, I did. What's wrong about
it'; he said, `That's right, there's no use lying.' " I credit Lee's testimony in this re-
spect. In view of the relationship and attitude existing between the women working
on the night shift and their foreman, Bambough, I do not deem this passing and
casual exchange such as to amount to an independent 8 (a) (1) violation.
Gertrude Cox testified that on Monday night, February 23, Bambough "came up to
the machine I was running, and said, `I see they are trying to get a union, and if I
were you and could stop it, I would stop it, because you know I would be out of a
job as well as you, because they will move out if it is left up to the union.' He didn't
mention any names." I credit this undenied testimony of Cox. The opinion so vol-
unteered by Bambough, a supervisor, to Cox, under the circumstances, conveyed a
threat of reprisal in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
Mary Jean Chesser said that during the week of February 23, prior to the strike
on Friday, February 27, she had "a lot" of conversations with Bambough "in the
factory while I was working " The attorney for the General Counsel asked Chesser to
"tell us what Mr. Bambough said to you" in this "lot" of conversations, lumping them
all together. Chesser answered:
He would come up when I was working and he would start in talking about the
girls trying to form this union and he said, "They'll never make it. I'll lose my
job, and it will be awful hard for me to get another job on account of my age,"
and he said, "They'll never make it, because Lewis would not let a union come in,
he already told us," and that he had been told along with Melvin and Danny, and
I don't know who else they had in the office, I can't remember the names now,
but he told me that he told them to tell us girls, to warn us that he would
not have a union in there and they was to tell us that.
I have heretofore given my evaluation of Lewis' testimony, and stated that I
credit it generally. In conformity therewith I credit his statements to the effect that
while he had decidedly expressed his opinion to his "help" that he did "not like a
union," and did not "want a union" in his plants, giving his reasons therefor, he
had never, at any time, given his supervisory personnel any instructions not to hire
"persons because of his or her membership in a labor union," nor had he ever
made "any statement to anybody that if a union were brought into the plant" he
would either shut the plant down or move it to another city. Etchison, whose testi-
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 895
mony for the most part must be credited, testified that the most he ever heard Lewis
say about a union in the plant was that "he thought the Company could do without
a union, ' and that he didn't want a union in the plant. 1 am a bit dubious that
exactly what Bambough said at some place in these several conversations lumped
together in Chesser's answer was either that Lewis had said "he would not have
a union in there," or that he "would not let a union come in" and that more likely
what Bambough did say was that Lewis did not want a union in the plant and had
told him (Bambough) and others that. However, since Bambough was not called
as a witness and did not deny the testimony of Chesser, or correct it if in error, and
being of the opinion Chesser was giving her impression of Bambough's remarks, I
am constrained to the belief that while Bambough may have been giving only his
opinion about Lewis' position that nevertheless the substance of what he, a super-
visor, did say to Chesser and his representation that Lewis had told him to "warn"
the employees about a union in the plant, conveyed, in effect, an implied threat
of reprisal.
5. Lewis and Greenlee meet with groups of women employees
on February 23 and 24
On Monday and Tuesday, February 23 and 24, Lewis and Greenlee summoned the
women employees, in groups "of from 6 to 10 or 12, at a time" for a conference in
Lewis' office. Seven of the twelve Charging Parties called as witnesses by the Gen-
eral Counsel testified about one or another of these meetings. The testimony of
Shaffer, Lee, Boll, Cox, and Chesser, all night shift workers, seems to relate to the
same meeting, held on Monday, February 23, and that of Idelwine, also a night
shift worker. to a second meeting on the same date, while Evans, a day shift worker,
testified about a meeting composed of "around 10" day shift workers, which, I take
it, occurred the following day. Lewis did not testify about any specific meeting
but related the pattern and tenor of the meetings in general, and his version is
pretty well borne out by the testimony of the witnesses called by the General Coun-
sel as to the meetings they attended. No witness claimed that, at any of these meet-
ings, the UMW, unions generally, union activity or membership, the advantages
or disadvantages of a union in the plant, or the position of the Company about unions,
or anything of that kind or nature was mentioned or referred to by either Greenlee
or Lewis, or by any of the employees, not was it indicated by any witness, nor is
it now claimed by the General Counsel, that either Lewis or Greenlee by anything
said at these meetings, or inferentially, or by innuendo made any threats of economic
reprisal if the employees joined, or formed a union, or brought a union into the
plant. The General Counsel, however, does take the position that things said by
Lewis and Greenlee in the course of these meetings, should be construed, under
the surrounding circumstances, as promises of benefits within the ban of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The first of these meetings was on Monday, February 23, and involved night
shift workers. The meetings seemed to have followed about the same general pat-
tern, and as illustrative I draw upon the testimony of Shaffer, Chesser, Cox, Boll,
and Lee, all night shift workers and Charging Parties, all of whom it appears attended
this first meeting Shaffer estimated that there were approximately 15 employees at
this meeting, all women, being "just a section of the night shift, or the ones that were
on the machines . and then they had another meeting for the others [on the
night shift], the girls on the burr table that followed" this first meeting. The first
meeting was "before supper." The testimony of the witnesses about this meeting
is in agreement that Greenlee started the discussion by announcing that he and
Lewis had called them in there to afford them an opportunity to state "any
grievance" they might have, or as Chesser put it "what we didn't like," and "to
talk with us, and see if we couldn't get some of the grievances straightened out."
Cox stated that Greenlee, at this point, "said for us to just speak up and say what we
wanted to say and what we had to complain about." Chesser said, "I believe I was
the one that started off I asked Mr. Lewis about a raise in pay," and then, ac-
cording to Shaffer, Cox "got in on the discussion, and said she thought we had been
there long enough we ought to have a raise " Cox said that in answer to these
requests for a wage increase, "They said that they couldn't give us a raise because
they didn't yet have it [the plant] on a paying basis," and to the same effect was the
testimony of the other witnesses who referred to the wage request, likewise their
testimony was in agreement that, in that connection, Lewis and Greenlee said, in
substance, that they could not consider a wage increase until such time as they
were able to get the business on a paying basis.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lewis stated concerning "the towel situation" which seems to have been about
the next complaint made, that "we had provided them with laundried wiping rags.
They could put them in their lockers or keep them at the machine, and there were
no restrictions as to quantity, they were just as sanitary as any other method could
be." The complaint made about towels, as stated by Shaffer, follows: "The girls
mentioned that there were no towels in the rest room, and that we were wiping
our hands on rags that had been sent to the laundry and washed, and then taken
into the rest room." Cox stated this complaint in this way: "The girls said they
thought they ought to have paper towels or something because we had been drying
our hands on pieces of old ticking which had been sent to the cleaners." According
to Boll, Lewis, after hearing the complaint about towels, said "that would be rectified";
and, as Chesser put it, Lewis "said that the towels would be taken care of." Lewis
stated that, "when they expressed dissatisfaction [about towels] we provided roll
towels-we did that immediately." Boll is, as I recall, the only witness to mention
this item, but she said she asked Lewis "don't you think" that "the women are
entitled" to fixed rest periods, and Lewis said, "No, he didn't." Some of the witnesses
recalled, others did not, that some complaint was made about the facilities provided
for the first-aid room, and Lewis "said they would improve that." In that connection
Chesser said some of the women asked that "a cot be placed" in the first-aid room, and
"they [Lewis and Greenlee] said they would . get that taken care of." Lewis
said "we provided a cot" for the first-aid room the next morning.
Shaffer, Cox, and Chesser recalled that there was a discussion of vacations with
pay. In this discussion, Lewis explained that it had been the Company's established
policy "since we first started in business [at Indianapolis in 1944] that an employee
having worked a year was entitled to a week's vacation with pay, and that the vaca-
tion period was between June 1 and September 15" of each year, but that, at that
time "none of the Elwood employees were qualified for vacation, and wouldn't be
until in June," when the vacation period would begin, "at which time we customarily
put a notice on the board stating who were entitled to a vacation" and requesting
"them to choose dates they would like to have, and report to their foreman so that
we wouldn't have too many people taking a vacation the same week." It will be
remembered that this plant first commenced operation in March 1952, had shut down
in the "early part of October, 1952" for approximately 2 months for retooling, and
that these meetings were held on February 23 and 24, 1953. This statement by
Lewis effectively disposed of the inquiry concerning vacations.
Two witnesses Lee and Cox said seniority or a seniority list was mentioned in the
course of this meeting None of the other witnesses mentioned that item. Lee
said that when the matter of a wage increase was brought up, "One of the girls
asked if seniority would amount to anything, that at one time they had put a list
of seniority on the bulletin board, but it didn't mean anything to us. No one got
a raise . so the girls asked if . them that had been there the longest .. .
couldn't get a raise." Lewis' reply to the inquiry about an immediate wage raise
has been stated. Cox "brought up" the matter of seniority in a different connection.
She said, "I brought up the fact that I thought seniority should carry a little because
I had worked nights since I had been there, and I asked for days and if you are
hired in on nights you stayed on nights." It seems that Cox previously, how long
before is not stated, had asked Etchison to transfer her from the night shift to the
day shift but he had not as yet granted her request. Before the date of this meeting,
how long before is not stated, Cox asked Greenlee "about going on days" and told
him that "Melvin had refused to let" her "go on days," and that Greenlee said,
"We'll see what we can do about it" but for her not to mention it to Etchison right
now. The next day after this meeting Greenlee called her in the office and told
her she "could come in on days" beginning the following Monday. On that occasion,
Greenlee did not say anything else to her. About this Lewis said that when they
employed "people it was understood at the time that they were hired for the night
shift or day shift as the case may be. Later it developed that some of the night shift
people felt that because of length of service, they were deserving a day job. We
concurred in that," and, pursuant to that decision, "Gertrude Cox was the first
person told that she could transfer to the day shift" if she desired to do so.
The only witness who gave testimony about the second meeting of night shift
workers on Monday, February 23, which as Shaffer mentioned followed the first
meeting on that date, was Zaluma Idelwine, a night shift worker on the "burr table"
and a Charging Party. She said there were around 10 women present. Upon
Greenlee's invitation to state any grievances or complaints they desired to present
"some of the girls spoke up and said they wanted more pay . . . some asked about
vacations," and "they wanted some things done about the rest room and the first
aid room, and they [Lewis and Greenlee] said that [rest and first-aid rooms] would
be taken care of." About vacations, Idelwine condensed in one sentence the explana-
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 897
tion Lewis gave at these meetings, as above set out, when inquiry was made as to
company policy in respect to vacations, that Lewis "said we would get a week's vaca-
tion with pay after we had worked a year." She did not say what Lewis and
Greenlee may have said, if anything, about a wage increase, but Lewis' testimony
is credited that whenever at any of these meetings the matter of a wage increase
was mentioned his statement concerning that was the same as that given at the first
meeting and heretofore set out. Idelwine's testimony about this meeting was brief
and fragmentary and contributes little to the report about these meetings. Grace
Evans, a day shift worker and a Charging Party, was the only witness to testify in
reference to a meeting attended by around 10 day shift workers, which presumably
was held on Tuesday, February 24, unless this happened to be the same meeting
attended by Leatha Brewer, a day shift worker, called as a witness by the Company.
However, Brewer's testimony about attending such a meeting is that she did attend
and little more. Evans mentioned only one item that was not discussed or mentioned
in the first employees' meeting on Monday, February 23, which has been fully
covered. Evans said, that, at this meeting, "I myself talked directly to Mr. Lewis
and told him about other factories that had holidays with pay which we didn't get"
and that Lewis "said that if a holiday fell within the week we could work on Saturday."
Conclusion on Allegation Relating to Promises of Benefits
Unless the assurances by Lewis and Greenlee, that they would rectify the condi-
tions in the rest and first-aid rooms, about which complaint was made, and the plac-
ing of towels in the restroom and a cot in the first-aid room in conformity there-
with, which was done in recognition of the merits of those complaints, constitute
promises of benefits within the ban of Section 8 (a) (1) which in my judgment they
do not, I fail to discern anything said by either Lewis or Greenlee in these meetings,
or done by them as a result thereof, which could be held to amount to or constitute
promises of benefits, as that term is used in defining a violation, in that respect, of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. They made no promises, offers, or representations, so
far as I discover, conditioned or relating directly, inferentially, or imphedly upon
abandonment by the employees of the Union or of their union connections or
activities. Indeed, Lewis rejected all requests for an increase in wages, a request for
extra holidays with pay, and the request for fixed rest periods. It was undoubtedly
the hope of Lewis and Greenlee that by a frank discussion of the complaints or
grievances which the employees had, or had come to think they had, they could so
present and clarify the Company's situation and position about such matters that
the apparent inclination of the employees to turn to and rely upon, as Lewis put it,
"outsiders" might be dissipated. Even so, such a discussion as was here disclosed by
the testimony of the General Counsel's own witnesses, all Charging Parties, about
these meetings, does not, as I view it, constitute an unfair labor practice. The fore-
going testimony about these meetings in Lewis' office is the whole of the evidence
offered by the General Counsel in support of the allegation of the complaint that
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees "by promising"
them "an increase in wages and improvement in working conditons in order to fore-
stall the organization of the Union among its employees," and in view of my findings,
as stated, 1 recommend that that allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
D. The strike
1. Held to be an economic strike
I have found surveillance by Etchison of the February 21 union meeting, and that
other violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act occurred in one form or another,
through remarks, statements, and expressions of opinion, of a kind and nature con-
stituting threats of economic reprisal, as well as improper interrogation, in the course
of conversations by Melvin Etchison and Joe Bambough with Wanda Young, Mary
Jean Chesser, Opal Lee, Hazel Shaffer, and Gertrude Cox, 5 of the 14 Charging
Parties, and all night shift workers except Young, within the period of about 1 week
preceding the strike. While, as I have found, these statements, remarks, and in-
quiries, by these two supervisors, were such as might reasonably and ordinarily be
deemed as calculated to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and therefore improper and such
as are forbidden by Section 8 (a) (1), it is my firm conviction and belief, based upon
my observation of the witnesses, upon the whole evidence relating to the attitude
and conduct, and course of action pursued by the 5 employees named, as well as
the other Charging Parties, that none of them were actually, or in anywise, affected,
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restrained, coerced, or influenced thereby, and that the unfair labor practices so found
did not directly or remotely cause, nor did they contribute one iota to, the strike.
It is quite evident, all the evidence bearing on the cause and purpose of the strike,
and that comes almost wholly from the witnesses, Charging Parties, called by the
General Counsel, that the UMW representatives and agents, aware of the fact that
the Union had no recourse to the Board's processes to enforce recognition should they
succeed in enlisting a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, from well
nigh the beginning of their organizational campaign contemplated calling a strike
foi the purpose of fortifying their demand for recognition, and that many of the
employees, principally the night shift workers, were effectively persuaded that a
strike to compel recognition would be necessary. That a strike was being considered
as early as, in fact before, Thursday, February 19, is evidenced by Catherine Hunt's
inadvertence in her testimony about the Hobbs-Hunt-Lewis conversations on that
date, when in attempting, at one point, to correct her first statement, she said that
Lewis at that time "did not know there was a strike," which I take, and I think cor-
rectly so, the immediate context and the whole evidence about the strike movement
considered, as meaning, in effect, that Lewis did not at that time know that a strike
was contemplated. The group of 6 to 10 night shift workers who met at the home of
Gertrude Cox the afternoon of Tuesday, February 24, decided, undoubtedly under the
tutelage of a UMW representative or representatives, to strike The principal item
of business brought before the 16 day shift workers assembled in the courtroom of
the city building on Thursday night, February 26, with Cartwright, Cassidy, and
another UMW representative present, was the UMW proposal for an immediate
strike. Around midnight that same night, the little group of 3 night shift workers
and 2 day shift workers, who were displeased because some of the day shift workers,
who had signed with the Union, seemed reluctant "to go along with the strike," went,
at the close of the night shift, to the home of Opal Lee and called Cassidy by tele-
phone. Cassidy arrived at this meeting at the Lee home in the early hours of Friday
morning, February 27, and immediately "took charge" of the meeting, after which
"everything was run at his direction," and the 5 women there present "merely" fol-
lowing "his directions" decided "to have a strike anyway" without waiting for the
meeting announced for the next day, Saturday, and to begin the strike that very
(Friday, February 27) afternoon by inducing the night shift not to report for work.
The only reason assigned by any of the 12 Charging Parties called by the General
Counsel, and upon whose testimony the General Counsel's case depends, for going
on strike, is summarized in the answer of Opal Lee, one of that group, to a question by
the attorney representing the General Counsel, on direct examination, "Now what
were the reasons for your going on strike." Lee answered • "Well, we wanted better
working conditions, they wanted a union in there so they could get better working
conditions." It is evident from the testimony of such of these Charging Parties, who
made any references, directly or inferentially, to their reason for going on a strike, or
in following Cassidy in the initiation of the strike, that their purpose and objective
was first, by that means, to get the Union established in the plant, with the expectation
that, thereafter, through the interposition of the Union, they might obtain better
working conditions.
The attorney representing the General Counsel admitted that the strike was called
by the UMW. Cassidy and the UMW agents called this strike and put it into effect
4 calendar days before the date appointed for a meeting with the company manage-
ment which the UMW had requested in order to present their claim for recognition
with the clear purpose of thereby strengthening the position of the UMW representa-
tives and impairing that of the Employer at that meeting It is my opinion and con-
clusion that the strike was in its inception and throughout basically and essentially
an economic strike, contemplated from the beginning, and induced, called, and main-
tained by the UMW in an attempt to thereby coerce recognition, which, assuming it
had been designated as bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in
an appropriate unit, the Union could not enforce through the processes of the Board.
2. First strike action
The first knowledge that Lewis or anyone connected with management had that
the strike had started was about 3 or 3.30 Friday afternoon, February 27, when
Cassidy and Hershel appeared at or near the entrance gate to the plant, and imme-
diately thereafter Charging Party Cecil Boll and her husband drove up and talked
with Cassidy and Hershel, whereupon Cassidy and Hershel proceeded to and entered
the company office. At the time, Lewis was engaged in a business matter at the office
of the Zimmer Company, whose plant property, as has been noted, adjoins the L. C.
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 899
Products property on the north. Lewis was seated near a window in the "front room"
of the Zimmer office from whence he had a full view of the entrance to the L. C.
Products plant and office. He saw Cassidy, Hershel, and the Bolls arrive in front of
the plant and converse and Cassidy and Hershel then go along the entranceway and
into the L. C. Products' office. A few minutes later Lewis went over to his own
office to see what business Cassidy and Hershel had there In the meantime Cassidy
and Hershel had entered the company office to find Etchison and the office girl the
only persons in the office. After inquiring for Lewis, Cassidy laid a typewritten paper
titled "Recognition Agreement" on the office girl's desk at the same time telling Etc,hi-
son that the UMW "represented over half of the employes." He also told Etchison
that there was nothing he (Etchison) could do concerning this proposed agreement
which he was leaving for Lewis' attention, and commented that "he [Cassidy] had
been on the phone since around 12 o'clock" the night (Thursday) before "talking to
various people concerning that," indicating the proposed recognition agreement. As
Cassidy and Hershel were about to leave the office Lewis entered, whereupon Cassidy
picked up the proposed agreement and handed it to Lewis and said, "I would like to
have you sign this agreement " In reply to this demand Lewis told Cassidy, "You
have an apointment here for next Tuesday afternoon," and that he [Lewis] did not
at this time have anything further to say, adding "good bye," whereupon Cassidy and
Hershel left. Shortly, a picket line, composed of night shift workers, was set up at
or near the plant entrance and the strike was in effect.
The terms of this proposed recognition agreement, submitted by Cassidy as the
first move in the strike, provided that the Company "hereby recognizes and wilt
continue to recognize" the Union "as the exclusive bargaining agency or repre-
sentative for all of its employees in Elwood, Indiana, excluding supervisory em-
ployees. .. and that the Company would "meet immediately with representatives
of" the Union "and negotiate a contract covering wages, hours, and other working
conditions." This opening move or gesture on the part of Cassidy further demon-
strates the real purpose, intent, and objective of the strike, that is, a strike for
recognition.
From the time he came out of the company office until the conclusion of the strike,
Cassidy was in charge of and directed the strike action. About this Gertrude Cox,
Grace Evans, Catherine Hunt, and Zaluma Idelwine, all Charging Parties, testified,
as follows: Cox, Cassidy "took charge of the strike"; Evans, "Mr. Cassidy was in.
charge of the strike . I asked him what to do"; Hunt, who was on the picket line
every day, said, "Mr. Cassidy gave the instructions about organizing the picket line,"
and "how it was to be run . . . and what went on there was in conformance to his
instructions"; Idelwine, "The girls [on the picket line] merely followed Mr. Cassidy's
instructions." And the attorney representing the General Counsel admitted, "that
the strike was under the direction and control" of the UMW "acting through" Cassidy.
3. Plant entrance
Preliminary to that which follows, relative to the strike, I describe the plant-
entrance, which was the principal scene of the picket activity. The plant is located
on the west side of North 9th Street. It has only one entrance, spoken of as "the,
driveway," used alike, and in common, for vehicular and pedestrian travel into
and out of the plant. Between the west line of the street and the east edge or line
of the sidewalk, in front and east of the plant property, is a grassy plot 9 feet in width.
The width of the sidewalk was not given, and between the west side or line of the-
sidewalk and the Company's property line is a space 6 feet in width. At the west
edge or line of the street where the driveway leading from the street to and through
the plant gate begins, the driveway is 35 feet in width, but from there the side lines
of the driveway slant inward until at about the property line the driveway narrows
to 18 feet in width at which width it continues to the plant gate. It was stated that
from the west side of the sidewalk it is 63 feet along this driveway to the gate, and
estimating the width of the sidewalk to be at least 5 feet, and adding 9 feet, the
width of the grassy plot east of and between the sidewalk and the street, the distance
from the west line of the street to the plant gate would be 77 feet.
4. Mode of travel to and from work
It appears that the usual and customary mode of travel by the employees to and
from their work at the plant was, and is, by automobile, at least all who testified in
this case and made reference as to how they went to and from work, as most of
them did, so stated. Some traveled to and from work in their individual cars, some
369028-56-vol. 112-58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went in groups in the car of some member of the group, while, in some instances a
husband, who did not himself work at this plant, would drive his wife, and perhaps
other employees in a group arrangement, to work and call for her or them at the
end of the shift. It was the custom to drive along the driveway and through the
gate to the factory inside the fence. Those who drove their own cars both to and
from work parked them, while working, inside the gate or fence. As Lewis explained,
"Mostly people like myself, who come and go regularly, park out in the area" outside
the fence and marked on the plat, put in evidence, as "parking area." The employees
generally did not use that area as a parking place.
5. Friday afternoon, February 27
After Cassidy's call at the plant office and his demand on Lewis to sign the pro-
posed recognition agreement, he returned to the area outside the fence and in front
of the plant, where some of the night shift workers, whom he had enlisted for strike
and picket duty for that afternoon, had assembled or were assembling. I have noted
that Cecil Boll was the first of these to arrive. Cassidy assigned and directed these
night shift workers, who thus reported to him for strike service, to picket the one
avenue, above described, of ingress and egress and to notify the day shift workers
coming from work at around 3 30 p. in., not to report to work the following Mon-
day, and any night shift workers evidencing an intent of going in that afternoon for
the night shift, which started to work at 4 p. in., not to do so. The number of night
shift workers at this time serving as pickets were referred to as "some" or "several."
With the exception of Hunt and the unnamed day shift worker, who had attended
the meeting at the Opal Lee home in the early hours of the morning when this strike
action was planned, and Vesta Reasbeck who said she had been told "before 7 o'clock
that morning" about "a meeting at 3 o'clock that morning" at which it had been de-
cided to strike, it appears that the day shift workers did not learn that the strike
had been called until on leaving the plant at the close of the day shift they found
"several out there from the night shift . picketing" the plant. The pickets went
up to the cars in which the clay shift workers were leaving the plant and told the
occupants that the strike was on and "not to come to work Monday." The plant
did not work on Saturdays.
Vesta Reasbeck described the course followed by the pickets in soliciting the day
shift workers as they drove out of the plant that Friday afternoon "We started out
in our machine. Hazel Shaffer opened the right hand door, and told us they were
on strike, and not to report Monday. I told her I had washed my hands of the whole
affair. Cecil Boll opened the left hand door next to the driver and stuck her head in
and said, `Vesta don't you come to work Monday morning.' " Some of the night
shift workers who did not go on picket duty came to the plant that afternoon in-
tending to report for work as usual, but when confronted by a picket line of their
fellow workers, who told them "not to go through the picket line" and "not to go in
to work," they desisted and left Clara May Poole, a night shift worker, had not
been told during the day about the strike. She said that the first she learned that there
was a strike on was "when I went out to work Friday afternoon. I drove up there
and they [referring here to Cecil Boll and Cassidy] told me not to go in . . . to go
on home, and I went home and called back to the plant, and they said . for me
to stay [at home] until they gave me a ring. . . . On Monday I was called about
11:30 and told to come in on days . and I started that Monday noon."
There was no night shift operation that Friday nor thereafter until after the strike
when a night shift was resumed on March 11. However, throughout the strike, which
ended on Friday, March 6, 1 week from the day it started, the Company maintained
a day shift operation without cessation.
6. How picket lines were maintained and conducted generally through Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, March 2, 3, 4, and 5
Throughout the strike the picket lines formed early each morning, well before the
plant's starting time, which was 7 a. in., in an effort to prevent or induce the goodly,
and day by day increasing number, of employees from reporting for work. Intensive
picketing activity was carried on through Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, March
2, 3, and 4, tapering off on Thursday, with Cassidy calling off the strike in the fore-
noon of Friday, March 6. For a generalized description of how these picket lines
were maintained and conducted, I draw upon the testimony of Opal Lee, Grace Evans,
Catherine Hunt, and Zoda May Hobbs, four of the Charging Parties, and Robert
Hobbs, husband of Zoda May Hobbs, who worked at the nearby Zimmer plant, all
called as witnesses by the General Counsel, as follows- Lee, the pickets were "strung
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 901
out across the gate," that is "standing in a line across the gate, something like 2 or 3
feet apart", Evans, the pickets stood on company property "between the sidewalk and
the gate," and "knew" they were on company property, Hunt, who "was on the picket
line every day" from before 7 a in. until after 3:30 p. in , "the pickets stood elbow
to elbow in front of the gate . There were cars that tried to come in and had
to back up because the pickets would not give way." If any cars "came in contact
with" a picket. "it was because that person was standing either in the driveway or
immediately adjacent to it so that cars coming in or out could not help but touch
them"; Zoda May Hobbs, who "was on the picket line most of the time in the morn-
ings," when "the women were coming to work," said, "The picket line was on the
driveway over which an automobile would drive into and out of" the plant, Robert
Hobbs. "The picket lines were stationed in the space between the sidewalk and the
gate, and the pickets were so close together that a car couldn't go in or come out
without hitting them . unless they stepped out of the road " In connection with
conduct on the picket lines generally, I refer also to the testimony of Leatha Brewer,
subpened but not called as a witness by the General Counsel. Called as a witness
by the Respondent she testified that she "went on strike" and "was on the picket line
every day" through Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, but returned to work on
Thursday Brewer said, and I credit her well-corroborated testimony, that "some
of the women on the picket line tried to stop cars from going into the plant," and in
doing so would take hold of the cars "with their hands." She also said that there was
much "name calling" by the pickets "directed to the women who went to work," in
which she herself paiticipated, and that one of the appellations very commonly and
generally used was "chicken shit "
a Monday, March 2
The testimony disclosed little of a specific nature about the picketing on Monday.
The picket lines foimed before 7 o'clock that morning and Lewis said about 25
employees passed the pickets and worked that day. During the day Etchison re-
ceived a number of telephone calls from employees who had not reported that
morning for work saying they "wanted to come to work" but "were afraid to cross
the picket line " Charles Reasbeck, age 71, who did not work at the plant, cus-
tomarily drove his wife, Vesta, age 64, Mary Lou Lucas, and Marie Grantham, all
day shift workers, to and from work daily in the Reasbeck car. On this Monday
morning Lucas did not go to work As he started to enter the driveway on this
morning, Reasbeck saw the pickets massed along the sidewalk and also "right in
the driveway." Reasbeck "didn't try to drive through," as usual, and told his
wife and Marie Grantham that if they wanted to "go through" the picket line they
would have to walk. "They got out and walked through" and "nobody bothered
them" but this is not to say that, as seemed pretty general every morning and at quit-
ting time in the afternoon during the strike, that these women were not subjected
to the verbal derision and name calling which the pickets directed at all the women
who went to work Mary Ann Sparks, Alice Ford, Elizabeth Williams, and Laverne
Henderson rode to work as usual that morning in the Henderson car, driven by
Glenn Henderson, husband of Laverne Glenn Henderson did not work at the
plant Apparently this group thought to avoid the pickets by arriving at the plant
at "25 minutes of 7 00," but the pickets were already "out there." Henderson did
not try to drive through the group of pickets "gathered in the driveway" and the
four women started walking to the gate. The pickets commenced calling them names
principally "scabs." Sparks, who seems to have been in the van, "hesitated," and
as she did so Cassidy "came up" to her and said: "Lady, I wouldn't go in there. This
is only going to last a couple of days. If you go in there and go to work, we will
vote you out, and you won't have a job after Tuesday." Sparks turned to Williams,
who was next behind her, and said. "Come on lets go in" As the women who
worked Monday left the plant that afternoon they were met by a barrage of name
calling, as related by the witness Clara May Poole, such as "scabs and chicken shit."
b. Tuesday, March 3
A number of employees who wanted to work but had been deterred because
of anticipated difficulties with the pickets from reporting for work on Monday came
to work Tuesday morning. The testimony reveals that on Tuesday there was a
deliberate and forcible concerted attempt by the pickets, under Cassidy's direction, to
prevent workers from entering the plant. Opal Lee, a Charging Party and witness
for the General Counsel. was active on the picket line throughout this period Lee
said that on this date the pickets were "lined up across the driveway," and that she
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
saw "the pickets try to physically prevent something like two or three cars," carry-
ing "people who wanted to work from going into the plant." Lee further said that,
on this date, she saw two girls [pickets] hit by cars carrying employees to or from
work going in and out of there . they were standing right out in the center
of the driveway They saw the cars coming and they refused to move .
and didn't jump aside when the car got there," and that this happened "at the gate,"
and was witnessed by the police, who were in a police car nearby, but "they
didn't do anything about it." As a matter of fact the testimony shows that cars
carrying employees into and out of the plant were driven along the driveway to
and from the gate at about as slow a rate of speed as a car could move, and such
claims as were made about pickets, who refused to move aside, being struck boiled
down to a slight "bumping" with no injury of any consequence being reported.
The group that went to and from work in the Reasbeck car, heretofore mentioned,
and this morning including Mary Lou Lucas, a regular member, who had not gone
to work the previous day, Monday, arrived at the plant this Tuesday morning "around
a quarter to 7," but formed a picket line massed "across the driveway" back from
the entrance to the driveway. Mr. Reasbeck drove into the driveway, "then stopped
and studied" the situation, and decided that the pickets were not going to let him drive
through, whereupon Reasbeck, after consulting with the women, "backed up and
turned around" and drove to the home of Marie Grantham, where Grantham called
Etchison at the plant, by telephone, and told him that "Mi. Reasbeck would not
try to go through" the picket line, and asked Etchison to come and get them. Shortly
Etchison arrived at the Grantham home with a car driven by Danny Bambough.
The three women got in that car and were driven to the plant where Bambough
drove slowly along the driveway with Etchison "motioning" and calling to the
pickets to get back, and as the car continued to approach the pickets did "get back,"
and the car went on through the gate.
As the group which went to and from work in the Henderson car, heretofore
mentioned, neared the plant on this Tuesday morning they saw that the pickets had
formed a line blocking the driveway, and Mrs Henderson suggested to her husband,
who was driving, that they bypass the L. C. Products entrance and go through the
Zimmer Company gate, and across and around the Zimmer property into the L. C.
Products property. As they turned into the Zimmer property some of the pickets,
including Cassidy and Cecil Boll, left the picket lines at L. C. Products and "ran
down there," but the Henderson car got through the Zimmer gate before they could
intercept it However, these same pickets, and others who had joined them in
the meantime, waited at the Zimmer gate for Henderson's return after he had
delivered the four women at the L C. Products factory and tried to intercept him,
but driving slowly, after first stopping momentarily, he moved on out, and, as he
did so, the car fender "bumped" Cecil Boll. No injury was reported from that.
June Blake, one of the Charging Parties, was, according to Boll, with Boll or near
her at the time. What I have said about the incident involving Henderson's leaving
by the Zimmer gate is based largely upon the testimony about that given by Leatha
Brewer, one of the strikers, who witnessed it from her position on the picket line.
This morning Clara May Poole driving her own car and carrying three other
women employees, who like herself wanted to work, arrived at the entrance to the
driveway "around 20 minutes to 7" and found the pickets massed in the driveway
"on Company property . . . between the office and the gate." Here undoubtedly
reference is made to the "office entrance," which is outside of the fence and almost
on a line with and south from the gate, as appears by a glance at the plat, Com-
pany's Exhibit No. 14. Poole "drove very slow" along the driveway but as she
neared the group of pickets they swarmed about her car, "jumped on the side of"
the car, "opened the car door, and slammed it to," and "pounded against the glass
with their fists," at the same time some of the pickets "hollered, take the god-damned
sons of bitches out." Grace Evans, one of the Charging Parties, was one of the pick-
ets Poole knew who participated and was conspicuous in this conduct. Mary Ann
Sparks who had gone through the Zimmer property and into the factory in the Hen-
derson car thereafter watched the women, who were trying to drive cars through
the L. C. Products driveway, "from the office window." She said, and her testimony
is corroborated and is credited, that the pickets "were standing across the
gate . close together" that morning and that she saw Mrs. Poole driving her car
in and that the Poole car "moved slowly, and the strikers were on both sides of it,
trying to push it back so it couldn't move in," and they continued pushing on it until
it "was even with the office door." That afternoon as the Poole car with Mrs. Poole
and the other three employees who rode to and from work with her, came out of the
plant gate the pickets "called" them "all kinds of dirty names . .. . scabs, chicken shit,
and all such stuff."
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 903
When Ruby Irene Frazier, who had not gone to work Monday and was alone in
her car, "started to drive up the driveway" this Tuesday morning she found the
pickets blocking the driveway. She recognized 1 of them as June Blake, 1 of the
Charging Parties, and 1 of the 4 Charging Parties out of 14 for whom reinstatement
is sought Concluding that the pickets would not give way Frazier "backed up and
pulled down the street" a short distance "and parked there and started to get out of
the car" thinking she might be able to walk past the pickets. June Blake "yelled" at
Frazier, "Ruby, you get back in that car and go home. You will cause nothing but
trouble here." Frazier got back in her car, drove to her mother's home, and "called
the plant and told them" that she "was ready to go to work, but couldn't get through
the line, and if they wanted me to come to work to come and get me." Etchison and
Danny Bambough came after her in a car, but upon arriving at the plant driveway
they decided not to try to drive through the pickets, and Frazier, escorted by Etchi-
son or Bambough or both, "walked through" the picket lines to the accompaniment
of "shouts" from the pickets of "scab, son-of-a-bitch, and several names like that."
Pursuant to the appointment for 2 p. in. on this date (Tuesday, March 3) made on
February 25, upon Cartwright's request by telephone for a meeting with manage-
ment at which "he [Cartwright] could present his claims and a contract for signa-
ture," a committee composed of Cartwright and Cassidy and Gertrude Cox and
Thelma Sorrell, two of the strikers and both active on the picket line (Cox was one
of the Charging Parties), went to the company office at the time fixed. At the meet-
ing or conference which followed management was represented by Lewis and Larry
S. Davidow, attorney for the Company. Of the six persons present, but 2, Cox, 1
of the Charging Parties, called as a witness by the General Counsel, and Lewis, gave
testimony about this meeting. Their testimony as to what was said and done at this
conference is pretty much to same effect and mutually corroborative.
I have accepted and adopted Cox's version which follows, as being perhaps the
more complete Cox testified that Davidow told Cartwright "that the National
Labor Relations Act required unions to file non-Communist affidavits," and that he
(Davidow) wanted "first" to know "whether or not the United Mine Workers and
its officers had filed non-Communist affidavits with the Nation Labor Relations
Board," and asked whether Cartwright would "officially answer that question."
Cartwright "got angry," and said "he [Cartwright] was not on trial . that he
was not interested in conversation, he came thereto have an agreement signed."
Davidow then asked Cartwright "whether the United Mine Workers had filed an
annual financial statement with the Secretary of Labor" and Cartwright "refused to
answer." Davidow told Cartwright that he (Davidow) "insisted upon answers to
these questions," as he "was representing the Company and he would not do business
with a union that was not in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act."
Cartwright's only statement about this was that "he [Cartwright] was not on trial,"
whereupon Davidow told him that "he [Davidow] would meet with him as long as
he wanted but he insisted on having answers to these questions," and Cartwright
"asked for recognition and Mr. Davidow said `absolutely not,' and Mr. Cartwright
said `well, that's all we want to know,' and he just got up and walked out," with Cas-
sidy and the women following after. Lewis' testimony about this meeting corrobo-
rates generally the foregoing account given by General Counsel's witness, Cox, and
since it adds but little of substance thereto will not be reviewed.
It is not alleged in the complaint, nor claimed by the General Counsel, nor do I
find, that, under the circumstances shown, the refusal by the Company to extend
recognition to this noncomplying union constituted an unfair labor practice, or that
it in anywise affected or transformed the nature of the strike, which in and from its
inception was, as I have held, primarily an economic strike for recognition.
C. Wednesday, March 4
The increase in the number of employees coming to work continued on this date,
and the difficulties with the pickets encountered by those going in to work likewise
continued. As the Reasbeck car, carrying the usual group of workers, Vesta Reas-
beck, Marie Grantham, and Mary Lou Lucas, with Charles Reasbeck driving, ap-
proached the plant this Wednesday morning "before 7 o'clock . the pickets were
gathered across the driveway." Sizing up the situation Charles Reasbeck "pulled
out to the edge of the street" and stopped without trying to enter the driveway. Two
police officers were nearby and Charles Reasbeck asked his wife, Vesta, "to get
out and go down and ask" these police officers "what was what" about trying to
drive along the driveway to the gate and into the plant. She made inquiry of the
police officers and "reported back" to her husband what the police had told her,
whereupon he said "Okay, we are going in," and driving "slowly right in the middle of
the driveway, started through." Cassidy planted himself in the center of the drive-
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
way squarely in front of the slowly moving car, and called some of the women
pickets "in behind him," and "held up his hands" in a signal to Reasbeck to stop.
Reasbeck "slowed" the car until it "just barely moved," and called out, "Get away. I
am going through." Reasbeck continued to move forward, Cassidy refused to step
aside, and as the bumper came in contact with Cassidy he "jumped up on the
radiator," and at about the same time 4 of the women pickets, 2 at each front fender,
tried to push the car back , and stop its progress , while others "began banging on
the car." Two of the pickets who "grabbed hold" of the car and tried to push it
back were positively identified by Vesta Reasbeck as June Blake, I of the 4 of the
14 Charging Parties for whom reinstatement is sought, and Zelpha Dever, 1 of the
Charging Parties, who was not called as a witness. I credit Vesta Reasbeck's
testimony about this as I do her testimony generally. This 64-year-old woman
impressed me most favorably as being a reliable witness. Mary Lou Lucas, who
was in the car also, identified Zelpha Dever as one of the women who was trying
to push the car back. Suffice it to say that the car moved on in through the gate into
the plant premises inclosed by fence as the pickets, clamoring about the car, directed
various epithets and appellations at the three women in the car. Some of the women
pickets called Mrs Reasbeck "a scabby old bitch," and Cletus Castor, another
Charging Party, who was not called as a witness, called out, referring to Mrs
Reasbeck: "Let the scabby old bitch go in and scab and make that Dutch bastard
(referring to Mr. Reasbeck) a living " After they and the others had failed to stop
the car "June Blake or Zelpha Dever yelled out, `Vesta you will pay for this."'
Charles Reasbeck said that in moving along the driveway and through the gate
"nobody was hurt that I know of." However, June Blake testified that when she
saw Charles Reasbeck "starting up in the driveway" she was "walking along the
sidewalk," picketing at that point where the driveway crosses the sidewalk, and
that she "started backing up" but "didn't get out of the way in time," and a "front
fender" struck her knee injuring same. She claimed that she was on sick leave before
and during the strike, and under the care of a doctor at the time, but said that she
never went to a doctor for an examination or any kind of treatment on account of
this purported knee injury, nor so much as brought it to the attention of a doctor,
saying she did not consider that necessary "for a little bump on the knee " Although
all that happened there that morning was observed by police officers, and Blake
says she complained specifically to them about the fender striking her knee, the police
"did not take any action " Blake then, and on that same date, went down to the
city hall and made a complaint against Charles Reasbeck, but at the time of the
hearing, slightly more than 10 months later, the case had not come on for trial.
Blake did not specifically deny the testimony of Vesta Reasbeck which I have credited,
concerning her participation in the car pushing incident, which apparently occurred
in the driveway west of, and after the car had crossed, the sidewalk.
After the Reasbeck car had passed through the gate an incident occurred about
which much testimony, out of all proportion to any bearing it could possibly have
on any issue in this case, was offered As Vesta Reasbeck, Lucas, and Grantham
were getting out of the car, inside the fence near the entrance to the factory, some of
the pickets in the driveway, just a short distance outside the gate, continued in the
name calling and abusive language directed to these women whose entrance they
had failed to stop Lucas "hollered down at the pickets and told them to be quiet,"
whereupon one of the pickets, who Lucas thought or took to be Zoda May Hobbs
and Vesta Reasbeck "is sure" was Hobbs, called Lucas "a son-of-a-bitch," and "in
an instant" thereafter Lucas ran through the gate and back to where Hobbs was
standing, and "slapped her face and ran back in."
On this morning Ruby Irene Frazier, who had driven alone in her car to the plant
Tuesday morning but had not then tried to drive through the driveway, "picked up
three other ladies who were wanting to work." As they neared the entrance to the
driveway they saw that "the picket line was across the driveway . . on Company
property between the sidewalk and the gate," so that a car could not travel the drive-
way "without hitting some of them" unless "they got out of the way." Frazier
"stopped . . . and locked all the car doors from inside the car," then "went very
slowly up the driveway and . . . one of these union fellows," whose name Frazier
could not recall, "took a stand directly in front of the car." As Frazier continued
to move "very slowly" forward, at the same time "yelling, `Get out of my way. I
am coming through,' " this union man, as well as other pickets who were trying
to block the driveway, stepped aside, but as this man did so he "made a grab at" the
car, and caught hold of the "bug catcher on the wing window and broke it off," and
commenced "waving it around . . . and then he grabbed the door handle, and tried
to open the door," but was unable to do so "because all doors were locked " As the car
thus travelled along the driveway the pickets who had given way called out to
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 905
Frazier, and the other women in the car, such names as, "black haired son-of-a-bitch,
scab, and different things like that." One woman who Frazier identified among the
pickets was Thelma Sorrell a member of the committee which the afternoon before
had called on Lewis demanding recognition of the Union. I here note that Sorrell
personally abandoned the strike the following day, Thursday, and returned to work.
I have given Frazier's version of this incident, and, based upon my observation of
the witness, as well as the fact that her testimony is not specifically denied by anyone,
it is fully credited.
It seems that on this date there was a slight altercation between Etchison and
Cassidy. Etchison was asked about it on cross-examination and his version is all
there is in the record concerning the matter as the General Counsel did not choose
to call Cassidy to testify about anything, and none of the Charging Party witnesses
mentioned it. Both my observation of Etchison as a witness, and the fact that his
testimony in this respect is not denied, leads me to credit the version he gave As
I understand Etchison's testimony, previous to this date, on Monday or Tuesday, or
both, Etchison, on several occasions, had been deterred, by the determined stand
of Cassidy and his group of women pickets in blocking the driveway, from trying to
drive a car carrying an employee or employees, who wanted to work, through the
driveway into the plant, and had resorted, at such times, to having the employees
leave the car at or near the entrance to the driveway and escorting them as they
walked through the picket line, to the accompaniment of a verbal barrage from the
pickets. On a few such occasions Cassidy "had kind of shoved" Etchison. On this
date when Etchison started into the driveway the car in which he was carrying two
women employees, who wanted to work, was again stopped by the risk of striking
some of pickets who apparently were intent on blocking its passage, and Cassidy's
ultimatum that he (Etchison) would not be permitted "to bring people through the
picket line that way." Etchison then said, "How about having them [the pickets]
at arm's length so" employees wanting to work "can walk through." He got no
response to this request but nevertheless he told the two women "to get out of the
car," and under his escort they started walking through, when Cassidy again "shoved"
Etchison, who "was good and sore by this time," and told Cassidy that he (Etchison)
"would like to punch" him "in the nose," but Etchison did not attempt to carry out
the impulse because he "couldn't get to" Cassidy, who was surrounded and protected
by "too many women."
On this Wednesday morning Clara May Poole again drove her car through the
driveway and the gate into the plant premises. As the car neared the gate Cassidy
"jumped" in front of it and "tried to push it back," but as Poole "kept creeping along"
Cassidy "hopped" up "on the bumper and the radiator" and in that position "rode
along" on the car through the gate, and "inside the factory lot," where he "jumped
off and ran back out."
Action Taken by Company on Monday and Tuesday-March 2 and 3
Confronted on Friday afternoon (February 27) with Cassidy's demand that he
forthwith sign the recognition agreement which Cassidy had prepared, and then
presented, followed by the assemblage of pickets composed of some of the night
shift workers in front of the plant entrance, who announced to the day shift workers
as they left the plant that afternoon that the UMW strike was on, and notified them
not to report for work Monday morning, and with his whole production committed
under a close and pressing schedule to the manufacture and delivery of the M-502
fuse body and submarine signal containers, all vitally related to the National Defense
program, Lewis called his attorney, Larry S. Davidow, into conference. Although
advised that this was an economic strike and that he had the right immediately to
replace strikers who refused to return to work, and despite the business hazards
involved in either a stoppage or slowing down of production for even a short time,
Lewis determined not to make immediate replacements, although that very easily
could have been done, the labor supply at the time being abundant, as was later
demonstrated, but to allow a few days, with notice to all employees continuing on
strike fixing a date upon which he would proceed to hire replacements of all who
had not by then resumed work. It was with such purpose in view that Lewis and
Davidow took the steps that follow.
On Monday afternoon, March 2, at the Company's Indianapolis office, Lewis
caused the following notice to be printed on the Company's letterheads:
March 3, 1953.
'' NOTICE *
Our records disclose that you have terminated your employment with us by
failing to report for work on Monday, March 2, 1953.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We are hereby extending to you the opportunity of being rehired, provided
you report for work not later than Thursday, March 5th, 1953.
Do not be put to fear by any threats that may have been made or are being
made by union spokemen. You may be sure that the public authorities will
not permit any disturbance of any kind. Our country is still a land of law
and order-those who want to work will be able to exercise their rights as
American citizens with complete safety and security.
Very truly yours, A. I. Lewis.
Monday night, at the Indianapolis office, an envelope was addressed to each of the
Elwood employees who had not reported for work that day and a copy of this
notice was inclosed in each. These "letters" or notices were taken the next morn-
ing (Tuesday) to the Elwood plant, and a check was there made of the timecards,
after the checkin for that day, and it was found that a number of employees who
had not reported for work on Monday had reported that morning and were work-
ing, whereupon the "letters" or notices addressed to them were removed and dis-
carded, and the remaining letters were then mailed at the Elwood post office and
sent by special delivery. Practically all were received by the employee-addressees
that same day (Tuesday, March 3) and the attorney for the General Counsel con-
ceded that all of the employees still on strike as of Tuesday received the notice On
the same day that he mailed these letters (Tuesday, March 3), Lewis put an "ad"
in a local daily newspaper, the Elwood Call Leader that, in substance, beginning on
Thursday, March 5, the Company "would hire women from 22 to 65" years of
age. Lewis said: "We were there [at the newspaper office] too late on Tuesday
to qualify for the classified section, and we had the ad placed on the back page
of the paper for that day" but on Wednesday and Thursday it was carried "in
the classified section." All of the striking employees saw or knew about these
advertisements.
d. Thursday, March 5
As has been noted, on Tuesday morning, even before these letters or notices were
mailed, a number of women who were not in sympathy with the strike, and wanted
to work, but had been deterred from reporting on Monday because they feared
trouble with the pickets if they undertook to cross the picket line, reported for
work. On Wednesday morning despite the intensified activity of the pickets on
Tuesday, attended as it was by forcible acts and threats of violence, a number of
other women who did not favor the strike and wanted to work but who had like-
wise been deterred from reporting on Monday and Tuesday, reported for work.
Others, including a number of women who had served on the picket line and had
actively participated in the things said and done there during the 3 preceding days,
reported for work Thursday morning, so that by that morning, March 5, the date
fixed by Lewis, by both the notice mailed out March 3 and the advertisements in
the local daily newspaper, on which he would begin hiring replacements for all em-
ployees who had not by that time returned to work, the number of nonsupervisory
employees who had returned to work and were working mounted to 55, approxi-
mately 20 less than were working immediately prior to the beginning of the strike.
There are slight references in the testimony to this return to work by some of
the active strikers on Thursday morning but no direct evidence that it was induced
by the notice although it may be surmised that it was a factor in their decision. On
the other hand in view of the turn the strike activity had taken on Tuesday and
Wednesday it might well also be surmised that they were moved in part at least
by a desire to disassociate themselves from the strike. It appeared that perhaps as
many as four men employees stayed away from work because of the strike, al-
though there is no testimony about activity by any men employees on the picket line.
The only mention of any men at all in that connection is to the UMW organizers,
agents, and representatives who directed and participated in the picket line ac-
tivities. However, one man, a so-called nonproductive worker, Gail Beeman, who
was said to have gone "on strike," returned to work "on his own accord" on or be-
fore Thursday, March 5. As I have noted Thelma Sorrell, who was active on
the picket line as late as Wednesday morning and who was one of the two women
employee members of the committee that called on Lewis on Tuesday afternoon de-
manding recognition of the Union, returned to work Thursday morning. Gertrude
Cox, a witness for the General Counsel and one of the Charging Parties, said she
"knew 2 girls who joined the Union" and were "active in the strike" and "on the
picket line" who went back to work on Thursday, March 5. Leatha Brewer, who
joined the Union, went on strike, served on the picket line, and admittedly par-
ticipated in the picket activity through Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, also
went back to work Thursday morning.
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 907
7. Replacements hired the afternoon of Thursday, March 5
As heretofore stated, after the checkin on Thursday, March 5 a total of 55 non-
supervisory employees were working on the 1 (daytime) shift then being operated,
but none of the 14 women, who later filed individual charges upon which the complaint
herein is based, had returned to work. In addition 3 other women employees,
Adaline Beaver, Evelyn Lewellen, and Jenny McGinnis, and 3 men employees, classed
as nonproductive workers, Halliday, Barrett, and Laub, who had not come to work
since the strike started, failed to report for work on this date. There is no mention
of the participation of any of these six employees in the strike or picketing activity,
nor does any explanation appear for their failure to come back to work, or to offer
to come back to work, nor is anything found in the record indicating that any of
them participated in the post strike group meetings and activities connected with
the filing of the charges herein and the prosecution of this case. It will be remembered
that the advertisements in the local daily newspaper stated that as of this date
(Thursday, March 5) the Company would receive applications for work from
women between the ages of 22 and 65. No call for men applicants was included.
As has been said, and as again explained by Etchison, in connection with the
hiring of replacements on this date, the machine work is performed by women
operating automatic machines, and the production line work of all kinds is performed
almost altogether by women, and none of such work requires "any skill . anybody
can do it" with a minimum of instruction. After the checkin this Thursday morning,
Etchison was delegated to interview and hire, from among the women applying for
work that day in response to the newspaper advertisements, such number of women
for production line work as he deemed were required, under the circumstances, to
get production back on schedule at the earliest possible time. Approximately 200
women appeared at the Company's office and made application for work on this date.
Pickets were on duty in front of the plant as these applicants came pouring in. The
pickets tried unsuccessfully to dissuade the job seekers from entering the plant, "tried
to argue them out of coming through" but "did not try to keep them out by forming
a chain across the entrance."
Etchison waited until noon that day before he did any hiring in order to allow
any of the employees who had not come to work that morning that additional time
to report for work but none did so. To this time "No one had been hired to fill
the places of those on strike." In the interviews that followed Etchison was assisted
by Foreman Joe Bambough. From the approximately 200 women applicants,
Etchison hired 16 women to commence work the next morning, Friday, March 6.
It is again noted that 17 of the women working at the time the strike started had
failed to report for work by noon of that day, the 14 women who filed charges and
3 others. The 16 women hired on Thursday afternoon "reported for work on Friday
morning (March 6) and were taken to an areaway adjacent to the west wall of
the building, and as each job turned up a man would come and take the next woman
over and introduce the job, give her a little instruction, and put her to work," and
this routine continued "until all 16 women had been put to work." The following
Wednesday, March 11, the plant resumed a 2-shift operation, but no additional
hirings were required or made. At the time of the hearing the total number of non-
supervisory employees was "around 75," working 1, a daytime, shift.
8. Friday, March 6, UMW ends strike
Three of the Charging Parties, witnesses called by the General Counsel, Hunt,
Shaffer, and Chesser, referred to the strike being "called off" during the morning
of Friday, March 6 Hunt said that she "was on the picket line everyday" before 7
a. in and usually stayed on picket duty until the women who were working left
the plant in the afternoon. Apparently there were but few pickets on duty and but
little in the way of picketing done on Friday morning, March 6. Hunt's reference
to this morning indicates that she must have left during the morning after the
employees who were working had gone in to work She said that on that morning,
"Hazel Shaffer was left on the picket line alone, and Mr. Cassidy came and told her
[Shaffer] the strike was over, and then she came and told me." About this Shaffer
said she "went on the picket line" each morning and stayed there until about 10
or 11 a. m., when she would go home, returning to picket duty "at nights," and
stay until 9 or 10 p m. On this Friday morning after Shaffer had reached her home
Cecil Boll, who was on picket duty, "got in touch with" her, and told her that she
(Boll) "would have to go home and wondered" if Shaffer "could come out there"
and relieve her (Boll). Shaffer resumed picketing at about 11:30 a m., and Boll
immediately "left to go home." This must have been the time referred to by Hunt
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when Shaffer "was left on the picket line alone." Shaffer said that about or shortly
after 11:30 a. m., "Mr. Cassidy came up in his car, and told me that the strike was
off, and I should stop picketing." Chesser said: "Hazel Shaffer called me Friday
(March 6), around noon, and told me the picket line had been dissolved." Ap-
parently this decision to call off the strike was reached within the closed councils
of the UMW officers and representatives as there is no indication that any of the
striking employees were consulted.
9. Calls at plant office on March 9 and 11, followed by trips to Cartwright's
office at Marion, Indiana, on the same dates
Cecil Boll and Hazel Shaffer, both Charging Parties and witnesses called by the
General Counsel, "went together" on Monday, March 9, to the plant office. Boll
said, concerning what she claimed occurred on this occasion. "I asked for Mr.
Greenlee and he wasn't there, and I asked for Mr Lewis, and he wasn't there, so I
said, `I don't suppose no one is here,' and she [the office girl] said `Yes,' and she
called Melvin [Etchison], and I asked him, `Do I go back to work,' and he said, `You
was on the picket line, wasn't you. You got your letter7' and I said, `Yes, sii,' and
he said, `Well, you are done' . . . I just said all right, and walked out, and told him
so long."
All Shaffer said about this incident was that she and Boll went to the plant to-
gether on this date, and talked with Etchison, and "We both asked him if we had our
jobs, and he said, 'No', that we were in that strike, and we didn't have no jobs, and we
was fired." These two witnesses differ as to what Etchison said Based upon my ob-
servation of Boll, Shaffer, and Etchison as witnesses, and the inconsistencies and
improbabilities that characterize the testimony of both Boll and Shaffer as a whole,
particularly that of Boll, and the indefiniteness that particularly marks Shaffer's
testimony as a whole, I do not consider either as being accurate in this instance, and in
view of my general evaluation of Etchison as a witness, as heretofore stated, and in
the light of the known facts about what he had previously done by way of hiring
replacements, I credit his testimony that what he told Boll and Shaffer when "They
asked me for their jobs back" was "that there was nothing I could do for them. They
had been replaced."
On the same day, immediately after this conversation with Etchison, Boll went
to Cartwright's office at Marion, Indiana, the regional UMW office. She said ap-
proximately five other unnamed women went with her. The testimony does not
indicate that any of the 13 other Charging Parties, which includes Shaffer, accom-
panied Boll to Cartwright's office on March 9. Shaffer said she went to Cart-
wright's office but she did not fix the time. The only other group of women men-
tioned in the evidence as having gone there was a group estimated as numbering
10 or 11, who went on Wednesday, March 11. Shaffer said she went "down to his
office" with a group of "about 12 women," so she must have been a member of
this group which went on March 11. While the date of signature on the charge
filed by Shaffer is March 9, as was that of Boll, Shaffer said she wrote that date in
because she considered that "as the day I was terminated " Boll said no one told
her to go see Cartwright, and that she went there "to see if I couldn't find some way
to get my job back." Shown the charge which she filed herein, purportedly signed
under date of March 9, Boll testified most positively and rather aggressively that the
typewritten part of the charge, under "Basis of the charge," was in her "own words
. no one told me to use those words"; that "I wrote out what I wanted," and
then, at his direction, Cartwright's secretary typed the charge "after I told her what
I wanted put in it"; and that she signed the charge there at the time and it was in-
closed in an envelope which the secretary addressed to the NLRB Subregional
Office at Indianapolis She said she had purchased this envelope before going to
Cartwright's office. She carried the addressed envelope back to Elwood and mailed
it there on the same day. No mention is made of any similar action by, or anything
at all in connection with, the other five women who she says accompanied her. I
am satisfied that what Boll says she did on this occasion is not correct, and that
instead the same procedure was followed as that taken thereafter on March ll,
although the confusing testimony of some of these women about what occurred
on that date but illustrates their almost total lack of comprehension about the charges
they filed herein.
On Wednesday March 11, following the calling off of the strike shortly before
noon on Friday, March 6, a group of women, who had not returned to work, in-
cluding eight of the Charging Parties, Lee, Cox, Hunt, Chesser, Young, Hobbs, Idle-
wine, and Castor, met at the city building and went from there in a body to Lewis'
office at the Elwood plant. Hunt estimated the group numbered about 6, and
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 909
Hobbs' around 11, while Lee said, "I imagine there were as many as 10" women
in the group, and Lewis estimated the number as 10 or 11. Seven of the above-
named women testified about the incident and the eighth, Cletus Castor, was iden-
tified as a member of the group. Although not directly named, circumstances ap-
pearing in the evidence indicate that Zelpha Dever, a Charging Party, who was not
called as a witness, was also a member of this group bringing the number to at
least nine. Apparently Shaffer was not in the group that went to Lewis' office on
that date. How they happened to assemble at the city building remains in the
realm of the unexplained The claim that some of these witnesses got together by
mere chance and not by any prearrangement is a bit too improbable for me to credit.
After they called on Lewis, and what then occurred will be presently related, they
went as a group to Cartwright's office at Marion, Indiana Hunt said Cassidy told
them to go to Mr. Cartwright's office, and Hobbs' testimony indicates that at least
she, if not perhaps another or others with her, had been to Cartwright's office earlier
that same day, and before this assemblage at the city building, and that the getting
together of this group and their call in a body upon Lewis, followed by their trip
that day to Cartwright's office, all occurred after Hobbs returned to Elwood from
this visit at Cartwright's office, and was done, as Hobbs testified, "in conformity
to the advice" she had received at that time from Mr. Cartwright. I am satisfied that
their call upon Lewis and subsequent report to Cartwright at his office was at the
direction or suggestion of Cartwright or Cassidy, or both, and pursuant to his or
their instructions.
Catherine Hunt said "that morning (Wednesday, March 11) Zoda Mae Hobbs
came down and got me . and we went to see some of the girls . . . we ended
up here at the City Building," and that when the group arrived at Lewis' office,
"I was the one who did the talking, and the other girls didn't say anything. . I
asked if we had our jobs, and he said that we had our chance the same as the others
did, and I said that was all I wanted to know and then we left " Cox said that when
Hunt asked about getting "our jobs back" all Lewis said was, "You had your chance
the same as the other girls," and Hobbs' testimony about what Lewis said is in sub-
stance the same, while Young and Idlewme corroborate each other that Lewis did
not say anything at all in reply to Hunt's inquiry but merely shook his head "No "
Young's testimony was that when Lewis was "asked if our jobs were still available, he
just shook his head, no, and we said that's all we want to know and walked out"
Idlewine said- "We went in and asked for Mr. Lewis, and he came out in the office,
and they asked for our jobs back, and he just stood there and shook his head .
negatively, and Katherine Hunt (Idlewme's sister) said, `that's all we want to
know.' . I don't recall Mr Lewis saying a thing." My observation of these wit-
nesses in the giving of their testimony, and my evaluation, heretofore stated, of Lewis
as a witness, as well as the existing facts and circumstances, lead me to credit Lewis'
version of what was said, on this occasion. Lewis testified that the "spokesman" for
the group "said that they would like to ask for their jobs back. 1 said, "1 am sorry
but you are too late.' " Explaining why he answered the inquiry in such manner
Lewis stated that, "They had been asked to come to work by March 5 or other-
wise they would be replaced we had employed these people [the replacements
hired on March 5] and the jobs were filled. We had no other jobs open."
Leaving Lewis' office the group went that same day to Cartwright's office at
Marion. Shaffer must have joined them after they left Lewis' office, bringing the
number of women then in the group to at least 10. Referring to the time she went
as a member of a group to Cartwright's office Shaffer said she thought the group
numbered "about 12 women . we just met at a certain time and left . . . one of
the girls told me I was going along, and I went." Both Shaffer and Hunt said Cas-
sidy told them to go to Cartwright's office. Cox stated it this way "We just went
over there [to Cartwright's office] and talked to them but didn't anybody tell us to
. . . we thought he [Cartwright] would be the one to talk to . . . we went to him
to get his guidance and advice on what to do," while Chesser said that they went
to Cartwright's office because "He was the one that was going to help us . . . He got
us in this trouble, and it was up to him to try to help us now "
The first four witnesses to testify, in the order named, about what happened at
Cartwright's office, Shaffer, Lee, Cox, and Hunt, were each shown the charge she
had signed and filed in this matter, bearing her admitted signature, with purported
date of signature admittedly in her handwriting, and each testified positively that this
very charge was prepared that day, and at that time, by Cartwright in her pretence
and with her assistance, and after she had then and there signed and dated it, Cart-
wright enclosed the charge in an envelope addressed to the NLRB Subregional Office
at Indianapolis, and gave it to her to mail which she did Lee said she signed the
charge where she was "told to sign" and that "all of the girls who were there at that
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time did that" too Lee claimed that she "helped draft the language" of the charge.
Cox said, "We just sat there and talked back and forth" with Cartwright who then
"dictated" the charges to his secretary who typed them, while Hunt's version was that
Cartwright "asked us about different things then he went and dictated this thing
[referring to the charge] up," that he "dictated the contents of these charges," and
that the charge she signed contained her own "language," what she had told Cart-
wright. The Shaffer charge is dated March 9, the reason she gave for that date has
been heretofore stated, the Lee and Cox charges are dated March 11, and the Hunt
charge March 17, which last conforms more nearly to what happened on that occasion
as will next appear.
After these four women, with no apparent confusion or pressure whatever attending
their testimony in this respect, and with no suggestion at the time of possible error
or mistake from any source, had testified positively as above set out Chesser, the
fifth witness, about what happened on that occasion at Cartwright's office, took the
stand, and supported by documentation, revealed for the first time what really did
occur, as follows. Cartwright prepared and dictated a form letter directed to "Mr.
Robert Volger, Officer in Charge" of the NLRB Subregional Office at Indianapolis,
and his secretary then typed an original, with carbon copy, of this letter, identical
in wording, for each of these women to sign, supplying each with an addressed
envelope, and the women signed and mailed them that same day. The original
letters signed by Chesser, Hunt, Shaffer, and Young, which were received at the
Subregional Office on March 12, were put in evidence. The letters read:
DEAR SIR' I was employed by the L. C. Products, Inc., Elwood, Indiana on
April 27, 1952. Working conditions in this plant were terrible and we girls
decided that we were unable to work under these conditions so we then decided
to form a union. We were unable to gain recognition and were discharged
by the company.
I was one of the leaders in this movement and was penalized by the company
by being discharged for my union activities.
My discharge date was March 7, 1953.3
I respectfully request that your office investigate these charges and help me
receive justice under the laws of this country.
On receipt, on March 12, of these letters the Subregional Office wrote each of the
women as follows:
DEAR MADAM: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 11,
1953 stating that you were discharged by L. C. Products, Inc., Elwood, Indiana
for your union activities and requesting that this office investigate your allegations.
As a prerequisite for securing an investigation by this office of your allegation
it is necessary that you file your charge in accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of this Board. Therefore, I am enclosing herewith a charge on the proper
form drafted in accordance with your letter. All you will have to do to properly
file your charge is to sign your name and date the charge at the bottom of the
page under Item 7 and return to this office.
The charges prepared by the Subregional Office and inclosed, as stated, in the let-
ters from that office were signed and dated by these women, generally in their homes,
and returned on various dates shortly after their receipt. Shaffer dated her charge,
as heretofore stated, as of March 9. Lee, Cox, Young, and Castor, each dated her
charge March 11, evidently on the same theory that moved Shaffer to date her charge
March 9, and perhaps on the advice of Cartwright or Cassidy, as there is an indica-
tion that some of these women, particularly Chesser, may have again consulted one
or another or both of them after receiving the charge from the Subregional Office.
Chesser's charge is dated March 13, and the Hunt and Hobbs charges are dated
March 17. The date of the Idelwine charge was not filled in. As stated, it is indi-
cated that Zelpha Dever, a Charging Party, who was not called as a witness, was the
10th member of the group at Cartwright's office on March 11. Her charge was dated
March 16. As noted the Boll charge was dated March 9. It thus appears that Cart-
wright had not prepared any of the charges herein, nor had he undertaken to do so,
on either March 9 or 11, or at any other time. and none of the women had signed
charges prepared by him at his office, as had been so positively asserted by Boll,
Shaffer, Lee, Cox, and Hunt prior to Chesser's advent as a witness. After Chesser's
testimony Shaffer and Hunt were recalled and recanted their former testimony that
on March 11, at his office, Cartwright had prepared and they had signed the charges
a This is the letter sent by Chesser The Hunt and Young letters advised that the
discharge date was March 11, and the Shaffer letter, March 9.
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 911
which they filed herein, and corroborated Chesser's testimony about what had oc-
curred on that occasion, as did Young, Hobbs, and Idelwine who followed Chesser
on the stand.
But 2 of the 4 out of 14 Charging Parties for whom the General Counsel seeks re-
instatement, Mary Jean Chesser and Zaluma Idelwine, were members of this group
of about 10 women who participated in the call upon Lewis on March 11 and the
meeting with Cartwright thereafter on the same date.
The filing of charges by three of the Charging Parties, Grace Evans, Mary Gard-
ner, and June Blake, none of whom had participated in the group action of March
11, remain. On Tuesday, March 10, after the strike was called off, Grace Evans
called the plant by telephone and talked with Greenlee. She asked him if she had a
job, and he said "No." Later she talked with a Mr. Gillis, a field examiner for the
Board, and still later, and on April 22, Gillis came to her home, and there "made
out" the charge, which she filed, on a typewriter "which he had with him," and she
then and there signed same, which bears the typewritten date of April 22. The Gen-
eral Counsel does not ask that Evans be reinstated. Mary Gardner, 1 of the 4
women for whom reinstatement is sought, started to work at the plant in February,
about 2 weeks before the strike was called. After the strike was called off she be-
came ill and was "in bed for about a week" on account of that illness. She made no
attempt during that time to contact the plant about coming back to work and did not
do so until after she had recovered from the illness, when she called by telephone and
talked to Etchison. She asked him "if there was any work available" and he said
there was not. Gardner said, "I heard some of the other girls had filed charges" and
having learned that Hazel Shaffer "had been down to Marion, and gotten charges
filed with the Labor Board . . . I spoke to her on the telephone, and asked her to
have one made out like the ones they had . . . so she went ahead and got it made
out." Gardner signed but did not date this charge obtained through Shaffer's as-
sistance, and mailed it in an addressed envelope supplied by Shaffer. It was received
at the Subregional Office on April 29. June Blake, the last of the four Charging
Parties for whom reinstatement is sought, signed a charge at her home on April 15
which was received at the Subregional Office on that same date. The charge was
brought to her home by Gillis for signature. Since the theory upon which the rein-
statement of Blake is asked applies to her individually it will later be separately
discussed.
Conclusions About Notice of March 3 and the Hirings of March 5
If the wording of the notice, such as "Our records disclose that you have termi-
nated your employment" and "opportunity of being rehired," sent on March 3, to all
employees who had not reported by the checkin time that morning, be alone con-
sidered apart from the factual context and given a purely literal and legalistic con-
struction, an argument might well be made, with citation of certain decisions of the
Board and the courts in support, that the notice constituted a discharge instanter.
But it is my firm opinion that when all of the existing and surrounding facts and
circumstances are considered, including Lewis' intent and his subsequent attitude and
course of action evidencing same, the newspaper advertisements simultaneously
published, and the manifest understanding of the strikers themselves, the notice
should be treated, as I believe in fact it was, both in intent and effect, as no more
than a notice that instead of immediately exercising his right to replace those who
were staying away from their jobs because of this strike for recognition called
by the UMW, Lewis would not make replacements prior to March 5, and would
hold their jobs open, without attempting to replace them, until that date. This, it
should be remembered, was despite the fact that the Company's whole production
was committed to a tight schedule calling for the delivery of mechanisms vital to the
National Defense program. That the notice was not intended by Lewis or understood
or taken by the employees, who were staying away from work because of the strike,
as a discharge is evidenced by the fact that on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
30 or more employees came back to work and none of them were "rehired" in the
strict or legalistic sense of that term. They all merely resumed work at the same
kind of jobs at which they had been working before the strike commenced. There
is not a scintilla of evidence indicating that their timecards had been removed or
that any termination entry had been made in their personnel records On the
contrary, one bit of evidence found in Chesser's testimony indicates that their time-
cards were not "pulled" until after the replacements were hired on Thursday, March
5. Apparently those returning to work on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
checked in as usual and went to work The testimony without contradiction is
that there was no discrimination of any kind against those who came back to work
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARII
after staying away because of the strike. They suffered no loss of seniority what-
ever. They simply went back to work with their status in nowise changed from
that which they had enjoyed when they left their woik because of the strike The
employees generally who stayed away from work because of the strike well knew
that many of their number were returning, and had returned, to work, under the
circumstances stated, with no change whatever in status attending, or being attached,
to their ieturn. Also, as has been stated, all of the employees who stayed away
from work on account of the strike knew about the advertisement, carried for 3
days, in the local daily newspaper, that the Company would on March 5 receive
applications for work from women between the ages of 22 and 65, and the testimony
is that they well understood that no attempt to replace them would be made until
that date, and it is a fact that no replacements at all were hired until afteinoon of that
day. Charging Parties Lee, Cox, Evans, Hunt, Young, and Hobbs testified to the
effect that they construed and understood this notice to mean that their jobs were
being held open until March 5, and that if they returned to work by or before March
5 they could have their jobs back. There is nothing of substance to indicate that they
were deterred from returning to work, pursuant to the notice, by any fear or thought
that if they did so they might be subjected to some discrimination, loss of seniority, or
change of status because they had gone on strike. Witnesses who did return to work,
and others who did not leave their jobs, testified alike that no distinction whatever in
treatment was made between the women who had continued working and those who
returned after staying away because of the strike, some of whom had been con-
spicuously active on the picket line.
It is my conviction based upon innumerable bits of evidence and various circum-
stances found throughout the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses, all
Charging Parties, as well as the testimony of witnesses called by Respondent, bearing
on this phase of the case, that, at the time, the striking employees did not take,
construe, or understand this notice to be, or to operate as, a discharge, but instead,
as it was intended, a notice, corroborated by the newspaper advertisements, that
replacement would be made as of March 5 of those who did not return to work by
that date. This is further borne out by the statements made in the charges filed.
Boll and Shaffer charged that they were "terminated on or about March 9," the date
they went to Lewis' office and asked if they had jobs, while Lee, Cox, Hunt, Young,
Hobbs, Idelwine, Castor, and Dever, all stated the date when they were "terminated"
as March 11, the date the group called on Lewis and "asked for their jobs back." If
these Charging Parties were discharged by this notice of March 3, as the General
Counsel claims, and the complaint alleges, neither they nor Lewis knew it at the
time.
In view of my conclusions about this notice I reject the General Counsel's con-
tention that the notice constituted a discharge and a violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, which automatically transformed the economic strike into an unfair labor
practice and the economic strikers into unfair labor practice strikers.
If Lewis' action in waiting until Thursday to hire replacements and giving notice
to that effect, instead of immediately making replacements on Monday and Tuesday,
be deemed "an unlawful strike breaking technique," and the notice, and the simul-
taneous advertisements in the local daily newspaper, "as a threat of discharge, designed
to coerce the strikers to abandon the strike," in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, nonetheless the record as a whole considered, I am of the opinion that such, if
it were, unfair labor practice did not prolong or otherwise convert the original
economic strike into an unfair labor practice strike, and would not under the cir-
cumstances, call for a remedial order in that respect. Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., 108
NLRB 933.
It is my conclusion, however, that, under the facts of this case, the notice did not-
constitute or operate as a discharge and did not in anywise affect, or contribute to,
the objectives and purposes of the strike, or its continuation, and that the strike was
from its inception and throughout an economic strike with the status of the strikers
remaining throughout that of economic strikers I, therefore, find no violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) or 8 (a) (1), either derivatively or independently, resulting fhom,
or arising out of, the notice.
In view of the findings made, it follows that the 16 women hired by Etchison
during the afternoon of Thursday, March 5, were bona fide replacements of economic
strikers and if the Boll and Shaffer inquiry of Lewis, on March 9, whether they had
jobs, and the request made to Lewis by the women composing that group, on March
11, "for their jobs back" be deemed unconditional applications for reinstatement
to the jobs they had held, or equivalent jobs, before going on strike, then at such
times their places had been filled by permanent replacements. The burden was on
the General Counsel to show by a preponderance of the evidence that at the times
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 913
the striking employees made unconditional applications for the jobs at which they
had worked before going on strike that such jobs, or equivalent jobs, were available
and had not been filled by permanent replacements, and that he failed to do, while,
in my opinion, the evidence is conclusive that permanent replacements had been hired
for all the Charging Parties before any of them made any sort of an offer to resume
their jobs.
Conclusions About the Request for Reinstatement of the 4 Charging Parties, out
of 14, to Whom the Complaint Limits Such Request
In his oral argument at the conclusion of the evidence in the case, the attorney
representing the General Counsel stated: "During the strike certain activity took
place which has been brought out here in the evidence and which was, of course,
the subject of a thorough investigation by the Regional Office of the National Labor
Relations Board. As a consequence of this some of the charges herein were dis-
missed " As heretofore stated, the complaint is based upon the 14 individual
charges, and apparently literally speaking none were actually dismissed, however,
the complaint as originally issued on August 20, 1953, limited the allegation of un-
lawful dischaige, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, to only 3 of the 14
Charging Parties, Mary Gardner, Mary Jean Chesser, and Zaluma Idelwine. Each
of the 14 charges in identical language, except variations, some of which have been
noted, as to the date of the purported discharge, stated that the complainant had
been discharged "because of her membership in and activities on behalf of a labor
organization," and nothing more. It is obvious from Regional Office correspond-
ence and orders put in evidence, as well as the admission of record made by the at-
torney representing the General Counsel, that at the time the complaint issued, as
aforesaid, and as a result of the investigation of the charges conducted by the
Regional Office, it was the conclusion of the Regional Office and the General Counsel
that because of their misconduct on the picket line, or their association in or con-
nection with such misconduct, the 11 other Charging Parties had forfeited, and
were disqualified to claim, the right, if any, to reinstatement which it was thought
they might possibly otherwise have had. June Blake was 1 of the 11 Charging Par-
ties thus originally omitted and excluded from the allegation of unlawful discharge
and the accompanying request for reinstatement, however, on August 28 the com-
plaint was amended by naming her as a discriminatee, under Section 8 (a) (3),
along with Gardner, Chesser, and Idelwine. The theory on which Blake's claim
for reinstatement rests has little in common with the situation constituting the basis
of the claims for reinstatement made in behalf of Gardner, Chesser, and Idelwme
and will be later and separately discussed
Chesser did not do any daytime picketing after Friday afternoon, February 27,
when the first group of pickets assembled shortly before the time for the day shift
to leave the plant. She was one of the small group of night shift workers who gath-
ered in front of the plant at that time notifying the day shift workers, as they left,
that the strike was on and not to come to work Monday, and any night shift work-
ers inclined to go in to work not to do so. She stayed on picket duty at that time
until "about one o'clock" Saturday morning No one was working in the plant
that Friday night "except Joe and Danny Bambough." Sunday, March 1, she went
on picket duty "about dusk" and stayed until about 2 o'clock Monday morning.
She was thereafter on picket duty at least on "one of the nights during that week,"
starting "about dusk " There was no disturbance of consequence on the picket line
on the afteroon of Friday, February 27, and with 1 or 2 exceptions no going in or
out of the plant, and no disturbance of any kind whatsoever, during the nights she
was on duty. It will be recalled that with the commencement of the strike the
night shift was abandoned, and no one was working in the plant at night during
the strike. One night Chesser saw a truck drive into the plant, but she did not try
in any way to stop it, and another time shortly "before dark" Danny Bambough
"came out of the factory in his car," but she did not try to interfere in any way,
and at the time was "back at the big barrel keeping warm."
Mary Gardner did no daytime picketing but was on picket duty "practically every
night . from about 7 p. in. until around midnight." During the time she picketed
she did not "see anybody go into or come out of the plant," and could not recall "see-
ing any cars or trucks drive into or out of the driveway "
Zaluma Idelwme did not do any picketing at all "after that Friday night," February
27. Her home was 51/2 miles from Elwood, and she "just didn't come in" except that
on the day that she received the notice, which the Company sent out on March 3, she
went to the plant "about 12 30 p m . to see if the girls had decided to go back
to work, and found they were still on the picket line." She did not at that time par-
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ticipate in any way in the picketing but talked awhile with some of the girls while
seated in a car "parked along the side of the street," but not close by the driveway.
Thus it appears that none of these three women, Chesser, Gardner, or Idelwine,
participated in, or was personally associated with, the misconduct on the part of the
pickets which occurred during the daytime on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday. But the fact remains, in keeping with my findings, supra, that they were
at all times economic strikers, and that at the time Chesser and Idelwine, as members
of the group who called on Lewis on March 11 and "asked for their jobs back," and
when Gardner, more than a week after the strike was called off, asked Etchison by
telephone, "if there was any work available," they had been permanently replaced
by women hired on March 5. It follows, under the findings I have made, that the
8 (a) (3) allegations of the complaint as to Chesser, Gardner, and Idelwine should
be dismissed.
June Blake started to work at this plant on June 26, 1952. She said that she was
"not called back after the layoff for the machinery change over" until "around Feb-
ruary 1," 1953, and that after she had then worked "two weeks" she "took a sick
leave." Concerning the sick leave Blake testified that "I asked Etchison about it"
and advised him "I need approximately six weeks [sick leave] or until March 30,
because I was unable to work," that Etchison said "it would be all right and directed
me to go in and tell the office girl that I was going to require sick leave for six
weeks . so she could put it on my record that that's what was the matter", that
"I went into the office and told" the office girl that "I had asked Melvin for sick leave
and that he had said it was all right, and told me to come in and tell her so she could
put it down on my record, and she said, `I will take care of it.' ... I told her I was
supposed to report back in the last of March."
Blake said pursuant to this arrangement she was absent from work on sick leave
when the strike started on Friday afternoon, February 27, and that the first she
learned of the strike was "the day my husband and children and I were out riding,
and we went past and saw the picket line," and that that date was not Friday, Feb-
ruary 27. It is not entirely clear but there is some indication that pickets may have
been at the plant on Saturday and even Sunday. Be that as it may, Blake herself
was on the picket line by Monday afternoon at the latest and as she in effect admits,
and the evidence in the case shows, "every day from Monday until the strike ended,"
picketing with the group of women who arrived well before 7 a. in., and tried to pre-
vent the "women who wanted to go in to work" from doing so, and staying on picket
duty until after those who were working left in the afternoon at the end of the
workday.
Continuing, Blake said that when the notice, which the Company mailed special
delivery on Tuesday, March 3, came to her home, evidently during that morning,
"I was on the picket line, and when I went home for dinner, I got the letter and read
it, and 1 got on the phone and called L. C. Products Company . and asked to
talk to Mr. Lewis. . I told him [Lewis] who I was, and that I had received this
letter, that I was on sick leave until March 30, and I asked him, `Does this [the letter
or notice] apply to me.' . He said, `No, you disregard that letter Mrs.
Blake.' . . . I don't remember his exact words, but he said something that he saw on
my record down there or something, that I was on sick leave . and he said, `You
come back on the 30th or before, if you are able, but disregard this notice,' and I
said, `All right. Thank you.' "
Commencing as of Monday and presumably continuing without a break, into Fri-
day, when Cassidy called off the strike, Blake, as the evidence clearly shows, identi-
fied and associated herself with the strike and the picketing activity, and personally
participated aggressively and prominently in the course of misconduct which charac-
terized the picketing. There is no question about this, as has heretofore been spe-
cifically noted, and such was undoubtedly disclosed by the investigation made by the
Regional Office, which resulted in the finding and conclusion by the Regional Director
and the General Counsel that she had thereby forfeited whatever right, if any, which
she, as a striker, might otherwise have had to reinstatement or to return to work,
and, as heretofore noted, she was thereupon and for that reason, omitted and ex-
cluded from the 8 (a) (3) allegations of the complaint and request for reinstatement,
as the complaint was originally issued. Thereafter the General Counsel, by amend-
ment, included Blake in the 8 (a) (3) allegations and the accompanying request for
reinstatement on the theory, as best I can make out, that Lewis' purported statement to
her that since she was on sick leave the March 3 notice did not apply to
her and for her to disregard the notice and return to work when she was able,
clothed her in some sort of immunity from the consequences of her picket line mis-
conduct, and that at the end of this purported period of sick leave the Company
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 915
was obligated, at the risk of violating the Act if it did not do so, to restore her to her
job regardless of her picket line misconduct.
Blake said that on March 30, "1 went in and told the office girl I was supposed to
report back today from my sick leave," and that the office girl called Etchison who
took her into another office where they were alone. According to Blake, "Etchison
asked, `What do you want?' and I said, `I am reporting back to work off my sick leave,'
and he said, `You don't have a job here any more.' I said, `I was never notified I
didn't.' He said, `I am notifying you now. You are fired.' I said, `May I ask why,'
and he said, `You were out on the picket line. I saw you. . . If you were able
to be on the picket line you could have been in the factory.' I said, `Melvin, I called
in here and Mr. Lewis told me to report back in here by the 30th or before if I
was able, and this is the 30th, and I am here. . ' I said, `I would be willing to
come out and talk to Mr. Lewis and if he tells me I don't have a job all right.' He
said, `I will talk to Mr. Lewis and if he tells you that you can come back, you can
come back, because he is the one who says whether you can or not. I'll call you the
first of the week and let you know what he says.' " Etchison said of this conversation
that Blake "asked me if she could come back to work," and that all that he told her
was that "as far as I was concerned her employment had terminated, but the decision
was not left up to me, for her to see Art Lewis." In my opinion that was about the
substance of what he said and is in keeping generally with what had previously been
done by Etchison himself by way of hiring replacements, and the word "terminated"
was used in that sense. I do not credit Blake's statement that Etchison there and then
said, "You are fired " This conclusion is arrived at in view of my personal observation
of both Blake and Etchison as witnesses, and of my impression that Blake was some-
what given to overstatement as well as inaccuracies. After this conversation with
Blake, Etchison "placed a note" on Lewis' desk advising him (Lewis) that Blake
had talked with him (Etchison) about coming back to work and that "he had in-
structed her" that she would have to take the matter up "directly" with Lewis. How-
ever, Lewis "never heard from her " Blake said that while thereafter she made no
attempt to contact Lewis, she did call Etchison 2 or 3 times by telephone to inquire
if he had taken the matter up with Lewis but about all Etchison said was that "he
did not have time to mess around about anything like that."
Lewis testified that he thought it was either on Friday afternoon (February 27)
or Monday morning (March 2) that Blake called him on the telephone at which
time she told him she was on sick leave and asked him "if her job would be pro-
tected" during the strike, and that he told her, "Yes, if you are on sick leave your job
will be protected." This conversation, whenever it was, was the first intimation Lewis
personally had that Blake claimed to be on sick leave. Lewis said that when he saw
Blake on the picket line on Monday afternoon, he "went to the file" to see whether,
in conformity with the Company's rule she had filed a statement from a' doctor
stating the nature of her illness and the approximate time it would be necessary for
her to be off, but he found no such statement or certificate. I am satisfied that as
Lewis stated he made no inspection of the file or personnel records concerning whether
Blake had been granted sick leave, and had no occasion to do so, until after her
telephone call, and then not until after he had seen her on the picket line, and I do
not credit Blake's testimony, which is specifically denied by Lewis, that in the
course of the telephone conversation, Lewis "said something" about having seen
on her "record down there" that she "was on sick leave " Pressed on cross-examina-
tion as to whether Blake told him in this telephone conversation that she "had re-
ceived this letter . . . and was worried about it," Lewis said, "I don't think so," but
stated "whether it [the telephone conversation] was following" the mailing out of this
letter or notice he would not be "positive," nevertheless the sum of what he said in
that conversation was "that if she was on sick leave her job would be protected,"
and that nothing was said by either of them about the letter or notice.
There is a serious question whether Blake was ever in fact granted sick leave at
all, or if so for such an extended period of time as 6 weeks, as she claimed. Because
"absenteeism," at times coupled with claims of illness, had become so much of a
problem, the Company, long prior to the time Blake says the sick leave was granted,
announced a rule, in respect to sick leave, by posting a notice at or "just above" the
time clock as follows-
Before we can give you sick leave you must have a statement from a doctor
stating the nature of your illness and the approximate time you should be off.
Blake said she had never heard of such rule and had never seen this notice. Like-
wise Chesser, Boll, Idelwine, Lee, Cox, Evans, and Hobbs, all Charging Parties along
with Blake, said they had never seen this notice. Each testified about other notices
369028-56-vol 112-59
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they had seen posted at or near the time clock, and in that connection, it is noted,
that some of the notices some of these witnesses said they had seen, others had not,
as one example only, a seniority list about the posting of which there seems no
doubt. Sbme of these witnesses said they had seen this list, others could not recall
ever having seen it. Chesser, Cox, and Evans had never been off on sick leave, and
Boll and Hobbs had been off on sick leave only a day or two, and Hobbs said,
"then, I just told Melvin, I wouldn't be in, and he said okay." Idelwine and Lee
made no mention of ever having taken any sick leave.
The original typewritten notice above set out, bearing date January 3, 1953, was
put in evidence and I accept and credit Lewis' testimony that it had been posted at
the time clock continuously from January 3, 1953, to the day it was brought to the
hearing, and that on January 3, 1953, date it had been substituted for an identically
worded notice which "had become so mutilated" it was necessary to replace it
Further I credit the testimony of Respondent's witnesses, Lucas, Reasbeck, Sparks,
and Brewer. Lucas said this sick leave notice had been posted there at the time clock
"a long time," and she also said that she had been off on sick leave one time to have
her tonsils removed, that at that time the doctor told her she would have to be off a
week, that she spoke to Greenlee about getting sick leave and told him the time-off
period estimated by her doctor, and Greenlee gave her permission to take a week of
sick leave without requiring a written statement from the doctor. Reasbeck, who
had never been off on sick leave, said she first saw the notice posted near the time
clock "in the spring or summer of 1952" and that it has been there "continuously"
ever since Sparks said this notice had been posted at the time clock for " a long, long
time before the strike." She took sick leave in August 1952 and "was off two weeks
for minor surgery " At that time she got a written statement from the doctor
before going on sick leave which she gave to Etchison Brewer said this notice was
posted "right above the time clock" but she "could not say" when she first "observed
it because its been there so long . Its been there a long, long time "
Lewis stated that in the everyday application of this sick leave rule "we don't
question it" if Etchison, as apparently was frequently the case, "grants" an employee
sick leave "for a day, or even two or three days," but that it is understood that if an
employee requires "leave of absence due to ill health" for "any extended period,"
such employee must obtain and present a statement from a doctor "covering that
period." I am inclined to credit Lewis' recollection about when Blake called him on
the telephone, that is, either Friday afternoon or Monday morning, and that it was
her appearance on the picket line on Monday afternoon that prompted him to in-
vestigate her personnel file concerning sick leave which she claimed had been
granted Lewis said he found no record of sick leave having been granted to Blake
Admittedly Blake never at any time either before going on sick leave, as she claims,
or upon reporting at the termination of the purported period of sick leave obtained or
presented any kind of statement from a doctor covering such period, or any other
period of illness
On cross-examination Etchison was asked about Blake's claim that he granted her
6 weeks' sick leave, or until March 30, and in response to questions of the attorney
representing the General Counsel said he "did not approximately a week or ten days
before the strike discuss with June Blake the fact that she was ill and could not work
any longer," and "did not have any conversation with June Blake prior to the strike
concerning her wanting to go on sick leave " A written statement, written up by a
field examiner after an interview with Etchison covering all phases of the case, which
Etchison admittedly had signed, has Etchison saying that "June Blake who had been
on sick leave called at the plant" after the strike and that he told her the "decision"
about her returning to work "was up to Art Lewis." Explaining the possible basis
for this wording by the field examiner , Etchison said that he had been informed
that Blake claimed she was on sick leave during the strike, and what he meant when
he was talking to the field examiner was that Blake who claimed she had been on
sick leave called at the plant after the strike.
It is difficult for me to form a conclusion as to what the true facts are about
Blake's claim in respect to sick leave Based upon the impression I got of Etchison,
both from my observation of him as a witness and throughout the hearing, and his
testimony as a whole, as well as the testimony of the Charging Parties tending to
portray him as an overly strict supervisor , I find a hesitancy in going all the way
with the claim that in this instance he completely ignored the Company's rule and
upon the mere representation of Blake that she was "unable to work" and nothing
more, granted her 6 weeks' sick leave without any sort of a statement or corrobora-
tion from a doctor as to the necessity for such an extended period of sick leave I
am unable to credit Blake's explanation that she had no knowledge of the rule con-
cerning a statement from a doctor, and had never seen the sick leave notice , which I
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 917
am convinced had continuously remained posted at the time clock from, at the latest,
some time in the early summer of 1952, nor do I credit the testimony of several of
the other Charging Parties that they had no knowledge of such notice. I am com-
pelled to believe that had Blake had cause to request sick leave for such an extended
period, as she said she did, that she would have obtained and presented, and been
required to do so, a statement from a doctor of the necessity therefor. T am inclined
to the belief, however, that at the time the strike started, Blake considered herself to
be on sick leave but I question that permission, if any, was given for any extended
period That she may have represented to Etchison that she was temporarily "unable
to work," and, despite his testimony to the contrary, he may have acquiesced in her
taking off for a while seems probable. It is noted that Blake's testimony that she
reported to the office girl that Etchison had told her it was all right for her to take
sick leave and to have the office girl make a notation to that effect was not refuted
The office girl was not called as a witness, nor was inability to procure her attendance
mentioned.
There is also a question about the genuineness of Blake's representation that she
was ill, and unable, because of illness, to return to work prior to March 30. There is
no suggestion anywhere as to the nature of the ailment, or that her normal activities
were at any time or in any way restricted, or that she ever received any treatment,
or course of treatment, from a doctor, or that she was ever confined because of this
purported illness in a hospital or her home for any length of time whatever While
such showing may seem at first blush immaterial on the issue of whether she received
permission to take 6 weeks or more of sick leave, it certainly would have tended to
some extent at least to corroborate her claim On the other hand, however, is the
uncontradicted testimony that Blake spent a major part of every day of the strike
after Friday, February 27, on the picket line, which included the most strenuous sort
of physical activity on her part, while throughout this time the weather was cold, and
the pickets "had a [metal] barrel out there with fire in it," which was constantly
maintained, and part of the time a cold rain was failing. When Lewis saw Blake
regularly on the picket line engaging long hours in that activity in inclement weather,
whatever impression she had given him about being too ill to carry on her work at
the plant was dissipated. He said he concluded that if she was physically able to
carry on such activity, under such circumstances, she undoubtedly was able to do
her regular work as a machine operator "inside where it was warm," and where she
"would be sitting" while operating her machine, "without any greater output of
energy" than that required by her strenuous activities on the picket line. As a con-
sequence Lewis classed her and treated her as a striker.
Assuming that some kind of sick leave had been granted Blake before the strike
commenced, and that upon discovering her alignment with the strike and participa-
tion in the picket line activities the Company made no formal withdrawal of such
sick leave, nevertheless she voluntarily elected to assume the status of a striker
rather than that of an employee absent from work on account of illness for which
sick leave had been granted as inferentially she represented herself to be in her
telephone call to Lewis Apparently one ground of Etchison's refusal to put Blake
back to work on her claimed return, after the strike had been called off, from the
purported absence of 6 weeks or more on account of illness, was that her position
was the same as that of the other strikers, and that at the time she decided to come
back to work she had been replaced, and, it is noted, there is no showing that any
vacancies then existed. Another ground for the Company's position in regard to
Blake coming back to work was undoubtedly her participation in the picket line
misconduct, while at the same time representing to the Company that her absence
from work was on account of illness when all appearances indicated that she was
physically able to perform her usual type work at the plant had she elected to do so
instead of casting her lot with the strike.
Because of the amount of attention devoted to it, in the testimony, I have made
a rather full and detailed review of the evidence relating to the Blake claim, and hav-
ing weighed and considered it from all angles, it is my opinion that the Company was
justified, under the facts and circumstances here, in considering Blake as a striker
and her status as being the same as that of the other 13 Charging Parties. With this
view, I cannot subscribe to the apparent theory of the General Counsel that by virtue
of the purported sick leave and Lewis' assurance that her job would be protected
while she was absent on account of illness , she enjoyed immunity from the conse-
quences of her picket line misconduct. It follows, and I find, that Blake's very active
participation as a striker in the picket line misconduct disqualified her as surely as
such misconduct barred the other 10 Charging Parties as to whom the decision of
the Regional Director and the General Counsel to exclude them from the 8 (a) (3)
allegations and request for reinstatement of the complaint remained firm. Therefore,
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the 8 (a) (3) allegation and request for reinstatement of the complaint as to June
Blake should also be dismissed.
10. The "Fronting" defense
By its answer, throughout the hearing, and in its brief, Respondent has continu-
ously maintained that the 14 individuals who filed separate charges herein were in
reality "fronting" for the UMW, a noncomplying union, and for that reason, and
on that ground, the complaint should be dismissed regardless of the merits. Because
Respondent has stressed this contention with so much earnestness, I have been very
detail in setting out the circumstances attending the filing of the charges.
There is no question, in my mind, that the UMW induced and called the strike,
and directed and dominated the strike activities, in an effort to thereby constrain
recognition, and failing to achieve its objective called the strike off. This group of
some 14 employees, all women, who filed the charges, stood firmly with the UMW
to the end even at the risk, and, as I have found resulted, the cost, of replacement.
In the situation which confronted them due to the hiring of replacements on March 5,
11 of these women turned to Cartwright and Cassidy, the UMW representatives,
for counsel and advice. This was done, as Chesser put it, referring to the group of
10 women who went on March 11 to consult with Cartwright, Boll had been to see
Cartwright on March 9 on the same mission, because "He [Cartwright] got us in
this trouble, and it was up to him to help us now."
After the evidence about the part played by Cartwright, and apparently Cassidy
also was involved in what occurred, settled down and the true facts emerged, it
appeared that the calls upon Lewis, on March 9 and 11, may have been made pursuant
to the advice of Cassidy or Cartwright, and that Cartwright thereafter at most advised
Boll on March 9, and the group of 10 women, who consulted him on March 11, to
present their situation to the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations
Board for investigation and such action as he should deem proper, and to that end
he prepared a form letter, the only variation being in the date of the purported
discharge set out therein, for each to sign and dispatch to the Regional Director
stating: "I was employed at the L. C. Products, Inc., . working conditions in
this plant [Elwood] were terrible and we girls decided to form a union. We were
unable to gain recognition, and were discharged by the Company. . . . I respectfully
request that your office investigate these charges. . .... Each letter named the date
the signer claimed she was discharged, but no reference whatever was made to any
independent 8 (a) (1) matter.
So far as appears, from this point the UMW representatives lent no further assist-
ance to the filing of charges, and the matter was thereafter in the hands of the
Regional Director, who, upon receipt of these letters, caused individual charges,
based upon the statements contained in the letters, to be prepared and mailed to each
of the 11 women The charges stated that the "employment" of each of the women
named had been "terminated," on the date given in her letter, "because of her mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of a labor organization." No purported inde-
pendent 8 (a) (1) violations whatever were included in any of the charges The
foregoing covers the steps leading to the filing of individual charges by 11 of the 14
Charging Parties Respondent contends that this constituted "fronting" by these 11
women for the UMW. Two of the 4 women for whom reinstatement was sought
were included in the group of 11 The other 3 charges, including those filed by the
other 2 women for whom reinstatement was requested, were filed under entirely dif-
ferent circumstances previously stated, which, in my opinion, afford no basis what-
ever for the fronting proposition
Respondent cites two court decisions as sustaining its fronting contention,
N. L R. B. v. Happ Bros. Co., Inc., 196 F. 2d, 195 (C. A. 5) and N. L. R B v
Alside, Inc., 192 F. 2d, 678 (C. A 6). In examining the question of fronting, which
goes to jurisdiction, since, under the Act, the Board is without jurisdiction to issue
a complaint based upon a charge made by a noncomplying labor organization, it
will clarify the matter to look to the numerous court decisions on the question, and
I shall proceed to do so.
On February 13, 1951, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decided N. L R B.
v. Augusta Chemical Company, 187 F. 2d 63, enfg 83 NLRB 53 In that case "the
labor union involved in the controversy . had not complied with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h)" of the Act, "and charges filed by it were dismissed Thereupon, with
the assistance of the same union, charges were prepared and filed in the names of the
individual employees claiming to have been discriminated against, and over Re-
spondent's objection, the complaint, based on these charges, was prosecuted to a
favorable conclusion." One contention advanced by the Respondent in the court of
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 919
appeals was, "that the charges, though filed in the names of individual employees,
were in fact filed by the Union . . . and were mere subterfuges, indeed frauds, upon
the law." In overruling this contention, the court said; that the "avowed purpose"
of the Act "was not to favor or promote Unions as such. It was to promote and pro-
tect the rights of individual employees to loin or not to join unions and to be free
from coercion and interference either way." Continuing, and I quote, the court said:
Because in practice the unions, as such, have dominated, and are dominating,
the scene on which these dramas unfold, it may not be said that individual em-
ployees have no right to act individually in asserting and vindicating their rights.
To do so is to put the cart before the horse, to sublimate the agent above the
principal, to make the tail wag the dog.
We are in complete disagreement with Respondent's position on this point.
Granted that the disqualified union was active in assisting, indeed in directing,
the employees in preparing their charges, it does not at all follow that the em-
ployees, by accepting that assistance, disqualified themselves. The saying, that
a man cannot touch pitch and not be defiled, may not be thus applied.
In N. L. R. B. v. Clausen, d/b/a Luzerne Hide & Tallow Co., 188 F. 2d 439, cert.
denied 342 U. S. 868, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, cited, quoted the
excerpts I have set out above, and followed the Augusta Chemical Company, supra.
In the Clausen case the charges were filed by six individual members and officers of
the noncomplying union involved. The Court said: "The restrictions of the Sec-
tion (9 (f) (g) and (h) of the Act) are not imposed on the individual employees."
Under date of July 9, 1951, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided
W. T Rawleigh Co. v. N. L. R. B., 190 F. 2d 832. Therein the court said.
It is undisputed . that the Union (I. L. W.) was not in compliance with the
requirements of the Act-and that its officers had not signed noncommunist
affidavits. Morever the Union, as such, was not a party to this proceeding. The
complaint was filed on behalf of named individuals. It cannot be inferred that
the Union itself became a party to the proceeding or was entitled to any measure
of relief therein because the individual complainants were members of the Union;
because the Union, or its attorney, advised, counseled, and assisted in the prepara-
tion and filing of the charges, or in the prosecution thereof, or because a Union
official broadcast the statement that "the 1. L. & W, intends to fight the cause of
these employees all the way." [Emphasis supplied.]
The facts in this Rawleigh case are much stronger than even the interpretation the
Respondent gives to the facts in the instant case.
Next in time came N. L. R B v. Alside, Inc, 192 F. 2d 678, decided by the Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on November 26, 1951, one of the cases cited
and relied upon by the Respondent herein. In this case about 30 Alside employees
joined a local of the United Steel Workers, and one of them, Lawrence E. Worley,
was elected president of the local, and within 2 days thereafter all "were laid off or
discharged." A charge was filed by Worley as "an individual " Respondent con-
tended that in filing the charge Worley was not in fact acting as an individual but as
"a front" or agent for the noncomplying union. The court noted that the charge filed
by Worley "was not limited to his individual grievances " The charge stated that
the respondent had "terminated the employment of the persons listed on the attached
sheet because of their membership and activities in" the union. The attachment
listed the names of the union members, including Worley, who had been discharged
and for whom Worley was acting as "sponsor though he designated himself `as an
individual.' The bases of the charge were exactly the same as they would have been
if they had been made by the Union, and signed by Worley as its president " The
court then pointed out the "relationship of Worley to the Union," that he was
president of the local; that on the day the union members were discharged he
"presided over a meeting of the Local, at which a picket line was established . . .
and he, as president, supervised the activities of the pickets until they were discon-
tinued"; and that on the same day that he filed the charge an international repre-
sentative of the union, at Worley's request, made certain demands on the company,
in writing, naming therein the union members listed by Worley on list attached to
his charge. In its conclusion the court said:
Considering the question as a whole it stretches credulity to the breaking
point to believe that Worley did not . . . file the charges as a representative of
the Union, when before, after and even on that day, he was its chief, active
protagonist. His signature, followed by the descriptive words, "an individual,"
does not destroy the evidential facts, most of which Worley himself admits.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Our conclusion is that when Worley filed the charges he was acting as a
"front" or "agency" of the Union.
The facts of the Alside case and those of the instant case are so unlike that I do
not consider the court's holding in that case as at all applicable here.
In Olin Industries, Inc, 86 NLRB 203, the Board, citing Augusta Chemical Com-
pany, supra, held that the Respondent "was not prejudiced by the Trial Examiner's
rulings" excluding evidence purporting to show that a noncomplying union requested
an attorney to file charges "and turned over to him its files and exhibits including the
names and addresses of all the complainants." In that connection the Board said,
"It is immaterial that" the Attorney who filed the charges at the request of the Union
"might be acting on behalf of the Union, and that the Union might derive an inci-
dental benefit from a finding that unfair labor practices were committed in the case "
The Board's findings in this case were affirmed and its order enforced by the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals at 191 F. 2d 613
The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, December 1951, in N L R B
V. Globe Wireless, Ltd, 193 F. 2d 748, 749, quotes with approval and adopts the
language of Augusta Chemical which I have set out, vupia, in ruling against the claim
of the Respondent, in the Globe Wireless case, that "the charges filed with the Board
were presented by the noncomplying Union," and in support thereof also cites the
Clausen and W T Rawleigh Co., cases, supra
Coming to 1952, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had the question of fronting
before it in Southern Furniture Mfg., Co, v N L R. B , 194 F 2d 59, cert denied
343 U. S. 964, where the respondent company "argued that the court should not
sanction the filing of a charge of an individual where . a noncomplying union
is in a position to benefit therefrom, for to do so is to enable a union which has not
complied with the requirements of Section 9 (f) (g) and (h) . . to circumvent
these provisions of the statute." In this case a dischargee, Caldwell, "filed the
charges on behalf of himself individually as well as the other similarly discharged
employees . . . " The respondent company "strongly" relied upon the decision of the
Sixth Circuit in the Alside case, supra. The court held that there "was no sub-
stantial evidence that in filing the charges Caldwell was actually `fronting' for the
union ," and discussing the Alside case said:
In that case the charges were filed by the President of the Union and its "chief,
active protagonist." He had approached the employer seeking recognition of
the Union before the discrimination and on the very day he filed the charges
he wrote to the Company renewing the request for recognition. The court con-
cluded that on this "question of fact" the Board's conclusion that in filing the
charges the Union President was acting in his individual capacity was not sup-
ported by substantial evidence. The court cited this court's decision in N L R B
v Augusta Chemical Conipany, 187 F. 2d 63 and the Third Circuit's decision in
N L R B. v Clausen, 188 F. 2d 439, 443, and stated "employees acting indi-
vidually may assert their rights before the Board without restriction of Section
9 (h) 11
The case next in point of time is N L. R B. v Flapp Brothers Co, inc , 196 F 2d,
195, the second case relied upon by Respondent in the instant case, decided by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 15, 1952. This Happ case concerns the
same noncomplying union or unions involved in the instant case, that is, United
Construction Workers affiliated with the United Mine Workers of America. Before
the Board the company moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that "although
the charge purports to have been filed by Imogene Crawford acting as an indi-
vidual . in reality she was acting as `a front' or agent for the Union; and that
the jurisdictional requirements of the Act may not be defeated by the obvious sub-
terfuge of having the president of the Union designate herself `an individual' instead
of `president."' The Board denied the motion to dismiss. Respondent renewed this
challenge to the jurisdiction of the Board in the court of appeals.
The court first observes: "The controlling question in this case is: Did the employee
Imogene Crawford, really and truly file the charge as an individual or was her act
a mere sham, an artifice, and device? This presents a question of fact." The court
then proceeds to sum up the facts relating to Crawford's relationship with noncom-
plying union involved, as follows:
In February, 1946, respondent entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the United Garment Workers, A. F. L. Imogene Crawford was then the
president of that union. . . . In November 1947, Imogene Crawford got in
touch with . . . the Regional Director for the United Construction Workers,
and expressed a desire to affiliate with that labor organization . As a result
L. C. PRODUCTS, INC. 921
Local Union No. 233 of the United Construction Workers ( the union involved)
was chartered, and . . . Imogene Crawford was elected president. Not only
did she thus invite the United Construction Workers in to take over the defunct
Garment Workers Union but she made a house-to-house canvass of respondent's
employees to obtain members for the Union. She called the meeting at which
the strike vote was cast. She made up and directed the picket line during the
strike. She advised the members to sign the mass application for reemployment.
In short, this record compels the conclusion that from the beginning and
throughout the period here involved Mrs. Crawford was truly the union's chief
protagonist.
It is then pointed out that "In this case, as in N. L. R. B. v. Alside Inc., ... the
charges filed by Imogene Crawford are not limited to her individual grievances,"
and that the charge states, inter alia, that the company "discharged and at all times
thereafter refused to employ the employees named on the attached `Exhibit A,' which
is by reference, made a part of this charge, because of their membership in, and
activities in behalf of Local 223.. .. The exhibit A, "which was attached to
the charge, is a list of 96 employees, including Imogene Crawford." The court then
observes: "Obviously the charges were in every respect the same as they would have
been had they been prepared and filed by the Union and signed by Imogene Crawford
as it's president." Citing the "like factual situation" in the Alside case and quoting
the ruling of the Sixth Circuit "in disposing of the issue," in that case, the court
then held:
When Imogene Crawford filed the charges she was really acting as a "front"
for the Union. This was a mere device whereby the labor organization could
stand in open defiance of the Taft-Hartley Law and yet seek by subterfuge to
reap its benefits To say that Imogene Crawford, the president of the local
union, in filing grievance charges was acting as an individual and not as a repre-
sentative of the Union, is to exalt the shadow above the substance. We think the
record as a whole does not support a contrary conclusion. The decision of this
court in N. L R. B. v. Southein Furniture Manufacturing Company . and
our decision in N. L. R. B. v. Augusta Chemical Company are not to the con-
trary, but are clearly distinguishable on the facts.
I digress here momentarily, from a review of the court decisions, to note that,
in my opinion, the facts of the instant case are so "clearly distinguishable" from
those found in Happ Brothers, 1 of the 2 cases upon which Respondent rests its
fronting contention, that Hupp Brothels affords no valid support for Respondent's
position.
A fronting issue was involved in the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
in N. L. R. B. v. Coal Creek Coal Company 204 F. 2d 579, May 1, 1953. In that
case the respondent contended that the charge filed by Golding, who had been dis-
charged, "although drawn and filed in his individual capacity was in reality instigated
and conducted by the U. M. W.," and "that Golding was merely a front for the non-
complying union." The court said:
Golding's membership in and activities on behalf of the noncomplying union
did not bar him from the protection of the National Labor Relations Act.. .
There is nothing in Section 9 (f) (g) (h) to prevent Golding from presenting
his grievance to the Board as an individual. N. L. R. B. v. Augusta Chemical
Co., . . .
The court affirms the finding of the Board that the charge "was filed and prosecuted
on behalf of Golding as an individual."
In N. L. R. B. v. Ronney & Sons Furniture Mfg. Co., 206 F. 2d 730, cert. denied
346 U. S. 937, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which court on December 27,
1951, had decided the Globe Wireless case, had occasion to again deal with the
fronting question. This decision is, I think, peculiarly applicable to the Respondents'
view and interpretation of the facts in the instant case. In this Ronney case the charges
"were signed and filed . by 10 former employees of respondent each alleging
discrimination . . . as against himself or herself individually." The respondent con-
tended that in filing the charges "these employees acted merely as `fronts' for Local
576 of the United Furniture Workers of America, CIO," a noncomplying union, and
"pointed out that the charges were solicited and prepared by Local 576, and that
counsel for that union represented the nominal charging parties at the hearing."
[Emphasis supplied .] In ruling the fronting contention , the court said:
The charges were in form and in substance assertions of individual rights.
They were not made less so because Local 576 assisted or directed the employ-
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees in preparing the charges, or because counsel for Local 576 represented the
employees at the Board hearing, or because Local 576 might incidentally bene-
fit from the Board 's order. The problem is essentially the same as in N. L. R. B.
v. Globe Wireless . . . where we quoted with approval from N. L. R. B. v.
Augusta Chemical . . . . Nothing to the contrary can be found in N. L. R. B. v.
Happ Brothers . and N. L. R. B. v . Alside . on which Respondent
relies. In each of these cases the Court held that when the president and chief
protagonist of the interested but disqualified union had filed unfair labor practice
charges on behalf of himself and a great number of other union employees,
he was really acting as a representative of the union and not as an individual.
These cases have no application here [Emphasis supplied I
The Board has recently again discussed the question of fronting in Lewis Coal
Company, Inc ., 108 NLRB 887, where the court decisions bearing on the issue are
collected and cited in footnotes 4, 5, and 6. In that case an attorney , Burke, signed
the charges , upon which the complaint issued, on behalf of three named complain-
ants "for themselves and all other employees . . . similarly situated ." Burke, who
"was introduced to the complainants at the UMW meeting place," had also "filed
charges for other UMW members in another complaint proceeding ." In holding
"that the charges were not filed as a `front ' for the UMW as contended by Respondent,"
the Board , citing court decisions supporting each of the propositions declared, said:
The Board and the courts have unanimously held that employees acting individ-
ually may assert their rights before the Board without the restriction of com-
pliance provisions of the Act. Furthermore , the assertion of such rights has
been held to be unimpaired where a noncomplying union or its attorney assisted
in the preparation and filing of the charges , or where the complainants who were
merely members of the union filed the charges for themselves and other dis-
chargees similarly situated . Accordingly , even assuming that the UMW made
the attorney available to these complainants for the purpose of filing the charges,
we conclude and find that, as the charges were in substance the assertion of in-
dividual rights, the complainants did not disqualify themselves by accepting such
assistance.
Conclusion on Fronting
As I have pointed out , as I have gone along, the Alside and Happ Brothers cases,
upon which Respondent relies are not applicable to the facts of this case. On the
other hand the facts here involved bring this case squarely within the rulings of the
courts in the Augusta Chemical Co ., W. T. Rawleigh Co., and Ronney & Sons
Furniture Mfg. Co., cases , and other cited cases to the same effect, supra . Therefore,
Respondent 's contention in regard to fronting and plea for dismissal of the complaint
on that ground is denied.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices hereinbefore found, occurring in connection with Re-
spondent 's operations described in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies on the Act Specifically, as it
has been found that the Respondent , through its responsible managerial agents, en-
gaged in certain types of interference , restraint , and coercion, it will be recommended
that it cease and desist from such conduct and post appropriate notices declarative of
its intention to do so.
Since I have found that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the allegations of
the complaint that Mary Gardner, Mary Jean Chesser , Zaluma Idelwine, and June
Blake, named therein, were discriminatorily discharged, and since , in my opinion,
the circumstances surrounding and the nature of the acts and conduct of Respondent's
two managerial agents involved , constituting the unfair labor practices found, are such
as would not seem to indicate any real basis for an inference that the Respondent
when apprised thereof, would nevertheless engage in other unfair labor practices
statutorily proscribed , no recommendation will be made that Respondent be directed
to cease and desist, generally, from such other unfair labor practices , or to post a
notice to that effect.
LOCAL 47 923
In the light of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
1 have reached the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. L. C. Products, Inc., is, and at all times material herein was, engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Construction Workers of America, affiliated with United Mine Workers
of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The allegation of the complaint that Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Mary Gardner, Mary Jean Chesser, Zaluma Idelwine, and June Blake "because of
their lawful strike action and other concerted activities" and thereafter refused to em-
ploy them, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, was not sustained
4. The allegation of the complaint that Respondent promised "its employees an
increase in wages and improvement in working conditions in order to forestall the
organization of a Union" was not sustained.
5. By virtue of its superintendent's surveillance of a union meeting and statements,
in the nature of an expression of opinion to that effect, by said superintendent and
the night foreman, made to certain employees coupled in some instances with im-
proper interi ogation, that the plant would be moved to some other city before the
Company would allow a union in the plant, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced the aforesaid employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and has thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, as amended.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Local 47, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, and its agents
Glenn Bailey and H. Blankenship and Texas Industries, Inc.
and T. C. Bateson Construction Company, Party to the Contract
Local 47, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL, and its agents
Glenn Bailey and H. Blankenship and McCann Construction
Company, Inc . Cases Nos. 16-CC-34 and 16-CC-43. May 24,
1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 29, 1954, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these
cases and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications and
additions :
112 NLRB No 111