Lamb Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 26, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 890 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of LAMB GLASS COMPANY and FEDERATION OF' FLAT
GLASS WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-5&31.Decided October 36; 1937
Glass Manufacturing Industry-Discrimination : discharge-Reinstatement
Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Harry L. Lodish and Mr. Peter Di Leone for the Board.
Mr. L. C. Stillwell, of Mt. Vernon,,Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Julius Schlezinger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OR THE CASE
On May 18, 1937, Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America,
herein called the Union, filed a charge with the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) against Lamb Glass Com-
pany, Mt. Vernon, Ohio, the respondent herein, charging the re-
spondent with violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On July
19, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth ' Region, issued its
complaint against the respondent, alleging that 'the respondent had
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and, (7), of the
Act, in that the respondent had discharged and refused to reinstate
Leo Lewis, a workman employed by the respondent in its plant at
Mt. Vernon, Ohio, for the reason that he had joined and assisted
the Union and had engaged in concerted activities with other em-
ployees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection. The complaint and accompanying
notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
The respondent filed an answer to the complaint. The answer
admitted the discharge of Leo Lewis but denied that such dis-
charge was because of his union activities or that the respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices.
890
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 891
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was conducted by Charles B.
Bayly, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, on July
29, 1937. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded to the parties. During the course of the hearing, ex-
ceptions were taken by the parties to various rulings of the Trial
Examiner. The Board has reviewed the conduct of the hearing and
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds tbhat no prejudicial errors
were committed.
On August 12, 1937, the Trial Examiner duly filed his Intermediate
Report. He found that the respondent had discharged Leo Lewis for
the reason that he had joined and assisted the Union. He found
further that by virtue of such discharge the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respond-
ent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and, in addition,
offer reinstatement to Leo Lewis with back pay. A motion for re-
hearing and exceptions to the Intermediate Report were subsequently
filed by the respondent. The motion for rehearing is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
Lamb Glass Company is an Ohio corporation which owns and
operates at Mt. Vernon, Ohio, a plant for the manufacture of glass
bottles. A large part of the raw materials used by the respondent in
the production of bottles are purchased by it in states other than
Ohio and'from 85 to 88 percent of its finished products are shipped
by the respondent to customers located outside the State of Ohio.,
Some of its bottles are delivered to Cuba.
The products of the respondent are sold both by its own salesmen
and by jobbers located in various cities throughout the United States.
All of its bottles are manufactured pursuant to special order, the
bottles carrying special lettering for the individual customers.
The respondent is the third largest producer of milk bottles in the
United States. Its total sales for the year 1936 amounted to
$1,170,588.60. During the- same period it purchased materials
amounting to $180,282.46. Approximately 260 workmen are em-
ployed by the respondent in its Mt. Vernon plant.
1 The chief raw materials used by the respondent are sand, soda-ash, lime , borax, feld-
spar, and lumber Borax is received from California , feldspar from North Carolina, and
lumber from the South . Lime and sand are purchased in Ohio About 90 per cent of the
soda-ash comes from Ohio and the balance from Michigan.
892 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE UNION
Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America is a labor organiza-
- tion affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Early in April 1937, following unsuccessful attempts by various
employees of the respondent to obtain wage increases, a movement
to organize a labor union was commenced among such employees.
This movement made considerable headway and on April 29, at a
meeting attended by over 100 of the respondent's employees, a tem-
porary organization was set up and Leo Lewis elected. its temporary
president. At this same meeting it was determined to affiliate with
the Union. An account of this meeting including an announcement
of the decision of the workers to affiliate with Federation of Flat
Glass Workers of America and of the election of Lewis as temporary
president was published' in the Mt. Vernon daily newspaper of April
30. Five days later, on May 5, 1937, Lewis was discharged.
Rex M. Lamb, the respondent's president, stated at the hearing
that he had discharged Lewis because he had heard a report that
Lewis had been dishonorably discharged by the Bessemer-Cooper
Company, another Mt. Vernon concern, eight years before for steal-
ing a box. Lamb testified that after hearing the report he had
requested the manager of the Bessemer-Cooper Company to confirm
it and, upon receiving a reply that the report was true, he had dis-
charged Lewis without giving him any opportunity to^ explain the
incident.2 It is important to note that although Lamb was repeat-
edly questioned at the hearing in regard to the source of his infor-
mation concerning Lewis, he was unable to remember the name of the
person who had supplied it.
Lewis had been working for the respondent for almost three years
at the time of his discharge. His foreman testified that Lewis had
a very agreeable personality and had always done his work in an
efficient and satisfactory manner. While working for the respond-
ent Lewis had received an increase in pay.
In view of the admittedly efficient record which Lewis had estab-
lished while working for the respondent and of the respondent's
evasiveness in answering questions respecting the source of the re-
port concerning the Lewis incident at the Bessemer-Cooper Company,
it is difficult to believe the respondent's testimony that the discharge
was due to the discovery that Lewis had been dismissed for stealing
by another concern eight years before. When this testimony is con-
2 Lamb made no claim that the box was an expensive one nor did he contradict Lewis'
testimony that it was an old tool box which had actually been given to him by his
foreman.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 893
sidered in the light of Lewis's election just before his discharge as
head of a newly organized union, it seems clear that his election and
union activity, and not the incident of eight years before, were the
effective reasons for the discharge. We find that the respondent dis-
charged Leo Lewis because he had joined and assisted ' the Union.
The respondent has discriminated against its employees in regard
to hire and tenure of employment, and has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the-exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Lewis has secured no other -regular or substantially equivalent
employment since the time of his discharge, and his only income has
been from odd jobs. Inasmuch as his employment was terminated
by an unfair labor practice, he at all times thereafter retained his
status as an employee of the respondent within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act.
IV. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Federation of Flat Glass Workers of America is a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Leo Lewis was at the time of his discharge, and at all times
thereafter, an employee of the respondent, within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to.the hire and
tenure of employment of Leo Lewis,,thereby discouraging member-
ship in a labor organization, has engaged in and is,engaging in un-
fair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The afore-mentioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
894 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
On the basis of the above findings and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the, respondent,
Lamb Glass Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging or refusing to reinstate any
of its employees, or from in any other manner discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment of any of its' employees, in
order to discourage membership in Federation of Flat Glass Workers
of America or any other labor organization of its employees;
2. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Leo Lewis immediately full reinstatement to his
former position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges;
(b) Make whole said Leo Lewis for any loss of pay he has suf-
fered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would have earned as wages during
the period from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer
of reinstatement, less the amount he has earned during such period;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous
places throughout its plant stating (1) that the respondent will
cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and.(2) that such notices
will remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive
days from the date of posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps'the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.