Meisel Press Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 889 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

- In the Matter of MEISEL PRESS MFG . COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 272' (C. I. 0.)
Case N. C-2324.-Decided November 30, 1942
Jurisdiction : gear manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Discrimination: discharge for union membership and activity.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
DECISION,
AND
ORDER
On September 10, .1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions. The'
Board- has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hear-
ing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has' considered the,, Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,.
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of 'the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to `Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Meisel Press Mfg. Company,
Boston, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio &-', Ma-
chine Workers of America, Local 272 (C. I. 0.), or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment of its employees or any term or condition
of their employment;
45 N. L. R. B., No. 131.
889
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the `following affirmative action; which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act: `
(a) Offer to Wolger Johnson immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice,
to his seniority or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Wolger Johnson for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period; -
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant located
at Boston, Massa chusetts,'and maintain for a' period, of•-at least •sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative
'action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order and, (3)
that the employees of the respondent are free to become or remain
members of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
Local 272 (C. I. 0.) and that the respondent will not discriminate
against any employee • because of membership in or activity on
behalf of' that organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
DIR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert E. Greene, for the Board.
Mr. Janes W. Sullivan , of Lynn, Mass., for the respondent.
Mr. Matthew Matison, 'of South Boston , Mass., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on May 25, 1942, by United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, Local 272 (C 1. 0 ), herein called the Union,
MEISEL PRESS MFG . COMPANY 891
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint
dated July' 18,• 1942, against Meisel Press ,Mfg. Company, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act:- Copies of the'complaint, accompanied by, notice of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that: (1) on or about May 25, 1942, the respondent terminated the employment
of Wolger Johnson and thereafter has refused to reinstate him because of his
membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union, and because he engaged
in, concerted activities with other employees for their mutual aid and protec-
tion; and (2) by various enumerated acts the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
On July 28 the respondent filed its answer wherein it admitted certain allega-
tions of the complaint but denied that it had committed any unfair labor prac-
tices and alleged that it had discharged said Johnson "for good cause' furnished
by the said Wolger Johnson by his intentional violation, of shop procedure and
reasonable rules of the Respondent."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 30, 1942, at `Boston, Massa-
chusetts, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. - The Board and the respondent were represented at the
hearing by counsel while the Union was represented by its representative. All
parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties. Oral argument was waived at the conclusion of the
hearing. A brief was received from the respondent subsequent to the conclusion
of the hearing.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT'
I THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT-
-Meisel Press Mfg. Company , a Massachusetts coiporation having its principal
office and place of business in Boston , Massachusetts , is engaged in the manu-
facture and distribution of gears . The principal raw material used by the
respondent is steel, 90 percent of which' is shipped to the respondent ' s plant, from
States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This steel is, shipped to, -the- respondent by the owner thereof for whom the
respondent fabricates the gears . Approximately 100 percent of the gears
fabricated by the respondent are delivered to points outside the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts . The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of,the Act. _
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 272 (C. I. 0
iS'a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
892 ' DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; the discharge of Wolger Johnson
In March 1941, Wolger Johnson, who prior to this date had been a bakery sales-
man, was employed by the respondent as a lathe operator working on airplane
engine parts. Although without previous mechanical experience, Johnson proved
to be a good lathe operator. Originally employed at 46 cents per hour, Johnson
received three 6-cent per hour wage increases prior to his discharge in May
1942. His last increase came about November' 1941. The respondent never had
any complaint about his workmanship.
A few days after accepting employment with the respondent, Johnson arranged
a meeting with Matthew Matison, a union organizer, at which time Johnson sug-
gested that, due to the working conditions at the respondent's plant, the Union
ought to organize the employees. Johnson signed a card for membership in the
Union, was given some union application cards and literature and was told to
try to organize the employees.
Beginning in October 1941, the Union conducted a leaflet campaign among the
employees of the respondent. About this time Johnson began to solicit employees
to become union members. He apparently worked quietly, neither flaunting nor
hiding his union activities. Between October and December 1941, Johnson per-
sonally secured about 50 employees as union members He became chairman of
the union organizing committee at the plant. While there is no direct evidence
that prior to late January 1942 the respondent actually knew of Johnson 's union
affiliation, the respondent in its brief, speaking of October 1941, states, ".1 . . there
Js not much doubt that Johnson's relation to the Union in some capacity was
known all over his department from almost the beginning (of the leaflet cam-
paign)."
From October 1941 to December 1941, union leaflets were distributed to the
respondent's employees at the plant gates.' Through some of the foremen these
leaflets found their way to the desk of the respondent's superintendent, C. J.
Qualter, who acknowledged that he began hearing rumors of union activity in the
plant soon after the distribution of leaflets began. Edwin Nylander, foreman
of the department in which Johnson worked, testified that, on one occasion
when Matison handed him a dodger, he told Matison, "Young man, you are
wasting your time here." -
Sometime in October 1941 the Selective Service Board called Johnson for
classification. As he was working in a plant engaged almost exclusively in war
production work, that Board gave Johnson a deferment blank, instructing him
to have it filled out by the respondent and returned to them Upon returning
to the plant Johnson followed the customary procedure by giving the deferment
blank to an office employee identified in the record as "Eddie" for completion
by the respondent and transmittal to the Selective Service Board. He then
forgot about the matter.
Soon after December 7, 1941, the Boston Harbor Forts Recreational Committee
began a drive for funds with which to entertain the soldiers stationed in and
around Boston during the Christmas season. After consultation with Matison,
Johnson circularized a petition among the employees soliciting funds for con-
tribution to the committee. About the same time Johnson also drew up a tele-
gram to a Congressional committee,-which then had•under' consideration amend-
Johnson did not participate in distributing these leaflets.
MEISEL PRESS MFG. COMPANY -893
ments to the Act, protesting against the approval of any of the proposed amend-
ments. Johnson solicited the employees to sign this telegram of protest and
to contribute 5 cents each toward the cost thereof. Some 200 employees responded
to' his request. As he had a cash balance of $8 on hand after sending the-tele-
gram, Johnson posted a notice on the respondent's clock 2 that he was turning
this balance over to the Boston Harbor Forts Recreational Committee. -
Promptly after Johnson had posted this notice, he was called to the respond-
ent's office where Qualter advised him that he was not to circulate any more
petitions or solicit any more contributions without-first securing the consent of
Nylander or himself s Johnson agreed to comply -
Sometime in December 1941 Johnson received another notice from the Draft
Board requiring him to appear for a' physical examination. Upon inquiring of
"Eddie" Johnson was told that his deferment blank had been lost or mislaid.
Johnson then secured another one which he again' presented to "Eddie." In
January 1942 Johnson learned from the Draft Board that it had not received
his deferment papers. Johnson inquired of Qualter about it and was told that
the paper was in the mail. A short time later Johnson was against informed by
the Draft Board that it still had not received the deferment papers On this
occasion Johnson took the matter to the Union. Matison telephoned to Qualter
and told him that it appeared that the respondent was discriminating against
Johnson because of his union activity in refusing to request his deferment, and
that there was a rumor in the plant that anyone who became a union member
-would automatically lose his deferred status After Matison threatened to file
a charge of unfair labor practices with the Boaid, Qualter agreed to fill out
deferment' papers for Johnson and requested Matison to write hun a letter about
a notice which Matison requested him to post in the plant in order to quiet
the alleged rumor. Qualter stated that he desired such a letter in order that the
respondent's board of directors could act upon it.
As agreed, Qualter that afternoon completed the deferment paper which John-
son brought to him. During this meeting of the two men Qualter inquired if
Johnson was a union member' Johnson acknowledged that he was. Soon after
Johnson had delivered the deferment blank to the Draft Board, he received
notice that he had been assigned a deferred classification until August 2, 1942.
All of the above findings with respect to Johnson's efforts to secure deferment
are.based upon the undenied credible testimony of Matison' and`Johnson.
In conformity with Qualter's request the Union wrote the respondent on Janu-
ary 30 as follows :
Relative to our telephone conversation of this morning, Jan 30, we would
propose the following notice to be posted by the Company in order to correct
the impression circulated through the shop that members of the Uriion will be
discriminated against in the matter of their deferments from military service
and in other ways.
' It was undisputed that personal notices had been posted on a bulletin board before
8 Qualter did not deny this episode but merely testified that he could not recall it. Sub-
sequent acts and statements of the parties indicate that the meeting occurred as testified
to by Johnson and as found above
4
According to Qualter, sometime theretofore the F. B I. had inquired of Qualter as to
Johnson's citizenship and also made some report about Johnson and Communism Qualter
attempted to justify his inquiry of Johnson on, this alleged report of the F B. I. He also
testified that this report tended to confirm the rumors which he had heard previously con-
cerning union activities in the plant.
I
O
894 - . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT A RUMOR HAS BEEN
SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE SHOP TO THE EFFECT THAT EMPLOY-
EES BELONGING TO ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION WILL BE BARRED
FROM DEFERMENT FROM MILITARY SERVICE WHICH IS CUSTOM-
ARILY REQUESTED.
WE WISH TO EMPHATICALLY STATE THAT SUCH IS NOT` THE
CASE THE WAGNER ACT PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO JOIN A LABOR ORGANIZATION. THE COM-
PANY WILL NOT IN ANY WAY INTERFER (sic) WITH THAT RIGHT.
Yours very truly,
MATTHEW MATISON,
Field Organizer.
After consultation with its attorney, the respondent on February 6 replied as
follows :
Gentlemen :
Because we do not wish to even appear discourteous, we acknowledge the
receipt of your communication of February 2nd, 1942.5
We are unable to see any relation or status which you occupy towards our
business which entitles you to make any suggestions to us as to our relations
with our employees.
.It is not necessary or desirable that you reply to this letter.
Very truly yours,
MIISEL'PRESS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
C. A. Meisel (signed).
President.
In January 1942, at a time when the respondent's wage scale was being attacked
in the union leaflets, the respondent granted a wage increase to most of its
employees. Upon inquiry of some of the employees who were doing the same
type of work as he, Johnson discovered that he was the only one who had not
received such an increase 6 Johnson complained to Nylander about the fact that
he had been omitted from this raise. Nylander stated that the matter was out
of his hands and that he could not ask for an increase for Johnson but gave him
perniission^ to "go over his,head" and speak to Qualter about it Upon seeing
Qualter, Johnson was told that the matter was up to the foreman, that Johnson
should return. to work and that he would. hear from Nylander z Subsequently,
Nylander told Johnson that "the office" refused to give Johnson a raise, that
"under no circumstances" would Johnson get a,raise and that, if Johnson did not
like the wages he was then receiving, he could leave. Johnson, before his dis-
charge, did not receive any other increase in wages from the respondent
Respondent justified its failure to include Johnson in this general wage increase
by testimony that those who had received a raise during or after November 1941
were not included in the increase in January 1942. As the Board made no attempt
to contradict this testimony from the books and records of the respondent, this
5 The uncontradicted testimony showed that this letter was actually an answer to the
Union's letter dated January 30
° The record is not clear as to whether there were 11 or 13 others doing the same work
as Johnson
4 Qualter could not remember this occasion. Nylander corroborated the testimony of
Johnson that it did happen.
MEISET.i PRESS MFG. COMPANY 895
testimony must be accepted as true. However, it was the respondent's policy to
increase the wages every 3 months of those employees receiving less than 75
cents per hour ; every 6 months of those employees receiving between 75 cents
and $1; and once a year of all those receiving more than $1 per hour'
As heretofore found, Johnson did not receive his quarterly increase in-accord-
ance with this company policy. He was the only one omitted from the general
increase who was denied his regular quarterly increase. Nylander, his foreman,
testified that the employees excluded from the January raise were thereafter
given their regular quarterly increase in accordance with the company policy.
On the other hand, Qualter testified that Johnson was not the only one so
excluded. ' Skelton' 'testified that, as to these quarterly,' increases;,the made no
"mental note " Since all raises in Johnson's department were authorized by
Nylander, and since this company policy was in existence, and because the re-
spondent did not produce its records to resolve the conflict in Qualter's•and Ny-
lander's testimony, the undersigned finds that the testimony of Nylander is true
and further finds that Johnson was the only one not given the regular quarterly
increase.
The respondent attempted to' justify this discrimination against Johnson by
testimony that some time during Johnson's period of employment with the re-
spondent, the dates not being specified in the record, Meisel, respondent's presi-
dent, saw Johnson glancing at a magazine on a desk where Johnson was making
out a tag to be placed on his work, and on another occasion, Qualter noticed
Johnson looking at a newspaper during working hours. However on neither
occasion was anything said to Johnson. On a third occasion Nylander broke,up
an argument in which'John'son was"a participant. i , f
This is the testimony on which respondent relied' to create the impression
that there was a general disturbance in the department over '.which Nylander
was foreman. The respondent contended-that it was this general disturbance
which impelled it to deny Johnson his regular quarterly wage increase, and was
also, in part, the cause of Johnson's discharge. Respondent blamed Nylander
for this "state of disturbance" and attributed it to his inefficient administration
of the department. However, in view of the fact that Nylander is still the
foreman of that department, and in view of the trivial nature of the acts consti-
luting the alleged disturbances, the undersigned believes, and therefore finds, that
this so-called state of disturbance was of so minor a nature as to be insignificant.'
i Qualter testified :
Q. (By Mr. Greene ) What did you mean by saying he [Johnson ] would have to
wait his period ?
A Why, we have a general run of time when the apprentice boys-why we make
them wait three months ; ,on other men that are getting over 75 cents , we make them
wait six months . On men that are over $1 an hour , we make them wait a year
Q. Then persons who make less than 75 cents an hour normally receive a raise every
three months until they reach 75 cents?
A That is right.
Nylander testified :
Q (By Mr Greene ) Now those who didn't get any raises [ in January 1942] later
got raises, at a later period, when their three months were up?
A Yes, when the time is up, they get raises
Skelton denied the existence of this company policy . In view of the positive testimony
of Nylander and Qualter and respondent ' s failure to produce its records , the undersigned
finds the existence of such a company policy
° Just how Johnson caused a disturbance in the department by glancing at a magazine
or at a newspaper is not shown. Under the respondent's own standard of significance
the argument in which Johnson engaged cannot be taken seriously , for Nylander's own
896 DECISIONS _OF NATIONAL :LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Qualter, when asked to explain why Johnson did not receive the quarterly raise,
replied that if ". . you had a feeling that somebody was causing [a general
disturbance in the department] or individuals were causing it, would you not
feel that you would let them wait awhile" for a raise. It is clear that Qualter
in this testimony was referring to Johnson. As heretofore found, Johnson was
the only one in the department who was not raised In fact "the office" sent
word to- him that, he would "under no circumstance" receive a raise The re-
spondent referred to him as a "trouble maker" because of what it conceived_to be
his union activities. It is therefore found that the respondent thus discrimi-
nated against, Johnson because of his union activities. It was his union activi-
ties rather than the insignificant, occasions of "disturbances," which' impelled the
respondent's discrimination toward Johnson.
During the lunch hour on April 29, Johnson requested, permission of Qualter
to solicit employees to. sign a telegram to President Roosevelt praising the
7-point program the President had outlined over the radio the night before.
Twenty-five employees had already signed the telegram. Qualter said that he
would give Johnson the respondent's answer to this request later. About 3 p. in.
that same day Johnson was called to the office "to explain his actions." W. A.
Skelton, respondent's vice president and comptroller, Qualter, and Nylander
were also present. Skelton opened the meeting by asking why Johnson was cir-
culating this petition. Johnson answered that he had been inspired by the Presi-
dent's speech. Skelton then inquired "if he his (sic) patriotic zeal rose to a
point where he was so inspired that he would take up a gun for Uncle Sam and
fight in his army " According to Skelton, Johnson did not answer this inquiry.
Skelton inquired whether Johnson, had been "officially" authorized"to circulate
the telegram 10 or whether any of the employees had authorized him to do so.
Johnson answered both questions in the negative Qualter asked if this activity
of Johnson's was in behalf of the Union. To this Johnson answered, "Yes."
Then the respondent's officials objected to the use of the respondent' s 'name in
the phrase, "We, a group of war industry workers at Meisel Press" contained in
the original draft of Johnson' s telegram . Johnson agreed to eliminate the com-
pany name and did so. Respondent finally instructed Johnson that he could not
circulate the telegram during working hours As they were leaving the office,
Nylander said to Johnson that he was causing "a lot of trouble" Shortly after
this meeting the respondent offered to have the telegram circulated by Nylander
and sent at the respondent' s expense , but Johnson refused to allow this. Johnson
completed his solicitation on his own time and later sent the'telegram
In the early part of May, Nylander informed Skelton that as Jol nson had
caused "so much trouble" and as he had left his work on one occasion without
notifying him,, he wanted to discharge Johnson. After consulting respondent's
attorney, Skelton instructed Nylander that "under no ' circumstances- should
Johnson be discharged for any union activity" but that Nylander must have good
cause to discharge him. Skelton inquired of Nylander, "if there was any writ-
ten notice given to Johnson, or any of the men, as to the necessity" of notifying
the foremen when they were not going to work. Nylander stated that there
was no such rule in existence. As a matter of fact, it was customary for the
employees to leave their work at any time they desired without any notification
to the respondent.
testimony showed that employee Snyder was not even reprimanded a year previously for
star cing an argument which nearly caused a complete shut -down in the department
The only other incident cited to prove the "disturbance" in the department was the
throwing of an orange peel, with which Johnson'was not connected
10 At the hearing Skelton explained that by the use of the term "officially" he meant
"by the company "
MEISELL PRESS MFG. COMPANY 897
' As a result of this conversation, the respondent posted the following notice
on Monday, May 18:
We have been instructed by the Government that our equipment must
run 24 hrs. per clay, and that it is definitely necessary that any employee
who wishes time off should notify us 24 hrs. ahead of time, in order that
we may have somebody to replace him on his machine.
' We do not expect that any man should work 7 days per week, but 'at
least we expect the co-operation on the part of the employee to notify
his "FOREMAN IN CHARGE" the day on which he expects to be off duty,
'in order that steps may be taken to replace him on his machine so that
the equipment will not be idle. We thank you in advance for this co-
operation and failure to comply with this request will call for immediate
investigation of the individual who takes it upon himself to stay out
without notifying the "FOREMAN IN CHARGE" in advance.
[S] C. J. QUALTEx
Within a few minutes after the posting of this notice, Johnson notified
Nylander that he did not want to work on Saturday afternoons" or Sundays.
He stated further that, if this request were not agreeable to the respondent, he
would agree to take some other time off. According to Nylander's own testi-
mony, Nylander then "promised" to take this request "into the office."
Employee Beale testified that sometime during May 18, he asked Johnson if
he thought it was a good idea to "tell the boss," before taking time off. Johnson
answered, "No, it is up to the boss to ask him, whether he was going to take time
off or not " This remark was a normal one to make following his conversa-
lion with Nylander and the latter's promise to Johnson to inform him as to
management's reaction to his request of May 18. Therefore, the respondent's
attempt to predicate an intention to violate the rule upon Johnson from this
remark fails.,
Having, heard nothing further from Nylander regarding his request of May
18, Johnson, left work at noon on Saturday, May 23, without giving Nylander any
further notice. Since April- 18 it had been Johnson's customary practice to leave
at noon on Saturday. At least four other employees stopped' work at this same
time on May 23. These four all testified at the hearing that they told Nylander
sometime prior to 10 a., in. that Saturday that they were going to stop at noon.
When Johnson reported for work at the regular time on Monday, May 25,
Nylander discharged him and gave as a reason therefor the fact that Johnson
had "disobeyed the rules of the company s 12 Johnson. has not since been rein-
stated. Nothing was said to any of the four other employees who also left work
at noon on: Saturday.
Late' in- June 1942, one Becker,, a Field, Examiner for the Board, interviewed
employees Beale, Anderson, and Perrsons at their respective homes one evening
in regard to the Johnson discharge. Early the following morning at the, plant
Beale requested an, office employee to' inform Qualter that, if Qualter were in-
terested( ins this inquiry about the Johnson matter, Beale would "gladly go down
-and' talk to him " Shortly thereafter, Beale was called to the office. On his
way there Beale learned that Becker had also interviewed Anderson and Perr-
11 Contiary to the argument in the respondent ' s brief , Nylander did not contradict
Johnson's Testimony that he asked ' for both Saturday afternoons and Sundays off Ny-
lander testified only that they talked "about mostly the Sunday work " and that the
Saturday work was also mentioned.
1' It is to be noted that the penalty of discharge is not mentioned in the notice of May
18. It , provides only for an "investigation " No investigation was made as to the reason
for Johnson 's absence on Saturday.
493305-43-vol '45--57
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sons, a fact which he promptly disclosed to Qualter. During the subsequent'
interviews with these three men Qualter inquired of each of them if he had signed
a card for the Union. When Anderson answered in the affirmative, Qualter
told him that that was his privilege.
B. Conclusions
The respondent was an old established firm which had never been "bothered"
by unions. About October 1941 the Union suddenly appeared at the plant at-
tempting to organize the employees. About December of that year the respond-
ent knew that Johnson was engaged in what it conceived, rightly or wrongly,
to be "union activities." By January 30, 1942. the respondent's surmise as to
Johnson's union affiliation was definitely confirmed. Respondent's- attitude
towards Johnson, a man whose workmanship was never questioned and who had
previously received three raises in pay, suddenly changed.
When Johnson complained about being omitted from a general raise," he was
told that "under no circumstances" would he receive any further increase and
be was invited at that time to terminate his employment. Consistent with this
statement the respondent thereafter failed to grant Johnson the quarterly in-
crease in pay in accordance with the respondent's established policy of increas-
ing men in his wage bracket every three months. All others who had been
omitted from the January general increase for the same reason ascribed for
the omission of Johnson, were thereafter granted the customary quarterly in-
creases when time qualified them for it.
Following the denial of the wage increase to Johnson, he asked permission to
circulate a petition approving the President's "7 point" program. The re-
sporident suspected that this petition was part of Johnson's union activity:
When he admitted that it was, he was promptly denied permission to circulate
it. Respondent's objection was not to the petition itself, but rather to its circula-
tion by a known union man because it believed that it would thereby enhance
the Union's and Johnson's prestige among the employees. Immediately after
this refusal, the respondent began a search for a "good cause" to discharge
Johnson, after its attorney advised it that under no circumstances should it
discharge Johnson for his union activities. The "office began calling Nylander
so many times about Johnson that finally Nylander told Johnson that he was
causing "a lot of trouble " As a direct result' of Johnson's absenting himself
from work without notice to his foreman, a customary practice at the re-
spondent's plant at that time, the respondent created the rule requiring 24
hours' prior notice of any such intended absence.
Assuming arguendo that Johnson failed to give the required notice on May 23,
5 men violated the rule that day by leaving work at noon. On May 25 the
respondent discharged Johnson allegedly for breaking the rule but waived the
same breach for the other four employees. The only discernible difference in
the cases was that Johnson was admittedly a member of the Union while
three of the others were non-union employees. The fourth had signed a union
card but this did not become known to the respondent until sometime later,
in the month of June 1912. The discrimination practiced against Johnson
because of his union membership is clear.
However, respondent argued that these four employees spoke to the foreman
by 10 a. in. on May 23. If the rule was posted in order to allow the respondent
sufficient time to secure substitutes for absent employees as the rule itself
stated, then the four other employees were as guilty of breaking the rule as
"This omission is not here found to be discriminatory as Johnson had been raised
within the 3-month period prior thereto
MEISEL PRESS MFG. COMPANY 899
Johnson, assuming still that he gave no notice. The respondent made no
effort to secure substitutes for any of the five. But the respondent argued
that the machines operated by the other employees were not of as much
importance as the machine Johnson operated. The posted notice itself created
no such exception. Hence the respondent's willingness to make this distinction
for non-union employees makes the discrimination against Johnson even clearer.
The respondent contended in its brief that Johnson "intentionally violated"
the rule requiring 24 hours notice and that Johnson gave no notice "under the
pule." It insisted that the conversation between Nylander and Johnson on
May 18 was only one of Johnson's "proclamation talks" announcing "his
economic doctrine of an aversion to ' working Sundays" and his position that
"in time of war emergency he should work peace time hours."" There is no
evidence in the record to bear out this contention. After Johnson testified
that he had asked for Saturday afternoons and Sundays off if agreeable to
the respondent, Nylander testified that, although the talk was "about mostly
Sunday, work," the Saturday work was also discussed and that he (Nylander)
"promised to take" the request to the office. Nylander's promise is conclusive
proof that he understood the conversation to be notice "under the rule." It is
also clear that the- request was for both Saturday afternoons, and Sundays:
Hence Johnson, in fact, complied fully with the rule. It is therefore apparent
that in its haste to find "good cause" for discharging Johnson in order to dis-
guise the fact that he actually was being discharged because of his union'
membership and activities, the respondent seized upon this incident as a failure
to give "notice under the rules."
The undersigned therefore finds that the respondent discharged Johnson be-
cause of his membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union, and that
thereby respondent has discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment, thereby Qiscouraging membership in a labor organization. The un-
dersigned further finds that by such discharge, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged 'in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that the respondent cease and desist there'
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Since it has been found that the respondent discharged Wolger Johnson and
thereafter refused to reinstate him for the reason that he joined and assisted
a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose, of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, it will therefore be
recommended that the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position. It will be further recom-
mended that the respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal
It is undenied that Johnson was working 60 hours per Reek
'900 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to that amount which he would normally have earned as wages from the date-
of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 76
during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and' upon the entire record
of the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine \Vorkers of America, Local 272
(C. I. O.), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Wolger Johnson, thereby discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers of America, Local 272 (C. I. O ), the respondent has
engaged in and, is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8, (3). of the Act.
3. By interfering with,, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid, unfair labor practices are unfair, labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Meisel Press Mfg. Company, its officers,
agents, ' successors, and assigns, shall:
P. Cease and desist from':
('a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America, Local 272 (C. I. 0.), affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations or any other labor organization of its employees by discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees or any term or con-
dition of'their employment;
(b) In, any other manner interfering, with, restraining,, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights toiself-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations,, to bargain through representatives of their' own, choosing, or
to engage in. concertedt activities for the, purposes of collective bargaining, or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Wolger Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Wolger Johnson for any loss of earnings he may have suf=
fered _by reason of, the respondent's discrimination against him by paymeiit to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as
15 BY "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such-as for transportation, room,
and board; incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working' else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7.
MEISEL PRESS MFG. COMPANY - 901
wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement less
his net earnings 1e during said period ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant located at Boston,
'Massachusetts,,and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) -consecutive,days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that (1) the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and
(b) of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees are
tree to become or remain members of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Work-
ers of America, Local 272 (C I. 0.) and that the respondent will not discriminate
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of that
organization :
'(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within
twenty (20) days from the date of the, receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty, (20) days from
the i eceipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labw Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid. -
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended-any party may within
thirty (30) clays from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board. Shoreham Building. Washington, D. C.. an original and four
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate
Report or to ally other part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon
all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission 'to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within twenty (20) days after
the date of the order transferring the case to the Board'
THOMAS S. WILSON,
Trial Examiner.
Dated September 10, 1942.
16 See footnote 15, supra.