Paragon Die Casting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 878 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY, A' CORPORATION, and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DIE CASTING WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1583 .-Decided October 14, 1940
Jurisdiction : die casting manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: requesting field representative of union
who stood outside the plant not to distribute organizational literature; anti-
union statements ; urging an employee to become an informer concerning union
activity ; posting on bulletin board articles unfavorable to organized labor ;
interrogation concerning union membership and activities ; threats of inter-
ference with conditions of employment ; refusal to deal with representatives of
employees; threatened cessation of operations.
Discrimination: lay-off and discharges for union membership and activities.
Discharge of employees for talking about the union during working hours,
while permitting talk on all other subjects during working hours, held
discriminatory.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. Jack G. Evans and Mr. Step/ten M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr. Otto A. Jaburek, for the respondent.
Mr. David Brown, for the Union.
Miss Ida Klaus, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by National Asso-
ciation of Die Casting Workers, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chi-
cago, Illinois), issued its complaint, dated March 18, 1940, against
Paragon Die Casting 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 and
27 N:3L R. B., No. 147.
878
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 879
the accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respond-
ent and the Union. The complaint charged, in substance, (1) that
from on or about September 1, 1939, until the date of the complaint the
respondent urged and warned its employees to refrain from joining
or assisting the Union and from attending its meetings and also urged
and warned such employees as had joined the Union to withdraw
therefrom, thereby interfering with the self-organization of its em-
ployees, and (2) that the respondent discharged seven named employees
because each had joined and assisted the Union, thereby discriminating
against each of them as to hire and tenure of employment and discour-
aging membership in the Union.
On April 5, 1940, the respondent filed its answer, admitting the
accuracy of the material allegations of the complaint as to the nature
of its business, but denying all other material averments with respect
to the unfair labor practices and stating, by way of affirmative de-
fense, that it had discharged the seven named persons "for various
reasons," all of which "were taken into account when the decision
was reached to dispense with the services of said persons." The
answer alleged more specifically that the predominant reason for the
discharges was the "carrying on what is commonly known and re-
ferred to as `union agitation"' on the respondent's premises during
working hours with an attendant neglect of work by the seven per-
sons and by those among whom they solicited. Further reasons for
the discharges were alleged to be, (1) loitering in the washroom for
unreasonable periods of time, where the seven persons solicited for
the Union and violated the respondent's rule against smoking, and
(2) negligence in the performance of their work by the seven per-
sons. With respect to John Dereng, one of the seven employees
alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily discharged,
the answer stated as an additional cause for the discharge that, with-
out notice to the respondent, he directed another employee to report
in his stead and perform his assignment on September 23, 1939.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the complaint was held from
April 6 to April 12, 1940, at Chicago, Illinois, before Henry W:
Schmidt, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. The Union, although represented at the hear-
ing, did not participate. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the entire case
the respondent moved to dismiss for lack of proof the allegations
of the complaint dealing with acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion other than those concerned with the discharges. The Trial
Examiner teserved- decision on the motion' and in his Intermediate
b880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report denied it. Counsel for the Board moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof, explaining that the motion was directed to
formal and immaterial matters. The motion was granted. Various
,rulings were made by the Trial Examiner during the course of the
hearing on other motions and on ^ objections to the admission of
evidence. At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner stated that
the record would remain open -for the offer of specified statistical
data. Thereafter, subsequent to the close of the hearing, the data
were received as exhibits 'by the Trial Examiner. The Board has
reviewed all rulings made by the trial Examiner during the course
of the hearing and thereafter, and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings' are hereby affirmed.
On May 18, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the
unfair labor practices charged in the complaint and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain speci-
fied affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act. 'Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and argued thereon orally before the Board on Sep-
tember 3, 1940. The Board has considered the exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in
them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
- It was stipulated between counsel for the respondent and counsel
for the Board, and we find, that:
The respondent, Paragon Die Casting Company, is an Illinois
corporation; having its sole plant and principal place of business
in Chicago, Illinois.' It is engaged in the manufacture and sale
of zinc and aluminum die castings. The principal raw materials used
in the respondent's manufacturing operations are zinc and aluminum,
of which it purchased for the year ending February 29, 1940, ap-
proximately 2,447 tons and 301 tons, respectively, at a total cost of
$465;000. The major portion of such raw materials originated outside
the State of Illinois.
r During the year ending February '29, 1940, the respondent's total
sales amounted in value to approximately $1,200,000 and in weight
to` about 2,500 tons. 'Sixty per-cent of the total value and tonnage
represented sales and shipments to- purchasers outside the State of
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 881
Illinois. The average number of monthly shipments made by the
respondent to points outside the State of Illinois during this period
was 1,100. Materials, consisting of corrugated cartons, gummed tape,
and steel strapping, purchased by the respondent for the shipment
of its products, amounted in value during this 12-month period to a
total of $15,000, approximately 5 per cent of which represented pur-
chases originating outside the. State of Illinois.
In connection with the sale of its finished products, the respondent
maintains sales agencies in Chicago, Illinois, in Detroit, Michigan,
in Indianapolis, Indiana, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and in Cleveland,
Ohio.
H. THE UNION
National Association of Die Casting Workers, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership certain classes of employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and" coercion
Some time during the middle of August 1939 the Union mani-
fested its earliest efforts at organizing the respondent's employees
when one of its field representatives stood immediately outside the
respondent's plant and distributed organizational literature to those
entering and leaving the premises. Gilbert J. Ballard, the field
representative in question, testified that on this first occasion John
Frank McCall, the respondent's general superintendent, approached
him at his station outside the plant and told the witness that' he
could not distribute "that stuff here." When Ballard asked the
reason for the injunction, McCall replied, "It is no good"; and "We
don't like it." Ballard, however, insisted that he was on public
property and that he would continue to circularize the employees,
and McCall returned to the plant. Although McCall denied having
made these statements, the Trial Examiner, who heard the testimony
and observed the demeanor of the witnesses, did not credit the denials
and believed Ballard. In view of the respondent's later attempts,
hereinafter dealt with, to impede the Union's efforts among its em-
ployees and in reliance on the Trial Examiner's appraisal of the
witnesses, we find that the statements attributed to McCall were
in fact made. I
No meetings of, the respondent's employees were called by the
Union until September 22, although further organizational literature
had been- handed to them directly outside the plant by the Union's
representative and individual employees may have been solicited at
323428-42-vol 27-57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their homes. On September 20 leaflets announcing a meeting in
Chicago for the employees of another, die casting company, were dis-
tributed to the respondent's employees by the Union. John Foley,
at that time employed in the respondent's cleaning department,
credibly testified that on the day following the dissemination of this
announcement he called the Union's local office and arranged with
its organizer for a joint meeting of the respondent's employees
and those of the other die casting company to be held on the evening
of September 22. Twenty-five to thirty of the respondent's employees
attended the meeting and joined the Union on September 22. The
same evening a trip to Toledo, Ohio, was arranged for the following
day under the auspices of'the Union for the purpose of visiting a die
casting plant in that city and meeting the members of a union local
which had been established there Five of the respondent's em-
ployees were among those who made the trip on September 23, a
Saturday. At Toledo they attended a meeting of the local and Foley,
one of the five employees of the respondent, obtained copies of union
literature and of a contract previously, entered into by the Union
and the Toledo plant. John Dereng, another of the respondent's
employees who made the trip, was laid off during his absence in
Toledo on Saturday, September 23, and was subsequently discharged.
Foley and two of his companions on the Toledo trip were discharged
on October 13. The discharges are hereinafter fully discussed in
another section.
Foley testified without contradiction, and we agree with the Trial
Examiner that he is to be believed, that Frank Galefski, his foreman,
had asked him on Friday, September 22, to work the following day
and that Foley replied that he did not think he would be able to
comply with the request, as he might be going to Toledo. Edward
John Gull, one of the five employees who visited Toledo, testified
without contradiction that on September 25, the day of his return to
the plant after the trip, Foreman Galefski told him "* * * to
watch my step, that we are all being watched that come in from
Toledo * * *." The Trial Examiner believed Gull's testimony
in this regard and we find it to be credible. According to the uncontro-
verted and credible testimony of Gene Purcell, who also went to
Toledo, his foreman, Walter Wadzinski, warned him a few days
after his return to • "watch my step," that "they got it in for me."
Walter Rogalski, another of the five employees who had gone to
Toledo, testified that about a week after the trip McCall, the respond-
ent's general superintendent, asked him if, he had joined the Union.
When Rogalski replied in the affirmative, his testimony continued,
McCall asked him why he had gone to Toledo and Rogalski rejoined
that he was impelled by curiosity. Further, according to Rogalski,
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 883
the explanation brought forth the remark from McCall that Rogalski
should not have gone, to which Rogalski replied, "* * * I didn't
mean anything wrong by that." Rogalski testified further that he
did not thereafter pay his dues to the Union. McCall denied that
he had engaged in a conversation of this nature with Rogalski. The
Trial Examiner rejected his denial and accepted as true the testimony
of Rogalski. We find, in reliance on the Trial Examiner's finding
and in view of the uncontradicted testimony concerning Foreman
Galefski's statement to Gull and Foreman Wadzinski's statement
to Purcell, that the conversation occurred in accordance with Rogal-
ski's testimony. We find further that the respondent's officials knew
that the five employees had made the trip and were aware of- the,
,activities of those employees in connection therewith.
During the period between September 15 and October 13, the
Union, through its field representative, continued to distribute litera-
ture outside the respondent's plant. and further meetings of the re-
spondent's employees were held at the Union's headquarters. Der-
eng's discharge was considered by the Union and appears to have
been discussed in the plant. On October 4 the Union addressed a
letter to the respondent requesting a collective bargaining confer-
ence for October 10, and proposing that Dereng's discharge, which
the letter stated was for union activity, be discussed by both sides
Three days later the respondent, by letter, denied the Union's re-
quests, questioning its majority claim and stating that Dereng had
not been discharged for union activity. 'While no issue of the re-
spondent's refusal to bargain is here involved, we find that the
peremptory reply to the Union concerning Dereng's discharge indi-
cates an unwillingness on the part of the respondent to accord
Dereng, through his representative, a hearing on conduct which we
hereinafter find" to have been discriminatory.
It is clear from the testimony of the respondent's officials and
supervisory employees and from the manner in which the Union
publicized its meetings that the respondent was cognizant of the
nature and extent of the union activities of its employees. During
this period the respondent's officials and others acting in a. super-
visory capacity resorted to various means of dissuading its employees
from joining the Union and of compelling those who had joined to.
renounce their affiliation. Gene Purcell, one of the employees who,
had gone to Toledo, and who was subsequently discharged on October
13, testified that oil September 30 he had asked McCall to be excused
from work before the close of the working day and that McCall
had replied, "Why should I do you any favor . . . You are not
doing me any favor . . . While I was off sick, about thirty of you
fellows stuck me with a knife in the back . . . I am doing you a
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
favor by letting you work Saturday." McCall had been away from
the plant from September 9 to September 26 because of illness. A
similar statement was attributed to McCall by Nick J. Mazur, who
joined the Union on' September 22 and who was discharged on Octo-
ber 13 together with several other employees. Mazur testified that
on about October 1 McCall summoned him to the office and, after
accusing him and "the back end of the shop" of non-production and
directing him to leave the respondent's employ if he was not satisfied
at the plant, stated, "I don't like the idea of thirty of you men
knifing me in the back while I was sick in bed." Further, according
to Mazur's testimony, McCall added that "he could point a finger at
P11 the guilty ones in the back end, and he has got enough on every
one of them to fire them outright." Statements in a similar vein
were-ascribed to McCall by two other witnesses.
Further linking McCall with a desire to banish the Union from
the respondent's plant and, to penalize those who had enrolled as
members is the testimony of Elmer Donnelly, who joined at the
first meeting on 'Septeinber 22. Donnelly testified that during the
first week in October McCall asked him whether he had heard any
"talk" in the plant and whether any employees had been "threat-
ened." When Donnelly replied that he had heard the Union dis-
cussed but that he had no knowledge of any resort to threats, McCall
asked to be apprised of any threats which might come to Donnelly's
attention and added, further according to Donnelly's testimony,
'that "He didn't mind telling me there was only a few he considered
good workers. .. . When we started to clean house back there,
they would find it wasn't so easy on the outside. . . . They didn't
need to think one dollar a month would hold their job for them."
Donnelly explained at the hearing that he had interpreted the refer-
ence to "threats" to mean coercion against him to join the Union.
McCall denied that he had made any of the remarks about which
Purcell, Mazur, Donnelly, and the two other witnesses testified. The
expression attributed to him by Purcell and Mazur concerning 30 men
"knifing" him in the back, he claimed, first came to his attention when
he read a union circular distributed among the respondent's employees
some time after September 26. The circular is entitled "STABBED
IN THE BACK" and reads in part as follows :
Poor old Mac, who has sacrificed much and suffered untold agonies
to help the employees of Paragon earn good wages, was stabbed
in the back, so he says, . . .
The Trial Examiner found that "It would seem that the circular
corroborates, rather than discredits, the testimony of Board witnesses. .
There is no evidence whatsoever that either the testimony of Board
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 885
witnesses or the circular was manufactured for purposes of this hear-
ing." A further reason for relying on the circular as corroborative
of the testimony of Purcell and Gull and the other witnesses is that
elsewhere it correctly attributes to the respondent statements made to
seven employees who were discharged on October 13. The statements
appear in the respondent's answer and are relied upon by it as a defense
to the discharges, which are hereinafter dealt with in a separate section.
We are also aware of the fact that the reference to 30 men parallels
almost exactly the number who joined the Union at the first meeting
held for the respondent's employees. Of McCall's denials generally
the Trial Examiner stated, "Mc Call's categorical denials are particu-
larly of doubtful value in view of his conduct and demeanor on the
witness stand . . ." For all these reasons we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the testimony of Purcell, Gull, Donnelly, and the other
two witnesses is credible and that McCall's denials must be rejected as
unworthy of credence.
That hostility toward the Union was not manifested solely by McCall
is apparent from the uncontradicted and reliable testimony of Foley,
whom we believe and whom the Trial Examiner credited, that early
in October he observed L. R. Brink, the respondent's vice president,
handing two newspaper articles to the respondent's timekeeper, who
thereupon posted them on the plant's bulletin board. The articles
dealt with court decisions unfavorable to organized labor. Joseph
Huska, the respondent's secretary-treasurer, according to the testi-
mony of Frank Bykowski, an employee with 10 years' service, demon-
strated a similar attitude. Bykowski stated at the hearing that about
a week,or two after the meeting of September 22 Huska remarked
to him, "I see there is something going on again; C. I. O. is trying to
get around"; "We fought the Union once before. We are going to
fight it again." Huska added that he would rather close the plant
"than join up" with the C.I. O. Bykowski explained at the hearing
that he understood the allusion to having "fought the union once
before" to refer to union activity, in which Bykowski was involved,
among the respondent's employees in 1935. Bykowski, however, was
not among those who had joined the Union during the period here
in question. Huska denied all statements ascribed to him by Bykowski
except those referring to observations that "something" was occurring
again and that the C. 1. 0. was attempting to organize the respondent's
employees, remarks about which Huska was not questioned by counsel
for the respondent. We find that the statements which remained un-
denied were in fact made. There is, moreover, no motive yielded by
the record which might have impelled an employee like Bykowski to
fabricate the statements denied by Huska. For these reasons and
because of the plausibility under the circumstances of Bykowski's
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony, we find that Bykowski truthfully related the substance of
Huska's remarks, a finding also made by the Trial Examiner.
The testimony of Peter Loris indicates that the respondent's presi-
dent shared the animus of other officials toward the Union and en-
gaged in tactics not unlike theirs. Loris, an employee who did
not join the Union, testified that shortly before October 13 Frank
Lannert, the respondent's president, called him into the office and
said, "You know, Pete, there is something going on, and if something
should happen we are both going to lose our jobs. I may have to go
out and look for a job myself." When Loris, according to his further
testimony, replied that he would remain neutral and would serve
neither Lannert nor the Union, the former rejoined, "The Union is
not going to solve the problem." Loris testified that he interpreted
Lannert's remarks to means that he was to refrain from joining the
Union: Although Lannert denied having had a conversation of this
nature with Loris, we do not credit his denials, in view of the respond-
ent's apparent opposition to the Union and in view of the failure of
the record to reveal any reason for Loris to testify untruthfully, and
we believe the testimony of Loris, as did the Trial Examiner.
. We find that by the foregoing acts of its officials and supervisors the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
The complaint alleged that the respondent discriminatorily laid off
John Dereng on or about September 25, 1939, and thereafter discharged
him on or about September 29, 1939, and that the respondent on Octo-
ber 13, 1939, discriminatorily discharged Nick Mazur, Otto Bruner,
Gene Purcell, Richard Schremser, Edward Gull, and John Foley.
The respondent averred in its answer that the prevailing reason for
the discharge of each of these seven persons was the "carrying on what
is commonly known and referred to as `union agitation"' in the plant
during working hours to such an extent as to cause him and those to
whom he talked to neglect their work. As an additional defense to
the charge concerning Dereng the answer alleged that he had, without
notice to the respondent, directed another employee to report for work
in his stead on September 23. Various other contributory reasons for
the discharges appear in the answer.
1. The lay-off and subsequent discharge of Dereng
Dereng had been employed by the respondent in its cleaning depart-
ment for nearly 21/2 years at the time of his discharge. No complaints
had been made to him about, the quality of his work or the extent of
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 887
his production during this period. He testified that, although he had
acquired his earliest-knowledge of the Union's general activities from
a circular distributed about a week before September 22, he had had
no opportunity until September 22 to discuss the Union with any of
his fellow workers at the plant, as he had on that day first learned of
the Union's specific plans to organize the respondent's employees.
September 22, his testimony ,with reference to the Union continued,
was "the first commotion that was going around in the shop," and he
did talk to employees that day, but not previously, about the Union
and the meeting scheduled for that evening. That evening he was
among the 25 or 30 employees of the respondent who attended the meet-
ing and were enrolled as members. On Saturday, September 23, he
was one of the group which visited a Toledo local of the Union and
which, consequently, did not report for work on that day.
When Dereng returned to work on September 25 after the visit to
Toledo,,he found that his time card was not in its usual place in the
card rack. He -testified thi t the respondent's timekeeper, Leland
Letto, told him at that time that Huska, the respondent's secretary-
treasurer who had been acting as general superintendent since Septem-
ber 9, had informed Letto that Dereng "should take a week off" and
should see Huska for any further information he might desire. Two
hours later Dereng talked with Huska. According to Dereng's further
testimony, Huska told him -at that time that he was to see McCall,
the general superintendent, who was then and had been since Septem-
ber 9 away from the plant because of illness. When Dereng replied
that the matter was one involving Huska and not McCall, Huska
retorted, according to the witness, "you guys got me hot around
here.... See Mac (McCall) and see what he will do for you. Listen
to me, you are not fired. Just take a week off. See Mac." He was
not given his accrued wages at that time. On September 29, 3 days
after McCall resumed his duties, Dereng returned to the plant and
talked with McCall. At that time McCall handed him his pay-
check and stated, according to Dereng, that there was no more work
for him and that while McCall "was away sick about thirty of us
guys seemed to push him around a little bit, put a knife in his back."
When Dereng asked for a more specific reason for the discharge,
McCall replied, "Well, you know. You talk too much." Dereng's
request to be permitted to return to work was denied by McCall, and
Dereng thereupon left the plant.
When he arrived home, Dereng testified without contradiction and
credibly, he found an application for unemployment compensation
which stated as the reason for his discharge, "failure to report for
work" and also; he thought at the hearing, "inefficiency." That Dereng
was not permitted to work on and after September 25; that he was not
888 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given his pay check until September 29; and that the latter procedure
was unusual are facts admitted by the respondent's witnesses. Al-
though Letto and Huska denied having made on September 25 the
statements attributed to them by Dereng, and McCall similarly denied
the remarks of September 29, we do not, in view of the plausibility of
Dereng's testimony, credit their denials, a finding also made by the
Trial Examiner, and we believe Dereng. We agree further with the
Trial Examiner, and we find, that'Dereng was laid off on September 25
and was thereafter discharged on September 29, and reject the respond-
ent's allegation that the discharge occurred on September 25. We
consider, however, that the ,respondent's defense to the discharge is
equally applicable to the lay-off. I
As we have already indicated, the respondent's answer alleged that
Dereng was discharged for "union agitation" during working hours
in the shop and in the toilet room to an extent which occasioned a
neglect of work by him and by those he solicited and for having,
without notice to the respondent, designated another employee to work
in his stead on Saturday, September 23. Dereng, as we have stated
earlier, denied having talked to any of his fellow employees about
the Union before September 22 and admitted that, like many others,
he did on that day make the Union a subject of conversation in the
plant. He denied also that any official or supervisor had reprimanded
him for talking.
Brink, the respondent's vice president, testified that the respond-
ent's practice with respect to talking during working hours was
"If it is unusual, it is against the rules." "Unusual," he explained,
connoted "where men leave their machines, congregate in the toilets."'
His'testimony as to Dereng's activities may be summarized as follows :
Early in September he observed Dereng and Foley talking about the
Union to employees who were working near them. Thereafter, De-
reng was among a group of seven employees, all named in the com-
plaint in this proceeding, whom he overheard talking about the Union
in the toilet room about twice a day for 1 or 2 or 3 minutes each time,
at their working places, and at the benches of other employees. The
last named conversations took place about two or three times a day
and lasted 1 or 2 minutes on each occasion.- At times, he conceded,
when Dereng and the six other persons left their working positions
and talked to other employees the former were obtaining working
materials or were on their way to the toilet room. Snatches of the con-
versations in which Dereng and the others were engaged and which
Brink overhead led him to conclude that the conversations were
concerned with the Union, as the words "union," "meeting," "join up,"
"C. I. 0.," "or something like that" appeared in the bits he had
gleaned. Moreover, about five or six employees had reported to him in
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 889
September that they had been "importuned" at their homes and in
the plant by Dereng and two of the other persons named in the com-
plaint to join the Union. Asserting that he was unwilling to "im-
plicate" his informants, Brink refused at the hearing to reveal their
names. Moreover, Brink could not recall the identity of any em-
ployees to whom he had seen Dereng talking about the Union, but did
mention the name of one employee to whom he had observed Foley
talking. He "assumed" that the conversation in each instance had
-been started by one of the seven persons named in the complaint.
The witness testified further that he did not reprimand Dereng and
the others; he claimed, however, that he had discussed with McCall
the "unusual talking'' in the plant, saying more specifically to the
general superintendent that there was "entirely too much talking and
men leaving their machines, not doing their work." In-this connec-
tion he made particular mention of Dereng and Foley, and McCall
replied that he had talked to "these men" and would do so again.
During McCall's absence from September 9 to September 26, Brink's
testimony continued, he talked to Huska about the matter at least
once a day.
Brink admitted on cross-examination by counsel for the Board'
that he had from time to time heard other employees talking in the
plant under similar circumstances but that he could not recall their
names because, as he stated, "I have been walking through the plant
for thirty years and see people talking sometimes. I don't pay any
attention to their names." These other employees, he added, did not
converse about the Union, as occasional bits which he overheard in-
dicated that the subject matter of their discussions was religion, or
war, or "things-like that." He thought he had advised McCall of
these collateral conversations in September and October of 1939 and
he'was certain that he had reported to McCall during the fall of 1939
that some shipping-room employees; whom he did not name at the
hearing, had been devoting their time to collateral, non-union con-
versations of the kind he had overheard. Whether or not any of the
shipping-room employees had been penalized he could not state at
the hearing because, he explained, "I don't always follow those." He
admitted, however, that he did "follow" Dereng and the other per-
sons named in the complaint, as they were "chiefly" the employees
he had heard talking about the C. I. O. When asked specifically by
counsel for the Board whether he considered the conversations of
Dereng and the other persons named in the complaint "unusual"
because of their extent or because of their subject matter, he replied,
"Both." Even if all of Brink's testimony is to be believed, we are
not convinced by it that Dereng devoted more time to talking about
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union during working hours than other employees consumed on
other collateral subjects.
The respondent's secretary-treasurer, Joseph Huska, testified that
after the last week in August of 1939, when the Union started to dis-
tribute literature outside the respondent's plant, he observed greater
`'unrest" among the employees than he had noticed earlier. The
"unrest" was caused by employees who left their places of work to
talk to others in the plant and who congregated in the toilet room.
Dereng and Foley were the first to behave in this manner, he stated.'
Until September 9 they left their work at least twice a day to engage
other employees in conversation and twice each day gathered in the
toilet room. Asked by counsel for the respondent what he had heard
Dereng and Foley talking about, he answered, "Well, what could one
expect, with the literature that was passed out in front? They must
be talking about the union; here or there I could catch something
about C. I. O. or union." The witness testified further that he had
directed McCall to tell Dereng and Foley and one of the other per-
sons named in the complaint to stop their talking and that McCall
had replied that he had already admonished them and would repeat
the injunction. From September 9 through September 26 Huska
acted as general superintendent of the plant, replacing McCall who
was away because of illness. During this period, his testimony con-
tinued, Dereng, Foley, and other persons named in the complaint
•began to leave their work and to walk 5 or 20 feet away to other em-
ployees with whom they conversed. Starting at the rate of two or
three times a day this procedure became more frequent and grew to
be of greater duration. Huska also visited the toilet room and found
Dereng and Foley talking there with other employees at least three
times a day; of their conversations, he said, "It was union or C. I. 0."
On such occasions, he asserted, he would direct Dereng and Foley and
such of the other persons named in the complaint as he discovered in
the toilet room to leave. They obeyed his orders. During this period
also, his testimony continued, the foreman in charge of Dereng and
some of the other six persons named in the complaint advised the wit-
ness that he had-heard the seven men talking about the Union.
Thereupon Huska talked to the men and warned them to "cut it out."
Asked directly by counsel for the respondent why he had discharged
Dereng, Huska at first testified in reply that it was because of his fail-
ure to appear for work on September 23. When counsel for the
respondent thereupon asked him further whether he had also taken
into consideration the -excessive talking, Huska answered in the
affirmative.
On cross-examination Huska admitted that he had observed em-
ployees other than the seven persons involved in this proceeding in
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 891
the toilet room more than once a day during September and October
and that none, of them had been penalized. He stated further con-
cerning the conduct of Dereng and the other six persons that the sub-
ject matter of their conversations had "very much" to do with inter-
fering with the operation of the plant and that "what I did want is
that they would cut it out and let the rest of the employees alone, be-
cause I could see they were under a tension and they were being dis-
turbed about it. That is all I am concerned about.'' He did not,
however, indicate the basis for his observation that the employees
were "under a tension" produced by Dereng and the others. We do
not believe, from Huska's testimony, that Dereng talked about the
Union to any greater extent than any of the respondent's other'em-
ployees talked at other times about other subjects not related to their
work. Under the circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to re-
solve the conflict between the testimony of Dereng and Huska con-
cerning reprimands administered by the latter to Dereng. It is
sufficient under the circumstance to note, and we find, that any at-
tempts which may have been made by Huska to prohibit Dereng from
talking were in effect the imposition of a discriminatory rule upon
the respondent's employees, outlawing only the Union as a subject of
discussion in the plant.
McCall's testimony in this connection is that during the latter part
of August, after the Union had begun to circulate pamphlets among
the employees, he noticed during working hours "a great deal of
talking that was out of the ordinary, more than usual" and saw all
seven persons named in the complaint leave their places of work and
talk to other employees about three or four or six times a day. The
employees whom they approached appeared to be anxious to proceed
with their work. He also noticed that one or more of the seven per-
sons congregated in the toilet room about six or seven times a day,
talking and- smoking. At times he caught snatches of their conver-
sation and found that they were talking about the Union; at other
times they, were discussing other subjects not pertaining to their
work. He reprimanded the seven men for congregating and smoking
in the toilet room, he asserted at the hearing. More particularly with
respect to Dereng, he testified that Brink had criticized him, McCall,
for the "unusual" extent of talking and the "unusual" number of times
employees were absent from their places of work, mentioning espe-
cially Dereng, Foley, and one other person named in the complaint.
On cross-examination McCall stated that in July of 1939 he had
heard snatches from "hundreds" of conversations held by employees
in the shop and in the toilet room during hours on any number of
subjects not pertaining to the work; that he could not venture a guess
as to the number of employees who had participated in these conver-
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
sations; that when he approached employees thus engaged he would
reprimand them "99 times out of 100"; and that a certain amount of
conversation of this non-union kind was general throughout the plant.
He had, however, never heard any conversation pertaining to the
Union in which one of the seven persons with whom this proceeding
is concerned was not a participant. We find that McCall's testimony
clearly indicates that Dereng talked no more during- working hours
than did his fellow employees but that, unlike most of the latter, he
chose to concern himself with the Union in such remarks as he may
have made.
The testimony of Frank Galefski, Dereng's foreman, in support
,of this aspect of the respondent's defense to the discharge of Dereng
is that during August and September he observed Dereng away from
his working station two or three times a day talking to various em-
ployees, but that he would not say that his conversations during this
period were concerned with the Union' more than once or twice a
week. He could not recall the names of the persons working under
his supervision to whom Dereng had talked generally during these 2
months because "when they talked I paid no attention, made no notes
of it." He did not know whether Dereng had started any of the con-
versations. After he had noticed Dereng engaging in two or three
conversations, Galefski asked him and those to whom he talked to
"break it up" and reported the conduct of all the participants to
McCall. He stated with certainty that none of the other men whom
he reported to McCall had been laid off or discharged. In Septem-
ber- and October of 1939, his testimony continued, the 100 men whom
he supervised talked during working hours about subjects not relat-
ing to their work and he would tell them to "break it up." In answer
to a question of counsel for the Board as to the frequency of such
talking, he stated, "They do that right along." It was his practice
not to report talking to McCall, he explained, "unless unusual, they do
too much." Even when the talking was not "unusual," he continued,
he did have to tell employees to "break it up." We are unable to find
from Galefski's testimony that Dereng engaged in conversations of
any character to a degree greater than, or under circumstances differ-
ent from, those engaged in by any of the other employees whom
Galefski supervised.
Robert Jurczyk, a foreman in the cleaning department in which
Dereng worked, testified that he noticed Dereng and Foley talking
"quite often" to other employees during September and October but
that he could not hear what was said except that he caught a few words
pertaining to the Union. During that period he would occasionally
walk into the toilet room and find Dereng and Foley and others talk-
ing and smoking. If Dereng and Foley did not leave when Jurczyk
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 893
entered, he -told them "to cut out ganging up in the washroom." Oc-
casionally when he saw "too many" employees, including Dereng or
Foley, in there he would tell them "to cut it out." Jurczyk admitted
specifically on cross-examination that he had directed employees other
than the seven persons named in the complaint to leave and to stop
smoking and that none of those men had been discharged. We find
that the respondent has again failed to prove that Dereng's conduct
was unusual.
The respondent called as witnesses 14 non-supervisory employees
who testified concerning Dereng's union activities during working
hours. One of these witnesses stated that shortly before Dereng's dis-
charge, Dereng had, in answer to the witness' request for a match,,
handed him a book of matches whose cover bore the inscription of the-
Union. We do not consider that Dereng's conduct under these cir-
cumstances constituted "agitation" for the Union. Eight employees:
testified that Dereng had asked them on only one occasion to join the
Union or to attend a meeting. Some, of these eight witnesses esti-
mated that the conversation did not consume more than 1 or 2 minutes
and we believe, from the statements of the witnesses concerning the
nature of the conversations, that most of them lasted less than 1
minute. Further, according to these witnesses, three of them had been
solicited in the toilet room, one at the drinking fountain, one at this
work bench located-about 8 feet from that of Dereng, one at Dereng's
bench while the witness was helping Dereng, one on the stairs while
the witness was waiting to start his work on the night shift and
shortly before the end of the day shift, and one at his work bench
about 100 feet from Dereng's usual place of work. In the last-named
instance the witness stated that Dereng might have left his own place
of work to obtain working materials. The eight, witnesses did not
agree as to the'date on which Dereng had solicited them, some fixing
the day as being shortly before his discharge and others'placing it
early in September. We find, in view of Dereng's testimony, which
we believe, that he did not learn about the Union until a week before
his discharge and did not become interested in it until the day of the
first meeting, and in view of the fact that the first meeting was not
held until September 22, that Dereng solicited these employees on
September 22.
One of the 14 witnesses testified that Dereng solicited him twice
in 1 day for 3 or 4 minutes each time; that on the first occasion
he had to shut off his band saw in order to carry on the conversation
but that on the second occasion, immediately after the lunch period,
he had not,yet started to operate the band saw. He stated, however,
that he had shut off the band saw on other occasions when he talked
with 'other employees. Although the. witness stated that the con-
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
versations occurred early in September, we find, for the reasons
already indicated, that they were had on September 22 and that, on
the basis of the reproduction of these conversations by the witness,
they lasted less than 1 mimnte.
The testimony of another witness is that on one particular day
shortly before September 22 he observed Dereng as the latter stopped
six different employees at different times and talked to them. One
of the six, he stated, was the man who worked alongside the wit
ness; that man had reported to the witness that Dereng had asked
him to join the Union. He testified further that he did know
the subject of Dereng's conversation with the other five employees.
While the working partner of the witness corroborated that part
of the testimony dealing with his report to the witness, we are unable
to find that Dereng solicited the other five employees. An employee
who worked on the night shift testified that Dereng, who worked on
the day shift, asked him on one or two occasions to join the Union
and that the witness replied that, since he knew nothing about the
C. I. 0., he could not commit himself. While this employee stated
ghat- the first conversation occurred in September "when they started
bringing all that stuff about the Union," he could not fix the date
of the second conversation, if any. We find that Dereng approached
the witness on just one occasion and that, for reasons already stated,
that occasion was on September 22. We find further from other
testimony which we believe that Dereng, like all other employees,
was permitted to stop work for the day shortly before the end of
his shift and that he was not ordinarily prohibited during that
interlude from leaving his station and talking to other employees.
The two remaining witnesses were Peter Chuchman and Miles
Hart. The former testified that Dereng had" asked him during a
2-week period in September to join the Union and to attend its
meetings. His testimony on the number of times he had thus been
solicited by Dereng varied considerably and showed a marked_incon-
sistency. He admitted, moreover, that he had in fact joined the
Union and attended its first meeting on September 22. In view of
the obvious implausibility and contradictions of his testimony, we
find it to be unworthy of credence. Hart's testimony that Dereng
talked to him on three or four different days for 3 or 4 minutes
each day is also contradictory and uncertain as to the nature of
the conversations which Dereng had with him. We therefore, find
his testimony to be incredible.
Other uncontroverted testimony which we believe leads us to find
that there was no rule in the respondent's plant prohibiting employees
from talking during working hours; that it was not unusual for
employees to leave their work and talk with other employees; and
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 895'
that employees were not penalized for leaving their work or for
talking. It is also apparent that the respondent's general leniency
with respect to talking is attributable to the fact that most of its
employees, including Dereng, worked on a piece-rate basis. It is
plain from the record, and _we find, that Dereng did not devote a
greater amount of time to talking than did his fellow employees
who were not penalized in any manner.
The respondent contended further that another factor which con-
tributed to Dereng's discharge was his failure to report for work
on Saturday, September 23, and his action in connection therewith
of directing another employee, without notice to the respondent, to
work in his stead. Dereng admitted that Frank Galefski, his fore-
man, had asked him on September 22 to work the following day
but testified further that he replied, "I' may be down and I may
not." After he learned on the night of September 22 that he was
to make the Toledo trip, he stated at the hearing, he asked two fel-
low employees to report to Galefski that he was going to Toledo
and would not be at work the following morning. Galefski did not
deny that Dereng had expressed doubt as to whether he would be at
the plant on Saturday, September 23, and we believe Dereng's testi-
mony in this regard, as did the Trial Examiner. Whether the two
employees did in fact deliver Dereng's message to Galefski is not
indicated in the record. We believe, however, that Dereng did so
instruct them.
While it is thus true that Dereng did not appear at the plant
on September 23, it is clear from the testimony of the Board's
witnesses and of those called by the respondent that employees were
not under a duty to work on Saturdays, such work constituting over-
time in most cases. It is also apparent from the respondent's records
and from the testimony of its witnesses that employees who failed
to report for work on Saturdays after their foremen had directed
them to appear were not laid off or discharged. We find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Dereng was not discharged because of his
failure to report for work on September 23. Dereng denied that
he had directed another employee to work in his stead, and there
is no evidence to support the respondent's contrary contention.
There is, furthermore, no showing that such conduct would have
been in violation of any plant rule.
We are convinced, on the basis of the testimony of the respond-
ent's witnesses 'alone, that Dereng was not discharged because of
the extent of 'his conversations in the plant during working hours
but rather because of the character of those conversations. It is
plain that had he not, talked about the Union Dereng would not
have been discharged. The record yields no justification for the
896 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
difference in treatment by the respondent of Dereng and his fellow
employees. The discrimination is clear, as is its purpose.' Dereng's
conduct, not being an infraction of plant rules, clearly constituted
privileged union activity. The respondent hoped, by laying Dereng
off and thereafter by discharging him, to impede the organizational
efforts of the Union among its employees who had just begun to exer-
cise their right to self-organization.
We find that, by the lay-off and discharge of Dereng, the respond-
ent has discriminated against him in regard to hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The discharge of Mazur, Bruner, Purcell, Schremser, Gull, and
Foley
Mazur had been in the respondent's employ for about'3 years at
the time- of his discharge. Bruner had served the respondent for
over 31/2 years. The length of Purcell's service was nearly 6 years,
and that of Schremser was somewhat over 2 years. Gull and Foley'
had each completed more than 41/2 years of service., These six em-
ployees joined the Union on September 22 and attended its first
meeting on that date. Foley had been instrumental in arranging
for that meeting and was considered by the respondent's witnesses
as one of the most active union protagonists. On September, 23
Foley, Purcell, and Gull, together with Dereng and ,a fifth employee,
visited the Toledo local of the Union. Foley had brought back with
him from Toledo union literature which he proceeded to distribute
among the respondent's employees during working hours. He testi-
fied, and we, like the Trial Examiner, believe his testimony, that, after
the respondent's secretary-treasurer cautioned him against engaging
in such activity during working' hours, he desisted. All six were
active in behalf of the Union and Foley admitted that he had solic-
ited employees during working hours to attend its meetings.
Notice of a meeting of the Union to be held on the evening of
October 13, 1939, was circulated among the respondent's employees
by the open distribution of handbills outside the plant. The meeting
was to be held for the first time at a hall located in the vicinity of
the respondent's plant. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the respondent's officials knew that the meeting had been scheduled.
1 Cf. Matter of Oregon Worsted Company, a Corporation and United Textile Workers of
Athertca, Local 2435, 1 N. L R B. 915, enf 'd, N. L. R. B. v. Oregon Worsted Company,
96 F. (2d ) 193 (C. C. A 9) and Matter of Botany Worsted Mills and Textile Workers Organ-
izing Committee, 4 N. L. R. B 292, enf'd as mod ., N. L. R. B. v. Botany Worsted Mslls,
Inc., 106 F. ( 2d) 263 (C. C. A. 3).
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 897
On the afternoon of October 13, while the six employees were engaged
in their work, Huska,• accompanied by McCall, handed each of them
his accrued wages, including pay for a full day on October 13, and
informed each of the six that he was being discharged "on account of
too much agitation during working hours." The respondent's presi-
dent and vice president witnessed each discharge . The circumstances
of the discharges and the reason assigned therefor by Huska fo each
of the, employees are not in dispute.
The respondent 's main defense to these discharges is, as we have
already indicated , the same as that which it alleged as the principal
reason in answer to the charge of discrimination against Dereng.
The testimony offered by the respondent in support of its contention
concerning "agitation" by these employees is in large part the same
as that adduced by it in defense of the discharge of Dereng. Since
we have already discussed that testimony in great detail, we do not
consider a further review thereof to be necessary at this juncture.
Only such evidence as we have heretofore not considered need here
be summarized.
Brink's testimony, supplementing that relating to the period before
September 22, is that during the last 3 weeks of the employment of
these six persons 'he found that the general situation he had already
described was growing worse in that there was "more continual, con-
tinual talking and more of it" by these employees at the work benches
of others and in the toilet room. The subject natter of their talk,
from snatches which he caught , continued to be the Union. Huska
and McCall testified similarly and stated further that they had rep-
rimanded the six employees for talking and for loitering and smoking
in the toilet room. According to Galefski, Foley's foreman, Foley
was away from his work twice each day and talked about the Union
every day . Foley admitted that he had talked to employees con-
cerning the Union during working hours on 10 or 20 different occa-
sions from September 1 until the date of his discharge for a minute
or two each time. These conversations , he explained at the hearing,
occurred while he was going from one job to another , or while he
was looking for materials, or while he was in the toilet room. They
lasted , he claimed, "no more than I would within an ordinary con-
versation." Foley admitted further that he had during working
hours made a gift to about 10 or 15 employees of match books bearing
the Union 's name and that he had handed such match books to other
employees during working hours in compliance with their request
for a match. He denied that he had been reprimanded by any of his
superiors for talking to other employees or for loitering in the toilet
room but stated that McCall had directed him sometime early in
September not to smoke in the toilet room.
323428-42-vol 27-58
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Walter Wadzinski, foreman of the metal polishing department in
which Purcell, Mazur, and Schremser worked, testified that during
the last 2 weeks of their employment Purcell and Schremser circu-
lated among the polishers during working hours and engaged them
in conversation. Although he admitted that he had not heard any
of these conversations, Wadzinski stated at the hearing that he knew
they pertained to the Union because three or four polishers had
reported to him that they had been asked by Purcell and Schremser
to join the Union. After these reports had been made to him, his
testimony continued, he apprised McCall of the conduct of the two
men in question. Mazur was, he indicated clearly, not a. participant
in any of these activities to, which Purcell and Schremser devoted
their time during working hours. The foremen under whose super-
vision Bruner and Gull worked did not testify. Although_McCall
testified that Foremen Mueller and Anderson, who were assigned to
the casting department, had reported to him generally about the
visits of all six employees to the casting department during working
hours, Mueller and Anderson were not called by the respondent to
testify and to particularize the nature of the reports which they had
allegedly made to McCall. Under these circumstances, we are unable
to find that such reports, if made, referred to any unusual conduct
on the part of the six persons.
In addition, the respondent called as witnesses 27 nonsupervisory
empoyees, including the 14 whose testimony concerning Dereng we
have hereinbefore analyzed. Their testimony referred to the period
from early September to October 13. . Sixteen of these witnesses
stated that during that period Foley had asked them to join the
union or to attend its meetings. Six indicated that Gull had made simi-
lar requests of them. Five gave the same testimony as to Purcell.
Three were approached by Bruner. Two were solicited by Schrem-
ser, and one was asked by Mazur to join or attend a meeting. The
further testimony of the 27 employees shows clearly that, except for
their subject matter; the conversations and,the circumstances under
which they occurred were not unusual and did not warrant the im-
position of the serious penalty of discharge. All of them had first
apprised the management of these conversations about a week before
the hearing, at which time they were called into Brink's office and
were asked whether any of the seven persons named in the complaint
had requested them to join the union. One of the witnesses explained
his failure to report the' solicitation on his own initiative by saying
"I didn't think it was important."
The respondent's claim that the union activity of these employees
was so extensive as to interfere with their efficiency is, we find in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, without support in the record.
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 899'
The respondent introduced no production records in this connection,
and statistics compiled and offered by counsel for the Board and
received in evidence do not establish the respondent's contention.
We find, on the basis of all the evidence, that conversations of the six
complainants about the Union did not occur more frequently than, or
under circumstances different from, conversations which took place
in the plant among their fellow employees on non-union subjects not
related to the work. We find also that, while there may have been a
rule against smoking in the toilet room, such rule was disregarded
with impunity by most of the respondent's employees. We conse-
quently reject the testimony of the respondent's officials that these six
men engaged in conversations to an extraordinary and unusual extent,
and committed a serious infraction of plant rules by smoking in the
toilet room. We find, moreover, that the respondent discharged
these men because they engaged in union activity among its employees
and that such activity consisted solely of soliciting on behalf of the
Union. By terminating the employment of these men for this reason
the respondent attempted without justification under the Act to outlaw
the Union as a subject of discussion among its employees, permitting
them at the same time unrestricted freedom with respect to other
subjects. The discrimination is patent.2
With regard to the effect sought to be produced by the respondent
through these discharges, the Trial Examiner found, and we agree,
that: -
On the night of Friday, October 13, the Union was scheduled
to hold a meeting at a new address, located approximately three
blocks from the respondent's plant. In view of this proximity, as
well as the close attention paid by the respondent's officers to the
union activities of its employees, it can hardly be doubted that
they knew that this meeting was to take place. It was this day
that they chose for discharging the six complainants. The pub-
licity attending the discharges was clearly calculated to engender
fear of union activity in the - minds of other employees. The,
method adopted as well as the time chosen could have no other
effect. The employees knew that the complainants were the most
active in ' the Union, and they were now definitely shown, if they
did not know it before, that respondent was opposed to the
Union.
We find that, by discharging Nick Mazur, Otto Bruner, Gene Pur-
cell, Richard-Schremser, Edward Gull, and John Foley, the respondent
has discriminated against each of them-in regard. to hire and tenure
of employment; thereby discouraging membership in the Union. and
2 See footnote 1, supra.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the 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
Having found that the respondent has, by the acts of its officials
and supervisory employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization and to bar-
gain collectively, we shall order it to cease and desist from such conduct.
Since, as we have found, the lay-off and discharge of Dereng and
the discharges of Mazur, Bruner, Purcell, Schremser, Gull, and Foley
were discriminatory under the Act, we shall order the respondent to re-
.instate these seven persons to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges. We shall also order the respondent to make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him from the date of the discrimination to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.3
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Association of Die Casting Workers, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
i3 By "net earnngs" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transporttition, 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 seeking
employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood
of Carpenters dud 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 are not considered as earnings , but as provided
below in` the Order , shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount
thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State , county,
municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects See Matter of Republic Steel Coip and Steel Workers ' Organizing Com-
mittee, 9 N. L R B. - 219, enf ' d, Republic Steel Corp v National Labor Relations Board,
107 F . ( 2d) 472 ( C. C. A. 3 ), cert denied , 60 S. Ct . 806, order denying cert vacated and
rehearing and cert. granted , 60 S. Ct. 1072.
PARAGON DIE CASTING COMPANY 901
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair' labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of John Dereng, Nick Mazur, Otto Bruner, Gene Purcell,
Richard Schremser, Edward Gull, and John Foley the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) 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.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Paragon Die Casting Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a)' Discouraging membership in National Association of Die Cast-
ing Workers, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating
against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) 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 labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual ,aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to John Dereng, Nick Mazur, Otto Bruner, Gene Purcell,
Richard Schremser, Edward Gull, and John Foley immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges ;
(b) Make whole John Dereng, Nick Mazur, Otto Bruner, Gene
Purcell, Richard Schremser, Edward Gull, and John Foley for any
loss of pay they have suffered, by reason of the respondent's discrimi-
nation against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during
the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period; deducting,
however, from the amount otherwise due each of these employees,
monies received by him during the period between the date -of his
discharge and the date on which he is offered reinstatement for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-
relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief
projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees 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 the respond-
ent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and
(b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free
to become or remain members of National Association of Die Casting
Workers, affiliated with. the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and
that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because
of membership in or activity in behalf of that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.