Precision Castings Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 870 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. and NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF DIE CASTING WORKERS, REGION No. 5, AFFILIATED
WITH C. I. O.
Case No. C-0360.-Decided March 31, 19.43
Jurisdiction : die castings manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: specific allegations of, dismissed.
Discrimination: respondent's deprivation of-admitted economic strikers as a group
of their seniority, and postponement of their reinstatement in contrast with the
immediate reinstatement with full seniority of other employees who, though,
absent during the strike, denied connection therewith; respondent's contention
that strikers lost their seniority and automatically suffered postponement of
reinstatement because they were absent from work "without justifiable cause"
within the meaning of the forfeiture provision of seniority rules established
by its contract with labor organization, since disestablished as company-domi-
nated in another proceeding, rejected ; respondent's refusal to reinstate 4 of
the strikers allegedly because of conduct antedating the strike held as a matter
of fact to have been discriminatory ; respondent's refusal to reinstate another 4
of the strikers allegedly because of charges of violence made by the union's
rival, a company-dominated organization, and otherwise unsupported held as a
matter of fact to have been discriminatory in view of respondent's reinstate-
ment of other employees who, though similarly charged with equally grave
offenses, denied their participation in the strike ; charges of discrimination
in refusal to reinstate 11 strikers convicted of contempt by State Court for
disobedience of its order during strike, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : restoration of seniority, reinstatement, and back-pay awarded.
Mr. Thurlow Smoot and Mr. George H. O'Brien, for the Board.
Stanley d Smoyer, by Mr. Harry E. Smoyer and -Mr. Eugene B.
Schwartz,:of Cleveland, Ohio, for the-respondent.
Mr. Edward Lamb, of Toledo, Ohio, for the-Union. -
Mr.-William F. Scharnikow, of counsel to the Board
DECISION -_- - r - . -
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF CASE
Upon a' charge duly filed by National Association of Die Casting
Workers, Local No. 5, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the
48 N. L R B., No. 101.
870
PREiCISION' CASTIN'G'S COMPANY, 'INC. 871
Union, the National Lttbor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio),
issued its complaint dated January 31,1942, against Precision Castings
Company, Inc., Lakewood, Ohio, 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,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
that the respondent, at its Lakewood, Ohio, plant, herein referred to
as the Cleveland plant, on or about July 15, 1940, and at all times
thereafter "refused to reinstate, to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges," 34 named employees,' "for the reason that said
employees were leaders and members of and active in behalf of the
Union" and "had engaged in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." The
complaint further alleges that the respondent, "from December 1936,
prior thereto, and at all times subsequent thereto," interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees at the Cleveland plant in their
exercise of the right to self-organization by certain acts and conduct
of its officers and foremen including Maurice Tarr,' by refusing and
neglecting to comply with the Board's order of March 10, 1941, in
Case No. C-1658,3 and by continuing to engage in and presently
engaging in the unfair labor practices from which it was therein
ordered to cease and desist.
The employees so alleged to have
Bishop, Albert
Biss, Ben
Biss, John
Bosko, John
Cobler, Winslow
Czekaj, Ben
Di Peppino, Luigi
Dotchkoff, Boris
Dotson; Cecil Smith
Dotson, Scott
Enatenok , Michael
Foote, Norman
France , Anthony
Gallagher, Richard
Gallagher, Richard, Jr.
Heeder , William
Holler, Edward
been discriminated against are the following:
Kermendy, Frank
Klamorick, William
Latevola , Phillip
Mantels , Herbert
Manteli, Ralph
Matson, Edwin
Mulqueen, John
Palo, Edward
Paukner, Otto
Robbins, Rufus Benjamin
Ronges, Joseph
Selavko, Harry
Stephen, Russell
Vajdik, Joe
Wing , Robert
Yavorsky, Alex
Zeal, Michael
z Designated in the complaint as "Morris" Tarr.
a Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc. and National Association of Die Casting
.Workers, Local Nos 5 affiliated with C.' I. C., 30 N. L. R. B. 212.
872 DECISIONS '0'F "NATIONAL LABOR R .ELLATZONLS- BOARD - .,
On•June 27 ; 1942, ' the respondent (filed amotion fora bill of particu-
lars with respect to certain allegations of, the complaint ,,and, subject
to its - rights under-;said , motion,, its answer ' admitting - certain allega-'
tions of the complaint -as to the .nature ,of its business and denying
that it had engaged 'in,the 'unfair ;labor ;practices , alleged. , The-answer
further alleges that previous proceedings against the respondent- in_
Cases Nos . C-1658 and -C-185 .7 and the Board 's Decisions and Orders.
therein 4 constitute a bar to,the present proceeding except insofar as
the complaint herein alleges interference , restraint , and coercion by
the respondent subsequent to March 6, 1940.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11,
1942, at Cleveland , Ohio, before Walter Wilbur , the Trial Examiner-
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the
respondent were - represented by counsel and participated in 'the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard , to-examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties., •
The Trial Examiner ,, granted,in part the-,respondent 's motion for . a
bill of particulars , and 'then on motion by the respondent -struck
from the bill furnished by counsel for the Board certain allegations
of new matter not contained in the complaint . On motion by the
respondent , the Trial Examiner also struck the allegations of the com-
plaint , concerning : ( 1) the neglect and refusal of the respondent' to;
comply with the Board 's order in Case No. C-1658, which was based
upon an amended ,complaint issued on March 6 , 1940, and ( 2) the con-
duct of the respondent prior to March 6, 1940 . The Trial Examiner,
however, denied a motion by the' respondent •to strike the complaint
in its entirety . The Trial- Examiner also d'en'ied a lnotion ,by counsel
for the Board to strike the paragraphs of the answer alleging that
the proceeding in Case No . C-1857 is a bar to the present proceeding,.
but in effect overruled the defense thus alleged .' At the conclusion,
of the respondent 's case counsel for the Board offered testimony in
rebuttal and then moved for a continuance for the purpose of calling-
additional witnesses . The motion was'denied. At the close of the
430 N L R B 212 and 37 N. L. R B. 774.
5In Case No. C-1857, the Board dismissed the complaint without prejudice, on the
grounds that the Agreed Statement of Facts upon which that case was submitted and'.
which constituted almost the entire record as to the unfair labor practices there alleged,
stated 'only' evidentiaryfacts, ,that conflicting, inferences as to the ultimate facts might be-
drawn therefrom, and that it was therefore inadvisable to decide the, controversy-without
"a written record of testimony " 37 N L R B. 774, 783 During the hearing in the
present proceeding, the Trial Examiner rejected the offer of the respondent to introduce in
evidence the Agreed Statement of Facts from the previous proceeding However, all the-,,
schedules to the Agreed Statement and most of the facts covered therein-were-incorporated'
in the present record either as exhibits or by way of stipulation.' Moreover, the 'respondent
was in,a-position during the•,present bearing to adduce testimony as to all the facts, and,
did so In any event, the rejected exhibit, which we have examined and,considered, would
not alter our findings and conclusions, as set forth below, based on the entire record herein.
The ruling of the Trial'Examiner excluding the Agreed Statement of Facts is hereby affirmed.
1
PRECISION CASTINGS -COMPANY, INC. 873
hearing, the Trial Examiner granted motions 'by counsel for -the
Board -and the respondent to amend the complaint and the answer to
conform, to he, proof as to names, dates, and other-1 ormaj- matters....:
During .the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, made rulings
on 'other motions and on the admissibility of evidence. The Board
has ;reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no,
prejudicial error was committed. _ The rulings are hereby affirmed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, opportunity was afforded the
parties to argue orally -before the Trial-Examiner. - No arguments,
were made. Thereafter, the respondent and counsel for the Board
filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
•On October 2, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies -of which were duly served upon the respondent,and the
Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor, practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section •2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its un-
fair.labor..practices-,and,that, it,take,.certain.aflirmati^ve action to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
On October 29, 1942, and November 5, 1942, respectively, the Union
and the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
briefs in support of their exceptions. Pursuant to notice and at the
request of the respondent, a hearing was 'held before the Board at
Washington, D. C., on January 12, 1943, for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The respondent was represented -by counsel and participated
in the hearing; :the Union did not -appear.
The Board has,considered the exceptions and. briefs of the respond-
ent and the Union and, insofar as the .exceptions are inconsistent with
the findings, conclusions, 'and order ,set forth below, finds them to be
w ithout ;merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS'OF TIHE ,RESPONDENT'6
The respondent is, hnd has been since April 21, 1927, a corporation
organized under -and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York, having its principal office and place of business at Syra-
cuse, New York. 'The respondent operates and maintains three
plants located respectively at Syracuse, New York; Fayetteville,
O The findings in this Section are based upon admissions In the respondent 's answer, the
testimony of A. D. Weigolt, superintendent of the Cleveland plant, and a stipulation by the
respondent's counsel that there 'had been no substantial change in the business of the
respondent from the facts-as found by the Board in Matter of Precision Castings Company,
Inc. and National Association 'of Die,Casting Workers, Region 5, affiliated with C • I. 0, 37
N. L. R. B 774.
874 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL' LABOiR'= RELATIONS BOARD
New- York ; and Lakewood, Ohio. At 'these plants the respondent is
engaged in the production of die castings ,for the automotive trade
t and the utensil industry. The present proceeding involves only the
plant at Lakewood,- Ohio, 'which is known as the Cleveland plant.
During the year 1941 sales of products manufactured at the Cleveland
plant.amounted to-more than. $850,000, of which approximately' $250,-
000 represented-products sold and shipped to purchasers outside the
State of Ohio. During the same period, the respondent in its Cleve-
land plant used raw materials valued at approximately $340,000, of
which 35 to'40 percent in value were purchased at, and shipped-from,
points outside the State of Ohio.
The respondent admits,that it is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the Act. •
r
II. THE ORGANIZATION ,INVOLVED
National Association of Die Casting Workers, Region No. 5, is
a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations . It admits to membership employees of the respondent at
its- Cleveland plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discriminatory refusals of reinstatement
•1. The strike; the respondent's reinstatement procedure
On June 25, 1940, a strike, authorized by the Union, occurred in
the respondent's Cleveland plant. It is stipulated that the strike was
the consequence of a_ current-labor dispute unrehited to any unfair
labor practice on the part of the respondent. At the time, there
were 191 employees on the plant pay roll. A majority of these em-'
ployees absented themselves from work during the' strike. - Towards
the end of the-strike, 20 of these absentees 7 communicated directly
with their foremen, or with A. D. Weigolt, the plant superintendent,
stating their willingness to report ,to work.
The strike lasted until July 15, 1940, and while it was in progress
the respondent employed no new production workers: However;; be-
cause of the interruption in' its production schedules, the'respondent
7 Toczek, Joseph
Koncelik, Alvin
Soska, Leo
Ellis, Horace'
Jungeberg , Arthur
Elias , Charles,.
Hembly, John
Kopchak, Joseph, Jr.,
Leach, Norman
McAllister , Richard
Miller , Edward W.
Searle, George
Ptaszek, Michael'
Ptaszek, Albert
Miller, Kingsbury R.
Banas, Andrew
Esz, Michael;
Thiede, Helmut
,,, Crane,,, John
Wotowiec, Mathew
PRECISION CAST ENGiS OOMPAN'Y, ENC. 8Th
diverted to its - Syracuse plant some ofthe work in process of produc-
' tion at `Cleveland and shipped to its Syracuse plant some of the dies
and tools from its Cleveland plant.
On July 13, 1940, Weigolt• learned through the press that termina-
tion of the -strike was imminent . In -anticipation of the return to
work - of the - employees participating in or affected by the strike,
Weigolt conferred with J. W. Knapp, who was then the respondent's
vice president -and general manager, and thereafter , in company with
J. - F. Millspaugh ,, sales manager of the Cleveland plant; met with
counsel for the respondent at Cleveland , for the purpose of formulat-
ing a procedure to govern reinstatement . A form of application for
reinstatement and a , form of notice to employees outlining the condi-
tions of reinstatement and the reinstatement procedure were prepared
with the aid and advice of counsel , and were printed.
The adopted, form of application for -reinstatement was as follows:
PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC.
CLEVELAND PLANT
12600 Berea Road
APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
1. Name of Applicant--------------------------------------------
2. Mail Address-------------------------------------- ---- ----- -
-3. Former Department___________________________________________
4. Last day worked in 1940_______________________________________
5. Reason for absence: ( ) Illness
( ) Vacation -
( ) Absence with leave of Mr. ____________
( ) Intimidation June 25, 1940 to date
( ) Absent from work without leave and
not because of intimidation.
6. If my application is accepted I agree to perform my duties in a
workmanlike manner and to do my part toward the successful opera-
tion of the plant ._____________------------------ ( ) Yes ( ) No
7. I have read the "Notice • As To Reinstatement" dated July 15,
•1940 which was handed to me with this application and I make it
under said rules with the understanding that by so doing I shall not
be considered to have waived any of my rights under the National
Labor Relations Act ----------------------------- ( ) Yes ( ) No
--------------------------------
Date Filed____________________
Date Accepted-__•_
Signature of Applicant
,876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REILLATIOMS BOARD
The notice,, dated July. 15, 1940,. which the respondent adopted for
the purpose of informing the employees of the conditions of reinstate-
ment, provided (1) that applications for reinstatement would be re-
quired of "all persons"- not rehired or reinstated prior to July, 14,
1940; (2) that "persons" who had not worked during the period from
June 25 to, July 15, 1940; because .of illness, vacation, absence with
leave, or intimidation, would be reinstated in the order of, their sen-
iority as of June 24, 1940, as fast as 'available work required their
services; and (3) that `,`persons" not within the foregoing classifica-
tions and who had not worked during the period from June 25 to
July 15, 1940, would be reinstated as fast as available work required
their services,, in the order of their applications, but with new sen-
iority from the day they were returned to work, except that "persons"
who, during that period, had "engaged in acts of violence, against the
person or property of any employee of the company which act or
acts are deemed by the,management to be of such nature as to prevent
the former from working satisfactorily with the latter," or who had
"eiigaged in acts of violence against the property" of the respondent,
or who had "willfully attempted to prevent the operation of the
plant . . . except by merely absenting themselves from work without
leave," would not be reinstated immediately, but that applications of
such persons would be accepted and "considered for future action."
By this notice, the respondent informed its employees, in substance,
that all applicants for reinstatement who had been "absent from
work without leave and not because of intimidation" or who had
been absent for any reason except illness,, vacation, leave from the
respondent, or intimidation could at best expect to be reinstated
without seniority. The strikers obviously fell within this group
which was to lose their seniority. The respondent asserts that the
form of application which i's adopted was designed to reveal whether
the individual applicants had violated the plant's seniority rules,
which provide inter alia that `. `an employee shall lose his senior-
ity... , . if' lie remains away-,from his work for three days or longer
without justifiable cause and without notifying the Employer of his
intended absence." Superintendent Weigolt, to whom the respondent
entrusted the matter of reinstatement, testified that, in his opinion,
the strikers were absent from work "without justifiable cause" and
had,, therefore, lost their seniority. He further admitted that the
purpose of the respond'ent's reinstatement procedure was to afford
the respondent a basis for classification of the employees who had not
reported for duty during the strike into two categories, one compris-
ing `those' employees' who had voluntarily 'pa'rti'cipated' in `and asso-
ciated themselves with the strike, and the other comprising those
employees who had been absent for other reasons.
The respondent's seniority rules, including the above-quoted pro-
vision for loss of seniority because of absence, were first adopted on
PRECISION CASTINGS GOMPAN'Y, INIC. - 57,7
,.or 'about November 25, 1939, in a contract between the respondent.
,and Precision - Employees Association, a labor organization herein
-called the- P.' E.A. On March 10, 1941; the Board, in "its Decision
and Order in Case No. C-1658, found the P. E. A. to be a dominated
labor organization and ordered the respondent to disestablish it as
-the bargaining.-agent of its employees and to cease giving-effect to
the contract between the respondent and the P. E. A.s
On July 14, 1940, a Sunday, the Union voted to end the strike.
-On the following morning, a number of the employees who had not
worked during 'the strike appeared at the plant. A committee ap-
pointed by the Union, and accompanied by the mayor of Lakewood,'
called on Superintendent Weigolt to discuss the situation. Weigolt
advised the committee of the conditions on which reinstatement would
be effected. After this conference, the Union held an impromptu
meeting at which the. respondent's conditions were discussed and the
employees were advised, as the only means of, getting back their jobs,
to comply with the respondent's requirement for the filing of written
applications.- It was suggested, however, that, instead of adopting
-the respondent's terminology of "absent from work without leave and
-not because of intimidation" as the stated "Reason for absence," the
strikers substitute the words "on strike" on the application form.
In the course of the afternoon of July 15,, 51 employees applied to
the respondent for reinstatement. The procedure in each, case was
substantially the, same; The applicants were admitted, one at a time,
-to Weigolt's office, where each was furnished with a copy of the appli-
cation for reinstatement, in the form hereinabove described, to which
was stapled a copy of the notice of the conditions of reinstatement.
'The applications were filled out in Weigolt's presence and handed to
Weigolt Personally. Those applicants for reinstatement who indi-
-cated on their application forms that they had not worked during the
-period of the strike because of illness, vacation,, absence with leaye,
•or- intimidation, -were, advised that they would be reinstated as soon
.as work was available. - Those applicants whose answers to questions
on the application form identified them as strikers were advised that,
their applications would be later considered.9
30 N L. R. B. 212 The Board's Order was subsequently enforced by the Sixth Circuit
'Court of Appeals N L R B v Precision Castings Co , 130 F . ( 2d) 639,
9 The findings in this paragraph are based principally on the testimony of A D Weigolt,
plant superintendent Weigolt testified that he personally inspected each application as' it
was completed ;. that be advised those who checked any of the 'i'first four subdivisions of
question 5 of the application that they would be-taken back as soon as work was available ;
that be advised those who had written "on strike ," or who had, checked the fifth subdivision
that their cases would be considered ; and that subsequently he made two separate files of
the applications received ; the'only' basis for'the separation being ' whether the applications
showed the reason for absence to be one of the , first four subdivisions of question 51, or the
fifth subdivision; all' applications ' beariiig the end 'orseirient "on strike" being considered as
equivalent to those which showed subdivision fifth of question 5 as the cause of absence
assigned
878 DECISIONS OF -NATIONIAL - LABOiR R.ELATLONNS BOARD
Between July -16 and November"- 5; -1940, 37 , additional applications
were received, the procedure, so far as the record indicates; being'sub-
staritially that which had been followed on July 15. The - following
table summarizes the, applications according to their dates and the
reasons assigned for absence: - ' -
Date
Num-
ber of
map of
'
111-
ness
Vaca-
tion
Absence
with
leave
Intimi-
dation
Absence
with-
lea
out
ve
On.,
strik
Norea-
son as-
signed
Total
July 15--------------------- 51 -------- a [3] -------- 26 2 23 ------- 51
July 16--------------------- 7 ------- a [1] -------- 3 1 3 -------- 7
July 17-------------------- ' 5 - -- 1 -------- '-
4
r 5
July 22--------------------- 5 1 3 1 -
July 23--------------------- 1 1 - -- -------- --------
July 25--------------------- 1 - - - - - --- ------- - - -- -------- -------- I
July 26--------------------- 1 --- ------ -------- 1 -- -------- -------- ------ 1
July 29--------------------- 1 -------- -------- 1 -- -------- -------- 1
July 30-------------------- 1 ---- ---- -------- 1 -- -------- ------- --------
July 31--------------------- 1 -------- -------- 1 --- -------- -------
August 2-------------------- 1 ------- -------- -------- - ^- `------- 1 1
August 8-------------------- 1 -------- -------- -------- -- -------- ------- 1 1
August 13------------------- 1 -------- -- 1 -- ----- -- ------=- -------
August 16------------------- 1 -------- -------- __-__ ___ __-----_ -----___ ____----
August 19 1 -------- _ __--_--_ 1
August 21------------------- 3 -------- -------- 2 -------- -------- ------- 3
August 22------------------- 1 -------- -------- 1 -------- ---- --- --------
August 26------------------- 1 ------- -------- 1 ------- ------ -------- 1
August 29------------------- - -------- -------- 2 ------- -------- ------- 2
September 3---------------- 1 -------- ---- 1 -------- ------- --------
1
November 5 1 -------- -------- 1 ------ -------- - - 1
88 2 [5] 19 -3 - 31 • 1 88
a Intimidation was assigned as additional reason for failure to report to work.
b Application of Wm. K. Green.
The 34 applications which indicated'either that 'the' applicants'had
been "on strike" or that they had been "absent without leave-and not,
'because of intimidation," were.filed by the 34 employees named in th'e
complaint herein as having been discriminated 'against by the
respondent. -
The applicants for reinstatement wlio inferentially denied partici-
pation in the strike by the manner in which they filled, out their
applications; and 25 additional employees who were not required by
the respondent to fill out applications, were reinstated with full sen-
iority in the first `available jobs without regard to their' seniority
status relative to that of the strikers. Of the 25 employees who were
thus reinstated without filing an application, 20 were the employees
,who had informed the respondent towards-the end of the strike that
they were willing to return to work. No explaliation was given"by
the respondent for.-not requiring written applications from the other
,5110)who included' Carl Webbeking,'president of the P. E.'A.' In all,
56 other employees' were reinstated before the first., admitted ^ strikers
were 'permitted to return to work bn'August 14, 1940.' On and after
,0 Helen 'Broz, W. Cook, Staley Krupa , Edgar Musgrove, and Carl Webbeking,
4
C,; ;; ^' PREi01SION CASPLNG4S,'GOMPAiNY, PNC.••; 879,
that datei.16;strikers were reinstated with new seniority-,, and. upon,
the, following -dates,:
Luigi Di' Peppirio_------------ __ August 14-1J940
Otto'Paukner -___________________________ August 14,• 1940
Alex Yavorsky__________________________________ August 14, 1940
Winslow; Cobler -------------------------------- August 15, 1940
Ralph Mantel__________________________________ August 15; 1940'
,Norman Foote=___-____________________________ August 16, 1940
William Klamorick----------------------------- August 16, 1940
Edwin • Matson'________________________________ August 16, 1940
Rufus Benjamin Robbins________________________ August 16, 1940
Michael Enatenok_______________________________ August 19, 1940
Russell Stephan--------------------------------- August 19, 1940
Anthony France -------------------------------- August 20, 1940
Joe Vajdik___'_____________________________%___ August 22, 1940
Philip Latevola______________________________ September 10, 1940
Edward Holler________________________________ January 13, 1941
Harry Selavko________________________________ January 13, 194112
Although normal production was resumed at the Cleveland plant
within 2 or 3 months after the strike and the respondent hired 84
new employees for work at the plant between September 3, 1940, and
January 6, 1941, none of the other strikers, all of whom had filed
applications, had been offered reinstatement at the time of the hear-
ing. Weigolt testified that their cases were closed, so far as their
status as applicants for reinstatement was concerned.
As we have already found, the respondent engaged no new em-
ployees during the strike. The respondent contends that its, rein-
statement procedure was designed to effect the, reinstatement of its
employees in the order of their seniority, taking into account the
fact that some 'of them had lost their seniority because of their
absence from work during the strike "without justifiable cause,"
within the meaning of the respondent's seniority rules. The
respondent thus based its reinstatement procedure on the premise
that the strikers had forfeited their seniority. ' It is clear that,
although the form of application for reinstatement avoided reference
to the strike; its purpose and effect were to distinguish the voluntary
participants in the strike from those employees who were willing to
state that they had been absent during the strike for other reasons.
This discrimination against the admitted strikers is further evi-
denced by the manner in which the respondent administered its
announced reinstatement procedure. Although the reinstatement
application was framed ostensibly to reveal any absence "without
11 Although the conditions of reinstatement , as set forth in the respondent 's notice, pro-
vided for new seniority from the date employees in the deferred classification returned
to work, the respondent in fact reinstated the 16 strikers on the basis of 6 months ' accrued
seniority. -
'12 Of the 16 employees reinstated , 7 subsequently left the employ of the respondent, viz:
Winslow Cobler , Michael Enatenok, William ' Klamorick , Harry Selavko , Russell Stephan,
Alex Yavorsky , and Edward Holler.
11
880`' DECISIONS' OFF 'NATIO\1AL LABOR` R n TbONS B,0`ARD
t
justifiable cause," and not merely absence on, strike, the respondent
did not insist upon the filing of applications by 25 of the absent em-
ployees whom it had no reason to suspect of strike participation. Of
these 25 employees, 20 had orally indicated to the respondent towards
the end of the strike that their absence was-due to "intimidation,`
thereby making it clear that they were not participating in the strike.13
As to the 5 others, 1 of whom was the president of the P. E. A., the re-
spondent gave no explanation of why it did not require them to file
applications disclosing the reasons for their absence during the strike.
This relaxation of the rules for reinstatement and the respondent's ac-
ceptance at face value, without investigation, of. the reasons for ab-
sence given in the applications which were filed, after having indi-
cated to the employees which reasons the respondent would consider
justifiable, demonstrate the respondent's indifference as to whether its
procedure in fact revealed unjustified absences and its willingness
to accept a striker's open repudiation of his connection with the strike
as the price of immediate reinstatement with full seniority. Post-
ponement of reinstatement and loss of seniority were thus limited
to those employees who admitted their participation in the strike and
thereby affirmed their loyalty to the Union.
We are convinced and we find that the respondent's reinstatement
procedure was conceived and executed to deprive those of the em-
ployees who 'admitted participation in the strike of their seniority,
and also to postpone their reinstatement.
The respondent's contention that, under the seniority rules estab-
lished by its contract with the P. E. A., the strikers automatically
forfeited their seniority, and that the respondent was compelled to
recognize that fact, is without merit. Since the P. E. A. has been
found to be a dominated organization and since the respondent has
been ordered to disestablish the P. E. A. as a collective bargaining
agency and to cease giving effect to its contract with the P. E. A.,14
the case involves no question of a seniority or no-strike provision in a
collective contract made as the result of genuine collective bargaining
between the respondent and a bona fide labor organization. The sen-
iority provision upon which the respondent relies is no more than a
company rule, and an employer may not so apply or administer a
seniority policy' is to penalize or discriminate against employees who
have exercised their right under the Act to engage in concerted
activity.
13 In its brief, the respondent asserts that these 20 men had returned to work early, in
the morning of July 15, 1940, before the respondent's plan for reinstatement became effective.
The 'respondent' s notice of the terms and conditions of reinstatement provided , however,.
that "applications for reinstatement will be . . . required of all persons not rehired or
reinstated prior to July 14, 1940."
14Matter of Precision Castings Company, Ino, and National Association of Die Casting
Workers , Local No 5, affiliated with C I. 0 , 30 N. L. R: B. 212.
`PRECISION CASTTN S COMPANY, INC. 881'
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent, by, adopt-
ing • and' following the, above-described reinstatement procedure, dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure 'of employment and the
terms and conditions of employment of employees who admitted their
participation in the strike, 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 respondent's refusal to reinstate Ben Czekaj, Boris Dotchkoff,
Frank Kermendy, and Edward Palo, and its delay in reinstating-
Edward Holler
Employees Ben Czekaj, Boris Dotchkoff, Frank Kermendy, Edward
Palo, and Edward Holler were members of the Union, participated in
the strike, and indicated in their applications for reinstatement that •
they had-been "on strike." The respondent has not reinstated them.
As to these employees, Superintendent Weigolt testified that prior
to, but not within, the 5 months preceding the strike, Foreman Bub
had repeatedly complained that Dotchkoff was constantly arguing
concerning his compensation and the type of jobs he was given; that
prior to, but not within, the month preceding the strike, Foreman
Francoeur had repeatedly complained that Czekaj, Kermendy, Palo,
and Holler, were unruly and were creating dissension between them-
selves and the other men; 15 that Weigolt had discussed the conduct
of these men with the foremen and had talked with several of the men
themselves on different occasions more than a month before the strike;
but that at no time before the strike was any consideration given to
their discharge. Weigolt further testified that, after the strike, he
decided to reinstate the five men in question; that he spoke to the fore-
men to learn whether there were jobs available for these men, as he
did before reinstating any of the strikers; that Foreman Bub objected
to the reinstatement of Dotchkoff and Foreman Francoeur objected
to the reinstatement of Czekaj, Kermendy, Palo, and Holler, because
of their conduct before the strike about which the above-mentioned'
complaints had been made; and that these men were therefore not
reinstated. Holler, however, was reinstated on January 13, 1911,
after having told Weigolt that he would change his behavior.. Wei-
golt testified that he would have reinstated the others if they had told
him the same thing, but that, although he had their addresses, he did
hot communicate with them to ask whether they were willing to do so.
Stated,briefly, the evidence shows that the respondent used the strike
as an occasion for terminating the employment of these employees
for reasons antedating the strike, and not previously regarded by the
I5 Francoeur was not available as a witness at the hearing, and the respondent did not
call any of its employees to testify directly- as to this alleged dissension Palo denied' It.
882, DECISIONS- OF -NATIONAL LABOiR. -RELATIONS-- BOARD
respondent as warranting, such disciplinary action.. In view- of the
respondent's treatment of the strikers, as a whole,, we are convinced and
we find that the respondent' in fact denied these employees reinstate-
ment because of. their union membership and their participation in
the strike.l" By thus refusing to reinstate Czekaj, Dotchkoff,- Ker-
mendy, and Palo, and delaying the, reinstatement of. Holler, the re-
spondent discriminated in regard to A heir hire and- tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its _ employees in the-ex-
ercise of the rights'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. The respondent's refusal to reinstate Albert Bishop, Joseph Ronges,
Robert Wing, and Michael Zeal
Employees Albert Bishop, Joseph Ronges, Robert Wing, and
Michael Zeal, like Czekaj and the others discussed above, were mem-,
bers of the Union, participated in the strike, indicated in their.appli-
cations for reinstatement that they had been "on strike," and have not
been reinstated.
On July 12, 1940, a warrant was issued by'the Municipal Court of
Lakewood for the arrest of Bishop, for an alleged assault and battery
on Clarence Decker, another employee. On December 23, 1940, after
numerous continuances, the case was "continued indefinitely."
On July 20, 1940, the P. E. A. requested a conference with the re-
spondent and submitted to the ' respondent a memorandum in which
it complained of the conduct during the strike of 37 of the respond-
ent's employees, including Bishop, Ronges, Wing, and Zeal. A few
weeks later, representatives of the respondent, including Weigolt and
counsel for the respondent, conferred with a committee of the
P. E. A., and the respondent's counsel questioned a number of alleged
witnesses of the acts charged in the P. E. A. memorandum. Affi-
davits as to some, but not all, of these charges were also presented to
the respondent. At no time did any representative. of the respond-
ent question Bishop, Ronges, Wing, Zeal, or any of the other em-a
ployees mentioned in the memorandum.
So far as the affidavits concerned Bishop, they charged him only
with the alleged- assault for which he was, arrested. Ronges was
mentioned in but a single affidavit as being "among those outside the
plant" when another employee was struck by an unidentified person
for having refused to join the pickets. Wing- was charged, merely
in the unsworn memorandum of the P. E. A., with having been one
of a group of men of which unidentified members threw stones at
16 Cf. N. L R. B. v. Lund, 103 F. (2d) 815, 819 (C. C. A. 8) ; Hamilton -Brown Shoe Co.
V. N. L. R. B., 104 F. (2d) 49, 53 (C. C. A. 8) ; Hartsell Mills Co. v. N. L. if. B., 1111 F. (2d)
291, 292 (C C. A 4 ) : Burk Bros . v. N. L. if. B., 117 F. (2d) 686, 687 (C. C. A. 8) ;
N. L. if. B. v. Blanton Co , 121 F. (2d) 564, 570 (C. C. A. 8).
PRECISION CASTINGS COMPAI1]Y, INC. 883,
automobiles , and with having said that an assaulted non-striker
got what he deserved . Zeal was charged , also only in , the unsworn
P. E. A. memorandum , with having tried to run a non; strike r's auto-,
mobile off the road.
Charges of the same general character were also made in the memo-
randum , submitted by the-P . E. A. against : ( 1) Czekaj , Kermendy,
and Palo, whom Weigolt testified he would have reinstated but for
their foremen 's objections ; ( 2) 15 of the 16 strikers whom the re-
spondent reinstated ; and (3 ) Harold Mantell, Joe Kerkes, John
Stanek, and David Witzke, who ascribe their absence during the
strike to "intimidation " and whom the respondent reinstated with full
seniority.
The respondent contends that it refused reinstatement to Bishop,
Ronges, Wing, and Zeal, because of its reasonable belief : ( 1) from the
criminal proceeding against Bishop, that he had committed the as-
sault and battery with which he was charged; and (2) from the
charges made and the affidavits submitted by the P. E. A., that Ronges,
Wing, and Zeal had participated "in unlawful conduct" during the
strike. The charges ii question were made by the P. E. A., the
Union's rival and an organization dominated by the respondent; the
respondent's investigation of these charges was ex parte; and, as has
already been noted, the criminal proceeding °against Bishop was, in
effect, dismissed . Under the circumstances , there was no reasonable
basis for the respondent to believe that the charges were true. In
any event , the respondent decided to reinstate 22 other ' employees and
did, in fact , reinstate 18 of them, despite charges of equal gravity
made against them in the memorandum prepared by the P. E. A. If
these employees were acceptable despite their alleged misconduct,
it' is difficult to believe that Bishop, Ronges, Wing, a'nd Zeal were
unacceptable because of similar alleged misconduct . We find that the
respondent refused to reinstate Albert Bishop, Joseph Ronges,
Robert Wing, and Michael Zeal because of their participation in the
strike and their adherence to the Union, and not because of their
alleged misconduct during the strike. The respondent thus dis-
criminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. The respondent 's refusal to reinstate the employees adjudged in
contempt of the State Court's restraining order
During the strike, the respondent applied for, and on July 1, 1940,
obtained from the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, a temporary restraining order, apparently . directed against cer-
521247-43-vol. 48-57
884 DECISIONS OF NATZON'AL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
tain activities of the strikers, although the grounds of the application,
and the provisions of the order are not disclosed in the record. On
July 13, 1940,` the Court adjudged the following 11 of the re-
spondent's employees in contempt of its order : John Biss, John
Bosko, William Heeder,_ Cecil S. Dotson, Richard Gallagher, Jr.,
Richard Gallagher, Sr., Herbert Mantell, Scott Dotson, Ben Biss,
John Mulqueen, and Harry Selavko. In its minutes, the Court stated.
that these employees had committed acts in violation of its order, such
as stoning automobiles and non-striking employees, picketing the
homes of non-striking employees, threatening non-striking employees
and' their families, and mass picketing. The penalties imposed by
the Court varied from a maximum of 10 days in jail and $500 fine
to a minimum, in the case of 2 of the contemnors, of payment of
costs.
None of the 11 contemnors, except Selavko, who was rehired on
January 13, 1941, has been reemployed by the respondent. The re-
spondent contends, and Superintendent Weigolt's testimony indicates,)
that it refused to reinstate these employees because of their convic-
tion of contempt and because of the acts which the Ohio Court'
found that they had committed during the strike, and not because of
their union membership or their participation in the strike. We find,
therefore, that the respondent did not discriminatorily refuse to rein-
state John Biss, John ^Bosko, William Heeder, Cecil S. Dotson,
Richard Gallagher, Jr., Richard Gallagher, Sr., Herbert Mantell,
Scott Dotson, Ben Biss, and John Mulqueen.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
Paragraph.VII of the complaint, as supplemented by the bill of
particulars submitted by counsel for the Board, alleges that the re-
spondent, by certain statements and conduct of Foreman Maurice
Tarr,. Foreman Bub, and Superintendent Weigolt, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Maurice Tarr has been for the past 13 years die-casting and mill-
wright foreman at the Cleveland plant, and prior thereto he was an
employee of the respondent at the Fayetteville plant in the same de-
partment with Richard Gallagher. In 1935, Gallagher participated
in a srtike at the respondent's ,Fayetteville plant and was not rein-
stated. On the appeal of Gallagher and his wife, Tarr hired Gal-
lagher at the 'Cleveland plant on December 8, 1936, after getting
authority to do so from Superintendent Weigolt and General Man-
ager Knapp. At the hearing herein, Gallagher first testified that,
when he was employed, Tarr told him that he could work at the
Cleveland plant but.could not belong to any union. He later testis
PR,)EiCISION' CASTIN'G^S COMPANY, ENT. 885
fled that Tarr had said nothing to him about unions at the time
he was employed, but that within a few days after he had gone to
work, Tarr told him that he could not belong to any union and con-
tinue to work at the Cleveland plant.
In the fall of 1939, the Union started its efforts to organize the
Cleveland plant. Beginning in January 1940, according to Gallagher,
Tarr spoke to him about the Union "at least once a week," and in one
conversation "around the first of the year," after asking Gallagher if
he belonged to the Union and how many members it had, Tarr said
that he believed that Smith Dotson and Johnny Biss were the only
union members employed by the respondent and that they were
"going to get throwed out on their ears." Although Gallagher testi-
fied that he had conversations with Tarr "after that,, every day or
two" and that "at different times . . . between the first of the year
and the strike" Tarr said that he was "going to throw [Biss and
Dotson] out," Gallagher was unable to give even approximate
dates and his testimony does not indicate whether these statements
by Tarr continued 'after March 6, 1940, the date of issuance of the
complaint in Case No. C-1658. Tarr testified that Gallagher had
been employed with full knowledge on his part and on the part of
Knapp, the respondent's general manager, of Gallagher's prior union
activities. He denied that he had warned Gallagher against belong-
ing to any union, or that he had ever referred to Biss and Dotson as
Gallagher testified.
Gallagher further testified that "just before the strike," on a Satur-
day morning during' working hours, he left his usual work station
in the castings room, went into the die shop adjoining, and there en-
gaged in a 15-minute argument with two die makers over the rela-
tive merits of the Union and the P. E. A. He championed the cause
of the Union, and the other two employees argued in behalf of the
P. E. A. When he reported for work on the following morning',
Tarr called him into his office. Gallagher's testimony as to what then
occurred is as follows:
Q. Will you tell us what was said by you and what was said
by him at that time ?
A. He wanted to know, he asked me what the argument was
on Saturday morning. Well, I said I was just telling them
,fellows the truth and I said it kind of hurt them. He says,
``you want to work here?", II says, "Yes, I'd like to," so he says,
"you go back to your machine," he says, "and keep your mouth
shut from now on," he' says "or you'll be thrown out of here."
Tarr was not questioned as' to this incident.
Gallagher also testified that, on the night before the strike, while
he was working in the castings room, Tarr said to' him that he
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RE 'LATIONS' BOARD
understood that the Union intended to call a strike the next day, to
which Gallagher replied that he had heard nothing about a strike.,
However, the next morning, when the strike occurred, Gallagher and
several other employees visited Tarr's home. On direct•examination,
Gallagher testified that Tarr said, "you fellows ain't goilna worry a
bit. , Come right in tomorrow morning; the strike isn't going to stop
you fellows from working at all." On cross-examination, Gallagher
admitted that this statement was made by Tarr in answer to a ques-
tion by one of the employees who indicated his concern about, the
strike.
The only ' other testimony • relating to • Tarr's ^ attitude ,,toward ,the
Union was that of John Biss, who testified that he joined the Union
in November 1939, that he started during the same month to wear his
union button in the plant, and that, on the first day he wore it, Tarr
looked at' it and said, "I never thought you would do a thing like
that to me." Biss further testified that between that time and the
start of the strike he "had quite a few riffs with foremen . . . it all
related to the Union but I can't exactly remember now; it's been so
long."
The testimony hereinabove reviewed, so far as it relates to the
period before March 6, 1940, was properly accepted by the Trial
Examiner only for whatever value it might have as background. The
Trial Examiner found that the testimony relating to the period sub-
sequent to March 6, 1940, is either too ambiguous, too inconsequen-
tial, or too indefinite to be given weight, and the Union filed no
exception to this finding. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint as to
the anti-union activities of Foreman Tarr.
Boris Dotchkoff testified that, between 2 and 4 weeks before the
strike, his foreman chided him for joining the Union and said that
it was no good for him. George Bub, the foreman to whom this
testimony related, denied that he had made any such statement.
Dotchkoff's testimony is uncorroborated, and there is no other evi-
dence of anti-union activity by Bub. We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Bub did not make the statement attributed -to- him
by Dotchkoff.
Dotchkoff also testified that, after he filed his application for rein-
statement, he went to see Superintendent Weigolt, who said that he
had no job for Dotchkoff and that he remembered Dotchkoff as a
participant in a previous strike. Weigolt denied having made any
such statement. The Trial Examiner, who saw and heard the wit
ness, credited Weigolt's denial, and we agree.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence does not
sustain the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion , in
Paragraph VII of the complaint. --
- PRECISION CASTINGS COMPANY, INC. - 887
IV. THE,„ EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A, above
occurring. in connection with the operation of the respondent, de-
scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent, by the reinstatement rules
and procedure adopted and followed by it after the strike, discrimi-
nated against its striking employees. This discrimination took the
form, in part, of reinstatement of some of the striking employees
with new seniority. The names of the employees who were thus
reinstated and who are still employed by the respondent are listed in
Appendix A hereto. To remedy this discrimination, we shall order
the respondent to restore the employees whose names appear in
Appendix A to the- seniority status which they would now have if it
were not for the respondent's discrimination.
We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily refused
to reinstate the striking employees whose names are listed in Appen-
dix B hereto. We shall therefore order the respondent to offer to
the employees named in Appendix B immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with
seniority status equal to that which they would now have if it were
not for the respondent's discrimination - against them, and without
prejudice to their other rights and privileges. Reinstatement shall
be effected in the following manner : all new employees hired by the
respondent after July 15, 1940, shall, if necessary to provide em-
ployment for those to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed. If,'
thereafter, despite such reduction in force, there is not sufficient
employment available for all the employees to be offered reinstate-
ment, all available positions shall be distributed among such em-
ployees according to their relative seniority as of June 25, 1940,
,without discrimination against any employee because of his union
affiliation or activities or because of his participation in the strike.
Those employees, if any, remaining after such distribution, for whom
no employment is immediately available, shall be placed upon a pref-
erential list and offered employment in their former or substantially
888 DECISIONS OF,NATIOTNAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
equivalent positions as such employment becomes available and be-
fore other persons are hired for such work, in the order-of their
relative seniority as of June, 25, 1940.
In addition to discriminatorily refusing to reinstate • the striking
employees whose names are listed in Appendix B hereto, the re-
spondent, by adopting and following the reinstatement rules and
procedure described in Section III A above;- discriminatorily de-
layed the reinstatement of the striking employees whose names are
listed in Appendix A hereto and who are still in the respondent's
employ and of the striking employees whose names are listed in
Appendix C hereto and who have left the respondent's employ since
their reinstatement. To remedy the effects of the respondent's re-
fusal to reinstate the employees whose names, appear in Appendix
B and whom we have ordered reinstated and of the respondent's
delay in reinstating the employees whose names appear in Appendix
A ' and Appendix C, we shall order the respondent to make whole
the employees listed in Appendices A, B, and C for any loss of pay
they have suffered because of the respondent's discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount which he would normally have earned as wages during the
period from the date on which he would have been reinstated if the
respondent had reinstated him in the order of his seniority to the
date on which he was in fact reinstated or the date of the respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement or of his placement on a preferential
list, as the case may be, less his net earnings during such 'period .17
The respondent contends that Boris Dotclikoff wilfully incurred
Any loss of earnings that he may have suffered since the strike. In
support.of this contention, the respondent at the hearing offered to
prove that Dotchkoff "has devoted his entire time to operating .. .
a retail store..." In effect, therefore, the respondent offered to prove
that Dotchkoff has been gainfully employed since the strike. Evi-
dence of self-employment is not evidence of wilfully incurred losses.
However, in computing the amount of back pay, if any, due to Dotch-
koff, the reasonable value of the services performed by him in the
operation of the retail store shall be regarded as his earnings during
the period for which he is reimbursed.
It is conceded that all the employees whose names are listed in
Appendix B hereto and whom we are directing the respondent to
reinstate have obtained substantially equivalent employment else-
17 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 Worke,s Union, Local 2590 , 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for
work performed upon Fed&ral , 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.
PRECISION, CASTINGS COMPAiNY, 'INC. 889
where, - and--the respondent therefore contends that no reinstatement
order as, to , them is warranted . , For reasons previously expressed by
us, we believe that effectuation of the policies of the Act , requires
the reinstatement of these , employees.18
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon , the entire
record in the case , the,Board makes the following: .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Association of Die Casting Workers , Region No. 5,
affiliated with C. I. '0., is a labor organization , within the meaning of,
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. 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.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
or the terms and conditions of employment of the employees whose
names are listed in Appendices A, B, and C hereto , and thereby dis-
couraging membership in National Association of Die Casting Work-
ers, Region No. 5, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 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, Precision Castings Company, Inc., Lakewood, Ohio, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from : -
(a) Discouraging membership in National Association of Die Cast-
ing Workers, Region No. 5, affiliated with C. 1-0., or in any other
labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the
hire or tenure of employment, or the terms or conditions of employ-
ment, of any of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
,its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
is See Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of-America, Local Union No. 249, 31 N L R B. 994, 1099-1100 Phelps-Dodge
Corp. v N. L R. B. 313 U S. 177
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other- mutual,aid
-'and- 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) Restore the' employees listed in Appendix A hereto to the
seniority status which they would now have if it were not for the
respondent's discrimination against them;
(b) Offer the employees whose names are listed in- Appendix B
hereto immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, with seniority status equal to that which
they would now have if it were not for the respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, and without prejudice to their other rights and
privileges, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The
remedy," and place those employees for whom employment is not im-
mediately available upon a preferential list and thereafter offer them
employment as it becomes available, in the manner set forth in said
section ;
(c) Make whole the employees whose names are listed in Appendices
A, B; and C hereto for any loss of pay they have suffered because of
the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the, amount which he would normally
have earned as wages during the, period from the date on which he
would have been reinstated if thie respondent had reinstated him in the
order of his seniority to the date on which he was in fact reinstated
or the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement or of his place-
ment on a preferential list, as set forth above in the section entitled
"The remedy," as the case may be, less his net earnings during such
period ;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous place throughout the respond-
ent's Cleveland plant, and maintain 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.it will take the affirmative action set forth
in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of -this' Order; and (3) that the
respondent's employees are free' to become or remain members of
National Association of Die Casting Workers, Region No. 5, affiliated
with C. I: 0., and that the respondent will not discriminate against
any employee because of membership or activity 'in said -organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
,respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it al-
leges that the respondent discriminated against John .Biss,' John
PRECISION CASTINGIS COMPANY, INC. 891
Bosko, William Heeder, Cecil S. Dotson, Richard Gallagher, Jr.,
Richard Gallagher, Sr., Herbert Mantell, Scott Dotson, Ben Biss,
John Mulqueen, and Harry Selavko, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration" of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
Luigi Di Peppino Otto Paukner
Ralph Mantell Norman Foote
Edwin Matson Rufus Benjamin Robbins,
Anthony France Philip Latevola
Joe V aj dik
APPENDIX B
Albert Bishop Ben Czekaj
Boris Dotchkoff Frank Kermendy
Edward Palo Joseph Ronges
Robert Wing Michael Zeal
APPENDIX C
Alex Yavorsky Winslow Cobler
William Klamorick Michael Enatenok
Russell Stephan Edward Holler