Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 9, 194876 N.L.R.B. 1254 (N.L.R.B. 1948) Copy Citation In the Matter Of PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PULLMAN CAR WORKS) 1 and GEORGE BODENHOFER In the Matter Of PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PULLMAN CAR WORKS) and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Cases Nos. 13-C-2415 and 13-C-2439, respectively.Decided April 9, 1948 Mr. Gustaf B. Erickson, for the Board. Winston, Straiwn & Shaw, by Messrs. G. B. Christensen and Frank B. Gilmer, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. Hugh, P. Davis, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Walker Nelson, of Detroit, Mich., for the Association. DECISION AND ORDER On June 28, 1946, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the respondent did not discriminate against George Bodenhofer within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommended that the com- plaint be dismissed as to him. Thereafter, the respondent filed ex- ceptions, with a supporting brief, to findings in the Intermediate Report adverse to it, and counsel for the Board filed exceptions, with a supporting memorandum, to the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent did not discriminate against Bodenhofer. The Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C., in which the respondent and the Association participated. The Board 2 has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 1 The name of the Respondent, the same in both cases consolidated herein, is set forth in the caption as amended at the hearing. s Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Mem- bers Reynolds and Houston]. 76 N. L. R. B., No. 182. 1254 PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1255 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, brief, memorandum, and the entire record in the case and, for the reasons following, will dismiss the complaint in its entirety : 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that the respondent dis- criminatorily discharged and thereafter discriminatorily refused to reinstate George Bodenhofer. 2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by certain statements addressed to supervisory em- ployees by Superintendent Geddes, Acting Manager Reed and General Foreman Van Pelt. While these statements may have been unlawful when made, they would no longer be so under the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. We cannot order the respondent to cease and desist from conduct which would be lawful if engaged in now.3 There is no other effective remedy for a violation of the kind found by the Trial Examiner. We shall, there- lore, dismiss those portions of the complaint alleging that the respond- ent violated Section 8 (1) by statements to its employees. 3. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging 60 of its leaders on July 12, 1944, because they engaged in protected, concerted activity; by thereafter refusing to reinstate 3 of them until they had renounced their right to engage in protected, concerted activity ; and by refusing at all times after July 12, 1944, to reinstate the other 57 leaders to their former or substantially equivalent positions. We do not agree, for the reasons following : First, we do not consider that the respondent discharged the 60 leaders on July 12, 1944. The evidence shows that on that date, before there had been any stoppage of work, the respondent twice notified the spokesman for the leaders that if they walked off the job, as they were then threatening to do, they would be regarded as having quit. The leaders nevertheless stopped work and the respondent, abandon- ing its previous position, notified them that if they resumed work the incident would be forgotten, but that if they did not resume they would then be regarded as having quit. The leaders refused to return to work and left the plant. As they left, the respondent instructed them to call at the employment office on the next day for their "drop cards." However, on the next and succeeding days the respondent clearly demonstrated that this instruction was not final. Thus, from July 13 through the morning of July 17, it took the position and made known 8 Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 464 ; American Steel Foundries V. Tri-Ctitg Council. 257 U. S. 184, 208 ; and Order of U. S Supreme Court issued Decem- ber 15, 1947, in Edward G Budd MMfg. Co v. N. L R. B , 332 U. S 840 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the leaders that before they could return to their jobs they would have to go through the employment office individually for interview by Superintendent Geddes. Three leaders complied with this condi- tion and all were reinstated to their jobs as leaders without the filing of new applications and without loss of rights. It is evident from all the foregoing facts that the respondent did not at any time on July 12,1944, take action designed finally to terminate the employment relationship of the leaders. Rather than constituting a discharge, as found by the Trial Examiner, the respondent's actions were no more than tactical threats designed to induce the leaders not to strike. As such, they did not constitute discrimination in regard to the tenure or terms or conditions of employment of the leaders within the mean- ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act 4 Second, unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not consider that the condition imposed by the respondent that leaders seeking to return to work between July 13 and 17, 1944, first be interviewed by Super- intendent Geddes was unreasonable or discriminatory under the special circumstances of this case.5 These men Were supervisors. The respond- ent was then engaged in the production of vitally needed naval land- ing craft at a critical stage in the recent war. It necessarily relied upon its leaders for supervision of this vital production and was entitled to make appropriate inquiry to make certain of their future reliability as leaders. In this particular context, we do not view as discriminatory the respondent's imposition of the condition that striking leaders be interviewed individually before reinstatement. Nor do we regard Superintendent Geddes' questioning of the three leaders who reported to him as to whether they believed that they had erred in walking off the job as equivalent to a requirement that they renounce their rights under the Act. Because the condition placed by the respondent upon reinstatement was not on these facts unlawful, it was under no obliga- tion to reinstate those leaders who did not comply. Based on the foregoing we shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety. 4 Cf Matter of Clem D Johnston , d/b/a Roanoke Public Warehouse, 72 N. L . R B. 1281, 1283 , and 1293 ; Matter of Home Beneficial Life Insurance Co., Inc, 69 N. L R B 32, 33 ; and Matter of Majestae Manufacturing Company , 64 N L R B. 950, 951 We do not pass upon whether the respondent 's tactical threats in the instant case were violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Such conduct , if engaged in now with respect to leaders, would clearly be lawtul and no effective remedy exists for a past violation , even if found See footnote 1, supra. 6 We adhere to our frequently expressed view that an employer may not attach a dis- criminatory condition to the reinstatement of economic strikers whose places have not been filled and who have made an unqualified request for reinstatement See Matter of St. Mary's Sewer Pipe Company, 54 N. L R B 1226 , and Matter of Wallingford Steel Co., 53 N L It. B . 404 It is clear, however , that not every condition that an employer might attach to reinstatement is discriminatory . Whether it is or is not discriminatory must be determined upon the facts of the particular case. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1257 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the consolidated complaint issued herein against Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEm BF,R HOUSTON, dissenting : In determining- whether a violation of the Act occurred here, we must not be guided by the wisdom or lack of it which the men dis- played on July 12 when they walked out. Ill-advised and hasty conduct, unfortunately, is not unknown in strike situations; but it provides no basis, if it is not unlawful, for determining substantive rights and obligations. What we must determine is whether the strike was an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act and, conse- quently, whether the Respondent's refusal to reinstate the men consti- tutes a violation of Section 8 (3). I find nothing in the record nor in my colleagues' opinion upon which to say that this was not a. protected activity. On the contrary, my colleagues appear, at least by clear implication, to concede that the activity was protected, because they undertake to find that the condition imposed by the Respondent upon the return to work was not discriminatory. Such rationale has pertinency only if it is assumed that the strikers were engaged in a protected activity and entitled to reinstatement without discrimination. It is of no significance, despite the impression to the contrary left by the majority, whether the Respondent discharged these men. It is important that it denied them reinstatement unless.they accepted the condition of subjecting themselves to individual interviews. Of this type of condition, in a strikingly similar situation, the Board said, very recently, that the Respondent, could not, as it endeavored to do, deprive the strikers of their collective protection at a.time when they-required it most, namely, at the abandonment of what was to them an unsuccessful strike, by isolating each applicant from the group and treating each application on an individual basis. Such conduct amounted to a denial of their continued employee status and of the right to group reinstatement which they enjoyed [citing cases], and served to penalize the strikers for their concerted union activity in striking. Under the circumstances, we find that the requirement of a personal interview constituted an unlawful condition for reinstatement; by failing to reinstate the returning strikers who 1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refused to comply with this condition, the respondent discrimi- nated against them.} I consider myself bound by the Sp'ncer case here and, consequently, must dissent from the dismissal of this complaint. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Gustaf B. Erickson, for the Board. Winston, Strawn & Shaw, by Messrs. G. B. Christensen and Frank B. Gilmer, of Chicago, Ill, for the Respondent. Mr. Hugh P. Davis, of Chicago, Ill., for the Association. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on June 12, 1944, in Case No. 13-C-2415, by George Bodenhofer, herein called Bodenhofer, and upon a charge duly filed on July 22, 1944, in Case No. 13-C-2439, by Foreman's Association of America, herein called the Association, and pursuant to an order issued by the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on February 11, 1946, consolidating the foregoing cases, the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its consolidated complaint dated February 15, 1946, against Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, 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 notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondent, the Association, and Bodenhofer. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance : (1) that on or about May 26, 1944, the Respondent discharged George Bodenhofer and thereafter refused to reinstate him because he joined and assisted the Associa- tion and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; (2) that the Respondent, on or about July 12, 1944, discharged each of 60 employees listed in a schedule attached to the com- plaint,' and thereafter refused to reinstate them because said employees joined and assisted the Association and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (3) that the Respond- ent, by the foregoing actions, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment .or terms or conditions of employment of Bodenhofer and of the 60 named employees, and thereby discouraged membership in the Association or other labor organizations, thus engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act; (4) that the Respondent, from on or about January 1, 1944, warned, discouraged, threatened, and urged its employees to refrain from assisting and affiliating with the Association; and (5) that the Respondent, by its actions described above under (1), (2), and (4), interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. ,Matter of Spencer Auto Electric, Inc, 73 N L. R. B. 1416, and cases cited therein, de- cided on June 4, 1947, Chairman Herzog not participating. ' Their names , rearranged alphabetically and conformed to the spelling agreed upon by the parties at the hearing , and are set out in "Appendix A," attached hereto. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1259 On March 5 , 1946 , the Respondent filed its answer denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices . The answer denied that the Respondent had dis- charged Bodenhofer and alleged that Bodenhofer had quit "after reprimand for failing to follow orders and proper routines in the discharge of his duties." As to the other 60 employees , the answer denied that they had been discharged and alleged in substance that said employees were supervisory employees known as leaders ; that on July 12 , said employees , in disregard of their duties and during regular working hours before the close of the shift , stopped work and demanded passes to leave the premises ; that said employees were informed that if they demanded and took such passes and left the premises , they would be cons.dered as having quit their jobs; and that said employees thereupon "left the premises in the middle of their shift and thereby quit and vacated their jobs ." The answer further alleged that during the period involved the Respondent was engaged in the construction of landing craft for the use of the United States Navy in the war in the Pacific ; that the Respondent 's Pullman Car Works was a "bottleneck" in said landing craft construction operations ; that the Respondent was "under a duty to the United States of America and to the United States Navy" to maintain order and discipline in its facilities to prevent work stoppages and to discipline members of the supervisory staff who engaged therein ; and that had the Respond- ent failed to discipline its supervisory force by treating "said leaving of work as a voluntary quit," it would have encouraged work stoppage 2 Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois , from March 5 through March 29, 1946, before Earl S. Bellman , the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the Respondent were represented by counsel , and the Association by one of its olhcials 3 All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues ' At various times during the hearing, motions by the Respondent on various grounds to dismiss the complaint in whole or in part were denied. At the conclusion of the presenta- tion of evidence , a motion by the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters was granted over the Respondent ' s objection . At the close of the hearing , all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally before the undersigned and to file briefs . Argument by counsel for the Board and the Respondent was made on the record. The Respondent has filed a brief and the Board a memorandum citing cases. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPOI DENT The Respondent, Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, is a Dela- ware Corporation with its principal office and place of business at Chicago, 2 The answer also alleged , as to the 60 employees involved in the events of July 12, that the Respondent "'reinstated" 3 of them on or about July 17, 1944 , and that the Respondent thereafter "reemployed" 24 others. Of these 27 employees , 3 returned to work as leaders and the remainder as non-supervisory workmen. 3 Bodenhofer did not enter an appearance , but testified when called as a Board witness. 4 Early in the hearing , the complaint was amended by adding the names of Alvin Rogers and Clarence Lindsey to the list of leaders allegedly discharged on- July 12. The Re- spondent amended its answer to cover Rogers and Lindsey. Thereafter , during the course of the hearing, separate motions were granted , without objection , dismissing the complaint as to both Rogers and Lindsey. 1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Illinois The Respondent is presently engaged in its usual line of manufacturing and building railroad cars, locomotives, and related equipment. During the recent war, it was engaged in manufacturing and building tanks, ships, and -other war products The Respondent has plants located in Chicago, Illinois, Worcester, Massachusetts, Bessemer, Alabama, Butler, Pennsylvania, Hammond, Indiana, and Michigan City, Indiana The plant of the Respondent involved in the instant matter is located at 11001 Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago, Illinois It is kno',n,as the, Pullman, Car Works, and is herein called the plant' The plant presently is engaged, as it was prior to the war, in manufacturing, repair- ing, and building railroad cars, locomotives, and related equipment. During the war, at the time of the events covered by the complaint, the plant was -engaged in the fabrication of sections and sub-assemblies for naval vessels. 'These were transported to a second plant some 5 miles away, known as the Calumet Harbor Shipyard, where vessels were assembled and launched.' The principal raw materials used by the Respondent are steel, iron, and -electrical equipment During the year 1945, the Respondent purchased raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, more than 50 percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same year, the Respondent shipped from said plant finished products valued in excess of $500,000, all of which were shipped to points outside the State of Illinois The Respondent concedes that it is engaged, in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Foreman's Association of America, herein called the Association, is an unaf&l- iated labor organization admitting to membership supervisory employees through its various local chapters.' Chapter No. 92 of Foreman's Association of America, herein called Chapter 92, is the local chapter of the Association which admits to membership certain supervisory employees of the Respondent at its plant' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRAOTIOES' A. The status of the Respondent's leaders The Respondent contends that its leaders are not employees within the meaning of the Act. Since the unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint 5 It is also referred to as the 111th Street plant 6 Calumet Harbor Shipyard, herein called the shipyard, is no longer being operated by the Respondent. T While the lfespondent ' s answer denies that the Association is a labor organization, the evidence establishes that it is . The Association is the same organization which has been held to be a labor oiganization in numerous decisions of the Board , including matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L R B 4 8 Chapter 92 at first included eligible supervisory employees at both Chicago operations then engaged in shipbuilding activities 9 The findings in this division of the report are made upon the undersigned 's evaluation of all the evidence, due consideration being given to the' credibility of witnesses, the in- herent probabilities , and the weight of the evidence While on some matters there is little conflict in the evidence, on many matteis the evidence is highly contradictory And while the record as a whole casts doubt on the testimony of a number of witnesses for the Board and-for the Respondent, in the undersigned's judgment no purpose would he served by an extensive discussion of credibility , since a substantial lapse of time and obvious emotional intensity have operated rather generally to color memory and to accentuate rationalization In some instances , where especially sharp contradictions exist , conflicts in the evidence are discussed On most matters, even where there is considerable variation in the evidence, the findings aie made without detailing the factors considered. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1261 pertain to the Respondent's actions toward leaders only, the status of these leaders will be considered at the outset The leaders at the Respondent's plant and at its shipyard when it was in opera- tion, have constituted the lowest level in the Respondent's supervisory hierarchy, and their general authority, duties, and responsibilities, like those of higher levels of supervision, have not varied materially during the period of the events dis- cussed herein. Leaders, who admittedly are supervisors, do not usually engage in any manual work but devote themselves to the supervision of small views of various types. Leaders have the power to make recommendations concerning the status of employees under their supervision. Such recommendations are usually given substantial weight by higher superN isors who make final decisions Leaders, like the Respondent's rank-and-file employees, are paid on an hourly basis. They have, like higher supervisors, been excluded from the units of rank-and-file em- ployees covered by collective bargaining agreements at the plant and at the ship- yard. All levels of supervision above leaders are salaried employees. The structure of the Respondent's supervisory hierarchy at the plant is shown by the figures for July 1944 when total employment, exclusive of clerical employees, was approximately 3,000 This figure included 182 leaders ; 16 assistant fore- men ; 42 foremen ; 7 assistant general foremen ; 15 general foremen ; 5 assistants to the superintendent; I assistant superintendent; and 1 superintendent. On the average, leaders supervised crews of about 15 employees. Leaders are usually responsible directly to foremen From the record as a whole it is evident that, in contrast with higher supervisory levels which are salaried and have substan- tially greater authority than do leaders, the Respondent's leaders are hourly paid employees with limited authority who make recommendations as to matters con- cerning the status of their subordinates. Everything considered, it is clear that the Respondent's leaders fall within 'the meaning of the term "employee" as used in and protected by the Act." B Chronology of events 1. Background Early in 1943, the hourly rate of rank-and-file employees at the plant and the shipyard was increased to $1.20 an hour, just 10 cents less than the $130 rate for leaders. When several months passed without any increase being given to the leaders, dissatisfaction developed. This dissatisfaction was crystallized in July at a meeting attended by leaders from both the plant and the shipyard A committee was appointed to take the matter up with John Geddes, the superin- tendent of both the plant and the shipyard. During meetings with this leaders' committee, " Geddes urged patience and stated that efforts were being made to secure approval of the War Labor Board for wage increases for leaders While this matter was pending, John Cowings, who was then assistant superintendent at the plant, spoke on behalf of Geddes at a joint meeting of leaders from the plant and the shipyard. This meeting was held in the leaders' locker room in 10 Matter of Sass Manufacturing Company , 56 N. L R B 348 , Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L R B 4 and 64 N L R. B 1212, Matter of L. A Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N L R B . 298 ; Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopan Coal Division , 66 N L it B 386, Matter of Bohn Alionsnum and Brass Corporation, 67 N. L R. B. 847 '13 Two `members of this committee , George Snip and Stephen Rudzik, are mentioned below. 1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Building 100, a large new building devoted to manufacturing sections for Naval craft. 12 Cowings urged the leaders to give Geddes more time in which to secure approval for the wage increase for leaders. Regarding Cowings' speech, divergence of opinion developed between leaders at the plant and at the shipyard. Leaders at the plant favored giving Geddes more time while some of those at the shipyard were impatient and favored striking immediately. On July 26, 1943, a few days after Cowings' talk, the leaders' rate was increased from $130 to $1.50 an hour.1, After the leaders' increase of July 26, 1943, there were no further meetings and the committee of leaders ceased to function. While the foregoing emergence of concerted activity among the Respondent's leaders was short lived, an incident in connection therewith should be noted, although it is not found to constitute an unfair labor practice." During one of the meetings between Superintendent Geddes and the committee representing' the plant and shipyard leaders, Geddes was informed that the leaders were considering organizing a leaders' club in order to increase cooperation, to work things out in an orderly fashion, and to avoid disturbances between the Respondent and its leaders. Geddes disapproved the idea and said that he could not see why the leaders wanted to form such a club.16 2. The Leaders' Social Club During the latter part of August 1943, the leaders at the plant, who had been discussed the desirability of forming a social club,10 held a meeting in a hall near the plant at which steps were taken to form The Pullman Leaders' Social Club, herein called the Social Club. Upon its formation a constitution was adopted and officers were elected for a period of 6 months.51 The Club held monthly business meetings in a hall near the plant. These were attended by leaders only, and membership in the club was confined to leaders at the plant.18 While supervisors of higher rank were invited to attend and did attend social functions sponsored by the Social Club, such as a bowling league which received some financial assistance from the Respondent, supervisors of the rank of assist- ant foremen and above were not admitted to membership in the Club 1° The evidence shows that the Social Club functioned until about the end of April 1944 along lines laid down in its constitution which provided as follows : is This building, approximately 900 feet long and 200 feet wide , was constructed for war work and was the locale of many of the events in this case The leaders ' locker room of Building 100, where Cowings spoke, is the locker room referred to frequently below, espe- cially in connection with the termination of Bodenhofer 's employment. It was used only by leaders and is the only locker room involved herein. is A second increase was received on December 3, 1943, bringing the rate for leaders up to $1 65 an hour. 14 The complaint alleges interference from about January 1, 1944, and the undersigned considers that the matter now discussed was introduced as background. 15 The undersigned accepts Rudzik ' s credible testimony on this incident rather than Geddes' denial that the matter of organization was discussed. is A focal point of this discussion was the leaders' locker room. 17 Snip was elected president and Rudzik vice president. 19 While the constitution provided that "all leaders and instructors" employed at the 111th Street Plant were eligible for membership, only leaders actually joined. 1° That it was understood that supervisors above the rank of leaders could not be mem- bers is shown by the testimony of an assistant foreman, Joseph Montalto , a witness for the Respondent , who testified that when he was promoted from a leader to an assistant foreman he ceased to belong to the Social Club because "you had to be a leader to belong" as "it had nothing to do with foremen." PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1263 ARTICLE 3-PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES SEC. 1. The purpose and objective of this club shall be as indicated by its name, purely of a social nature. It has been organized with the thought that through its meetings and activities new acquaintanceships will be formed- misunderstandings eliminated and a general spirit of good fellowship will be fostered through the general organization. SEC. 2. At no time shall this club be considered as constituting itself an intermediary or bargaining agency in differences of any nature between the Pullman Company and club members. The Social Club held its second election of officers on January 25, 1944. This election was reported in an article in "The Pullman Standard Carworker," which is published "twice monthly through the Superintendent's office." Among those elected, Snip was re-elected president and Hugh Davis was elected secretary. About March Snip resigned as president because he was being promoted to a higher supervisory position. A special election was held at which Davis was elected president, a position which he continued to hold as long as the club con- tinued to function. It is clear from all of the evidence that the Social Club was not a labor organiza- tion. However, it is also clear from two conversations which he had with leaders not long after the formation of the Social Club that the general foreman of the steel shop, Ed Van Pelt, wanted to be sure that it remained only a social club and was fearful that it might develop into a labor organization. Shortly after the club was formed, when August Lukso, who was working in the steel shop and serving as chairman of the club's entertainment committee, invited Van Pelt to attend a social function being sponsored by the club, Van Pelt told Lukso that a social club was all right as long as it was run as a purely social club, but that something might go wrong, as had happened in other plants where they had be- come "organized and worked against the management." Lukso assured Van Pelt that they had no such intention but Van Pelt did not attend the social function. About this time,20 Van Pelt went to Lloyd Dolton when he was at his work in the steel shop and asked Dolton to go to meetings of the Social Club and keep him informed as to what was taking place. This Dolton refused to do.21 3. The transition to a labor organization About March 9, 1944, Charles Browne was transferred to the position of assist- ant superintendent at the plant. While Browne thus became the only assistant superintendent under Geddes,22 his assignment was to organize on the highest possible level of efficiency the production of sections for LSM's for the Navy, a program which was just getting under way in Building 100, also called the As- 20 In any event not later than December 3, 1943, when the leaders received their second pay increase 21 These findings are made upon the testimony of Lukso, Dolton, and Van Pelt which are more supplementary than contradictory . Van Pelt explained that he had made his request of Dolton when the Club started because "I was rather anxious on my own behalf to know what the nature of it was going to be." While it is clear from Van Pelt 's testimony that he was anxious to forestall labor organizational activity in the steel mill, which he characterized as "my own organization ," no finding is made that the above conversations, occurring prior to January 1 , 1944, and in relation to a club which was not a labor organi- zation, are violative of the Act. However, Van Pelt's conversations in the fall of 1943 shed light on conversations discussed below which Van Pelt held with leaders during the late spring of 1944. 22 There were , however, four assistants to the superintendent. 1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sembly Building 2' At that time, LSâI's had the number one place of urgency on the Navy's program and the Navy was concerned as to whether or not the Re- spondent would be able to meet its schedule of one landing barge each week. Hence Browne, within a week after he took over supervision of the Assembly Building, talked with all of the leaders, assembling them in several groups along. ^vitl' their respective foremen and assistant foremen Among other things, Browne emphasized the importance of seeming efficiency in production from their- crews in order to meet the "stiff schedule " He told the leaders that he expected them to set an example to their crews by being out on the job with their crews. It is clear from all the evidence that Browne, in order to meet an exacting schedule on the Navy's "hottest" requirement, pursued with vigor his assignment of organizing the production of barges and that he expected his supervisory staff, including the leaders, to exert themselves to the utmost in securing production from their crews Under these conditions some of the leaders began to feel that they were being driven at a hectic pace and that plans and schedules were being modified so rapidly that they could not keep up with them. Further, since the rank-and-file employees were effectively organized and able to secure adjustment of their grievances," the leaders were undoubtedly often confronted with difficult problems in at tempting to achieve pi oduction schedules, and upon occasions felt that they were being blamed for matters for which they were not at fault The foregoing developments under Browne led to discussions in the locker room among the leaders in the Assembly Building as to the de^;irability of organizing in. such a way as to have a grievance committee This was not possible under the Social Club, at least as then constituted. Bodenhoter, who had not been active in the Social Club for some time, was the chief proponent of such action About the last of April or the first of May, and within a period of a few days, meetings, of leaders, who were for the most part members of the Social Club, were held at the club's hall to discuss Boderholer's proposal that at least a grievance com- mittee was necessary to protect the leaders While the testimony is somewhat confused as to dates and the sequence of events, it is clear that Bodenhofer was the principal advocate of changing to a labor organization with a grievance com- mittee and that Ruilzik was chiefly instrumental in calling the first meeting at which Iodenhofer urged effective organization. It is also evident that Boden- hofer and Davis were selected to serve as a committee to investigate the desir- ability of affiliating with a national organization When affiliation with the A. F. L or C 1. 0 did not appear feasible, Davis continued to investigate the possibilities of affiliation with the Foreman's Association of America. Early (luring this period, evidently about the first of May, it was voted at special meet- ings of the Social Club that the name, Pullman Leaders' Social Club, be changed to Pullman Leaders' Club,25 and that the organization abandon its former pro- hibition against serving as a vehicle for presenting grievances Davis, who had ^ In the Assembl y Building under this program , Landing Ships Medium (LS\I's), Navv landing , barges approximately 207 feet long and 36 feet wide, were prefabricated in 13 hull sections which, with the superstructures prefabricated in the steel shop, were transported to and assembled at the shipyard Production work on LSM's in the Assembly Building, atter the various jigs had been constructed , consisted largely of fitting together steel plates, work done by crews under fitter leadeis , and of welding the plates together , work done by crews under welder leaders 24 United Steel Workers of America , CIO, was the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees at the plant when Browne took charge of the Assembly Building. 25 This will be called herein the Leaders' Club PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1265 been president of the Social Club, continued to serve as president of the Leaders' Club.26 With the appearance of the Leaders' Club on the scene about the first of May, Bodenhofer became quite active in soliciting members among leaders who, like himself, had been indifferent to the Social Club." Davis, who continued to in- vestigate the possibility of affiliating with the Association, got in contact with leaders at the shipyard and eventually reported to the Leaders' Club, which was still confined to leaders at the plant, that he believed that it was desirable for the leaders at the plant to join with the leaders at the shipyard in establish- ing a chapter of the Association Davis' suggestion was favorably received and he went forward with organizational activities for the Association. Toward the end of May, when the charter for Chapter 92, dated May 22, 1945, was received, leaders at the plant and the shipyard, who had signed individual applications for membership, organized Chapter 92. Davis was elected its president There- after the Leaders' Club, whose members largely if not entirely joined the Associa- tion, fell into disuse." On all of the evidence, the undersigned is convinced and finds that from ap- proximately the first of May 1944, and until it fell into disuse about the end of May 1944, the Leaders' Club was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and that through it the leaders at the plant were attempting to perfect self-organization for purposes protected by Section 7 of the Act While the above developments were taking place, two of the Respondent's general foremen discussed the matter with leaders under their supervision One afternoon about May 1, shortly after the initial meeting at which Bodenhofer had addressed the leaders, Joe Skold, -Sr , the general foreman of the fitting depart- ment, which is also called the assembly department,29 took Bodenhofer, one of his fitter leaders, outside of the Assembly Building (which was very noisy) so they could talk. Skold asked Bodenhofer what the trouble was between the leaders and the management. Bodenhoter said that the primary difficulty was lack of enough planning Skold stated that he had heard that they were going to have a meeting that night. Bodenhofer answered that they were going to have a meeting; that they were going to organize the leaders ; and that there was nothing that Skold could do about it as the law gave the leaders that right. Skold said that that was right and that as long as they did not "get radical," it was all right with him 30 A few weeks later, under circumstances discussed below, Bodenhofer's employment was terminated after Skold had found him in the locker room on May 26.3° 26 The findings in the above paragraph and the one following it, concerning the transition from the Social Club to the Association, are made upon the undersigned's evaluation of all of the evidence concerning this transition period 2' Bodenhofer asked leaders to join the Leaders' Club when he saw them "in the locker room, or eating lunch " 28 The membership roll of the Leaders' Club was not taken over, but leaders rather made individual applications for membership in the Association Nor did the Association take over the funds of the Leaders' Club which were used by a fraternal organization foamed sometime later 2° It is evident from the testimony of Browne, Skold's immediate superior, that the fitter leaders under Skold were the largest group of leaders using the leaders' locker room in the Assembly Building. 30 The findings as to the above conversation are made upon credited testimony of Boden- hofer Skold 's denial that he had ever had such a conversation with Bodenhofer was not- convincing 31 Rudzik 's employment was terminated at the same time but is not alleged to have been , discriminatory 1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sometime about the middle of May, Van Pelt, the general foreman of the steel shop who was then responsible directly to Superintendent Geddes, called two leaders in the steel shop, Stephen Stalonis and Earl Simmons, separately to his office'` Van Pelt told Stalonis that upon the completion of shipbuilding work and their return to postwar car work, he wanted to build up an organization that he could depend on and that he knew was composed of men who were trustworthy. Van Pelt asked Stalonis if he belonged to the "little organization" in the shop. Stalonis replied that he was its treasurer. Van Pelt said that Stalonis would not get any place fighting for the other fellows; that he had a lot of opportunities at the plant; and that belonging to the organization was only giving him a black eye with the company. Van Pelt suggested that Stalonis quit the organization and Stalonis said that he would think about it." In his conversation with Simmons, Van Pelt said that he was making postwar plans and visualizing his personnel. He told Sammons, "I understand you have this club, and if you are going to work for me I want you to get out of it and have nothing to do with it." Simmons explained that if the other leaders in his group were in the club he would have difficulty getting their cooperation if he did not belong to the club also Van Pelt insisted that he would not stand for an organi- zation within an organization and said that if Simmons wanted to be in his organization he could not belong to another organization 4. The walk-out of July 12, 1944 The above statements of Van Pelt to Stalonis and Simmons, about which other leaders learned, and the loss of their employment by Bodenhofer and Rudzik, the two leaders most instrumental in initiating the movement for effective organiza- tion, created apprehension on the part of other leaders. Furthermore, during June and early July, a number of additional leaders were disciplined from time to time The disciplinary treatment which was accorded those several leaders un- doubtedly contributed to a growing sense of insecurity among the leaders at the plant." While the undersigned is convinced that the leaders at the plant were genuinely concerned about discipline received by their fellow leaders, no discus- sion of the several individual incidents involved is deemed necessary, although all of the conflicting evidence thereon has been considered by the undersigned in reaching the conclusions stated below as to the cause of the walk-out. In any event, it is clear that the last of those disciplinary actions, a lay-off for a few days given on July 11 to a welding leader named Dybis, precipitated the walk-out on July 12." 81 The findings which follow as to the conversation in Van Pelt' s office are made upon credited testimony of Stalonis and Simmons . To the extent that Van Pelt' s vague and unconvincing testimony as to these conversations can be considered a denial of the testi- mony of Stalonis and Simmons , Van Pelt's testimony is not credited. 8' Stalonis testified that Van Pelt' s conversation with him influenced him to stay in the Leaders' Club rather than to resign and, that he subsequently joined the Association. However, it is immaterial that Van Pelt 's conversation with Stalonis did not accomplish its obvious purpose. "The evidence as to said discipline was received as general background to show develop- ments at the plant before the walk-out on July 12. There is no contention nor does the evidence show that any of that discipline was violative of the Act. 35 After Dybis had turned a section of a barge over to a Navy inspector on Tuesday, July 11, without some 15 feet of welding, among other things, having been done, and after the Navy inspector had vigorously protested, Foreman Boomsma sent Dybis home for the rest of the week. There is no allegation in the complaint concerning Dybis and the evidence concerning his lay -off does not warrant any inference adverse to the Respondent. On July PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1267 At the plant on the morning of July 12, there was discussion of Dybis' lay-off among the leaders. A number of them expressed their concern to Davis about the discipline which Dybis and other leaders had received, and there was dis- cussion of the desirability of walking out unless Dybis was returned to work" Davis, who had previously seen Browne in his office on a number of occasions concerning various matters, secured an appointment with Browne.` Thereupon (luring a conversation in Browne's office about 11 o'clock, at which only Davis and Browne were present, Davis told Browne that the leaders were very- much disturbed as to their own security because of the Dybis lay-oft and asked Browne to recall Dybis.u Browne said that lie (lid not see why the other leaders should be disturbed because it was a matter between Dybis and his own foreman. Browne refused to agree to recall Dybis and stated that he regarded a leader "as being a part of management, and as such, could stand on his own two feet." '0 Davis said that such an answer would not satisfy the leaders who wete "pretty hot" and that they might walk out Browne told Davis that as to any leader who "walked off his job," he would "consider him as quitting "" Shortly after 11 o'clock, upon concluding his conversation with Dar is, Browne issued instructions to the general foremen, assistant general foremen and fore- men under his supervision, that it the leaders walked nit be would consider them as quitting and the pass-outs " were not to he issued to t he leaders Browne also telephoned Superintendent Geddes between I1 and 12 o'clock • told hint what had been (lone; explained that in in interview Davis had "intimated" that the leaders might, wnlk off . informed Broiv iie that he had told Davis that lie would consider any leader who walked off his job as having quit, stated that it was his intention to issue such leaders drop cards ; and secured Geddes' approval of his procedure. During the lunch period, Davis reported the, results of his meeting with Browne to groups of leaders as they were eating lunch. It was evident from the opinions expressed that the leaders were dissatisfied with Browne's refusal to recall Dybis. Davis told the leaders that he would try to get Browne to reconsider the matter and that he would let them know the result of his effort. 20, Dybis returned to the plant and quit his job. There is no evidence that Dybis would have been refused his job as a leader if he had returned at the end of his lay-off on Monday, July 17. 3° Undoubtedly various leaders were also concerned with and expressed their anxiety as to seveial factors contributing to their sense of insecurity The undersigned is convinced and finds on all of the evidence, however, that no other specific demand was formulated or later conveyed by Davis to Browne in discussions which followed, and that if Browne had agreed to return Dybis the walk-out of July 12 would not have taken place 87 Davis did not identify himself as president of the Association or purport to be the repre- sentative of a majority in any appropriate unit. 38 Prior to the walk-out Davis had not talked with Dybis about the circumstances sur- rounding his lay-off. 19 The quoted material is from Browne 's testimony. 40 The findings as to the above conversation in Browne' s office are made upon the under- signed's evaluation of the testimony of Davis and Browne While Browne's 'and Davis' versions of this conversation differ as to details, emphasis, and sequence , the undersigned is satisfied that substantially the above took place. Both Browne and Davis testified that toward the close of the conversation Browne said that if the leaders walked out he would consider them as having quit their jobs Neither testified as to any specific request being made other than that Dybis be returned to work. 91 For an employee to be permitted to leave the plant prior to the end of his shift, it was necessary that he present a slip, entitled "Employee's Pass" and usually referred to as a pads-out, to the watchman at the gate Such pass-outs showing the date, the employee's name and badge number, the gate to be used, the reason for leaving, the time, and the signature of the foreman, were usually issued to leadeis by their foreman upon request. 781902-48-vol 76-81 1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shortly before 2 o'clock, Davis saw Browide in the aisle of the Assembly Building and asked him to reconsider his decision as to Dybis in order to "avoid any mess." Browne refused to intervene in the disciplinary lay-off of Dybis and emphasized the responsibility of leaders in helping to meet the schedule on urgent war work. Browne told Davis that there were leaders with long service and that if he talked to the leaders he could tell them that if they walked off their jobs they would be quitting and would naturally lose their "service and everything else that goes with it." Davis said that he would tell them. Leaders who had seen Davis and Browne talking went to the locker room. Davis walked down the aisle of the Assembly Building and motioned to other leaders who thereupon went to the locker room. At a short meeting in the locker room, Davis told the assembled leaders that Browne's position was that he would not reconsider his decision as to Dybis and that he would treat all leaders who left their work as having quit their jobs. The discussion which followed resulted in the leaders voting to leave the plant. They thereupon left the locker room and attempted to secure pass-outs from their foremen. When these pass-outs were refused, the leaders gathered outside of the Assembly Building. In the meantime, when Browne had observed the leaders entering the locker room about 10 minutes before 2, he called Clyde Ryan, general foreman of the sub-assembly department," and told him that he wanted to find out whether or not the leaders were leaving their jobs. Ryan asked Browne if he wanted him to go into the locker room but Browne said, "No, we will give them a few moments and maybe they will think better of it and go back on the job Wait until 2 o'clock and if they do not come out of the locker room by that time, go in there and tell them that I expect them to go back to their jobs " "' Browne and Ryan waited until about 2 o'clock when Browne told Ryan that he had better go into the locker room and tell the leaders that he would consider them quitting if they did not go back to their jobs at once. However at that point the leaders started to leave the locker room. Shortly thereafter Browne returned to his office and called Ryan to find out what the situation was Ryan explained that the leaders had congregated outside of the 'Assembly Building. Browne then told Ryan, "All right, go out and inform them again to make sure that they thoroughly understand that we won't pass them out, and if they want to go back to work, they can go back to work and I will forget the incident, but if they do not want to go back to work, go get a drop card, because I will consider them quitting." Upon receiving Browne's instructions, Ryan, accompanied by John Baxter, assistant general foreman of the assembly department, went to the leader& gathered outside of the Assembly Building and tried to persuade them to return to work. They told the leaders substantially what Browne had told Ryan to tell them. Also Frank Kowalik, general foreman of the welding department, told some of the welding leaders in the group that they would have to take drop cards or go back to work because he would not issue pass-outs. The leaders, however, refused to return to work. They also refused to accept drop cards when confronted by their superiors with that alternative. At this juncture, the leaders decided to go in a body to the office of Superin-, tendent Geddes. On their way there and upon their arrival in front of the building housing Geddes' office, the group was joined by several other leaders 42 Ryan was also serving temporarily as the general foreman of the assembly department during Skold ,' s, absence because of illness 93 The findings in this paragraph and the one which follows are made upon testimony of Browne from which the quoted material is taken. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1269 from various departments of the plant in addition to those in the Assembly Building When the leaders arrived outside of the building, Davis attempted to see Geddes, whom Browne had kept informed by telephone about developments. Geddes, through a clerk, refused to see Davis, and sent word to the leaders to go back to work. When the leaders did not return to work, Geddes instructed Robert Monson, one of the four assistants to the superintendent, to issue pass- outs to the leaders, to put "Refused to work" in the space showing reason for issuance, and to tell the leaders that "their drop cards would be at the employ- ment office for them in the morning." "i Thereupon Monson, assisted by a clerk named Holmes, prepared pass-outs which they distributed to the leaders who filed into an outer office to receive them. The pass-outs were marked "Refused to work." As Holmes and Monson handed the leaders their pass-outs they told therm to call for their drop cards at the employment office in the morning.`' Monson also told some of the leaders that they were "a bunch of damn fools." Proceeding as described above, Monson and Holmes issued pass-outs to all of the employees named in Schedule A attached hereto, except Davis, who had previously secured a pass-out marked "Personal business. "48 They also issued pass-outs to three other leaders who did not use them after having received them, but rather returned to work for the remainder of the shift. One of the leaders who returned to work after receiving his pass-out, Nick Covich, a witness called by the Respondent who had been employed at the plant for about 24 years, testified that he realized that lie was being "fired" and would lose his many years of service after he had read "refused to work" on his pass-out and after Monson had told him to call for his drop card at the employment office the next day, and that he then changed his mind about walking out and decided to return to work. Although the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the pass-outs evidently deterred three leaders from leaving, the 60 leaders named in Schedule A left the plant shortly before 3:30.47 All of the leaders, except Davis, refused to sign their passes when asked by the guard at the gate to do so, because they disagreed with the reason, "Refused to work," which appeared thereon. Immediately upon leaving the plant, the leaders had a meeting in the hall frequently used. During this meeting Davis announced that he had explained by telephone what had taken place to the National President of the Association in Detroit and that the National President had suggested that they report back for work the following morning. The leaders decided then to report for work in the usual way the next morning Some of the leaders reporting for work on the night shift also learned about what had transpired. No attempt was made to get night shift leaders to remain away from work and the night shift leaders all apparently went into the plant about 4: 45 or shortly thereafter. Meanwhile at the plant, there was no disruption of operation or loss of pro- duction on July 12.48 When the leaders left, Browne asked his foremen to "scan 44 The quoted material is from Geddes' testimony. m Although there is contrary testimony , Monson 's testimony that the leaders were told to call for their drop cards the next morning , was corroborated by several of the witnesses called by the Board and is credited 4e It is unnecessary to determine from the highly contradictory evidence thereon just when this pass was secured since it is clear on any version that Davis did secure and used this pass and that he had it in his possession when the leaders reached Geddes' office. Davis ' pass, which is in evidence , contains a clerical notation , "Walked out ," which was placed on it in red pencil after Davis had used it in leaving the plant. 47 The shift ended at 4: 45 " Production was retarded, however, during the following few days. 1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their gangs" and offer him a list of names of employees that lie could appoint as leaders to fill the jobs which he considered vacated. While such lists were sub- mitted, it is evident that the positions were not filled on July 12, and the under- signed so finds.99 Also on the afternoon of July 12, a list containing the names of the 62 leaders to whom Monson and Holmes had issued pass-outs and, in addition,ithe name of Hugh Davis, was compiled in the superintendent's office. This list, which also contained the badge numbers of the employees, was then broken down into three lists, based on the gates regularly used by the respective leaders in entering the plant.60 These three lists were prepared the evening of July 12 so they could be used the morning of July 13 and thereafter in refusing admittance to the plant to all leaders who had walked out on July 12. Admittedly it was upon Geddes' instructions that these leaders were to be refused admittance to the plant.61 It was also decided that the 63 leaders on the master list should be paid up to 2 p. in. Wednesday, July 12, the time at which the Respondent deemed that the leaders had "walked off the job." 62 5. The developments on July 13 and thereafter On the morning of July 13 when the first shift was reporting for work shortly before 7 o'clock, the names and badge numbers of employees were checked at all three gates against the lists which had been prepared the night before. Thus when the leaders who had walked out appeared at the usual entering time at their regular gates and attempted to go to work, they were refused admission when it was ascertained that their names and badge numbers were listed. The same checking procedure was also followed on Friday, July 14, Saturday, July 15 and Monday, July 17. In some cases the leaders were told, when attempting to enter the plant, that they were to go to the employment office. In other cases it appears that they were not told to do so 63 In any event, it is clear on the record as a whole that most if not all of the leaders whose names appear in "Apendix A" were denied admission to the plant on one or more occasions on July 13, 14, 15, 49 The Respondent did not furnish the names of any replacements whom it contended had displaced, as of .Tuly 12, any of the leaders named in "Appendix A " Browne testified that it was "just as likely" that his undated "work sheet" which he had compiled from lists of recommendations submitted by his foremen was made out on the morning of July 13, as on the late afternoon of July 12 Browne also testified that such replacement leaders as were appointed on July 13 were temporary leaders until they had completed a 10-day probationary period. It is apparent from figures produced by the Respondent that such leaders named in Appendix A as were eventually replaced were not replaced by permanent leaders until July 24. 60 The findings in this paragraph are made upon testimony of Monson and Geddes and documents produced by the Respondent "Browne also testified that lie knew that the leaders were not to be allowed to enter the plant at the usual starting time on July 13 because lie had "told them before they walked off, if they walked off the job they would quit, and any man who quits does not enter the plant again " 52 it was at approximately 2 o'clock that the leaders left the leaders' locker room. It should be noted that the names of the three leaders who, it later developed, had not used their pass-outs, were later stricken from this list, although such leaders had not received their pass-outs until sometime after 2 o'clock 63 That leaders, except for thi ee discussed subsequently, did not report to the employment office even when told to do -to is not surprising since the leaders had been told on July 12, upon receiving their pass-outs, that they were to go to the employment office the following morning to get their drop cards For instance, Leader August Lukso testified credibly that it was his belief that if he "ever went to the employment office that would have been the end right there." Thus the failure of the leaders to call for their drop cards is the clearest indication that they were not desiring to terminate their employment. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1271 and 17, when they presented themselves at their regular gates in the usual manner at the usual time for their shift to enter.64 The only leaders whose names appeared on the check lists who were eventually permitted to enter the plant in the usual way were those who had not actually used their passes to leave the plant before the end of their shift on July 12. Thus Covich, whose decision not to walk out is discussed above, was at first refused admission when he reported on July 13 but was shortly thereafter telephoned at his home and told to come in to work ; that it had been a mistake to keep him out as he had not actually walked off the job; and that while his name appeared on a list of those who had received passes, he had not actually used his. In a similar situation, Bernt Olson was stopped by Monson on the morning of July 13 after Monson had checked his badge number and was asked if he had not walked out the day before. Olson replied that he had not and handed Monson his unused pass-out. Olson was thereupon permitted to go to work in the usual manner 55 From all of the evidence, it is clear that the test which was applied by the Respondent in refusing admission in the usual manner to any given leader on July 13, 14, 15, and 17 was whether that leader had actually walked out on July 12 before the end of the shift 66 During the above period, when the leaders named in "Appendix A" were being denied admission to the plant whenever they appeared individually for work in the usual way, various approaches were used in attempting to get those leaders reinstated and the leaders themselves were kept informed of developments at meetings held from time to time. For instance, on July 13 or 14, Davis telephoned Plant Manager Gunn, Geddes' immediate superior, and asked him if he would see a committee of the leaders. Gunn replied that he would not and told Davis to tell the leaders to go through the employment office and see Geddes. A com- mittee of leaders, including Davis, who appealed to a United States Commissioner of Conciliation, Ben Marshman, for his assistance in getting the leaders back to work, learned from Marshman, about July 13, after he had talked with Harold Sherman, assistant to the works manager and in charge of personnel, that the leaders would have to arrange through the employment office to see Superintendent Geddes 87 On July 15, representatives of the United States Navy in the Chicago area, who had been contacted by a committee which included Davis and who had investigated the situation, informed the committee that the Respondent insisted that the leaders "would have to return to work through the employment department." 54 It is immaterial that one or more of the 60 leaders involved may not actually have been refused entrance upon his personal attempt to go into the plant, since clearly all of the leaders involved who did attempt to enter in the regular way were refused admission and since it is plain from the Respondents procedure that each one of the leaders on "Appendix A" who presented himself would have been refused admission. 55 The third leader who secured a pass-out but failed to use it did not testify. 51 Thus while leaders who had not walked out were permitted to return in the usual man- ner, although they had secured pass-outs bearing the notation "`Refused to work," Davis, who had walked out, was not allowed to enter the plant on the mornings of July 13, 14, 15, and 17, in the usual way, but was told by Monson that he would have to go through the employment department, in spite of the fact that his pass-out had been marked "personal business." 67 This finding is based on credited testimony of Sherman and Davis which is corrobora- tive rather than contradictory in this particular respect Davis testified that the leaders also would have to "pick up the drop cards" at the employment office. Sherman testified that Marshman told him over the telephone that the leaders wanted "to return to work with dignity" and that he understood that to mean that they wanted to go back through their regular gates. 1272 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From the foregoing findings, and from Sherman's testimony that Gunn had told him on the morning of July 13 that "the leaders who wished to return must go through the employment department and be interviewed by Mr. Geddes," it is evident that the only course of action which the Respondent left open to the leaders from July 13 to the morning of July 17, was for each to go individually to the employment office and to arrange for an interview with Geddes .'8 Further it is.plain that the Respondent's actions had given the leaders ample reason to believe that to go to the employment office would have involved accepting drop cards, thus ratifying their discharges. It Is also clear that the leaders were in no way conditioning their desire to return to work upon any concessions by the Respondent concerning Dybis or concerning terms or conditions of employment. Nor was the Association or any group representing the leaders demanding recognition as a bargaining agent se From the weight of the evidence it is apparent that substantially all of the leaders learned from one or more sources during the period from July 13 through the morning of July 17 that the Respondent's position was that they would have to go through the employment office individually and see Superintendent Geddes. However, only the three leaders named in Group 2 of "Appendix A," Lloyd Heffron, Umberto Trenton and Roswell- Williams, arranged to see Geddes during this period. After Geddes had interviewed each of those leaders individually, each was reinstated about July 17 to his position as a leader and was not required to sign a new application for employment. According to credited testimony of Geddes, while drop cards had been made out for the above three leaders who came in for interviews with him just as drop cards had been made out for the rest of the leaders who "were all fired on the 12th of July," the drop cards of those three leaders were "rescinded" and they were "reinstated" without sign- ing "any new application for employment " In his testimony Geddes describes his respective interviews with Heffron, Trenton, and Williams, none of whom testified, as follows : I approached them by asking if they felt as though they had done wrong in walking off their job. They agreed that they had definitely done wrong and would like to have me consider giving their job back. Knowing that they had realized it in that short period of time, I reinstated them 80 About noon on Monday, July 17, 1944, the Respondent sent identical telegrams over Geddes' signature to each of the leaders named in "Appendix A," except those whom Geddes had seen, Heffron, Trenton, and Williams. These 57 identical telegrams read as follows : DUE TO FACT YOU HAVE QUIT AND FORFEITED YOUR POSITION AS LEADER YOU ARE REQUESTED TO CALL AT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE TO CLEAR YOUR DROP CARD AND SECURED RELEASE. YOU MAY IF YOU WISH MAKE APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AS WORKMAN as Geddes' office and the employment office aie in separate buildings some distance apart w While the record does not warrant a finding that Davis identified himself as an official of the Association in his contacts with the Respondent, it is clear that the Respondent was well aware that Davis was acting, on and after July 12, as the spokesman of the leaders who walked out. In fact, Geddes testified that he knew on July 12 when the leaders were in front of his office that Davis was their spokesman. 0° Geddes also testified that during none of the three conversations was any mention made of membership in the Association. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1273 Superintendent Geddes testified that he and Manager Gunn had, reached the decision to send the above telegrams because they had discussed the period which they would allow the leaders "to make up their minds that they had done wrong" and had "figured that if they did not get back by Monday" that they should no longer be considered as leaders. After receiving the above telegrams, the leaders went to the employment office which was under the supervision of Employment Manager Alben Rosiuski. Rosinski,.who, had been. authorized-by, his immediate, superior,. Sherman, to give all of the leaders releases so they could secure employment elsewhere, personally interviewed most of the leaders. While drop cards had been prepared for all 57 leaders, only 2 of the leaders were willing to sign their drop cards 6' All leaders who desired further employment were required to file new applications for employment. Approximately 45 such new applications were filed. Some of the new applications were for positions as leaders and others were for positions as workmen. Those who applied for positions as leaders were not given further employment, but of the leaders who applied for positions as workmen, 24 were employed from time to time thereafter either at the plant or at the shipyard as workmen.' However, not one of those 24 who returned as a workman has since been promoted to a leader, although many of the 24 had long records of continuous service e' Thus none of the 57 leaders named in "Appendix A" who had failed to go in'to see Geddes by July 17 and who thereupon received the above-quoted telegram of July 17 has at any time since he left the plant on July 12 been employed by the Respondent as a leader. From the record as a whole, the undersigned is satisfied and finds that, after sending the telegrams on July 17 to the 57 leaders who had not by then indicated that they had made up their minds that they "had done wrong," the Respondent has refused to consider any of the 57 as candidates for positions as leaders, or for higher supervisory positions. For instance, Geddes testified that when Fred Olson came to his home to ask for his job back that he told Olson in substance 61 The leaders turned in their tools but refused to sign their drop cards because the reason shown thereon for separation was that they had quit. 12 The 24 leaders who were reemployed as workmen are : Adams Di Silvestro Kihnski Mellilo Badali Dolton Laster Mote Bajo Dudzik Lazzara Olson Connelly Frigo Lebda Rogers Davison Fetters Marleau Simmons DeNys Granath McArdle Thompson W The Respondent's records show, for instance, continuous service prior to July 12, 1944, of over 31 years for Bajo , over 29 years for Marleau , over 24 years for Adams ; over 23 years for Dudzik ; over 22 years for Connelly; and over 21 years for Mellilo Four other leaders who returned as workmen had continuous service prior to July 12 ranging from over 11 years to almost 20 years Except for the three leaders who were reinstated as leaders, the Respondent has treated the service of all of the leaders who walked out on July 12 as broken as of that date This is true even for those who returned as work- men shortly after July 12. The meaning of "continuous service" and a "break" is defined in a booklet, "Retirement Plan for Employees," as follows : Continuous service means employment without a break, it break being defined to mean voluntary termination of employment, failure of laud-off employee to report to work when called back, or a discharge not followed by reinstatement within one year An employee returning to work after it break shall be considered a new em- ployee and his continuous service shall begin with the date of his re-employment. These 24 leaders who returned as workmen were treated as starting a new period of con- tinuous service, leaving the plant on July 12 being considered as having constituted a "break." 1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he could not consider him for a position as a leader because anyone'who walked off his job was not "a solid leader" who would do his duty and represent management as lie should.64 Geddes told Olson, who had at one time been a foreman and whose continuous service was almost 9 years, to go to the employ- ment office and put in an application for a job as a workman. Olson, who there- after returned as a workman, placed the date of the above conversation as about September 1, 1944 While the undersigned is not convinced that Geddes men- tioned "joining an association" in his talk with Olson, the undersigned is satisfied chat Geddes did give Olson clearly to understand that he was "through as a leader in Pullman forever." 65 Dudzik's experience sheds further light on this matter. After he had returned as a workman, Acting Assistant General Foreman Matyosowicz told him that he would like to have him as a leader but "they say I cannot have you." Dudzik, n ho is credited on the Respondent's record with over 231/2 years of continuous service testified credibly that he had worked for the Respondent over 40 years and had been a leader for about 32 years prior to July 12, 1944 60 However, after his return as a workman he was not able to continue to participate in the Re- spondent's group insurance plan for its employees because he was then too old to join as a new employee, a step required since the walk-out of July 12 was treated as constituting a break in his service. The above conclusion as to the Respondent's excluding all of the 57 leaders from possible future supervisory positions is borne out further by two conversa- tions which Acting Works Manager Harry Reed O' had with two leaders, Lukso and Olson." In an interview held in Reed's office about a month after the walk-out, Lukso told Reed that he would like to return as a leader since the plant was near his home which he had just purchased. Reed told Lukso that he could not put anybody back as a leader after he had walked off the job and to forget about coming back to the plant as a leader. Reed also advised Lukso that if he should thereafter become a supervisor he should not again organize with other super- visors because if supervisors organized they would try to tell management what it should do. During the conversation, which was somewhat protracted, Lukso told Reed that he did not feel that leaders at the plant were really a part of management and mentioned a number of respects in which leaders shared the conditions of rank-and-file employees rather than those of higher supervision 60 During a later conversation at the shipyard in October, Reed told Olson, who had been working there for about a month as a workman, when Olson asked Reed "' Geddes further testified , in explaining his statement to Olson, that he did not consider that any of the leaders who walked out on July 12 were "solid" leaders except "the few that came back and admitted they were at fault " 65 The quotations are from Olson's testimony . Geddes denied making either statement However, the Respondent admittedly did know shortly after the charge in Case No 13-C- 2439 was filed on July 22 , 1944, that the Association was involved in the situation 86 Evidently Dudzik had had some type of break in his continuous service a little over 25 years ago. 67 Reed had substituted for Gunn from time to time during illnesses before replacing Gunn in July 1945 Is The findings as to the substance of these conversations are made upon the undersigned's evaluation of the testnnony of Reed, Lukso, and Olson 8D As is pointed out above, leaders are hourly paid employees while higher supervisors are salaried While there are several differences in the privileges and benefits which are ac- corded hourly and salaried employees, the undersigned is satisfied, as has been found above, that the Respondent's leaders are supervisory employees within the meaning of that term as, used by the Board. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1275 to "fix up his service" and to put him back on a job as a leader, that he had no power to fix Olson's service so it would not show a break and that he could not use Olson as a leader because he had walked off the job.40 Under date of June 13, 1945, on the stationery of the Illinois Regional Office of the F'oremaii's Association of America, and over Davis' signature as "Regional Director, Foreman's Association of America," " a letter was addressed to Geddes which read : In view of the resumption of peaee time operation at the 111th street plant, a request is hereby made that the Company reinstate as leaders and em- ploy the men whose names appear on the attached list, whose long years of service, experience, and occupational skill would be more beneficial, than to train new employees. The above letter, which was not answered, led to no change in the status quo. The list appended to the letter contained (30 names. The names of all of the leaders in "Appendix A" appeared on said list except Heffron and Williams, two of the three leaders who had returned to work as leaders about July 17.42 C. Conclusion as to the unfair; labor practices 1. Conclusions as to the walkout of July 12 In general, the Board contends that the leaders who walked out were discharged and refused reinstatement ; or that they went on strike because of unfair labor practices and were refused reinstatement ; or that they went on strike for economic reasons and were refused reinstatement. The Respondent contends in essence that the leaders involved quit voluntarily after repeated warnings that they would be considered as having quit if they walked off and that even if the termination of their employment be held to constitute discharges, such dis- charges were not unlawful because they constituted appropriate discipline under the circumstances involved. Upon consideration of the alternative positions of the parties in the light of the facts above found and the record as a whole, the undersigned concludes as follows as to the walk-out of July 12 When the leaders voted in the locker room to leave the plant and thereafter secured passes and did so, their concerted activity constituted a strike. This strike was not caused by unfair labor practices but rather by a general feeling of insecurity on the part of leaders and by Browne's refusal to reinstate Dybis. The leaders went on strike in spite of the difficulties they encountered in securing passes and in the face of repeated threats which were essentially threats to discharge any leaders who struck. The Respondent knew that the leaders were acting concertedly in leaving the plant after the reinstatement of a fellow leader had twice been refused when it was requested by Davis who was known 70 The undersigned is not convinced that Reed referred to Olson's having "joined the Association" during this conversation, as testified by Olson but denied by Reed, although Reed knew then of the Association 71 Davis had become the Regional Director for Illinois in December 1944. This letter, sent some 11 months after the walk-out, is the only evidence in the record of a written request for reinstatement of the leaders as a group. 72 However, the name of the third leadei who had returned to work as a leader, Trenton, appeared on this list. Also two names appeared thereon which do not appear in "Appendix A." One is C. Dybis, the leader, whose lay-off on July 11, 1944, had precipitated the walk- out The other is A Rogers, the leader as to whom the allegation in the amended complaint was dismissed. at the hearing. 1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the Respondent to he acting as spokesman for the leaders ." The Respondent also knew that the leaders were not seeking to terminate their employment by leaving the plant. When , the leaders left the plant about 3:30 on the afternoon of July 12, they did not voluntarily quit their jobs. Rather, they were thereupon discharged by the Respondent in fulfillment of its threat because they persisted in going on strike in the face of repeated warnings . That the Respondent did live up to its threat by discharging the leaders when they left the plant is plain. As the leaders were handed their passes to leave they were told to call for their drop cards the next morning ." Geddes testified that the leaders "were all fired" on July 12. Lists which later were used at the gates to keep the striking leaders out of the plant were prepared shortly after the leaders left on July 12. Browne also immediately asked for nominations to fill the places of the leaders who went on strike , as he considered their places vacated. The striking leaders, except for three whose discharges were "rescinded " because they recanted, were informed by an unequivocally worded telegram on July 17 that they had forfeited their positions as leaders and were to get their drop cards and releases. Not only was the possibility of even securing a position as a leader thereafter barred to the 57 strikers in Group 1 of- "Appendix A" but positions even as workmen were thereafter available only upon filing new applications for employment. And as to the leaders who returned as workmen , their continuous service for all pur- poses such as group insurance and retirement plans was treated as broken as of July 12, 1944. The Respondent 's conduct throughout its dealings with the strikers clearly establishes that its tactical maneuvering through threats to avoid a strike ended when the leaders left the plant on July 12 about 3: 30 p. in. and that the Respondent thereupon definitely severed the strikers from its employment. The evidence shows that the strike was abandoned late on the afternoon of July 12. No picket line was formed ; no attempt was made to secure participa- tion of the night shift leaders ; and the striking leaders were at the Respondent's gates the morning of July 13 seeking to return at the usual time and in the usual way. That the Respondent 's conduct on July 13 , 14, 15 and 17 , in refusing to permit the leaders to enter the plant, was both a refusal to reinstate leaders whom it had discharged for striking and a concomitant lock-out of the leaders who had clearly demonstrated that they had abandoned their strike is apparent." This is particularly evident since the Respondent not only refused to admit the individual leaders when they reported for work , but also refused to meet with a committee of the leaders or to agree to their returning when they sought the assistance of governmental agencies. During the period from July 13 to about noon on July 17, the only avenue of approach which the respondent left open through which any of the discharged 13 It is immaterial whether the leaders involved constituted a minority of a maloiity gioup . since the presentation of a grievance does not constitute a demand to bargain col- lectively and there Is no finding heiein that the Respondent's refusal to reinstate Dybis was an unfair labor piactice Hence, N L. R. B. v Bra8hear Freight Lines , 119 F (2d) 379 (C C A 8 ), cited by the Respondent in its brief, is not in point Further, whetliei or not the Respondent knew that Davis was president of Chapter 92 or even that the Associa- tion had members in the plant is not material to any of the conclusions in this subdivision of the report. Likewise , membership or lack of membership in Chapter 92 on the part of the leaders named in "Appendix A" hereof is not material T" From Geddes ' testimony , it is evident that the leaders were not then given drop cards because it would have required a substantial amount of time to prepare so many 76 Matter of Moanalua Dairy, Limited, 65 N. L R. B 714. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1277 leaders could seek again to enter the Respondent's employ was to go individually to the employment office where his drop card was awaiting him; secure an appoint- ment with Superintendent Geddes; tell Geddes that he "had definitely done wrong" ; and ask Geddes to give him his job back. Such a procedure which was, under all the circumstances of this case, tantamount to requiring each leader in- dividually to forswear his right to engage in concerted activity, was repugnant to the Act, and cannot be considered an offer of reinstatement to the 57 discharged leaders in Group 1 of "Appendix A," who have never returned to work as leaders.R° By discharging the strikers named in "Appendix A," the Respondent violated the Act unless, as it contends alternatively, such discharges were not illegal under the particular circumstances. A study of the events which transpired on July 12 shows that the strikers were not discharged for anything which they did before leaving the plant. They were not discharged for meeting in the locker room about 2 o'clock, because Browne told Ryan while the meeting was in progress that they would give the leaders a few moments in the locker room to "think better of it and go back on the job." Browne also told Ryan after the leaders had left the locker room to tell them that if they would go back to work he would forget the incident. Further, even the leaders who actually secured passes but did not use them were not discharged. The facts establish that, at the time they left the plant, the leaders were discharged for striking. The strike was not illegal in pur- pose and was not accompanied by violence, seizure of property, sitdown tactics, or picketing In short, no grounds for justification along lines recognized by the Board and the Courts is afforded for discharging the striking leaders on the basis of their demands or their behavior during the strike. Further, the fact that no notice of a labor dispute had been filed in compliance with the War Labor Dis- putes Act does not, under the facts of this case, operate to deprive the strikers in "Appendix A" of their protection under the National Labor Relations Act ." The Respondent stresses the vital nature of its war production during July 1944 as a justification for its treatment of the leaders here under consideration. That the Respondent's production of LSM's was top priority war work is not debatable. However, the evidence shows that it was not the brief strike on July 12 which interfered with that vital war production but rather the Respondent 's refusal on July 13 and thereafter to reinstate the leaders. But in any event, the right to strike, which is specifically reserved in Section 13 of the Act, had not been fore- closed during the war emergency by any legislation. Everything considered, the facts in the instant matter in the opinion of the undersigned, do not justify the Respondent in discharging its leaders for striking, nor warrant a recommendation that the Board deny reinstatement to said leaders.48 From the foregoing and the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that by dis- charging the leaders named in Groups 1 and 2 of "Appendix A" on July 12, 1944, for engaging in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection; by there- after refusing to reinstate the leaders named in Group 2 of "Appendix A" to their former positions until they had renounced their right to engage in concerted activ- ity guaranteed by the Act ; and by refusing at all times after July 12 to reinstate ae While the undersigned also believes that this process did not constitute an offer of rein- statement acceptable under the Act to the three leaders in Group 2 of "Appendix A" it is not recommended below that the Respondent offer those three leaders reinstatement since they already have returned to positions as leaders. 77 Matter of Republic Steel Corporation (98 "Strip Mill"), 62 N. L. it. B. 1008, and Matter of Bolin Aluminum and Brass Corporation, 67 N. L R. B. 847. 78 Western Cartridge Co. v N L R B, 139 F (2d) 855 (C. C. A. 7) and Wyman-Gordon Co. v. N. L. R B, 153 F (2d) 480 (C C. A. 7) and other cases cited by the Respondent in its brief differ in their facts and are not controlling in this case. 1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the leaders named in Group 1 of "Apepndix A" to their former or substantially equivalent positions, the Respondent has discii.minated and is discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment or terms or conditions of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Association 40 and other labor organiza- tions, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 2. Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion The undersigned further finds that, by the acts specified in the immediately preceding paragraph hereof, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its leaders in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In addition to the foregoing, the facts set out above in Section III, B, show that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its leaders in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in several other respects. Patent among these are various statements which constituted threats to dis- charge any leaders who might go on strike. Similarly, Superintendent Geddes' conduct shortly after July 12 in securing from the leaders individually inter- viewed their agreement that they had "definitely done wrong," under circum- stances which were tantamount to requiring those leaders to renounce concerted activity in exchange for having their discharges "rescinded," constitutes inter- ference, restraint, and coercion. Likewise statements made by Superintendent Geddes and Acting Manager Reed to Leaders Lukso and Olson to the effect that leaders who had gone on strike on July 12 were not sufficiently "solid" to warrant their ever again being considered for positions as leaders were violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Finally, General Foreman Van Pelt's conversations with Stalonis and Simmons about the middle of May during the period of the Leaders' Club and before Chapter 92 had entered the picture were manifestly coercive in threatening the postwar job security of Stalonis and Simmons if they persisted in adhering to an organization which the undersigned is convinced and finds Van Pelt knew had become a labor organization 80 The Respondent contends that Van Pelt's remarks to leaders cannot be charged to the Respondent because the Association has represented and has sought to represent general foremen in plants of other employers. In this connection, it is not controlling that the Association has bargained for general While it appears to the undersigned unreasonable to believe that the Respondent was unaware that the Association was organizing among its leaders until after July 22, 1944, when it received notice of the charge in Case No 13-C-2439, the effect of the Respondent's conduct in discouraging membership in the Association is not dependent upon when the Respondent learned that the Association was organizing its leaders. so Van Pelt had stated several months earlier that he was not opposed to the Social Club as long as it remained merely a social club. However, he had even then shown anxiety that it might not It had in fact ceased to be a social club about May 1, some 2 weeks before his statements to Stalonis and Simmons. Further, about May 1, General Foreman Skold had definitely learned from Bodenhofer that the leaders were organizing Even if it be assumed that Van Pelt had not learned from Skold that the leaders were organizing, it is plain from what Van Pelt told Stalonis and Simmons and from his testimony on those con- versations that he was not talking about the Social Club, in many of the social activities of which many of the Respondent's higher supervisors had frequently participated, but rather that he was talking about what he had previously indicated that he feared the Social Club would develop into, namely a labor organization, an organization which might work against management. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1279 foremen in units including lesser supervisors,' because the Association had not yet entered the picture when Van Pelt talked with Stalonis and Simmons. Nor is it controlling that sometime later, when the Association did enter the picture, it solicited foremen and assistant foremen as well as leaders-and- actually had at one time a few assistant foremen and foremen as members 82 It it significant that Van felt's explanation of the conversations in question did not rest on any assumption on his part at that time that he, the general foreman, was just a fellow employee in the same bargaining unit with leaders under his supervision and was therefore merely exercising his prerogative as one fellow employee to discuss mutual economic interests with other fellow em- ployees. In fact, the Social Club, from which the Leaders' Club had recently evolved, had always admitted only leaders to membership, and from all of the evidence it is reasonable to infer that Van Pelt knew that Highly persuasive is the fact that both the purport of Van Pelt's remarks to Stalonis and Simmons as set out above and Van Pelt's testimony explaining why he talked with them show clearly that Van Pelt was functioning at that time in his role as an em- ployer who was visualizing his postwar staff of supervisory subordinates. Fur- ther, it is plain from the evidence that Van Pelt, who was at that time responsible directly to Superintendent Geddes, rather than to one of Geddes' assistants, had final authority over the selection of leaders in the steel shop S3 Obviously both in exercising known authority over the selection of subordinates and in discussions implying intention to exercise such authority, a supervisor is acting in an em- ployer role and will be understood by his subordinates to be acting such role. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that, under the circumstances of this case, Van Pelt's conversations with Stalonis and Simmons are chargeable to the Respondent.84 D. The termination of Bodenhofer's employment The Board contends that Bodenhofer was discriminatorily discharged. The Respondent contends that Bodenhofer 's services were terminated "solely because he told Skold, and Browne, that he could not, or would not, then, or in the future, follow instructions that he stay out of the locker room and make his time contracts at some other point" In the undersigned's opinion, the salient facts surrounding Bodenhofer ' s termination are as follows 35 Si However , the undersigned is not aware of any units established by Board decisions where the spread of supervisory responsibilities is so vast as that shown by the record herein to exist between leaders and general foremen at the Respondent 's plant. ^ Assistant general foremen and general foremen were not solicited , however , and did not join Chapter 92 s' Even when reporting to an assistant of Geddes, Van Pelt had such authority. &' The`Respondent contends in'its brief that Van Pelt ' s conversationscan,not go to prove the allegations of the complaint because they pertain either to the Social Club or the Leaders ' Club, while the complaint specifies only the Association. The allegation of para- graph 7 of the complaint with respect to warning, discouraging , threatening , and urging specifies only the Association and makes no mention of any other labor organization either specifically or generally , althoueh several other paragraphs of the complaint pertaining to the 8 ( 3) allegations use the phrase , "Association or other labor organizations." While the Association had not entered the picture at the time of Van Pelt ' s remarks considered above, the Leaders' Club had come into existence as a labor organization and was serving as the nucleus for the leaders who later joined the Association In any event , all of the mat- ters upon which findings are made above were fully litigated at the hearing; all parties had full opportunity to meet the issues raised thereby ; and the receipt of evidence on these matters was not objected to on the ground that the complaint was defective. s' These facts are found' upon the weight of the credible evidence, which is voluminous and in many respects highly contradictory . No attempt is made to set out the conflicts in the evidence. 1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Making out time contracts was, during the period involved, one of the regular daily duties performed by leaders in the Assembly Building. Customarily many of the leaders made out their time contracts in the leaders' locker room where tables and benches were available. While there were places in the shop where it was possible to make out time contracts, for any leader who, like Bodenhofer, had a number of time contracts to make out and who carefully kept preliminary records, the leaders' locker room was the most satisfactory place available After Browne took over the Assembly Building in March 1944, every effort was made to get out production on the Navy's "hottest" priority item, landing barges for the war in the Pacific. From Browne's first talks with the leaders and their foremen shortly after he became assistant superintendent, the leaders were urged to keep out with their crews on their respective jobs. Assistant Foreman Baxter on numerous occasions asked leaders whom he found in the locker room to go on out on the job with their crews. Skold also gave similar instructions to leaders from time to time when he found them in the locker room. As to fitter leaders, such instructions prior to May 26 appear to have pertained to leaders being in the locker room for personal reasons such as talking, reading, or drinking coffee and eating sandwiches between meals . Yet welder leaders had been told specifically not to use the locker room even to snake out their time contracts."' Also, one of the fitter leaders, Rudzik, had admittedly been told by Skold specifically, several weeks prior to May 26, not to use the locker room to make out his contracts However, fitter leaders other than Rudzik had not been informed prior to May 26 that they should not use the locker room to make out their time contracts and many of the fitter leaders did make out all or most of their contracts in the locker room. The incident which resulted in Bodenhofer's and Rudzik's termination occurred about mid-afternoon on May 26. It is evident that instructions forbidding the use of the leaders' locker room in making out time contracts were to have been posted about noon on May 26, and that one or more of the foremen under Skold's supervision had failed to post those instructions." In the opinion of the under- signed, the evidence does not wariant an inference that the instructions, which were supposed to have been posted after lunch on May 26, against using the locker room for making out contracts, were issued for purposes repugnant to the Act 89 86 Time contracts are slips of heavy paper about 4 inches square with spaces provided for certain entries Each leader had a separate time contract for each of the several jobs he supervised on any given day . Each day the leader enteied the check number of each em- ployee who worked that day on that particular job, the number of hours each employee worked and certain other information 87 Welder leaders had satisfactor y accommodations elsewhere which they could use for such work 88 Thus Leader Clarence Mote , an officer of Chapter 92 who was called by the Board as a witness , testified that about 4 o'clock on the afternoon of May 26 his foreman Frank Stover, told him not to go into the locker room to make out his contracts and that Stover also said that he had forgotten to post a bulletin to that effect which he should have put up right after lunch That there etas a misunderstanding is confirmed by the wording of a petition drawn tip by a number of leaders on the evening of May 26, one paragraph of which read : This request is based on the fact that the misunderstanding was created by the supervisors of the leaders, who failed to relay certain explicit instructions of new rules and regulations 81 In making this finding , considei ation has been given to the possibility that the Re- spondent learned that leaders were discussing organization in the locker room and that Bodenhofer was active therein in soliciting leaders to jour the Leaders ' Club However; it, is clear that making out time contracts could have been used as a pretext for doing several things of it personal nature, and that the Respondent was exerting itself to the utmost to keep leaders out with their crews in order to speed up production. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1281 About 3 o'clock on May 26, as Bodenhofer was prepared to make out his con- tracts for that day in the locker room, Skold approached Bodenhofer and asked him what he was doing in the locker room Bodenhofer replied that he was going to make out his time contracts. Skold asked him if he was not aware that he was not allowed to make out contracts in the locker room Bodenhofer said that he was not and asked where they were supposed to be made out When Skold replied that they were supposed to be made out in the shop, Bodenhofer told him that lie knew that that was a physical impossibility and that lie could not do it. Skold told Bodenhofer that if lie would not make out his contracts in the shop lie did not need him anymore, and that he could get his drop card Without indicating any willingness to try to make out his time contracts in the shop, Bodenhofer went for his drop card. Just prior to the foregoing conversation with Bodenhofer, Skold had been talk- ing in the locker room with Baxter and two or three others, including a safety man, concerning a matter involving safety When he finished that conversation and spoke to Bodenhofer, there were four other leaders (one of whom Was Rudzik) in the room. At least sonie of them were working on their time con- tracts While Skold did not speak to any of those four leaders after talking to Bodenhofer, Baxter shortly thereafter discharged Rudzik 80 All three of the other leaders were admittedly warned either by Baxter or Stoves that they could not snake out time contracts in the locker room, two of them later that afternoon and the third the next clay. Under the circumstances, the undersigned does not believe that Skold's failure to speak to the other leaders upon the termination of his discussion with Bodenhofer establishes intent to treat Bodenhoter dis- criminatorily, especially in view of the situation which developed between Skold and Bodenhofer in the presence of the other leaders. When Bodenhofer received his drop card shortly after leaving the locker room, the reason stated for his separation was that he had refused to obey orders. Bodenhofer refused to sign the drop card and tried to get Skold to change the reason. Skold refused to do this. Bodenhofer then went to see Browne, ob- jected to the wording on the drop card, and asked Browne to change it to show that he was unable to carry out orders, insisting that it was impossible for various reasons for him to make out time contracts in the shop. After considerable dis- cussion, during which Browne said that he could not see any difference between Bodenhofer's contention that it was impossible to do what he had been told to do and the drop card wording that he had refused, and during which Bodenhofer gave no indication of willingness to try to follow Skold's instructions, Browne insisted that the time contracts would have to be made out in the shop. However Browne obligingly gave Bodenhofer a new drop card on which the reason stated was, "Unable to follow instructions in making out time cards in the shop." Bodenhofer was satisfied with the reason thus stated, and signed the new drop card. On the following day, May 27, Davis conveyed to Browne the sentiments of leaders as to Bodenhofer's and Rudzik's separation and as to the rule against using the locker room for making out contracts. Thereafter Browne saw Rud- zik whom he had not previously seen,si but refused to see Bodenhofer because he "The reason for termination stated on Rudzik's drop card was, "Refused to obey in- structions to keep out of leaders' locker room during working hours." 11 At the close of the interview, during which Rudzik's general attitude was the prin- cipal topic of discussion , Browne told Rudzik to take a couple of weeks to think the matter over and then to come back. Rudzik nei er returned. 1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had already talked with him. Browne also issued over his signature the following bulletin, dated May 29, 1944, ^vhich all leaders were required to read and sign: INSTRUCTIONS TO LsADERS In older to avoid any misunderstandings, it must be thoroughly under- stood that the Leaders' locker room is only intended to belused for changing clothes and washing up before and after working hours and for eating during lunch hour only. Should it be found necessary to do any clerical work during working hours that cannot be done in the shop, use may be made of the Assembly Foremen's desk space in the Hall Office, but this should be kept to a minimum. As you all know, the only place where a leader can properly supervise his men is on the job, and it is to enable each one of you to spend as much time as possible with his gang that this set up is made. You have all been doing a good job in getting up to schedule, but we are still a few sections behind, so let's all cooperate in making this set up work 100%, and show Navy that the Assembly Building can deliver the goods. While there are factors which tend to support an inference that Bodenhofer's termination involved discriminatory motives, on the whole, the undersigned be- lieves that Bodenhofer's employment would not have been terminated had he not insisted that it was impossible for him to comply with instructions given by Skold and backed up by Browne. The undersigned further believes that it was not impossible to comply with those instructions and that under all of the circum- stances of this case those instructions cannot be considered to have been issued discriminatorily nor to have been onerous as to have been tantamount to a con- structive discharge. All things considered, the undersigned is convinced that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that Bodenhofer was discriminatorily discharged and thereafter discriminatorily refused rein- statement 92 Accordingly it will be recommended below that said allegations be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The undersigned finds 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 engaged in unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate, the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the leaders named in Group 2 of "Appendix A" and has interfered with rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by discharging them because they engaged in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them as leaders until they in effect renounced 02 While the evidence as to reinstatement is not discussed herein, the undersigned does not believe that It warrants any finding of discriminatory refusal to reinstate PULLMAN- STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1283 their right to engage in concerted activity, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent make whole the leaders in Group 2 of "Appendix A" for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from July 13, 1944, to the date upon which each was reinstated to his position as a leader, less his net earnings n during said period. Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" and has interfered with rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by discharging them and thereafter refusing to reinstate them to their positions as leaders B4 because they engaged in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent offer immediate and full re- instatement to each of the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" to his former or substantially equivalent position,06 without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges." The undersigned will further recommend that the Respondent make each of the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from July 13, 1944, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.97 Should there not presently be a sufficient number of positions available to enable the "Respondent to reinstate all of the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A," it is recommended that reinstatement be effected under the fol- lowing procedure. All persons hired for or promoted to positions as leaders after 3: 30 p. m on July 12, shall, if necessary to provide employment for those to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed or demoted. Thereafter the Respondent shall offer immediate and full reinstatement to each of the 57 leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A," without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and 93 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, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State , county, municipal, or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R. B., 311 U. S 7. 19 It should be noted that the discharges of all the leaders named in "Appendix A" were followed by locking them out. The remedy , under the circumstances of this case, would be same if it were based upon the lock-out. Matter of Moanalua Dairy, Limited, 05 N L It. B. 714 "' Where the former position exists , reinstatement is to be made to that position . During the hearing it was stated by the Trial Examiner that , insofar as the right to order rein- statement is concerned , it would be assumed that substantially equivalent employment has been obtained . As a uniform policy in effectuating the purpose of the Act , the Board holds that employees ' subject to discrimination should be restored to their former positions if they so desire , notwithstanding the obtaining of substantially equivalent employment See Matter of Ford Motor Company, 31 N L R B 994, 1099. 96 This includes the elimination of the break in continuous service for group insurance and retirement plans. 97 As to any leaders who may have entered the Armed Forces of the United States and been discharged therefrom , each is to be made whole for any loss of earnings he has suffered or may suffer by reason of the Respondent 's discrimination against lum , by payment to hint of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as•wages during the periods : ( 1) between July 13, 1944, and to the 'date of his induction, and ( 2) from the date of his discharge from the Armed Forces to . the (date of the offer of reinstatement by the Respondent , less his net earnings during those periods. 781902-48-vol 76--82 1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD privileges. If the staff of leaders is then greater than is needed, the Respondent may lay off as many leaders as is necessary to reduce its leaders to the presently needed complement, following such system of seniority or other non-discrimina- tory practices as it customarily employed in the conduct of its business prior to July 12, 1944. The leaders thus laid off shall be placed upon a preferential list, in the order determined among them by such system of seniority or other non- discriminatory practices, and thereafter offered employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. Should any of the leaders to be offered reinstatement be presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, it is recommended that the Respondent, upon the application of any such leader within ninety (90) days after his dis- charge from the Armed Forces, offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges If under the conditions then existing no position is available, the Respondent shall follow with relation to each such leader the Several steps in the procedure set out above. Any such leader in the Armed Forces shall be made whole for any loss suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination by payment to him of a sum of money equal to amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the periods: (1) between July 13, 1944, and the date of his induction, and (2) between a date five (5) days after his timely application for reinstatement, if any, and the date of the Respond- ent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. The remedy set forth herewith as to all of the leaders named in "Appendix A" is based upon the findings made above that the discrimination against them is violative both of Section 8 (1) and of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Thus whether the Respondent's discriminatory conduct is viewed as a violation of Section 8 (1) or as a violation of Section 8 (3), the undersigned finds that the effectuation of the policies of the Act requires the remedy set forth herewith 98 Having found that the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices with respect to George Bodenhofer, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to him. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS of LAW 1 Foreman's Association of America, Chapter 92, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The leaders employed by the Respondent at its Pullman Car Works are em- ployees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of leaders named in "Appendix A," Groups 1 and 2, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization and thereby also discouraging concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning both of Section 8 (3) and of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. By otherwise 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. 98 Matter of Bohn Aluminum and Bras8 Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 847. ' PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1285 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not discriminated against George Bodenhofer as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent , Pullman-Standard Car Manufac- turing Company ( Pullman Car Works ), Chicago, Illinois , its officers , agents, suc- cessors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Foreman 's Association of America , Chapter 92, or any other labor organization of its leaders or discouraging concerted activity for mutual aid and protection by discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment of its leaders ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its leaders in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Foreman 's Association of America , Chapter 92 , or any other labor organization admitting its leaders to membership , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activity 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 undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Make whole the leaders named in Group 2 of "Appendix A" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent ' s discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from July 13, 1944, to the date of his reinstatement as a leader , less his net earnings during said period ; (b) Offer to the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" who are not presently in the Armed Services of the United States, immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without preju- dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges , in the manner set forth in Section V hereof entitled "The remedy ," placing those leaders for whom no employment is presently available upon a preferential list and offering them employment as it becomes available , in the manner therein set forth ; (c) Make whole said leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's discrimination against them , by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from July 13, 1944 , to the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement or placement of his name upon the preferential list, less his net earnings during said period ; (d) Offer to each of the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" who is in the Armed Forces of the United States, upon his timely application within ninety (90) days after his discharge from the Armed Forces, immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in Section V hereof, entitled "The remedy ," placing those for whom no em- ployment is available upon a preferential list and offering them employment as it becomes available ,, in the manner therein set forth; (e) Make whole each of the leaders named in Group 1 of "Appendix A" now in the Armed Forces of the United States for any loss of pay he may have suffered 1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the periods: (1) between July 13, 1944, and the date of his induction; 99 and (2) between the (late five (5) days after his timely application for reinstatement, if any, and the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement or placement of his name upon preferential list, less his net earnings during said period ; (f) Post at its Pullman Car Works in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix 13 " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to leaders are custom- arily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (g) File with the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the Respondent has complied with the foregoing recommendations. It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations, Board issue an order, requiring the Respond- ent to take the action aforesaid. It is also recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Re- spondent discriminated against George Bodenhofer within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, be dismissed. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended , effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Roch- ambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a state- ment in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep- tions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Re- gional Director. As further provided'in said Section 33,-should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Any party desiring to submit a brief in support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry. of the order transferring the case to the Board, by filing with the Board an Qriginal and four copies thereof, and by immediately serving a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional Director. EARL S BELLMAN, Dated June 28, 1946 Trial Examiner. 1 e9 This sum is to be paid to each leader in the Armed Forces immediately , without await- ing a final determination of the full amount of his award. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1287 APPENDIX A GROIIP 1 George Adams Jack Frigo Samuel McFadden Arthur Anderson William Fetters Nunsey Mellilo George Anderson Lawrence Freelove Clarence Mote August Badali Hershell Garner Leo Mulcahy Hugo Bafflone Engvald Granath Fred Olson Frank Bajo Segonia Halford Earl N. Otto Donald Barber Harry Havis Michael Pauhk Fred Beckt Theodore Johnson Dave Rogers Otto Bierhaus James Johnston John Schick Carmen Bruno Frank Joselenas Earl Simmons Robert Burk Henry T. Kemper Lynn Snyder Edward Connelly Peter B. Kilinski Steven Stalonis William Davison George J. Kleeb Francis Stout Hugh Davis Edward Laster Joe Szitasy Edward DeNys Mike Lazzara Harry Thompson Angelo Di Silvestro Teddy Lebda Edward Tomaszewski Fred De Vries August Lukso Robert Waters Lloyd R. Dolton John Marleau Lawrence Welch Joseph Dudzik Thomas McArdle Arthur Will GRoui 2 Lloyd Heffron Umberto Trenton Roswell Williams APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our leaders in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER 92, or any other labor organization of our leaders, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL OFFER to the leaders named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, in the manner set forth in the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination against them. George Adams Frank Bajo Robert Burk Arthur Anderson Donald Barber Edward Connelly George Anderson Fred Beckt William Davison August Badali Otto Bierhaus Hugh Davis Hugo Baffione Carmen Bruno Edward DeNys 1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Angelo Di Silvestro Henry T. Kemper Earl N. Otto Fred De Vries Peter B. Kilinski Michael Paulik Lloyd R. Dolton George J. Kleeb Dave Rogers Joseph Dudzik Edward Laster John Schick Jack Frigo Mike Lazzara Earl Simmons William Fetters Teddy Lebda Lynn Snyder Lawrence Freelove August Lukso Steven Stalonis Hershell Garner John Marleau Francis Stout Engvald Granath Thomas McArdle Joe Szitasy Segonia Halford Samuel McFadden Harry Thompson Harry Havis Nunsey Mellilo Edward Tomaszewski Theodore Johnson Clarence Mote Robert Waters James Johnston Leo Mulcahy Lawrence Welch Frank Joselenas Fred Olson Arthur Will WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Lloyd Heffron, Umberto Trenton, and Roswell Williams for any loss of pay suffered as the result of discrimination against them. All of our leaders are free to become or remain members of FOREMAN'S Asso- cIATION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER 92, or any other labor organization admitting lead- ers to membership . We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any of our leaders because of membership in or activity on behalf of such labor organization. PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY ( PULLMAN CAR WORKS), Employer. By -------------------------------------------- (Representative) Dated ------------------------ (Title) NOTE : Any of the above -named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement , in conformance with the Trial Examiner ' s Intermediate Report, upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation