Pyro Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1224 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pyro Electric , Inc. and International Union, Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-3474. Janu-
ary 9, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 23, 1960, Trial Examiner David London, issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices and recommended a dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a brief, and the
Respondent filed a reply and brief in support of the Intermediate
Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record
in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions, cor-
rections,' and modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner found that Carl Mangun was discrimina-
torily discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
No exceptions were taken to this finding of the Trial Examiner. We
hereby adopt such finding pro forma.
2. With respect to the discharge of employee Helen Justice, the
Trial Examiner found that the evidence fell short of establishing the
General Counsel's allegation that Justice was discharged because of
her union activities. More specifically, he found that the record failed
to establish that Justice did, in fact, engage in protected activity and
also failed to establish that the Respondent had either knowledge, or
reasonable grounds for believing, that Justice was so engaged.
Having made these findings, the Trial Examiner recommended that
the allegations of the complaint with respect to Justice be dismissed.
The General Counsel excepts, contending that there is uncontradicted
and unrefuted evidence in the record showing that the Respondent dis-
' We note and correct the following inadvertent error in the Intermediate Report :
Marvin Planeaux , and not Alvin Planeaux , is the management representative of Newcastle
Products.
129 NLRB No. 146.
PYRO ELECTRIC, INC. 1225
criminated against Justice because of her support of the Union. We
find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions.
In our opinion, the record clearly establishes that Justice was in
sympathy with Mangun's efforts to secure union representation for the
Respondent's employees, and that the Respondent, through its fore-
man, Lofgren, was well aware of her interest in establishing a union
in the plant. Thus, on September 18, 1959, during the course of a con-
versation with Lofgren and Mangun, Justice not only stated that she
thought it would be all right if the employees could obtain union
representation, but that "the men could use one [union] there," ex-
plaining that her husband (also an employee in the Respondent's
plant) was earning only $1.36 per hour, and the men couldn't make a
living on that. In reply, Lofgren stated that a union would be all
right if the employees obtained the right union and chose the right
people to run it. Justice retorted, "We are going to get a Union in
there whether you like it or not," and "We are going to elect Carl
[Mangun] as Chier (sic) Steward." Thereafter, Lofgren reported
this conversation to Respondent's general foreman, Jerry Rains.
In addition, the credible evidence in the record also clearly estab-
lishes that not only was Justice interested in obtaining union repre-
sentation, but that she did, in fact, take part in the subsequent
organizational campaign. In this regard, Justice's testimony that she
signed a union card and was active in the campaign to organize the Re-
spondent's employees is uncontradicted and unrefuted. Moreover,
although on September 18, in Lofgren's presence, she told Mangun
that she could not talk to the women in the plant about the Union be-
cause she would not know which women to approach, Justice credibly
testified that despite her early reluctance, subsequently she did "talk to
people" about the Union off the plant premises.
In our opinion, the record also establishes, contrary to the findings
of the Trial Examiner, that while Justice did not sign the petition
circulated by Mangun in the plant, the Respondent linked Justice and
Mangun together as leading advocates of union organization whom it
was necessary to eliminate in order to counteract the growing success
of their organizational activities as revealed by the petition circulated
by Mangun. Moreover, Foreman Lofgren attributed the circulation
of the petition as the real reason for the discharge of not only Mangun,
as found by the Trial Examiner, but also Justice. Thus Mangun
credibly testified :
Well, then, he [Lofgren] came in there. He came in there about
quarter to six, ten 'til six. And he came over by the booth. And
I asked him the same question over, "What did they fire me over
John, was it my work?" He said, "No, it wasn't over your work.
You know what it was over. It was over that petition that you
had out. That is why they fired you." He also said that Jerry
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rains searched for him out in the mill. He got a hold of the pe-
tition, and he told Marvin Planeaux about it. And Marvin had
told Roy to fire me. And he said after dinner when he went
back to work-the afternoon there, he told Roy Helms and Marvin
they didn't have no business firing me over it. They shouldn't
have fired me over it and Helen [Justice] because they were
going to get a Union there sooner or later. [Emphasis supplied.]
The Respondent contends, however, that Justice was selected for dis-
charge as part of an economy move in reducing the staff because she
was "slowing down on the job" and because creditors in the com-
munity called on her at the plant. But, as in the case of Mangun,
the evidence militates against the contentions of the Respondent.
Thus, like Mangun, Justice had never received any verbal or written
complaints about her work; and received three pay increases of 5 cents
per hour each between the date of her hire on May 11, 1959, and on
October 16, 1959, the date of her discharge; had also been retained
through October 15, despite the earlier discharges of approximately
30 unsatisfactory employees; and was summarily discharged by Plant
Superintendent Helms in the middle of the day, shortly after she had
been instructed by General Foreman Rains to work on six doors that
afternoon. Moreover, it also appears that the -Respondent had earlier
assigned Justice to assist in the training of new employees. But of
even more significance, at the time of her discharge, Plant Superin-
tendent Helms told Justice that she was being laid off because "work
had slowed down," and not, as now claimed, because she was slowing
down on the job or because her efficiency had dropped. In addition,
although the Respondent now claims that creditors were calling on
Justice at the plant, in his testimony, Plant Superintendent Helms
admitted he never notified Justice that creditors were making in-
quiries at the plant; and, apart from one instance, it does not appear
that Justice was aware that creditors were coming to the plant.
In view of the foregoing, and the entire record, we must conclude
that the Respondent did not discharge Justice for the reasons it now
assigns, but discharged her because it linked her with Mangun, as an
active leader of the union organizational campaign among its em-
ployees. Accordingly, we find that her discharge, like that of Mangun,
violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
As we have found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Helen Justice, we shall order that the Respondent offer her immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make her whole in accordance with the Board's remedial policies
(The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto
PYRO ELECTRIC, INC. 1227
Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB
-440; F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289) for any loss of pay
she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her.
However, as the Trial Examiner did not find that Helen Justice was
-discriminatorily discharged, in accordance with our customary prac-
tice, we shall exclude from the computation of her backpay the period
between the issuance of the Intermediate Report and our present
,Order.2
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 the Respondent, Pyro Electric, Inc.,
Walkerton, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and ten-
ure of their employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
.of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Carl Mangun immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy," for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him.
(b) Offer to Helen Justice immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole in the
manner set forth in the "Remedy" section of this Decision and Order,
for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against her. However, the period of her back-pay shall not in-
clude the period of time between the issuance of the Intermediate
Report, June 23, 1960, and the date of our Decision and Order.
2 See, e g., Industrial Fabricating Inc., et al, 119 NLRB 162, 173.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to determine the backpay due.
(d) Post in its plant at Walkerton, Indiana, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of such notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 discourage membership in or activities on behalf
of International Union, Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging any
of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against
our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
International Union, Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Carl Mangun and Helen Justice immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
PYRO ELECTRIC , INC. 1229
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and will make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
PYRo ELECTRIC, INC.)
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representatn,e ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Union, Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, against Pyro Electric, Inc., herein
called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, issued a complaint herein alleging
that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance,
that on or about October 16, 1959, Respondent discriminatorily terminated the
employment of Carl Mangun and Helen Justice because of their union or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
By its answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial
Examiner on March 28, 1960, at La Porte, Indiana. All parties were represented
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. After the close of
the hearing, the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs, both of which have
been fully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation
of,the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and at all tines material herein has been, a corporation duly
organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Illinois. It
maintains a factory and office at Walkerton, Indiana, where it is, and at all times
material herein has been, engaged in the business of manufactiuring electrical appli-
ances and doors. Respondent, in the course and operation of its business, ships
goods directly outside the State of Indiana, and ships goods within that State, to
firms engaged in interstate commerce at an annual rate in excess of $50,000 in
value. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is, and at all times material herein
has been, engaged in commerce, and that its operations affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, is, and
at times material herein has been , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent, a subsidiary or division of Newcastle Products of Newcastle, Indiana,
began operations in April or May 1959 at its newly constructed plant at Walkerton,
Indiana, where the events with which we are concerned took place It recruited its
staff of employees, all of them inexperienced, from inhabitants of Walkerton or
the adjacent area.
The plant was under the general supervision of Roy Helms, superintendent,
Charles Jerry Rains, general foreman, and John Lofgren, in charge of assembly.
Superior in the chain of command, however, was Alvin Planeaux, "management
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative" of Newcastle Products , who gave Respondent its production quotas
and costs and who , from June to December 1959 , spent 2 to 4 days a week at
Respondent 's Walkerton plant.
A. The discharge of Mangun
Discussions among a number of Respondent 's employees looking toward the
organization of a union began early in July 1959 . The leader in the movement was
Carl Mangun , employed by Respondent on the preceding June 18. Pursuant to the
suggestion of these employees , Mangun wrote to an AFL-CIO official for informa-
tion pertaining to the desires of these employees . On or about July 18, Mangun
received a communication from the field representative of the Charging Union, to
whom the above request had been referred , offering to assist in the organization of
Respondent 's employees . Mangun circulated the letter in the plant among about six
employees but never received a return of the letter.
On September 18, some of the employees , including Mangun , Justice, and Foreman
Lofgren, were seated at the bar of the Irish Tavern in the vicinity of Respondent's
plant. During the course of the conversation , Mangun brought up the subject of
the Union and engaged in a discussion in which all three parties participated . Justice,
who "didn't think too much about it," stated , however, that she "thought it would
be all right" and that Mangun would be elected as chief steward.
After several additional employees informed him early in October that they
wanted a union in the plant, Mangun , on October 14, had his daughter type a
petition expressing a desire for the organization of the employees . Mangun, after
appending his signature as the first on the list, brought the petition into the plant
on the morning of October 15, secured the signatures thereto of three other employees
before 7 a .m., and then placed the petition in his toolbox . At noon, he gave the-
petition to another employee to get additional signatures and asked that it be returned
to him that evening. Mangun was discharged at about 11 : 30 of the following
morning and did not secure possession of the petition again until 3 or 4 days later.
About 8 a.m. on Friday , October 16, Helms, the plant superintendent, asked
Mangun if he could work on the following day. Mangun replied that he could not
because he was having some teeth extracted on that day . At approximately
11:30 a.m., shortly after Helms had inquired of Mangun concerning Lofgren's
whereabouts , Helms and Lofgren returned to Mangun 's post. Helms tendered
Mangun his paycheck and told him that he couldn 't use him any more. When
Mangun asked why he was being terminated , Helms' only reply was: "Well, we just
can't use you any more." i
Mangun testified credibly that on two occasions later in the day, once at noon
and again about 6 p .m., he met Lofgren at the Irish Tavern and on both occasions
was told by Lofgren that he had been fired because he "started that petition around."
Lofgren only denied the specific accusation leveled against him by Mangun per-
taining to the 6 p .m. meeting between the men on that day and testified that all he
said in response to Mangun 's query at that time as to why the latter was discharged
was: "You probably know the reason ," adding that Mangun would have to get
any further explanation from Helms. Based on the foregoing , my observation of
the demeanor of the two men as they testified , and the equivocal and inconsistent a
nature of the evidence given by Lofgren, I credit Mangun 's testimony that Lofgren
told him that he had been fired because he had circulated the union petition
aforementioned.
There is no merit to Respondent 's contention that it had no knowledge of Mangun's.
union activities until after he was discharged . The finding heretofore entered that
Lofgren ascribed the circulation of the union petition by Mangun as the reason for
his discharge would, standing alone, be sufficient to negate that contention. But
I I credit Mangun's testimony that no other explanation for his discharge was given-
Helms testified that he told Mangun that he was being discharged because "his work was
not as good as it should be, too much scrap ." Lofgren, however , testified that he "be-
lieve[d Helms ] said there is too many voids ." ( Voids are bare spots left after the print-
ing on the doors is completed ) I credit Mangun's testimony that no explanation was then
given him other than that Respondent could not use him anymore
' At the hearing, Lofgren denied that lie had, prior to Mangun 's discharge , reported to
management the September 18 conversation he had at the tavern with Mangun and
Justice regarding the Union and the suggestion that Mangun would be chief steward for
the Union. However , in an interview with the Board agent on December 17, 1919, re-
duced to writing and signed by him, Lofgren admitted that he reported this conversation
to Superintendent Rains prior to Mangun 's discharge.
PYRO ELECTRIC, INC. 1231
there is further testimony in the record, which I credit, and which nullifies Respond-
ent's contention. Thus, Justice testified that during the meeting at the Irish Tavern
in the early evening of October 16, Lofgren stated that Rains "had got hold of this
petition 3 and that he had given it to Marvin Planeaux, and that he [Planeaux]
had went back and jumped Roy Helms about it, this petition." 4 "This testimony
was not specifically denied, and [I] credit it." Bituminous Material & Supply Co.,
124 NLRB 945.
Relevant also in considering Respondent's contention that it had no knowledge
of Mangun's union activities is the small size of its plant. Indeed, in its brief, Re-
spondent concedes that "[b]ecause of the small size of the operation, the character
of the entire labor force was known to the supervisors in the plant. The relationship
in the plant was closer and less formal than it would have been in a larger sized
plant." [Emphasis supplied.] "[T]he Board has frequently held, with judicial
approval, that the small size of a respondent's plant affords a basis for inferring the
respondent's knowledge of the union activity of its employees." Bituminous Ma-
terial & Supply Co., supra, and cases cited therein.
I do not credit Respondent's testimony that Mangan was selected for discharge
as part of an economy move in reducing the staff because he was an inefficient em-
ployee. Helms testified that he received instructions from Planeaux on Wednesday,
October 14, to reduce the staff of approximately 80-90 employees by "15%,
15 people, or 15%." The first employee discharged thereafter was Mangun. The
implications to be drawn from that selection therefore is that Respondent would
have it appear that Mangun was one of the most, if not the most, inefficient workman
employed by Respondent and one whose services could most easily be dispensed
with. Yet, only an hour or two before discharging hun at 11:30 a.m., Helms asked
Mangun whether he couldn't work on the following day, Saturday, presumably a
premium pay period. This request, coupled with the circumstance next referred
to, militates most strongly against Respondent's contention that Mangun was
selected for discharge because of his poor work performance.
General Foreman Rains testified that on Wednesday, October 14, or Thursday,
October 15, in consultation with Helms, it was decided to discharge Mangun and
that because Rains, who normally notified employees of their termination, expected
to be in the plant for only a short period on Friday morning, Helms would perform
that task on that day. Notwithstanding the alleged earlier decision to terminate
Mangun's services on Friday, Helms during the early morning of the latter day
asked Mangun to come to work on Saturday.
The evidence is also undisputed that during each of the months prior to his dis-
charge Mangun had received a pay increase of 5 cents an hour. That these increases
indicated a satisfaction with Mangun's services is buttressed by Helms' testimony
that of the turnover of 40-50 employees during the period prior to October, 20%
were quits and 80% were terminated." Helms also admitted that he had never
warned Mangun that his services were unsatisfactory.
On the entire record, I can only conclude that following Helms' request of Man-
gun on Friday to work on Saturday, Helms learned of the petition circulated by
Mangun and precipitately discharged him for that reason, a conclusion reported
to Mangun by Lofgren later at the Irish Tavern. By that discharge, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
B. The discharge of Justice
Justice was hired by Respondent on May 11, 1959, to work in the assembly de-
partment, but thereafter was also engaged in work on various machines. She was
hired at $1.16 an hour but received three increases of 5 cents each until, at the time
of her termination, she was earning $1.31 an hour. During the course of her em-
ployment, she helped in the training of new employees and was never criticized for
her work.
It will be recalled that Mangun's signature was the first to be subscribed on that
document
4 Though Respondent admits in its brief that Planeaux was present at the hearing, it
failed to call him as a witness Its failure to do so warrants an inference that, if ad-
duced, his testimony would not be favorable to Respondent Interstate Circuit v United
States, 306 U.S 208, 225; N.L.R.B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. 2d 802, 871 (C.A 2) ;
N L R B v. Sass Wallick, et al, tl/b/a Wallick and Schwalm Company, et al, 198 F. 2d'
477, 483 (C A 3) Respondent's argument that Planeaux's testimony was equally avail-
able to both parties is obviously unrealistic. See Wigmore, Evidence, sec. 285 (3d ed_
1940).
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About 11:15 a.m. of October 16, Rains instructed Justice to do some specific work
,on six doors during that afternoon. Upon returning from lunch on the same day,
and before she had an opportunity to perform the task assigned to her by Rains,
Helms gave Justice her paycheck and informed her she was being laid off because
"work was slowing down at the plant," adding that he didn't know whether the ter-
mination was temporary or permanent. Justice made no reply but merely accepted
her check and left the plant.
The General Counsel contends she was discharged because of her union activities.
Respondent, on the other hand, claims she was selected for termination in the
.economy move then in progress "because she was slowing down on the job and
because of creditors in the community calling her at the plant."
No claim is made that Justice was, or had made application to become, a member
of the Charging Union or any other labor organization, and the testimony is con-
clusive that her signature is not among the 15 that appear on the petition circulated
by Mangun. The only evidence pertaining to any union activity or interest on her
part relates to the events at the Irish Tavern on September 18 heretofore referred
to, and in which she, Mangun, and Lofgren participated. According to her own
testimony, however, her answer to Mangun 's inquiry at that time as to what she
thought about getting a union in the plant was merely that she "thought it would be
all right." She testified further that she "didn't think too much about it." Her own
testimony also discloses that when Mangun asked her on the same occasion to "ask
some of the women [at the plant] about the Union," she declined to do so.
It is a prerequisite to a finding of discrimination under the Act that an employer
have knowledge of the employee's union membership or activity for which he or she
was allegedly discharged. Here, however, the foregoing testimony falls far short of
establishing that Respondent had knowledge that Justice was engaged in an activity
protected by the Act. Indeed, it fails to establish that she was, in fact, engaged in
such an activity, or that Respondent had reasonable grounds for believing that she
was so engaged. Assuming that by her statement, in the presence of Lofgren, that
she "thought it would be all right" to have a union in the plant, Respondent knew
that she approved of the union movement, I cannot say that thereby Respondent
acquired knowledge that she was engaged in "union or concerted activity" as alleged
in the complaint. Howard Aero, Inc., 119 NLRB 1531.
With the case in that posture, it is neither necessary nor proper for me to judge
whether the reasons assigned by Respondent for the termination of Justice's services
are valid. It is axiomatic that, absent a contractual limitation, an employer may dis-
charge an employee for any reason, or no reason at all, except only that he may
not be discharged for a reason proscribed by the Act. The General Counsel having
failed to establish the latter, I shall, therefore, recommend that the allegations of
the complaint charging that Respondent discriminatorily terminated the services of
Justice be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set out in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having terminated the employment of Carl Mangun, I recommend that Respond-
ent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva-
lent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. It is
further recommended that Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from October 16, 1959, to the date, when, pursuant to the recommendations herein
contained, Respondent shall offer him reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period.5 Said backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
5 See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB '827.
SCHOTT METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 1233
It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to make available to the
Board , upon request , payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
amount of earnings due.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated . I shall,
therefore , recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Union, Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Carl
Mangun , thereby discouraging the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
5. By terminating the services of Helen Justice on October 16, 1959, Respondent
did not engage in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3)
and (I ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Schott Metal Products Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 8-RC-3823. Janu-
ary 9, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Z. Adamson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and
Kimball].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer?
J 'At the hearing , the Employer attempted to litigate the adequacy of the Petitioner's
showing of interest and moved on ground of inadequate showing to dismiss the petition.
The hearing officer properly denied the motion. The sufficiency of the Petitioner 's show-
ing of interest Is an administrative matter and is not subject to litigation in this proceed-
Ing Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest
is adequate . O. D Jennings and Company , 68 NLRB. 516
-'After the hearing , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, Local 497, herein called the Intervenor , moved to Intervene in this
proceeding for the purpose of having its name appear on the ballot. The Petitioner
129 NLRB No. 155.
586439-61-vol. 129-79