Renown Stove Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1936

2 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of RENOWN STOVE COMPANY and STOVE MOUNTERS',
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 76, and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-;
HOOD OF FOUNDRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL No. 88
Case No. 0-79.-Decided July 01, 1936
Stove and Furnace Manufacturinq Industry-Interference , Restraint or
Coercion : expressed opposition to labor organization ; refusal to recognize or
meet with representatives of union ; denial of right of employees to be repre-
sented by non-employees-Discrimination : discharge ; threat to blacklist-Strike:
threatened-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. G. L. Patterson for the Board.
Mr. Seth Q. Pulver, of Owosso, Mich., and Mr. Albert E. Meder, of
Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
Mr. David I. Persinger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On January 22, 1936, Local No. 76,'of the Stove Mounters' Inter-
national Union, and Local No. 88, of the International Brotherhood
of Foundry Employees, and Walter R. Smith and Frank W. Schlaack,
filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region
against the Renown Stove Company, Owosso, Michigan, hereinafter
referred to as the respondent, charging the respondent with viola-
tions of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relitioifs- Act, approved July 5, 1935; hereinafter 'referred to as the
Act. Thereupon, a complaint and notice of hearing signed by Frank
H. Bowen, Regional Director for the Seventh Region, as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board,: were issued and duly served.
The complaint alleged that by discharging and refusing to reinstate
two employees at its Owosso plant', for the reason that they joined
and assisted labor organizations and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees at the Owosso plant for the purpose of mutual
aid and protection, the respondent had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdi-
visions (1) and (3), and Section' 2, subdivisions (6)' and (7) of the
Act.' I .
' The complaint alleged that the discharges took place on January 15, 1935. The
record gives the correct date as January 15, 1936. The respondent at, no time objected
to this patently typographical error.
117
118 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent duly filed an answer in which it admitted the dis-
charges but averred that they were made because of inefficient and
unsatisfactory work. The respondent further claimed that the Act
violates Articles I, II5 and III and the First, Fifth and Tenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the, United States, and that the
activities of the respondent are intrastate and not subject to regula-
tion by Congress or the Board. However, the respondent, did not
move to dismiss.
A hearing was held on March 17, 18 and 19, 1936, before David V.
Martin, duly designated by the Board as Trial Examiner, at Owosso,
Michigan, at which hearing full opportunity to be ,heard, to examine-
and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues, was afforded to ' all parties. The respondent participated in
the hearing after reserving all the constitutional and jurisdictional'
,objections raised in its answer. In the course of the.hearing the
-respondent moved to strike from the record testimony relating to
.an insurance plan and a welfare club organized in November, 1934,
and to strike from the record Board's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 relating
thereto. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion. It ap-
pearing from the record that ''this evidence is not material to the
issues, the respondent's motion is granted.
On April 10, 1936, the Trial ' Examiner filed with the Board his
Intermediate Report, finding and concluding that the respondent
had engaged in unfair labor, ,practices affecting, commerce, as al-
leged in the complaint, by discriminatorily' discharging the afore,-.
said two employees, and recommended that they be reinstated, to
their former positions without loss of seniority rights, and with
back pay. Exceptions to, the Intermediate Report, were duly filed
by the respondent.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and from the entire
record now before it, including the, transcript of the hearing and
exhibits introduced, the Intermediate Report and, exceptions thereto,
the Board makes the following : , . , ,
FINDINGS or FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT
The Renown Stove Company is a Michigan corporation with its
office and, place of business at Owosso, Michigan, which manufac-
tures, sells and distributes coal, wood, oil, and. combination gas stoves,
and heaters and the parts and accessories incidental thereto. It
produces approximately one per cent of all stoves of its types manu
factured in the United States and approximately two-tenths of one
per cent of all stoves of every type, including gas'and electric stoves,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 119
manufactured in the United States. During 1935, its-total produc-
tion was 9,386 stoves of different types and the value of its sales
was $508,000.00. It bras only the one plant at Owosso at which it
employs from 175 to 250 workmen, the number varying -according
to the volume of its business. ' It maintains its only display room
in the American Furniture Mart in Chicago, Illinois.' It employs
12 to 18 salesmen who sell only to dealers, most of whom are located
in the midwestern and eastern parts of the United States.
Considerably over half of the raw materials used in the manu-
facture of its stoves is shipped from points outside the State of
Michigan to the respondent's plant and approximately 55 per cent
of the stoves 'manufabtured by it are shipped from its plant into
other states. All its contracts of purchase or sale are made in its
office in Owosso and -all' shipments are made f. o. b. its plant. These
shipments are made by either truck or rail, those made -by rail being
transported by the Michigan Central Railroad, Grand Trunk Rail-
road or Ann Arbor Railroad. Shipments of stoves and parts of
stoves are made daily, but the shipments are greater during the
months of September, 'October and November of each year than
during the other months.
We conclude that the operations of the respondent constitute a
continuous flow of trade, traffic, and 'commerce among the several
States.
II. THE UNIONS
In January, 1934; a local union of the International Brotherhood
of Foundry Employees was organized and its elected shop commit-
tee met once with the respondent. This local had died out by the
fall of the same year. About the middle of November, 1935, Mr.
Egan, of the Stove Mounters' International Union, and Mr. Riley,
of the International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees, went to-
gether to Owosso and organized Local No. 76, Stove Mounters' Inter-
national Union, hereinafter referred to as Local No. 76, and Local
No. 88, International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees, herein-
after referred to as Local No. 88, labor organizations composed of
the respondent's mounters and foundry employees, respectively.
Local No. 76 has a paid up membership of 22, and Local No. 88
has a paid up membership of 18.
Becase of the small number of employees of the respondent eli-
gible for membership in the two labor organizations, Egan and Riley
organized a joint local, with a president elected by the members of
Local No. 76, a vice-president elected by the members of Local No.
88, and a joint shop committee composed of two mounters and three
foundry employees. Local No. 76 and Local No. 88 each has a
secretary and treasurer but no president or vice-president.
,120 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
III. THE EARNED WAGE HOUR PAYMENT PLAN
On March 15, 1934, the respondent installed the Earned Wage
Hour Payment Plan for the purpose of increasing production. This
plan provides a time allowance for the assembly of each type of
stove, the allowance having been determined by timing the mounters
at work on a stove of each type and then adding to the time noted
a 20 per cent increase to allow for, fatigue. Payment of wages is
determined by efficiency. If an assembly line produces during one
day of eight hours the exact number of stoves which according to
the time allowance should be produced in eight hours the line is
rated as 100 per cent efficient and is paid for eight hours' work at
,a fixed hourly rate. If a line mounts more than the normal number
of stoves, it is rated at an efficiency greater than 100 per cent and
,the mounters are paid for the number of hours which would normally
have been required, upon the basis of the time allowance, for the
number of stoves mounted. A line which is more than 100 per cent
efficient is thus paid a bonus in the form of wages for time theo-
retically, but not actually, worked. Each line is paid as a unit so
that a delay caused by one mounter will decrease the efficiency and
consequently the pay of all workers on the same line. From March
15, 1934, to January, 1936, mounters employed by the respondent
were paid at the rate of 50 cents per hour. Beginning in January,
1936, an increase of 10 per cent was granted.
For several weeks following the installation of the plan the mount-
ers on line No. 1 were dissatisfied and loafed on the job because they
believed that some of the assembly jobs had been timed too fast.
Throughout 1934 and part of 1935, line No. 1 constantly requested
Mr. Sperry, the superintendent in charge of production, to have the
various- jobs retimed. Most of them were retimed before the end
of 1935.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Walter R. Smith and Frank W. Schlaack were mounters on as-
sembly line No. 1 from the time the line was first installed, about
1929, until their discharge on January 15, 1936. Both were officers
of the first local of the International Brotherhood of Foundry Em-
ployees. When Local No. 76 was organized in November, 1935,
Schlaack became a trustee , and Smith was elected president of the
joint local organized at that time . On the day that they were dis-
charged they were told by their foreman, Mr. Skinner, that changes
were to be made on line No. 1 and that there would be no place for
them. He said that he could not assign any reason why they had been
.selected for discharge . They then called on Mr. Sperry , the plant
superintendent , and asked him why they had been fired. He said that
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 121
the management was not satisfied with their work. Smith said that
it was strange that it took the management nine years to find that
out. Sperry replied that he had nothing further to say,.but added
a moment later, "Well, Walter, now you can go out and get a job
at a good stove factory where they will treat you right".
Shortly after the discharges the joint local, composed of the
mounters and foundry employees, met to discuss the situation and,
after considering a strike in protest, decided by vote to send for
Mr. Egan and Mr. Hiley. They arrived in Owosso on Saturday,
January 18, and advised Local No. 76 and Local No. 88 to file a
charge with the National Labor Relations Board and await its de-
cision before voting on the strike question. They 'then called on
Mr. Sperry and told him that they wished to discuss the labor trouble
in the plant; that they represented the Stove Mounters' Interna-
tional Union and the International Brotherhood of Foundry Em-
ployees, both of which had a local organization in the plant. Mr.
Sperry denied that there was any labor dispute and denied that
either.,union existed in the respondent's factory. He said that the
discharges were none of their business; that the respondent would
hire and fire as it wished.
On Monday, January 20, while the men were at work, Mr. Skinner
called all employees onto the shipping floor. Mr. Pryor, the vice-
president and general manager, addressed them. He said that he
had heard rumors to the effect that the employees were going to
force the respondent to return Smith and Schlaack to work; that
the respondent would not do so under any such compulsion; that it
was still running its own plant; that the management was willing to
meet with representatives of its employees but not with representa-
tives of a union.
On January 28, Smith and Schlaack met with Mr. Elliott presi-
dent of respondent, Mr. Nagelvoort, secretary and treasurer, Mr.
Pryor and Mr. Sperry. Mr. Pryor said that the acts of Smith
and Schlaack in filing charges with the Board precluded their rein-
statement. He advised them in the best interest of all concerned to
drop the charges and part as friends with the respondent, and stated,
"You do not know what enemies we can be". He said that if by
dropping the charges they should prove to him that they were not
trouble makers and agitators he would not make it impossible for
them to obtain employment elsewhere ; but that if they would not
withdraw the charges he would so inform their next employer. He
said that the respondent had enough money to hire lawyers and fight
the case; that if a strike should arise it would still fight.
The respondent contends that Smith and Schlaack were discharged
for holding up production for nearly two years and for causing dis-
satisfaction among the other workers on their assembly line. We
122 NATIONAL,LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
cannot take the first contention' seriously; employers do not permit
employees to hold up- production for two.,years without taking dis-
ciplinary 'action. The respondent introduced evidence to prove the
inefficiency of Smith and Schlaack. In fact the'evidence shows .that
they were the most efficient mounters on 'their line and that their
line was consistently more efficient than the other, having been rated
for the year 1935 at 107.5 per cent as compared with a rating of 104.3
per cent for line No. 2. - The foreman testified that -a production
efficiency in excess of 100 per cent is of no 'value, to the respondent
except, during the fall rush season ; and that the production of line
No. 1 during the fall of 1935 was,satisfactory. , ,
; In support .of its second contention the respondent -introduced
evidence to show that Smith and •Schlaack were complaining con-
stantly, and that their complaints caused ill feeling among the, other
mounters' , The- respondent produced only one mounter ,who testified
that he, had • objected to Smith and, Schlaack, but even he. had. so
objected only during the two weeks immediately following the instal-
lation of - the Earned Wage Hour, Payment Plan in March 1934.
He also testified- that since that time the work had gone along
smoothly and the men on the line had made money. Other evidence
offered by the respondent brought. out only two occasions on which
Smith had complained to his foreman. It is unnecessary to discuss
these incidents at length, except to point out that neither had oc-
curred immediately prior to Smith's discharge, and that in any event
the complaints were fully justified. The respondent produced no
other evidence with respect to Seblaack. ..
It is clear that the respondent discharged these two- men because
of their union activity and for the purpose of discouraging member-
ship in Local No. 76 and Local No. 88. Smith had worked for the
respondent for nine years, and Schlaack had worked for the respond-
ent 12 years but had been away for a year and a half during that
time. Both men had become so efficient that they were used as.
instructors for the apprentices. They were regarded by their co-
workers as the fastest mounters in the plant. About the middle of
December 1935, their foreman first learned of the organization of
Local No. 76 and Local No. 88. Before the end of December the
management of the respondent had held a meeting and decided to
discharge Smith and Schlaack on January 1. The discharge was
delayed because of the illness of Mr. Skinner.
We find that the respondent has discriminated with respect to the
hire and tenure of employment of Smith and Schlaack for the pur-
pose of discouraging membership in Local No. 76 and Local No. 88,,
and that by such acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
DECISIONS-AND ORDERS 123
in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the .afoce^aicl'acts of
the respondent tend to lead to labor disputes 'burdening and obstruct=
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Local No. 76, Stove Mounters' International Union, and Local
No. 88, International Brotherhood-of Foundry Employees, are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of
the Act.
2. Respondent, by its discharge of Walter R. Smith and Frank W.
Schlaack, and each of them, discriminated in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in
Local No. 76 and Local No. 88, and has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor, practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivi-
sion (3) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by interfering with; restraining and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of'the
,Act, has engaged in and is: engaging in unfair labor ,practices, within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the;Act.,
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Renown Stove Company, and its officers and agents,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Local No. 76,
Stove Mounters' International Union, and Local No. 88, International
Brotherhood of Foundry Employees, or any other labor organization
of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment, or by threats of
such discrimination;
2. Cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, 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, as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
124 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Walter R. Smith and Frank W. Schlaack immediate
and full reinstatement, respectively, to their former positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole the said Walter R. Smith and Frank W. Schlaack
for any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of their dis-
charge by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money
equal to that which each would normally have earned as wages
during the period from the date of his discharge to the date of
such offer of reinstatement, computed at the wage rate each was
paid at the time of such discharge, less any amounts earned during
such period;
(c) Post notices in conspicuous places in all departments of the
plant and near the time clock, stating (1) that it will cease, and
desist as aforesaid; and (2) that such notices will remain posted
for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date
of posting.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration ' of the
above Decision and Order. ' '