Republic Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 1107 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION (UPSON DIVISION and
FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Case No. 8-C-1941.-Decided June 11, 1948
Mr. Richard C. Swander , for the Board.
Messrs. T. F. Patton and E. J. Magee , of Cleveland , Ohio, for the
Respondent.
Mr. Lorin F. Hibbard , of Akron, Ohio, and Mr . Walter M . Nelson,
of Detroit , Mich., for the Association.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 16, 1946, Trial Examiner William P. Webb issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices 1 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On
January 9, 1948, the Respondent filed with the Board a motion and
a supporting brief for dismissal of the proceeding in view of the inter-
vening enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
Pursuant to leave, the Association filed with the Board a brief oppos-
ing the Respondent's motion to dismiss. For reasons hereinafter
appearing, the li^spondent's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
On January 1:;, 1948, upon request of the Respondent, and pursuant
to notice, the B aid in Washington, D. C., heard oral argument. The
Respondent and the Association were represented by counsel and
participated in the argument.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
I Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the complaint herein alleged were violated , aie continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and 8
(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 194 7 How-
ever, this case involves unfair labor practices against supervisors , and the amended
legislation now excludes such employees from the protection of the Act. This phase
of the case is considered below.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 179.
1107
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications,2 exceptions, and additions :
The unfair labor practices -
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Foreman Ander-
son was not discharged for an "accumulation of offenses" 3 as contended
by.the Respondent, but rather because of his activity on behalf of the
movement to organize the foremen at the Respondent's plant. In ex-
cepting to the Trial Examiner's finding of discrimination, the Re-
spondent contends that the decision to discharge Anderson, arising,
in part, out of his failure to cooperate in the operation of a new
machine, was made in mid-March 1946, some 2 weeks before he re-
newed his organizational activity, and that the Trial Examiner failed
to consider the Respondent's supporting testimony. The Respondent
asserts that the decision to discharge Anderson was reached in con-
versations between Assistant Plant Manager McCabe and Plant Man-
ager Ellison and between McCabe and Superintendent Skuly.
To fix the alleged date of the decision to discharge Anderson, the
Respondent relies particularly on McCabe's testimony that the con-
versations occurred in the middle of March. However, viewing Mc-
2 We note that the Trial Examiner in crediting certain Board witnesses stated that
paiticular portions of their testimony were not denied or not contradicted The record
shows that while the Respondent ' s witnesses did not specifically deny the testimony in
question , their testimony was at least inconsistent in varying respects with the credited
testimony excepted to by the Respondent . One such incident to which the Respondent
excepted involved the Trial Examiner's finding that "Anderson . . . testified, without
contradiction, that . . he was told by [Plant Manager] Ellison that in the future
he would take his orders from Superintendent Skuly as he, Anderson , no longer repre-
sented management " This testimony was not specifically denied Thus , Ellison failed
to testify with respect to this incident But Skuly , who was present at this meeting,
varied Anderson's version by testifying that Ellison told Anderson that because of dissatis-
faction "with the way [Department 31] was working," Anderson would work under Skuly.
we are nevertheless satisfied that the Trial Examiner in making his credibility findings
as to this incident , as well as to all incidents excepted to by the Respondent , duly con-
sidered all the evidence bearing on these incidents and, as indicated in the Intermediate
Report, ' based all his findings on the record as a whole Moreover , we have independently
considered all such evidence , and find no reason to disturb the credibility findings of the
Trial Examiner who had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the
stand.
3In this connection , we agree with the Trial Examiner that Anderson ' s differences
with Foreman Patton were settled long before Anderson 's discharge and consequently
cannot validly be asserted as reason for the discharge The Trial Examiner's conclusion,
however, that the differences were settled "some two years or more" prior to the dis-
charge is corrected to read "a year or more" prior to the discharge for it is clear that the
cessation of the night shift in Department 28, the determinative date relative to the
settlement of the differences , occurred in September 1944, and not in September 19-13,
as stated in the Intermediate Report. Unlike the Trial Ecaminei, we also find that Ander-
son did violate the cafeteria privilege However, because there is no credible evidence that
Anderson was reprimanded for this offense and because it occurred approximately 7 months
before his discharge, we are convinced that it was not an operative reason therefor.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1109
Cabe's testimony in light of the testimony of other witnesses for the
Respondent and the entire record, we find, as implicitly the Trial
Examiner did , that it is not credible and that the Respondent's con-
tention is without merit. Thus, although Ellison's testimony omits
any direct reference to the date of his conversation with McCabe, it
does indicate that immediately following his talk with McCabe, but
before he assented to Anderson 's discharge , he discussed Anderson
with another foreman named Patton. Patton corroborated Ellison's
testimony in this respect, stating that Ellison spoke to him "about
March 30." This testimony of Ellison 's, as much by reason of its
omissions as by reason of its amplification by Patton , shows not only
that the decision to discharge Anderson was reached "about March 30,"
but also indicates , contrary to McCabe 's version , that the conversation
between him and Ellison occurred about March 30. This view is
further supported by Skuly's testimony that in the course of his con-
versation with McCabe he participated with McCabe in reaching the
decision to discharge Anderson , and that the decision was made "some
time at the end of March ." In any event , assuming arguendo that
in the middle of March McCabe had a conversation with Ellison
regarding Anderson 's alleged lack of cooperation on the new machines
in view of the Trial Examiner 's findings that Anderson was not guilty
of any dereliction in the operation of the new machinery , that Ander-
son was not reprimanded with respect to this incident , and that no
effective action was taken for at least 2 weeks after the machine inci-
dent, and in view of the foregoing testimony of Ellison , Skuly, and
Patton, we are convinced and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the operative decision to discharge Anderson was not made until alter
he had renewed his organizational activity on March 28.
2. The Trial Examiner also found , and we agree , that the Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its foremen in violation of
Section 8 ( 1) of the Act , prior to its amendment . However, unlike
the Trial Examiner , we in no way base our finding of unfair labor
practices on the statements of Manager Ellison or Assistant Manager
McCabe made to the assembled foremen on or about November 3, 1945.
Some seven or eight supervisors testified to the best of their ability
concerning the speech made at the foremen 's meeting . While the gen-
eral tenor of their testimony is similar , each version contains omissions
or additions with respect to crucial portions of the over -all text of the
speeches . A synthesis of this testimony fails to convince us that the
speeches were calculated to or did have a coercive effect on the foremen.
T1lE REMEDY
The Respondent contends as a matter of law that the Board is with-
out jurisdiction to issue any order in the instant case, on the ground
788886-49-vol 77-71
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the unfair labor practices herein involve only supervisors who
are no longer protected by the Act, as amended by the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947. The contention overlooks the general sav-
ings statute,4 which is as much a part of the amended Act as if specifi-
cally incorporated therein. 5 That the Congress intended the general
savings statute to be applicable is borne out by the fact that a provi-
sion of the bill passed by the House, which would have had the effect
of prohibiting issuance by the Board or enforcement by the Courts
of any order based on unfair labor practices committed under the old
Act unless the conduct involved continued to be an unfair labor prac-
tice under the amended Act,e was eliminated from the amendments
as finally enacted.7 We have heretofore held, with judicial approval,
that "The obligations of employers arising out of violation of the
National Labor Relations Act are clearly `liabilities' within the. mean-
ing of the general savings statute" and that the statute "must be held
to preserve `all liabilities' arising under the National Labor Relations
Act prior to amendment." 11 Thus the unfair labor practices found
herein, which occurred late in 1945 and early in 1946 at times when
supervisors were fully protected in seeking to organize collectively,
created liabilities existing beyond the effective date of the amend-
ments to the Act.'
The Respondent, however, argues that Section 14 (a)10 of the
amended Act "excludes by necessary implication the general provi-
sions of [the general savings statute] in [its] application to the spe-
cial field of `supervisors.' " Section 14 (a) is prospective in operation
and we perceive nothing in its text or its legislative history that sug-
gests a Congressional intent to absolve employers of past violations of
their duty to supervisors. We accordingly find that the Labor Man-
1 U S C § 29, which provides .
"The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any
penalty, forfeiture or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act
shall so expressly provide , and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force
foi the purpose of sustaining anv proper action or prosecution for the enfoicenient of
such penalty , forfeiture , of liability."
5 Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 73N I. R B 90, and cases cited.
6 Section 102 (c), II It 3020, 80th Cong, 1st Sass
T See Conference Repoit, II Rep. No 510, 80th Cong , 1st Sess , p 61
s Matter of Marshall if Bruce Company. supra; quoted with approval in N. L R. B v.
National Garment Company and Wells Wear Company, 166 F. (2d) 233, 236 (C. C A 8)
decided January 7, 1948
See Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company , 75 N. L R B. 569
10 Sec 14 (a) "Nothing herein ahall prohibit any individual employed as a super visor
fi om becoming or remaining a mem`sor of a labor organization, but no employee subject to
this Act shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees
for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining "
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
agement Relations Act, 1947, does not affect our power to issue an
appropriate order herein 11
The Respondent further, and alternatively, contends that it "would
be contrary to the policy expressed in the 1947 amendment to the Act,"
to issue an order, as recommended by the Trial Examiner, requiring
the Respondent: (a) to cease and desist from discouraging member-
ship in the Association and in any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its supervisors in their organizational activity;
and (b) to reinstate Foreman Anderson with back pay. We agree
with the Respondent as to the impropriety of including any cease and
desist provisions in the Order herein. These provisions are necessarily
prospective in operation and would enjoin the Respondent from engag-
ing in a course of future conduct which is no longer unlaWfl, 11.12 We
shall not, therefore, adopt this part of the Trial Examiner's
recommendation.
We are satisfied, however, that a different principle is applicable
to the reinstatement and back-pay provision. It is Well recognized
that an award of reinstatement and back pay operates retrospectively
with respect to past employer conduct and is intended to remedy only
past violations of the law.' Restitution to Anderson may be accom-
plished by a single of rmative act, without the Respondent's incurring
any continuing obligation with respect to the future organizational
activity, if any, of Anderson or any other supervisor" There is there-
fore no conflict between au order restoring Anderson to his staters quo
and the rights of the Respondent under the Act as amended.15
The Respondent further contends that, even assuming the power
of the Board to order the reinstatement of Anderson, in its discretion
it should not do so because such an order would not effectuate the
policies of the amended Act. Again the Respondent's contention
overlooks the general savings statute. As previously pointed out,
"Witt) respect to the Respondent's contention as to the procedural changes in the
amendatory legislation, it is settled that they are here inapplicable, insofar as they relate
to procedural steps taken before the effective date of the amendments. N. L. R B. v.
National Garment Company and Wells Wear Company, supra; N L If. B V. Whittenburg
and Dougherty, d/b/a South Texas Produce Company, 165 F. (2d) 102, 104 (C C. A 5) ;
Matter of Marshall R Bruce Company, supra; and Matter of The Union Switch cc Signal
Company. 76 N. I, R B 205. As -to those procedural steps since taken, the Board has
fully complied with the applicable law.
12 Cf L A Young Spring cC Wire Corporation v N L It B, 163 F. (2d) 905, 907 (C. C. A.
DC), cert denied 333 U S. 837, February 16, 1948
13 Virginia Electric f Power Company v N. L R B , 319 U. S 533, 539-544.
"The record is clear that Anderson v. as a supervisor at the time of his discharge It is
equally clear that Section 2 (11) of the amended Act encompasses supervisory personnel of
Anderson's status
15 See N L R B v Edward G Budd Jffg Cc, 162 F (2d) 461 (C C A. 6), enforcing
Board's 8 (3) order reinstating supelvisois, cert denied as to that part of the Circuit
Court's deciee enforcing the Board's S (3) order, 332 U. S 840, December 15, 1947. See
also N L. If. B v Vail Mfg Co , 158 F (2d) 664 (C C A. 7) ; cert denied 331 U. S 835 ;
petition for rehearing denied, 332 U. S 826, November 17, 1947.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Congress clearly intended not only to preserve all "liabilities"
which arose under the old Act as if it still remained in force, but also
to permit the Board and the Courts to issue and enforce appropriate
orders remedying such unfair labor practices. It therefore cannot ac-
curately be said that it is contrary to the policies of the amended Act
to enforce what Congress has indicated shall still be enforceable. Un-
der the circumstances, we can see no reason for refusing, in the exercise
of our discretion, to issue an order which Congress could have, but
did not, forbid us to issue and which existing legislation in our opinion
permits us to issue. We shall, therefore, require the Respondent to
reinstate Anderson with back pay, as recommended by the Trial
Examiner.
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 Respondent, Republic Steel
Corporation (Upson Division), Cleveland, Ohio, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall take the following affirmative
action :
(a) Offer Arthur Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make Arthur Anderson whole for any loss of pay he has suf-
fered because of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
normally have earned as wages during the period from March 30,1946,
to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during said period;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER GRAY, dissenting in part :
I am of the opinion that the Board has no authority to require
reinstatement today, some 9 months after the effective date of the
Labor Management Relations Act, of the former supervisor dis-
criminatorily discharged in 1946. Nor will it effectuate the policies
of the amended Act for this Board to order such reinstatement in the
exercise of its discretion.
Since the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, employers have op-
posed collective bargaining with supervisors because they are man-
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1113
agement personnel from whom management has the right to receive
undivided loyalty in getting its required work done. The Board itself
has reversed its field several times in interpreting the protectable
coverage of the Wagner Act with respect to supervisors. During the
early years of the Wagner Act's administration, the Board held that
supervisors were entitled to protection for collective bargaining pur-
poses.16 Then, its membership having partly changed, the Board
ruled that supervisors were not entitled to the collective bargaining
rights granted by the statute.17 This position continued until another
change in Board membership brought about the Packard decision is
which went back to the original Board position, holding that super-
visors were entitled to collective bargaining rights. And a majority
of the Justices of the Supreme Court upheld the Board's position.19
Despairing of Board decisions which granted statutory protection
to supervisors to whose undivided loyalty employers believed they had
a historic right, employers turned to Congress. The legislative
response is very clear.
In its first attempt to clarify the status of supervisors as part of
management, Congress passed the so-called Case bill in 1946 by a sub-
stantial majority. The Congressional interest, however, did not
prevail at that time because of Executive veto. Finally, Congress
prevailed by excluding supervisors from coverage by the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act, thereby leaving no doubt as to what it in-
tended. Through this law Congress, in effect, said, "In administering
the Labor Management Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board must stop treating supervisors as employees." In reinstating
this supervisor, the Board now is treating him as an employee.
Through much of the legislative history in the development of
what became L. M. R. A., there appears a strong intent on the part of
Congress to remove any question as to what the Board should do in
cases involving supervisors. The House Report 20 on H. R. 3020 stated
that, "By excluding foremen and other supervisory personnel from
the definition of `employee', [the new Act] deprives the Board of
jurisdiction over them."
In considering S. 1126, Senator Taft called attention to "the legal
question in the past as to whether foremen are included as employees
under the existing [Wagner] law, but it was felt that on the ques-
1e Matter of General Motors Corporation, 36 N. L R. B. 439; Matter of Union Col-
lieries Coal Co , 41 N L. R. B 961 ; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc, 44 N L. R B.
874.
11 Matter of The Maryland Drydock Company, 49 N. L R B 733.
is Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L R B 4 and 64 N L R B. 1212
10 Packard Motor Car Company v. N. L. R. B., 330 U. S. 485.
20 House Report No 245, 80th Cong , 1st Sess., P 13
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions of theory and of intention of the law . . . foremen should be
excluded from the operation of the Act."
In his discussion in the Senate with reference to the Supreme
Court's decision in the Packard case , Senator Ellender stated, "The
Court is - powerless to act [to reverse the Board ] and ... it is a matter
to be decided by Congress ." Congress acted and did decide it.
Senator Ives called attention to the Committee's position "that
foremen are an essential and integral part of management , and that
to compel management to bargain with itself by dividing the loyalties
of foremen between union and the employer , simply did not make
sense."
Senator Ball, in his extension of remarks , said, "The N. L. R. B. has
also held that [ supervisors ] can at the same time be subject to the
discipline of the unions of employees they supervise , which just
doesn't make sense."
Thus, all through the legislative development of the amended Act
it was apparent that Congress disagreed with the Board's decisions
holding that supervisors were entitled to the protection of the Wagner
Act. For that reason , Congress made it crystal clear that no protec-
tion was to be afforded after the effective date of the amended Act.
Since the Board's authority to, issue orders is derived from Section
10 (c) of the amended Act , I cannot agree that we have the power
to require the reinstatement of a foreman , 9 months after the dis-
charged foreman has lost any trace of protection which he may have
had under the Wagner Act. Even if the Board's authority to issue
this order were to be grounded in the General Savings Statute
(1 U. S. C. Sec. 29 ), it is my firm belief that on August 22, 1947, any
such authority stopped by mandate of Congress . As Mr. Justice
Jackson said in the Packard decision '21 "it is for Congress , not for us,
to create exceptions ." In my opinion Congress did create the excep-
tions. It has removed the power of the Board to reinstate a supervisor
on and after August 22, 1947.
Moreover, assuming arguendo the existence of such power, the
Board's order must be framed to effectuate the policies of the amended
Act. This, the reinstatement order does not do. By complying with
the Board's order, the Respondent immediately could free itself of
any "embarrassment" by dismissing the reinstated foreman. This
obviously makes no sense. To "embarrass" the supervisor by having
the Respondent reinstate him one minute and then discharge him the
next minute , would be a travesty on industrial relations which the
Board should not encourage.
21 330 U. S. 485, 490.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1115
I would limit the Remedy in this case to the payment of back pay
accrued to Anderson up to August 22, 1947.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Richard C Siva niter, for the Board.
Messrs. T. F. Batton and E. J. Magee, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Mr. Lorin F. Hibbard, of Akron, Ohio, for the-Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Foreman's, Association of America, herein called
the Association, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its com-
plaint, dated September 27, 1946, against Republic Steel Corporation (Upson
Division), Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and the charge, accompanied by notice of bearing thereon,
were duly served upon the Respondent and the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance ;
(1) that since about October 1945, the Respondent has engaged in a plan and con-
tinuous course of conduct which has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
supervisory employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; and that by
interrogating its employees concerning their union activities and membership,
the Respondent discouraged membership in the Association; (2) that on or
about March 30, 1946, the Respondent discharged, and thereafter refused to re-
instate, Arthur Anderson, for the reason that he joined and assisted the Associa-
tion and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and (3) that by such acts and conduct, the
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
On October 8, 1946, the Respondent filed its answer, admitting certain allega-
tions of the complaint in respect to its corporate existence and the nature of its
business, and that it discharged Arthur Anderson on or about March 30, 1946,
but denying that it has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act. The answer averred that Arthur Anderson was
discharged for just cause, and that he did not subsequently apply for reinstate-
ment. The answer requests that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety for the
reason that Arthur Anderson, at the time of his discharge, was a supervisory
employee and therefore part of management, and was not an employee, within
the meaning of the Act, and for other reasons.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, from October 29
to November 1, 1946, inclusive, before the undersigned W. P. Webb, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
Respondent were represented by counsel and the Association by its Regional
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director. All parties participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded the parties
At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety on the grounds enumerated in the Respondent's
answer. The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner with the understanding
that it could be renewed at the conclusion of the Board's case-in-chief or at the
conclusion of the hearing The motion was renewed at the conclusion of the
Board's case-in-chief. The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner, with
the privilege of renewing it at the conclusion of the hearing. The motion was
renewed at the conclusion of the hearing. Ruling was reserved by the Trial
Examiner. The motion is herewith denied by the undersigned.
At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion made by counsel for the Board
to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters was granted
by the Trial Examiner without objection.
At the conclusion of the hearing both counsel for the Board and the Respondent
argued orally, on the record, before the Trial Examiner. Briefs have been
received by the undersigned from counsel for the Respondent and representative
of the Association.
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 RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Republic Steel Corporation (Upson Division), is a New
Jersey corporation, having its principal place of business at Cleveland, Ohio. It
is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of iron and steel products.
During 1945, the Respondent purchased raw materials, consisting largely of coal,
iron ore, and various other minerals, valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which
amount more than 50 percent was shipped to its Cleveland plant from points
outside Ohio. During the same year the receipts from sales of products manu-
factured by the Respondent at its Cleveland plant exceeded $15,000,000 in
value, of which amount more than 50 percent was obtained from shipments made
from its Cleveland plant to points outside Ohio. The Respondent concedes
that for the purpose of this proceeding it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and the undersigned so finds.'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America is an unaffiliated labor organization, the
membership of which is confined to supervisory employees. A provisional
charter, establishing Chapter 296 in the Respondent's plant, was granted by the
parent organization on April 10, 1946.
Foreman's Association of America was formed on November 1, 1941. The
original constitution of the Association was adopted at Dearborn, Michigan, in
November 1941. It was amended during the convention which was held at
IIt was stipulated by the parties that in March 1946, there were in the Cleveland
plant 1,598 wage roll employees ; 9 superintendents ; 1 assistant superintendent ; 4 gen-
eral foremen ; 39 foremen (29 on salary and 10 on day rate) ; 19 assistant foremen (11
on salary, 8 on day rate) All superintendents, assistant superintendent, and general
foremen were on salary.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1117
Detroit, Michigan, in 1945. The amended constitution contains the following
provisions with respect to membership:
Section 2. Any employee of good moral character whose duties require the
supervision of other employees, or who directs work, who may or may not
supervise other employees, and who is not a member of any other organiza-
tion recognized by his employer as representing him in collective bargaining.
may become a member of the Association after having been employed as a
supervisory employee for a period of not less than thirty (30) clays prior to
the filing of application for membership, and provided that such application
to a Chapter of the Association is accompanied by a membership fee.
Section 3 No supervisory employee or individual acting as negotiator in
formulating employer-policy may become a member of the Foreman's Asso-
ciation of America.
III THE UNFAIR LA13OR PRACTICES
A Tiiterfere'nee re.9trai,n,t I v d,, c erc4,in,
Prior to October 1945, the general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen
employed at the Respondent's Cleveland, Ohio, plant were unorganized? In the
latter part of that month, a number of foremen began to discuss the desirability
of joining a labor organization. As a result of that discussion, Foreman Arthur
Anderson contacted Lorin F. Hibbard, Regional Director of the Association, and
arranged a meeting between Hibbard, himself and 4 other foremen of the Re-
spondent The meeting was held in Hibbard's office Hibbard gave them a copy
of the Association's constitution and explained the purpose and operation of the
Association. He also gave them a blank application, herein called the Petition,
to be executed by, at least, 10 of the foremen for the purpose of securing a
Charter for an Association Chapter 3 in the Respondent's Cleveland plant.
Anderson was the first one to sign the Petition He signed it that night and the
next day gave it to Foreman Earl Saunders who also signed it.
Anderson testified that in October 1945 there was considerable talk among the
foremen in regard to organizing and, pursuant thereto, he got in touch with
Hibbard, Regional Director of the Association. Anderson's testimony in this
respect, which is credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
Well, some of the foremen were talking about the foremen getting to-
gether and organizing. . . . So, I took it upon myself to contact Mr. Hib-
bard and told the rest of the fellows that Mr. Hibbard would like to see us
up there. And a group of us went up to talk to Mr. Hibbard. He explained
the Foreman's Association to us, pro and con, and gave us an application
for a charter. . . . He gave us their constitution and talked to us fellows
about the Association. . . . We got the application for the charter, and I
signed it and gave it to Mr. Saunders, and he signed it.... I signed it
first. It was blank when I originally received it. . . I gave it to Mr.
Saunders and lie signed it and kept it. . . . The next thing I knew, I
went downstairs by the conveyor or where the work comes up to my room,
2 At that time, the Respondent and the United Steel Workers of America, CIO Local
1126, were under a contract covering the maintenance and production employees at the
Cleveland plant . These employees are sometimes referred to herein as the "rank and
file."
'The Association operated through "Chapters" instead of Locals. The "Chapter,"
which was chartered for the Respondent 's plant on April 10, 1945, was known as "Chapter
No. 296."
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Mr. Saunders said to me, "Did you hear what happened t" And I said,
"No". He said, "They got Yarrow up in the front office about the Petition."
And he gave me back the Petition and I destroyed it ... I tore it up.4
Anderson further testified that on that same night after he had gone to bed,
Plant Protection Superintendent Holt and Master Mechanic Roy Reese' came
to his home and they discussed the Petition. Anderson's testimony in this re-
spect, which is credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
That night I was in bed, about ten or ten thirty, and my father-in-law
came home with Mr. Holt. They got me out of bed. . . . They said, "Let's
play a couple of hands of sixty-six". And I said, "Okay" . .. We played
about three or four hands of sixty-six It got late, so Bob Holt says to Roy,
"Maybe you better break the ice to him first". . . . Mr. Reese started to
talk to me, and he said that he understood I had the Petition for the Fore-
man's Union, and I said, "No", I didn't have it. He said, "The Foreman
can't be organized. Management can't deal with management You can't
serve two masters." And he understood I had the Petition, and he would
like to see it. And I said that I didn't have it. And he said that he knew or
understood that I was the last one to have it, and he wanted it. I told
him I didn't have it Then Bob Holt insisted that I had it, and that lie wanted
it. And I told him I didn't have it. He finally compromised, that if I didn't
have it, and if I knew who had it, would I get it for him. And I said, "If
there is such a thing, I will ti y to get it for you". . . Mr. Reese said they
knew who all was on there, and there was no sense in holding it back; that
I might as well give it to them
According to the credited and undenied testimony of Roy Reese, former master
mechanic in the plant, in October or November 1945, lie was called to Manager
Harry C. Ellison's office and he, Ellison and Holt had a conversation concerning
Anderson and the Association. Ellison asked Reese if he knew that Anderson
was organizing the foremen. Reese replied in the affirmative. Ellison then
asked Reese why he had not told him about it. Reese replied that he had promised
not to divulge it. Ellison told Reese that a Petition for the formation of the
Association was being circulated around the plant, and that Anderson's name
headed the list of signers. After that meeting, Holt and Reese decided to see
Anderson and try to persuade him to cease his activities on behalf of the Associa-
tion. Therefore they went to Anderson' s home.' Reese's testimony, in this
connection, reads as follows :
Holt came to me, and we talked it over. And we decided to try to talk
Art out of it. . . . Holt said, "Let us go out and talk to him." . . . We tried
to talk Art out of it. I got a promise from Art; He said he didn't have the
petition, and I got a promise from him that if lie got the petition, he would
turn it over to me and I would destroy it. . . . We didn't seem to get any-
where with Art. He sat like a bump on a log and had very few words to say.
Earl Saunders testified that Foreman Arthur Anderson was the principal
organizer of the Association. His testimony, which is credited by the undersigned,
reads, in part, as follows :
* When Saunders returned the Petition to Anderson , it had been signed by the following
six foremen Anderson; Saunders, Henry Wetzel, Howard Lunsman, Stephen Yarrow, and
Ralph Haeberle.
Master Mechanic Roy Reese was Anderson 's father -in-law.
Anderson and Reese lived at the same address , but in different apartments.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION' 1119
There was quite a bit of discussion among the foremen down there about
an organization. . . . Well, Mr Fisher and Mr. Yarrow were there, and I
also slid quite a bit of talking around there. Eventually Mr. Anderson, Art
Anderson, he took charge of the situation. He contacted Mr. Hibbard and
then he called four or five of us together, and we went up to Mr. Hibbard's
office and got a Petition from the F. A. A. [the Association] and signed it up,
five of us . . . Then we took it down to the shop, and Mr Anderson gave
it to inc and he said, "When you are down at the other end of the shop,
contact Mr. Yarrow." And I had been working down there on the platform
and Yarrow was there, and I handed it to him I says. "here is that petition,
sign it and give it to Mr. Fisher ^'
According to the credited testimony of Foreman Stephen Yarrow, Foreman
Arthur Anderson was responsible for the circulation of the Petition around the
plant in October 1945, for the purpose of securing the necessary signatures of at
least 10 in number, for chartering a "Chapter" of the Association in the Re-
spondent's plant. The Petition was handed to him by Foreman Earl Saunders
and he signed it and then took it to Foreman Frank Fisher. Fisher refused
to sign it immediately, but said he would speak to some of the foremen in
Superintendent Robert Moorhead's department, and they would all sign it later.
About half an hour later, Holt, the plant protection superintendent, informed
Yarrow that he was wanted in the front office by Ellison, the works manager'
Yarrow went to the office as directed and reported to Ellison. The latter asked
him what lie was doing with a Petition for a foreman's union in the plant.
Yarrow denied all knowledge of the Petition. He then returned to work. Yarrow
further testified that within an hour or two, Holt returned and asked him why
he had not told Ellison the tiuth about the Petition, and that he again denied any
knowledge of it Holt then took him back to see Ellison, who was in the office of
Charles P. McCabe, assistant works manager Ellison accused Yarrow of not
telling him the truth on the previous occasion. Ellison then said that he could
call in a man to prove that Yarrow did have the Petition. Holt then advised
Yarrow to tell all he knew about the Petition. Holt also asked Yarrow who was
the leader in the Association movement. Yarrow told them that Arthur Anderson
was the leader. Yarrow was further questioned by Ellison and Holt concerning
the origin of the petition and where Anderson had secured it. Ellison remarked
that Anderson's name was the first one on the Petition. Yarrow then returned
to work. At that time six foremen had signed the petition.
Foreman Fisher, a witness called by the Respondent, testified that Yarrow
handed him the Petition and asked him to sign it; that he refused; and that lie
immediately went to the front office and told Manager Ellison that a petition "to
join an outside Union" was being circulated among the foremen in the plant.
Manager Ellison testified that Fisher told him about the Petition, and lie
immediately sent for Yarrow ; that he asked Yarrow about the Petition and
Yarrow denied all knowledge of it; and that he told Yarrow that it was a violation
of the Respondent's rules to "have anything going on like organizing of any
type, petitions of any type, around during working hours " Ellison further
testified that he then talked to Fisher, and again sent for Yarrow ; that Yarrow
acknowledged that he had seen the Petition and had signed it; and that he told
° Bolt denied that he told Yarrow that he was wanted in the front office. The under-
signed rejects his denial and credits the testimony of Yairow.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Yarrow that, if he engaged in any such activities, he would have to do it on his
own time, outside the plant.
About 2 days after that incident, according to Yarrow and Foreman Lunsman,
a special meeting of the foremen and assistant foremen was held in the plant
cafeteria during working time ; Ellison, McCabe, Holt, and Paul G. Leiper, super-
visor of industrial relations in the plant, were present. Both Ellison and Mc-
Cabe spoke at the meeting. Yarrow's credited testimony in this respect reads
as follows :
Well, Mr. Ellison said that lie understood there was a Petition going
on for the Foreman ' s Union , and so on. And then he told us we are a part
of management and management can't bargain with management . . .
Well, he said that he was fighting hard for us to put us on salary, and
everything else like that , but now he is going to forget about it. And
Jim Moore ' got up and said, "If there is such a thing as a Petition going
on, let's put it on the table and either all of us sign it or throw it out". . . .
Then after Jim Moore and a fellow named Maynard-I don't know his
first name-got up and said something about having a blackboard and put
down about this here Association , and what it will do, if it will do us any
good , and let 's find out if it will do us any good or not And he sat down
and Mr. Ellison asked Frank Fisher how he felt about it. He said he was
getting a square shake . . . Then Mr. Ellison said a few words later on,
and he said , "You can ' t scare Harry ," and he walked out Then Mr. McCabe
took over . . . Well, Mr. McCabe said that , "Your security is your ability"
. . . Well, lie said that the boss was fighting hard for us about this here
salary , and all that . That ' s about all I can remember.'
According to the credited testimony of Foreman Sapochak, lie attended that
meeting and he heard either Manager Ellison or Assistant Manager McCabe
say that the foremen did not need anyone from the outside to talk for them,
as they were "big enough" to talk for themselves.
Foreman Fisher further testified that lie attended the meeting in the cafeteria
in November and that he heard what Ellison and McCabe said to the foremen.
His credited testimony reads, in part , as follows:
Mr. Ellison said that he heard and he knows that there is a petition floating
around the plant, and that is , a petition to join some outside union. And
he was asking the fellows there why were they joining anything like that;
what had he done to them. In other words , the man really felt hurt. He
was personally hurt to think the foreman under him working in the same
plant, and a lot of them that have so many years of service, would do
anything like that to Harry.
Foreman Henry T. Wetzel testified that he was one of the five foremen who
went to Regional Director Hibbard 's office in the latter part of October 1945,
at which time the Petition was signed ; that a few days after that, Superintend-
ent Klawuhn called him into his office and questioned him concerning the Peti-
tion. Wetzel 's testimony , which is credited by the undersigned , reads in part as
follows :
I believe he [Klawuhn] was trying to give me some fatherly advice-He
called me in there and said, "I understand you are one of the signers of the
9 Moore was foreman of the bricklayers.
9 According to Yarrow, it was customary in the plant to have foremen meetings once or
twice a month, but the called meeting in the cafeteria was a special meeting, with only
about one hour's notice. Notices for regular meetings were given a day or two in advance.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1121
Petition?" And I said, "Well, I am not denying a thing I am guilty as hell."
He said, "What do you expect to gain by being a member?" And I said,
"Security, for one thing." And he said. "Well, hell, you don't need any more
than your own ability to hold a job here" That was about the works, out-
side of the fact that he did say on my way out, he wiggled his finger up at
the calendar and he said, "Don't forget this clay. That will probably be the
sorriest of your life " That remark stuck with me.
Superintendent Klawuhn testified that he usually had a meeting with all of
his foremen every day; that at a number of these meetings he discussed the As-
sociation with the foremen. He testified, "When this thing Caine up it was told
to me by different people on the outside, that is, on the outside of my department,
and they told me that my men had joined the Union. And so it came up at the
meeting, and I asked them if they belonged to the Union, and they didn't answer
me." Klawuhn denied that lie had talked to Wetzel about the Association on any
occasion except in the meetings with his foremen. However, he contradicted
himself in his answer to the very next question, which reads as follows:
Q Did you ever point at your calendar when Wetzel was present and say,
"This will be a sorry day"?
A. If I pointed to the calendar-I might have thrown my hand, and maybe
he thought I pointed at the calendar. And to point at the calendar at
a definite date, no In fact, if you ask me now what date I had him
there, I couldn't tell you
Klawuhn did not deny that lie made the statements attributed to him by Wet-
zel The undersigned credits the testmiony of Wetzel and finds that Klawuhn
made the statements substantially as testified to by Wetzel Foreman Saunders
testified that on or about November 1, 1945, Superintendent Klawuhn called him
,and Foreman Howard Lunsman into his office and questioned them in regard to
the Petition. His testimony in this respect, which was corroborated by Foreman
Lunsman and which is credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
. . . And he [Klawuhn ] said, "What is this Petition that I hear about?"
And I said, "I don't know of any. Do you know of one? . . He said,
"They got one up at the other encl."'° And I said, "Did you see it?" And
lie said, "No " He said, "They had a photostatic copy." I said, "I wouldn't
belies e it until I see it with my own eyes." He said, "I didn't see it, but
1 know they got it". . . He said, "I don't see why you fellows are run-
ning around with anything like that Is it necessary?"
Foreman Lunsman testified that Superintendent Klawuhn said, on that occa-
sion, that he did not understand why the foremen needed anyone to represent
them, and that he was disappointed in Lunsman and Saunders because they had
not told him about the Association.
Kl;iwuhn admitted that lie had asked his foienien if they belonged to the
Association, but he denied that he had discussed the Association with Saunders
and Lunsman otherwise The undersigned does not credit his denial but accepts
the testimony of Saunders, which vas fully corroborated by Lunsman, and finds
that Klanuhin made the statements substantially as testified to by Saunders
and Lunsman.
10 It was customai3 foi the employees to refer to Managei Ellison's office as the "other
end or the "front office"
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Klawuhn testified that when he heard that his foremen had joined the Asso-
ciation lie felt hurt to think that they would do that without consulting him.
His testimony, in this respect , reads, in part, as follows:
I felt they weren't taking me in their confidence, and you can't operate
u department and operate it efficiently unless you have the confidence
and cooperation of your key men with you. . . . Not so much cooperation
as it would be the confidence And if you lose confidence in a man, I don't
know where the hell you are going with him.
According to the credited and undenied testimony of Foreman Michael
Sapochak, in the early part of November 1945, R. E. Balthaser, Superintendent
of the shipping department, said to him, "Mike, don't get me wrong, now, I
don't know whether you do or you do not, but there is it foremen's petition
going around in the plant. Do you know anything about it, or do you belong
to it's" Sapochak replied that he did not know anything about it and that
he did not belong to it. Balthaser replied, "I thought you might know some-
thing about it." This conversation occurred immediately after a meeting of the
superintendents."
According to the credited testimony of Foreman Saunders, on or about
December 1, 1945, he was called to Manager Ellison's office. Ellison and Assist-
ant Manager McCabe were present A lengthy discussion was had with refer-
ence to putting the foremen on a salary basis in view of the threatened strike
by the maintenance and production employees in the plant, who were members
of United Steel Workers of America, CIO, Local 1126, so that in the event of
a strike the foremen would still be paid their salaries whether they worked
or not During that meeting, Foreman Anderson's name was mentioned in
connection with the formation of the Association, and Ellison said lie wondered
why Anderson wanted to start an organization of that kind in the plant,
and ". . . he couldn' t understand it, because he was a young fellow coming
along, and Mr Reese was behind him, and him turning around and starting an
organization at that time."
In regard to the meeting of foremen and assistant foremen held in the cafe-
ter is early in November 1945, Anderson testified that he attended the meeting,
which was called on short notice, and that the subject discussed was the Peti-
tion His testimony, in this connection, which is credited by the undersigned,
reads in part as follows :
Mr. Ellison talked first. . . . He said that it was brought to his atten-
tion that the foremen wanted somebody else to represent them besides
him ; that he has been battling for us boys uptown trying to get us on
salary ; he battled for the premium hours. He said foremen-about security,
he says your ability to do your job is your security. If you can't speak for
yourself, you are not fit to be a foreman. He told us about his life history
in the plant, about how he worked his way up to his present job; that he
didn't need a union. He said so long as you do your job, you have got
security ; that he had never had an occasion to fire any foreman ; that he
never fired any foreman. . . . Mr. McCabe said that in his earlier life when
be was learning the business, he belonged to the A. F. of L., and he felt for
the rank and file. The Union was all right, but as far as foremen were
concerned, the Union wasn't the thing for a foreman.... Because lie said
11 It was the practice in the plant for the superintendent to hold a meeting daily at the
lunch hour Foremen did not attend these meetings.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1123
that foremen are representatives of Management, and as such, they cannot
bargain with Management.
Anderson further testified, without contradiction, that about 2 days after
that meeting, he was told by Ellison that in the future he would take his orders
from Superintendent Skuly, as he, Anderson, no longer represented manage-
ment." After receiving these instructions, Anderson left the office with Skuly.
Anderson then said to Skuly, "What did Mr. Ellison ask you when he sent you to
get me?" Skuly replied, "Mr. Ellison said, Did you know Art Anderson was or-
ganizing the foremen? . . . Get him in here." On that same day, according to
the credited and undenied testimony of Anderson, Harry Smith, superintendent
of Department 44, told him that the "boss" had been to his office and wanted to
take Foreman Frank Arendt out of Department 44 and put him in Department 31,
so that he could discharge Anderson. Smith told Ellison that he could not spare
Arendt at that time. Smith also told Ellison that sooner or later the foremen
in the plant would be organized, and Ellison replied that they would not, not while
he was plant manager About 2 weeks after that, Anderson said to Skuly, "Well,
I guess I am on Mr. Ellison and Mr. McCabe's blacklist." Skuly replied, "No, I
wouldn't say that. You just keep on doing your job the way you have been doing
it, and I think everything will be all right." During that conversation Skuly
asked Anderson what the foremen expected to gain by organizing. From that
time until about the middle of February 1946, no further effort to organize the
foremen was made by Anderson or the Association. A strike of the maintenance
and production employees in the plant occurred on January 14, 1946, and ended
February 18, 1946.
After the strike had been settled, interest in the Association was revived. An-
derson's testimony, in this respect, which is credited by the undersigned, reads
as follows :
Well, the boys, after the original thing stopped, the fellows still thought
we ought to go ahead again. So, I began to talk to the foremen about getting
together again . . . Then I got another petition and started signing up the
fellow s.
Anderson signed the new Petition and so did the other foremen who had signed
the original Petition. On March 28, 1946, Anderson together with Hibbard,
Regional Director of the Association, made a canvass of a number of foremen at
their homes in the evening, for the purpose of securing members for the Associa-
tion. Anderson was summarily discharged 2 days later.
According to the undenied testimony of Yarrow, in March 1946, Foreman An-
derson circulated a letter in the plant advising the foremen that there would be
a meeting of the Association members ; that while he, Yarrow, was at work, Frank
Hollingsworth, superintendent of the forge shop, and Walter Baker, night super-
intendent, came up and Hollingsworth asked him if he had received a letter to
attend a meeting, and if he were going to attend. Yarrow replied in'the affirma-
tive to both questions. Baker then asked Yarrow why he did not tell them more
about it instead of their having to pump him. A few days after the Association
meeting. Baker asked Yarrow who was present at the meeting and what was said.
Yarrow told him that if he was interested in the activities of the Association, to
see Arthur Anderson about it
1. When Anderson was transferred to Department 31, he nas put under the direct
super Vision of Ellisen and McCabe, although that Department was under Superintendent
Skuly
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Foreman Sapochak testified that in April 1946 he had a conversation with
Superintendent Holt right after a meeting of the Association in which Holt said
to Sapochak that he understood employees Koch and Berna had just become
members of the Association. Sapochak replied that they were at the meeting.
Sapochak further testified that on two occasions during the Summer of 1946,
Superintendent Holt questioned him in regard to how the Association was pro-
gressing and how many members it had and who they were. Holt also asked
Sapochak whether or not he was a member of the Association Sapochak replied
in the affirmative. Holt then asked him if he intended to remain a member.
Concluding findings
The undersigned concludes and finds from the entire record in the case, that
by interrogating its employees with respect to their union affiliation by threats
of reprisals, and by other acts and statements of Manager Ellison, Assistant
Manager McCabe, Plant Protection Superintendent Holt, Master Mechanic Reese,
and Superintendents Klawuhn, Balthaser, and Hollingsworth, the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its supervisory employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharge of Arthur Anderson
The complaint alleges that the Respondent, on or about March 30, 1946, dis-
criminatorily discharged Foreman Arthur Anderson, and thereafter refused to
reinstate him. The Respondent's answer admitted that the Respondent dis-
charged Anderson on or about the date alleged, but averred that he was dis-
charged for just cause, and that thereafter he did not apply for reinstatement.
According to Anderson, he was first employed by the Respondent at its Cleve-
land, Ohio, plant in 1934 as a bolt shoveler at 441/2 cents an hour. In 1936 he
was transferred to Department 28 as a die setter at 80 cents an hour. In 1937,
he was promoted to assistant foreman in Department 28 at $7.50 a day In
1941 he was advanced to foreman in that department at $8.50 a dai " In June
1945 he was transferred to Department 31 as foreman of that department. Sub-
sequent to that transfer, his wages were increased to $8.75 a day." He remained
in Department 31 until his discharge on March 30, 1946.
According to Anderson, he was discharged by Assistant Manager McCabe on
Saturday, March 30, 1946. About 11 : 00 a in. on that day, Anderson was called
to the plant office. His testimony as to what transpired. which is credited by
the undersigned, reads as follows :
I went over there, and Mr Skuly came over there. and we went into
Mr. Ellison's office a and sat down, and Mr. McCabe said. "Art, we are trying
to make a foreman out of you. I don't think you can make the grade. You
are not,foreman caliber. It is really Mr. Skuly's job to discharge you, but
I will do the dirty work myself." He said, "Effective today, your services
are no longer required." "Go up and see Mr McCoy, and he will give you
a month's pay, that will be all." I said, "I haven't got anything to say."
13 While working in Department 28, Anderson's immediate superviser was Superintendent
Anthony Sknly
" When Anderson was first tiansferred to Department 31, his immediate superiors were
Manager Ellison and Assistant Manager McCabe. In October 1945, he was instructed to
receive his orders from Superintendent Skuly.
is Ellison was away on vacation at that time
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1125
And Mr. McCabe got up and walked out and Mr. Skuly and I got up and
walked out, and I went up to the accounting department and they paid
me off.
The Respondent contended that Anderson was discharged for an "accumulation
of offenses," substantially as follows : In 1943, while he was foreman of the day
shift in Department 28 and Patton was foreman of the night shift, they had a
misunderstanding which resulted in lowering the efficiency of that department.
In substance it was caused by Patton giving orders to men who worked under
Anderson.
According to the credited testimony of Anderson, in 1941 he became a fore-
man in Department 28. Manus Al Patton was the other foreman in that de-
partment. In 1943 that department was running a day shift and a night shift,
and these two foremen alternated from day shift to night shift every 2 weeks.
On one occasion in 1943 while Anderson was on the night shift, which began at
3: 30 p. in. and Patton was on the day shift, Patton gave orders to Anderson's
men to go over to the mill and thread some rods Anderson objected to Patton
giving orders to men on his, Anderson's, shift. That created a situation between
these two foremen which was not conducive to the best operation of that depart-
ment, as it was customary when a department was operating two shifts for the
foremen to exchange ideas about the work, when the shift changed Anderson
and Patton did not cooperate in that respect for 3 or 4 months after that incident.
Then they were called into the Assistant Manager's 's office and both reprimanded
and told to cooperate in running the department. Anderson was willing to "shake
hands and make up" but Patton refused. At that time, Skuly was superintendent
of Department 28, and he tried on several occasions to get Anderson and Patton
to forget their differences and work together, but with little success About
3 or 4 months after that, Anderson and Patton, both of whom had continued in
their same jobs but had not become reconciled, were called into the front office
and told by Manager Ellison that they had "to cut out that monkey business and
get together," or both of them would be fired. After being cautioned by Ellison,
there was no further trouble between Anderson and Patton. Anderson and
Patton settled their differences and have been friends ever since. Patton became
a member of the Association at the solicitation of Anderson After Elhson's
reprimand, the incident was never mentioned again to Anderson by management.
In September 1943, Department 28 went back on a single-shift basis and Ander-
son and Patton worked together in that department on the single shift until
June 1945, at which time Anderson was made foreman of Department 31. The
undersigned finds no merit in this contention of the Respondent. The inisunder-
standing was settled some 2 years or more prior to Anderson's discharge. Evi-
dently the Respondent thought little of the incident, because when Department
28 was put on a one-shift basis, both Anderson and Patton were continued in
that department, and the record shows and the undersigned finds, that the
incident was not mentioned again The undersigned finds that this incident
in no way contributed to the discharge of Anderson.
The Respondent further contended that Anderson failed to make good as
foreman of Department 31, although for the first few months after taking over
that department in June 1945, he did a good job. Anderson succeeded Foreman
Siegel, who was transferred to another department.
'" At that time Ralph M Drews was the Assistant Manager Later he was succeeded
by McCabe
788586-49-vol 77-72
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to Anderson, in June 1945 lie was offered the position of foreman
of Department 31, because management was not satisfied with the manner in
which that department was being operated." Anderson's testimony in this con-
nection, which is credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
I was called up to Mr. McCabe's office, and Mr. Ellison and Mr. McCabe
were there. And they asked me-they offered me the job in Department 31.
They said the room was a mess, and they wanted somebody, to get some-
body up there to try to straighten it out And they wanted to know if I
would accept the job and try to get the thing straightened out. They didn't
want my answer right away. Mr. McCabe said, "Come back in a couple
of days and let us know if you will take it." So I came hack two or three
days later and told them that I would take the job and straighten it out.
Anderson further testified that when he was foreman in Department 2S, he
worked under Superintendent Skuly, and that Skuly (lid all the hiring and firing
in that department, but when he was transferred to Department 31, he was
no longer under the supervision of Skuly, and that he did the hiring and firing
in that department. According to Anderson, after he had been in Department
31 about 2 months, his work was complimented by McCabe His undenied
testimony, in this respect, reads as follows:
Well, after I had been up there about 6 weeks of 2 months, at one of the
bonus meetings Mr. McCabe showed the chart and stated the fact that I
had dug in, and that's the way he would like to see foremen do it, instead
of belly-aching about having too much work or too many "U" bolts to roll,
and dig in and get them out.
Anderson further testified that about the second week after lie had been trans-
ferred to Department 31, he revised the method of rolling "U" bolts, so that
lie could roll both ends of these bolts in one operation, instead of rolling each
end separately, and thereby got the work done just twice as fast. Ellison told
Anderson that it was a good idea.
In respect to the transfer of Anderson to Department 31, Superintendent
Skuly testified that he approved the transfer His testimony reads as follows:
We demoted Siegel and put him into another department as an operator,
which created an opening for a foreman in Department 31 . . . Mr. Ellison
spoke to me about that. I told him I didn't have any objections. And
then he said, "Well, Skuly, I have heard Art make a remark that kind of
started me to thinking." He said, "Art, when I talked to him shortly about
a certain job and wanted to know why it was done so, and why it wasn't
done to make it easier for the operator, Art Anderson made a remark that
he was the foreman and not responsible, or not in a position to decide which
way to do the work." That gave Mr. Ellison the idea that possibly some
of the trouble was in Skuly rather than Anderson. So, he said, "Would
you care if I put Anderson up there and put him on his own, and you have
nothing to do with the department at all; to give him a chance to prove
himself." I said, "No, I would not care. In fact, I would never stand in
anybody's way. If anybody had an idea that I was holding them back
or not giving them the proper opportunities, I was willing to leave him go
and let him prove himself."
17 At that time Foreman Henry Siegel had charge of Department 31 under Superintendent
Skuly When Anderson took over Department 31, Siegel was transferred to the fourth
floor as a die-setter.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1127
In respect to the operation of Department 31, after Anderson had been trans-
ferred there as foreman, Reese's testimony, which is credited by the under-
signed , reads as follows :
Q. Will you give its your opinion as to the comparison between Siegel's
work in Department 31 and Anderson's work in Department 31? Just
briefly, please. .
A. Well, Siegel's room was jammed with about as many bolts as you
could possibly put in there. He was removed from that job because the
work wasn't going through. He was then put in Red Smith's room to
operate some rollers up there. And Art was put up in that room. I was
anxious to see Art make good, and at different times I spoke to Art. And
at that time he was taken from under Skuly's wing," and he worked under
Mr. Ellison and Mr. McCabe's direction, direct, with nobody between them.
And I thought that was a step forward. Art did a lot to clean up that room.
He didn't have the room in too bad a shape, although there were many
changes taking place Many of the rollers, the roll thread machines, were
sent over to the mill machine shop to be rebuilt. The location of the ma-
chines was changed. A new flooring was put in, which was necessary, but
it all tied various machines up.
Q. Do you know anything about Art's total production?
A In count or weight, no. The only thing I could do was to observe
the room and how much work was piling up in the room. They later took
four of his large machines and put them on the first floor, and that naturally
would reduce the amount of weight and count that went through his room.
Especially the weight would show a drop as well, because they were attached
directly to cold headers, and Bill Meluch was down there-
The record shows and the undersigned finds that just as soon as Manager
Ellison discovered that Anderson was the prime mover in organizing the fore-
men and was circulating a Petition in the plant for that purpose, he immediately
instructed Anderson to report to Superintendent Skuly thereafter. The reason
given by Ellison for thus demoting Anderson was that he had been informed
that Anderson had "decided to no longer represent management " As related,
when Anderson was transferred to Department 31, he was given the status of
a superintendent, in that he reported directly to Ellison and McCabe, instead
of to Superintendent Skuly, who was superintendent of Department 31.
Reese testified that after his conversation with Anderson, at the latter's home
as related above, he reported to Assistant Manager McCabe that he could not
do anything with Anderson, and that, as far as he, Reese, was concerned, McCabe
could do whatever he pleased about Anderson, as he had done all he could to
stop his activities in the Association. Within the next few days, Anderson was
put back under the supervision of Skuly. While testifying, Reese was asked on
cross-examination why was Anderson put directly under the supervision of
Ellison and McCabe, instead of under Skuly, who was superintendent of Depart-
ment 31. Reese's reply was, "Well, I personally believed he was making good,
and I think if the darn fool behaved himself, I think lie would have climbed
further, if not in that department, in another department . . . I think Art
was doing a pretty decent job, and you are asking my opinion, and I honestly
'e Skuly was superintendent over 3 departments, one of which was Department 31
However , when Anderson was transferred to Department 31, he was instructed to report
direct to Ellison or McCabe. Department 31 was on the second floor of the plant.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
believe if Art didn't go haywire, that Art would have been working down there
today. And in the future-I won't say when he would have climbed further."
The Respondent endeavored to show that Anderson, after his transfer to De-
partment 31, was unduly absent from his department during working time,
either in the cafeteria or elsewhere. The undersigned finds no merit in this
contention, and it is not supported by the evidence. The record shows, and the
undersigned finds, that foremen, as well as other employees, were permitted to visit
the cafeteria at certain intervals, and that Anderson did not abuse this privilege
any more than others did. The record also shows, and the undersigned finds, that
in order to efficiently operate his department, it was necessary for Anderson to go
to other departments as the occasion demanded
Patton testified that the foreman of Department 31, which is on the second
floor, would have to go to the bottom of the conveyor which is on the first floor
to see what work was coming up to Department 31. Also there were two roll
threaders located in Department 28 which was on the first floor, that were under
the supervision of the foreman of Department 31.
The Respondent further contended that Anderson had been negligent and
non-cooperative in the operation of a double hopper bolt machine after it was
installed in Department 31, in March 1946. There is no credible evidence in
the record to support this contention and the undersigned finds no merit in it.
Roy Reese with over 23 years of active service in the plant" testified that in
February or March 1946, while he was master mechanic in the plant, a double
hopper bolt machine was developed and installed in Department 31 His
testimony, in respect to that machine, which is credited by the undersigned, reads
as follows :
Q Are you acquainted with a double hopper job at the plant in Depart-
ment 31?
A Yes.
Q. Who designed that machine?
A. That I had no hand in. That was done by-I would say that was Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Bradley, and Al Rauscher There were several hands in on
that. Probably half a dozen.
Q Did you see that machine operate in Art Anderson's department?
A. I seen it operate before going into Art's department; the hopper feed.
Q. Did that machine operate in his department the way it was designed to
operate?
A. It did not operate successfully.
Q. What was the matter with it?
A. The first thing that happened, the workmanship that was done on that
lob-
Q. What would the machine do so that it wouldn't work?
A. It should feed enough bolts to keep a roll threader, or whatever machine
you attach to it, to keep it feeding.
Q. And what happened to the bolts?
A. In this case they came down two tracks, and there was a driver that
would hold them back in one track that fulcrumed on the rear end, and at
any time if the bolts alternated, that little flapper would go around like
your finger. But, if they came down together, they couldn't both get down
the same track.
"Reese voluntarily quit the Respondent's employ in April 1946 At the time of the
instant hearing he was plant manager for the Triplex Screw Co.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1129
Q. Did the employees in the mechanics department try to make that
machine work?
A. I didn't try to design it. I didn't believe in it, and I thought there was
too many hands in it already.
Q. Why didn't you believe in it?
A. I can't see how it possibly could work as it was constructed
Q Did the mechanics in your department attempt to make it work?
A. I had a machine shop over in the mill, the mill machine shop, where
we had a lot of rebuilding to do, and so forth. We had a lot of young
fellows working there. It was built over in that department.
Q. The answer is either yes or no.
A. Yes, they tried to make it work.
Q Do you know whether Art Anderson attempted to make that machine
work?
A. Yes.
Q. Over what period did he try?
A. It wasn't up there too long before I left. I will say it was up there
probably a couple of months before I left.
Q Now did that machine work the way it was designed at any time while
you were there?
A. I never seen it do that.
Q. Did Art make the machine run as best he could, do you know?
A. Yes, we had the hopper running.
Q How did he make it run?
A. We started the machine off immediately, and it was throwing the bolts
out on the floor ; poor workmanship. And the hopper blade going back
too far was letting the bolts pass through. I got Al Rauscher back there and
I felt it was his job to get that set up.
Q. What is Al Rauscher?
A. Foreman of that particular department And we had him move that
blade forward to prevent the bolts from falling through. It still had more
than enough room, but the bolts wouldn't fall through it. And I seen it run,
the only way you could run it was to block off one track
Q. You were the master mechanic there. Was your opinion ever asked
on how to get that machine working?
A. No, but I believe they did expect me to look it over and try to do things
to it if I could, but in my opinion the design was wrong, and I don't think
it ever would work
Superintendent Skuly testified that the machine did not operate as it was
designed to do. His testimony, in this connection, reads as follows :
Well, in the early part of March when that machine first came up, it had
this revised or re-designed mechanism for feeding the bolts, which is called
here a double hopper, but it is not a double hopper. It is a simple hopper,
double blade. Now, we had some trouble with feeding bolts because of the
double blade, and some trouble with the blades being improperly adjusted.
When the machine first came up those bolts would drop through and drop
down.
Foreman Rauscher testified lie assisted in rebuilding this machine and that it
was set up in Department 31 in March 1946; that in a few days, Master Mechanic
Reese sent for him to see if he could get it to operate as designed ; that he had
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to change the blades and weld a piece on; and that he tried two or three times
to get the machine to run His testimony in this respect reads as follows :
The machine was set for half-inch bolts to roll, the dies were set for that,
but the feed, the blades were set for a bigger bolt, for a three-quarter bolt.
That's what made all the bolts fall through the bottom.
The Respondent also endeavored to show that the cost of operating Department
31 was excessive while Anderson was in charge. The record reveals, and the un-
dersigned finds, that prior to Anderson's taking over Depai tment 31, it had been
decided by management to remodel that department, and a considerable number
of machines were taken out of the department, and after being repaired, they
were installed in other departments, but the cost of the repairs was charged to,
Department 31.
Roy Reese, former master mechanic in the Respondent's Cleveland plant,
testified that approximately a year before Anderson was made foreman of
Department 31, he was present at a meeting of the tool committee in Manager
Ellison's office, and he heard Ellison ask Superintendent Skuly whom lie con-
sidered his best foreman and that Skuly replied, "Art Anderson." At that time,
Anderson was foreman under Superintendent Skuly.
Reese further testified without contradiction that while Anderson was foreman
in Department 31, he, Reese, was told by Superintendents Ben Hauser and Bill
Burke, both of whore worked in departments next to Department 31, that they
were very well pleased with the cooperation they received from Anderson. Reese
further testified that on one occasion, while Anderson was foreman in Department
31, Harry Smith, Superintendent of the finishing department, told him that he
would like to have Anderson in his department, as he was "really on the ball," and
was all right
Concluding findings
The Respondent's contention that Anderson was discharged for an "accumula-
tion of offenses" is trivial and fanciful, and finds no support in the record, and
the undersigned so finds
lit the case of Edward G. Budd D1annfacturing Company v. The National
Labor Relations Board, 13S F (2d) 86, 90-91 (C C. A 3), the Company con-
tended that an employee named Weigand was discharged for an "accumulation
of offenses." He was, to judge from the record; so grossly derelict in lux
conduct and performance that the Third Circuit was moved to comment
"... if ever a workman deserved discharge, it was he." After noting, however,
that the employer had knowingly condoned Weigand's conduct for a long period of
time and discharged him upon discovery of his union connections, the Court held:
An employer may discharge an employee for a good reason, a poor reason
or no reason at all and the reason is not a concern of the Board so long as
the provisions of the Act are not violated ... But it is certainly too great
a strain on our credulity to assert as does petitioner, that Weigand was
discharged for an accumulation of offenses. We think that he was dis-
charged because his activities became kno-9n to the plant manager.
The respondent contended that any discriminatory motive in connection with
the discharge of Anderson is rebutted by the fact that no other member of the
Association was discharged and that a number of Association members are still
working in the plant. The undersigned finds no merit in this contention. The
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1131
Board and the Courts have held that a complete "house cleaning" of union
members and supporters is not essential to a finding that an employee has been
illegally dealt with.' Anderson was the leader and prime mover in getting
foremen to affiliate with the Association, and there is no question that his
discharge was the single most effective action that the respondent could take to
discourage membership in the association.
Anderson's service record with the Respondent shows that he served the
Respondent honestly and faithfully for approximately 12 years, and just because
he attempted to organize the foremen into the Association, he was summarily
discharged. McCabe simply told Anderson that he did not think he would ever
make a foreman. He did not give Anderson any explanation whatsoever as to
how he had arrived at that conclusion. Anderson became an assistant foreman
in 1937, and a foreman in 1941 He was foreman for approximately 5 3 ears, and
after this long period as a foreman, he was suddenly discharged and toad that
lie would never make a good foreman. It is significant that the first action taken
against Anderson was when Manager Ellison discovered that he was circulating
the Petition. He was put back under the Supervision of Skuly. Just as soon
as Anderson discovered that Management had found out about the October
Petition, he destroyed it, and there was no further Association activity in the
plant until the following Febiuary after the strike had been settled. Therefore,
it is quite easy to understand why the Respondent did not discharge Anderson
in October or November 1945. However, just a few days after Anderson had
revived interest in the Association and circulated the second Petition in March,
he was summarily discharged.
That the Respondent discharged Anderson for the reason that he was the
leader in organizing the Association and in order to discourage membership in
the Association is clearly revealed in the record and the undersigned so finds.
Upon the entire record in the case the undersigned concludes and finds that
the Respondent discharged Anderson and thereafter refused to reinstate him
for the reason that he joined and assisted the Association and engaged in con-
certed activities with other employees of the Respondent for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and that the Respondent
thereby discriminated against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment,
discouraged membership in the Association, and interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its supervisory employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent, in its answer, urges that the complaint be dismissed on the
following grounds :
(1) The Board lacks jurisdiction to issue the complaint or to conduct
a hearing thereon, or to issue any order therein.
(2) Arthur Anderson was, at the time of his discharge, a supervisor who
constituted a part of management, and was not an employee, within the
meaning of the Act.
(3) The entering of an order against the Respondent in this proceeding
would not effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned finds no merit in these contentions of the Respondent. It is
now well settled by the Board that supervisors are "employees" within the mean-
"Stewart Warner Corporation and United Steel Workers of America, Local 2937
(CIO), 55 N L. It B. 593; N L. R. B. v. American Mfg. Co, 106 F (2d) 61, 67-68
(C C A 2) , of Triplex Screw Mfg. Co v. N. L. R. B. 117 P. ( 2d) 858, 861 (C C A 6).
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing of the Act. In the Board's Decision on Appeal in the Mattel of Soss Ifanu-
facturing Company and Foreman's Association of America, and Matter of Repub-
he Steel Corporation (98 "Strip Mill") and Foreman's Association of America,
56 N L. R. B. 348, decided May 8, 1944, the Board said, miter alga, as follows :
We conclude that supervisors are "employees" and that supervisory status
does not by its own force remove an employee from the protection of Section
S (1) and (3) of the Labor Relations Act.
In reaching this conclusion we do not mean to suggest, of course, that
every discharge of a supervisory employee for engaging in union activity is
a violation of the Act. As well as being employees, supervisors are also
representatives of management and their conduct is held attributable to
their employer when it interferes with the rights of ordinary employees to
self-organization and collective bargaining. That being true, we recognize
the right of an employer to protect his neutrality by requiring his supervi-
sory employees to refrain from unneutral activities winch impinge upon the
rights of their subordinates, and to take appropriate measures to that end.
Consequently, the right under the Act of supervisors to protection in their
organizational and other concerted activities is not an unqualified one, but
is subordinate to the organizational rights and freedom of rank and file
employees, and to the need of an employer to maintain his neutrality.
In the cases now before us we are concerned solely with the question
of the right of employers to discriminate against foremen because of their
membership and activities in an independent labor organization whose mem-
bership is confined to supervisory employees. Adherence of supervisory
officials to such an organization cannot normally have any impact upon the
rights of ordinary employees, nor can it normally affect an employer's posi-
tion of neutrality. On the basis of the charges before us, and without deter-
mining the merits of the cases, we are of the opinion that the supervisory
status of the foremen alleged to have been discriminated against presents
no bar to findings of violations of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act
IV. THE EI FECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discharged and thereafter refused to
reinstate Arthur Anderson for the reason that he joined and assisted a labor
organization and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. It will therefore be recommended
chat the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
4
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1133
substantially equivalent position," without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that the Respondent make
him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discrimina-
tory discharge, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
would normally have earned as wages during the period from March 30, 1946,
the date of his discharge, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during such period a,
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of Sec-
tion S (1) and (3) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Re-
spondent cease and desist not only from engaging in such conduct but also from
in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its supervisory
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, for
the following reasons, to wit: The Respondent's whole course of conduct discloses
a definite purpose to defeat self-organization among its foremen and assistant
foremen, as has been found by the undersigned. Since the inception of the Asso-
ciation in the Respondent's plant, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its supervisory employees by various acts and statements. Moreover,
the discriminatory discharge of Anderson "goes to the very heart of the Act." 22
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, and the underlying purpose mani-
fested thereby, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices which
it has committed are persuasively related to the commission in the future of any
or all of the unfair labor practices listed in the Act and their commission is to
be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose
of the Act will be defeated unless the remedy is coextensive with the threat."
Therefore, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist, not only
from the unfair labor practices found herein, but also from in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its supervisory employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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, unaffiliated, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Arthur
Anderson, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
21In accordance with the Board ' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position
wherever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially
equivalent position ." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch , 65 N L. R. B. 827
22 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.
21 N. L . R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F (2d) 532, 536 (C. C A 4 ) ; see also
N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 116 F ( 2d) 350 (C C. A. 7),
13 N. L . R. B. 338.
2' See N. L. R B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426; May Department
Stores Co . v. N. L. B. B., 326 U. S. 376.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its supervisory 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of'fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Republic Steel Corporation
(Upson Division), Cleveland, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Foreman's Association of America, unaffili-
ated, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its supervisory employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its super-'
visory employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Foreman's Association of America, or any other
labor organization, 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
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Arthur Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Arthur Anderson for any loss of pay lie 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 March 30, 1946, the date of his discharge, to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period ; 25
(c) Post at its plant at Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative
of the Respondent, 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 employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply 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 recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
25 See footnote 22, supra.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1135
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washing-
ton 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement 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 ;
and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an
priginal and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Im-
mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, 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 Regional Director.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall
be promptly made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said
Section 20339, 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 service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
WILLIAM P. WEBa,
Dated December 16, 1946. Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
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 Nor in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our super-
visory employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, or
any other labor organization, 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 employee named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Arthur Anderson
All our supervisory employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate ni
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any supervisory employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any such labor organization.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION,
(Upson Division)
Employer.
Dated ---------------------- By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) (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.