Schnacke Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1396 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of SCHNACKE MFG. CORP. and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO.
Case No. 14-C-951.-Decided July 21, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 4, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found
and take certain affirmative action, as set out in the copy of the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Although, at the request
of the respondent, oral argument was scheduled before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., neither party appeared. The Board has reviewed the rulings
made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the respon'dent's brief and exceptions,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the addition noted
below :
We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that the respondent, by the
acts and conduct of President Walter H. Schnacke and Assistant Super-
intendent John G. King, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In addition, we find that by the statements of the afore-mentioned officials,
described in Section III, B, of the Intermediate Report, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
62 N L R B., No 191
1396
SCHNACKE MFG. CORPORATION
ORDER
1397
Upon the entire record in the case, and, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Schnacke Mfg. Corp., Evansville,
Indiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-
CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging,
laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of their employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities, for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Chloe Lynde and Wesley Goodman immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges :
(b) Make whole Chloe Lynde and Wesley Goodman for any loss of
pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a suit of money equal to the amount
which each normally would have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period;
(c) Post at its plant in Evansville, Indiana, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice to be furnished by
the Regional Director of the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt therof, 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 Eleventh Region in writing,
1398 DECISIONS OF N-ATIONAL LABOR kEI.AT1ONS POARII
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Order
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organlization, to form
labor organizations, to joint or assist International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own chossing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or othei
mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named beloNv immediate and full rem-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination.
Chloe Lynde
Wesley Goodman
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment against any employee because of membership in'or activity on behalf
of any such labor organization.
ScHNACKE MFG. CORP (Eniployer)
By
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated
NOTE: Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain- posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harry G Carlson, for the Board.
Mr. Isidor Kahn, of Evansville , Ind, for the respondent.
SCHNACKE MFG CORPORATION 1399
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on September 8, 1944, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-CIO, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board. by the
Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St Louis, Missouri), issued its com-
plaint dated September 8, 1944, against S'chnacke Mfg. Corp, Evansville, Indiana,
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, accompanied by notice of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
the respondent' (1) from about March 1944, by its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, urged, warned, and threatened its employees against engaging in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection,
and against joining, assisting, or remaining members of the Union, or any other
labor organization; made derogatory statements concerning labor unions and their
leadership. and questioned its employees concerning their union activity and affilia-
tions; (2) discharged employees Chloe Lynde and Wesley A. Goodman in April
1944, and thereafter refused to reinstate them or either of them, because they joined
and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection; and (3)
by such acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Evansville, Indiana, on September 19, 20,
and 21, 1944, before the undersigned, W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel, and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded the parties . At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent filed its answer,
which admitted certain allegations of the complaint in respect to the character of its
business , but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.
At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent's counsel filed a request for a bill
of particulars , which was denied by the Trial Examiner, after certain information
had been supplied, on the record by Board's counsel. At the close of the Board's case,
and again at the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent's counsel submitted written
motions to dismiss the entire complaint for lack of proof Ruling was reserved on
these motions which at this time, are denied. A motion by the Board's counsel to
conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters, was granted by the
Trial Examiner, over the objection of the respondent' s counsel.
The opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner at the conclusion of the
hearing, and also to file briefs with the undersigned, was waived by the parties.
Upon the record thus made and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
The respondent, Schnacke Mfg Corp, is an Indiana corporation, having its prin-
1 Prior to the war, the respondent was engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of tools
and dies, and also did machine work on medium and small parts The respondent is now doing prac-
tically the same type of work, only its output is for war purposes
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cipal office and place of business in Evansville, Indiana. It is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of machine and airplane parts, principally under sub-
contracts with prime war contractors The principal raw materials used by the
respondent are steel and aluminum, the greater portion of which is shipped to the
respondent's plant by the prime contractors from points outside Indiana During the
first 6 months of 1944, the value of the finished products produced by the respondent
at its Evansville plant was approximately $500,000, of which about 98 percent was for
war purposes Some of the prime contractors for whom the respondent manufactures
and processes certain machine and airplane parts have their principal offices within
Indiana, and others are located outside Indiana, such as the Mack Truck Company,
American Locomotive Works, and Republic Aviation Corporation The undersigned
finds that the respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Prior to 1942, the respondent's employees were unorganized. In the spring of that
year, both the Union and United Electrical and Radio Workers, another C. I 0
affiliate, began organizational campaigns among these employees. However, the juris-
dictional dispute which arose on that account was settled in favor of the Union, and
the United Electrical and Radio Workers retired from the scene of action. The Union
continued its campaign. Handbills and authorization cards were distributed at the
plant The Union was successful in securing a few signed authorization cards among
the employees, but, on the whole, the campaign failed and efforts to organize these
employees were temporarily discontinued by the Union. In the fall of 1943, a second
campaign was inaugurated in the plant, under the direction of J B. Mansfield, inter-
national representative of the Union Employee Goodman was the leading spirit in this
drive. He was assisted by employee Hartley Hale.' This campaign was not so openly
conducted as the first one in 1942. Authorization cards were supplied by Mansfield
and were made available in the plant for those who wished to sign them. After the
cards were signed, they were turned over to Goodman, who turned them in at union
headquarters. No handbills were distributed at the plant, and no union notices of any
kind were posted in the plant. While an appreciable number of organizational cards
were signed, this campaign was hardly more successful than the first, and the efforts
of Goodman and Hale to sign up the employees were discontinued, after a conference
with Mansfield.
According to Mansfield, in February 1944, Goodman and a group of other em-
ployees informed him that a number of employees were inquiring about the Union
and that it would be advisable to start another campaign for members in the plant
Mansfield supplied Goodman and some others with authorization cards and instructed
them to get as many of them signed as possible The third effort by the Union to
organize the respondent's employees was begun along the same lines as the second
campaign and no handbills were distributed This campaign continued, with some
degree of success, up to about the middle of June 1944, at which time employees
Wesley Goodman and Chloe Lynde were discharged by the respondent Following
2 Hale's employment with the respondent ceased about the first of August 1944.
SCHNACKE MIFG. CORPORATION 1401
these discharges , further efforts to secure members in the plant were discontinud by
the Union, pending the outcome of charges filed by the Union against the respondent'
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In the first part of April 1944, Assistant Superintendent John G King said to em-
ployee Louise Nelson, while she was at work in the plant, that he had heard that she
and employee Chloe Lynde were trying to organize a union in the plant and that
Lynde had been seen at a meeting of the Union King further said to Nelson, referring
to the union's efforts to organize the employees, that he did not think it was a nice
thing to do, "as nice as he had been" to the employees Nelson had already signed a
union authorization card, but after this conversation with King, she instructed Mans-
field, the union organizer, to "tear up" her card. She then told King that she was
sorry she had had anything to do with the Union'
According to the undenied testimony of John S Bilderback, a watchman at the
respondent's plant, which is credited by the undersigned, in the latter part of March
or the first part of April 1944, Assistant Superintendent King asked Bilderback if he
knew anything about the Union organizing and Bilderback replied that he did not
know very much about it King then said to Bilderback, "Well, they better not" or
words to that effect ... "Mr. Schnacke won't stand for it"
In March or April 1944, Assistant Superintendent King said to Ralph West, a
set-up man in the plant, that he knew the Union was organizing and he hoped that
West. "was not one of them."'
In June 1944, employee Hartley Hale was laid off for a week by the respondent
because he had checked out and left the plant an hour before quitting time without
notifying his foreman. When Hale returned to work after the week's absence, Presi-
dent Schnacke called him into his office and, during the conversation which ensued,
Schnacke told Hale that he knew he had joined the Union, as they had ways and
means of finding out whether or not he belonged to the Union. Schnacke further told
Hale that he did not care how many unions he joined "so long as it was outside the
plant."'
In summary, the undersigned concludes and finds from the entire fecord that by
the aforesaid acts and conduct of President Walter H S'chnacke and Assistant Super-
intendent John G. King, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
C. The discriminatory discharges
Chloe Lynde was first employed by the respondent in April 1943. She worked as a
lathe operator making stove caps until the following September, at which time she
was given leave of absence on account of illness. She returned to cork in the plant
No Local was evei established by the Union for the respondent ' s employees , as practically all
three efforts to organize these employees were unsuccessful
{ This finding is based upon the credible and undenied testimony of employee Nelson
6 This finding is based upon the undenied testimony of West On direct examination West testi-
fied that in May 1944, he told a Field Examiner of the Board that in March or April 1944, "Mr
King came up to where I was working and said he knew the Union was organizing , and hoped that
I was not one of them " On cross-examination West testified that King did not mention the Union
in this conversation , but King did say that lie "Wanted to talk to me man to nian about this thing
that is going on and lie said he hoped that I wasn't one of them Well, of course we both
knew what we was talking about "
8 This finding is based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Hale Schnacke testified that,
from rumors that had been going around since the first part of 1944, he felt that Hale "was fairly
well connected with the Union ," and that he had told Hale so Hale was not in the employ of the
respondent at the time of the hearing
1402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the latter part of January or the first part of February 1944, and was put back to
work on the same lathe but performing operations on pistons. She signed a union
authorization card on March 6, 1944, and became active in the Union's third effort to
organize the respondent's employees. She distributed union cards and solicited the
employees to sign them. She collected signed cards and turned them over to employee
Wesley Goodman and attended union meetings at the union headquarters.
On March 31, 1944, during the lunch hour, Assistant Superintendent King said to
Lynde, "Chloe, why are you trying to cut my throat?" Lynde asked him to explain
King replied that he could not be seen talking to her there, but he would meet her in
front of her home at 7 :00 p m. that night. King arrived at Lynde's home at the
appointed time and stopped his car in front of the house. Lynde went out to the car
and asked King what he wanted. King told her that he had to talk to her and to get
into the car. Lynde said that she had to go to town with some friends, but she would
return about 10 :00 p m. King reiterated that he had to talk to her, but he did not
return to Lynde's home that night. Lynde did not go to work the next day because
she had broken her spectacles. That night, employee Louise Nelson told Lynde that
King had accused them, Lynde and Nelson, of organizing the Union, and that he had
also told her that three different persons had told him. President Schnacke, and
Personnel Director Huffman that they had seen Lynde and Nelson at union meetings.,
When Lynde returned to work on Monday, April 3, 1944, she asked Assistant Super-
intendent King what he had been telling Nelson. King repeated to her what he had
told Nelson, i e that three different persons had reported to Schnacke, Huffman, and
himself that they had seen Lynde and Nelson at a union meeting. Lynde denied to
King that she had been to the meeting.'
On April 5, about 2 00 p.m., King came to Lynde's machine and told her that the
plant was "going under" because they could not get any more contracts and he was
looking for orders at any time to lay off a "bunch" of employees. King then told Lynde
to ask for her release. Lynde replied that she did not want to ask for a release and
that she would stay there and work as long as she could. King then said to her, "You
won't have any trouble getting work elsewhere; you have made a good record here."
Lynde asked King what they would put on her release. King replied "Looking for
work elsewhere . . or they could put work unsatisfactory." About 2 hours later King
asked Lynde if she had made up her mind to ask for her, release. Lynde replied in the
negative and reiterated her intention to continue working in the plant King then
told her to go into the office. King then left and went into Huff man's office and, when
he returned in a short time, said to Lynde, "Go get your release. It is ready for you "
Lynde punched out at 4:30 p.m. and went into Huffman's office to get her release
Huffman was not in and she so informed King. King told her to come back the next
day and get it; that he had given her a good release; and that she would not have any
trouble in getting a job anywhere. Lynde received her release the next day, which
stated that the reason for her unemployment was "inefficiency."'
The respondent's contention that Chloe Lynde was discharged for inefficiency is not
supported by the facts and its without merit. Assistant Superintendent King testified
that he discharged Lynde because of her "poor work and poor production." King was
uncertain as to just when he decided to discharge Lynde. He stated that it probably
could have been "two or three days or four days or five days before it happened, or it
4 Nelson testified that about April 1, 1944, King told her he had heard that she and Chloe Lynde
were trying to organize a union in the plant.
8 Lynde testified that she had attended several union meetings, which is credited by the under-
signed, although she denied it when confronted with it by King.
0 The foregoing findings are based upon the credible and undemed testimony of Lynde
SCI-i NACKL MFG. CORPORATION 1403
could liaNe an accumulation of several weeks" King further testified that lie had
checked up Lynde's record at several different times and that he had discussed her
work with President Schnacke, Foreman Perkins, and Casey, a set-up an King
could not remember just when he talked to Schnacke about Lynde's work but lie
stated that it was "several times, " and that the first time was about 3 months before
he discharged her. Obviously this cannot be true as the record shows that Lynde did
not return to work after her illness until some time in the last of January or the first
part of February 1944, about 2 months prior to her discharge King also test fried that
he spoke to Lynde several times about her unsatisfactory work, but he could not recall'
when he first spoke to her or what he had said to her.'° King also testified that lie
could not remember what he had said to Lynde at the time lie discharged hei The
undersigned was not favorably impressed with King as a witness and finds that h„
testimony was evasive, indefinite, and not convincing The record discloses, and the
undersigned finds , that King knew in the summer of 1943 that the Union was endeav-
oring to organize the respondent's employees. According to the testimony of Lynde,
which is credited by the undersigned, no one ever said anything to her about her work
except Assistant Superintendent King and set-up man Casey, both of tt hone had told
her several times that her work was allright.m
President Schnacke testified that when Assistant Superintendent ling told him, in
February 1944, that Lynde had returned to work in the plant and that he had put hei
to work on a lathe, he told King that he did not think she could do that work The
record shows that Lynde continued to operate the lathe until hei discharge Schnacke
further testified that he gave the order for her discharge on the day of her discharge
because he did not think she could handle the job This testimony does not coincide
with that of King, who testified that he decided to discharge Lynde several days or
even several weeks before it occurred. Schnacke's testimony in respect to how he
arrived at the conclusion that Lynde could not handle the lathe job was vague and
indefinite and is not convincing
Norman Stock, chief inspector in the plant, testified that in the operations per-
formed by Lynde from February 1944, to the time of her discharge, a number of
pieces had to be rejected because they did not meet the specifications, but, that this
could have been due to several different causes, such as the failure of the set-up man
to set up the machine properly, the machine not being in good running order, and
the tool being worn, which was likely to occur after the machine had been operated
for a short time. Stock further testified that there were a number of elements entering
into the correct operation of the machine besides the "human element " He stated
that he did not know whether any of the-rejected pieces attributable to Lynde were
"scrapped" or whether they were accepted by the customer as the Army Procurement
Board would accept a limited amount of rejects Stock also testified that at the time
Lynde was discharged the respondent had 13 inspectors and a chief inspector and that
all operators made mistakes, otherwise there would have been no need for inspectors
The record shows that Lynde's machine was at least 3 years old and required constant
supervision by the set-up man in order for it to perform the operations. The record
also shows and the undersigned finds that it was the duty of the set-up man to keep
the machines properly adjusted so that the work turned out would meet the specifica-
tions . Machine operators were not required to use micrometers, although they were
° King's testimony reads as follows
I remember talking to her about the work We weic going into that work and it was just in the
experimental stages and we weie following it pietty closely
it Foreman Perkins first testified that he nevei talked to Lynde about her work Later during his
testimnn } he state(] that he had talked to her about 30 of 40 days pitoi to hit discharge
1404 DECISIONS OI NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
useful in making tests, at intervals, or the parts turned out Lynde was not supplied
with a micrometer until about a week or 10 days prior to her discharge
Lynde was not offered a different job in the plant although the respondent hired
over 100 new employees during the first 4 months of 194412 When asked whether he
offered Lynde any other job in the plant President Schnacke testified as follows'
No because she was qualified particularly for this job and our force was decreas-
ing and the type of work that we had to offer, there was nothing there similar
or within her ability; the jobs would just simply not fit her ability That was the
simplest job that we knew of and that is the reason that Mr King selected her.
Wesley Goodinau began working for the respondent on September 21, 1942, as a
hand screw machine operator" in Department No 3 of the plant at 65¢ an hour. He
continued on this work until he was discharged on April 19, 1944. On January 3,
1943, his wage rate was increased to 70 cents an hour, on May 24, 1943, to 80 cents
an hour, on November 1, 1943, to 90 cents an hour and on April 10, 1944, just 9 days
prior to his discharge, to 95 cents an hour Goodman signed a union authokization
card at the beginning of the Union's second campaign in 1943 He signed an official
application for membership in the Union on March 11, 1944. Goodman was primarily
responsible for the Union's second organization campaign. Together with several other
employees Goodman contacted 1\4ansfield, the union representative, soon after Mans-
field had relieved the previous union organizer. Goodman acted as spokesman for the
employees As related above, Mansfield supplied Goodman with union authorization
cards Goodman undertook to personally solicit the employees in Department No 3
where he worked At that time, there were approximately 40 employees in that
department Goodman solicited all of these employees except 2 and supplied them
with authorization cards After these cards were signed they were handed to Good-
mail and he turned them in at the union headquarters There were, at that time,
approximately 90 employees in the other departments of the plant Goodman selected
certain employees in each department, supplied them with authorization cards and
instructed them to get them signed, after which they were returned to Goodman
Goodman also solicited some of the employees in the other departments whenever he
came into contact with them, but he did not go into these other departments for that
purpose This campaign lasted about 3 months. As related above, in January or
February 1944, the third union campaign was inaugurated Goodman was in charge
of this drive and attended all of the union meetings"
In February 1944 Foreman Perkins, whose desk was some 60 or more feet from the
five screw machines, one of which Goodman operated, moved'his tool box over to a
point about 15 feet from the machines, so that he could spend more time watching
these operators Soon after this Goodman asked Assistant Superintendent King why
he was being watched Goodman further told King that once or twice when he went
to the rest room Foreman Perkins followed him and opened the rest room door and
looked in. King replied that there was something going on in the plant that neither he
nor President Schnacke liked. Goodman rejoined that at the present time there were
a few things going on that they, the employees, did not like Foreman Perkins denied
that he had ever followed Goodman around to see what he was doing, but he admitted
that he moved his toolbox near to the screw machines so that he could spend more
time watching the five screw machine operators, as he thought by doing so it would
32 During this period the services of 77 employees iieic ten min itcd of which only 2 besides
Lynde and Goodman were discharged for alleged inefficiency and unsatisfactory service
13 There was a batter} of five screw machines with an operator for each machine
14 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Goodman and Mansfield
SCHNACKE ]NIFG. CORPORATION 1405
stimulate production. Perkins further testified that at that time the production of
three of the screw machine operators, Goodman, Hale, and Schmidt, was down Perkins
kept his tool box near these operators for about 2 weeks.
In the afternoon of April 19, 1944, the day of Goodman's discharge, Assistant
Superintendent King came to Goodman's machine and asked him how many pieces
he had run off and, after Goodman told him, King said, "Well, that is not any pro-
duction" Goodman replied, "Well, Mr. King, I bet you cannot put out that many of
them in that length of time " King replied, "There is one thing I can do, I can give you
yours " King then told Goodman that he had given him a 5o raise to speed up pro-
duction and he wanted more pieces. Goodman replied, "Next time, Mr. King-I cannot
keep up my production the ii ay it is, and the next time don't give inc but 2' raise
and maybe I can keep up."" King told Goodman to come with him They went to
King's desk and King sat down. He then told Goodman to punch out his card Good-
man went to the card rack near the office door but found that his card was not in the
rack. After about 3 minutes Personnel Director Huffman came up and told Goodman
that his release would be ready for him in just a minute. About that time a clerk
came out of the office and handed Goodman his check and releasel° King remained
at his desk. Goodman had never been told by any supervisory employee that the
quality of his work was not satisfactory, although he had been spoken to in regard
to his production. Neither was he ever informed as to why he was discharged.
The respondent's contention that Wesley Goodman was discharged because he
neglected his work and failed to keep up his production is not convincing and is
without merit. According to employee Ralph West, the set-up man for Goodman's
machine, Goodman was a good worker and "he just stayed at his machine the average
time and worked," Foreman Perkins testified that Goodman was a good operator and
"he was there every day, on the job, and he came to work regularly." Perkins further
testified that in the latter part of January or the first part of February 1944;' Good-
man began to leave his machine at intervals and appeared to have developed a careless
attitude toward his work. He spoke to him about it and- Goodman denied that he was
not keeping up his average production Perkins was asked, on examination at the
hearing, if he could explain why Goodman, who had been a good operator since
September 1942, should suddenly begin to neglect his work Perkins' reply reads
as follows
Well, now, you might say that one of the reasons of it was that he had so much
to say to the other operators, or he had to make frequent trips to the drinking
fountains, or, we have soft drinks in the shop, and he would go hack and get a
soft drink and talk to a fellow or two back there before he came back to his
machine And four or five trips like that in a day-just say four or five in a
day-that amounts to a whole lot of time.
The respondent introduced into evidence selected excerpts of the production records
of operators Goodman, Casey, Doerner, and FIeeger; in order to show that Goodman's
production had dropped These excerpts are admittedly selected data from the work
records of these men. They do not portray the over-all record of these men on this
particular job. As to Goodman, the record is fairly consistent, and fails to reflect any
16At the time of his dischaige Goodman had been working about 3 hours on a different machine,
as his machine was shut down for repairs
10 Huffman testified that he had been instructed earlier in the day by Schnacke and King to make
up Goodman's release Goodman's release showed that his services had been terminated because of
"unsatisfactory services"
17 The Union began its third campaign in January or February 1944
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period of higher production from which he had fallen, and it is significant that he had
worked on this machine, and largely on the same operation, for more than a year
prior to his discharge. For the purposes of this report, it may be accepted that Good-
man's production capacity was not altogether equal to that of the other men with
whose work the comparison is sought to be made. Such variations are normal. The
respondent contended that Goodman's production had fallen off, but it offered no
proof of this by way of production records when his production had exceeded that
shown on the above-referred to excerpts, although attention was invited to this omis-
sion by the undersigned In view of this, it may be inferred that if Goodman's record
for the entire period that he had operated the machine had been produced, it would
not have shown a substantial variation from the record for his last 19 days of
operation.
The inconsistency of the respondent's contention that Goodman's discharge was
prompted by the decline in his production is emphasized by the circumstances sur-
rounding his last pay increase. The increase occurred on April 10, 1944, 9 days before
his discharge, and more than a month after his foreman, Perkins, Assistant Superin-
tendent King, and President Schnacke, according to their testimony, had begun to
observe Goodman's alleged inattention to his work and the falling off of his production
and while they were considering replacing him. Goodman was one of 50 employees
in the plant who were selected for merit pay increases at that time. The significant
fact, which wholly discredits the respondent's contention as to the reason for Good-
man's discharge, is that the respondent's "Personnel Change Notice" gives as the
reasons for Goodman's last pay raise, "Merit and Ability. Increased productivity and
greater accuracy." Of even greater significance is the fact that this "Notice" shows
that the increase was requested by King and approved by President Schnacke.
From the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that the respondent had
no substantial reasons for discharging Lynde and Goodman, or either of them, but
seized upon the pretexts of "inefficiency" and "unsatisfactory services" as means of
ridding itself of these employees whom it knew to be actively engaged in assisting
the Union.
Concluding findings
The undersigned finds that the respondent discharged Chloe LN ndc on April 5,
1944, and Wesley Goodman on April 19, 1944, and has since refused to reinstate them,
or either of them , not because of the reasons alleged by the respondent , but because
they joined and assisted the Union , and engaged in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and thereby the
respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment , discour-
aged membership in the Union , and interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMFRCE
The activities of the iespondent set forth in Section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a
I
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take, certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
SCH NACKF Al FG. CORPORATION 1407
It has been found that the respondent discharged Chloe Lynde and Wesley Good-
man and thereafter refused to reinstate them, or either of them, for the reason that
they joined and assisted a labor organization and engaged in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. It will,
therefore, be recommended that the respondent offer them immediate and full rem-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions. It will be further
recommended that the respondent make them whole for any loss of pay each has
suffered by reason of his or her discharge, by payment to him or her of a sum of
money equal to that amount which he or she would normally have earned as wages
from the date of his or her discharge to the date of his or her offer of reinstatement,
less his or her net earnings" during said period
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. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-CIO, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, 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 Chloe Lynde
and Wesley Goodman, thereby discouraging membership in International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-CIO,'affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting coni-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent , Schnacke Mfg. Coil), Evansville, Indiana,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union . Uri ted Automobile, An -
craft and Agricultural Implement 1Vorkers of America , UAW-CIO, affiliated X"ith
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees , or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining . or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
is 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 elsewhere than for
the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the conse-
quent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and
United Brotherhood of Carpentcis and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union,
Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county,
municipal , or other work-relief projects shall he considered as earnings See Republic Steel Coipo-
iationv N L R B. 311 U S 7
1408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merit Workers of America, UAW-CIO, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes 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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Chloe Lynde and Wesley Goodman immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges,
(b) Make whole Chloe Lynde and Wesley Goodman for any loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth herein under the title "The remedy."
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Evansville,
Indiana, and maintain for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, notices to its employees stating. (1) that the respondent will not engage in
the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a)
and (b) of the aforesaid recommendations , (2) that the respondent will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of these recommendations,
and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, UAW-CIO, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of his or
her membership in, or activity on behalf of, this organization,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26, 1943,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the
entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of
Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington, D C., an original and four copies of a statement in wrrtmg setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately
upon- the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for
the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and
shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally hefoic the Board, iequest therefoi
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
`V P WEBB
Trial Examiner
Dated November 4, 1944.