Schwarze Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1939

16 N.L.R.B. 246 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WOR.I]ERSOF AMERICA, LOCAL:NO.• 268
Case No. C-409.-Decided October 23, 1939
Electric Automobile Accessories and Sound Equipment Manufacturing Indus-
try-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion : expressing disapproval of an outside
union ; attempts to foster one union in preference to another-Company-Domi=
nated Union : participation by supervisory employees in formation ; solicitations
for membership by supervisory employees ; membership of supervisory employees
in company -dominated union ; closing of plant to permit attendance at meetings ;
disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Closed-Shop Contract: with
company -dominated union, abrogated-Discrimination : discharges for union
membership and activity ; employees laid off for lack of work later denied
reinstatement because of their union membership and activity ; charges not
sustained as to some employees-Reinstatement Ordered : employees discrimina-
torily discharged to be offered immediate reinstatement ; employees temporarily
laid off because of lack of work to be placed upon a preferential list for employ-
ment in the order of their seniority before hiring other , persons-Back . Pay:
awarded to employees discriminatorily discharged-Strike-Age:eenien,t: ,strike
settlement-Employee Status: where employee obtains job with less pay resigna-
tion considered effective as of date employer notified.
Mr. Earl 1Z. Cross, for the Board.
Clark cC Bean, by Mr. L. E. Bean, of Adrian, Mich., for the
respondent.
Mr. Lawrence J. Hammond, of Adrian, Mich., for the E. R. U.
Miss Fannie M. Boyls, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 268, herein
called the U. A. W. A., the National Labor Relations Board, herein
..called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director for the Seventh
Region, (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated November 13,
1937, against Schwarze Electric Company, Adrian, Michigan, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
16 N. L. it. B., No. 33.
246
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 247
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent had (1) discharged 58 of its employees'
because they had joined and assisted the U. A. W. A. and had engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, (2) dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organ-
ization known as the Employees Representative Union, herein called
the E. R. U., and contributed support thereto, and (3) expressed oppo-
sition to the U. A. W. A. and engendered fear of loss of their jobs
because of membership in or activities in behalf of the U. A. W. A.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served
upon the respondent, the U. A. W. A., and the E. R. U.
Thereafter the respondent duly filed an answer in which it admitted
the allegations in the complaint relative to its corporate existence and
the relation of its business to commerce, denied that it had engaged in
the unfair labor practices with which it was charged, and pleaded
affirmatively that 3 of the 58 employees named in the complaint had
never been employed by it,2 that 8 were discharged for cause,3 that 7
had voluntarily quit their employment,4 and that the remainder were
temporarily laid off because of a seasonal decline in production.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Adrian, Michigan,
from December 2 to and including December 9, 1937, before David
F. Smith, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. Upon
motion made by the E. R. U. at the commencement of the hearing, it
was permitted to intervene. On December 3, 1937, it filed an answer
to the complaint, in which it denied that the respondent had dominated
and interfered. with its formation and administration or contributed
support to it. The Board, the respondent, and the E. R. U. were
I The names of these employees are as follows : Charles Fuller , Helen Johnson , Kenneth
Baldwin, Arlene Mort , Ella Drake. Roger Watson , Phyllis French , Evelyn Baker, Mina
Tidswell , Luella Butts , Ethel Mallory , Price James , Carroll James , Frank Hannon, Mabel
Cornell , Ella M . Dinse , Ruth Stuart , Roy Housman , Earl VanNorman , Helen Corbett, Elda
Guss, P. B. Salvador , Sophia Glenn , Mary Pachay, Evelyn Benfield , Earl Carver, D. C.
Dieckeroff , Howard Delo , Lawrence Beebe , Fay Hill, Laverne Anderson , Alvin Blanchard,
Charles B. Bumpus , Alice Graf , Raymond James, Forest Flaherty , Audrey Calkins, Law-
rence Barenck , Marjorie Van Volkenburgh , June Negus, Marguerite , Parlette , Ford Brock,
Velma Brieschke , Helen Reck , Gertrude Miller , Hugh Schearer , Joe Fisher , Francis Guyman,
Carl Miller, Carey L. DeTray, Florence Heskett , Marcella Polhemns, Josephine VanNest,
Frank Barrett , Betty Havens, Merle Chestier , James Miller , and Carl Smith.
The employees referred to were named in the complaint as Frank Homer, Ella Dense,
nnil Lawrence Anderson. Their names correctly spelled are : Frank Hannon , Ella M . Dinse,
and LaVerne Anderson . The complaint was amended to correct the spelling of Ella Dense
to Ella Al. Dinse. Although the record discloses the correct spelling of the other two
names no amendment was offered to correct the spelling.
8 The names of these employees are as follows : Evelyn Baker, Mina Tidswell , Helen
Reck , Price James, Earl VanNorman , P. B. Salvador, Hugh Schearer, and Francis Guyman.
The names of these employees are as follows : Fay Hill , Audrey Calkins , Lawrence
B:n•enek . Gertrude Miller, Carl Miller , Carey L. DeTray, and Florence Heskett.
247383-40-vol. 16--17
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS UOARD
represented by counsel, and participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
Counsel for the respondent, at the close of the Board's case, moved that
the allegations of the complaint with respect to 25 persons named
therein who failed to appear and testify be dismissed.5 The Trial
Examiner reserved his ruling on this motion and in his Intermediate
Report dismissed the complaint as to these persons. Also at the close
of the Board's case, and again at the close of the hearing, the respond-
ent and the E. R. U. each moved to dismiss the complaint upon the
ground that the evidence adduced at the hearing had, failed to sus-
tain the allegations of unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
These motions were denied. During the course of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner made other rulings on various motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has considered all
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 14, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties. He
found that 28 of the employees named in the complaints had been dis-
charged by the respondent solely because of their membership in and
activities in behalf of the U. A. W. A., that 4 had been discharged for
cause, and that 1 had voluntarily quit her employment.8 The Trial
Examiner further found that the respondent had dominated and in-
terfered with the formation and administration of the E. R. U. and
contributed support to it. He recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from engaging in the afore-mentioned unfair labor practices,
that it reinstate, With back pay, the employees found by him to have
5 The names of these persons are as follows : Charles Fuller , Ella Drake , Frank Hannon,
Mabel Cornell , Roy Housman , Earl VanNorman , P. B. Salvador, Mary Pacbay , Helen Cor-
bett , Evelyn Benfield , Earl Carver , D. C. Dieckeroff, Laverne Anderson , Charles R. Bumpus,
Forest Flaherty , Lawrence Barenck , Velma Brieschke , Hugh Schearer , Francis Guyman,
Carey L. DeTray , Marcella Polhemus , Josephine VanNest, Frank Barrett, Carl Smith, and
Raymond James.
6 The names of these employees are as follows : Helen Johnson , Kenneth Baldwin. Arlene
Mort , Phyllis French, Evelyn Baker, Luella Butts, Ethel Mallory, Ella M. Dinse, Ruth
Stuart, Elda Guss, Sophia Glenn , Howard Demo , Lawrence Beebe, Fay Hill , Alvin Blanchard,
Alice Graf , Mina Tidswell , Marjorie Van Volkenburgh , June Negus , Marguerite Parlette,
Ford Brock , Helen Reek , Gertrude Miller, Carl Miller , Florence Heskett, Betty Havens,
James Miller, and Norlene Anderson . Norlene Anderson , although she testified at the
hearing , was not named in the complaint . The attention of counsel for the Board was
called to this fact at the time Anderson testified , but he made no request that the com-
plaint be amended to include her name . The Trial Examiner therefore erred in finding
that the respondent discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, and
his finding in this respect is hereby set aside. The Trial Examiner made no finding with
respect to Merle Chesher , one of the employees named in the complaint . We shall consider
his case in Section III, infra.
7 The names of these employees are as follows : Roger Watson , Carroll James, Price
James, and Joe Fisher.
The name of this employee is Audrey Calkins.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 249
been discriminatorily discharged, and that it disestablish the E. R. U.
as an agency for collective bargaining.
On February 18, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and requested to be heard in oral argument before the
Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent, the
U. A. W. A., and the E. R. U., a hearing for the purpose of oral argu-
ment was held before. the Board in Washington, D. C., on March 17,
1938. Counsel for the respondent and the U. A. W. A. appeared and
participated in the oral argument. Counsel for the E. R. U. did not
appear.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
and save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below, finds them to be without merit, and they are
hereby overruled.
Subsequent to the oral argument, upon request of the Secretary of.
the Board, the respondent furnished the Board with two seniority-
lists, one listing employees of the respondent according to their depart-
ments and the other listing them according to their jobs within each
department. Attached to the first of these lists was a stipulation
signed by counsel for the respondent, and Carl Woll, president of
the U. A. W. A. The stipulation related to the first seniority list
and certain facts concerning working conditions, which we shall
consider in our findings of fact.9 We hereby make said seniority lists
and stipulation a part of the record in this case.10
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Schwarze Electric Company is a corporation organized and exist-
ing since 1904 under the laws of the State of Michigan. It operates
a factory at Adrian, Michigan, at which it manufactures automobile
horns, oil gauges, windshield defrosters, fire-alarm signals, school bells,
household bells, chimes, sirens, and paging and calling equipment and
systems. About 85 per cent of its total business pertains to automobile
equipment. The respondent normally employs about 367 persons.
Its gross sales average about $80,000 a month.
Raw materials used by the respondent consist chiefly of steel, fibre,
paper board, screw-machine products, copper, brass, and aluminum.
About 65 per cent of these products are obtained from States other
The stipulation is set forth in full in footnote 18, infra.
10 Counsel for the respondent in a letter to the Board , dated April 5, 1939, contended
that the list compiled to show job classifications should be made a part of the record.
The U. A. W. A., by signing a stipulation attached to the list , indicated its willingness
that such list might be considered a part of the record.
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
than Michigan. Approximately 50 per cent of the finished products
are shipped outside Michigan.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. 268, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization, herein called the C. I. O. Local No. 268
received its charter from the International Union on March 22, 1937.
Employees Representative Union is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion, incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan on April
29, 1937. It admits to membership all employees of the respondent,
including foremen and office employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of and interference with formation and administration
of the E. R. U.; interference , restraint , and coercion
1. Background
About February 1937 the U. A. W. A. commenced organizing em-
ployees at the respondent's plant. Soon thereafter Ernest (Red)
Leffel, assistant superintendent at the plant, called all employees
together and told them that he had heard that the plant was being
organized and that increases in pay similar to those requested at
another plant organized by the U. A. W. A. in Adrian would be
requested of the respondent; that the respondent was making only a
penny on each horn and could not afford to grant raises. He advised
them "to think it over" before they joined any union.
During the latter part of April 1937 a negotiating committee of the
U. A. W. A., consisting of Howard Delo, Audrey Calkins, Lawrence
Beebe, Alvin Blanchard, and Alice Renner, all employees of the re-
spondent, met with Harry M. Beery, the respondent's general man-
ager and treasurer, informed him that the U. A. W. A. represented
a majority of the employees, and presented to him a proposed contract
for his consideration. Beery told them that "he was in accord with
a. union but not in accord with an outside union, outside organizers,
or outside people dominating" and suggested that they "not affiliate
or join up with an outside union, but with the union that was under way
at that time." 11 He nevertheless requested that the committee submit
to him a list of the U. A. W. A. members in support of its claim that
the U. A. W. A. represented a majority of the employees. The com-
mittee promised to submit to the union members the question of
11 The E. R. U.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 251
whether or not a membership list should be given Beery. The proposed
contract was then discussed and Beery promised to draw up and submit
to the committee a contract which would be acceptable to him. This
new proposed contract was later submitted by Beery to the commit-
tee and rejected by the U. A. W. A. The U. A. W. A. also declined to
authorize the submission of a list of its members.
While these negotiations were taking place, Leffel, the assistant
superintendent, was interviewing organizers from the American Fed-
eration of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., and planning to bring
that union into the plant, and Kenneth Young, Clarence Davis, and
other employees referred to by several witnesses as "old timers," were
planning the formation of an "inside" labor organization, referred
to by Beery at his first conference with the U. A. W. A. committee.
Leffel testified that he preferred the A. F. of L. to the C. I. O. but
abandoned his plan to bring the A. F. of L. into the plant when he
learned that the "old timers" preferred a union of their own. On
April 27, Kenneth Young, a stock chaser, with headquarters in the
office of William Engel, superintendent, used the respondent's facil-
ities for typing and mimeographing pledge cards for a proposed
"inside" union. These pledge cards were circulated throughout the
plant during working hours by Kenneth Young, Clarence Davis, and
other employees, with the aid of Homer Teller and Russell Snellen-
berger, assistant foremen of the machine shop, Edwin Bahs, foreman
of the assembly department, Vern Hoover, foreman of the paint shop,
and Mary Rechlau, instructor of a line of girls in the assembly
department. Upon the request of a committee consisting of Young,
Davis, and Bahs, an interview with Beery was granted for the after-
noon of April 28. Young and Davis attended the interview, the
purpose of which, as expressed by Young, was "to see if we (the com-
mittee) could stop the C. I. O.'s from getting an agreement." Young
and Davis took with them approximately 175 pledge cards or appli-
cations for membership in the proposed "inside" union. Beery told
them that he 'could not deal with them unless they represented at
least 51 per cent of the employees and unless those employees were
organized. Young and Davis thereupon left the plant and employed
an attorney, Lawrence J. Hammond, to assist them in organizing a
union. They returned to the plant during the afternoon of the same
day, typed notices of a meeting to be held that evening, and posted
the notices upon the respondent's bulletin boards located throughout
the plant. Pledge cards were distributed by supervisory employees
and other employees interested in the formation of the "inside" union
during the afternoon of April 28 and all employees were informed
that they needed such cards to admit them to the meeting. The
object of this requirement was explained by Young to be the exclusion
of U. A. W. A. members who might attempt to break up the meeting.
'252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Formation of the E. R. U.
A night shift of approximately 50 employees had been reporting
for work regularly at about 5: 15 o'clock each evening prior to April
28. On that evening, however, all except about a dozen employees
remained away to attend the meeting. Engel, superintendent of the
plant, instructed the night watchman to send those who reported for
work home. About 250 employees including Balls, Leffel, Teller,
and other supervisory employees attended the meeting. Leffel and
Teller at that time would normally have been on night duty. The
employees voted at the meeting to form the Employees Representative
Union, elected officers and directors, and adopted bylaws. Among
the officers and directors elected -were : Louis Robins, a leader or set-up
man in the machine department, referred to by one of the employees as
"sort of foreman," director and later treasurer; Clarence Davis, a
repair man,12 and Andrew Roesch, a millwright whose duties required
their attendance in all departments of the plant, president and di-
rector, respectively; and Mary K. Bloomer, a cost accountant, and
Kenneth Young, a stock chaser, both of whom worked in the offices
of the respondent, directors. Mary Rechlau, instructor of a line
of girls in the assembly department and variously referred to by
the employees as a "floor-lady" or as a "forelady," was later elected
secretary. Approximately 170 or 175 employees, including Leffel and
Teller, joined the new organization that night. The board of di-
rectors met later that night and signed articles of incorporation
which were filed with the Michigan Corporation and Securities Com-
mission on the following day.
3. The strike and its settlement
While the organizational meeting of the E. R. U. which we have
just described was in progress, the U. A. W. A. called a strike and
formed a picket line around the plant. Leffel, who received word of
the strike while at the meeting, announced to the employees present
that they need not report for work on the following morning. As a
result of the strike the plant was completely shut down until May 5,
at which time the strike was called off pursuant to the following
agreement negotiated between the respondent and the U. A. W. A.:
This agreement made and entered into this 5th, day of May
A. D. 1937, by and between Schwarze Electric Company, a
Michigan Corporation of Adrian, Michigan, of the first part
and Adrian Union U. A. W. A. Local No. 268 by their duly
authorized negotiating committee and David Hall, International
Representative U. A. W. A. of the second part.
v For more than a month prior to the hearing he had been working in the experimental
department at an increase in pay of about $ 5 a week.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 253
WHEREAS, the said local union U. A. W. A. employees of said
first party have declared and are operating a strike, as a result
of which the manufacturing plant of said first party has been
unable to operate, and
WHEREAS, the said Local Union 268 claiming a majority of
the employees of first party and whereas other employees of
first party designating themselves as Employees Representative
Union of the Schwarze Electric Company, are also claiming a
majority of said employees and have, filed a petition with the
Federal. Labor Relations Board, under the so-called Wagner
Act, for an investigation and election to legally determine said
majority, and
WHEREAS, said first party and second party have negotiated
and have arrived at an agreement to be temporary pending the
election to be held under the Wagner Act, to determine said
majority by reason of filing said petition and said parties are
now desirous of placing said agreement in writing. Now
therefore this agreement witnesseth as follows :
First, First party shall reemploy the following persons : Carey
DeTray, Gertrude Miller, Carl Miller, LaVern Anderson, Francis
Guyman, Price James, Frank Barrett; said reemployment to
commence with the reopening of the plant and said parties to
possess their seniority rights, provided however, that Vern An-
derson shall be placed according to his ability and provided
further that Francis Guyman shall be placed at work in a
position to which he is adapted;
Second, Second party agree that they will not cease work,
strike, picket or boycott and first party agrees there shall be no
lockouts so long as this temporary agreement remains in force;
Third, Second party agrees that there shall be no union activi-
ties or solicitations on company property and first party agrees
that it will not permit same to be done by others;
Fourth, That in the event of shortage of stock or orders
necessitating a lessening or (sic) production, that reduction shall
first be to four working days per week and thereafter seniority
and merit govern, to be determined by Arbitration Board con-
sisting of two employees and two representing the management,
and in case of inability to agree, a fifth person shall be designated
by the Board to decide said question.
Fifth, It is agreed between the parties that the eligibility of
voters at the election petitioned for and to be held, shall be the
company payroll existing at the time of the strike, as of April
29th, 1937.
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the parties hereto
that the conditions herein specified are the considerations of this
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract in order to arrive at this settlement which is hereby
recognized and agreed as being a temporary contract to permit
the reopening of plant of first party, whereby all employees may
have employment and work pending the result of the election
petitioned for to determine a majority under the Wagner Act.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
Despite its agreement not to permit union activities or solicitations
on its property, and despite the fact that it posted notices on its bul-
letin boards prohibiting union activities during working hours, the
respondent immediately upon reopening its plant commenced an active
campaign to assist and foster the growth of the E. R. U. E. R. U.
members were permitted to solicit memberships during working hours,
and Homer Teller, assistant foreman of the machine shop, Bahs, and
Leffel assisted in the solicitations. The respondent's bulletin boards
were used by the E. R. U. for posting notices of its meetings. On
or about May 11 the employees on the night shift were given. per-
mission by Leffel to leave their work for 2 hours to attend an E. R. U.
meeting. Teller had the power shut off and all but three of the em-
ployees attended the meeting.
As a result of the encouragement and support given by the re-
spondent to the E. R. U. and the violation by the respondent of the
strike-settlement agreement, the U. A. W. A. on May 14 filed with
the Board's Regional Director a charge that the respondent was fos-
tering, supporting, and interferinb with the formation and adminis-
tration of the E. R. U., and thereafter no election was conducted to
determine which union, if either, represented a- majority of the em-
ployees.
During the latter part of June 1937, the respondent recognized the
E. R. U. as the sole representative of its employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining and agreed to grant demands of the E. R. U.
for increases in pay. During the latter part of September, the re-
spondent agreed to grant the E. R. U. a closed shop and thereafter
posted upon its bulletin boards the following notice :
GENERAL NOTICE NO. U-4
OCT. 7, 1937.
The Employees' Representative Union, an organization com-
posed of employees of the Schwarze Electric Company, which
organization has been recognized by the Company as represent-
ing the majority of employees and therefore entitled to the right
to bargain for all employees, has petitioned this Company
through its president, in a letter dated September 29, 1937, for
a closed shop. After giving this serious consideration, the
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 255
management hereby agrees to grant the request for a closed
shop for a period of six months.
Those exempt from this agreement will be : Salaried em-
ployees, department heads, foremen and assistant foremen, chief
inspector, '%vatchmen and those on special police duty.
New employees will be required to sign an application at the
time of employment, the terms and conditions of payment to
be handled directly by the Employees' Representative Union.
The Company will also recognize a shop steward system, to be
set up in the plant in accordance with terms and conditions as
discussed in a meeting between the directors of the Employees'
Representative Union and the Management of the Company.
The records of discharged employees will be available at all
times for review by the Executive Committee, and any mis-
understanding over any discharged employee can be discussed
with the management by the Executive Committee through
regular meetings, or special meetings can be called when
necessary.
H. M. BEERY,
General Manager.
October 22 was set as the date by which all employees had to join
the E. R. U. Carl Woll, president of the U. A. W. A., advised
U. A. W. A. members to join the E. R. U. in order to retain their
jobs.13 Apparently they did join, for there was no evidence in the
record that any U. A. W. A. members were laid off or discharged
after October 22, and Clarence Davis testified that if any members
of the U. A. W. A. were working at the plant, they were also
members of the E. R. U.
Beery testified that he never gave the employees permission to
leave the plant for the purpose of attending an E. R. U. meeting;
that he never knew of their 2-hour absence on the night of May 11;
that he had instructed his foremen to take no sides in the controversy
involving the E. R. U. and the U. A. W. A.; and that when he
learned that some of the foremen had joined the E. R. U., he re-
quested Engel, the superintendent, to instruct them to withdraw.
Regardless of the truth of these assertions by Beery, the respondent
is no less responsible for the acts and conduct of its supervisory
employees.14
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the E. R. U. and has con-
13 The U. A. W. A. claimed that it had between 175 and 225 members at the plant in
May and June 1937.
14 See Virginia Ferry Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 101 F. (2d) 103
(C. C. A. 4th) ; and National Labor Relations Board V. A . S. Abell Company, 97 F. (2d)
951 (C. C. A. 4th).
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tributed support to it; 11 and that the respondent by said acts and
by other acts set forth above, designed to discourage membership
in the U. A. W. A., namely, by Leffel's admonition to the employees
"to think it over" before joining any union, by his subsequent at-
tempt to foster an A. F. of L. union at the plant, and by Beery's
statement to the U. A. W. A. committee that he was not in accord
with an "outside" union, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
Because of a decrease in production at the plant, it became neces-
sary for the respondent, commencing about May 20, 1937, and con-
tinuing over a period of 3 or 4 months, to reduce its force from
approximately 367 employees to about 200. The complaint alleges,
however, that in the reduction 58 employees were chosen for dis-
charge because of their membership or activities in behalf of the
U. A. W. A.1e Twenty-five of. the fifty-eight employees failed to
appear and testify at the hearing, and the complaint was dismissed
as to them. We shall, therefore, consider only the cases of the
remaining 33 employees.
Harry M. Beery, general manager and treasurer of the respond-
ent, testified that he attempted to live up to all the terms of the
strike-settlement agreement. That agreement provided, in regard to
lay-offs, that in the event of a lessening of production, the workweek
should be reduced to 4 days, that if lay-offs were thereafter necessary,
seniority and merit should govern, and that the seniority and merit
of employees should be determined by an arbitration board to consist
of two employees and two representatives of the management. In
some departments, and as to certain employees , the workweek was
shortened during the summer of 1937. But the respondent , on June
28, posted a notice on its bulletin board to the effect that it was
at that time establishing a 50-hour week, that employees on the day
shift would be required to work 9 hours a day for 5'1/2 days each
week, and that employees on the night shift would be required to
work 10 hours each night for 5 nights of each week. The U. A. W.
A., however, did not insist upon the respondent carrying out the
11 Cf. Titan Metal Manufacturing Company and Titan Employees Protective Association
et al ., Intervenors, v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 254 (C. C. A. 3rd).
'° It is immaterial whether these employees were discharged or laid off. If their em-
ployment terminated because of their membership or activities in behalf of the U. A. W. A.,
they were in either event objects of discrimination within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act. Matter of Harry Schwartz Yarn Co., Inc., and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, 12 N. L. R. B. 1139; Matter of Seroel, Inc., and United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1002, 11 N. L. R. B. 1295; and Matter of
Precision Castings Company, Inc., and Iron Moulders Union of North America, Local 80,
8 N. L. R. B. 879, 890.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 257
agreement to reduce the workweek to 4 days or .that .an arbitration
board be established to determine lay-offs according to ' seniority
and merit .17 Its failure to request an enforcement of the 'agreement
was perhaps caused by its own unwillingness to have executed that
part of the agreement which provided for an election, with the
E. R. U., a company-dominated union, appearing upon the ballot.
The respondent nevertheless contends that it gave -due considera-
tion to seniority in laying off the employees. It furnished Leffel and
Bahs with a list of the employees in their respective departments, pre-
sumably listed in the order of seniority, with instructions to follow
the lists in effecting lay-offs. These seniority lists were not
introduced in evidence.
However, subsequent to the hearing, the respondent furnished the
Board with two seniority lists, orie listing all employees of the plant
according to their departments and the other according to their jobs
within the departments, each list showing the date when each em-
ployee was hired, the date of his lay-off or lay-offs, the date of his
discharge, the date when he quit, and the date of his reinstatement.
These lists we have treated as apart of the record.18 Although the
17 See footnote 18, infra.
11 Attached to the first of these lists, the one which classified employees only as to
departments , was the following stipulation :
At the request of the Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board dated July 23,
1938, that further information be furnished in the form of a list of all employees em-
ployed by the respondent between May 6 and December 2, 1937, listed according to their
jobs and departments and showing the lengths of service , date of lay-off or layoffs after
May 6, 1937, and date of reinstatement of each employee whether he was laid off, quit or
discharged ; information relative to whether or not the United Automobile Workers of
America ever requested the respondent to comply with the terms of the strike agreement
of May 5 , 1937, especially paragraph 4 thereof regarding the four -day week and the
functioning of an Arbitration Board and information concerning the extent to which the
respondent has adhered to a seniority policy in the past in laying off and reinstating its
employees and more specifically, whether or not it has followed a seniority policy similar to
the one it claims it followed during the summer of 1937 :
IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that the list attached hereto Is a list of all employees em-
ployed by the respondent Company between May 6 and December 2, 1937, listed according
to their jobs and departments and showing the length of service , date of layoff or layoffs
after May 6, 1937, and the date of reinstatement of each employee with the showing as
to employment termination whether the said employee quit, was laid off or discharged.
. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that no request was made of the respondent by
the United Automobile Workers of America to comply with the terms of the strike agree-
ment of May 5, 1937, and that the four- day week agreement was carried out for a period of
three weeks after the signing of the agreement with two shifts, or equivalent to eight
shifts per week at the end of the three-week period , and that thereafter the night shift
was discontinued and the plant operated five days a week or the equivalent of five shifts.
That it Is the contention of the respondent that it has always been their policy to
adhere to seniority rights of its employees according to their respective departments and
class of work.
That It is the contention of the United Automobile Workers of America that the
respondent never did follow this alleged seniority policy.
(Signed ) CARL WOLL,
President , Int'l Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local 268.
(Signed ) CLARK & BEAN,
Attorney for the Schwarze Electric Co.
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two lists are not entirely consistent with each other and some of the
information contained therein is contradicted by testimony in the
record, we have given due consideration to the lists and accepted the
information contained therein as accurate except in so far as other
evidence clearly establishes an inaccuracy.
Many of the job classifications set forth on one of the seniority
lists are not mentioned elsewhere in the record, and some of the job
classifications or operations frequently referred to by the witnesses
who testified are not mentioned on either seniority list. For example,
Bates and other witnesses referred to lay-offs from the Ford line, the
Overland line, and the Hudson line within the assembly department.
Only the Hudson line is listed, but numerous other operations are
named, some of which we must assume are parts of the Ford line
or the Overland line. Many of the employees listed under these
other operations testified that they worked on the Ford line. We
shall treat further of this problem in connection with the individual
cases hereinafter discussed.
The foreman of each department apparently had the power, al-
though not the exclusive power, to hire and discharge employees.
Whether or not U. A. W. A. members were discriminated against in
connection with the lay-offs and subsequent refusals to reinstate, can
best be determined by considering the actions of the foremen of
the several departments.
We shall first, however, point out a few general considerations
which appear to throw light upon the respondent's treatment of
U. A. W. A. members.
The following employees were apparently the most active of the
U. A. W. A. members at the plant : Carl Miller, employed December
31, 1934, and his wife Gertrude Miller, employed January 14, 1935,
who held organizational meetings at their home; Howard Delo, em-
ployed March 3, 1937, chairman of the strike settlement committee
and other U. A. W. A. committees; Audrey Calkins, employed May
31, 1933, and Alvin Blanchard, employed November 6, 1936, mem-
bers of the strike settlement committee; Alice Renner, employed
February 25, 1935, and Lawrence Beebe, an employee of about 15
years' service, employed last on March 1, 1937, who, with Delo, Cal-
kins, and Blanchard, served on a committee which met with Beery
before the strike was called. Carl and Gertrude Miller were dis-
charged prior to the strike but were reinstated as a result of the
strike settlement agreement. They and all other U. A. W. A. mem-
bers above mentioned were laid off prior to the hearing. Only one
of them, Alice Renner, was reinstated, and she became a member of
the E. R. U. At the time of her lay-off from the job of punch press
operator, for a 2-week period while inventory was being taken, an-
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 259
other punch press operator, Erma Butts, who was an E. R. U. steward
and junior to Renner, was retained and given other work to do.
Remier testified that in October 1937 she and her husband, who was
also employed by the respondent, were called into Beery's office and
asked what they intended to do about joining the E. R. U. They
replied that they did not know, and he then told them that they
"would be better off" if they joined because he had granted the E. R. U.
a closed shop and that everybody would have to join.19 Mrs. Renner
then asked Beery about the Board's investigation of charges that
the E. R. U. was company dominated and Beery replied that "he
did not think it would amount to anything" and added, "we all know
that the Labor Board is partial, or sympathetic to the C. 1. O."
Beery admitted having called Alice Renner and her husband into
his office after he had heard from Engel that they were dissatisfied
with the closed-shop agreement. He did not deny having made the
statements attributed to himm, by Mrs. Renner, and we accept her
account of the interview as substantially correct. Both Alice Renner
and her husband thereafter joined the E. R. U.
The following employees were apparently the most active of the
E. R. U. members : Clarence Davis, employed February 5, 1934, presi-
dent; Eva Ott, employed March 29, 1935, vice president; Belle Holtz,
employed March 24, 1919, and Mary Rechlau, employed October 28,
1924, secretaries; Cecil Sentel, not listed on either of the seniority
lists, and Louis Robins, employed June 3, 1929, treasurers; and An-
drew Roesch, employed February 11, 1921, Kenneth Young, employed
September 21, 1936, Mary Bloomer, not listed on either seniority list,
Dorothy Turnwald, employed January 19, 1935, and Ada Brown,
employed February 26, 1937, all members of the board of directors
of the E. R. U. In addition to these officers and directors, the E. R. U.
had 25 stewards in the various departments of the plant, 11 of whom
had been employed by the respondent between November 1936 and
March 1937. The record contains no evidence relative to the tenure
of employment of Cecil Sentel and Mary Bloomer. All other officers
and directors of the E. R. U. were working at the time of the hearing.
Only one of them, Ada Brown had been laid off between May and
December 1937, and she was laid off for only two periods of 2 and 3
weeks each. Of the 25 E. R. U. stewards, only 2, Verda Hebb and
Erma Butts, had been laid off prior to the hearing, and their lay-offs
did not occur until September 1 and October 1, respectively.
It is true that more "old timers" at the plant joined the E. R. U.
than joined the U. A. W. A. However, an examination of the list of
19 In regard to the closed -shop contract , Beery testified that he understood that only
new employees would be required to join the E. R. U. The closed-shop agreement as
understood by Davis and Young , however, and,as enforced by the E . R. U applied, as we
have pointed out in Section III, A, above, to old as well as new employees.
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.leaders of both organizations shows that there were employees old
in seniority as well as young in seniority active in each organization.
We find it significant that all of the 7 U. A. W. A. leaders and only 3
.of 34 E. R. U. leaders were laid off prior to the hearing. Five of the
seven U. A. W. A. leaders would not have been laid off if seniority had
been followed. None of the three E. R. U. leaders who were laid off
had seniority over the employees retained. Furthermore, three other
E. R. U. leaders would have been laid off had seniority been followed.
A further fact which appears to us significant, and more than a
coincidence, is that none of the seven employees whom the U. A.
W. A. claimed to have been discriminatorily discharged prior to
the strike, and whom the respondent agreed in the strike settlement
agreement to reinstate, were working for the respondent at the date
of the hearing. 20 Engel testified that all of these employees who
were reinstated after the strike were insubordinate, refused to do
what they were told to do, and took the attitude that the respondent
-could not discharge them. He cited no instances of such insubor-
dination, however, and the record contains no other evidence in
support of that statement.
Another fact which makes us look with suspicion upon the conduct
of the respondent in laying off and reinstating its employees is the
gross misrepresentation of facts and contradictory testimony by
certain representatives of the respondent at the hearing. We refer
in particular to the testimony of Bahs, foreman of the assembly
department. In response to questions by both counsel for the Board
and the Trial Examiner, at the hearing, Bahs testified positively
that no new employees had been hired in his department subsequent
to the time when the lay-offs commenced and prior to the hearing.
He further testified that he did not intend to hire any new employees
until those employees who were laid off were reinstated. He was
thereafter requested by counsel for the Board to bring to the hearing
room records of the respondent, showing all employees who were
then employed in his department. The plant pay roll for the week
ending November 30, 1937, was subsequently brought into the hear-
ing room, and Balls requested the Trial Examiner to permit him to
correct a statement which he had theretofore made to the effect that
20 As to one of the seven , t1arey DeTray, it is true that the only proof adduced, namely,
the statement in the seniority lists furnished by the respondent , indicates that he was
reinstated but later quit his job. Although all seven were named in the complaint, only
three appeared and testified at the hearing . Two of the three , Carl Miller and Gertrude
Miller, we have found were discriminatorily laid off. See a discussion of these cases , infra.
As to the third , Price James , he was never reinstated after the termination of the strike.
Although his earlier discharge we find to have been for cause , this fact affords no explana-
tion of the failure of the respondent to carry out its agreement of reinstatement. Frank
Barrett was apparently not reinstated upon the termination of the strike . Two others,
Francis Guyman and Laverne Anderson , were reinstated but later laid off. Guyman would
not have been laid off at all and Anderson would have been laid off for only about 1 month,
had seniority been followed in effecting lay-offs on their jobs.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 261 .
no new employees had been hired in his department. He then ad-
mitted that 18 or 20 new employees had been hired. One of the
seniority lists furnished subsequent to the hearing shows that 43 new
employees were hired in the assembly department between June 25
and November 2, 1937, and that 30 of these new employees were still
working on December 2, when the hearing commenced.
Moreover, we are impressed with the testimony of one June Fields
who was sent by an employment agency in Adrian to see the re-
spondent on August 20. She was met by. Burry, the respondent's
watchman and personnel officer, who took her application and asked
her whether she belonged to the U. A.. W. A. Fields was a member
of the U. A. W. A. but was delinquent in the payment of her dues.
She explained such fact to Burry and told him that because her
dues were not paid up she did not know whether she belonged or not.
He then told her "You know we don't want any trouble with the
C. I. O. We are all washed up. We don't want any more
trouble." Fields was not given a job. Betty Havens, one of-the
U. A. W. A. members who was laid off, testified that one of
her friends, Maxine Bryan, who was hired for a short time 2 or 3
months prior to the hearing, informed her that Burry had asked her
about her union affiliation at the time she applied for work; that
she, Bryan, informed Burry that she was not a. member of any union,
and was hired. This testimony was not denied by the respondent.
Burry did not testify at the hearing. We accept Havens' testimony
as true.
That the respondent was taking into consideration the union affilia-
tion of employees which it was hiring or reinstating during the
summer and fall of 1937 is further substantiated by uncontraverted
testimony of Phyllis French, a U. A. W. A. member who wore her
union button at the plant and was among persons laid off. She tes-
tified that upon one occasion. when she returned to the plant, seeking
reinstatement, Bahs told her, "Well, you know, we are trying to
have a closed shop"; she replied, "I suppose I will have to join the
other union in order to get a job"; and that he answered, "Yes, if
you have one." Although the exact time when this conversation
took place is not clear, it occurred more than 8 weeks prior to the
hearing, before the closed-shop agreement with the E. R. U. became
effective.
The closed-shop agreement with the E. R. U., a company-dominated
union, of course furnished no legal justification for the respondent's
refusal to employ persons who were members of any other labor
organization or who refused to join the E. R. U. The above related
incidents, the inquiries and statements of Burry and Bahs, show
that, for some time prior to October 22, the respondent was attempt-
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing to establish a closed shop in favor of the E. R. U., and thus elim-
inate its employees who were members of the U. A. W. A.
From the observations above made, and each of them, we are con-
vinced, and find, that the respondent pursued a policy of discrimina-
tion against those of its employees who held membership in or were
active in behalf of the U. A. W. A. by laying them off or discharging
them as well as by refusing to reinstate them.
In considering the individual cases of alleged discrimination be-
low, we bear in mind the fact that neither the E. R. U. nor the
U. A. W. A. has furnished the Board with a list of its members and
that a number of employees other than those considered below, whose
union affiliations, if any, we do not know, were also laid off or dis-
charged and not reinstated by the respondent, although their senior-
ity was such that they would not have been laid off had seniority alone
been considered.
1. The machine department
Just after the termination of the strike on May 5, before the re-
spondent commenced laying off employees in the machine department,
112 were working there. Between that date and December 2, 1937,
when the hearing in this case commenced, 54 of the old employees
were laid off or discharged and 11 new employees were hired, 6 of
whom were still working on December 2.21 What proportion of the
54 employees were members of the U. A. W. A. does not appear from
the record. Leffel, assistant superintendent of the plant, who also
acted as foreman of the machine department, testified that in his
department he had always considered seniority in laying off em-
ployees and that after the termination of the strike, he followed the
seniority list furnished him by Engel, the superintendent. Leffel's
employment with the respondent ceased in August 1937. He was
succeeded for a short period by Homer Teller, who had been an
assistant foreman under Leffel. The record does not indicate
whether Teller laid off any employees while acting as foreman. Tel-
ler was in turn succeeded by Jack Taylor as foreman. Taylor did
not testify at the hearing. Almost all of the lay-offs in the machine
department were, however, effected by Leffel. Concerning new em-
ployees, Leffel testified, "There was nobody hired in my supervision
until the day I left. If there was anybody hired after that I don't
know, but every man or woman that I laid 'off if I got in a little
rush job I would call one of the others back."; Four of the eleven
new employees, however, were hired in May and June while Leffel
was in charge of the machine department.
21 The seniority list broken down into job classifications shows that. only five new
employees were hired. We consider the other list, which names 11 new employees, more
accurate.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 263
Nineteen of the machine-department employees who were laid off
or discharged are named in the complaint. Only 10 of them testified.
We shall consider individually the cases of , each of these 10
employees.
Roger Watson was employed in February 1935 as a punch-press
operator. On July 16, 1937, he was laid off by Russell Snellenberger,
an assistant foreman under Leffel, and was told by Snellenberger that
he would be recalled within about a week, after inventory was taken.
Watson was not recalled until November 23, 1937, and was then given
only 4 days of work between. that date and the day when he testified,
December 4, 1937.
Watson joined the U. A. W. A. soon after it was organized in
March. He testified that shortly prior to the hearing he met Beery
in a beer garden, that Beery commented on seeing Watson's name in
the complaint which had been served upon the respondent, and asked
Watson whether he was "going through with it"; that when Watson
replied that he was, Beery stated, "You are a fool . . . You will never
go back to Schwarze to Work again." Beery admitted having seen
Watson in a beer garden. He denied having made the statements
attributed to him by Watson and testified that Watson had approached
him and asked him about returning to work, and that he, Beery, had
requested Watson to go to the plant and ask someone there about
being reinstated. Watson's testimony was not convincing. Further-
more, the fact that Watson soon after interviewing Beery returned to
the plant and was reinstated, indicates that Beery's account of the
meeting in the beer garden was correct, and we so find.
Watson had, in 1935, and also in 1936, been laid off during slack
seasons. Although he was one of the oldest in seniority in his depart-
ment, as well as on his job, the record does not indicate that his
lay-off in 1937 was different in character from his previous lay-offs.
We find that he was not laid off because of his membership or activi-
ties in behalf of the U. A. W. A. The finding of the Trial Examiner
that he was discharged for "cause" is not supported by the record.22
Ford Brocle was employed on August 11, 1936, and was working
as a punch-press operator during the summer of 1937 when lie was
laid off several times. On July 26, and on October 20, he was laid
off for periods of about 1 week each. On November 2, he was again
laid off and had not been reinstated at the time of the hearing.
22 Each of the seniority lists furnished by the respondent indicates that Watson was
discharged on November 30, 1937. The Trial Examiner found that he was discharged for
cause, although it is not clear whether his finding relates to the termination of employ-
ment on July 16, 1937, or on' November 30, 1937. However, since neither Watson nor any
representative of the respondent testified concerning a discharge on November 30, 1937,
we shall treat the statement on the seniority lists that he was discharged on that date
as probably erroneous and, in any event , as outside the scope of the complaint.
247383-40-vol. 16--18
264-• DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For most of the summer , prior to his last lay-off, he worked only
2, 3, or 4 days a week.
Brock joined the U. A. W. A. and paid dues to that organization
for about 2 months. About October 1, 1937, he joined the E. R. U.
because he was told by Louis Robins, acting foreman at that time,
that the "dead line" was near and that Brock would not have a
"card in the rack" if he did not sign an application for membership
in the E. R. U.
His last and longest lay-off as we have noted , occurred more than
a month after he had joined the E. R. U.. Under the circumstances,
although Brock had seniority over a number of other employees in
the machine department who were not laid off in 1937, we find that
his lay-offs were not occasioned by his membership or activities in
behalf of the U. A. W. A.
Betty Havens was employed by the respondent on November 7,
1936, and worked as a punch -press operator and also in the assembly
room of the machine department.
Havens joined the E. R. U. at its first meeting on April 28. She
joined the U. A. W. A. on the following morning. She was laid
off on June 2, 1937 , at which time she was told by Leffel that there
was not much work to be done and that she would be recalled when
he wanted her. Although she applied for reinstatement three or
four times prior to the hearing, she was not reinstated. On the
seniority list, it appears that all employees working in the assembly
room of the machine department except one , Mary Fox, were laid
off in May or June 1937 . Mary Fox was laid off on October 25,
1937. Betty Havens had seniority over Mary Fox and all other
employees in the assembly room. However, the record does not
indicate whether or not Mary Fox was a member of the U. A. W. A.
Under the circumstances , we are not convinced that Havens was
laid off because of her membership in the U. A. W. A.
Luella Butts was first employed by the respondent on February
5, 1936. She was laid off twice during the year 1936 for periods of
several months each time. She was last reinstated on November 2,
1936, and worked until May 26, 1937, at which time she was again
laid off , and told by Leffel that he would try to give her 2 days of
work each week. Butts had worked both in the assembly department
on the Ford line and in the machine department as a punch-press
operator.
She was a member of the U. A. W. A. Before her lay-off she had
been asked by Homer Teller, assistant foreman of the machine depart-
ment, to join the E. R. U. She refused to join, and " he asked her,
"Why not? " She replied that she had joined one union and did not
SCHWARZE'ELECTRIC COMPANY 265,
want to join another. He then told her that the E. R. U. would do
her more good than her own union.
Shortly after her lay-off, she applied for reinstatement and was told
by Leffel that he would not give her a job because she had gone to
the steward of her union instead of seeing him about being changed
from one position to another. She was not given the 2 days' work a
week which had been promised her, although her seniority was among
the highest in her department as well as on her job. She testified
that at the time she was laid off "a lot of girls" who were members
of the E. R. U. and who had less seniority than she had were not
laid off. The respondent did not refute this testimony and we accept
it as true. We'find-that, the respondent laid off and. refused to reinstate.
Luella Butts because of her membership and activities in behalf of the
U. A. W. A. She earned between $18 and $20 a week while working
for the respondent.
Alvin Blanchard was employed on November 6, 1936, as a punch-
press operator. He was laid off on June 7, 1937, by Leffel, who told
him that the lay-off was necessary because of a decrease in production
but that he, Leffel, would try to recall Blanchard within a few days or
a week. Blanchard had not been recalled at the date of the hearing.
He had such seniority in his department as well as on his job that he
would not have been laid off had. seniority been followed in effecting
the lay-offs.
Blanchard was a member of the negotiating committee of they
U. A. W. A. which met with Beery before the strike was called, and
was also a member of the strike-settlement committee. The apparent
difference in treatment by the respondent of the leaders of the
U. A. W. A. and the leaders of the E. R. U. has already been pointed
out. The respondent has not contended that Blanchard's work was
not entirely satisfactory, and has offered no reason why Blanchard was
laid off when other employees junior to him were retained. We find
that Blanchard was laid off and refused reinstatement because of his
membership and activities in behalf of the U. A. W. A. He earned
about $23 or $24 a week while working for the respondent. He had not
obtained other regular employment prior to the hearing.
Sophia Glenn was employed by the respondent on November 24,
1936, as a punch-press operator. She was laid off on June 7, 1937, by
Leffel, who told her that there was no more work for her to do but that
he would recall her within 2 or 3 weeks. She had not been recalled at
the date of the hearing. Although two E. R. U. stewards, junior to
Glenn, were not laid off, other punch-press operators, whose union
affiliations, if any, we do not know, and who were senior to Glenn, were
laid off. If seniority had been strictly followed in effecting lay-offs,
Glenn, would, have been laid off anyway. Leffel testified that he knew
Glenn was a member of the U. A. W. A. but contended that she was
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nevertheless laid off according to seniority. He indicated that there
were three other employees in his department junior to her, whose
work she could not do.
Before her lay-off, Snellenberger had requested her to join the
E. R. U. and told her that she "would be protected more" if she
joined the E. R. U. and that she would not "have a job any longer
if (she) walked with the others." "Snellenberger, however, did not
have supervision over Glenn, and there is no evidence which indi-
cates that lie was in any way responsible for her lay-off. We are
not convinced that she was laid off because of her membership in
the U. A. W. A.
Price James was employed by the respondent on February 23, 1937,
as a punch-press operator on the night shift. On March 27, he was,
discharged by Homer Teller who told him that he had been talking
too much. James had been working for the Home Canning Com-
pany in Adrian prior to his employment by the respondent but was
laid off at the Home Canning Company because of a seasonal decline
in business. He returned to his work at the Home Canning Com=
pany after March 27.
Shortly prior to his discharge, James had made a trip to Toledo,
Ohio, for the purpose of persuading union organizers to organize
the respondent's plant. It does not appear, however, that the
respondent knew of this trip. Only two employees, other than
James apparently knew about the trip. Leffel testified that James
was discharged because he left his work and talked too much and
consequently did not make his rate. We find that James was dis-
charged for the reasons alleged by Leffel.
Carroll James, a brother of Price James, was employed by the
respondent on February 23, 1937, as a punch-press operator. He
joined the U. A. W. A. about April 15. He was laid off on May 23,
1937, by Leffel, who showed him a seniority list and told him that
he was one of five men who would be laid off at that time but
that he would be recalled later.
He did not have sufficient seniority to entitle him to retain his posi=
tion after lay-offs became necessary. The record affords no basis for
the finding of the Trial Examiner that he was discharged for cause.
Leffel testified that Carroll James was laid off in accordance with
seniority, and we so find.
Lawrence Beebe had been employed by the respondent intermittently
over a period of about 15 years prior to his lay-off on May 20, 1937.
His last employment with the respondent commenced on March 1,
1937. He had theretofore quit his job on January 25, 1937. During
the 15 years of his employment with the respondent, he had been
laid off only once, and then for a period of only about 3 days in 1936,
while the respondent was taking inventory. When laid off by Leffel
SCI{W\rARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 267
on May 20, he was.told that he should meet Leffel on the following
Wednesday night and that Leffel might be able to reinstate him.
Leffel did not meet him. at the appointed time and place. Beebe re-
turned to the plant several times to seek reinstatement and was each
time told by Beery or by Burry, the watchman and personnel officer
of the respondent, to return later. Since Beebe had quit his job in
January and was not reemployed until March 1, 1937, he did not
have sufficient seniority to avoid being laid off when lay-offs became
necessary.
Beebe had joined the U. A. W. A. prior to the commencement of
the strike and was a member of the committee which negotiated the
strike-settlement agreement. It was the contention of the U. A. W. A.
that his activities in its behalf motivated the respondent in laying
him off. However, Beebe himself, on cross-examination, admitted
that he was probably laid off because of a decrease in production. His
lack of seniority on his job or in his department dissuades us from
finding otherwise.
Elda Guss was employed by the respondent on March 24, 1937,
as a punch-press operator. She was laid off on May 20 by Leffel,
who told her that he could not use her any more.
Guss was a member of the U. A. W. A. and wore her union button
to work. Robins, a leader or set-up man whom Guss considered as
"sort of a foreman," had at one time requested Guss to join the
E. R.. U., told her that it would be to her benefit to join, and that
the respondent could not meet the demands of the U. A. W. A. She,
however, refused to join. Guss did not have seniority over any
other punch-press operator who was retained at the time she was laid
.off. We are, therefore, not convinced that her membership in the
U. A. W. A. or her refusal to join the E. R. U. was the cause of her
lay-off.
Joe Fisher had worked for the respondent intermittently for
about 21/2 years prior to his lay-off on May 20, 1937. On April 13,
1937, however, he had been discharged for engaging in a fight with
another employee and was not reinstated until April 27, 1937. He
therefore had no seniority over any puch-press operator at the
time he was laid off on May 20.
Fisher was a member of the U. A. W. A. but at Leffel's invitation
attended the E. R. U. meeting of April 28. It does not appear that
he was an ardent advocate of the U. A. W. A. We find that he was
not laid off because of his membership or activities in behalf of the
U. A. W. A. The Trial Examiner found that Fisher was discharged
for cause. He perhaps had reference to the discharge of April 13.
Both Fisher and the respondent contend that Fisher was laid off on
May 20, and we so find.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The assembly department
On May 6, 1937, immediately after the termination of the strike,
there were approximately 168 employees working in the assembly
department. Of the 168 employees, 52 were laid off or discharged
prior to December 2. Forty-nine more were hired between May 6
and the hearing on December 2, 1937.23 Thirty-one of the forty-nine
new employees were still working on December 2.
Edwin Bahs, foreman of the assembly department, testified that
he used the seniority list furnished him by the respondent in laying
off employees according to the group or operation upon which they
were working, and that he followed the seniority list as closely as
possible, although he also considered whether or not the employees
were capable of handling the jobs on which they worked. He testi-
fied that there were six or eight operations or departments within
the assembly department, such as the Ford assembly line, the bell
section, push-button section, horn-repair department, the Hudson
line, and the Overland line, which involved different kinds of work.24
He further testified that most of the lay-offs were on the Ford line
and that although in past years employees on the Ford line were
customarily transferred from one operation to another as work
became slack on one operation and increased on another, this had
not been the practice during the last few years. Testimony of many
of the witnesses, however, indicates that the practice of transferring
employees from one operation to another within the assembly depart-
ment was never discontinued. Regardless of the extent, if any, to
which the practice of transferring employees from one operation to
another was discontinued in 1937, we shall give due regard, in con-
sidering the cases of the employees listed below, to Bahs' contention.
As we have pointed out above, Bahs first contended that no new
employees had been hired in the assembly department since May
1937,25 then later admitted that 18 or 20 new ones had been employed,
z' The seniority list broken down into job classifications shows that only 41 new em-
ployees were hired. We consider the other list, which names 49 new employees, more
accurate.
m The seniority list which classifies the employees according to their jobs, separates
them into 33 different jobs within the assembly department.
25 The following are excerpts from the testimony of Bahs on this subject :
Q. Do I understand ever since last May you have been letting people out of the
assembly department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There hasn 't been any occasion of taking new employees on, is that it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Has there been any new employees employed in your department since the
lay-off around June 15, 1937?
A. No, sir.
Trial Examiner SsiiTrc . I understand you to say you have taken on no new help
at all in the assembly department since June 15?
A. I don ' t remember of a new help.
Trial Examiner S MITH. Not a single new person?
A. No, sir, not until we get these other people back that has been laid off.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY ' 269
whereas -one of the seniority lists - shows -that 49 new ones were, em-
ployed since May 6, 43 of whom were hired subsequent to June 15.
The lay-offs commenced about May 13.
Twenty-three of the fifty-two old employees who were laid off or
discharged between May 6 and the date of the hearing, are alleged
in the complaint to have been discriminatorily discharged because of
their membership or activities in behalf of the U. A. W. A. Only
18 of these 23 employees appeared and testified at the hearing. We
shall consider below, under their job classifications'26 the alleged dis-
criminatory lay-offs or discharges of these 18 employees.
"Winders-Spool Type Coils"
Audrey Calkins was employed by the respondent from 1923 to
1928 and again from April 1, 1930, to August 17, 1937. She worked
at winding coils at the time of her lay-off on August 17. Because
of her long service with the respondent, she had been placed in charge
of the table at which she worked. She testified that just before quit-
ting time on August 17, Bahs told her, "I will have to lay you off
until Monday morning," August 23; that she believed that her entire
table was to be laid off and told the girls at her table that there
would be no more work for them to do until Monday morning; that
Bates overheard her and told the girls that only she, Audrey Calkins,
was being laid off; that one of the girls asked Bates, "Well, what has
she done now?"; and that Bahs replied, "I don't know whether she
has done anything. I haven't seen the paper lately," then walked
away. Calkins further testified that she had never received any
complaint about her work. She had never before been laid off unless
her whole table was laid off. Bahs testified that coils had been
coming from Calkins' table without being properly inspected, that
he had called her attention to that fact several times, and that on
the afternoon when he laid her off, he told her that he "would have
to lay her off for a few days in order to kind of warn her that she
be a little careful in the next few weeks or days to come." He did
not deny the incident related by Calkins, indicating her belief that
the entire table was being laid off. Calkins' assumption that she
would not be laid off when the remainder of her table was retained
seems unlikely if Bates, in fact, told her that she was being laid off
as a warning that she should be more careful. Bahs' testimony in
many other respects, some of which we-have already mentioned, is
inconsistent and unreliable. We accept Calkins' version of her
lay-off as correct.
20 The job classifications are those listed by the respondent on one of its seniority lists.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Calkins was a member of the U. A. W. A. and wore her union but-
ton to work continuously. She had served on the U. A. W. A. com-
mittees which interviewed Beery before the strike was called and
which negotiated the strike-settlement agreement. Calkins had
greater seniority than anyone else working on her operation. She
was also among the highest in seniority within her department. As
we have already observed, although Calkins had been an employee of
the respondent for many years prior to August 17, she had never be-
fore been laid off except when her entire table was laid off. We find
that she was laid off because of her membership and activities in
behalf of the U. A. W. A.
She was earning an average of $17.50 a week at the time of her
lay-off. She obtained other employment which paid her $15 a week
at noon on August 18, and informed the respondent on Monday,
August 23, that she did not desire to return to her job. She explained
as the reason for not desiring to return that she believed from ob-
serving treatment accorded other U. A. W. A. members, that her first
lay-off would be followed by other lay-offs and perhaps eventual
discharge because of her membership in the U. A. W. A.
"Test Room"
Merle Chesher was employed intermittently for about 101/2 years
prior to March 31, 1937, in the assembly department, where he worked
as a tester. On that date, he was paid off by Paul Burry who, in
response to an inquiry by Chesher, disclaimed knowledge of the reason
for his lay-off, then asked Chesher whether he belonged to the
U. A. W. A, Chesher replied that he was not a member. He then
inquired of Engel concerning the cause of his lay-off. Engel told
him that he, Chesher, had been complaining about working overtime
and that his production was low. Chesher joined the U. A. W. A. be-
tween March 31 and April 7, the date upon which he was reinstated.
On October 25, he joined the E. R. U. in order to retain his job. At
the hearing, he testified that he did not then believe that he was laid
off because of any union activities. We find that he was not laid off
for such reason.
Carl Miller was employed by the respondent on December 31, 1934,
and prior to his discharge on March 23, 1937, had worked in the
machine department, in the paint department, and in the test room
of the assembly department. He was doing the latter type of work
when discharged. He had been highly praised for his work by
Bahs, Engel, and Beery.
During March 1937, Carl Miller and his wife, Gertrude, who was
also employed by the respondent, held several meetings of employees
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 271
at their home, for the purpose of organizing a union. Carl joined
the U. A. W. A. during that month. Shortly prior to Carl's dis-
charge, Engel called an employee, Merle Sayers, into his office, gave
him a raise in pay, then questioned him about the U. A. W. A. which
was then being organized, and specifically asked him whether Carl
Miller was a member of the U. A. W. A. Sayers refused to divulge
any information.27 About that time, Leffel was informed by Clyde
Fields, another employee, that Carl and Gertrude Miller were hold-
ing union meetings at their home. Leffel, on one night during
March, parked his car in front of the Millers' residence and watched
outside while a union meeting was in progress within. Leffel later
questioned Carl about the meetings and talked to Engel about them.
It was shortly thereafter that both Carl and Gertrude were dis-
charged. Both Bahs and Engel testified that Carl's work became
unsatisfactory prior to his discharge. Engel further testified that
he believed Carl was intentionally slowing down and decreasing the
quality of his work.
Carl was reinstated on May 6 as a result of the strike-settlement
agreement, and his discharge on March 23 is not within the scope of
the complaint. The events leading up to the discharge have been
recited, however, in order to throw light upon the respondent's
espionage activities, its interest in the union activities of its em-
ployees, and its knowledge of Carl's U. A. W. A. activities.
On August 23, 1937, Carl decided to remain away from work dur-
ing the morning to attend to personal business. He telephoned the
respondent's office and notified the office girl that it would be im-
possible for him to report for work until noon. When he returned
to work at noon, he found his card gone from its rack and was told
by Balls that he had been laid off because of his absence that morning.
Carl had, on several occasions in the past, taken voluntary leave
of absence under similar circumstances, without objection by the
respondent. On the same morning that Carl was absent, another
employee, Aubrey Skeese, who was not a member of the U. A. W. A.,
had also taken voluntary leave of absence. Skeese was not laid off'
or discharged because of his absence.
Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent
was seeking a plausible excuse to rid itself of one of the most active
of the U. A. W. A. members. We find that the true reason for Carl's
lay-off was his U. A. W. A. membership and activities. Carl earned
an average of about $25 a week while working for the respondent.
' Engel testified that he asked Sayers only whether the latter "belonged to any group of
employees or any secret organization that was in effect intentionally slowing up . . .
production ." We find the testimony ' of Sayers more convincing . Sayers was subsequently
demoted from his position as final tester and his increase in pay was taken from him.
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He had obtained no other regular employment at the time of the
hearing.
Alice Graf 28 was employed by the respondent on November 20,
1936, and worked in the test room until about June 1, 1937, at which
time she was temporarily assigned to work on the Overland line.
On June 3, she was laid off with 'a large group of other employees-
from the test room and was told by Bahs that he would send her a
card when he needed her. Although Graf returned to the plant seek-
ing reinstatement about 15 times prior to the hearing, she was not
reinstated. She was a member of the U. A. W. A. and wore her
union button to work. She had seniority over several other em-
ployees of the test room who were never laid off and she would not
have been laid off had seniority been adhered to in effecting lay-offs
on her job. Bahs testified that her work was satisfactory and that
her lay-off was only temporary. He did not explain, however, why
Graf was selected for a lay-off when several other employees, who
were junior to Graf, were never laid off. We find.that he laid her
off because of her membership in the U. A. W. A. Graf earned an
average of about $13 a week while working for the respondent. She
obtained no other employment prior to the hearing.
Fay Hill was employed by the respondent on December 3, 1936,
and was working in the test room on May 17, when it became
necessary for him to remain away from work for 3 days because of
illness. He testified that when he returned to work on May 20, he
was told by Bahs that there was no work for him to do and that he
would be laid off until a week from the following Tuesday, that is,
until June 1. On June 1 Bahs again told him that there was no work
available for him; that Hill then informed Bahs that he had a
chance to take a job in a nearby town, Hillsdale, delivered his tools
to Bahs, and requested Bahs to let him know when he could return
to work for the respondent; and that Bahs promised to do so.
Although Bahs did not deny the above-related statements, he con-
tended, after examining Hill's discharge ticket, dated May 28, that
Hill quit the respondent's employ and that Bahs "did not have time"
to lay him off. This contention is inconsistent with the undisputed
facts above set forth. Hill's job at Hillsdale was only temporary in
its nature, and it is clear that he intended to work there only while
waiting for the respondent to recall him. We find that he did not
quit his job with the respondent.
Hill was a member of the U. A. W. A. on May 20, when he was
laid off. He had such seniority that he would not have been laid
"'
The complaint, which incorrectly spelled her name as Alice Grof, was amended to spell
it as above shown.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 273
off had Bahs followed his asserted seniority policy. We find that
he was laid off and refused reinstatement because of his membership
in the U. A. W. A. Hill earned an average of $20 or $21 a week
while working for the respondent. At the time of the hearing he
was employed on another job which he obtained about July 15 and
at which he earned an average of about $22 a week.
Marguerite Parlette,29 Ethel Mallory, and Helen Johnson, three
other U. A. W. A. members who were employed as testers, did not
have sufficient seniority to avoid being laid off. Bahs testified that
each was laid off because of a lack of work to do and that the work
of each was satisfactory. We do not therefore find that they were
laid off because of their U. A. W. A. membership.
Parlette and Johnson were told by Bahs that they would be notified
when to return to work. It 'had' been customary for the respondent
either to notify employees personally or by a notice inserted in an
Adrian newspaper when to return to work after lay-offs. Neither
Parlette, Johnson, nor Mallory were notified to return prior to the
hearing. Two new employees were hired as testers on August 25 and
September 13 respectively, and had the respondent followed its assert-
ed seniority policy in reinstating employees who were laid off, Mar-
guerite Parlette and Ethel Mallory would have been reinstated to the
two positions in the order named. The respondent has offered no ex-
planation for its failure to recall them and we must conclude that
such failure was in furtherance of its purpose, as hereinbefore ex-
emplified, of ridding the plant of U. A. W. A. members.
"Mechanism and Projector Assembly"
Only two of the eight employees listed as working on the mechanism
and projector assembly were laid off and no new employees were
hired. One of the two, Marjorie Van Volkenburgh,30 a U. A. W. A.
member who wore her union button at the plant, was laid off on June
3 . 31 Although she was senior by 23 days to one other employee,
Bowen, who was never laid off, another employee, Cox, who was
senior to both Van Volkenburgh and Bowen was laid off on August
25. Van Volkenburgh would have been laid off on August 25 even
if a seniority policy were followed. We are not informed of the
union affiliation, if any, of any other employee on this operation.
Bahs testified that Van Volkenburgh was only temporarily laid off
2 9 The complaint , which incorrectly spelled her name as Marg. Parlett, was amended to
spell it as above shown.
3D The complaint which incorrectly spelled her name as Marjory Van Valkenburg, was
amended to correctly spell it as above shown.
u Van Volkenburgh testified that she was carrying supplies for girls on the Ford line at
the time she was laid off . However, we shall accept the respondent 's classification of her
job as correct.
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the Ford production line, that her work was slow but that he
would consider reemploying her.
Under the circumstances, we are not convinced that Van Volken-
burgh was laid off or discharged because of her U. A. W. A. member=
ship or activities.
"Frame Sub-Assembly"
Helen K. Deck, a U. A. W. A. member who wore her union button
at the plant, was employed by the respondent on November 15, 1936,
and was assembling coils on the Ford line on June 23, 1937, when
she was discharged by Bahs. He told her that she had not been
keeping up with her work very well and that she should go home
and rest up for a couple of weeks. Bahs testified that he discharged
Reck because three girls on the line on which Reck was working
had complained to him that she worked too slowly. We find that he
discharged her for that reason.
"Diaphragm Assemblies"
Ella M. Dinse is listed by the respondent as working on diaphragm
assemblies and also on the Hudson line. She and other employees
were laid off by Mary Rechlau on July 21, and told that they would
be sent word when to return . The entire Ford line consisting of 35
or 40 employees , were laid off or transferred to other jobs on that
date in order to facilitate the taking of inventory . "Diaphragm
assemblies" was apparently a part of the Ford line. We find that
Dinse was employed on "diaphragm assemblies " rather than on the
Hudson line at the time of her lay-off . All employees on the Ford
line except Dinse and two other U. A. W. A. members, Ruth Stuart
and Phyllis French, whom we shall discuss later, were reinstated
within 2 weeks and their lay-offs are not mentioned on the seniority
lists.
Dinse had seniority over another employee who worked on dia-
phragm assemblies . No employee except Dinse was laid off that
operation except while inventory was being taken. The respondent
offered no explanation for its failure to reinstate Dinse after in-
ventory had been taken. The evidence does not show that Dinse
wore her U. A. W. A. button at the plant . However, by reason of
the fact that the respondent through its assistant superintendent,
Leffel, had spied upon one or more organizational meetings of the
U. A. W. A. at the Miller residence , had, through Engel, attempted
to obtain information concerning the identity of U. A . W. A. mem-
bers from Merle Sayers , and had, through its foreman and forelady
discussed the U . A. W. A. with various employees and solicited
memberships for the E. R. U., we are convinced that it knew the
SC.h1WARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 275
identity of the U. A. W. A. members regardless of whether they
wore U. A. W. A. buttons at the plant.
Bearing in mind the policy which the respondent had adopted of
ridding the plant of 17. A. W. A. members, its failure to offer any
explanation for refusing to reinstate Dinse after inventory was taken
convinces us that its reason for not reinstating her was her U. A.
W. A. membership, and we so find.
Dinse earned an average of $12 or $13 a week while working for
the respondent. She had obtained no other employment prior to
the hearing.
"Adjusters"
Janes Miller, a member of the U. A. W. A., failed to report for
work on the morning of June 19. When he reported for work at noon,
he was laid off by Bahs, who told him that he, Miller, was the best
man Bahs had but was "undependable," and that he would be called
back to work in about 2 weeks. Miller accused Bahs of laying him
off because of his U. A. W. A. membership, but Bahs denied the
accusation. Miller returned to the plant about 2 weeks later and
was informed by Burry, the watchman and personnel officer, that
there was no work for him to do. Bahs testified that Miller was a
good worker but was absent from the plant too often and that Bahs
would consider reinstating him only on the condition that he would
work steadily.
Only one other adjuster, Beraneck, on whose behalf the U. A. W.
A. filed charges that he was discriminatorily discharged but who
did not testify at the hearing, had seniority over Miller at the time
the latter was laid off. Miller would not have been laid off had
seniority been followed. However, since the respondent has not
contended that it considered seniority in Miller's case, such fact is
unimportant, except to show that Miller would not have later been
laid off because of a decrease in production.
Miller had on other occasions taken voluntary leave of absence from
his work and had not been laid off or discharged for so doing. We
are convinced, in view of his exceptionally good record as a workman,
that even though he might have been laid off on June 19 as a repri-
mand, he would have been reinstated at the end of 2 weeks when he
was told to return, if he had not been a member of the U. A. W. A.
We find that the respondent refused to reinstate him at that time
because of his membership in the U. A. W. A. Miller earned an
average of about $15 a week while working for the respondent. He
had not prior to the hearing obtained employment which was regular
or substantially equivalent to his job with the respondent.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Tighteners"
Kenneth Baldwin is listed by the respondent as an adjuster. How-
ever, he testified that he worked on the Ford line as a tightener when
he was laid off by Bahs on June 3 and told that he would be notified
when to return. This testimony was not contested at the hearing.
We find that Baldwin should be classified as tightener. He testified
that another member of the U. A. W. A., who also worked as a tight-
ener, was laid off on the same date and that shortly thereafter a new
employee, Donald Dickinson, was hired to take Baldwin's place. This
testimony is confirmed by the seniority list, which shows that Dick-
inson was employed as a tightener on June 28, 1937. The seniority
list shows that Sherman, the other employee laid off on June 3, had
seniority over Baldwin, and that Baldwin in turn had seniority over
only one employee who was never laid off. Baldwin, therefore, would
have been laid off in any event on June 3, but the respondent has
offered no explanation of why it did not reinstate Baldwin on June 28
instead of hiring Dickinson, a new employee, as a tightener. Bahs
testified that Baldwin's work was satisfactory and that he would
consider reinstating Baldwin. Baldwin was a member of the
U. A. W. A. when laid off.
We find that the respondent refused to reinstate Baldwin on June
28 because of his U. A. W. A. membership. He earned an average
of about $15 a week while working for the respondent. He had not
obtained other regular employment prior to the hearing.
"Hudson Line"
The respondent has listed Florence Heskett, June Negus, Ruth
Stuart, Mina Tidswell , and Ella M. Dinse, five U . A. W. A. members
in whose behalf the U. A. W. A. filed charges , as employees of the
Hudson line. We have hereinbefore found that Ella M. Dinse was
employed on armature assemblies.
There is no testimony in the record that any of the other four
U. A, W. A. members worked on the Hudson line. There is testi-
mony that Heskett worked on the Ford line and that she was an
experienced adjuster; that Stuart worked on the Ford line when laid
off and had worked on almost all jobs except soldering ; and that
Tidswell had worked on the Ford line and was the oldest solderer
on her line. There is no testimony in the record concerning the job
at which Negus worked.32 Bahs testified that the Hudson line had
22 Even if the respondent 's contention that these employees were employed on the Hudson
line were correct, it appears that it has discriminated against each of them with regard to
hire or tenure of employment. Thus, at the time Heskett was laid off on August 15, 1937,
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 277
been operating only since June or July. If this be true, it is unlikely
that any of the above-mentioned U. A. W. A. members were employed
on the Hudson line at the time they were laid off. In determining
whether the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Heskett, Stuart, and Tidswell, who we are
convinced worked on the Ford line, we shall not compare them with
other employees listed on the Hudson line.
Florence Heslcett 33 was employed by the respondent on January
15, 1935. On June 6, 1937, she became ill and was unable to return to
work until about August. At that time she interviewed Bahs, who
told her that inventory was being taken then and that he could not
put anyone to work but that he would give her work to do when
inventory was completed. When inventory was completed about
August 5, she again saw Bahs. He then told her "that they had
changed arrangements in the office and he could not hire anybody
any more," and that she would have to see Paul Burry about a job.
She filed an application for reinstatement with Burry and returned
to the plant seeking work several times thereafter. On one of those
occasions she saw Burry hire two girls who had never worked at the
plant before. On another occasion, after hearing that Bahs had re-
quested Burry several times to reinstate her and that Burry had
failed to call her, she interviewed Bahs again. He then told her that
he had wanted her "back on six days" to teach some new girls ad-
justing, because she was a good adjuster and he could depend upon
her for that work. Immediately thereafter Heskett saw Burry and
accused him of failing to call her because she was a "C. I. O. girl."
He replied to the accusation by telling her that he would call her "when
lie got ready." Heskett was a member of the U. A. W. A. and had
worn her union button at the plant.
Few employees of the assembly department had greater seniority
than Heskett. None who had as much seniority as Heskett, except
members of the U. A. W. A., were laid off.
A discharge ticket 34 made out by Bahs and dated June 3, 1937, 3
days prior to the date upon which Heskett testified she was forced
to be absent because of illness, states that the cause of her leaving
was lack of work and non-attendance, that the character of her work
was slow, and that the respondent would not consider reemploying
four junior employees , at least three of whom were members of the E. A . U., were retained,
and they were still employed at the time of the hearing . During September and October
1937 , four new employees were hired , although if laid -off employees had been reinstated in
the order of seniority to the positions thus open , Negus , Stuart , and Tidswell would have
been restored to employment.
33 The complaint, which incorrectly spelled her name as Florence Haskett , was amended
to spell it as above shown.
84A discharge ticket was made out for all employees whose work terminated either by
discharge or by lay-off.
278 DECTSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her. Although Heskett was absent from work because of illness upon
.a number of occasions in 1935, she apparently worked steadily
throughout the year 1936 and until June 6, 1937. Other than the
.statement on the discharge slip referred to above, the record con-
tains no evidence that' Heskett's work was slow. Bahs' repeated
promises to recall Heskett and his statement to her that she was a
good adjuster who could be depended upon for that work, as well as
his request to Burry that she be reinstated to teach some new girls
u,dj listing are inconsistent with the statement on the discharge slip
that Bahs would not consider reinstating her: Such statement on
the discharge slip is also inconsistent with one of the seniority lists
wherein she is stated to be laid off for lack of work rather than
•discharged.
We find that she was denied reinstatement after the completion of
the taking of inventory on or about August 5, because of her
U. A. W. A. membership and activities. She earned an average of
about $15 a, week while working for the respondent. She had not
obtained other employment prior to the hearing.
June Negus was laid off on June 15 35 with about 10 other girls
in the assembly department, all of whom were members of the
U. A. W. A. Bahs told her when laying her off that he would recall
her when he needed her. She had not been recalled at the date of
the hearing.
There is no testimony in the record concerning the kind of work
at which Negus was employed in the assembly department. For lack
of better evidence, we shall therefore consider her classification on the
seniority list under Hudson line as correct. On that job, she had
greater seniority than any other employee who was laid off. Al-
though all employees below her in seniority were also laid off, one
of them, Sevilla Benner, whose union affiliation, if any, does not
appear from the record, was not laid off until September 22, 1937.
Four new employees were hired, one on September 9, one, on Septem-
ber 23, and two on October 4. Consequently, if Bahs had laid off
employees on the Hudson line in accordance with their seniority,
Negus would not have been laid off.
Bahs testified that Negus was only temporarily laid off, that her
work was satisfactory, and that lie would consider reemploying her.
He did not explain why it was necessary to lay her off at all. Negus
was a member of the U. A. W. A. and wore her union button at the
plant. We conclude that Bahs laid her off because of her membership
in the U. A. W. A.
35 The seniority lists state that she was laid off on May 20. However, in view of the
many inaccuracies and inconsistencies on the lists, we prefer to accept Negus' testimony
that she was laid off on June 15, as correct.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 279
. She earned from $12 to $15 a week while working for the re-
spondent. On October 26, 1937, she obtained a job at a drug store
in Adrian at which she earned substantially the same amount weekly.
However, she was employed at a different type of work than that
performed by her at the plant. Moreover, she necessarily lost the
benefits of seniority which she would have retained and accumulated
had she not been laid off by the respondent.
Ruth Stuart was laid off on July 21 "' with other girls on her line
and was told by Mary Rechlau, who was in charge of the line, that
she was being laid off for about 2 weeks, until after inventory was
taken, and that Balls would send her a card, notifying her when to
return. Stuart testified that she worked on the conveyor, did repair
work and almost every other kind of work except soldering. She
further testified that she was doing the same kind of work that Mary
Hatch and Irene Hummel, both of whom were junior to Stuart, were
doing, at the time of her lay-off. Hatch and Hummel are listed by
the respondent as armature assemblers. Balls testified that she
worked on the Ford line. We find that she was employed as an
armature assembler on the Ford line, and not on the Hudson line, It
the time of her lay-off.
Stuart returned to the plant many times, seeking reinstatement, but
had not been reinstated at the date of the hearing. She was one of
the oldest girls in seniority both on her job and in her department
and would have been reinstated after inventory was completed had
the respondent followed its asserted seniority policy.
On one occasion after the respondent had commenced hiring new
girls for the assembly department, Stuart asked Burry why he did
not give her a job. He replied that he was hiring some new girls
for a night shift, that he had received no word from the office to
take her back, and further that when he was told to call the old girls
back, he called them, and when he was told to hire new girls, he
hired new ones.
A discharge ticket introduced in evidence states that Stuart was
laid off, that her work was fair, that she was dissatisfied and that
the respondent would not consider reemploying her. Balls, when
asked why he. would not consider reemploying her, testified, after
having read the discharge ticket, "Well, I would say she was slowing
up the production."
Stuart joined the U. A. W. A. before the strike was called, served
on the picket lines during the strike, and .wore her union button to
work most of the time. She had been requested by Rechlau to sign
3a The seniority lists state that she was laid off on July 27. However , the testimony
of Dinse and French, who were also laid off the Ford line just before inventory was taken,
corresponds with that of Stuart in regard to the date , July 21 , and we accept that date as
correct.
247383-40-vol. 16--19
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a card which would admit her to the organizational meeting of the
E. R. U. but failed to do so. Stuart is not one of the employees
listed in the respondent's answer as discharged. The record contains
no evidence other than Bahs' equivocal statement at the hearing,
that Stuart slowed up production. We are convinced that the re
spondent had reference to her U. A. W. A. membership and activities
in marking "Dissatisfied" upon her discharge slip, and that it refused,
to reinstate her after inventory was completed because of her U. A.
W. A. membership and activities. She, earned an average of about
$17.50 a week while working for the respondent. She had not ob-
tained other employment prior to the hearing.
"Wire and Solders"
Mina Tidswell is listed by the respondent as an employee of the
Hudson line. However, she worked at soldering coils most of the
time and did other kinds of work only when her regular work be-
came slack. Bahs testified that she worked on the Ford line. She
was soldering coils on May 25 when Bahs told her that she "could
not keep up" with her work and that he would have to lay her off
until the Ford line started. Tidswell admitted that her production
was below that of other solderers.
Bahs testified that he laid her off because she slowed up her group.
Her discharge ticket states that the respondent will not consider
reemploying her. Tidswell had joined the U. A. W. A. and wore
her union. button at the plant. However, under the circumstances
we are not convinced that she was laid off because of her U. A. W. A.
membership or activities.
"Contact Assembly"
Phyllis French was one of the three U. A. W. A. members who
were laid off the Ford line on July 21 just before inventory was
taken and were never thereafter reinstated.37 'French testified that
Bahs had told her that she was a good worker and that when she
was laid off, he promised that he would let her know when to return
and that she would be one of the first called back.
Bahs did not deny having made the statements attributed to him
by French and we find that he made them. He nevertheless claimed
that he did not intend'to reinstate her because she slowed up produc-
tion. It was 'French to whom Bahs made the statement, when she
applied for reinstatement, that the respondent was trying to have
a closed shop at the plant. He had never complained to her that
she slowed up production. French was one of the employees who
17 See cases of Ruth Stuart and Ella Al. Dinse, supra.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY - 281
wore their U. A. W. A. buttons at the plant. We are satisfied that
Bahs' reason for deciding that he would not reinstate her was her
U. A. W. A. membership.
French was the only employee working as a contact assembler on
July 21 who was not reinstated and still working at the date of the
hearing. However, she was junior to all other contact assemblers ex-
cept one, Marie Jordan, who was hired by the respondent on the same
day French was hired. The union affiliation, if any, of Jordan does
not appear in the record. Furthermore, no new contact assembler was
hired prior to the hearing. We shall not, therefore, order that French
be reinstated immediately but shall provide for her reinstatement ill
the future as provided in the section entitled "Remedy," infra.
3. Tool department
Howard Delo, chairman of the U. A. W. A. committee which met
with Beery, before the strike was called, and also chairman of the
strike-settlement committee, was laid oft on May 25 by Engel, who
told him that the lay-off was necessary because of a lack of work to
do. Delo had less seniority than any other employee in the tool
department, and was properly the first employee to be laid off.
We find that the respondent, by laying off and failing to reinstate
-Delo did not discriminate and is not discriminating in regard to his
hire and tenure of employment.
4. Paint department
Employees of the bonderizing department and paint department
were customarily transferred from one department to the other. They
are all listed by the respondent as employees of the paint department.
Gertrude Miller was first employed by the respondent on January
14, 1935. She quit her job on July 25, 1935, but was reemployed on
August 25, 1935. She was discharged on April 3, 1937, shortly after
she and her husband, Carl Miller, had held a meeting of employees at
their house and Leffel had spied upon the meeting. Leffel testified that
both Gertrude and Carl were laid off after they had held union meet-
ings at their home and he had talked the matter over with Engel.
Engel testified, however, that he recommended Gertrude's discharge
because he believed that she was intentionally passing up defective
work on her job as inspector in the assembly department. Gertrude
was reinstated on May 6 as a result of the strike-settlement agreement
and her discharge on April 3 is not within the scope of the complaint.
Although she was reinstated to her regular job as inspector in the
assembly department on May 6, she was transferred to the paint de-
partment on May 13. She was thereafter laid off for 2 weeks, theca
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given work for 1 week and again laid off on August 17. She was never
recalled after being laid off the last time.
Engel admitted that Gertrude had been exceptionally good at
her inspection job in the assembly department for about a year and
one-half prior to her discharge on April 3. He did not claim that
her work as inspector was not entirely satisfactory after she was
reinstated. He contended however, that her transfer to the paint
department. was at her own request, that when work became slack
in the paint department, she asked that he transfer her back to her
inspection job, but that he then refused to transfer her back because
another employee was filling her old job satisfactorily. Gertrude
denied positively that she had asked for a transfer from the inspec-
tion to the paint job or vice versa. We find her testimony the more
convincing. However, even though she asked for the transfers, as
contended by Engel, and her transfer to the paint department was
at her own request, she should not have been laid off had the respond-
ent adhered to its asserted seniority policy in effecting lay-offs. Ger-
trude had greater seniority than any other employee in the paint
department.38 Many junior to her, including two E. R. U. stewards,
were not laid off.
We find that the respondent laid off Gertrude Miller on August
17, 1937, because of her. U. A. W. A. membership and activities. She,
earned between $16 and $20 a week while working for the respondent.
She had not obtained other employment prior to. the hearing.
Arlene Mort, a U. A. W. A. member who wore her union button
to work, was employed in the bonderizing department before the
strike. After the termination of the strike, she was transferred to
the machine department, then to the assembly department. On May
18 Balls informed her that he could not use her in the assembly
department any longer, since he was having to lay some employees
off, and sent her to Leffel. She requested Leffel to reinstate her at
her old job in the bonderizing room where she had seniority over
one other girl who was also a member of the U. A. W. A. Leffel
informed her that he did not need her.
Under the circumstances, we are not convinced that Mort was laid
off because of her U. A. W. A. membership and activities.
Evelyn Baker had worked intermittently for the respondent since
1933. Her last employment, however, dated only from February 6,
1937. On May 12 work in the paint department became slack,
apparently because the respondent had sent two large drums of
brackets. to another factory to be painted, and Baker was "checked
:;B It was expressly provided in the strike-settlement agreement that Gertrude and other
employees reinstated as a result of the agreement should not lose their seniority rights.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 283
out" 39 by her foreman, Vern Hoover, at about 1 p. m. Baker then
reported this fact to Hall, a U. A. W. A. organizer, who telephoned
Engel in her behalf and requested Engel to keep her busy. Engel
was apparently very much irritated by this call.
On the following morning, May 13, when Baker returned to work,
she was laid off "until further notice," and had not been recalled at
the date of the hearing. Although several employees junior to Baker
and some her senior were laid off on May 20, none except Baker were
laid off earlier. We are satisfied that Baker would not have been
laid off until May 20 had she not sought the aid of the U. A. W. A.
organizer when she was "checked out" on May 12. Engel testified
that when work slowed up in the paint department he offered to trans-
fer Baker to the assembly department, but that she refused such trans-
fer and quit her employment. Baker denied that she had ever refused
to work in the assembly department. We find Baker's testimony in
this respect the more credible, especially in view of the fact that Engel
admitted that the U. A. W. A. organizer had asked him to keep Baker
busy.
We find that Baker was denied employment by the respondent from
May 13 to May 20, 1937, because of her U. A. W. A. membership and
activities. She earned an average of $16 or $17 a week while working
for the respondent.
C. Conclusions in regard to discharges, lay-offs, and refusals to
a
reinstate
We have found that the respondent discharged or laid off and re-
fused to reinstate Price James, Helen K. Reek, and Mina Tidswell
for cause, that it did not lay off Roger Watson or Merle Chesher
because of their U. A. W. A. membership or activities, and that it had
reinstated Watson and Chesher prior to the hearing. We shall there-
fore dismiss the allegations of the complaint as to these five employees.
As to 11 other employees, Luella Butts, Alvin Blanchard, Ella M.
Dinse, James Miller, June Negus, Audrey Calkins, Carl Miller, Alice
Graf, Fay Hill, Gertrude Miller, and Evelyn Baker, we have found
that the respondent laid them off because of their U. A. W. A. mem-
bership and activities; and that, as to five others, Kenneth Baldwin,
Florence Heskett, Ruth Stuart, Marguerite Parlette, and Ethel Mal-
lory, the respondent did not lay them off, but did refuse to reinstate
them in lieu of hiring new employees because of their U. A. W. A.
membership and activities. We find that the respondent by laying
off the first 11 employees- above named and each of them, and by re-
fusing reinstatement to the last five employees above named, and each
39 Employees were frequently "checked out," that is. dismissed for the remainder of the
.day, when work was slack.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of them, has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of said employees, thereby discouraging membership in one
labor organization, the U. A. W. A., and encouraging membership in
another labor organization, the E. R. U. We further find that the
respondent by said discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of the above-named 16 employees, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
The remainder of the employees, 11 in number, we have found either
lacked sufficient seniority to avoid being laid off when it became
necessary for the respondent to curtail its working force, or for other
reasons were temporarily laid off. The allegations of the complaint
in regard to the discharge of these 11, Ford Brock, Betty Havens,
Sophia Glenn, Carroll James, Lawrence Beebe, Elda Guss, Joe Fisher,
Marjorie Van Volkenburgh, Helen Johnson, Arlene Mort, and Phyllis
French will therefore be dismissed. As we have pointed out above
more than 50 new employees Were hired after the respondent com-
menced laying off employees because' of a decrease in production.
While it appears that several of the 11 above-named employees had
worked at more than one type of job at the plant and it does not
affirmatively appear that any of the 11 could not have filled the jobs
for which most of the new employees were hired, nevertheless, it ap-
pears that many other employees who were laid off and in whose behalf
the U. A. W. A. did not file charges, were also never reinstated. We
:shall not, therefore, order that the new employees be replaced by the
11 U. A. W. A. members above named. However, since we have found
in Section III B above that the respondent has pursued a policy of
discrimination against U. A. W. A. members, we shall make further
provision for these 11 employees in the section entitled "Remedy"
infra.
IV. THE EFFECT 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 have led
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the E. R. U. and contributed
SCFIWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 285
support to. it. That organization cannot, therefore, serve the em-
ployees as a genuine collective bargaining agency, and we shall order
the respondent not only to cease and desist from dominating and inter-
fering with the administration of and contributing support to such
labor organization, but to withdraw recognition from and completely
disestablish the E. R. U. as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work.
The closed-shop agreement made by the respondent with the
E. R. U. on October 7, 1937, was by its terms to be in effect for only
6 months. It appears, however, that the respondent also made other
agreements or arrangements with the E. R. U. concerning wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment. These agreements or arrangements, having been made with
an organization assisted in its formation and administration by the
respondent, are not the results of collective bargaining within the
contemplation of the Act, but rather the results of efforts by the
respondent to stifle the organizational activities of the U. A. W. A.
and to frustrate and defeat true collective bargaining by and with
its employees. Whether any of these agreements or arrangements,
any renewals or extensions thereof, or any new agreements with the
E. R. U. are now in effect, we are not informed. However, to render
more effective our order requiring the respondent to cease and desist
from recognizing and to disestablish the E. R. U. as a collective
bargaining agency, we shall require the respondent to cease giving
effect to any agreement or arrangement-now existing, and to refrain
from entering into, renewing, or extending any agreement or arrange-
ment relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, with the E. R. U., as representative of
any of the employees of the respondent.40
We have found that the respondent has engaged in an unfair labor
practice by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Luella Butts, Alvin Blanchard, Ella M. Dinse, James
Miller, June Negus, Audrey Calkins, Carl Miller, Alice Graf, Fay
Hill, Gertrude Miller, Evelyn Baker, Kenneth Baldwin, Florence
Heskett, Ruth Stuart, Marguerite Parlette, and Ethel Mallory.
Since Audrey Calkins, after having been laid off on August 17, re-
signed from her job on August 23,41 we shall not order that the
90 See Matter of Williams Coal Company, et at. and United Mine Workers of America,
District. No. 23, 11 N. L. R. B. 579; Cf. Matter of Berkey and Gay Furniture Company
and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 1118, 11 N. L. R. B.,
282.
41 Calkins' new job, obtained at noon on August 18, paid her less money. Consequently,
we shall not consider that she resigned from her old job until she actually notified the
respondent to that effect on the morning when the respondent expected her to return to
work.
286 DECISIONS OI, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent offer her reinstatement, but only that it make her whole
-for any loss of pay which she may have suffered by reason of her
lay-off by payment to her of a sum equal to the amount which she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of her lay-off
to August 23, when she resigned from her job, less her net earnings 4z
during that period. Evelyn Baker is entitled to back pay only from
May 13, 1937, the date of discrimination against her, to May 20, 1937,
when she would have been laid off if seniority had been followed.
We shall order the respondent to offer reinstatement to the remainder
of the above-named employees and to make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of their respective lay-offs
or the respondent's discriminatory refusal to reinstate them by
payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which they
normally would have earned as wages from the date of their lay-off
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings 43 dur-
ing that period.
Since, as we have found in Section III B, above, the respondent
has followed a policy of'ridding its plant of U. A. W. A. members,
there is grave danger that the respondent has not subsequent to the
hearing' and will not in the future offer reinstatement to Evelyn
Baker, Ford Brock, Betty Havens, Sophia Glenn, Carroll James,
Lawrence Beebe, Elda Guss, Joe Fisher, Marjorie Van Volkenburgh,
Helen Johnson, Phyllis French, and Arlene Mort, even though their
own or substantially equivalent positions have been or will be open.
For this reason, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Act,
we shall order the respondent to place these employees upon a list
of its employees who were -temporarily laid off because of lack of
work, and to offer them employment in the order of their seniority
upon the list when employment in their respective classification be-
comes available before hiring other persons.44 Howard Delo, 2 days
after he was laid off, obtained another job which paid him about
three times the amount he was making while working for the re-
42 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 her unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of her seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, 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 are
not considered as earnings, but as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
93 See footnote 42 above.
44 Cf. Matter of American Numbering Machine Company and International Association of
Machinists, District #15, 10 N. L. R. B. 536; American Manufacturing Concern and Local
No. 6, Organized Furniture Workers, 7 N. L. R. B. 753; and Matter of Benjamin Levine,
doing business under the name and style of Estellito Fixtures Company, and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 438, 6 N. L. R. B. 400.
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC COMPANY 287
spondent . He does not desire reinstatement . We shall not therefore
require that his name be placed upon the preferential list.
Upon the basis of the above findingsi of fact and upon the entire
.record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No. 268 , and Employees Representative Union are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Employees Representative Union and contributing sup-
port thereto , the respondent has engaged in and is engaging, in un-
fair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Luella Butts, Alvin Blanchard , Ella M . Dinse, James Miller,
June Negus, Audrey Calkins, Carl Miller, Alice Graf , Fay Hill,
Gertrude Miller, Evelyn Baker, Kenneth Baldwin, Florence Heskett,
Ruth Stuart, Marguerite Parlette , and Ethel Mallory, and thereby
discouraging membership : in International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America ., Local No. 268 , and encouraging membership
in Employees Representative Union, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. By discharging Price James, Helen K. Reek, and Mina Tidswell,
and by laying off Roger Watson, Merle Chesher, Howard Delo, Ford
Brock, Betty Havens, Sophia Glenn, Carroll James, Lawrence Beebe,
Elda Guss, Joe Fisher , Marjorie Van Volkenburgh , Helen Johnson,
Phyllis French, and Arlene Mort, the respondent has not engaged in
an unfair labor practice , within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Schwarze Electric Company, Adrian, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Recognizing Employees Representative Union' as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work;
(b) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Employees Representative Union, or with the formation
or administration of any other labor organization of its employees,
or contributing support to Employees Representative Union or any
other labor organization of its employees;
(c) Giving effect to or performing any agreement or arrangement
now existing, and refrain, from entering into, renewing, or extending
any agreement or arrangement, relating to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment or other conditions of employment, with .Employees
Representative Union, as representative of any of the employees of
the respondent, Schwarze Electric Company;
(d) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 268, encouraging mem-
bership in Employees Representative Union, or encouraging or dis-
couraging membership in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate employees
or in.any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment' or any term or condition of employment;
. (e) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing. its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or' assist labor organizations, .to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage i'n 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 Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees Representative
Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work,
and completely disestablish Employess Representative Union as such
representative;
(b) Offer to Luella Butts, Alvin Blanchard, Ella M. Dinse, James
Miller, June Negus, Carl Miller, Alice Graf, Fay Hill, Gertrude
Miller; Kenneth Baldwin, Florence Heskett, Ruth Stuart, Marguerite
Parlette, and Ethel Mallory, immediate and full reinstatment to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights or privileges previously enjoyed by
them;
SCHWARZE ELECTRIC. COMPANY 289
(c) Make whole Luella Butts, , Alvin Blanchard , Ella M: Dinse,
James Miller , June Negus, Audrey Calkins , Carl Miller, Alice Graf,
Fay Hill , Gertrude Miller, Evelyn Baker, Kenneth Baldwin , Florence
Heskett, Ruth Stuart, Marguerite Parlette, and Ethel Mallory for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their lay-off , or the re-
spondent 's refusal to reinstate them, by payment to each of them of a
suin of money equal to the amount which they normally would have
earned as wages during the period, in the case of Luella Butts, Alvin
Blanchard, June Negus, Carl Miller, Alice Graf, Fay, Hill , Gertrude
Miller, Ella M, Dinse , James Miller, Kenneth Baldwin, Florence
Heskett, Ruth Stuart , Marguerite Parlette, and Ethel Mallory, from
the date of their lay-off, or the respondent 's refusal to reinstate them to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings 45 during
said period , and in the case of Audrey Calkins, from August 17, 1937,
the date of her lay-off to August 23 , 1937, the date upon which she was
told by the respondent to report back to work , less her net earnings 46
during said period, and in the case of Evelyn Baker, from May 13,
1937 , the date of her lay-off, to May 20, 1937 , the date upon which she
should have been laid off , less her net earnings 46 during that period;
deducting , however, from the amount otherwise due to each of said
employees, monies received by said employees during said periods for-
work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal, or other work-
relief projects ; and paying over the amount , so deducted , to the ap -
propriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal, or
other government or governments which supplied the funds for said
work-relief projects;
(d) Place Evelyn Baker, Ford Brock, Betty Havens , Sophia
Glenn, Carroll James, Lawrence Beebe, Elda Guss, Joe Fisher, Mar-
jorie Van Volkenburgh , Helen Johnson, Phyllis French, and Arlene
Mort upon a list of its employees who were temporarily laid off
because of lack of work and offer them employment in the order of
their seniority upon the list when employment in their classification
becomes available before hiring other persons;
(e) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its plant stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the
manner set forth in 1 (a ), (b), (c), (d), and (e) and that it will
take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of
this Order;
(f) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting;
See footnote 42, supra.
.e Ibid.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed with respect to the lay-off or discharge of Price James,
Helen K. Reek, Mina Tidswell, Roger Watson, Merle Chesher, and
Howard Delo.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.