Shartle Brothers Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of SHARTLE BROThIERS MACHINE COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS (A. F. of L.),
Case Na. 9-CD008.Decided February 12, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 27,1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had en-
gaged in, and was engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease., and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in a copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions. The
parties were afforded an opportunity to participate in oral argument
before the Board in Washington, D. C., on December 7, 1944, but none
of the parties appeared.
The Board has reviewed the rulings on motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence made by the Trial Examiner at the hear-
ing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar
as they are inconsistent with our findings and order hereinafter set
forth.
1. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent, on several occasions,
moved for a separation of witnesses, which motions were denied by
.the Trial Examiner. The respondent has excepted to these rulings.
While we believe it would have been better practice to have granted
the motions for the separation of witnesses, it is clear, and we find,
that the Trial Examiner's rulings denying such motions did not con-
stitute prejudicial error. In this connection, we note, among other
things, that Vice-President Bridge himself admitted that he engaged
Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Burke Machine Tool Company, 133 F. (2d) 618 (C. C. A. 6) ; and
N. L. R. B. v. Quality and Service Laundry, 131 F. (2d) 182 (C. C. A. 4), cert. den., 318
U. S. 775.
60 N. L. R. B., No. 103.
533
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in certain conduct, such as the interrogation of employees as to their
union interest and activities and the making -of various anti-union
remarks to them,2 which we find to be violative of Section 8 (1) of
the Act. -
2. We agree with the Trial- Examiner's conclusion, that the respond-
ent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act. We base our finding to this effect upon the acts
and statements of the respondent set forth below.
In February 1944, Vice-President Bridge interviewed 3 individually
machine operators and asked them whether they were members of or
were interested in the Union,4 and whether they expected to derive
any benefits, including a pay raise, from unionization. Bridge also
told them that he thought that the employees could do better without
a union, and that they might lose privileges then enjoyed if the Union
came in; that he was opposed to the organization of the machine
operators alone, and that he would "fight the Union as hard as he
could"; that the respondent would "stand by the man that stuck by
the Company"; that union activity was detrimental to the war effort;
that the employees should defer their attempts at unionization until the
respondent's employees in the armed forces returned; that employees
should feel free "to come to him and discuss problems"; and that
Bridge "could take certain men out of the shop in order to beat the
Union and that he would, if necessary, discharge individual em-
ployees." In February 1944, Bridge also stated to the employees of
the Welding Shop that he was opposed to the organization of only
2 Thus, Vice-President Bridge testified that during his interviews with various employees,
he inquired as to "each and every man's opinion . . . with respect to the union activities" ;
that the "subject of the attempted organization . . among the machine operators" was
discussed in these interviews ; that to each of the employees interviewed he stated that it
is not "fair to tie up the work of war production " for the purpose of organizing machine
operators , but that "if fifty -one per cent of the men of the shop wanted a union ," he would
try "to make it a success " ; that the men in the service "should have a voice in the matter ;
they should be entitled to just as much say as anyone else ," and that to that extent he "may
have made the statement that this whole thing [ self-organization of employees ] should
wait until after the war was over " and "then have a vote on it at such time." Also, in
the letter of February 21, 1944, which was admittedly written by Bridge to the employees in
the armed forces of the United States, and which came to the attention of the employees
at the plant , Bridge , among other things , stated that he did not agree "with the boys
doing this organizing ," whom he characterized as "two -timers" who "get under [ his] hide" ;
and that if he could, he would "lick the living hell out of them." He further stated in
his letter that he hoped that "John L. Lewis of the C. I. O " and "Mr. Green of the
A. F. L." would "roast in hell forever and a day" ; that "two big fat organizers are on the
-job," who are "interested in the $2 or $5 per head they get"; and that the organizers are
"sowing seeds of dissention and taking advantage of you boys in the Service while you
are away." Bridge also admittedly wrote the letter of February 25, 1944, which was dis-
tributed to the employees at the plant.
8 It is clear , from all the evidence , and we find , that the purpose of these interviews was
to discourage and defeat the Union 's organizational efforts, and not, as contended by the
respondent, to discuss the lag in production.
While it appears that some of the machine operators who were interviewed voluntarily
stated to Bridge that they had joined the Union, or that the Union was desirable , or that
they were in favor of unions, the great majority of those interviewed were questioned by
Bridge concerning their attitude towards the Union.
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 535
part of the plant; shortly thereafter, many of the employees in the
Welding Shop withdrew from the Union. In February 1944, Assist-
ant Superintendent Martin asked employee Miracle what he knew
about the Union, and also told employee Kramer that if the Union
organized the plant, the employees would lose all their privileges.
Forming part of the pattern of unlawful and coercive conduct out-
lined above was Bridge's afore-mentioned letter of February 21, 1944,
to the employees of the respondent who were with the armed forces
of the United States, as well as his letter of February 25, 1944, to the
employees of the respondent at the plant, in which Bridge plainly
manifested the respondent's strong antipathy to the Union.
Upon the entire record, we are convinced, and we find, that the
statements and acts of the respondent outlined above were integral
parts of a course of conduct 5 which was designed to defeat the Union's
organizational efforts and which interfered with, restrained, and
coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act .13
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Shartle Brothers Machine Com-
pany, Middletown, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed 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) Mail to each employee in the armed services of the United
States to whom was mailed a copy of the letter dated February 21,
1944, signed by Adam E. Bridge, notices stating that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraph 1 of this Order;
Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric and Power Co, 314 U. S. 469.
e We find that the coercive effect of the respondent 's conduct as a whole , as outlined
above, was not neutralized by Bridge 's statement to the employees interviewed by him that
"it was [their ] inherent right to belong to a Union or not, as [they ] wished ." See Matter
of Agar Paeksng & Provision Corporation, 58 N. L. R. B . 738; Matter of Julius Cohn,
d/b/a Comas Manufacturing Co., 59 N. L. R. B. 208; Matter of American Needlecrafts,
Inc., 59 N. L. R. B. 1384.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its plant at Middletown, Ohio, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director of the Ninth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the -
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER Of
the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the, National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our
employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Associ-
ation of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to
become or remain members of this union, or any other. labor
organization.
------------------------
(Employer)
Dated --------------------------- By ------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
-L -------------------------------------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced,'or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Benianun E Cook, for the Board.
Mr. Elliott D. Level/, of Middletown, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Carl Cederquist, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the I. A. M
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on May 1, 1944, by International Associa-
tion of Machinists, herein called the Union, affiliated with the American Federation
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 537
,of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its
Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint
dated May 2, 1944, against Shartle Brothers Machine Company, herein called
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the-Act.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that
the respondent at its Middletown, Ohio, plant, through its officers and agents,
after February 1, 1944, questioned its employees regarding their union activ-
ities, urged them to abandon the Union, threatened them with loss of advantages
if they formed a union, vilified Union representatives, disparaged the Union, urged
its employees to postpone selection of a bargaining agent until the end of the war,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint
and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union. At the opening of the hearing, the respondent filed its answer, ad-
mitting the allegations of the complaint with respect to its corporate organization,
admitting that it is engaged in interstate commerce, denying any unfair labor
practices and averring that any statelnents made or letters or bulletins issued or
published by the respondent were protected by the constitutional guaranty of free-
dom of speech
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Middletown, Ohio, on May 22, 23 and
24, 1944, before William R. Ringer, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were repre-
sented by counsel and the Union by a representative. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing the
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint and renewed such motion at the
close of the hearing. The motions were denied. At the close of the hearing
Board's counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to
minor matters. This motion was granted without objections. The respondent
similarly moved to conform its answer to the proof. Without objection, the
motion was granted. At the conclusion of all the evidence counsel for the Board
and the respondent participated in oral argument on the record ; the representa-
tive of the Union stated that he did not desire to argue orally. The parties were
advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned. No briefs have been
filed.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FAC1r
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
The respondent is an Ohio corporation having its office and plant at Middletown,
Ohio. It is a division of the Black-Clawson Company, an Ohio corporation.
It is engaged in the manufacture of equipment for the armed forces of the United
States. The principal raw materials used by the respondent in the manufacture
of its products are steel, cast iron, and brass. A substantial part of the raw mate-
rials used by the respondent is transported to its plant in interstate commerce;
the greater part of its finished products is transported from its plant to other
1 The findings in this report are based on the pleadings , a stipulation made by the parties
at the hearing and evidence introduced by the Board.
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
States. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act,. admitting
employees-of the respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In the early part of 1944, the respondent had approximately 333 employees
engaged in production at its plant, of whom approximately 50 were machine
operators. At all times material herein H. D. Martindale has been the vice
president and general manager of the plant, and Adam E. Bridge has been vice
president in charge of production. Martindale is in full charge of plant operations
including labor relations.
The Union began active organizational efforts among the respondent' s employees
early in February 1944. Some of the employees met on February 6, and decided
to get in touch with a national union. Shortly thereafter they requested the Union
to help them in their organizational plans! Martindale testified, and the under-
signed finds that he had no knowledge of union activities before February 15.
It is clear from the record that Martindale and the respondent did not welcome
the activities of the Union among the respondent's employees-and did not desire
a union in the plant. Martindale, in response to questions by the Trial Examiner,
testified on this point as follows :
A. I certainly didn't have any desire for it to organize. I was more con-
cerned to know what the things were I hadn't done to cause them to feel they
needed a Union. It is rather a thing to be proud of, I feel, that we had the
shop for 44 years and there has never been expressed any desire for unionism
_up to that time.
* * * * * * *
Q. What was the position of the Company at this time with reference to a
union coming into the plant? Now you can just take that in your own way
whatever your answer is.
A. My natural position would be that there is no need of a union unless
we had practices there which were generally unacceptable to the men. If
they did not exist in any quantity I certainly did not want to be obligated
to deal with strangers coming into the plant.
* * * * * * *
Q. State whether or not you were expecting them, after you found out what
the men thought was wrong and you made corrections, what were your ex-
pectations as to what would be the Union's further activity in the plant?
A. There wouldn't be any need for further activity
Martindale testified, and the undersigned credits his testimony, that he left
for New York on Tuesday, February 15, and returned Friday, February 18, and
that he first learned of the Union's organizational efforts among the respondent's
'The record does not disclose whether it was contemplated to attempt to organize the
entire plant or only certain departments . It is clear, however, that the machine operators
and the employees in the Welding Department were included in the plans and that organi-
zational activities followed in those departments.
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 539
employees within the hour preceding his departure. He left Bridge in complete
charge of all matters relating to labor relations during his absence.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On the same day that Martindale left for New York, Bridge began a series of
individual interviews with various of respondent's employees in the apprentice
school room, located in the basement of the plant. Bridge testified that he called
only machine operators for these interviews because "at that time there was no
apparent effort toward organization" on the production floor or in other
departments.'
Bridge testified that this was the first time employees had been called in one
by one in a series of interviews. Several of those interviewed testified that the
message had been given them by Harry W. Martin, the assistant superintendent'
of the plant, that Bridge wished to talk to them in the basement room.
The testimony of Raymond Dennis, one of the employees interviewed, signifi-
cantly indicates the purpose and pattern of the interviews, as follows :
Q. Relate briefly, if you can, what Mr. Bridge said to you.
A. He said that he wanted to have a talk with me about the way things
were going ; that he had heard that we were thinking about forming a union
and said he was going to state his side of the story pretty straight, straight
from the shoulder, and he did.
Q What was said?
A. He wanted to know what I expected to derive from this union. He
asked me if I expected to get an increase in pay out of it.
Q Did he make any remark relative to your interest in the Union?
A. He asked me how I- felt about it.
Various individuals testified regarding their interviews. They all agreed that
at the beginning of each interview Bridge inquired as to the individual' s union
membership or interest. It is clear from their testimony and Bridge' s admissions
as to the time spent in different interviews that those who expressed lack of
interest in the Union were dismissed in 5 or 10 minutes while in the cases of
those who expressed such interest, the interviews continued much longer, in
some instances, for as much as 11/2 or 2 hours. Each' testified to anti-union
questions or statements by Bridge The sum of the various questions testified
to by the various witnesses both for the Board and the respondent as made by
Bridge in the series of interviews is as follows :
Was the employee a member of or interested in the Union?; what benefit
did they expect to derive from the Union?; and did they expect a pay raise
because of unionization?
The sum of the various statements to the various witnesses is similarly as
follows : -
He thought the employees could do better without a- union ; the respondent
had treated well employees when they became ill ; the respondent had been
liberal with Christmas bonuses, vacations, and lunch period time ; the
attempt to form a union was unpatriotic; he would fight the Union and do
his best to beat it; although he was opposed to the effort to organize the
s Bridge, however , knew of the union activities among the employees in the Welding
Department , since, as hereinafter found, and as admitted by Bridge, he talked to them as a
group that same day with reference to the Union.
540 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
machine operators, yet if 51 percent-of all the employees in the plant voted
for a single union he would recognize it and help make it a success ; the
Company would stick by the men who stuck by it ; he could take certain
men out of the shop in order to beat the Union and that he would, if necessary,
discharge individual employees ; the employee being interviewed should give
serious thought to what they were doing ; and any - employee should feel
free to come to him and discuss problems.
When mentioning that it was unpatriotic to attempt to form a union, Bridge
mentioned Tarawa and Bataan and other battles of the present war.
Bridge denied that he directed employees to come to him for these interviews,
testifying that they were merely invited to come in for a discussion of shop
conditions, and he denied that he discussed the Union's organizational efforts
during the interviews, testifying that the discussion related only to a lag in
production. The undersigned does not accept Bridge's denials on either point.
The first is an attempted technical distinction between an order from a high
official of the Company to an employee to appear before him for an interview,
,and an invitation from the official for the emploSee to appear for the same
purpose. There is no distinction on the facts in this case. Each employee was
caused to come before Bridge and was interviewed by Bridge with respect to a
matter pertaining to the respondent's business. With respect to Bridge's denial
that in the interviews there was discussion of the Union and its organizational
activities, all the witnesses called by the Board and by the respondent who
testified about the interviews stated that Bridge inquired as to their union
membership or interest and Bridge himself testified as follows :
Q. Did you call the men down, all of them, who were working on machine
tools?
A. I think practically all of them.
* * * * * * *
Q Did you state to them when they came down that you wanoted to talk
over this union business with them?
A. I stated to them, as I stated to the others, that I was concerned about
what was going on and what was back of it, but [what] the reason for it
was, and I wanted to get each and every man's opinion.
Q. You mean with respect to the union activities?
A. That is right, sir.
.-The undersigned was not favorably impressed with Bridge's testimony. He
was an evasive witness. The witnesses called by the Board and by the respond-
ent with respect to the interviews were frank and direct in their testimony
as to -Bridge's statements to them. The undersigned, therefore, does not credit
the denials of Bridge as to the interviews and finds that he asked the questions
and made the statements in the course of the_ interviews as above set out.
On February 15, the day when Martindale left for New York and Bridge began
the series of interviews in the basement room as above found,- Bridge also
talked to the employees in the Welding Department. Shortly before 5 p. in.,
quitting time in that department, Bridge gathered the employees in the Welding
Shop about him near a desk in the shop and spoke to them. He first talked
about shop conditions and causes for dissatisfaction but shifted to a discussion
of the Union's organizational efforts and told them that he was opposed to the
organization of part of the plant but that if 51 percent of all the employees in
the plant voted for a union he would cooperate with it.
After' Bridge left, the employees discussed the situation and appointed one of
their number to see the Upion officials and ask for the return of the authoriza-
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 541
tion cards which had been signed by employees in the Welding Department and
which had been delivered to the Union. The next day, February 16, such request
was made of the Union and the authorizr}tion cards of 14 employees were
returned to them.
The record is entirely clear that the Union had obtained substantial support
among the machine operators and the employees in the welding department and
not elsewhere. It is equally clear from Bridge's own testimony that he knew
that the Union was succeeding among the employees in the two departments.
It has been found that Bridge interviewed the machine operators because of
their interest in the Union. Bridge's speech to the employees of the Welding
Department was made for the purpose of and had the effect of discouraging
such employees from membership and activity in the Union.
Bridge testified, and the undersigned credits his testimony, that on February
16, while he was interviewing one of the machine operators, he received word
from the Navy Department that a Navy nurse would be available to make a
patriotic address to the respondent's employees the next day. The meeting was
held in the plant on February 17, at which patriotic addresses were delivered
by the nurse, other Navy speakers, and Company employees. Immediately fol-
lowing these addresses, Bridge talked with various machine operators at their
machines. Robert J. Rivers, one of the machine operators so interviewed, testi-
fied as follows, and the undersigned credits his testimony :
Well, at that time we had a Navy meeting in our shop, the Navy personnel.
Mr Bridge came over to my machine after this meeting and told me he
really had this meeting for any influence it might have on our union
activities.
Bridge began each of these interviews at the machines with a reference to the
patriotic meeting just ended and proceeded to talk about the union activity in the
plant. The employees who testified concerning the interviews at the machines
told of various statements made to them by Bridge in the individual interviews,
as follows :
He understood there was union activity in the plant ; it was unpatriotic
to form a union at the time ; union activity was detrimental to the war
effort; the men should wait until the company's employees in the armed
services should return ; the men would derive no benefit from the Union
as wages were frozen ; the employees might lose privileges then enjoyed;
the Union would bring hatred into the plant ; the Union could get no votes
outside the machine shop ; and if 51 percent of all the employees in the
plant would organize in a single unit he would be willing to recognize the
organization and make it a success.'
The undersigned credits their testimony.
Martindale testified, and the undersigned credits his testimony, that upon
his return to the plant on February 18, Bridge reported to him that he had been
interviewing men. He admitted that he approved the holding of such interviews,
and that Bridge continued so to interview the machine operators thereafter.
On or about February 21, 1944, Bridge addressed the following letter (dated
February 27, 1444, and mailed on or about that day) to all the men who had
worked in the respondent's plant and left for the armed services of the United
States:
4 J. J. McGraw, Robert J. Rivers, and Robert Hatton.
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MIDDLIIPOWN, OM O,
February 21, 1944.
It has been sometime since I have written to you fellows in the Service,
and to a large extent it has been because I am getting old and lazy, and
in order to make myself feel a little better about it I'll give the excuse that
the troubles have been many and my ability to shake them off not what it
should be. - Maybe I need a field ration and a couple of vitamins. Anyhow,
I am not feeling sorry for myself, for I am eternally grateful that my service
was in the last war and not in this one, and incidentally I don't feel too
sorry for the Home Guard who are complaining that Bill Jones is getting
more premium work than he is, etc. etc. After all, Bill has had the easy
part for he has made good money, has had three good meals a day, a good
place to sleep and still has two legs, two arms, two-eyes. So I don't just
exactly shed tears over these boys who are getting upset because they feel they
are not getting quite as good a break as the other fellow. Somehow or
other I just can't realize that this company is having this sort of trouble.
I came here in 1C03, and all during that time I have felt that the relation-
ship between the shop and the office had been excellent. Some troubles, yes,
but as I have seen it, the troubles, have been minor and certainly they don't
compare to the troubles one is apt to encounter working for Uncle Sam.
Yep, they are trying to organize our shop, and believe me, when I say for
the first time in my life I have seen dissension among the shop men that
is really serious, and for that reason alone if for no other I hope the thing
falls through, for after all nothing should ever interfere in the slightest
degree with production and a shop torn in two over this sort of thing will
• never produce to their full ability.
Now, I do not think they have a chance of a snowball in Hell of'organizing
the entire shop. They are licked and they know /it, so they are trying to
organize the machine operators. They apparently have no regard for the
wishes of the majority, they have not any regard for those of you in the
service whom we still think of as our men. You won't have any say in
the matter. You will have to take whatever they do and like it, and if
-that's American, if that's patriotic, then I am the Queen of Sheba. Bear in
mind too that the majority of these men are new men, but the leaders are
not new men, nor are they our older men. Only a few and a very few of
our older men will have anything to do with it, but according to the younger
men they are old fogies. Well, maybe they are, but when I look at the records
of their work, I wish to God we had a shop full of them.
I give you three guesses how I feel about it. Maybe it doesn't pay to
do your damndest to try and be fair, but God knows I don't want to work
in a shop where you have to live by a fixed set of rules and make every
man put his nose to the grindstone and keep it there We have a friendly
shop, and I just hate like Hell to see it go out the window, and go out
the window it will for there won't be cooperation in a shop where less
than 25% of them want to rule the shop.
Two big fat organizers are on the job Wonder what they are doing for
the war effort? Maybe they are only interested in the two dollars or $500
per bead they get. Yep, there is a man shortage, but are these two 250
pounders doing anything to help out, or is 'their business sowing seeds of
dissension and taking advantage of you boys in the Service while you are
away. Personally I'd be a little bit ashamed to have their jobs In some
cases the old rule of force is being applied, for one of the girl operators
told Dennis she didn't want to join, and he told her she would have to
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 543
join whether she wanted to or not, and that same duck later told me he
hadn't made up his mind whether the Union would be a good thing or not.
And that boy is one of the ones doing the organizing . If he lies to me,
would he lie to the shop boys? I have a few fancy words I could use in
describing that sort of person , but after all some things aren't allowed to
pass the censor.
I have respect for the man who stands on his own hind legs and voices
his opinion , but these two -timers get under my hide . I don 't agree with the
boys doing this organizing , and if I can, I'll lick the living hell out of
them, but I do give them the right to their own opinion. I am wondering
what you think about it. Sorry I didn't have time to write you sooner
about it as I know each and every one of you will be interested , but late
or not, 'just the same I'd like to have your opinion
There have been many stories circulated in the shop, most of which are
damn lies. The worst one I heard was that one of the shop boys who is doing
some organizing , got hold of one of our newer men and said, "Did you
know they were going to give all these soldiers and sailors jobs when they
come back ? Let's organize and keep them from doing it." There you are,
brother, that's the kind of talk going around . My only regret is that I
don't know who that duck was, for the man would not tell me . Old as I am,
I'd sock him one, and as many more as I could , and if I could get the SB
down, I'd jump on his face. We made you birds a promise , and come Hell
or high water we will do our damndest for (sic ) fulfill it.
Another thing-they say "the company is operating on a cost plus basis-
so let's get ours " This company has not had a single solitary cost plus job
and I ' ve offered to show them the contracts on any and all jobs. Does that
stop them ? Well, nobody has ever come in to see a contract , but the story
is still repeated . Then they say-"Well, you made a Jot of money." The
truth is we will make about 5 3% profit. So I guess we are not getting rich,
especially as out of that we must buy our machine tools, etc . As for EDM,
Cliff and I, we get just the same salary we did before we went into it.
Now I could go on for about 8762 pages of this, for I am mad, and I don't
mean maybe . Why just yesterday a Lieut. of the Navy and a nurse (also
a Lieut. ) who was on the hospital ship, Solace , in the South Pacific, came
to our shop. They gave grand talks , in fact they made a few tears come to
my eyes, and ten minutes after-they were through one duck complained to
me that somebody was getting more premium than he was . For the first
time in my life I really let loose on that bird . I think he knew what I
thought of him.
Now I am not Jesus Christ. I make a hell of a lot of mistakes, but I
'never made the mistake of putting myself above my country . John' L Lewis
of the C. I. O. did, and so did Mr Green of the A. F. L. when he said-
"If it isn 't settled by the 24th, the railroads go on strike." What a great love
of country they have . May they roast in hell forever and a day.
Well, how I have ranted and raved . Got to let off steam somewhere or
I'll blow up . Enough of that. Tell me honestly what you think.
Busier right now than a one-armed paper hanger with fleas. Have done
a couple of real hurry up jobs for Uncle Sam and are starting on another
one-this one rudder hearings for LSTs. Seems the contractor got beliino,
and the Navy called us in to help out , so we will be doing quite a lot of
those before long.
Our big job of Maritime pumps is just starting to roll. The big shafts
will soon fold up. The welding shop will finish up the condensor ( for LST)
5144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the last of March, and so far we have no new contracts but are figur-
irlg on a few and have our fingers crossed. The two vertical boring mills
are tied up.for about seven months. The two big horizontals about 9
months., We are getting a new 48 x 48 x 16' 4-head Gray planer with new
1electric drive. Cost about $30,000.00. How about kickin in some of the
crap winnings?
I have before me the new Selective Service list, and it-is probable all
,.our married men in the age limit are going before long. Ain't it hell. You
sure would not feel at home in the old shop. I don't know half of them.
Well, Cheerio, and happy dais and good luck.
Sincerely,
(S) ADAM E BRIDGE.
P. S.-Take time out to write me and tell me frankly what you think' about
this union business. We have told the men that if 51% were for it that it
would be OK with us, but we thought every man should have the right to
vote, and you boys in the Service should have your right.
N. B.-I just showed this to Owings, and he says the trouble with this
letter is that I didn't make it strong enough.
A. E B.
Bridge had been in the habit of writing to the Company's employees who
were in the armed services but this was the first letter he sent them which
discussed unionization. The letter was dictated by Bridge, prepared in the
respondent's office by the respondent's employees, and mailed in respondent's
envelopes.
The letter came to the attention of the respondent's employees working in
the plant by reason of the fact that on February 26, 1944, one of the recipients,
home on furlough placed it on an employee's bench in the shop The letter-
was read in the plant by various machine operators and later a copy of it was
made and given to the Union's representative 6
About February 25, 1944, the respondent distributed to its employees a letter
of that date signed by Bridge. Bridge personally handed out about 25 copies
to employees at a change of shifts when the foreman was absent. The letter
is as follows :
2/25/44
It is our privilege to live in the United States of America, one of the
few remaining countries of the world where a large measure of freedom
still exists. In the last few days yon have seen your Congress rise in
rebellion over what they evidently thought was an attempt on the part of
your President to impose his will- upon the Congress This is a healthy
condition. As to whether the Congress or the President is right is aside
from the thought I have in mind-namely, that it is still possible, in this
country, for the peoples duly elected representatives to assert their power
and refuse to bow to the will of one man. This, I believe, is as it should
`be, for it is the very spirit of America. Ever since this country became
a nation it has been our policy to abide by the rule of the majority. This
is, of course, directly opposite the policy of dictatorship where one man
or a small group rules and imposes his or their will on the majority.
Every one of you men have been kind enough to talk with me'man to
man the question of union organization in this shop. In talking with you
I have expressed the view that if 51% of the shop employees by vote,
Credited testimony of Francis Kramer and Donald Harboen.
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 545"
desired union organization, your company would feel that it was entirely
in order. It does not, however, seem to be in either yours, your company's,
or your country's best interest to take any action wherein ill feeling might
be created between minority and majority groups in your shop. This is
war The Company and employees of this company have a job to do, and
that is to produce the best equipment and the most equipment in the least
possible time. This is our solemn duty, and in my opinion no one or no,
small group should take any action which does not reflect the will of the
majority Such action can not help but breed dissension among the shop
men and dissension and disunity does not tend toward the degree of
cooperation so necessary to attain maximum production which is needed
by your country.
Let us assume that in this organization of approximately 333 employees,
the operators of machines decide they wish to organize This, of course„
would be a minority group. Now we believe most men of draft age will
be called to the service of their country. This in turn means that we must
hire whoever we can get They may be communists, anarchists, or whatnot
We have to take what we can get. All right you younger men may have
gone to the services and in your place are these men. Can any of you
guarantee they would not strike? Can any of you guarantee they might
not walk off the job? I do not believe a strike could be called in this
place today or tomorrow or as long as we have our present group of
employees. I repeat, what of these new men? Are you 100% sure they
will feel about strikes as you do? Whose responsibility will it be if such
men would cause a strike? It is worth thinking about, and such a respon-
sibility should not, in time of war, rest lightly upon any man's mind. I
wish to make it plain I do not say it would happen. I say it can happen,
and if it should, a man who loves his country could not sleep if he had a
part in bringing about a condition where such a thing might occur.
This company was organized in 1896. In 48 years we have never had one
single solitary serious dispute with our employees I am proud of that
record I am proud that this company has had the name of being a good
place to work. During that period our employees have prospered and in
that connection I might call to your attention the fact that very very few
of our older men want to join-any union. Theirs is the voice of experience-
Theirs is the knowledge of faith that has come to them through many
years of dealings with your management. They should not be lightly
ignored.
Now we have machinists on the floor, in the repair gang, in the tool
room, and in the grinding room Are these men a part of the skilled
workers? Are they with justice to be excluded from any organization in
this shop? Does such an exclusion bear the earmarks of justice and fair
play? Is that the American way of doing things, or does it reflect the
methods of a Hitler? Is that Democracy or is it dictatorship?
Last week men came to me and said, "Adam, I don't know what to do.
They tell me if I don't go along I am going to lose my friends." One girl
was told she would have to join whether she wanted to or not. One man
told me he had been approached with this sort of thing: "Look here-you
are a new man. These soldiers are coming back, and you will have no job.
Let's organize and hold our jobs "
Men, did your company ever indulge" in tactics like that?
Yes, some men, we understand, were told that signing that card didn't
mean much, that they could quickly and easily get out of it. Well, read
628563-45-vol 60-36
.546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it over again, and I think you will get a rude shock. Now this is your
baby, your responsibility. Have no fear about losing friends. If that
would happen, you are better off without that sort of friendship. Decide
this thing according to your own conscience and not the other fellow's,
bearing in mind that if you have grievances, the doors to your front
office are open to you.
(S) ADAM E BRIDGE.
As noted above, Francis Kramer was one of the machine operators inter-
viewed by Bridge in the basement room on or shortly after February 15. Harry
Martin, assistant superintendent, directed him to see Bridge. Kramer was
active in the organizing efforts of the Union and was president of the local.
Before Kramer's interview, according to Iramer's undenied testimony, Martin
came to his machine and talked to him about the Union. His testimony as
to,this conversation is as follows:
He came out and said that if the Union came into the shop we would
lose all our privileges ; that we would have to get down at 7 and work
till 7 and we would only get 18 minutes out for lunch * * * we might
not get the vacation check after that. He said : You would have to stay
right at your machine and not walk around the shop any more.
It has been heretofore found L. G. Miracle, a machine operator, was inter-
viewed by Bridge in the basement room. His testimony *as undenied that
thereafter on or about February 21, he was visited at his machine by Martin
and his assistant, Taulbee, and that they asked him what he knew about the
Union. Another machine operator, Estal Rubal, testified to a conversation
with Martin after his interview with Bridge. According.to Rubal, Martin asked
him how he had got along in his interview with Bridge. Martin, in his testi-
mony, denied making such inquiry, but admitted that he had a conversation
with Rubal at his machine, and testified as follows with respect to what he
said to Rubal :
A. I talked to him about relations in general in our plant, the conditions
he -was working under, and that if he was contemplating making any kind
of a change in his own connection that he should get into whatever organi-
zation he' was considering and find out what good it might do -him, if any,
and consider thoroughly the benefits he had at present under the present
working conditions, and make sure he would improve himself with any
organization, and then make up his mind, which was better.
Q. Was that with reference to the Union organizing about that time?
A. I would say yes.
- The undersigned credits the testimony of Kramer, Miracle, and Rubal, and
finds that Martin made the statements testified to by them, and made the state-
ments to Rubal as he himself testified.
C. The respondent's contentions
The undersigned has heretofore found that Bridge's interviews with the ma-
chine operators in the basement room and at their machines and his speech to
the employees of the Welding Department related to the union membership or
interests of the employees talked to. The respondent's contention to the contrary
is therefore rejected. It is further contended, however, that any statements
made by Bridge to the machine operators or employees in the Welding Depart-
ment were expressions of opinion and privileged under the guarantee of the right
of free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 547
'The undersigned finds the contention to be without merit. The undersigned
:finds that the respondent's conduct in this respect amounted to pressure exerted
by the employer and constituted interference, restraint, and coercion .6 The
respondent's further contention that it has not been shown that the employees
actually changed their opinions or conduct because of Bridge's interviews and
talk is also rejected since, as has been pointed out, Bridge's conduct and state-
ments were of an interfering, restraining and coercive nature.'
The respondent contends that the letter of February 21, 1944, sent by Bridge
to the company's employees then in the Armed Services of the United States was
a personal letter from Bridge for which the respondent is not'responsible, was a
letter sent to persons no longer employees of the respondent, and'the statements
therein contained are privileged as expressions of opinion under the first amend-
ment to the Constitution within the principle of the American Tube Bending
Case.' The undersigned cannot agree with these contentions. The employees
to whom the letter was sent had not ceased to be employees of the respondent.
The Selective Service Act contemplates that employees who have left their work
to serve in the armed forces shall be returned to their former positions upon their
return from military service. The Board permits employees who are in the
military service to vote in elections for the determination of representatives to
act as bargaining agents. The Board regularly orders that employees who have
been discriminatorily discharged and who are now in the military service be
offered reinstatement upon their return to civilian status. The Board has issued
certifications of representatives subject to review when a sufficient number of
employees have returned from military service to make it probable that the
majority status of the certified representative has been altered.' It is clear from
the letter itself and from Bridge's statements to employees interviewed that the
respondent considered the men in military service as still being employees, in-
terested in the organizational efforts of the Union and entitled to vote on the
question of the selection of a bargaining agent. Under these circumstances it
can not be successfully contended that the letter was a personal communication
of Bridge to the employees. The letter does not come within the principle of the
American Tube Bending case. On its face it is not a temperate, unbiased expres-
sion of opinion In addition, it must be considered in connection with the acts
and statements of Bridge and Martin heretofore found to have constituted inter-
ference, restraint and coercion. Furthermore, the letter came to the attention of
the employees then working in the respondent's plant and the hostility of the
respondent to the Union, already indicated by the acts and statements of Bridge
and Martin, thereby was emphasized to such employees.
The respondent also contends that the letter of February 25, 1944, delivered
to the respondent's employees working in the plant, is protected by the same
right of freedom of speech. Under the principle of the American Tube Bending
case, this letter must be considered in connection with the letter of February 21
and the acts and statements of Bridge and Martin heretofore found to constitute
interference, restraint and coercion. When so considered it is clear that the
respondent's contention is without merit.
O N L. R. B . v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., 314 U. S. 469.
° Virginia Electric & Power Co. V. N L. R B , 319 U S 533; N L R B v John Englehorn
& Sons, 134 F. ( 2d) 553 (C. C. A. 3). Although under these decisions proof is unnecessary
that employees were, in fact , coerced in their views or actions , the record contains ample
evidence that Bridge ' s interviews and statements had that effect on certain of the employees,
including liarboen , Miracle and Rivers
ON. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. (2d) 993 ( C. C A. 2), cert den 320
U S 768.
°Matter of Toledo Bottler 's Assn, 56 N L. R. B 930
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned finds on the entire record that by the acts and statements
of Bridge and Martin, by the letters of February 21 and 25, 1944, and by the
,totality of such acts, statements and letters, the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in its Middletown, Ohio plant in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Sec-
tion III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation td
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore
as'nearly as possible the conditions which existed prior to the commission of the
unfair labor practices.
CONCLUSIONS OF -LAW
1. International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. 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 affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor practices are labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
0
Upon the basis of the above flndings , of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed , recommends that the respondent , Shartle Brothers Machine Company,
a corporation , Middletown , Ohio, and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organ-
ization of its employees , by questioning its employees as to their union affiliation,
their union activities or other union matters ; by urging , persuading, or warning
its said employees to refrain from aiding or becoming members of the Union ; by
disparaging or vilifying the Union or the Union 's leaders or organizers; by
threatening said employees with loss of privileges or wages if the Union becomes
their collective bargaining agent; by urging employees to postpone selection of
a bargaining agent until the conclusion of the war ; by disparaging the advantages
to be gained by membership in the Union ; by informing its employees that the
Union would never be successful in organizing them; by informing its employees
that it would prevent any successful organization of them by the Union; by
threatening to discharge union leaders or adherents ; and by stating to its
employees that it would grant Union recognition only to a union representing a
unit which is desired by the respondent ;
'SHARTLE BROTHERS MACHINE COMPANY 549
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join, or assist International Association of Machinists (A. F of L.)
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Middle-
town, Ohio, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive, days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating- that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereof; -
(b) Mail to each and every employee now in the armed services of the United
States to whom was mailed a copy of the letter of February 21, 1944, signed by
Adam E. Bridge, a copy of the notice recommended posted in its plant;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3-effective November 26, 1943-as
amended, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant
to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as lie relies upon, together with an original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director. As further provided in Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board request therefor must be
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
WILLIAM R. RINOEF
Trial Examiner.
Dated July 27, 1944.