Spranger Spring Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 751 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 751
holding a separate election among them. We shall therefore not direct
an election to determine whether they desire to become a part of the
unit herein found appropriate.,
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical employees, including engineering aids, senior and
junior engineering aids, design draftsmen A and B, detail draftsmen
A and B, model shop employees, senior and junior technical writers,
weather section field engineers, and development technicians, but ex-
cluding telemetry section field engineers, engineering expediters, repro-
duction room employees, keypunch operators, tabulating machine
operators, photographers, instrument technicians, system technicians,
technicians X, A, B, and C, production and maintenance employees,
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
5 Cf. Dierks Paper Company, 120 NLRB 290.
Spranger Spring Company and International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2741. August 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27, 1961, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate,
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
132 NLRB No. 46.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications : 2
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act by granting wage increases on May 12, 1960, to
7 of its 19 female production employees. We adopt this finding, but,
in so doing, rely particularly on the following considerations :
Plant Manager Guenther and President Spranger testified that the
purpose of the increase was to eliminate a source of discontent among
its female employees, and that this discontent was first brought
to Respondent's attention about a week before the increases were
granted. However, about the same time, the Respondent had rejected
requests of certain of its male employees for wage increases on the
ground that it could not afford to pay higher wages. This casts doubt
on the Respondent's claim that its only purpose in granting the
increase to the female employees was to remove a source of discontent.
The Respondent fails to explain why the discontent of its female
employees was of so much more concern to it than the discontent of
its male employees that, despite its allegedly straitened circumstances,
it took steps to allay such discontent while ignoring that of the male
employees. The Respondent contends that if its purpose had been to
combat union activity, it would logically have granted raises only to
its male employees, who, so far as appears from the record, had alone
shown any interest in the Union. However, even absent other evi-
dence, it is equally logical to infer that it was because of this very fact
that the Respondent singled out its female employees for raises. By
so doing the Respondent demonstrated not only that adherence to the
Union was not necessary to obtain better wages, but also that such ad-
herence by an employee would bar him from receiving benefits granted
to other employees.
In the context of the Respondent's hostility to the Union, as demon-
strated by the other violations of the Act in which Respondent is
found to have engaged, and in view of the vulnerability of the Re-
2 The Respondent points out that , in not crediting Plant Superintendent Poma's testi-
mony, the Trial Examiner stressed the implausibility of certain testimony by Poma that
his interrogation of employees about the Union stemmed from his concern over a report
that his name had been "turned down" by the Union The Trial Examiner reasoned that
this explanation was implausible because Poma , a supervisor , could have had no interest
in joining , and had in fact made no attempt to join, the Union and therefore could not
have been disturbed by the foregoing report. The Respondent asserts that this reasoning
is based on a misconstruction of the phrase "turned down" as used by the witnesses, and
that the witnesses meant, not that the Union had rejected Poma as a prospective mem-
ber, but that Poma 's name had been "turned in ," that is reported , to the Union because
of his oppressive conduct as a supervisor , and that Poma was justifiably concerned about
this As the record is not clear on this point, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's con-
struction of the disputed phrase. However , in view of the other grounds cited by the
Trial Examiner for not crediting Poma, we do not believe that reversal of the Trial
Examiner ' s credibility findings generally as to Poma is warranted Nor do we find suffi-
cient basis in the record for modifying any of the Trial Examiner ' s other credibility find-
ings , as urged by the Respondent.
The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record , including
the exceptions and brief , adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of the parties
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 753
spondent's explanations for its action, we find, as did the Trial Exam-
iner, that the Respondent's purpose in granting the wage increase
of May 12 was to discourage union activity, and that the Respondent
thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Spranger Spring
Company, Warren, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Iin-
plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate, or by
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or any
other term or condition of employment, of any of its employees.
(b) Announcing or granting wage increases calculated to discour-
age union membership or activity, coercively interrogating its em-
ployees as to union membership or activities, or threatening employees
that its plant will close because of union membership or activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(b) Make whole- Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against them, as provided in the section of the Intermediate
Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Warren, Michigan, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." 3 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Seventh
Region, shall, upon being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
'This notice shall be amended by substituting the words "A Decision and Order" for
the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner." In the event that this Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for
the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , in which the parties were represented and afforded full oppor-
tunity to participate , to argue orally, and to file briefs, was heard in Detroit , Michi-
gan, on August 10 and 11 , 1960, upon a duly issued complaint and notice of hearing
of the General Counsel , dated June 16, 1960, and a duly filed answer of Spranger
Spring Company , the Respondent 'herein , both the complaint and the answer having
been twice amended at the hearing. The issues litigated were whether or not the
Respondent , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act, discriminatorily discharged Edward Cackow-
ski and Adam Kreuzwieser about April 28, 1960, and also has, since about March 1,1
interfered with , restrained, and coerced its employees by three separately enumerated
and later-described types of alleged 8(a) (1) violations . At the close of the hearing,
the parties , preferring to rely on briefs, waived oral argument . The General Counsel
and the Respondent have subsequently filed able briefs, which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Spranger Spring Company, a Michigan corporation having its principal place of
business and its manufacturing plant in Warren , Michigan, is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale , and distribution of mechanical springs and related products . During
the year ending December 31 , 1959 , the Respondent , in the course and conduct of
its business operations , purchased , transferred , and delivered to its Warren plant,
steel nand other goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000. Of the aforesaid,
goods and materials valued in excess of $50 ,000 were transported to said plant
directly from States of the United States other than the State of Michigan. In its
operations during the same calendar year, the Respondent manufactured , sold, and
distributed products valued in excess of $50 ,000. Of the aforesaid, products valued
in excess of $50 ,000 were shipped from its Warren plant directly to States of the
1 When this year is omitted in a date, it will be understood to be 1960.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 755
United States other than the State of Michigan. It is stipulated that the Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and I find that it will effectuate
the policies thereof to assert jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is admittedly a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Union admits to membership employees
of the Respondent's plant in Warren, Michigan.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2
A. The setting and the issues
Albert Spranger is the founder, the owner, and the president of Spranger Spring
Company, herein sometimes referred to as the Respondent and sometimes as the
Company. It was in 1949 that Spranger, having worked for 241/2. years for Barnes-
Gibson-Raymond, Inc., left his position there as one of its foremen, and founded
the Respondent, which Spranger characterized as "only a small company," but
one which makes the "same type of springs" and is now competitive "product for
product" with the larger company for which Spranger formerly worked. Closely
associated with Spranger in running his plant are Hans Guenther, the plant manager,
and Peter Poma, the plant superintendent .3 It has been "close into ten years" that
Poma has worked for Spranger, who is of German extraction, while Guenther
"came from Germany seven years ago." Poma "got his training at Precision Spring
Company in Detroit," but President Spranger "personally trained" Guenther in
the "spring business."
While the Respondent's plant is small, it has been gradually growing. For in-
stance, when Guenther started in 1953, there were 28 to 30 employees, in contrast
to the 35 to 40 employees in the plant at the present time, exclusive of office em-
ployees. Some of the employees have had many years of service, as it has been
Respondent's practice to retain employees and not to lay off employees even during
slack seasons? The plant works two shifts, all the employees being on the first
shift except approximately 12 who work on the second shift.
The two complainants herein, Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser, both
worked on the first shift, and both were hired personally by Spranger. Cackowski,
whom Spranger had known for some time when they had both worked for Barnes-
Gibson-Raymond, Inc., was persuaded by Spranger in 1952 to come to work for
the Respondent, with what Cackowski believed were assurances that his remunera-
tion and working conditions would keep pace with what they would be had he
remained with Barnes-Gibson-Raymond, Inc., where Cackowski had worked for 16
years. Kreuzwieser was hired in 1956, when Spranger "needed a man bad" for work
as a machinist. Spranger, who "liked [Kreuzwieser's] work, his way of talking
and everything else," and who believed he could not "find a better man to do the
2 Where there is essentially no conflict in the evidence , or where the preponderance of
the credible evidence is so clear as to make details unnecessary, testimony relied on in
making findings often will not be identified. By contrast, where the evidence is flatly
contradictory or there is essential inconsistency therein, as frequently happens in this
case, usually salient evidence will be summarized and my principal reasons for resolu-
tions will be stated. What follows does not purport, however, to expound fully the
record, the contentions of the parties, or my reasons for reaching resolutions and con-
clusions Nevertheless, the parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, find-
ings, and conclusions herein, all of the evidence has been carefully reviewed; relevant
cases have been studied ; and each of the contentions advanced has been duly weighed, even
though not specifically discussed
s While the complaint and some of the General Counsel's witnesses referred to Poma as
foreman, Spranger, from whose testimony the quotations in the above paragraph are all
taken, and Poma himself, both testified that he is the plant superintendent. Moreover
Poma, who has foremen working under him, testified that he is in charge of "all of the
production activities of the plant" and issues orders "to all the employees throughout
the whole plant." From the record as a whole, I am satisfied that Poma's functions are
actually those of plant superintendent rather than merely those of a foreman, and that
Poma functions in close cooperation with Guenther and Spranger. Hence Poma will
throughout be referred to as superintendent rather than as foreman
* Spranger testified that he does not "believe in firing" or in "having people leave" him.
614913G2-vol 132-49
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rough work," hired 'Kreuzwieser, feeling that he would "have loved to make some-
thing out of him" by training him to become a toolmaker. As will later be more
fully explained in connection with discussing the respective discharges of Cackowski
and Kreuzwieser, it is evident that with the passage of time , Cackowski, on the one
hand, became dissatisfied with what he felt was failure of conditions with the Re-
spondent to live up to expectations, while Spranger, on the other hand, was dis-
appointed shortly after hiring Kreuzwieser with Kreuzwieser' s failure to live up to
expectations as a toolmaker trainee.
During February 1960, there was some discussion among employees of the Re-
spondent about "organizing 'a union." On March 3, a group of those employees
"went to Local 155 and there contacted" Martin Kruse, an International representative
of the Union. This group, which included Edward Cackowski, asked Kruse "how to
go about organizing a union.", Kruse then, as Cackowski credibly testified, "in-
structed us in organizing," and Cackowski thereupon "signed a card at that time."
During the organizational drive which then began in early March, there was fur-
ther discussion of the Union among employees at the plant .5 In addition, on several
occasions outside of the plant between shifts, International Representative Kruse
handed out union literature ad application cards which could be signed and mailed
into the Union. On one such occasion in March, Kreuzwieser, as he credibly testified,
took an application from Kruse and "filled it out and sent it into the union."
That the Respondent knew of the Union's organizational campaign while it was
taking place is established by admissions of the Respondent's own witnesses. For
'instance, Manager Guenther eventually admitted, on cross-examination, that when
he had "happened to walk out of the door" of the plant sometime in March, Kruse
handed him "a little post card" to be signed "in case you would join the union." 6
Moreover,' Superintendent Porna, who "couldn't give you the date," testified that
he had seen union literature passed out on the sidewalk in front of the plant around
3 o'clock in the afternoon "several times." In addition, Thomas Johnston, the
Respondent's purchasing agent, testified that once, around the period from February
to ray 1, 1960, he had noticed some people passing out pamphlets outside of the
plant at quitting time , and that whenever he, Spranger, and Guenther "were talking
about union," it would be brought out that their product was so "competitive" that
any fringe benefits or "any additional costs would make it almost prohibitive to stay
in business."
We turn now from the setting to a chronological presentation of the primary issues
,*in this case. The complaint alleges and the answer denies that, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Respondent, by its supervisors and agents, Peter Poma
and Hans Guenther, (1) interrogated its employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, and desires,, and the union membership, activities, and desires of their
fellow employees, and (2) warned its employees that the plant would be closed if
they did not refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or giving
any assistance or support to it. The interrelated evidence as to conversations with
employees relating to the foregoing two allegations covers the period from early
March to early May 1960, and will be considered together in the next section of this
report.
On April 28, 1960, at the end of the first shift, Superintendent Poma terminated
the employment of Edward Cackowski, explaining only to Cackowski that he seemed
to be "unhappy." Poma also terminated the employment of Adam Kreuzwieser at
the end of the first shift on April 28, giving Kreuzwieser no explanation for doing so.
The complaint alleges that on the aforesaid date, the Respondent discharged Cackow-
ski and Kreuzwieser, and has since refused to reinstate them, because said employees
"joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other Union activity or concerted activ-
ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection." The
answer admits that Cackowski and Kreuzweiser "were discharged" on April 28 and
have since been refused reinstatement, but avers that said discharges were for "good
cause" not related to union activities and not violative of the Act. During the pres-
entation of the Respondent's case, counsel for the Respondent explained on the
record the reasons for the respective discharges.
The reasons thus given for the discharge of Cackowski are essentially that, follow-
5 Having considered all of the evidence pertaining thereto, I do not rely, in making
findings which follow, on Cackowski's testimony that Poma "was within hearing distance
a number of times as we were discussing the union," although I do not doubt that
Cackowskl, so believed
8 Guenther had earlier testified that "the first thing [he] heard about union activity in
the• shop" was on April 28, "in the afternoon, about four o'clock," after Spranger. had
received a telephone call from the Union protesting the discharges of Cackowski and
Kreuzwieser, which occurred earlier that afternoon.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 757
ing a meeting when his duties were defined, the nature of Cackowski's work and of
his attitude were "steadily declining"; that Cackowski was complaining about not
receiving more money; that "his morale would affect the morale of the rest of the
people in the plant"; that Cackowski made such "an issue of certain promises"
which he erroneously attributed to Spranger that Guenther and Spranger decided that
Cackowski "was no good for the company, the company was no good for him"; and
that Cackowski's discharge "had nothing to [do] with lack of work."
Respecting Kreuzwieser's discharge, three reasons, inefficiency, insubordination,
and lack of work, are assigned, and are stated more fully as follows:
No. 1, that he could not do the work which was assigned to him;
No. 2, he would not follow orders of his superior, Mr. Poma;
No. 3, that he had finished the work that he was doing and there was no
further work for him to do.
Not long after the discharges, Manager Guenther, with the approval of President
Spranger, interviewed each of the remaining employees individually in his office .7
These interviews varied from individual to individual and in some instances included
explanations by Guenther as to why Cackowski and Kreuzwieser had been terminated;
inquiries by him as to why employees were dissatisfied or unhappy; and questions
of some women employees as to their feelings about differences in their wage rates.
It is not contended that said interviews, as such, constituted unfair labor practices,
but rather that during some of them Guenther made threats concerning the closing
of the plant. These interviews also are background with respect to action taken on
May 12, shortly after Guenther completed said interviews. That action, whereby the
pay of some women employees was increased, is alleged as violative of Section
8 (a)( I) of the Act, in that thereby the Respondent "announced and granted a wage
increase to its female employees for the purpose of discouraging their engaging in
union or concerted activities." It is the Respondent's contention, in its brief, that
said increases, which were granted to only part of the women in its employ, were
decided on as "a wage equalization among the female employees," inasmuch as "a
good deal of jealousy and unrest" among the women employees had developed be-
cause their rate differentials did not correspond to their length of service.
Keeping in mind the foregoing setting and the interrelated issues, we turn first to
the allegations as to interrogation and threats.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Interrogation and threats
a. The facts
The record contains evidence as to numerous conversations between admitted
agents of the Respondent and various employees called as witnesses by the General
Counsel. Having examined with care all of said evidence and the contentions per-
taining thereto, I believe that .there are some conversations too peripheral to warrant
discussion and that others warrant little more than passing reference. Of the various
conversations deemed material on the matters now under consideration, the largest
number involve Superintendent Poma, all of which occurred prior to the discharges
on April 28. There is also one discussion involving President Spranger which like-
wise took place before the discharges. The remainder of the discussions involve
Manager Guenther and took place subsequent to the discharges, during his above-
mentioned talks with employees individually. Since it would too greatly protract this
report to go into all of the details pertaining to these discussions, various details are
omitted. We begin with the discussions involving Superintendent Poma.
Wilbur Elliott, an asistant foreman who has worked for the Respondent for 9
years,8 testified that on two or three occasions, after union activity had started and
prior to the discharges, Peter Poma talked with him. Elliott further testified that on
those occasions Poma mentioned that he had "an idea of a couple of employees who
had signed cards," and that Poma said that "the company couldn't afford to have a
7 Guenther's explanation for so doing was that he asked Spranger if he should "talk to
them so they are not afraid or worried about their jobs or being laid off," because "a few
fellows" were asking him "why Eddy was laid off and what kind of security they had in
the shop," and because "a few girls" were coming to him about differences in their rates
of pay.
8 The parties at the hearing agreed that Elliott is not a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. Hence he is treated herein as a rank-and-file employee.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union" and that "Spranger might close the shop if there was such a thing , because he
couldn't operate on the necessary wage increases." 9
When first asked, on direct examination by counsel for the Respondent , whether
he had ever discussed "this business of union affiliation or union activity" with Elliott,
Poma replied , "I think I did once. I brought it up to him." Poma then testified
that he asked Elliott "what he thought about unions," and that when Elliott did not
answer, he told Elliott , "They're foolish . For a small plant like this, trying to get )a
union in here." Poma denied ever saying to Elliott that he had "an idea who the
organizers of the union were," but he was not asked whether he had said anything
about Spranger closing the plant if the Union got in . 10 Poma later insisted that, dur-
ing his conversation with Elliott and with other employees soon to be discussed, what
he actually "was interested in" was why his name had been "turned down" by the
Union . According to Poma, on one occasion , Adam Kreuzwieser told him, "Your
name is turned down at the union hall," but would not tell him why. It was Pomla's
repeated contention, during his testimony, that his true motive in discussing the Union
with employees was to find out why his name had been turned down.
Despite Poma's insistence that he did not "give a darn" if employees belonged to
the Union; that he was not interested in finding out about such things and "never
would tell" Spranger or Guenther ; that he "pitched in just like an ordinary fellow" in
work such as loading trucks; and that he was "just like one of them"; I am not per-
suaded , in view of the actual nature of Poma's duties and responsibilities," that
Superintendent Poma's allegiance during the Union's campaign at the Respondent's
plant was to the employees , rather than to management. Moreover, 'I see no reason
why Poma could reasonably believe that his name had been submitted to and turned
down by the Union , whatever Kreuzwieser may have said . Certainly Poma would
not fall within any normal unit which the Union might claim, nor does he profess
to have applied for membership in the Union . And finally , in contrast with Poma's
unconvincing testimony on this matter, the testimony which Elliott , who I am con-
vinced was not antagonistic to the Respondent, gave was persuasive . Accordingly,
I find that the above-quoted testimony of Elliott correctly states the nature of his
conversations with Poma upon two or three occasions prior to the discharges.
Joseph Hendrickson, a torsion setup operator who has worked for the Respondent
since 1952, had three conversations with Poma . The first occurred in March, when
Poma came to Hendrickson and asked him if he had been to the meeting at the union
hall. When Hendrickson replied that he did not know anything about such a meet-
ing, Poma said that "yesterday they had a meeting down there ." On the second
occasion , Poma came to Hendrickson when he was running his machine and asked
him "if Harry was in on it ." 12 Hendrickson replied that he did not know. Poma
then asked "was Willy in on it ," referring to the above-mentioned Wilbur Elliott.
Hendrickson again told Poma that he did not know and that he "never discussed union
activities or anything with the guys ." Continuing to question Hendrickson as to
"who was in on the union ," Poma mentioned "a few more names" which Hendrickson
did not recall and concerning which he replied that he "didn't know who was in on it."
During a third conversation, which occurred some 2 or 3 weeks after the first one,
but before Cackowski and Kreuzwieser were discharged , Superintendent Poma told
Hendrickson , "I know who's instigating all the people in the shop . Eddy and Adam."
Hendrickson said that he did not "know if they are or not." 13
9 Elliott also testified credibly that in a casual conversation John Klebba "just men-
tioned" that it would be "a shame that some of the good people in the shop would be
hurt if Mr . Spranger should have to close the shop down ." While the evidence indicates
that Klebba is a foreman , his name does not appear in the complaint , and the Respondent
did not call him as a witness . I do not believe that the record as a whole warrants my
holding that this matter was fully litigated Hence I do not pass on the question of
whether the foregoing remark , assuming it was made by Klebba, was violative of the Act
10 On this point , it is noteworthy that the testimony of the Respondent 's purchasing
agent, Thomas Johnston , shows that Spranger told him, after Spranger had received a
telephone call from the Union following the discharge of the complainants , that "he was
afraid that maybe they would have to close the plant down if the union came in."
According to Johnston, Spranger also said that "it would be hard to meet competition if
we had to raise wages "
11 See footnote 3, supra , and the text at that point.
Is The reference was to Harry Kreuzwieser, the son of Adam Ireuzwieser.
18 The above findings as to the three conversations are made upon careful scrutiny of
the entire testimony of Hendrickson , who was recalled to the stand to give his testimony
as to the second of these conversations Hendrickson impressed me as a truthful witness,
and I find his testimony as a whole essentially consistent . I do not credit Poma's denials
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 759
Around the middle of April, Edward Dudek had two conversations with Super-
intendent Poma.14 On the first occasion, Poma asked Dudek if he "knew what was
going on ," and told Dudek that "all on account of a couple of guys Mr. Spranger was
going to sell everything and close up his shop." Poma asked Dudek if he "knew who
they were." Dudek replied, "I don't know and I don't want to lose my job." Shortly
thereafter, on an "occasion when Adam was talking to" Dudek, Poma came up to
Dudek "after he finished" and asked Dudek what Kreuzwieser had said. Dudek told
Poma that they "were talking about a car that Eddy bought."
We turn next to some conversations which Poma had with Adam Kreuzwieser
and with Lilian Budnick, one of the Respondent's women employees who has worked
at the plant for about 9 years and who does "all sorts of work." During one of these
conversations, Poma talked with Budnick and Kreuzwieser together; the other con-
versations were with them individually. The findings which follow as to these con-
versations are made upon my analysis of the testimony of Budnick, Kreuzwieser, and
Poma. Generally speaking, Budnick impressed me as a truthful witness, and I credit
the testimony of Kreuzweiser on matters now under consideration. To the extent
that Poma's testimony is inconsistent with the accepted testimony of Budnick and
Kreuzwieser, Poma's testimony is not credited.15
Not long after the union campaign got under way, Kreuzwieser, who had been told
by his son that Poma was accusing him of organizing the Union in the plant, went to
Poma and asked Poma why he was so accusing him.16 Poma denied having made
such an accusation, but wanted to know who "was the organizer of the shop." Kreuz-
wieser said that he would not tell him. Poma told Kreuzwieser that he "would know
it anyhow," and that if the Union "ever gets in the shop," the Company "would close
the shop." Kreuzwieser told Poma that he had "filled out the application and sent it in
to the union," and that he was "for the union."
Kreuzwieser's second conversation in Poma's office occured about 3 weeks before
his discharge, when Poma called in both Kreuzwieser and Budnick Esssentially
Poma told the two employees when he had them together in his office that he had
called them there because they were talking too much to each other, and since each
was blaming the other one, he wanted "to know who started the conversation." 17
Kreuzwieser and Budnick insisted, in essence, that they were just talking to each other
as they had always done since they had known each other at the plant, and that they
were not talking "about the union or anyobdy else." During the course of the con-
versation, the three eventually "talked about the union." Kreuzwieser told Poma, "We
have a right to organize the union. It's the law." Poma said that he knew that, and
"wanted to know how many members" they had. Kreuzwieser told him they "had
quite a few," but Poma "wouldn't believe that." At one point Poma asked, "What
that he asked Hendrickson whether he had attended a meeting or that he ever told him
that Cackowski and Kreuzwieser, often referred to in the record as "Eddy and Adam,"
were the instigators. Nor do I credit Poma's general explanation of said conversations as
arising out of his asking Hendrickson what he thought of "some people turning my name
down at the union hall."
14 Findings which follow as to these conversations are made on credited testimony of
Dudek, who placed the first conversation as on an occasion when he was making up a few
hours he had lost by taking off time on April 11 to take his wife to the hospital, and the
second conversation as about 2 weeks before the discharges Poma's testimony that his
discussion with Dudek was "the same thing" as with Elliott and Hendrickson, about his
"name being turned down at the union," is not credited.
11 Some of the testimony of Budnick and Kreuzwieser on these discussions is not
specifically contradicted by Poma, whose general explanation of conversations has already
been given, and who explained his joint conference with Budnick and Kreuzwieser as
resulting from their spending too much time talking to each other That joint discussion
took place the day following a talk between President Spranger and Budnick to be dis-
cussed later
1e What Kreuzwieser had been told unmistakably was hearsay, and was permitted to
stand only "as background to show why" Kreuzwieser went to Poma, not to establish that
such an accusation had been made. Kreuzwieser placed the first of two conversations
with Poma as a month before the second one, and the second as 3 weeks before his
discharge
17 It appears from Budnick's testimony that she had been talking that day for a while at
her machine in the plant with Poma before she and Kreuzwieser were called into Poma's
office. Poma had, during that earlier discussion, told Budnick essentially that she should
not have said anything to Kreuzwieser as, "Adam's blaming you for everything" All
quotations in the above paragraph but the last two, which are from Budnick's testimony,
are from credited testimony of Kreuzwleser.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if Mr . Spranger should go ahead and sell out?" Budnick relied , "Adam and I and
everybody is going to be without a job." 18
The day before Poma 's talk with Budnick and Kreuzwieser jointly in his office,
Poma had told Budnick , as she was starting home, that Spranger wanted to see her.
Budnick thereupon went to President Spranger 's office , where Spranger asked her
"what was the matter"; "why the people were unhappy" ; and "what was going on."
Budnick said that she did not know , and Spranger said that he thought things were
not like they should be. At one point , Budnick asked Spranger why she had been
called to the office , and explained that Poma had said that it was because she and
Adam were talking . Budnick added that she had "talked to Adam since I've known
him" and also "talked to everybody ." At another point, while seeking to find out
"what was going on," Spranger asked , "Was Eddy ever involved in anything like
this?" Budnick told Spranger that she "wouldn 't be a squealer," that she never
had been and "never intended to be." Sometime during their discussion , which also
included some "talking about personal matters," Budnick told Spranger that "the
girls were always asking" why they did not "get a raise" and why Budnick was
"getting more money than they were." Spranger said that he could not afford to
raise wages . And "then after a while ," Spranger told Budnick that he had "worked
hard for everything" that he had and that he would "work and fight to the finish to
keep what" he had.10
There remains for presentation the threats allegedly made early in May to certain
employees by Gruenther during his series of individual discussions . It will be re-
called that after April 28, when the Respondent discharged Cackowski and Kruez-
wieser, and before May 12, when it increased the rates of pay of some of its women
employees , Guenther talked to each of the employees in his office . The setting and
general nature of these talks and of Guenther 's explanation for them already have
sufficiently been stated . 20 Hence we will proceed with discussions which appear to
be in issue . Four employees were involved , three of whom have previously been
mentioned.
During Manager Guenther 's discussion with employee Joseph Hendrickson, which
involved "mostly just personal things" and included an explanation that "Eddy was
laid off because he was unhappy with his job , and Adam was laid off because he
wouldn 't take orders from Bob ," Guenther said to Hendrickson , "Well, if the union
came in here and we had to pay union scales, we just wouldn 't be able to make a go
of it and we 'd have to close the doors." 21
With respect to the interview with employee Edward Dudek, after Guenther
asked Dudek if he "was happy ," and Dudek told Guenther that be was, Guenther
>e The last two quotations are from Budnick 's testimony on direct examination When
asked by counsel for the Respondent , on cross-examination , whether Poma had told her
that "if a union came in that the plant was going to close ," Budnick convincingly replied,
"That's for sure." I am satisfied from Budnick ' s testimony as a whole that she understood
Poma's question during the above discussion as a threat to close the plant It should be
noted that I do not credit Poma's testimony that all that was said during the above dis-
cussion about the Union was the following colloquy.
I says, "Adam , about that what you told me here a while back , you're kidding "
And he says , "Oh, no, your name is turned down there " And I says , "But why'?"
Moreover , particularly in view of the conversation next to be discussed , which had taken
place the preceding day between Spranger and Budnick , I do not credit Poma's further
testimony that he "never did" report the above conversation to either of his superiors,
Spranger or Guenther But before turning to that conversation involving President
Spranger , a further conversation between Poma and Budnick is worthy of mention Per-
haps an hour before quitting time on the day involved , Budnick told Poma that she
"would like to be off" because she wanted " to go to the bank." Poma asked whether it
was "to the bank or to the union hall" that she wished to go. Budnick told Poma, "If I
want to go to the union hall I would tell you so."
19 The above findings as to this conversation between the president of the Respondent
and one of its older employees in point of service , which evidently occurred some 3 weeks
before "Eddy and Adam" were discharged , are made upon my analysis of convincingly
given and not specifically contradicted testimony of Budnick , who explained at the be-
ginning of her testimony on this discussion that Spranger "made it quite clear" that the
word "union" was not to be used.
20 See footnote 7, above, and the paragraph in which it appears
21 The above findings are made on credited testimony of Hendrickson , which was not
specifically contradicted . The Bob referred to was Bob Kempf, whose relation to the
Respondent 's contentions as to Kreuzwleser 's discharge will subsequently be discussed.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY, 761
explained to Dudek that "Eddy was laid off because he was unhappy," 22 and that
Dudek "didn't have to worry" about his job as he "would be still working there."
Guenther also told Dudek that he "didn't want any one to tell him what to do" and
that "they couldn't afford to pay top rates.,' 23
During the course of Guenther's interview with employee Lilian Budnick, they
"sort of made up" with respect to some "little differences" which they had had for
years. Guenther told Budnick that "it was a bad thing that happened but it just
couldn't be helped, it just couldn't keep on," and Budnick replied that she could
not see "why Adam and Eddy were laid off because they were good workers."
Guenther also said, "What if Mr. Spranger should sell out?" Budnick replied, "You
will be out of a job the same as I Will." 24
Essentially the following transpired. when Guenther talked with Frank Tuma-
vitch, an employee of the Company since 1952. At the outset, Guenther told Tuma-
vitch that he would "like to see this place happy," and would like "to know what
was causing it" so that he could "get to the bottom of it." Guenther then explained
that he had let Eddy and Adam go because "Eddy was unhappy with his work and
Adam couldn't get along with Bob Kempf." About "ten seconds" later, Guenther
"came up" with this statement:
I think I got to the bottom of who started this union. 'It stands to reason.
The minute I left Eddy and Adam go, fifteen minutes later the union called
up Mr. Spranger.25
Thereafter, Tumavitch explained to Guenther in some detail why, in view of his
family responsibilities and his long service, he would, be "a little happier" if he could
be given "a little raise." Guenther thereupon told Tumavitch:
We can't afford to give a raise and we can't afford ,to have a union here; and
if a union comes in here we'll just have to close up. We can't operate. Right
now, with the business we're getting in, we can't operate. The only reason
we're operating is to keep the people busy 25
b. Conclusions as to interrogation and threats
It is my considered opinion that the foregoing recital of facts as to these interviews
with employees by Superintendent Poma, Manager Guenther, and President Spranger
so clearly establishes a pattern of interrogation and threats by the Respondent's top
management that any detailed analysis of said conversations to determine what parts
thereof may have been permissible would serve no useful purpose 27
23 Dudek thought that it was also explained that "there was no work for Adam," but
that Guenther did not "mention anything about Adam not getting along with Kempf."
23 The above findings are made on credited testimony of Dudek, despite testimony by
Guenther that he did not tell Dudek that "the company didn't want any union around
there to tell them what to do."
24 The above findings are made on credited testimony of Budnick, despite Guenther's
testimony that he did not think they "even talked about" union membership or activities.
25 The above reference was to the call which Spranger received on the afternoon of
April 28, shortly after the discharges During that call, as the testimony of Johnston
shows, the Union 'took the position that the Respondent "had let Cackowski and
Kreuzwieser go because they were organizing the shop." It also appears, from the testi-
mony as a whole concerning Guenther's interviews with the employees, that such a feel-
ing was widely enough shared by employees that Guenther felt it desirable to reassure
employees as to their job security.
2e The findings in the above paragraph are made on convincingly given testimony of
Tumavitch, part of which is not specifically contradicted. Guenther denied saying that
"if a union comes into the plant we will close up," and testified that what he said was
that he did not know how the Company could operate and meet its bills under competitive
conditions, or what the outcome would be, if the Company had to increase wages. Guenther
also testified that in talking with Tumavitch about the Union, he told Tumavitch that he
believed "as much in the idea as he does." But Guenther also testified that he could not
believe or see why Cackowski and Kreuzwieser would join the Union because "we would
try to do everything possible for our people." Guenther further testified that he told
Tumavitch that the first he had heard "anything about a union" was when Spranger had
told him that "Kruse from the union called him and told him" about Cackowski and
Kreuzwieser having gone to Kruse about being laid off for union activity. To the extent
that Guenther's testimony is not consistent with that of Tumavitch, said testimony is
not credited
21 Much permissible discussion already has been omitted.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To be sure, as the Respondent urges in its brief, Section 8(c) of the Act and
numerous Board and court decisions reserve to an employer the right to present
views, argument, and opinion and to make predictions. But granting that the
Respondent was genuinely concerned about the possible impact on its financial situ-
ation of any increase in costs which might be entailed in meeting any union demands,
the blunt way in which some of the questions and statements about closing the plant
if the Union came in were put to some employees cannot be excused as mere "pre-
dictions," or as permissible. expression of views, argument, or opinion. Such expres-
sions were rather, for the most part, tantamount to threats that the plant would be
closed if the Union succeeded in its organizational campaign,28 and I am convinced
that at least some employees so understood.
As to the interrogation, some of it was so clearly outside of any permissible
bounds laid down by the line of Board decisions, beginning with Blue Flash,29 that
even standing alone, some of the more pointed interrogation can scarcely be explained
away as not coercive. But since the interrogation in the instant matter does not
stand alone, but is unmistakably part of a pattern of conduct directed not only to
finding out who was responsible for the union activity in the plant, but also to block-
ing said activity, it is my considered judgment that said interrogation need not be
examined to segregate parts which might be considered noncoercive.
And finally, the coercive nature of the interrogation and threats in the case at bar,
especially when considered in the full context of matters yet to be discussed, is not
in any way mitigated by the fact that the record fails to show that the Respondent
engaged in various other types of coercive activity, such as espionage, surveillance,
or blacklisting, to mention a few of the matters referred to as not being present in
the Respondent's brief. Accordingly, in the light of the record as a whole, I find
that the Respondent, by the foregoing pattern of interrogation and threats, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights in
violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 30
2. Wage increases to women employees
The fact that the Respondent increased the pay of some of its women employees
on May 12, 1960, has earlier been noted, as have some of the circumstances related
thereto, and the basic contentions of the parties with respect to said increases.31 It
will be recalled that the increases in issue were granted shortly after Manager
Guenther completed his individual interviews with all of the employees.
Guenther testified that he first learned about "this jealousy and this trouble
among the girls" with respect to wage differences when two employees, Joe Hendrick-
son and Marie Novak, invited him to "have a drink" with them one night at "the
Social Bar which is across the street" from the plant. According to Guenther, on that
occasion, about a week after the discharges, "that girl having a few drinks told [him]
about it." Guenther also testified that during his discussion with "the ladies individ-
ually [he] got to the bottom of all the fighting and argument" among them with
respect to wages, and that he thereupon, "in order to have everybody happy," went
to President Spranger with a proposal to pay the women employees on the basis of
their length of service, graduated upward by 2-year periods, with a top rate of 1.65
per hour, which was then the Respondent's highest pay for women in the plant.
President Spranger testified that prior to learning from Guenther about the situ-
Is While Guenther's statement to Dudek, that he did not want anyone telling him what
to do. shows that he did not want the Union in the plant, I find no threat in that particular
interview that the plant would be closed However, earlier Poma had clearly made just
such a threat to Dudek. Also in total context, I believe that what Guenther had to say
to Tumavitch ,must be viewed realistically as tantamount to a threat to close the plant if
the Union organized it.
29 See Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591. All credibility factors duly con-
sidered, I am convinced that no legitimate purpose was communicated to the employees in
the instant matter and that they were not assured that no reprisals would be taken.
Moreover, this interrogation obviously did not occur against a background free of em-
ployer hostility to the Union
$0I have decided to put this finding on a pattern basis only after having given various
cases involving such problems careful consideration. See M. Yoseph Bag Company, 128
NLRB 211 But compare Walton Manufacturing Company, 124 NLRB 1331, 1333, 1334.
It is noteworthy that there are no separate "incidents of interrogation alleged in the
complaint" in the instant matter, or of threats either.
ss See footnote 7, supra, and the paragraph in the text in which it occurs
r
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 763
ation, he had had no knowledge that women working an equal number of years were
being paid different rates, and that he "was feeling kind of bad about it, that anything
ever could happen that way." -Spranger also testified that he decided to do "something
about it right away," and that he told Guenther that he should "try to put it up so
all of them benefit through" their years of experience, with the oldest employees in
point of service "on top." When asked by counsel for the Respondent whether he
had given "this equalization to the ladies" as a benefit so that "they would not engage
in union activity,"'Spranger replied:
I never thought of that angle at all. I only felt bad that it happened and was
that way; and I thought I could do something about it right away. I didn't
have no union or anything in mind on that, only myself and my people.
Whether is was Guenther or Spranger who first proposed the wage scale for
women based on length of service, it is clear that such a scale actually was decided
on and made effective on May 12, and that the 19 women employed by the Company
in the plant were so informed at a meeting that same day which was held in the
plant. At this meeting, according to Lilian Budnick, who was one of those already
receiving $1 65 an hour and hence did not get an increase in pay, Guenther explained
the plan and stated that he was giving the raises at that time because "all the girls"
were talking about it and "that was his best solution to keep everybody in peace. "
My analysis of essentially consistent and supplementary testimony of Guenther
and Budnick thereon indicates that the wage scale put into effect for women plant
employees on May 12 was as follows: from employment up to 2 years' service, $1.50
per hour; from 2 up to 4 years, $1.55; from 4 up to 6 years, $1 60; and from 6 to 8
years and beyond $1.65-the maximum. To conform the wages being received at
that time to the newly established scale. Guenther announced increases of 5 cents
per hour to each of five women, and of 10 cents per hour to two other women.32
Thus 7 of the Respondent's 19 women employees received increases, while the other
12 did not. However, women plant employees not yet receiving the $1.65 maximum
were assured, through this established wage scale, of regular increases of 5 cents an
hour at the completion of each successive period of 2 years of service with the Com-
pany, until the maximum was reached.
When the patent desire of the Respondent not to have the Union in its plant is
taken in conjunction with what the General Counsel's brief correctly refers to as a
record which "is replete with instances where Respondent claimed that at this time
it could not afford any wage increases for its employees," 33 it is not possible for me
to believe that the Respondent's action of May 12 was divorced from any realization
on its part of the probable effect on union activity, particularly among women
employees. This wage scale obviously was calculated, at a time when the Union's
organizational activity admittedly was known, to take care of a source of substantial
discontent among women employees. It is immaterial that the initial cost was rela-
tively small, and that less than half of the women, and only about one-fifth of all the
plant employees, received any immediate increase in their remuneration. For the
fact remains that by establishing a wage -scale for its women employees, based on
length of service, and by conforming pay of individuals to it, the Respondent was
abandoning, with respect to about half of its employees, the inequality and uncer-
tainty of its past procedure, and was substituting therefor what is essentially the
approach which unions usually take with respect to rates of pay.
Furthermore, it too greatly strains credulity to believe that the head of such a rela-
tively small business did not realize what wage differences existed,34 even if Spranger
did not understand how much discontent resulted therefrom, until after Guenther
had discussed conditions with the employees. In any event, I am convinced and
find, on the record as a whole, that the above-described actions of the Respondent
on May 12, in setting up a wage scale for women based on length of service and in
conforming the wages of seven women to that scale, tended to discourage and inter-
fere with union activities, and that by so doing the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.35
as The record contains the names of these seven women , as given by Guenther from a
memorandum prepared from the Company' s records
as Said brief on this point gives 14-page references , but we need not go further into the
details of what is one of the most clearly and repeatedly established facts in this case.
" Spranger testified that, in making wage adjustments, Guenther talks to him 99 times
"out of a hundred."
35 See American Freightways Co., Inc, 124 NLRB 146, 147-148
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The discriminatory discharges
1. Some general considerations
Certain facts as to the employment and union activities of Edward Cackowski and
Adam Kreuzwieser, often referred to in the record as Eddy and Adam, have been set
out in preceding sections of this report, as have also inquiries and statements relative
to union membership and activity by agents of the Respondent about them, and the
basic contentions of the parties as to reasons for their respective discharges. To
recapitulate such matters would greatly burden this report. Hence much of what
has already been said will only be alluded to hereinafter, although certain matters will
be recalled or elaborated.
It may be well to say at the outset that, with respect to the discharges of both of
these mature employees with substantial periods of service in the Respondent's plant,
there are conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony, posing questions of fact and
credibility; that painstaking study of the evidence convinces me that some of these
problems are not as simple as the parties picture them; and that while the case of
Kreuzwieser is more complicated and difficult than that of Cackowski, basic questions
for determination in both cases pertain to whether the reasons now advanced by the
Respondent for these discharges are the real reasons, or are rather merely pretexts
advanced to mask action taken to further President Spranger's determination to "work
and fight to the finish to keep what" he has, by ridding the Company of what interro-
gation of employees had led management to believe were the two individuals who
were "instigating all the people in the shop."
Before proceeding to discuss the respective discharges separately, it may be well
to treat together one question stressed in the Respondent's brief as to both discharges,
namely, that the Respondent's agents responsible for said discharges, Spranger
and Guenther, had no knowledge of any union membership or activity on the part of
either Cackowski or Kreuzwieser when it was decided to discharge them. It is true
that both Spranger and Guenther testified repeatedly that they were the ones re-
sponsible for the decision to make the respective discharges, and that they had no
such knowledge until after the discharges. Further, the testimony of the Respondent's
three principal witnesses, President Spranger, Manager Guenther, and Superintendent
Poma, is essentially consistent in isolating , on the one hand, what Poma had learned
about the Union, from what, as will appear more fully hereinafter, Spranger and
Guenther took into consideration, on the other hand, in deciding to discharge
Cackowski and Kreuzwieser.
Having considered all of the Respondent's contentions on this matter in the light
of the record as a whole, it is my judgment that, for reasons indicated earlier in this
report, no such barrier to normal flow of information among the Respondent's three
top agents would realistically exist, or actually did exist in this case. Hence I am
satisfied and find that what Poma concluded as a result of his interrogation of em-
ployees, namely that Eddy and Adam were the employees primarily responsible for
the Union's activity in the plant, became known to Spranger and Guenther before
their decision to discharge Cackowski and Kreuzwieser. Moreover, I am satisfied
that Poma, who had both of these discharged employees under his direct supervision,
could not have been unaware of the real reasons for their respective discharges. In
short, I conclude and find that facts hereinabove set out, particularly those in section
III, B , 1, entitled "Interrogation and threats," establish that prior to their discharges
on April 28, 1960, the Respondent believed that Cackowski and Kreuzwieser were
the leaders in the Union's organizational activity in its plant 36
2. The discharge of Edward Cackowski
As earlier noted, it was in 1952 that President Spranger personally persuaded
Cackowski to leave his employment at Barnes-Gibson-Raymond, where Spranger
himself had also worked before founding the Respondent, and where Spranger had
known Cackowski, who had worked there for 16 years, doing stockroom, receiving,
and shipping work. Before Cackowski, who is 46 years old, agreed to leave his former
employer to do the same type of work for the Respondent at the same rate of pay,
Spranger made what I am satisfied that Cackowski honestly and reasonably under-
stood was a promise that Cackowski's conditions of employment with the Respondent
would be commensurate with those at Barnes-Gibson-Raymond.37
"To the extent that the testimony of Spranger, Guenther, and Poma is in conflict with
the findings and conclusions in the above paragraph, said testimony is not credited.
W The gist of Cackowski's credibly given testimony is consistently that Spranger essen-
tially so promised. Spranger generally denied promising, when he hired Cackowski, to
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 765
As the Respondent's business grew, Cackowski had to have help from time to time
with the stockroom, receiving, and shipping work. This help was apparently at first
intermittent, but some 2 or 3 years ago, Bill Kepsel, a "very much newer employee,"
was added as a second regular employee for the work Cackowski had been hired to
do. In addition, when Cackowski and Kepsel "were real busy," they would at times
get additional temporary help for their work. Eventually, the responsibilities were
divided between Cackowski and Kepsel in such a way that Cackowski was responsible
for stockroom and receiving work and Kepsel for the shipping work. It was following
this division of responsibilities, the fact of which is not in dispute, that Cackowski's
work and attitude were "steadily declining," according to the earlier stated contentions
of the Respondent as to why it discharged Cackowski. And while the date of this
division is uncertain, it must have taken place a substantial period before Cackowski's
discharge, possibly even as much as a year earlier.38
Shortly before his discharge, Cackowski was called into Poma's office where
Manager Guenther was awaiting him. At the outset of the discussion, which took
place behind closed doors between Guenther and Cackowski alone, lasted some 15
or 20 minutes, and probably occurred on April 26, Guenther asked Cackowski, "Why
are the people unhappy, and you too?" 39 Cackowski replied:
I don't know why the people are not happy. But for my part, Spranger has
promised to keep me up with Barnes-Gibson-Raymond's rate of wages, also
with vacation pay.
There then followed a discussion of various additional wage, vacation, and bonus
benefits which Cackowski felt he would have been receiving if Spranger' s promises
to meet conditions at their former employer had materialized. Among those men-
tioned by Cackowski were a 3-week vacation after having served 3 years, and an
increase of 10 cents an hour in his wage rate, plus an additional 10 cents an hour
as a leader. Guenther, who evidently previously had talked with Cackowski about
some of such matters ,40 told Cackowski, who already knew that no one in the plant
was receiving a vacation of 3 weeks, that the Company could not afford to increase
his wages by 20 cents an hour and that "Spranger never made those promises."
"keep him up to the level of B.G. & R.," but stressed particularly that he "never promised
any three weeks' vacation because personally I never had three weeks' vacation" in
24% years of working at that company . The relation of the vacation issue to events at
the time of Cackowski's discharge will presently be evident, and it may well be that the
vacation policy of their former employer has been modified during the past decade. In
any event , without attempting to determine precisely what terms Spranger may have
promised to Cackowski , it stands to reason that a man approaching 40 years of age, hav-
ing 16 years of seniority with an established employer , would not be likely to leave for
employment with a relatively new and small firm , unless he were given assurances that
he would be at least as well off in making such a change.
88 While Johnston 's testimony appears to place the meeting at which it was decided to.
divide the work as about January or February 1960 or "a little prior to that," Guenther
testified that said meeting took place in April or May 1959. When asked on cross-
examination if there had come a time, "say about six months ago," that said duties were
defined for him and Kepsel , Cackowski replied, "Yes, they were."
39 My findings as to this conversation are made upon my analysis of the testimony of
Cackowski and Guenther . Their testimony differs pronouncedly on the question of how
the conversation opened, but the remainder is not irreconcilable. Cackowski's testimony
as to the opening is that quoted above. Guenther testified that he called Cackowski in
on April 26 "in relation to his attitude and his work in the plant," and that he asked
Cackowski at the outset "what was wrong," pointing out that he "didn't like [Cackowski's]
work any more" and that his work "wasn't any more like it used to be " Cackowski con-
vincingly testified that his "work had never been criticized ," and since I am convinced,
for reasons which hereafter more fully appear, that Cackowski's work actually never was
criticized before his discharge , and since Cackowski impressed me as being, on the whole,
a more credible witness than Guenther , I find that the conversation , including its opening
question, took place essentially as Cackowski testified. The quotations in the body of this
report as to said conversation will, accordingly , be taken from Cackowski 's version of this
conversation , except for the final one.
w Guenther testified that he did not consider Cackowski a leader, as Kepsel's and
Cackowski 's functions had earlier been separated , and that he also had "several times"
previously tried to explain to Cackowski that the Company's "vacation rules" provided
only for 2 weeks' vacation after 2 years' service, there being no provision for vacations of
3 weeks In addition, Cackowski testified that he had tried to get a wage increase after
Christmas in 1959.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cackowski insisted that "Spranger not only made promises like that" to him but
that Spranger also "made promises similar to that to other people in the place." 41
Guenther said that if he were so dissatisfied and were in Cackowski's "shoes he
would have left the place a long time ago." Cackowski replied, in essence, that he
"would not quit until [he ] got good and ready to quit," and that if Guenther
"wanted to fire [him] to go ahead and punch [his] card out." The conversation
apparently ended by Guenther telling Cackowski that he did not "believe in any
firing." 42
On April 28, 2 days after the above discussion , Superintendent Poma came up to
Cackowski "with the paychecks" and, without prior notice, said, "Here's two checks.
You're laid off." Cackowski asked Poma, "Why?" Poma replied, "You seem to
be unhappy over here." Not knowing "what to say for a few moments," Cackowski
then asked, "How about my slip?" Poma told him "to go to compensation" and
that they would take care of it there 43
The position stated on the record at the hearing as to why Cackowski was dis-
charged has been summarized above, in section III, A, in discussing the issues. The
shorter but essentially consistent explanation which appears in the Respondent's
brief is that Cackowski's "efficiency had declined," and that he was "unhappy in
his job, demanding more money than he was entitled to" for the nature of his work
and "demanding" a 3-week vacation, while "all other employees with the same
amount of seniority received but two." Cackowski testified convincingly that, at
the time of his discharge, he "had plenty of work," and it was conceded at the hear-
ing that Cackowski's discharge, in contrast with that of Kreuzwieser, "had nothing
to [do] with lack of work."
Reserving- for the moment the evidence as to Cackowski's allegedly declining
efficiency, let us look at the testimony of the Respondent's principal witnesses as to
why Cackowski was discharged. It will be remembered that Superintendent Poma's
testimony was that he had nothing to do with the discharge except to carry out
Guenther's orders. On direct examination, having first testified about Cackowski's
declining efficiency and their conversation of April 26 to discuss "his attitude and
his work," Manager Guenther testified that he "brought the whole conversation up"
with President Spranger, telling Spranger "what Eddy would like to have"; that they
felt that they. "couldn't do anything about it" at that time; and that since they felt
they coud not satisfy Cackowski and Cackowski could not satisfy them, it would
"be better for him and the company to let Mr. Cackowski go." Spranger having
thus instructed Guenther "as to his feelings on it," Guenther arranged for Cack-
owski's paychecks and had Poma take the action because "usually it's done by Mr.
Poma who tells the people." On cross-examination , Guenther testified that after
they had "tried to work something out" that they could do for Cackowski, but were
unable to see "anything at the present time" that they could do, that he and Spranger
decided together that since neither the Company nor Cackowski could make the
other happy, it "probably would be better if [Cackowski] tries to find a different
job or work someplace else where he can make more money."
President Spranger, after enumerating benefits which the Respondent is giving its
employees,44 testified, with an obvious show of strong feeling on the matter, that
41 In this connection, it is noteworthy that employee Lilian Budnick, in explaining her
above-discussed conversation before the discharges with Spranger, during which Spranger
had asked her "what was going on" and if Cackowski was "ever involved in anything like
this," testified convincingly that if Spranger "would have kept his promises the people
wouldn't have been unhappy"
42 Guenther so testified, and Cackowski gave no contrary testimony. Compare foot-
note 4, above
4s The above findings as to what was said during this terminal interview, when Poma
admittedly discharge Cackowski, are made on credited testimony of Cackowski Poma,
who has direct supervision over both Cackowski and Kreuzwieser, testified, on direct
examination, that he did not have anything to do with discharging them ; that he gave
them their checks and told them that they were discharged, as Guenther had instructed
him to do ; that Guenther had not told him any reason for their being discharged ; and
that he had not given either employee any reason for discharging him. On cross-
examination, Poma at first insisted that he had given no reason at all for either discharge,
but reluctantly admitted eventually that Cackowski had asked why he was being dis-
charged, and that while he "couldn't give him an answer," he did, from what he "had
beard," tell Cackowski, "It seems to me like you're unhappy here."
44 Benefits enumerated included Blue Cross ; Aetna Life Insurance which is "all paid
fully by the company" ; paid vacations, 1 week after 1 year of employment and 2 weeks
after 2 years ; and 6 paid holidays
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 767
"there isn't any company here in the country" with a small plant "of the nature
like mine," which is "going out of the way for their employees like d did." Spranger
also testified that Cackowski and Kreuzwieser had "been discussed several times,
not only one time" by Guenther and himself, and it seems evident from Spranger's
version of what happened that the decision to discharge both men must have been
reached at the same time, just as their discharges were executed almost simultane-
ously on April 28 by Poma. As to the discharge of Cackowski, Spranger testified,
on direct examination, that he "worked with him at B G.R."; that he "knew bun well
personally"; that he was "greatly disappointed" that Cackowsk "wasn't happy";
that he had "been hearing about that Eddy had to go home right away because the
boss didn't tell him in time early enough"; 45 that he had never made the promises
which Cackowski had attributed to him about "keeping him up to the level" of their
former employer; and that when Guenther explained what Cackowski wanted in
the way of increased vacation and remuneration, he told Guenther:
Well, I think it's high time, if he is unhappy here, let him go; and if he thinks
the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, let him go and go up
there. I'm getting sick and tired of it.
Spranger also testified that he "certainly did not" say anything to Guenther about
letting Cackowski go because he was engaged in union activities or belonged to the
Union, and that he "didn't know he was engaged in them." On cross-examination,
when asked if he had noticed any change in regard to Cackowski's work, Spranger
testified that "he's been called to my attention," but admitted that he "didn't have
no part in" personally observing it.
I will not attempt to go in detail into the testimony as to Cackowski's alleged
declining efficiency, which impressed me, on the whole, as being greatly exaggerated,
if not actually merely afterthought. Essentially there is testimony by Guenther,
Poma, and Johnston, but without specific indication in Spranger's testimony that
he was appraised of any such situation, about Cackowski not getting incoming ship-
ments of wire weighed up in time for Johnston to make claims of any shortages
which might exist within the time limit required for the making of such claims.
Having given all of this testimony careful consideration, I find several elements in
it, taken as a whole, which detract from its persuasiveness. For instance, Johnston
attributed the above-mentioned management meeting to divide the work between
Cackowski and Kepsel, thereby putting "Eddy positively in charge of receiving and
the disposition of stock," to Johnston's failure to have learned of shortages promptly.
Yet, while Johnston testified that he subsequently formed an opinion as to "how
Eddy conducted himself in relation to those express duties" after that division, he
also testified that he "didn't express it." This, in face of the fact that Johnston fur-
ther testified that "we had to have an improvement" and that Cackowski's efficiency
after January 1 "stayed at the same level." If things were so bad that a division of
responsibility were made to correct it, and no improvements had thereafter taken
place, it seems obvious to me that Johnston's opinion of the situation would not
have gone unexpressed. In fact, such a condition would scarcely have been tolerated
for any such length of time.
Moreover, while Guenther testified that he could see that Cackowski's "work was
slowing down" because he had received complaints from Johnston that "the ma-
terial was lying on the receiving dock sometimes for four or five or six or seven
days" before it was weighed in and reported on to Johnston, and that many times
the "walking part of the dock" was so piled up that "nobody could walk in the shop
from the outside." Guenther also testified that this happened in December, January,
and February, which was "our best time" when there was "a lot of material coming
in," and that "several times Eddy told [him] he should have some more help in
there." According to Guenther, although Cackowski "got help many times from
the shop and from the afternoon shift," the material was still "piling up on the
dock." In this connection, it will be remembered that Guenther fixed the date of
the division of work between Kepsel and Cackowski as April or May 1959. In
addition, Poma, who testified, among other things, that the "dock would just be lit-
tered up with wire and nothing was being done," and that he talked with Cackowski
"a few times" about his attitude and how he "wanted to get that dock cleaied out,"
also testified that this had been "going on for quite a while," setting the time as
"for over a year in fact."
Whatever difficulties may have been involved in getting wire weighed up and re-
ported on promptly, especially at the height- of the rush period, it is obvious that the
problem involved had not been of recent origin and that there had been times when
4i Apparently a reference to an occasion, discussed below, when Cackowski had not
worked overtime, when requested to do so just before the end of the first shift.
i
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it was necessary to give Cackowski assistance with his work. In any event, I am
satisfied, from credibly given testimony of several witnesses, that the above picture
is not a trustworthy representation of the actual situation; that in actual fact
Cackowski had not been criticized for his work; and that there had been no basic
change in the character of either Cackowski's attitude or of his work around the
time of his discharge.46
There remains one other matter respecting Cackowski's purported inefficiency
worthy of consideration.47 It will be remembered that Spranger, in explaining dur-
ing his testimony why he had discharged Cackowski, referred to having heard about
how "Eddy had to go home right away." Guenther, after explaining how trucks
would at times arrive with material so unexpectedly that it was difficult to give
much notice to an employee on the first shift needed for overtime work, testified:
"So many times when a truck was unloading, Peter Poma told me that Eddy didn't
stay, he just left for home." When then asked, on direct examination, if he had
"ever talked to Eddy about that incident," Guenther answered, "Well, he told me it
was too short and he had something on his mind, something to take care of."
By contrast, Cackowski testified that sometime around January or February, he
had been asked some 5 or 10 minutes before quitting time to stay over, and that
he had refused to do so because he "had other engagements" for that evening.
Cackowski also testified that he had never been criticized for refusing to work over-
time on that one occasion, and that it had not been insisted at the time that he
should stay. I am convinced, all credibility factors considered, that there was only
one occasion when Cackowski did not remain for work, when requested to do so,
and that Cackowski's version of that incident is accurate. I am further convinced
that this relatively innocuous incident, occurring several months earlier, had no ac-
tual bearing on Cackowski's discharge, and that it has been introduced by the Re-
spondent merely as an afterthought.
Having painstakingly canvassed all of the evidence and contentions respecting
Cackowski's discharge, it is my considered opinion that the operative factors in the
Respondent's decision to discharge Cackowski were a strong desire to prevent the
unionization of its employees; a belief that Cackowski and Kreuzwieser were pri-
marily responsible for activity among its employees to that end; its knowledge that
what Cackowski felt he should have in the way of augmented benefits would increase
its costs and sharp resentment that a personal friend of top management like
Cackowski would turn to union activities to secure what management's "bountiful-
ness" had not already provided.
We do not have here, I am convinced, a situation where an individual employee
is discharged for making individual "demands" which his employer considers un-
reasonable. Such matters as length of vacations with respect to years of service,
basic rates of wages, bonuses, and whether or not an employee who has intermittent
assistance assigned to him in the performance of his work should be classed as a
leader, are obviously matters which are bargainable through a union representative.
And at least part of what Cackowski explained on April 26 that he felt he should
have been receiving by that time had been known to the Respondent for some time,
in any event.
We have here instead, in my judgment, precipitate action taken, following a dis-
cussion in which Manager Guenther had taken the initiative in trying to find out
why "the people," including Cackowski, were "unhappy." Said action, discharge
without notice of a long-time employee, whose desire for improvement had been
known and whose work had been satisfactory, was taken essentially because said
46 It has already been noted that Cackowski himself convincingly testified that his work
had never been criticized. Assistant Foreman Wilbur Elliott testified that he had noticed
no change, except that he knew that Cackowski "wanted an increase in his wages "
Employee Frank Tumavitch testified that as long as he had "been there Eddy's been one
of the happiest guys I've known . He's always singing and always got a good hello to
you " And employee Frank Matras, who has worked for the Respondent since 1953,
testified , when asked if he had noticed "any change in Eddy's work about that time,"
that he had noticed "none ' at all"
AT It should be mentioned, in passing, that there is testimony by Poma, on direct examina-
tion, that some 2 weeks before Cackowski was discharged , he said to Cackowski something
like "don't you feel good" or "what's wrong" or "aren't you happy," and that Cackowski
turned around and said "Oh," indicating to Poma that Cackowski "wasn't happy." The
conversation ended at that point, according to Poma, because his telephone rang and be
had to answer it On cross-examination, Poma admitted that he had known that, be-
ginning about the middle of March and continuing until after the discharge , Cackowski
was undergoing extensive dental work to remove all of his teeth. Under such circum-
stances, no weight can be given to the foregoing conversation.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 769
employee had abandoned his past reliance on personal relationships and bounty, and
had turned to collective action through the Union to bring pressure to secure those
further benefits.
In short, whatever would have been the Respondent's justification, absent known
union activity, for discharging Cackowski on the basis of what he told Guenther dur-
ing their discussion on April 26, 1960, I am convinced and find that, but for the
Respondent's belief, a correct one in the case of Cackowski, that Cackowski was a
leader in the Union, and its strong desire to prevent the organization of its em-
ployees, the Respondent would not have taken the action which it did in discharging
Cackowski on April 28, 1960. Accordingly, I conclude and find, under all the
circumstances of this case, that the Respondent discriminated against Edward
Cackowski in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The discharge of Adam Kreuzwieser
We come now to the discharge of Adam Kreuzwieser, who, as earlier noted, had
been personally hired as a machinist by President Spranger in 1956 because Spranger
liked him and his work so well. It has already been indicated that Superintendent
Poma discharged both Kreuzwieser and Cackowski near the end of the first shift
on April 28, 1960. And it should be borne in mind that in discharging the former,
Poma gave no explanation whatsoever to Kreuzwieser, who is 62 years of age.
Nor did Kreuzwieser ask for any explanation.
Much of what has already been said in this report has bearing on Kreuzwieser's
discharge. It will be remembered that Kreuzwieser had joined the Union and that he
had told Poma not only that he had done so but also that he was for the Union
and that the employees had a legal right to organize. Kreuzwieser, who also attended
union meetings , obviously was linked in the Respondent's mind with Cackowski as
a leader in the Union, for it will be remembered that, prior to the discharges, Poma
had told employee Hendrickson that he knew that Eddy and Adam were instigating
all of the people in the plant, and that both Spranger and Poma demonstrated con-
cern about Kreuzwieser's conversations with other employees. While the record
does not show leadership in the Union on the part of Kreuzwieser, as it does for
Cackowski, it is immaterial how well-founded the Respondent's belief in this respect
may have been,48 for I am convinced , after careful appraisal of the record as a
whole, that Kreuzwieser was linked in the Respondent's belief, decision, and action,
with Cackowski, whose discharge has above been found violative of the Act.49
Hence, in view of the similar treatment which Cackowski and Kreuzwieser were
accorded, what remains for determination is whether the reasons now assigned for
Kreuzwieser's discharge, to which we next turn, were the real reasons , or were
merely pretexts.
The Respondent's brief states, but without giving particulars, that there is "ample
evidence" that Kreuzwieser was discharged because he "was insubordinate, was
inefficient , and at the time of his discharge there was very little work for him to
do." We thus have in the brief essentially the three reasons, set out earlier herein,
which were stated on the record at the hearing. There are, however, some details
in that earlier statement which should be noted. As to inefficiency, it was earlier
stated that Kreuzwieser could not do the work assigned; as to insubordination, it
was stated that he "would not follow orders of his superior, Mr. Poma"; and as to lack
of work, that there was no further work for Kreuzwieser to do.
There is a welter of testimony in the record, by some eight witnesses, which
appears to relate to the foregoing contentions . Some of such testimony by the
Respondent's witnesses is confused, ambiguous, " inconsistent , or exaggerated, and
some of it flatly contradicted by witnesses for the General Counsel. Hence it is
difficult, on the one hand, to divine, without citation of the evidence, just what evi-
dence the Respondent relies on to establish facts to support its defenses . And it is
impossible , on the other hand, to present detailed findings, with credibility resolutions,
as to all matters conceivably having bearing, without greatly protracting this report.
Having given this perplexing problem much thought, I have decided to treat the
Respondent's defenses, other than lack of knowledge which has already been con-
sidered, in what seems their chronological order of emergence , sometimes stating
what I believe to be essential facts, without detailing evidence or credibility resolu-
tions involved in arriving at them.
We will start with Kreuzwieser's alleged inefficiency or inability to do work
assigned . Kreuzwieser, who had been working " in a small tool shop as machinist"
is See The Ridge Tool Company, 102 NLRB 512, 513, in which the discharged em-
ployees were not actually members of the Union, but were believed to be.
49 For a recent case involving such a linkage , see Pyro Electric, Inc., 129 NLRB 1224.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the time Spranger hired him, admittedly was hired as a machinist, and the testimony
establishes that Kreuzwieser, who was about 58 years old at that time, was not a
tool- and die-maker. When asked, on cross-examination, if Spranger had said any-
thing about developing him "into a tool and die maker" when hiring him, Kreuz-
wieser testified credibly that he told Spranger, "Well, I'm not a tool maker," and
that Spranger said that he would "be able to do that kind of work."
Spranger, who admittedly was badly in need of a machinist at that time, and
who apparently had trained others, including Manager Guenther, for advancement
in the spring business, testified convincingly that Kreuzwieser was "excellent" and
"out of this world" for "rough work" as a machinist; that there "wasn't anybody
could beat him" at such work; that he hired Kreuzwieser with the idea that he was
going to train him; and that he had asked an older, partially retired, part-time em-
ployee in the toolroom, who has since "passed away," to "teach Adam whatever"
he could about "spring fixtures, spring tools, it's kind of tricky." Spranger also testi-
fied that during Kreuzwieser's initial year with the Company, he gave Kreuzwieser
some tools to make on a big job, laying out everything with the samples and telling
Kreuzwieser not to rush and take his time. Spranger further testified, "I'm telling
you I had tears in my eyes when I seen the tools that he put into it," and that he
"had to give the job out" to another company "and get it done all over again."
According to Spranger, that was when Kreuzwieser "got kind of nervous" ; brought
his "tool box up in front"; and said, "Oh, I am going to leave here." This is the
explanation in Spranger's testimony as to what occurred when Kreuzwieser wanted
to quit on the first "Christmas Day" of his employment:
Well, I don't believe in firing; I don't believe in having people leave me. I
love to help everyone. So I told him, I says, "For crying out loud, we got so
many jobs, stay on the job. All what you need to do is will and cooperation
and you can do the job." Well, I persuaded him, sorry to say. I regret it today,
sir. But I persuaded him anyhow and he stayed; . . .
Kreuzwieser, when asked, during cross-examination, how many times he had
threatened to quit, testified that he "didn't threaten anybody." He was then asked
if he had threatened to quit "about Christmas time in 1959," and denied doing so.
Kreuzwieser also denied that at Christmas time Spranger had persuaded him to stay
with the Company. At a later point, during the cross-examination, Kreuzwieser
testified that he would not say that he had never offered to quit, admtiting that it
"could be possible," and explaining, "There's a lot of things we'll say that we don't
realize we are saying."
There is corroboration in the testimony of both Poma and Guenther that an
incident of the general nature testified to by Spranger did take place. Poma testi-
fied, in essence, that "in the first year that he had started," Kreuzwieser, when work-
ing on a tooling job which Spranger had given him, got "all nervoused up," took
up his toolbox, stated that he was "going to quit," and that Spranger persuaded
Kreuzwieser not to quit. Guenther also testified that Kreuzwieser was going to quit,
either in 1957 or 1958, and Spranger persuaded him to stay.
The Respondent's brief cites the earlier portion of Kreuzwieser's testimony on this
matter as showing that Kreuzwieser "categorically denied" having threatened to quit,
and insists that Kreuzwieser "deliberately falsified his testimony with regard to his
quitting." Having given this matter very careful attention, I am convinced that an
incident occurred on Christmas Day, either in 1956 or 1957,50 of essentially the nature
described by Spranger. I have no doubt that the matter was quite painful to Kreuz-
wieser, who was probably at least as disappointed as Spranger. In my opinion,
Kreuzwieser's memory of what happened was that he wanted to quit or offered to
quit, not that he threatened anybody. In any event, while Kreuzwieser was evasive
on this question, I do not believe that Kreuzwieser was deliberately falsifying, or
that he fabricated any evidence elsewhere relied on in this report. Moreover, since
Kreuzwieser may have been quite sensitive about failure to master some of the
",tricky" points in tool- and die-work in the spring industry, I have studiously taken
this into consideration, along with other matters, including my observation of all
of the witnesses at the hearing, in determining when to credit Kreuzwieser's testimony.
As to just what occurred with respect to Kreuzwieser's efficiency after that first
year or so, the record is less than clear. Kreuzwieser testified that while we "all make
, 50.Spranger's testimony as a whole convinces me that he was not sure whether the
Christmas Day involved was actually in 1956 or in 1957 I feel certain, from all the
evidence, that the matter occurred not later than Christmas 1957, thus taking place at
least 21/ years, and possibly 34 years, before Kreuzwiser was discharged.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 771
mistakes as far as that goes ," he was not aware of any difficulties or problems con-
cerning his work, which he described as "general machine work, repair work,"
although he does seem to blame mistakes on having had to work from sketches in-
stead of from blueprints . 51 Kreuzwieser also testified that the Respondent always
has sent work out to local tool shops. Purchasing Agent Johnston testified that the
Respondent had "a great deal" of tooling work done outside of its own plant, and
that one of the reasons for this was that Spranger and Guenther felt that "the work
was too close" for Kreuzwieser to do. Manager Guenther testified that the Respond-
ent "usually did most of our own tooling ourselves ," but that Spranger had hired
Kreuzwieser because at that "time it was hard for us to get ^a tool maker because the
tool shops were going good." Guenther also testified that, while Kreuzwieser was
"hired as a machinist," he should have been doing "the work more or less of a tool
maker, which he wasn't able to do." Guenther further testified that while Kreuz-
wieser is good as a machinist for repairing broken parts of machines , he is not able
to build tools; that "every tool that was built from Adam had to be reworked";
that he had not wanted to keep Kreuzwieser, although there were "some breakdowns
and stuff like that coming up that he could take care of"; that for a year and a half
he did not "have any use for Mr. Adam because he couldn't come up with the work";
but that after all, "it was up to Mr. Spranger."
On the other hand, employee Tumavitch testified convincingly , with respect to
machinery repair work done by Kreuzwieser in the plant, that "everything worked fine
after he got done with it." In addition, while Assistant Foreman Elliott testified that
Kreuzwieser was not having any unusual difficulty with his work at the time of his
discharge Elliott also testified credibly that he had heard Poma criticize Kreuzwieser's
work "many times," and that that had been going on for "at least a year" prior to the
inception of union activities.
Without going further into the testimony on this complex subject , it is my con-
sidered judgment that the crux of the matter with respect to Kreuzwieser 's efficiency
is that Kreuzwieser , who scarcely was a young man when Spranger hired him at a
time when toolmakers were hard to come by, did not develop into a toolmaker of
sufficient precision to come up to Spranger 's expectations and the Respondent 's needs,
although he was a good machinist and repaired plant machinery very well. But such
shortcomings as have been complained of by Poma and Guenther in the last year or
so had long been known , for Spranger, upon being asked during cross-examination
when he determined that he had made a mistake in hiring Kreuzwieser, answered:
Well, I determined it special when the Christmas day came on the first year;
and he walked out. He wanted to walk out on me; and he couldn 't do the job;
and there was no will there. I'm a great believer if there is a. will there is a way;
and if there is no will I 'm ready to give up because you're licked . There was
no will there to do a better job. The job was ruined.
Yet Spranger, in his own words , on that occasion had "begged him to stay."
To sum up with respect to inefficiency , a matter about which I have been quite
concerned because of its importance in a plant such as the Respondent 's, there can
be no doubt that President Spranger personally liked "everything" about Kreuzwieser
very much, and that in hiring Kreuzwieser , Spranger was looking forward to training
a man who resembled him in some ways. But I am satisfied , even making allowance
for probable overdramatization in the testimony with respect to Kreuzwieser 's failure
to live up to expectations , that it was not very long after Kreuzwieser was hired that
Spranger became resigned to the fact that he could not develop Kreuzwieser into a
topnotch toolmaker in the "tricky" field of the Respondent 's business , although
Kreuzwieser could repair machinery quite satisfactorily . In any event, Spranger's
own testimony unmistakably shows that whatever his disillusionment, it had taken
place at least 21/2 years ago, and probably as early, as 31/2 years ago. In the mean-
time, whatever Kreuzwieser 's employment , it is obvious that, before the Union
entered the picture , Spranger was willing to have Kreuzwieser continue in the
Respondent 's employ.
We come next to the defense that Kreuzwieser was insubordinate . This defense
evidently pertains to two occasions , the first one about a year, and the second one
about 2 weeks, before Kreuzwieser was discharged . On these two occasions, the
Respondent decided to make another toolroom employee , Robert Kempf, who en-
tered the Respondent 's employ in 1958 and was thus junior to Kreuzwieser in serv-
51 In my opinion , no purpose would be served by going into the testimony with respect
to sketches , blueprints , and hand sketches.
614913-62-vol 132-50
I
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ice,52 the leader or working foreman in the toolroom. At times material there were,
at most, three employees in the toolroom, Kempf, Kreuzwieser, and one other.
While there is confusion and conflict in the evidence as to just what occurred on
the two occasions in issue, it is clear that Kreuzwieser, who testified that he "disliked"
Kempf and that he "never had anything to do with" him,53 strongly objected to having
to take any directions from Kempf, and that the plan to make Kempf the leader in the
toolroom was, on the first occasion, abandoned within a short time. Because impor-
tant management prerogatives are involved in this problem, we must examine the
evidence as to what happened on these two occasions in some detail. In doing this,
I am accepting as a fact, without going into the essentially consistent and convincingly
given testimony of the Respondent's witnesses on the point, that Spranger, Guenther,
and Poma considered Kempf more competent in the field of tool- and die-work than
Kreuzwieser, an opinion which Kreuzwieser evidently found it difficult to accept.
Guenther's version of what happened on the first occasion was that "we had in
mind putting Kempf to a leader in the toolroom in 1959," but that it "never worked
out" because Kreuzwieser did not take "any orders from Kempf because he said that
Kempf wasn't a toolmaker either." Guenther also testified that "it actually is our
fault" that it did not work out when the attempt was first made "about a year ago,"
and that "we should have stepped in there right after that was said."
This is the gist of Superintendent Poma's essentially consistent testimony as to
what occurred "six months or a year" before Kreuzwieser was discharged. At a
management meeting, which evidently included at least Spranger, Guenther, and
Poma, the decision was reached that Kempf be "appointed as the supervisor of the
toolroom." This decision was conveyed to the employees both by a typed memoran-
dum signed by Spranger and at a meeting of the employees immediately concerned.
Kreuzwieser, who had been "taking orders" from Poma, stated that he "wouldn't
take orders from Kempf," explaining , when asked why, that "as a foreigner, a guy
like that couldn't give orders." 54 Poma took the notice off of the bulletin board
"after two days," and was later informed by Kempf, with respect to a tool which had
been given to Kreuzwieser to work on, that Kreuzwieser "just laid it on the side and
he wouldn't touch it," and that Kreuzwieser "wouldn't even talk to" Kempf. Poma,
who admittedly had not personally witnessed any refusal on Kreuzwieser's part to
take orders from Kempf, thereafter talked with Kreuzwieser, who insisted that
Kempf was "not going to give [him] no orders." In that discussion with Kreuzwieser,
as Poma explained it, "finally we came to an agreement ; and I was the one that was
giving him orders," a procedure which evidently thereafter was followed unevent-
fully until 2 weeks prior to the discharges.
Kreuzwieser , testifying that "my orders came from Pete Poma all these years while
I've worked there," denied that he had refused to take orders from Kempf or that he
had left work on his bench which he was supposed to do. This is Kreuzwieser's ver-
sion of what he had to say when he was told, "about a year ago," of the first decision
with respect to Kempf:
Well, I told them, "I don't like the idea because he 's not the man for that job.
First of all, he can't talk to a man." And I said, "And furthermore, if something
should be done, the foreman or Bill, the leader, should come up to me and
tell me about it, what has to be done, in order to get that part right." I said,
That would be the right thing to do."
As usually happens in situations of this kind, the truth may well lie somewhere
between the above versions , as men tend to remember things in a light favorable to
them . But I believe that it is more likely that Kreuzwieser did not flatly refuse to
take orders from Kempf because he was a foreigner , but that Kreuzwieser rather
persuaded Poma that he would be able to work more effectively if he took orders,
Although I do not find Kempf's age in the record , it seems quite likely , from the
evidence as a whole , that Kempf, who, like Spranger and Guenther , is "also of German
origin ," is a younger man than Kreuzwieser.
53 There is credited evidence that at least one other employee had had similar feelings
about Kempf. For instance , employee Matras testified that there was "another fellow
there named Frank" who did not "get along with" Kempf either , and that they were not
"even speaking to one another ." And Assistant Foreman Elliott , who testified that
Kreuzwieser said that he "couldn 't get along with Mr . Kempf," also testified , when asked
if there were other employees who had had "trouble getting along with Bob Kempf," that
there "was a fellow that worked in the toolroom with him that was no longer there"
whose first name was Frank.
64 Where the word "foreman" erroneously appears in lines 17, 18, 20, and 22, on
page 245, the transcript is corrected to read "foreigner ." Compare page 266, line 23,
and page 269, line 20 , where the word "foreigner" correctly ap 'ar5.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 773
as he had been accustomed to doing, from Poma, and was able to get information as
to what was needed by talking directly with those whose machines were involved.
I believe, in other words, that Kreuzwieser was better able to work in situations
where he had direct contact with problems, and that he was able to convince Poma
of that fact. In any event, it is apparent that the original plan for change did not
last very long, the notice itself having been removed after some 2 days; that Kreuz-
wieser was not disciplined for not wanting to follow the original plan; and that,
however desirable management may have thought its original idea to be, an agree-
ment was reached whereby Kreuzwieser continued to function under Poma's direct
supervision.
With respect to what happened about 2 weeks before his discharge, Kreuzwieser's
version is that Poma called him into the office and said they were making "Kempf
foreman again"; that he again explained that "in order to turn out the work," he
should get the explanation of what was needed directly from those involved, rather
than having it relayed to him through Kempf; that Poma said, "That's the way it's
going to be. That's all"; and that he never refused to take orders from Kempf.
Explaining that "finally I put my foot down" about 2 weeks before April 28, Poma
testified essentially that, in again making Kempf head of the toolroom, he explained
to the employees involved that all orders for work in the toolroom were to come
through Kempf. Poma also testified that Kreuzweiser said that he would not take
any such orders; that that was when Kreuzwieser "threatened again to quit"; that
Kreuzwieser told him, "Make out my time"; that he said to Kreuzwieser, "Well, punch
out"; and that Kreuzwieser, who did not do so, did not take any work from Kempf but
"worked on something else."
While it is difficult to be sure from Guenther's testimony precisely what applied
to the incident 2 weeks before Kreuzwieser's discharge, in contrast with what occurred
about a year before, Guenther's version appears to be that when management, on the
second occasion, decided to get the employees involved "together again and make it
clear for everyone that Kempf, he's the leader in the toolroom," Kreuzwieser became
somewhat upset and refused to take orders from Kempf, and that Guenther explained
to Kreuzwieser that "Kempf is a much better tool maker than you are" and therefore
should be the leader. Guenther admittedly had no personal knowledge of Kreuz-
wieser refusing to obey any orders from Kempf, and it is noteworthy that Kempf, the
individual obviously in the best position to testify on this matter, was not called as a
witness by the Respondent.
Spranger, who had not himself been present, testified that "about two weeks before
we finally thought, `Well, there's no use, we might as well let the man go,"' Kreuz-
wieser had told Poma, in the presence of several others, that he was going to quit;
that Poma had told Kreuzwieser to ring out his card; that Kreuzwieser "wouldn't
touch the card"; and that Kreuzwieser had said, "No, I'm not going to quit."
Spranger also testified that he did not "have any bad feelings" about Kreuzwieser
except toward himself "for the misjudgment what I used."
Whatever precisely may have been said on the above occasion, taking the evidence
as a whole, I am convinced that said incident occurred after the two above-discussed
conversations involving Poma and Kreuzwieser, wherein Poma unmistakably learned
of Kreuzwieser's membership in and support of the Union; 55 that the Respondent's
management, which had a year earlier abandoned such a plan, after Kreuzwieser had
explained his objections to it, must have known that Kreuzwieser would be upset by
having it reinstituted; and that however strenuously Kreuzwieser may have stated his
objections on this second occasion, Kreuzwieser did not quit, but rather refused to do
so, although the Respondent may well have hoped that he would quit. In addition,
I am satisfied that Kreuzwieser never refused to take any orders from Poma, whom
he had always worked under, and the weight of the credible evidence does not con-
vince me that Kreuzwieser, whatever he may have said on that point, actually refused
any specific orders from Kempf. In fact, Spranger's testimony, which stresses Kreuz-
weiser's threats to quit and his lack of ability as a toolmaker, does not appear to place
any weight, in reaching what must have been largely Spranger's decision in the matter,
on Kreuzwieser's alleged refusal to take orders, or purported lack of work, the last
of the Respondent's defenses, to which we next turn.
Manager Guenther testified that "the work was almost nothing really" for Kreuz-
wieser; that "when the shop is working good the tool room is down"; that Kreuz-
wieser had just finished building a machine; and that he "figured that's the time now
to lay the man off." But on all of the evidence, I am convinced that Kreuzwieser, who
testified that at the time of his discharge he "wasn't doing any particular job, just
what's supposed to be done on the machines" in the way of repair work, was a com-
petent machinist engaged largely in repairing machines in the plant. And as to that
51 See footnote 16, above, and the text at that point.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
type of work, Guenther admitted that at the time "the shop itself was going at full
production"; that with respect to machinery, "you never know when it's going to
break"; and that while sometimes nothing happens for a month or two, "then all of
a sudden everything goes haywire."
Kreuzwieser testified that there was enough work for him at the time of his dis-
charge, and that he had never been laid off in the past. Assistant Foreman Elliott,
"one of the first" of the Respondent's employees, testified that work was not "un-
usually slack" at the time of the discharges of Cackowski and Kreuzwieser. Elliott
also testified that the Respondent's general practice, when work did become slack,
was to put the men on 40 hours a week and the women on a 4-day week and to cut
hours still further, if necessary, in order that "all would be kept working." Essentially
the foregoing general practice is indicated also by testimony of employee Matras, and
by that of President Spranger himself. Specifically Spranger testified that the slack
period was "in the summer time when the change-over was in the models"; that it
would be "probably around July, August, June"; that in laying off people, "if that
ever come up, we tried to find work" by cleaning up things and by getting "ready for
the rush"; and that they "reduce the working hours," with the "main objective" of
making it possible for the men, who "must bring home the pay for the family," to have
the "first priority," putting the women on a 4-day week.
Taking all of the evidence on this third defense into consideration, including the
fact that no one has been hired to take Kruezwieser's place,56 I find that Kreuzwieser's
customary work was not slack at the time of his discharge and that even if it had
been, the Respondent, on Spranger's own testimony as to its customary practice under
such circumstances, would not have discharged Kreuzwieser for any such reason.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's third defense is entirely without merit.
As to the Respondent's first two defenses, while the matter is not without elements
of doubt, I am persuaded, after much reflection on this matter, that both of the other
defenses, inefficiency and insubordination, are actually pretexts and not moving causes.
For it is my carefully considered judgment that, had it not been for the fact that
Kreuzwieser was linked in the Respondent's beliefs with Cackowski as a leader in the
attempt to organize its plant, Spranger, an essentially warmhearted man who had
personally hired and liked Kreuzwieser, would not have had a subordinate discharge
that 62-year-old employee without giving him any reason whatsoever for doing so.
Accordingly, I find that the reasons now advanced by the Respondent for the termi-
nation of Kreuzwieser's employment are, like those advanced with respect to Cackow-
ski, actually only pretexts, and that, all of the circumstances considered, by its dis-
charge of Adam Kreuzwieser on April 28, 1960, the Respondent discriminated against
Kreuzwieser, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.57
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in section 111, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Edward Cackowski and
Adam Kreuzwieser with respect to their hire and tenure of employment, I will
recommend that it offer to them immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges. I will also recommend that the Respondent make Cackowski
and Kreuzwieser whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of
its discrimination against them, by payment to them of sums of money equal to the
amount which they normally would have earned as wages, from the date of their
discharges to the date of offers of reinstatement to them, less their net earnings
during said period, such backpay to be computed on quarterly basis, in the manner
se There is readily at hand to the Respondent the simple device of farming out tooling
work to other plants to make Kempf available for Kreuzwieser ' s former work of repairing
machines
57 In addition to cases cited above, see Rickel Bros ., Inc , 128 NLRB 448; and Trettenero
Sand & Gravel Co, 129 NLRB 610 Also compare Inland Seas Boat Co., Inc , 128 NLRB
595; and Julius Corn and Co, 129 NLRB 1264.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 775
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 191-194
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board, on
request, payroll and other records to facilitate the determination of the amount due
under the foregoing recommended remedy.
As the unfair labor practices herein found are the type which strike at the very
roots of employee rights safeguarded under the Act, it will be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist from interfering in any manner with the exercise
by its employees of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following •
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Spranger Spring Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, and by announcing and granting wage increases
calculated to discourage union membership and activity , coercively interrogating its
employees as to union membership and activities , and threatening employees that the
plant would close because of union membership or activities , the Respondent has
interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act , and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a),(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT announce or grant any wage increases calculated to discourage
membership in or activity on behalf of International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO; coer-
cively interrogate our employees as to membership in and activities on behalf
of the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization ; or threaten our employ-
ees that' our plant will be closed because of any such union membership or
activities.
WE WILL offer Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , by discharging , or in any other manner dis-
criminating against, any of our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment , or any term or condition of employment , or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization , to form , join, or assist the aforesaid Union , or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all
such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959. -
All of our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or remaining , members of International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement in con-
formity with Section 8 ( a),(3) of the Act, as modified.
SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Flora Construction Company and Argus Construction Com-
pany d/b/a Flora and Argus Construction Company and
Casper Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 27-CA-789 (formerly 30-CA-789). August 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 13, 1961, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of their
exceptions.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
As to McCaslin, the complaint alleged that this employee was un-
lawfully discharged on December 11, 1959, and was not reinstated
unconditionally until January 12, 1960. In his brief to the Trial
Examiner, the General Counsel argued that because the Respondents
failed to provide McCaslin with transportation after reinstating him
on January 12, McCaslin's resignation on January 15 was a construc-
tive discharge. The Trial Examiner found, and properly so, that the
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel ( Members Rodgers, Fanning,
and Brown].
2 The Respondents ' request for oral argument is denied as the record , Including the
exceptions and brief , fully sets forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
a Member Rodgers agrees that the Respondents had knowledge of the union activities of
its employees , but he would not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that because of the-
limited scope of the Respondents ' operation and the small number of employees, the
Respondents had knowledge of the December 6 meeting between employees and a union,
representative.
132 NLRB No. 55.