Stainless Ware Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 138 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
In the Matter of STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA and MARIAN
URICK
In the Matter Of STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA and NEVA
COOPER, VIRGINIA LAWRENCE, MARIE E. JANKA, DOROTHY GREGOR
Cases Nos . 7-C-1747, 7-C-1802, and 7-CA-8.-Decided November
21,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 17, 1949, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd,
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing 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 copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices, and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter,
the General Counsel, the Union, the charging parties, and the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondent
submitted a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The,
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent with the
Decision and Order herein.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
87 NLRB No. 27.
138
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 139
(1) While the matter is not free from doubt, we agree with the Trial
Examiner's finding that the April 1947 lay-off was caused by economic
necessity , and that the Respondent did not change its' seniority system
at that time in order to rid itself of union adherents . The lay-off
reduced the number of employees by approximately 50 percent. The
record does not show to what extent , if any, union adherents would
have retained their employment had the original seniority system
remained in effect. For this reason , and for the additional reasons
set forth in the Intermediate Report, we find that the record does not
support a finding that the April 1947 lay-off was illegally motivated.
(2) The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent 's deviations
from its new seniority list, in determining which employees should be
laid off, were not discriminatory . We do not agree with respect to
the lay-off of employees Doris Davis and Eva Dixon . Although
both Davis and Dixon had greater seniority in the Small Press Depart-
ment than employee F. L. Wright, nevertheless Davis was laid off on
April 8, 1947, and Dixon on April 10, 1947, whereas Wright was not
laid off until April 23, 1947. At the time of the lay-off, the Union's
organizational efforts had reached major proportions . Both Davis and
Dixon were outstanding contributors to these efforts , as evidenced by
their participation in the April 4 union demonstration , which had
been watched by members of management . Both had been active in
signing up new members , and knowledge of these activities can be
imputed to the Respondent because of its general surveillance of union
activities .2 To lay off these two active union advocates during the
Union's organizational drive before their names were reached on the
seniority list not only tended to disrupt the Union 's organizing efforts
but also served notice on other employees that union advocacy might
adversely affect their tenure of employment . We therefore find,
contrary to the Trial Examiner , that by laying off Davis and Dixon
before Wright , the Respondent discriminated in respect to the hire
and tenure of employment of Davis and Dixon, in violation of Section
8 (1) and (3 ) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act as
amended.3 Accordingly , eve shall order the Respondent to make Davis
and Dixon whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of this discrimination.
2 Barr Packing Company, 82 NLRB 1.
3In making this finding , we are not unmindful of the fact that neither Davis nor Dixon
questioned her lay-off by reason of her departmental seniority . The record , however, does
not show that either Davis or Dixon was aware of her respective position on a list pre-
pared and retained by the Respondent.
As the record does not establish that Dixon had seniority rights in any but the Small
Press Department , we have not disturbed the Trial Examiner 's finding that she was not
discriminatorily denied "bumping" privileges.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that employee
Annabel Breeze was discharged because of her union membership
and activities , about which the Respondent had knowledge , and not
because she inadvertently' damaged one of the Respondent 's dies.
While such damage was admittedly due to Breeze, the testimony as to
the extent of the damage and the degree of negligence was sharply con-
flicting. George Hendrian, assistant plant superintendent in charge
of the tool die room, one of the Respondent's witnesses , described
the condition of the die in question as "cracked at the top." He ad-
mitted that it was repaired shortly after the accident, and that a
substitute die which was available had not been put into operation.
It is therefore apparent that Breeze 's mistake did not cost the
Respondent the loss of a die or a serious disruption of production.
Furthermore , Hendrian also testified that he had repaired dies dam-
aged by misuse on previous occasions . Plant Superintendent Crowe,
a discredited witness, stated at the hearing that other unnamed em-
ployees had been discharged for such misuse of dies. However, the
Respondent presented no records or other evidence to support Crowe's
statement . Under these circumstances , we find that the Respondent
did not, as a matter of policy, summarily discharge employees for
damaging dies by inadvertently inserting two pieces of stock at the
same time. Therefore , and also in view of Crowe 's avowed deter-
mination to utilize any "mis-move" on the part of union adherents
.as a pretext for their discharge , and of the other factors set forth in
the Intermediate Report, we affirm the Trial Examiner 's finding that
Annabel Breeze was discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the
Act and of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act as amended.
. (4) The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
discriminatorily transferred Marian Urick from her job as production
clerk, and later discharged her, because of her activities on behalf of
the Union , The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent
be ordered to reinstate Urick to her job as production clerk. At the
time of the hearing, however , that job had been discontinued as part
of the Respondent 's general retrenchment program. Therefore, we
shall order the Respondent to reinstate Urick to her former job as
production clerk if that job, has been reestablished, or to a sub-
stantially equivalent job, or to a job as a production employee if no
substantially equivalent jobs are available at the time of her rein-
statement , with the right to be promoted to production clerk or a
substantially equivalent position when such positions become avail-
able. We shall also order the Respondent to make Urick whole for
any loss in wages she would have earned absent the Respondent's
discriminatory transfer and discharge.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 141
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this 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, Stainless Ware
Company of America, Walled Lake, Michigan, its officers, agents,
:successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO), or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment;
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship and activities and the identity of employees attending union
meetings ; engaging in surveillance of union meetings ; threatening
bodily harm or loss of jobs to employees unless they cease their union
activities; threatening a reduction in work if the above-named
Union or any other labor organization organized the plant; polling
employees to determine whether they desire to be represented by a
labor organization ; prohibiting the solicitation of union member-
ships on company property during nonworking time; or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act, as guaranteed in
Section 7 thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Florence Bjork and Annabel Breeze immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay that she may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her by pay-
ment of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earned as wages during the period from the date of the Respondent's
discrimination against her to the date of the Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period;
(b) Offer to Marian Urick immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position, or should such a posi-
tion not be available, to a job as a production employee, with the right
to be promoted to production clerk or it substantially equivalent posi-
tion when such positions become available, without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make her whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's
discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal
to that which she normally would have earned as wages during the
period from the date of the Respondent's discriminatory transfer to
the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings
during such period;
(c) Make whole Doris Davis and Eva Dixon for any loss of pay
that they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which she normally would have earned as wages during the period
from the date of the Respondent's discriminatory lay-off to the date
when she would have been laid off in accordance with the Respondent's
seniority list, less her net earnings during such period;
(d) Rescind immediately the rule prohibiting solicitation on the
Respondent's property insofar as it applies to union solicitation dur-
ing the employees' nonworking time :
(e) Post at its plant, in Walled Lake, Michigan, copies of the no-
tice attached hereto, marked Appendix A.4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice , before the words , "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 143
tenure of employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva
Cooper, Dorothy Gregor, Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, and
Myrtle Geliske, and insofar as it alleges interference, restraint, and
coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act and of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act as amended, except as otherwise found.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
AVE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations or activities and the identity of employees attending
union meetings.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings.
AVE WILL NOT threaten our employees with bodily harm or loss
of jobs unless they cease their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a reduction in work
if the above-named Union or any other labor organization suc-
ceeds in organizing our employees.
WE WILL NOT poll our employees to determine whether they de-
sire to be represented by the above-named Union or any other
labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or 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 Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE HEREBY RESCIND our rule forbidding solicitation on company
property insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on the em-
ployees' nonworking time.
WE WILL OFFER to Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian
Urick immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to any seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as the result of our discrimina-
tion against them.
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Doris Davis and Eva Dixon for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated----------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date thereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
George A. Sweeney, Esq.; and Jerome H. Brooks, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Clark, Klein, Brucker and Waples, by H. William Butler, Esq., of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Respondent.
Charles L. Barnes, Esq., of Pontiac, Mich., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the
Union, and by Marian Urick, Neva Cooper, Virginia Lawrence, Marie E. Janka,
and Dorothy Gregor, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,'
by the Regional Director of the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) issued a
complaint dated October 20, 1948, against Stainless Ware Company of America,
Walled Lake, Michigan, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, prior to amendment, herein called the Wagner Act, and of Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, com-
plaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent (1) on various dates between February 6 and April 22, 1947,
' The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to as the
General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 145
discriminatorily discharged 12 named employees, herein collectively called the
Complainants, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because they had joined
and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection and (2) from
January 1, 1947, to the date of the issuance of the complaint, by certain officers,
agents, and supervisory employees interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Wagner
Act and the Act by (a) on April 8, 1947, publishing and enforcing a rule of
discipline which prohibited solicitation of union membership on' company prop-
erty under any conditions at any time; (b) engaging in surveillance of meetings
of its employees held for the purpose of mutual air and protection; (c) ordering
and directing certain of its employees to engage in surveillance of other of its
employees in their concerted activities; (d) questioning certain employees as to
whether they had attended union meetings or were going to attend such meetings
and inquiring as to the identity of other of its employees who attended such
meetings; (e) on March 5, 1947, requiring all employees to attend during work-
ing hours meetings at which each employee was required to express his desire
as to whether he desired to be represented by a labor organization for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Respondent; (f) granting wage increases
to certain employees for the purpose of discouraging employees' membership in,
and activity on behalf of the Union; (g) informing certain employees that the
tenure of their employment would be more secure if they informed Respondent
as to concerted activities of other employees in behalf of the Union; and (h)
informing certain employees that other employees were threatening to do them
bodily harm unless they discontinued their membership in and activity in behalf
of the Union. The complaint alleged that by the foregoing conduct the Re-
spondent engaged in violations of Section 8. (1) and (3) of the Wagner Act and
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
On November 4, 1948, the Respondent filed its answer, in part admitting certain
allegations of the complaint, but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held from November 8 to 17, 19491, at
Pontiac, Michigan, before Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, the undersigned Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel
and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by an official
representative and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing, the General Counsel moved that the com-
plaint be amended so as to allege an additional act of interference with, re-
straint, and coercion of its employees' rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Wagner Act and the Act and a consequent violation of Section 8 (1) of
the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act on the part of the Respondent
by its transfer of Marian Urick on or about March 15, 1947, from a clerical to
a production position for the purpose of discouraging membership and activity
in behalf of the Union. The undersigned granted the motion but stated that
he might rescind the ruling in the Intermediate Report if, upon further con-
sideration, he should be convinced that the requested amendment of the com-
plaint was barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act, which states that "no complaint
shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof
upon the person against whom such charge is made." The undersigned is of the
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
opinion that the granting of the motion to amend was proper and the ruling is
adhered to. On August 21, 1947, Marian Urick filed a charge in Case No. 7-C-
1802 alleging that she and seven other employees had been discriminatorily dis-
charged in March and April 1947, and also alleging the following :
The said company, through its officers and agents, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization as guaranteed
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and by other acts not
herein set forth has interfered with the rights of its employees to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection.
It is conceded that a copy of this charge was promptly served upon the Respond-
ent. The amendment clearly falls within the general allegation of this charge
which was timely filed with the Board and served upon the Respondent .2
A motion by the Respondent to amend its answer so as to deny the allegations
of the amendment to the complaint was granted. At the conclusion of the hear-
ing, the undersigned granted a' motion by the General Counsel to conform the
pleadings to the proof as to dates, spelling, and minor variances. Upon the
conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned advised the parties that they might
argue bofore, and file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
or both, with the Trial Examiner. The parties waived oral argument. On
January 10 and 11, 1949, respectively, the General Counsel and the Respondent
each filed a brief with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Stainless Ware Company of America, a Michigan corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Walled Lake, Michigan, and with a ,ware-
house and showroom in Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in the manufacture of
housewares in the form of kitchen utensils and miscellaneous items made of
metal. During the calendar year of 1947, the Respondent purchased quantities
of supplies and raw materials valued at $434,094, of which approximately 53
percent came from sources outside the State of Michigan. During the same
period, the Respondent's sales of finished products amounted to approximately
$1,885,264, of which approximately 87 percent was shipped to sources outside
the State of Michigan and/or to customers within the State for shipment outside
the State of Michigan.
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
2 Cf. Morristown Knitting Hills, 80 NLRB 731.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 147
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
The issues as framed by the complaint, namely whether the Respondent
engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act and the cor-
responding sections of the Wagner Act, are by no means novel at this point in
the history of the Board. The principal problem has been to determine as
accurately as possible the course of events from the testimony which, as between
the General Counsel's and the Respondent's witnesses was in sharp conflict on
many crucial points. In resolving the infinite and crucial conflicts in testimony,
the. undersigned has considered such factors as corroborative testimony, support
offered by documentary evidence, and the impression rendered on him by the
witnesses as they testified. The undersigned has not mentioned those incidents
which he regards as unsubstantial in character, unrelated to the issues in con-
sideration, or unsupported by a fair preponderance of credible evidence.
B. The plant; history and operations
The Respondent commenced its operations in 1937, with the manufacture of
stainless steel skillets in a small plant at Walled Lake, a small community
in a rural area near Pontiac and Detroit, Michigan. Gradually the plant ex-
panded, adding the production of saucepans to its stainless steel line. About
1942, pursuant to governmental order, the Respondent ceased its production of
kitchen utensils and devoted its efforts to the manufacture of precision parts
for war production. At that time, 27 or 28 employees worked in the kitchen
utensil division. Further expansion of . the plant increased the number of
employees to approximately 300. Shortly before the end of the war, the Re-
spondent resumed production of kitchen utensils and, in the period immediately
following the war, expanded its line of products to an extensive number of
items in stainless steel.
In addition to the production of kitchen utensils, the Respondent also oper-
ated a "stud department" devoted to the manufacture of a bolt with different
threading on each end. In this department, 35 employees worked. The Re-
spondent's operations are divided in 3 divisions : kitchen utensil, stud, and
tool and die. The proceeding is concerned with the employees of the kitchen
utensil division.
The demand for the Respondent's stainless steel products was great in the
immediate postwar years, but by late 1946, business prospects declined and the
Repondent curtailed its operations in January 1947, by discontinuing its sec-
ond shift operations, with the exception of a small maintenance force and
a few employees performing production work on special items. Many of the
second shift employees transferred to jobs on the first shift.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Myrtle Geliske
Myrtle Geliske entered the Respondent's employ on September 13, 1944.
She worked initially for 10 months in the sun ray department, polishing kitchen
utensils. Being physically unable to work at a task requiring her to stand, she
was transferred, at her request, about July 1945, to the position of matron of
the ladies rest room. Her immediate supervisor was Maude Packer Mack,
personnel director for the Respondent.
877359-50-vol. 87-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In December 1946 and January 1947, Superintendent Berkley Crowe on sev-
eral occasions instructed Geliske to keep the employees from congregating in
the rest room during working hours and wasting time. In January 1947,
Mack also gave similar instructions. In addition, according to Geliske, Mack
asked Geliske "to find out what they were talking about." Geliske, -however,
admitted that Mack never inquired about the union activities of employees in
the rest room and never asked subsequently what were the subjects of the
employees' conversation. In January 1947, at Geliske's request, Mack gave
her a notice to post in the rest room forbidding employees from congregating
and talking there during working hours.
On February 6, 1947, Superintendent Crowe informed Mack that as part
of the Respondent's retrenchment policy, hereinafter more fully discussed in
connection with the April lay-off, he had determined to transfer Geliske from
the matron position to production work and to shift employee Mary Walters
from the production line to the matron's job. Walters had formerly been
matron of the rest room on the second shift prior to its discontinuance, was then
69 years old, and having lost a finger in an accident on the production line, was
not as dexterous in production work.
Mack went to Geliske, informed her of the pending transfer, and explained
the situation. Mack testified credibly that the following colloquy then ensued :
[Geliske] said she didn't think that she could take it to go back, take it
physically, that she couldn't take it to go back on production. . . . She
questioned me as to the particular type of job. I told her that we would dis-
cuss that with Mr. Crowe. She, her exact words were to me, "Well, if I quit,
what about my Unemployment?" Or something like that. "What about my
Unemployment?" I remember distinctly, and Myrtle knew that I had been
connected with the Unemployment Compensation at that time and I told
her that naturally I couldn't tell her what the decision of the claims examiner
would be, but I could tell her what reaction they would have to someone's
quitting one particular job without having ever tried or inquired about the
other, and I said, "I can only give you my personal advice, Myrtle, if I were
in your place I would certainly try the job and if I was not physically able
to perform it, then I would feel that I, would be justified in quitting or taking
whatever action you might wish. . . . I went back to my office and in a
rather short time, I can't tell you how long, but I believe it was still before
noon, she came into my office, and she said, "Mrs. Mack, I have decided to
quit. I am not even going to try the job."
Geliske's testimony was in general accord with that of Mack. except that
Geliske was unable to recall whether she discussed the question of unemploy-
ment compensation with Mack. Mack impressed the undersigned as an especially
forthright, sincere, and honest witness. Her testimony is therefore credited
and the undersigned finds that the conversation between Geliske and Mack
occurred as testified to by the latter.
Geliske testified that she asked Crowe what type of job she would be given
and he told her that she would return to the percolator line and to wait and
see Cecil Beebe, who was assistant to Crowe. She did not ask which particular
job on the line would be assigned to her and did not consult Beebe. Crowe,
on the other hand, denied that Geliske ever inquired as to the nature of the
job on production to which she would be assigned. He testified that he had
contemplated assigning her to a job assembling small parts for a teakettle
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 149
whistle and to cleaninng teakettles. The operator could perform these tasks
sitting in a chair. Apparently, Walters occupied a similar position before
her transfer to the matron's job. Mack's testimony was corroborative to a
certain extent of Crowe on this issue.
Although the undersigned has not credited other portions of Crowe's testi-
mony, hereinafter discussed, the undersigned finds that Crowe' s testimony in
respect to Geliske is entitled to credence, being supported by the testimony of
Mack, an impressive witness, and having considerable persuasion as to the
probable course of events when considered. in light of the conversation between
Mack and Geliske. The undersigned accordingly finds that Geliske did not
inquire of Crowe as to the nature of the production job in question, that the
job on the production line to which she would have been transferred could
have been performed seated at a bench or table, and that Geliske quit the
Respondent's employ without inquiring as to the nature of the job to which
she was to be transferred. Apparently the General Counsel contends that
Geliske's termination of employment was a "constructively" discriminatory
discharge, because of her activities in the Union-that is, that the Respondent
proposed to transfer her from the matron job to a more arduous job on the
production line which she could not physically perform and that she was there-
fore forced to terminate her employment. The undersigned finds no merit in
such theories. It has been found above that the job to which Geliske was to
be transferred was one which could have been performed seated at a bench or
table and apparently one which she would have been physically able to perform.
In addition, the exchange of Walters and Geliske in the jobs in question seems
reasonable. Walters was considerably older than Geliske, had suffered a
permanent injury to a hand, was unable to perform her production tasks
dexterously, and had served as matron for a considerable time on the night
shift. Furthermore, there is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Re-
spondent was aware of Geliske's union activities or sympathies at the time of
the termination of her employment or, for that matter, that she had participated
in any union or concerted activities to an appreciable extent at such time.
Geliske testified that subsequent to leaving the Respondent's employ, she became
active in the Union "because we didn't talk openly about it in the shop at the
time I was there." According to employee Egbert Mersino, employees first
discussed the possibility of organization in early January 1947. In mid-
February, after she had left the Respondent's employ, Geliske obtained union
application cards and gave them to Mersino. The first organizational meeting
of the employees was held on March 4, 1947.
In view of these factors and the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
Respondent was not illegally motivated in suggesting the transfer of Geliske
from the matron job to a position on the production line, that Geliske volun-
tarily quit the Respondent's employ on February 6, 1947, and that the Re-
spondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of Geliske's
employment in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act or Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
D. Interference, restraint, and coercion, March 4 and 5, 1947
1. Advent of Union ; sequence of events.
As previously mentioned, discussion among the employees as to the possibili-
ties of organizing ' commenced in January 1947. In mid-February application
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cards were obtained. On the evening of March 4, 1947, the first meeting of
employees and an organizer of the Union was held.
Employee Eva Dixon testified that on March 4, 1947, about 4: 20 p. in., im-
mediately prior to the end of her work day, the following occurred :
I was working and Mr. [William] Kelly [foreman of the polishing and
buffing department] came up and asked me if I was going to the Union
meeting. . . . I said, "No." . . Then Mr. [Cecil] Beebe [assistant super-
intendent over the kitchen utensil division] came up and he had a Union
card and he asked me if I wanted it. I asked him, "For what." And he
said, "For the meeting." . .. Well, we were talking about the meeting, I
didn't know anything about it but Mr. Crowe came up, he said, "I also got
an invitation." He said, "Are you going to this meeting tonight?" I said,
"I don't know anything about it." I asked him where it would be and he
said in Walled Lake.'
Kelly denied that he ever talked to Dixon about union meetings or asked her
if she attended them. Crowe did not specifically deny the testimony of Dixon
above related but stated generally that he never asked employees if they at-
tended union meetings or endeavored to find out if they did. Beebe, who ap-
peared under subpena as a witness for the General Counsel in rebuttal, testified
that he and Crowe discussed the organizational activities of their employees
prior to the meeting of March 4. His testimony indicates that he was aware
that the meeting was to be held on March 4, but he was not questioned in
respect to this conversation with Dixon. Upon the entire record and upon
the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Dixon's
testimony in this regard and finds that Supervisors Kelly, Crowe, and Beebe
wade the inquiries testified to by Dixon.
The same afternoon , March 4, employee June Wickline informed Assistant
Superintendent Beebe, according to the latter's credible testimony, that she
planned to attend the meeting. However, Wickline did not actually attend
the meeting that evening. She observed the employees gathering in a drug
store in Walled Lake, Michigan, prior to going to the meeting which was held
in an apartment above the drug store, made a list of the employees so as-
sembled, and, in the presence of employee Mary Smith, telephoned the home of
Richard Lewis, president of the Respondent, stated that "there was something
going on at the drug store, that they should know," and that she had a list of
names. Thereafter, she telephoned Foreman William Kelly and Paul Lewis,
brother of Richard Lewis and at that time supervisor of the plant cafeteria, but
neither of these calls was answered. Wickline then told Smith that Wickline was
"supposed to return these names in the office . . . the next morning." According
to Smith, the following morning she encountered Wickline as the latter emerged
from President Lewis' office and Smith asked Wickline "how she made out."
Wickline replied that Smith "would know later."
Foreman Beebe testified that Wickline gave him a list of names of employees
who attended union meetings and that Wickline "is supposed to have covered
a certain meeting at Walled Lake and these names are supposed to have been
the people seen entering the hall." Employee Bronnis Haney, who attended
some of the early meetings of the Union, also gave him the names of employees
3 Crowe was superintendent over all divisions of the plant . Beebe, directly subordinate
to Crowe , was in charge of all departments of the kitchen utensil division . In the record,
Beebe is referred to under various job titles. For the purpose of clarity, his position is
referred to herein as assistant superintendent.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 151
in attendance at such meetings. Beebe, in turn, relayed the information given
him by Wickline and Haney to Superintendent Crowe.'
On the morning of March 5, 1947, employee Egbert Mersino, who had attended
the union meeting at Walled Lake the night before, was sent by his foreman,
William Kelly, to the office of Superintendent Crowe. There, Crowe asked Mer-
sino whether he was "dissatisfied working there, and wanted to know just
what the trouble was. I asked him .what he meant. He says I was causing
a lot of trouble ; I was trying to organize the plant. . . . And he said I was
a trouble maker and an agitator, and then he told me that . . . somebody in the
plant was going to hit me over the head ... [with ] a spade ... for organ-
izing the union." However, Crowe refused to identify the maker of the threat.
Crowe inquired whether Mersino had attended the union meeting at Walled
Lake the night before. When Mersino admitted that he had been present, Crowe
inquired as to the names of other employees in attendance at the meeting, but
Mersino refused to divulge the information.'
Shortly after Mersino returned to work, he was sent by Foreman Kelly to
President Lewis' office, around 8: 30 a. in. Mersino testified that the following
conversation ensued:
He [Lewis] asked me what the hell was the matter, wanted to know why
I was causing so much trouble . . . I told him that I didn't figure I was
causing any trouble . .. He said, "Well , you are. You are just an agitator
a The findings in this and the preceding paragraphs are based upon the credible testi-
mony of Beebe and Smith . In considering Beebe's testimony , the undersigned is mindful
of Beebe's admission, in respect to the termination of his employment, "I figured I got
a pretty raw deal" from the Respondent. However, Beebe impressed the undersigned
as an honest witness, frank and candid in his testimony. Furthermore, his testimony on
other issues supports the position taken by counsel for the Respondent and therefore
demonstrates his objectivity as a witness and lack of willful bias in his testimony. Wick-
line's testimony is in accord with that of Smith as to certain details of the occurrences on
the night of March 4, 1947, at Walled Lake, but Wickline denied that she had compiled a
list of employees attending the meeting or telephoned President Lewis. She also denied
that any supervisor had ever qusetioned her in respect to union activities or meetings
of the employees and that she was in Lewis' office the morning of March 5. She admitted
making a telephone call on the evening of March 4 , in Smith's presence but, on cross-exam-
ination, refused to divulge the identity of the person she called, testifying that she could
not remember his name. Haney denied that she had ever given Beebe information with
respect to meetings of the Union. Lewis denied that Wickline had ever telephoned him,
that he ever had a list of employees who attended union meetings, and that Wickline
was in his office on March 5. It was stipulated that if Crowe were recalled as a witness,
he would deny the testimony of Beebe. Upon the entire record and the subsequent course
of events, as well as the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the testimony of Wick-
line, Haney, Lewis, and Crowe is not credited.
5 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Mersino.
Crowe specifically denied the statements attributed to him by Mersino, but admitted that he
had a conversation in his office with Mersino on the morning of March 5. According to
Crowe, an unidentified person telephoned him on March 4, and asked, "How would you like
to find one of, your employees shoved in a snow bank?" When Crowe sought to identify
the employee threatened, the caller replied, "A fellow that works in the Polishing and
Buffing Department named Bert." The next morning Crowe asked Kelly, foreman of the
polishing and buffing department, whether there was an employee named Bert in that de-
partment and Kelly pointed out Mersino. Whereupon, Crowe asked that Mersino be sent
to Crowe's office and Crowe told him about the telephone call. According to Crowe, Mer-
sine then said , " He went over to Walled Lake to get some groceries and met some of the
girls over there and had a little meeting." Upon the entire record, including the fact
found above that a list of employees who attended the union meeting at Walled Lake on
March 4 , had been given Beebe , who in turn submitted it to Crowe , as well as his impres-
sion of the witnesses, the undersigned finds Crowe's denials not entitled to credence. It
is found that the colloquy between Crowe and Mersino occurred as testified to by Mersino.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
here, a trouble maker." I asked him what he meant ... He said, "You
know what I mean. It is about this union business; organizing this
place. . .. ' I told him that the people all seemed for it .. . . He said he
didn't believe it. We argued back and forth for a little while. . . . He
said it would cost the Company an awful lot of money if they got the union
in there . . . He said that he couldn't afford to do it right then, he said
if it was three or four, maybe six months later, maybe it would be
different. . . Mr..Lewis said if the union come in you'd be cut down to eight
hours a day, and three and four days a week. . . . I told him I didn't see
why that would be necessary, it would be for their own advantage .. .
Mr. Lewis told me that Mr. Crowe remarked to him that there was a man
or men in the plant threatening to get me . . . If I didn't cut out this union
organization . . . I asked him if he could name the parties, and he
said, "No."
Lewis admitted that he had a conversation with Mersino on or about March 5,
1947, but denied that he instigated the interview. According to Lewis, Mersino
requested an appointment and was summoned when Lewis was free. Lewis
testified that the conversation commenced by Mersino's requesting a loan of
between $300 and $500 and that Lewis declined to make such a loan because
of the somewhat perilous business conditions then confronting the Respondent.
According to Lewis, Mersino told him that the employees "would have better
conditions if they had a Union in the plant" and that "there was a number of
people in the plant that wanted a Union," but Lewis "only talked to him in a
general line." Lewis specifically denied the statements and inquiries attributed
to him by Mersino.
From his observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the case,
including (1) the fact that Wickline had telephoned Lewis the night before in
respect to the meeting at Walled Lake and that Wickline had submitted to the
Respondent a list of employees attending the meeting, (2). the discouraging
business outlook then confronting the Respondent, hereinafter discussed, and
(3) the events occurring in a meeting of all employees held by Lewis immediately
after his interview with Mersino, the undersigned is persuaded and finds that
the conversation between Lewis and Mersino occurred as testified to by the latter.
Soon after the day shift commenced work on March 5, Darlene Gortner, an
inspector who had attended the union meeting the night before in Walled Lake,
was summoned to Superintendent Crowe's office. Crowe asked her where she had
been the night before and Gortner replied that she had attended a show in Walled
Lake. Crowe asked her whether she had attended a union meeting, stated that
he knew about the meeting, and asked who was present. When Gortner replied
that she did not know, Crowe stated that he knew who had attended e
About 10 a. in. March 5, 1947, all employees, including, supervisors, were
assembled in the cafeteria of the Respondent's plant. President Lewis presided
over the meeting and commenced the discussion by stating that the Respondent's
business prospects for the coming. months were not particularly good, because
of a decrease in the amount of sales, and that consequently a lay-off of employees
might be necessary. He also stated that a number of the stainless steel pans,
rated as seconds, were available for purchase by the employees at half price. He
d The findings in this paragraph are based upon the credible testimony of Gortner.
To a certain extent, her testimony was corroborated by that of employee Florence G. Bjork.
Crowe denied that he ever had a conversation with Gortner about the union meeting of
March 4. For the reasons stated above, the undersigned does not deem Crowe' s denial
worthy of credence.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 153
then introduced the admittedly main topic for discussion, the question of the
employees' organizational efforts. Lewis stated that he had been informed that
some of the employees desired to have a union represent the employees and that
he had received a telephone call the evening before in regard to the union
meeting at Walled Lake. He further stated that the purpose of the. present
meeting was to determine whether the employees wanted a union to represent
them and in the event they did, he would call in an organizer for the Union to
perfect the organization, and presumably sign a contract. Employee Bjork
protested the haste in reaching a decision on the matter, suggesting that the
decision be deferred until after a union meeting that night, which the employees
might attend and learn the purposes of the Union. Lewis, however, declined to
delay a decision in the matter and urged the employees to determine then and
there whether they wanted a union to represent them. When Lewis stated that
the relationship between the Respondent and its employees had always been
that of a happy family and inquired why the employees needed a union, employees
Annabel Breeze and Virginia Lawrence raised a question as to the administration
of the Respondent's system of automatic pay increases after employees had
obtained a certain number of months' seniority, contending that many employees
were entitled to maximum rates because of their length of service but had not
received the increases. Lewis sent for Personnel Manager Mack and asked her
to explain the Respondent's system of automatic increases in pay. Mack
explained the system and Lewis asked all employees who. were entitled to, but
-lad not received, higher rates of pay because of their length of service to raise
either hand. Between 35 and 40 employees raised their hands. Lewis promised
that the situation would be rectified in the next pay period and all who were
entitled to automatic increases would receive them. Lewis then asksd for one
of the employees to preside over the meeting, and for the employees to discuss
the matter and decide whether they desired to have a union represent them.
Employee Anthony Swek took control of the meeting and Lewis and all supervisors
withdrew from the meeting to the Respondent's offices in a nearby building. A
brief discussion ensued with various employees expressing their opinions. Swek
-asked the employees in favor of the Union to raise their hands. About 10 indi-
cated that they wanted the Union. Swek adjourned the meeting and suggested
that the employees return to work.
In about 10 minutes, all employees were again ordered to assemble in the
cafeteria. Lewis explained that the employees had not informed him of their
-decision. He was told of the result of the show-of-hands vote. 'Lewis expressed
doubt as to the fairness of conducting such an open vote and directed a second
vote to be held by secret ballot. A ballot box was constructed, ballots distributed,
.and four employees were appointed as tellers. Before the ballots were placed
in the box, Lewis and the supervisory staff retired from. the cafeteria. Lewis
returned when the ballots were being counted. The balloting resulted in 43
'votes for the Union and 155 against the Union. Lewis then told the employees
to have their lunch.?
7 The findings as to the meetings in the cafeteria on March 5, 1947, are a composite of
the credible testimony of the numerous witnesses called by the General Counsel and by
the Respondent. Nearly all of the General Counsel's witnesses insisted that Lewis con-
.ducted the show-of-hands vote at the first meeting in the cafeteria. However, Beebe
and Paul Lewis, who were called as witnesses by the General Counsel, corroborated the
testimony of witnesses for the Respondent that Lewis and the supervisors left the first
meeting before the vote was taken. The undersigned is persuaded that the events occurred
..as related in the text above and that the witnesses were confused as to the balloting pro-
cedure. Possibly, they confused the show-of-hands balloting conducted by Lewis in respect
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Conclusions
As soon as the Union's organizational campaign assumed concrete and overt
form, the Respondent launched its counter-campaign in opposition to the con-
certed activities of its employees. Thus, the afternoon before the first scheduled
meeting of the Union, on March 4, 1947, Superintendent Crowe, Assistant Super-
intendent Beebe, and Foreman Kelly asked employee Dixon whether she planned
to attend the meeting.
The names of those employees who attended the first meeting were supplied
the Respondent by Wickline and Haney. The latter also gave additional infor-
mation to the Respondent concerning subsequent meetings of the Union.
Although the record does not establish positively that the Respondent directed
Wickline and Haney to engage in surveillance of union meetings, it is clear that
by accepting the information the Respondent indicated that Wickline and Haney
were acting with the Respondent's approval. In subsequent conversations be-:
tween supervisors and employees, as well as in President Lewis' remarks
addressed to the assembled employees on March 5, reference was made to the
information supplied by Wickline and Haney as to the union meetings. In these
conversations, employees were questioned as to their union activities, their
attendance of union meetings, and the identity of other employees present. In
view of the Respondent's acceptance of the data supplied by Wickline and Haney,
the use to which such information was put by the Respondent, and the subsequent
interrogation of employees, the undersigned finds that such conduct by the Re-
spondent constitued unlawful surveillance of organizational activity e
On April 5, 1947, the morning after the union meeting, Superintendent Crowe
interrogated employees Mersino and Gortner as to their concerted activities,
to the wage rates with the first vote on the union issue. In any event, it is hardly likely
that Lewis would reassemble the employees for the second balloting if he had conducted
the first ballot and knew the desires of the employees. Moreover, witnesses forthe Gen-
eral Counsel stated that the reason given for the second balloting was that employees had
complained that the first show-of-hands ballot was unfair, but aside from a brief com-
ment made by Mersino to his foreman, the record contains no evidence as to the specific
complaints or the identity of employees making such complaint in respect to the method
of conduct of the first vote. Testimony that Lewis conducted the first ballot with respect
to the Union is therefore not credited. It should be noted that a myriad of conflicts as to
the details of the meetings exists in the testimony of the various witnesses ; although
some events ascribed by the undersigned to the first meeting, may have occurred at the
second meeting, it is unnecessary to determine with infinite precision the exact course of
events for the purpose of this Intermediate Report. Lewis testified that the reason he
called the meeting was to determine whether the employees wanted a Union to represent
them, because "I didn't want a lot of dissatisfaction in the plant. . . . The way I fig-
ured, if they wanted a Union we would call a man in and get it going so we could go ahead
on our production." He admitted that he made some of the statements set forth in
the text above, but denied that he made any statement "for myself or for the Union," that
he used the "happy family" analogy in respect to his relationship with the employees, or
stated that there was no need for a union. In view of the fact that the meeting was called
immediately after the first organizational meeting of the Union, before many employees
were enrolled in its ranks, and upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned cannot credit Lewis' testimony as to the reason for the assemblage of the
employees on March 5 or Lewis' denials of the statements set forth in the text. Additional
statements were attributed to Lewis by various witnesses and were denied by him. The
undersigned has not accorded them credence for the following reasons : (1) they were not
in accord with the sequence of events or (2) they were attributed to Lewis by 1 or 2 wit-
nesses without corroboration by the numerous witnesses called by the General Counsel or
(3) the witnesses for the General Counsel were in disagreement as to the' nature of the
statement.
8 Macon Textiles, 80 NLRB 1525 ; Boss Manufacturing Company, 78 NLRB 538; Sohde
Pipe Line Company, 75 NLRB 858. Cf. S. TV. Evans cf Sons, 81 NLRB 161.
STAINLESS' WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 155
their attendance at the meeting the night before, and the identity of other
employees present at the meeting. Furthermore, Crowe relayed to Mersino a
threat that "somebody in the plant was going to hit [Mersino] over the head . . .
[with] a spade . . . for organizing the Union."
President Lewis also reiterated the threat to Mersino that "there was a man or
men in the plant threatening to get" Mersino unless lie "cut out this Union
organization." In addition, Lewis inquired as to Mersino 's union activities and
threatened a reduction in working hours if the Union organized the plant.
Later that morning, Lewis assembled the employees and addressed them.
Although some of his remarks contained no threat of reprisal or promise of
benefit and are therefore privileged speech, his inquiries as to the reason the
employees desired to organize and his instruction that then and there the
employees should decide by vote whether they desired to have the Union as their
collective bargaining representative constituted unlawful interference and re-
straint with the employees concerted activities. The fact that Lewis did not
himself take the vote or was not present when the vote was taken does not
affect this conclusion. The direction of Lewis resulted in the first vote by
show of hands and also in the second vote by secret ballot and constituted
unlawful conduct, per se, being illegal interference by the Respondent in a
matter which was exclusively a concern of the employees.°
The, undersigned concludes that by the foregoing conduct, statements, in-
quiries, threats, and polling of employees, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act 10
E. The discriminatory discharge of employee Florence Bjork
Bjork entered the Respondent's employ on November 20, 1945, and quit
February 16, 1946. She was rehired on June 24, 1946, and was discharged
March 12, 1947. Throughout her employment, she worked in the sun ray
department of the kitchen utensil division. The 15 or 20 employees of this
department, working generally in teams of 3 members, polished pans by hold-
ing them with one hand on a rapidly revolving block while with the other
hand a polish finish was obtained by use of an abrasive pad or stone. The
employees worked at tables on 2 opposite sides of which were located the
revolving chucks or blocks, 3 to a side. The blocks were about 3 or 4 feet apart.
Four to six employees worked at a table.
Bjork attended the union meeting at Walled Lake on March 4 and all suc-
ceeding meetings. On March 4, she signed an application for membership in
the Union and thereafter enlisted the membership of four other employees. At
the meeting of employees in the cafeteria on March 5, she requested that Lewis
defer the balloting until a union meeting to be held that evening, so that em-
ployees might attend the meeting and determine the purpose and aims of
organization. Lewis recalled that an employee urged that the vote be deferred
but tesified that he did not know the identity of the employee.
9 Granite State Machine Company, Inc., 80 NLRB 79; Parkside Hotel, 74 NLRB 809.
11 It is not found that the promise of Lewis, made at the March 5 meeting, to give employ-
ees their automatic increases to which they were entitled but had not been accorded was
unlawful. The system of automatic increases had been in effect for some time and the
matter of its administration was raised by employees at the meeting. The undersigned
does not construe Lewis' statements in regard thereto as an attempt to deter the organiza-
tional efforts of the Union by granting employees a wage increase.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent contends that Bjork was discharged for a justifiable cause,.
not violative of the Act, namely, that she talked in a loud voice to other
employees while working and thereby created an accident hazard by distracting
the attention of employees from their work. The work of the sun ray depart-
ment was somewhat hazardous ; if a sun ray operator performed his work in a
careless manner, a pan or the abrasive material might be thrown off the
rapidly revolving chuck with considerable force, hitting employees working:
nearby"
President Lewis testified that on five or six occasions when he visited the
production floor of the plant, he observed Bjork talking in a loud tone of voice
to employees in the sun ray department, and noticed that for a period of 10•
or 15 minutes Bjork was not working but was talking to girls on the other side
of the table. According to Lewis, he remonstrated to Superintendent Crowe-
that Bjork's conversational tendencies created a hazard to other employees of
the department but Crowe replied, "We can't do anything with her," although
she had been warned not to talk. Thereupon, Lewis told Crowe, "Bert, before
somebody gets hurt seriously, you ought to let her go." Crowe's testimony
corroborated that of Lewis.
Bjork testified that on March 12, 1947, she noticed Lewis in the buffing
department looking at her and that at that time, Del George, Bjork's immediate
supervisor, came to her and said, "Dynamite, watch your talking." 12 Accord-
ing to Bjork, she had never before been reprimanded individually for talking
at work, although George had on occasion warned the sun ray department
and its component teams of three employees each, "We have to watch our-
talking." George did not testify. Upon the entire record and his observation-
of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Bjork's testimony as to this issue.
At the close of the workday on March 12, Bjork was sent by Assistant Super-
intendent Beebe to Crowe's office. According to the credible testimony of Bjork,
Crowe said, `This is it . . . There is too much talking and not enough work
going on in the Sun Ray Department" and discharged her.13
Beebe testified that he and Crowe knew that Bjork, among others, was active'
in the Union and that while he and Crowe were discussing such activities, Crowe
stated, "We will watch them and the first mis-move, that is it . . . that was the
pay-off, made the final pay ticket out right then." Crowe denied that he ever
talked with supervisors about the union activity of any employees and it was
stipulated that if Crowe were recalled as a witness he would have specifically
denied the testimony of Beebe. From his observation of the witnesses and for
the reasons heretofore stated, the undersigned credits the testimony of Beebe.
11 Albert Dominick, who was safety director for the Respondent from March 1945 to
about October 1948 , testified credibly as to the accident hazard in the department. He.
further testified that in April and May 1946, 80 percent of the accidents in the Respond-
ent's operation occurred in the kitchen utensil division and that of such 80 percent, 38
percent were in the sun ray department. He studied the operations of this department
and recommended to Lewis or Crowe that "the employees should concentrate more on their-
work and not be restricted from their operations , because the distraction of their opera-
tions resulted in serious accidents ." It should be noted , however , that these particular-
accidents , and his study thereof , occurred some 1.0 or 11 months prior to Bjork ' s discharge-
at a time when Bjork was not in the Respondent's employ.
12 Bjork's nicknames were "Dynamite" and "Peppy."
13 Crowe's testimony is in substantial accord with that of Bjork, except that he placed'
her discharge at the time clock rather than his office . He testified that "I told her we-
were discharging her on account of talking and yelling and I was going to get production,
out or that department over there."
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 157
Employee Jean Craven, a witness for the General Counsel and a teammate of
Bjork, testified that Bjork talked no more at work than the other employees of
the sun ray department, talked in an average voice to the girls working at her
table, sometimes conversed with employees on the opposite side of the work table,
but never shouted or talked with employees at other tables in the department.
Employee Mary Smith, who was also a witness for the General Counsel and
who worked in the sun ray department at a table nearby that of Bjork, testified
that "once in a while, not very often, Bjork talked to her but never shouted.
Kathryn Nichols, a witness for the Respondent and also a teammate of Bjork,
testified that Bjork was a good worker, talked more than the other employees
of the department, and possessed a loud voice which could be heard for con-
siderable distance.11 There was no rule prohibiting employees of the sun ray
department from talking during working hours and with but few exceptions,
all witnesses agreed that a convivial atmosphere prevailed among the employees
of the sun ray department; they talked and jested among themselves and with
their foreman during working hours.15
Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that during working hours Bjork
did in fact talk to fellow employees, both those on her side of the table and those
opposite her, and that on occasion she talked to employees at other tables. To
have done this she undoubtedly at times talked in a louder than average tone of
voice. However, the undersigned cannot credit the Respondent's contentions that
Bjork was discharged because of her conversational propensities; rather, the
undersigned is persuaded that the motivation for Bjork's discharge was due to
her activities and membership in the Union and the Respondent's opposition
thereto. These conclusions are based upon several reasons. (1) Although Bjork
was allegedly discharged for talking at work, it is clear that there was no rule
prohibiting employees from conversing while they worked and that other em-
ployees chatted and jested among themselves and with their foreman at work.
Moreover, Bjork was never warned individually about talking at work, until
immediately before her discharge at a time when the Respondent had decided to
terminate her employment. (2) Notwithstanding the fact that the operations of
the sun ray department were hazardous, there is no showing by the Respondent
that Bjork's talking caused any accidents in the department. In fact, the period
of high accident rate in the department occurred prior to Bjork's reemployment
by the Respondent on June 24, 1946. (3) As found heretofore, prior to Bjork's
discharge, the Respondent had by various acts interfered with the organizational
activities of its employees, indicating its opposition to the Union, and Bjork's
union sympathies were known to President Lewis for she had advocated at the
March 5 meeting that the vote be deferred in order to enable employees to attend
a union meeting and acquaint themselves with the purposes of self-organization.
The testimony of Assistant Superintendent Beebe, viewed in the light of the
Respondent's opposition to the Union and knowledge of Bjork's union sympathies,
establishes the real motivation for the discharge of Bjork. Both he and Crowe
14 Wickline , who worked in the sun ray department , also testified that Bjork talked from
table to table in a loud voice , talked more than the other girls , and by such conversations
kept "the other girls from working and she didn't work herself:" According to Wick-
line, Foreman George frequently warned Bjork not to talk. As heretofore noted, Wick-
line did not impress the undersigned as an accurate witness and her testimony on other
issues has been rejected. For those considerations, as well as the fact that Wickline dis-
agreed with other witnesses as to Bjork's production, the undersigned does not credit her
tesitmony as to Bjork.
15 This finding does not imply that they engaged in censorable conduct.
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were aware of Bjork's union membership and activities and Crowe stated in
respect to the union adherents, "We will watch them and the first mis-move, that
is it ... that was the pay-off." 16
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned
concludes that Bjork's talking at work was seized upon by the Respondent as a
pretext for her discharge and that the real motive for the termination of her
employment was her activities and membership in the Union and the Respondent's
opposition thereto. In view of these circumstances, the undersigned finds that
Bjork was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner
Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, because of her membership in, and activi-
ties on behalf of, the Union and that by thus discriminating against Bjork, the
Respondent has discouraged. membership in the Union and interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act.
F. The discriminatory discharge of Annabel Breeze
Annabel Breeze commenced her employment with the Respondent on September
4, 1945, in the sun ray department. Six months later she transferred to the press
room, where she operated various types of small punch presses.
She attended the first meeting of the Union at Walled Lake on March 4, 1947.
At the meeting of employees in the Respondent's cafeteria on March 5, 1947, she
openly espoused the Union by saying, according to her credible testimony, "We
wouldn't need a Union . . . if he [President Lewis] would give us our seniority
rights," and by launching a discussion of the administration of the Respondent's
automatic wage increase policy.
Breeze testified that at the Walled Lake meeting of the Union, it had been
decided to hold the next meeting at her home. She further testified credibly
that on March 5, Superintendent Crowe and Assistant Superintendent Beebe
asked her whether the next meeting was going to be at her home, and that she
answered in the negative."
On March 13, 1947, Breeze was operating a small punch press, which formed
brackets for the handles on coffee percolators. In this operation, with her
left hand she dipped in a compound solution the blanks to be formed into
brackets, usually 10 at a time. Then, using tongs held in her right hand, she
inserted a blank in the press and tripped a lever with her foot, thereby caus-
ing the press to close automatically and form the bracket. As the press opened,
she removed the bracket with the tongs and then inserted another blank. Ac-
cording to her uncontroverted testimony, the production rate for this job was
400 brackets an hour.
On March 13, 1947, she inadvertently inserted two blanks into the press at
one time, causing the press to become locked. When Diesetter Kenneth Leonard
11 The conflict in reasons given for Bjork's discharge , inherent in Crowe's and President
Lewis' testimony , also casts doubt as to the Respondent ' s motivation in terminating Bjork's
employment . Thus , Preisdent Lewis testified that the sole reason for her discharge was
that Bjork' s talking constituted an accident hazard. However , when Crowe discharged
Bjork , he ascribed as the reason , according to her testimony , "There is too much talking
and not enough work going on in the Sun Ray Department ." Crowe testified that Bjork
was discharged because she "was interfering with other people getting production ; it was
hazardous over there."
14 Crowe testified that he never had any conversation with Breeze with respect to her
union activities and never interrogated her as to the identity of employees attending union
meetings. Beebe was not questioned in respect to this conversation. For the reason
heretofore mentioned , the undersigned does not credit Crowe's testimony in this regard.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 159
opened the press, the top and bottom dies were found locked together. The
-dies were pried apart and it was discovered that the top die was damaged,
having been "split open" or cracked, with injury to other portions of the die.
Thereupon, Assistant Superintendent Beebe summarily discharged Breeze's
The Respondent contends that the discharge of Breeze was not violative of
the Act, because as stated in the Respondent's answer, Breeze "was discharged
for cause for the reason that through wanton and gross negligence, she caused
expensive damage to be done to certain machinery of the employer and said rule
of discharge for such conduct has been uniformly applied by Respondent." At
the hearing, counsel for the Respondent admitted that "there is no question
about the quality of her work at any point."
As to the first grounds for the discharge, namely "expensive damage" to
equipment, it is clear that the die was not irreparably damaged by Breeze but
was put back in service the next day, after employees of the tool and (lie room
repaired it.
As to whether the Respondent had a rule of discharge for such action as
was taken by Breeze and whether such a rule was uniformly applied by the
Respondent, the testimony of the witnesses is in decided conflict.
There is no convincing evidence of specific instances, prior to the Breeze
incident, where employees broke dies without being discharged,"D However,
employees Davis, Breeze, and Berg, all of whom operated at various times similar
small punch presses, testified that it was not uncommon for a press operator
to insert two blanks into a punch press, presumably without injury to the
dies or presses. Their testimony was controverted by that of Diesetter Leonard
and Superintendent Crowe and is irreconcilable with the established facts in
18 Breeze contended that the die was not broken but was scratched and could have easily
been reconditioned . She testified that in the discussion between herself , Assistant Super-
intendent Beebe, and Diesetter Leonard, which ensued immediately after the die was
removed from the press and opened, Leonard said, "The die isn't broken, Mr. Beebe,"
but Beebe replied, "Kenny, I said the die is broken," and then Leonard then said, Okay,
the die is broken." Employee Eva Dixon corroborated the testimony of Breeze , stating
that she had overheard the conversation. However, employee Marian Urick, who was a
production clerk for Beebe and who was a witness for the General Counsel, testified that
she wrote the discharge slip for Breeze and overheard a conversation between Leonard and
Beebe, wherein "Kenny [Leonard] told Mr. Beebe that the die was broke, and Mr. Beebe
said the die was broke they got her out of there; that she had to get out of there before
lunch.. He did not want that machine touched or used until Annabel left." Leonard
specifically denied the testimony of Breeze and Dixon , and Beebe insisted that the die was
broken, although he was not questioned in detail as to the incident. Crowe and Lewis also
testified that the die was broken in the manner described in the text above. George A.
Hendrian , assistant superintendent in charge of the tool and die department , gave detailed
and convincing testimony in respect to the dies in question. Upon the entire record and his
observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit the testimony of Breeze and
Dixon in respect to the die-breaking incident but finds that the die was damaged in the
manner related above.
19 Employee Davis testified that employee Wanda Brown informed her in 1946 that she
caught a pair of tongs in a press and broke a die and that Brown was not discharged.
Brown did not testify. Crowe denied that Brown ever broke a die. The under-
signed does not credit this testimony of Davis nor the hearsay testimony of Breeze
that she was told that a die on one of the large presses was broken on March 13. Hazel
Berg, employed in the sun ray department from 1945 to March 1946 and resident at the
time of the hearing at the home of Breeze, testified that occasionally she worked in the
press room and that in January 1946 , her foreman complained that she had broken a
die and run scrap for half a day but she was not discharged or reprimanded . However, she
was never assigned to press work thereafter. Foreman William Kelly denied that Berg
broke a die but stated that on one occasion the die became worn but Berg did not notice
the imperfection and ran scrap . Upon the entire record and his observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned credits Kelly 's testimony.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect to the operation of the presses. That is, on small presses, such as
were operated by these employees, the close adjustment of the dies allowed for
clearance of only one piece of stock to be pressed . Unlike the larger presses,
the smaller variety rarely stalled when the pressing mechanism was once started
and if two pieces of stock were inserted in the smaller presses, the machine
would complete the operation, causing damage either to the dies or to the press
itself. In other words, either the dies or the press must give way to accom-
modate the thickness of the extra piece of stock.
Richard Julleff, foreman of a press room of another employer and called by
the General Counsel as an expert witness, testified that in using "doped pieces,"
that is stock dipped in compound, a pressed article might stick to the top of the
die and the operator would inadvertently insert another piece of stock, causing
damage to the die. Julleff testified that as a result of inserting two pieces of
stock in the press "sometimes you bust your die and sometimes you scorch them,
you have to polish them down and use them over again . . . sometimes you
break them beyond repair and you have to make a new one. Sometimes they
just crack, you take them up and send them to the tool and die and weld them
and polish them up and then send them back and put them in and get them ready
for operation again." According to Julleff, this might occur to an experienced
operator three or four times a year and with a production rate of 350 or 400
pieces per hour, "where you are working in compound, stuff like that, you are
bound to stick them, you can't get away from it."
Julleff was an impressive witness with no personal interest in the proceeding.
His testimony is credited. Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that
on occasion experienced punch press operators inadvertently inserted two pieces
of stock in their presses with resulting injury to the dies: ° The record does not
reveal that employees were discharged for such incidents prior to the discharge
of Breeze 21
Although there may be some valid justification for Breeze's discharge, the
undersigned is convinced that the reason relied upon by the Respondent, namely
the damage to the die, was merely a pretext to conceal its illegal motivation for
her discharge. As mentioned previously, Breeze was an early and active ad-
herent of the Union, attending the first meetings, at which the occurrences and
names of those in attendance were reported to the Respondent. Moreover, she
openly expressed her union sympathies at the meeting conducted by President
Lewis on March 5. Finally, as set forth above, Beebe's testimony is an admission
that Breeze's discharge was discriminatorily motivated. He and Crowe discussed
the fact that Breeze, among other employees, was active in the Union and Crowe
told Beebe, "We will watch them and the first mis-move, that is it." In view
of these admissions, it is clear that the damage to the die by Breeze was the
"mis-move" Beebe and Crowe were awaiting and, seizing upon that incident,
they discharged her in order. to discourage. membership in the Union and the
progress of its organizational campaign." The undersigned concludes and finds
20 From his observation of the witnesses and for reasons previously stated, the testimony
of Leonard and Crowe to the contrary is not credited.
21 Crowe testified that subsequent to the dismissal of Breeze , another employee was
discharged for damaging a die but he was unable to recall the name of the employee. The
Respondent did not introduce any records or other evidence with respect to the employee
referred to by Crowe. This testimony is not credited.
22 In reaching this conclusion , the undersigned has not credited Breeze's testimony that
after her discharge , around 11 a. in. on March 13, the Respondent did not offer her trans-
portation from the plant , located in the country , to her home. Personnel Manager Mack
testified that when employees were discharged or called home during • working hours, the
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 161
that Breeze was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of
the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, because of her membership
in the Union and that by thus discriminating against Breeze and by interrogating
her in respect to the meeting place of the Union, the Respondent has discouraged
membership in the Union and interfered with, restrained , and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of both the Wagner
Act and the Act: 3
G. Further interference, restraint , and coercion
On March 13, 1947, the Union held a meeting, which employee Eva Dixon
attended . She testified credibly that the next morning she had the following
conversation with Superintendent Crowe:
He said, "How did you like the Union meeting last night?" I said,
"Fine." He said, "Eva , you shouldn 't be going to those places," and I
said, that I felt that when I punched out, I would go where I pleased and
do what I pleased. He said, "You are being disloyal to Mr. Lewis, as the
Union was voted out." I said, "Not me, I voted for it." . . . He asked
me, . . "Eva do you mind telling me who all was there last night?" I said,
"No, Mr. Crowe, I can't tell you that." He said, "Why not?" I said,
"Well, you know that I was there, you ought to know who else was there."
He said, "Do you know that people hold their jobs longer that keep the
Company informed of what goes on in the plant? . . . he said that I had
been there a long time, and that I was an excellent worker and that he
hated to see me go, but if I kept on with this Union business , he would
have to let me go. I told him that he could fire me or lay me off or do any-
thing he wished, I was still Union 2{
Later in the morning, Assistant Superintendent Beebe asked Dixon, according
to her credible testimony, "Did you have a good time at the meeting last night?"
Dixon replied, "You should have been there." Whereupon Beebe countered, "I
would like to have been, but I had to work late." 25
Dixon further testified that about 11 a. m. on the same morning she had the
following conversation with Personnel Manager Maude Mack in the rest room
in the presence of employee Loretta Keller and other girls :
Respondent customarily furnished them transportation , that she asked Breeze whether she
had any transportation home, and that Breeze replied that if she might use the telephone,
a relative would come to the plant and meet her . According to Mack , Breeze used the tele-
phone in another office and then left without saying more about transportation . The record
reveals that Breeze remained at the plant during the lunch period and she admitted that
she was deeply. disturbed over her discharge . In view of these circumstances , as well as
the fact that Mack was a most impressive witness, the undersigned credits Mack's testi-
mony in this regard.
23 Cf. Sunnyside Winery, 77 NLRB 93 ; Super-Cold Southwest Company, 81 NLRB 96.
21 Crowe did not specifically deny the testimony of Dixon in this regard but denied
generally that he ever questioned employees about their attendance at union meetings or
tried to find out the identity of employees attending union meetings. From his observa-
tion of the witnesses and for the reasons previously stated, the undersigned does not deem
Crowe ' s denials worthy of credence . Dixon ' s testimony is credited on this issue.
25 Beebe did not specifically deny the remarks attributed to him by Dixon but denied
that he ever asked employees if they attended union meetings. However, he admitted that
he inquired of employees Haney and Wickline as to the identity of employees in attendance
at union meetings . Upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses , the under-
signed does not credit the general denial of Beebe but finds that he made the inquiries as
testified to by Dixon.
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Mack] said, ,you are one of the girls that is mixed up in this Union
business." I said, "Why, yes, I am, it's a swell business to be in." She
said, "Eva, you shouldn't do that, you are being disloyal to Mr. Lewis," and
she says, "Believe me, it will only cause you trouble and you will get
nowhere."
Mack specifically denied making the statements attributed to her by Dixon.
Keller testified that she never heard Mack make the statements attributed to her
by Dixon or question any employee about his union activities or accuse any
employee of belonging to the Union. Mary Walters, matron of the rest room,
testified that she never observed Mack converse with Dixon in the rest room and
never heard Mack admonish Dixon, or any one, about the Union. As stated
elsewhere, Mack appeared to be a sincere and truthful witness, as did Walters.
Although the undersigned has credited some of Dixon's testimony, he has found
other portions to be unworthy of credence. From his impression of the wit-
nesses and the fact that Mack's denials are supported by the testimony of Wal-
ters and Keller, the undersigned credits Mack's testimony and finds that she did
not make the statements attributed to her by Dixon.
Employee Dorothy Sawyer also attended the union meeting on the evening
of March 13, 1946. The next morning, she had a conversation with her foreman,
William Kelly. Among other things, Kelly asked her if she had attended the
meeting the night before. 21
Later the same afternoon, Foreman Paul Lewis asked her, "How the meeting
was last night." Sawyer feigned ignorance of any meeting. As she was punching
her time card at the close of the work day, Paul Lewis told her that "he was
sorry that he accused me of attending" the meeting. Sawyer replied, "I am
sorry I lied to you, because I did." They talked for 15 or 20 minutes, arguing
about the Union-how Sawyer "felt about it and how he felt about it . . . he
believed,there shouldn't be a Union out there." "
On the morning of March 14, 1947, employee Egbert Mersino was instructed
by his foreman, William Kelly, to report to President Lewis' office zb Mersino
complied with the order and testified credibly that he had the following conversa-
tion with Lewis : Lewis stated that in a previous conversation Mersino had
promised to cease his union activity. Mersino denied that he had ever made such
a commitment and Lewis insisted that Mersino had done S0.2' Lewis asked
Mersino how long he intended to work for the Respondent. Mersino replied,
16 Kelly denied that he ever inquired of employees as to their union activities or their
attendance of union meetings . Upon the entire record and from his observation of the
witness, the undersigned does not credit Kelly's denials . Sawyer was an especially forth-
right witness.
n The findings in this paragraph rest upon the testimony of Sawyer. The quotations
are from her testimony . Paul Lewis admitted that the conversation occurred sub-
stantially as testified to by Sawyer.
21 Mersino placed this conversation as occurring between March 13 and 17, 1947. How-
ever, the undenied and credible testimony of employee Sawyer , set forth in the margin
below, established the date of the conversation as occurring on March 14, the date on
which several employees were questioned by various supervisors in respect to their union
activities . The undersigned finds that Lewis summoned Mersino to Lewis' office on March
14, 1947.
29 Apparently the conversation referred to was that which Mersino testified occurred
on March 6, the day after the meeting of employees in the cafeteria . In that conversation,
Lewis asked Mersino, according to the latter' s credible and undenied testimony, how he
"thought the meeting had come out." Mersino replied that "[he] had found out some
things that [ lie] was glad to find out."
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 163
"Ten years if I lived that long." Lewis then said that as long as Mersino
"worked at Stainless Ware Company of America there would be a personal
fight between them." Lewis inquired why Mersino was interested in organizing
the employees. Mersino replied that one reason was that the ventilating system
in the plant was defective. The matter was considered and Maintenance Fore-
man Sid Parsons was called in to discuss the question. After the maintenance
foreman left, Lewis again asked Mersino why he was active in the Union.
Mersino replied that Lewis had previously stated that no employee would be
discharged because of his union activities, yet on the two preceding days, em-
ployees Bjork and Breeze had been discharged because of their union activities.
Lewis denied that their concerted activities were the reason for the discharge
of Bjork and Breeze and stated that they were discharged for legitimate
reasons. The conversation concluded with Lewis saying, "Well, there isn't
much more to be said, except that I will tell you this, some man in the plant
threatened to split your head open with a spade." 30
Upon the foregoing, the undersigned finds that by the inquiries of Superin-
tendent Crowe, Assistant Superintendent Beebe, Foreman Kelly, and President
Lewis as to the union membership and activities of employees, by Crowe's
threats and statements to the effect that Dixon's tenure of employment was
endangered as long as she continued her concerted activities, and by President
Lewis' statement to Mersino that Mersino was in danger of bodily harm, pre-
sumably because of his union activities, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Wagner Act and the Act.
30 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the testimony of Mersino. Lewis stated
that Mersino came on his own initiative to Lewis' office and that the following conversation
ensued :
Well, Mr. Mersino come in and said they had a meeting in the restaurant and he
said that nobody should be laid off for union activities, and I said, "Nobody has been
laid off for union activities." Well, he said that we had. He mentioned two names
at that time, of two people and I said, "I don't even know that those people even
belonged to the union." . . . He said that one of the things . . . why we really want
a union is because we thought the blower could be more efficient . . . Well , he said
to call Sid Parsons in, so I called Sid in and asked him what was wrong, see, and
Sid said he would check the blower and see if anything was wrong. I understood, at
that time, that there was a broken belt or something, and Sid, he replaced the belt,
or something. It wasn't running fast enough.
Lewis specifically denied making the inquiries, threats, and statements attributed to him
by Mersino. Mersino's testimony that he was ordered to report to Lewis' office was cor-
roborated by employee Dorothy Sawyer, who worked under the supervision of Foreman
Kelly and who testified, credibly and without contradiction, that she had the following
conversation with Kelly on the morning of March 14:
Well, he came up, I believe Mr. Lewis sent for Bert Mersino to come to his office,
and it was shortly after that Kelly came up to me in a round about way, he said,
"Pretty soft for some people." I said, "What do you mean , Kelly?" And he said.
"Your boyfriend is over in the office." I said, "Who do you mean?" I said, "Oh,
Bert?"
Upon the undersigned's consideration of the entire record, his observation of the wit-
nesses, and the reasons previously set forth in resolving other conflicts between the testi-
mony of Lewis and Mersino, the undersigned finds that the conversation occurred in ac-
cordance with Mersino's testimony, corroborated in' part by Sawyer, that Lewis made the
statements attributed to him by Mersino, and that Lewis' testimony and denials are
unworthy of credence.
877359-50-vol. 87-12
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. The lay-off of employees in April 1947
1. General considerations
At the beginning of April 1947, the Respondent employed 173 nonsupervisory
,employees in the kitchen utensil division . Throughout the history of the Re-
spondent 's operations , the kitchen utensil division had been subdivided among
5 departments and the seniority rights of employees was division -wide rather
than departmental . On April 4 , 1947, President Lewis assembled the employees
and announced that the kitchen utensil division had been reorganized into 22
departments , that seniority would thereafter be on a departmental basis, and
that a number of employees would be laid off that day . He also announced that
inasmuch as there had been considerable interchange of employees among the
various departments in the past, employees caught in the lay-off with 30 days'
seniority in other departments could compete with the employees of those depart-
ments for jobs.
Among the 34 employees laid off on April 4, 1947 , were complainants Mersino,
Sawyer, Cooper , Gregor, Janka , and Lawrence . On April 8 , 1947, 7 more
employees , including complainant Davis, were laid off . An additional four were
laid off on April 9, 1947 , and on the next day 7 more employees, including com-
plainant Dixon , were laid off . On April 23, 1947, 3 employees were laid off.
All told, 55 employees of the kitchen utensil division were laid off in April
1947.31
The General Counsel contends that the inclusion of the 8 complainants, above
named, in the lay-off was discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act, insisting that the Respondent reorganized the kitchen utensil
division into 22 departments and changed its seniority policy so as to have
reason to lay off the complainants.
The Respondent , on the other hand, avers that the lay -off, the reorganization
of the departments , and the change in seniority policy were made in the interests
of economy and efficiency.
It is clear that the reduction in force in April 1947, was necessitated by the
economic situation confronting the Respondent and requiring a retrenchment
of its operations . The sales of the Respondent 's products had fallen from a
total of $456 ,008 in June 1946, to $180,602 in February 1947. In March 1947, the
total sales decreased to $171,810 . These figures reflected a decrease in the sales
of the products of the kitchen utensil division . As part of its retrenchment
program, the Respondent had abandoned its night shift in January , with the
exception of a skeleton crew for maintenance and emergency work. However,
its business did not improve and by March it was apparent from the decrease
in sales and in orders that a further reduction in force would be necessary. In
early April , the Respondent determined to make an extensive lay-off of employees.
The undersigned concludes and finds that the lay-off of employees in April was
due to the economic conditions affecting the Respondent 's business and was not
inspired by the Respondent 's antipathy to the Union .12
A number of office employees were also laid off at this time.
3a This finding as to the Respondent ' s bona fides in respect to the reason for the lay-off
of April 1947 is buttressed by the fact that the Respondent 's sales continued to decline
in 1947 and 1.948, reaching a low of $64,780 in April 1948, rising somewhat thereafter,
but sinking to $81, 529 in October 1948 . Further reductions in personnel were made after
the April 1947 lay -off. At the time of the hearing, the kitchen utensil division employed'
approximately 65 employees.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 165
Turning to the question of the reorganization of the kitchen utensil division
and the change in seniority policy, the testimony with respect thereto is in the
main uncontroverted. Prior to April 1947, the Respondent had frequently trans-
ferred employees from one department to -another. Some transfers were per-
manent, others were on a temporary basis, due to lack of work in certain
departments.
On February 1, 1946, the Respondent was incorporated and a new accounting
system was inaugurated. At that time, Jerome Kotts, the Respondent's ac-
countant, suggested a revision of the departments of the kitchen utensil division
in order to stabilize the labor costs. Later in 1946, in conferences among the
Respondent's managerial personnel, the matter was discussed. In September
1946, studies of efficiency of plant operations were made, determining the labor
cost of production. Of the total cost of production, the labor costs had risen
from 8 to 12 percent. In December 1946, it was determined to further depart-
mentalize the kitchen utensil division, to cease the practice of transferring
employees among the departments, and to establish a departmental seniority
system. The purpose of the changes was to increase the efficiency of employees
in their tasks by confining their work to narrower ranges in more clearly
defined departments and to obviate the cost of training employees to new tasks
when transfers were made. '
Accordingly, in December 1946, William G. Watkins, a timekeeper for the
Respondent, commenced a study of the personnel records of employees in order
to set up a list of employees, assigned to one of the 22 departments where they
had performed the most work. Once assigned to a department, an employee
was credited with his seniority gained in that department. When the night
shift was laid off in January 1947, the new system had not been perfected and
the lay-off followed the original seniority plan on a division-wide basis. In
March 1947, Watkins completed his work, having made a study of personnel
records and assigned employees to one of the 22 departments. The reorganiza-
tion of the departments of the kitchen utensil division and the new departmental
seniority system was announced and followed in the April reductions in force.
Employees were informed that if they were laid off but had 30 days' experience
in another department, they might compete with the employees of the other
department for jobs on the basis of their full seniority. Employees were also
advised that if they had any question as to the accuracy of their seniority rating
under the new plan, they might consult the personnel records and officials. A few
employees complained that error had been made ; in some cases, it was found
that a mistake had been made and the employees were not laid off. Others with
30 days' experience in other departments were able to "bump" employees in such
departments.
An examination of the records introduced into 'evidence with respect to
the lay-off by departments reveals that there was no serious deviation from
the seniority lists among the employees laid off, except in one department. In
the buff hand department, eight employees were laid off, among them com-
plainants Janka, Sawyer, and Cooper. Four employees remained in the de-
partment after the reduction in force. As to two of these, H. G. Martin and
James Drury, the record shows that their seniority commenced on February
17 and March 3, 1947, respectively. The employees laid off had more seniority
,in the department than Martin and Drury. The record contains no explana-
tion for the retention of these two employees. However, if the seniority plan
had been, followed in this department by including Martin and Drury in the lay-
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off, nevertheless, the complainants would have been among those laid off. In
view of this fact, the undersigned finds that the retention of Martin and Drury
does not establish that the lay-off of complainants Janka, Sawyer, and Cooper
was discriminatory.
Another reason, advanced by the Respondent's supervisors, for the reorgani-
zation of the kitchen utensil division and the change to departmental seniority
was that thereby the Respondent was able to reduce its force to a minimum
and yet turn out production with experienced employees remaining in each
department. It is contended by the Respondent that had the earlier system
of division-wide seniority been followed, certain departments would have been
deprived of nearly all experienced employees, while in other departments vir-
tually no reduction in the number of employees would have been effected. As
a result of the use of the division-wide system of seniority, it would have
been necessary to transfer employees from departments where they had ex-
perience to departments in which they had no training, with a consequent in-
crease in labor cost to the Respondent for the training period in the new jobs 83
The records of the Respondent introduced, in evidence tend to support testimony
of the Respondent's supervisors as to • these contentions" Such testimony is
credited.
In support of his contentions, the General Counsel relies upon the testimony
of Assistant Superintendent Beebe that he and Crowe realized that certain
of the complainants were active in the Union and discussed the fact that when
the reduction in force was made under the new seniority and departmental sys-
tem, many of the Union adherents would be laid off.35 Although Beebe's testi-
mony on this issue is not particularly lucid and in considerable measure was
elicited by leading questions, the undersigned construes Beebe's testimony to
mean that he and Crowe expressed opinions , possibly of gratification, that
the reduction in force under the new system `would result in the lay-off of
several union adherents. Beebe's testimony does not establish, in the under-
signed's opinion, that the change in seniority and departmental policies was
made because of the Respondent's desire to have reason to rid itself of union
adherents.
The General Counsel also points to the number of employees transferred from
one department to-another prior to the April lay-off and urges that the Re-
spondent 's "contention that they were placed in twenty-two departments because
it was expensive to shift employees from one place to another is not borne out
by the practice which the Company engaged in." The undersigned is not per-
33 To train an employee for a job cost the Respondent between $250 and $350.
34 Inasmuch as the seniority list on a division-wide basis was not introduced into evi-
dence, it is impossible to verify this testimony with absolute accuracy. However, the
undersigned , in studying the record , has made a recapitulation of the departmental seniority
lists and ranked the employees in the order of their seniority given in such lists without
regard to departments . Such a recapitulation approaches a division -wide seniority list,
although doubtless there are some inaccuracies inasmuch as the list introduced into evidence
credited employees with seniority gained in the department to which they were assigned
and, in some instances , did not credit seniority gained by work in other departments. The
deduction of the total employees laid off from the recapitulated seniority list supports
the contentions of, and testimony adduced by , the Respondent , related in the text above.
Thus, according to the undersigned 's study, only 3 experienced employees would have
remained in the sun ray department , whereas the Respondent desired to retain 8 em-
ployees in this department . On the other hand, under the recapitulated list, only
2 lay-offs would have resulted in the large presses department , leaving a staff of 10
employees. There was work for only 5 employees in this department after the lay-offs.
35 For reasons heretofore mentioned , the undersigned credits Beebe's testimony in this
regard and finds the denials of Crowe unworthy of credence.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 167
euaded by the General Counsel's argument. Admittedly, there was consider-
able interchange of employees among the various departments prior to the
April lay-off. The record shows that subsequent to the lay-off, the interchange
of employees lessened substantially. Although the timing of the Respondent's
change in policy raises some question as to the Respondent's motivation, yet
it must be noted that provision was made in the lay-off policy to eliminate as
much as possible any inequities arising from the permanent assignment of
employees to departments and the change in departments and seniority. Namely,
that employees laid off in one department having 30 days' seniority in an-
other department were permitted to compete for jobs in the second department
on the basis of their entire seniority. The undersigned is of the opinion and
finds that the economic factors set forth above were prevailing in the Re-
spondent's determination to change its policies. For the same reason, the under-
signed finds that the reorganization of the kitchen utensil division into 22 de-
partments and the change in seniority system by the Respondent were not
illegally motivated.
2. Specific considerations as to complainants
a. Dorothy Gregor
There remains for consideration testimony of some complainants adduced by
the General Counsel to show an illegal motivation on the part of the Respond-
ent in choosing them to be laid off. Thus, Dorothy Gregor, employed in the
large presses department, testified that she had not been active in the Union,
having attended only one meeting in mid-March 1947. She further testified
that after Lewis made the general announcement about the pending lay-offs on
April 4, she asked Assistant Superintendent Beebe for permission to leave work
at noon so that she might attend Good Friday services at her church and also
asked'if she were to be laid off. According to Gregor, he replied, "If they
haven't told you now, you are not laid off." Immediately following this con-
versation, she signed an application for membership in the Union in the view
of Mary Walters, matron of the rest room 39 Thereupon she left the plant and
went home to find a telegram from Personnel Manager Mack, requesting Gregor
not to report to work until further notice.
Walters testified that she never reported to Mack conversations of the girls
in the rest room. Walters also denied watching girls sign union cards in the
rest room and stated that she did not remember seeing a union card in the
rest room. She denied knowing Gregor, or Janka, whose testimony will next
be considered. Mack denied that she ever sought to gather information about
union activities of employees and testified that the reason Gregor was sent the
telegraphic notice of her laff-off was that on rechecking the seniority lists, the
Respondent's supervisors found that additional employees should be laid off
and such employees were notified as soon as possible. According to Mack,
Gregor, who worked on the day shift, and two employees on the night shift were
notified by telegram that they were laid off.
s° Employee Marian Urick testified that she induced Gregor to sign the union application
card. She further testified , " She and I were in the corner, off in the corner , although the
test room was full of girls but the Matron [ Mary Walters] seemed to be very interested,
and came over to see what we were doing . . . . She said, 'Oh , you are doing that too.' "
Gregor did not testify that Walters made such a remark . In view of Walters' testimony
set forth hereinafter in the text above, the undersigned does not credit Urick 's testimony
in this regard.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gregor testified that she was employed by the Respondent in the sun ray
department in February 1946 and soon transferred to the large presses de-
partment. The seniority lists for that department assigned her seniority in.
that department commencing on March 5, 1946. She had the least seniority
of the employees in that department. On April 8, 1947, five other employees of
her department were laid off and another was laid off on April 10, 1947. Mack
and Walters were among the most impressive of the Respondent' s witnesses.
From his observation of the witnesses, and in view of the fact that Gregor
had the least seniority in her department and that additional employees of'
that department were also laid off in accordance with their seniority ratings,.
the undersigned credits the testimony of Mack and Walters and finds that the
Respondent did not choose Gregor for lay-off because of her union membership
or activities.
b. Marie Janica
Marie Janka testified that she was employed by the Respondent in the buffing.
department in February 1946 and continued to work thereafter in that depart-
ment . The seniority list for the buff hand department gave her seniority as.
commencing on February 25, 1946. Janka testified that she attended a union
meeting in mid-March 1947 and signed a union application for membership in
the rest room on April 3 , 1946 , in the presence of Matron Mary Walters, who
asked, "Are you going to sign one of them?" On April 4, 1947, when Janka.
asker her foreman, William Kelly, for leave to attend Good Friday services:
that afternoon , he informed her that she was laid off. Walters ' testimony has
been previously set forth and is credited . It is found that she did not make,
the statement attributed to her by Janka . According to the seniority list for
the buff hand department , Janka was third from the bottom in length of service,
with the Respondent . Eight employees were laid off on April 4, 1947. In,
view of this fact as well as the credible testimony of Walters , the undersigned
finds that Janka 's union membership and activities were not the determining,
factors in the Respondent 's decision to lay her off.
c. Dorothy Saw jjcr, Neva Cooper, Virginia Lawrence, and Egbert Mersino
Dorothy Sawyer entered the Respondent's employ on August 8, 1945, and
was credited with seniority as of that date in the buff hand department. Neva
Cooper's seniority in the same department dated from July 10, 1945, the date
of her hiring by the Respondent. Virginia Lawrence commenced her employ-
ment on August 2, 1945, and her seniority in the grind hand department began,
on that date. Egbert Mersino was employed by the Respondent on November
6, 1946, and was given that seniority in the grind acme department. These
four complainants were laid off on April 4, 1947." All were members of the
Union, had attended union meetings, and had participated in various ways in
the organizational campaign. In view of the Respondent's surveillance of the
union meetings and interrogation of some of these employees, it is clear that.
their membership was known to the Respondent. Although the Respondent.
engaged in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion as to some of these
37 Mersino testified that he entered the Respondent's employ on or about November 16,.
1946, and was laid off on April 7, 1947. The records of the Respondent with respect to
the seniority of all employees under the new departmental system credit Mersino with:
seniority in his department commencing on November 6, 1946, and show that he was laid
off on April 4, 1947. The undersigned does not credit Mersino's testimony in this regard..
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 169
employees, particularly Mersino,a the month before the April lay-off, their
inclusion in the reduction in force appears, so far as the record shows, to have
been upon the basis of their seniority in their respective departments a9 The
undersigned is not persuaded that the controlling factors motivating the Re-
spondent in laying them off was other than economic in nature.'0
d. Doris Davis
Doris Davis testified that she commenced her employment with the Respondent
on August 13, 1945, in the press department, joined the Union and attended
several meetings in March 1946, solicited union memberships, and participated in
a union demonstration or rally in front of the plant on the afternoon of April 4,
1947. That afternoon, several employees who had obtained leave to attend Good
Friday services returned to the plant as the first shift was being dismissed and
distributed union cards at the plant gate. Admittedly, these activities were
observed by several of the Respondent's supervisors from an office on the upper
floor of the plant. The seniority list for the small presses department listed
Davis with seniority commencing on August 13, 1945. On April 8, 1947, she and
another employee were laid off. Employee F. L. Wright had 8 days' less seniority
than Davis, but was retained. However, on April 23, 1947, Wright was laid off.
Although the seniority system was not strictly followed in this instance, the
undersigned finds no convincing evidence that Davis' lay-off was illegally
motivated.
e. Eva Dixon
Complainant Eva Dixon testified that she entered the Respondent's employ
on February 10, 1945. She joined the Union on March 13, 1947. In March 1947,
as previously found, she was interrogated with respect to her union activities by
Superintendent Crowe, Assistant Superintendent Beebe, and Foreman Kelly.
On the afternoon of April 4, 1947, she participated in the union rally at the
plant gate, as previously described. The demonstration was witnessed by various
supervisors of the Respondent, including Crowe, Beebe, Kemp, and Mack. Ac-
cording to Dixon, the following incident occurred :
I was standing out in the road, signing people up in the Union and I heard
my name called and I looked around and Mr. Crowe said, "Come here." He
was in the window, the window was open, and he was looking out. I didn't
88 As hereinafter found in the text, Crowe told Foreman Paul Lewis that Mersino was one
of the employees Crowe "would have to get .. . out of the shop." This testimony casts
serious doubts as to the legality of the Respondent ' s motivation in selecting Mersino for
lay-off. Although the matter is not free from doubt , the undersigned is of the opinion that
the economic factors necessitating the lay-off out-weigh Crowe's antiunion animus.
88 As previously mentioned , the records of the Respondent show that two employees with
less seniority than Cooper and Lawrence in the hand grind department were retained, but
the undersigned has previously found that such deviation from the strict seniority ratings
was not discriminatory to Cooper and Lawrence , inasmuch as they would have been included
among the 8 employees laid off in their department even if the seniority listing had been
adhered to.
40 In making these findings as to Neva Cooper and as to other issues in the case , the under-
signed has not considered the testimony of Leslie B. Turner, at various times a foreman
and employee of the Respondent , for the reason that Turner 's testimony on cross-examina-
tion by the Respondent was at variance with an affidavit given by Turner to Mack on
July 8, 1947 , in respect to the Respondent 's no-solicitation rule thereby casting doubt' as
to the accuracy of his testimony . Nor has the hearsay testimony of Neva Cooper and
Cledith Cooper, elicited as corroborative of Leslie Turner's testimony, been considered.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pay him no attention, and I kept on, and pretty soon Mr. Beebe says, "Come
here, Eva," and I said, "No, you come out here," and he said, "What have
you got out there?" I said, "We are passing out Union cards and books,"
I said, "They are free, today, come on out and they won't cost you a penny."
Crowe and Beebe specifically denied Dixon's testimony in this regard. Per-
sonnel Manager Mack and General Manager Kemp testified that they observed
the demonstration from the upper floor of the plant but did not hear anyone call
from the plant to Dixon as testified by the latter. None of Dixon's fellow par-
ticipants in the incident was questioned with respect to the conversation between
her and Beebe or between her and Crowe, although some were witnesses for the
General Counsel; her testimony is thus uncorroborated. As mentioned previ-
ously, Mack impressed the undersigned as a reliable witness. Kemp was also
a sincere witness, as was Beebe. Although the undersigned has credited portions
of Dixon's testimony with respect to other incidents, he has found other portions
unworthy of credence. The same has resulted from the weighing of Crowe's
testimony as to other incidents. The undersigned is persuaded, upon the entire
record and his observation of the witnesses, that Dixon's testimony is not entitled
to credence in regard to this event. The denials of Crowe and Beebe, as corrob-
orated by Mack and Kemp, are credited.
Dixon also testified that she received permission to leave the plant at mid-day
on April 4, 1947, Good Friday, and that before leaving, she gave union application
cards to employees Muriel Ross and Jo Wagner who signed them in the rest room
in the presence of Matron Walters. Dixon testified that on the following Mon-
day, April 7, 1947, she had the following conversation with Superintendent Crowe :
[Crowe] said, "Eva, I warned you for the last tinge to quit signing people
up for this Union, on Company premises ." And, I said, "Have I been signing
anybody up?" He said, "You sure did." I said, "How do you know?" He
said, "Only Friday you signed two girls up in the rest room." . . . then I said,
"Did Mrs. Walters tell you?", and he said, "What do you think we pay the
matron for in there to tell us what you girls do?"
Crowe specifically denied Dixon's testimony. Walters, who at the time of the
hearing was no longer in the Respondent's employ, testified that the Respondent's
supervisors never questioned her as to the conversations of employees in the rest
room or instructed her to question the employees about their union activities, and
that she never reported any of the conversations to the Respondent. According
to Walters, "There never was a thing said about a union, or anyone give me
instructions to find out nothing concerning the Union, whatsoever." She also
testified that she did not see Dixon "sign up" any employees in the Union on
April 4, and that if she had observed such conduct she would not have reported
it to the Respondent because "it was none of my business. I wasn't hired there
for a spy." Of these three witnesses, Walters was the most impressive both as
to her sincerity and as to her lack of interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
From his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned finds Dixon's testimony
unworthy of credence. Crowe's denials, corroborated by Walters, are credited.'
41 In resolving these conflicts in testimony , the undersigned has considered the fact, as
previously found, that Wickline and Haney Informed the Respondent of the occurrences at,
and those attending , union meetings . Such reporting , in a sense , adds credence to Dixon's
testimony but is offset by the additional fact that there is no showing that Wickline and
Haney were ordered to spy on the union meetings . Dixon's testimony was to the effect
that Crowe stated that Walters was assigned the matron's job to act as an informant for
the Respondent . The findings as to the termination of Geliske's employment, discussed
above, have also been considered in respect to these issues.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 171
Dixon testified that she was laid off on April 10, 1947, and that prior to her
notification of lay-off, she had the following conversation with President Lewis
on April 10:
The reason why I remember that day, there was a notice on the time clock
that said we would bow our head for two minutes for prayer for Henry Ford,
and at that time we would shut our machines off and Mr. Lewis took up
approximately 10 minutes praying instead of two minutes. And he walked
over to me and he said, "Well, little Eve, how do you feel today?" I said,
"Okay, and you?" He said, "Well, Iam still living." And I said, "Well,
Mr. Lewis, that is one thing you can be thankful for. Mr. Henry wouldn't
say that after today." He wheeled on his heels and said to Steve [Foreman
Arnold Stevenson], "We will let her go."
She further testified that later that day she was informed of her lay-off by
Foreman Stevenson in the following conversation :
[Stevenson] walked over to me and he said, "Eva, I will have to let you
go," and he pulled a slip out of his pocket and told me to go up to iIrs. Mack
[the Respondent's personnel manager], and I asked him "How come?" He
said, "That is the boss' orders." I asked him, "Well, how about me bumping
somebody and going back to my seniority?" He said, "You can't do that."
I said, "I know I can, because Mr. Lewis said we could." He said, "As of
today, you are frozen to your jobs, and when you are frozen, if there is no
work, you go home."
Lewis testified that he conducted a brief memorial service at the plant after
the death of Henry Ford and stated that he could not remember having a con-
versation thereafter with Dixon. He specifically denied, however, that he
ordered Foremen Stevenson to terminate Dixon's employment. Stevenson did
not testify.
Although Dixon was employed in February 1945, the seniority records used
in the reorganization of the kitchen utensil division list her seniority in the small
presses department as commencing on June 4, 1945. Two employees with less
seniority than Dixon were laid off on April 8, 1947. Dixon was the third member
of the department to be laid off. Thirteen days after Dixon's termination, em-
ployee F. L. Wright, who had approximately 2i/., months' less seniority than
Dixon, was laid off. Except for the retention of Wright for 2 weeks after Dixon's
termination, the seniority list for Dixon's department was followed in determin-
ing the order of lay-offs. In view of this fact, as well as his impression of the
witnesses, the undersigned credits Lewis' testimony that he did not order Steven-
son to discharge Dixon.
Since Stevenson was not called as a witness, Dixon's testimony with respect
to her conversation with him at the time she was notified of her lay-off was
not specifically controverted. Inasmuch as Dixon testified that she was employed
in February 1945 but the seniority records in the small presses department credit
her for seniority in that department only since June 4, 1945, it may be that she
had the right to "bump" employees in other departments, although the record
does not clearly develop such facts. It is clear, however, that Lewis explained
to employees that those who were laid off in one department, having 30 days'
seniority in another department, would be entitled to compete for jobs in the
second department. Several employees who received lay-off notices questioned
the accuracy of the records and claimed "bumping" privileges and in some
instances , it was found that their contentions were correct . Their lay-off notices
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were revoked and they bumped other employees . One of these employees who
claimed "bumping" privileges was complainant Marian Urick , whose case is here-
inafter considered . These facts cast doubt upon the accuracy of Dixon's testi-
mony as to her conversation with Stevenson . However , the undersigned credits
Dixon's undenied testimony but finds that if she had bumping rights in other
departments-a fact that the record does not reveal-she did not pursue them.
Apparently she made no avowal of her seniority rights in other departments to
Personnel Manager Mack . From the handling of other cases involving bumping
rights, one may infer that had Dixon such rights and she had pursued them, she
would have been given a job in another department where she had experience
and the requisite seniority . The undersigned finds no special circumstances
showing that the Respondent was illegally motivated in selecting Dixon to be laid.
off.
3. Conclusions
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the undersigned concludes
and finds that the lay-off of Mersino, Sawyer, Cooper, Gregor, Janka, Lawrence,
Davis, and Dixon in April 1947 by the Respondent was not violative of the
Wagner Act or the Act.42
I. The discriminatory transfer and subsequent discharge of Marian Urick
1. The discriminatory transfer
Urick commenced her employment with the Respondent in June 1945, working
in a department which dried pans with sawdust. Two months later she trans-
ferred to the polishing department, where she worked for about 14 months.
Then she became production clerk for Assistant Superintendent Beebe. On this
job, she kept daily records of production of the various departments of the
kitchen utensil division, inventory records, records of job assignments and
seniority of employees working under Beebe's jurisdiction, and made out sepa-
ration slips for employees when their employment was terminated.
Urick joined the Union early in March 1947. The first union meeting she
attended was that held on March 13, 1947. The next clay at work, Beebe asked
her if she "had had a good time at the union meeting." When she asked what
was the source of his information, Beebe replied, according to the credible testi-
mony of Urick, "Well, . . . a thing like that gets around" and further stated
that "he could find out anything if he wanted to." "
Urick testified credibly that on or about March 31, 1946, when she reported
to work and "started down the aisle towards my desk, . . . Mr. Beebe stopped
me and told me that the office was closed. And I asked him why, he just grinned
at me, and he said that was his orders, that I had to go back on production."
42 None of these employees was ever recalled and given employment by the Respondent.
The record establishes that the Respondent has always followed a rule whereby employees
who were laid off but not recalled within 30 days were considered to be terminated. If
they were reemployed more than 30 days after being laid off, they lost . previously accumu-
lated seniority and were termed new employees . In April 1947 , no new employees were
hired and no laid-off employees were recalled . On May 28, 1947 , two employees were
recalled to work. Upon these circumstances and the entire record, the undersigned finds
that the Respondent 's failure to offer reemployment to Mersino , Sawyer, Cooper , Gregor,
Janka, Lawrence , Davis, and Dixon was not violative of the Wagner Act nor the Act.
43 Beebe admitted that he inquired of employees Haney and Wickline as to the attendance
of union meetings , but denied that he ever asked employees if they attended union meetings.
For reasons previously stated, his denial is not credited.
'STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 173
She was immediately transferred to her last production job, polishing pans,
ivhich was considerably dirtier and more unpleasant than her clerical position.
. In regard to the reasons for Urick's transfer, Beebe testified that he and Crowe
discussed the matter and, realizing that she was active in the Union, they de-
termined to transfer her to a production job so that she would not have access
to the Respondent's production records, which they deemed to be confidential,
and would not have the consequent opportunity to turn such information over
to the Union. It was stipulated that if Crowe were recalled by the Respondent
as a witness he would have denied the testimony of Beebe. For the reasons
previously mentioned, the undersigned credits Beebe's testimony.
General Manager William G. Kemp testified credibly that as a part of the
Respondent's retrenchment program, discussed above, the Respondent reduced
its force of clerical and nonproduction employees as well as the production
workers. The Respondent's records show, and the undersigned finds, that on
February 15, 1947, seven nonproduction employees were laid off. In addition on
April 15 and 30, 1947, respectively, groups of seven and four nonproduction em-
ployees were laid off." With respect to the transfer of Urick, Kemp testified,
"from the records I know that we cut down on non-productive help at that
.time.... The job was discontinued" and never reinstated.
Although there may have been some justification for the abolition of Urick's
job as production clerk because of the economic difficulties necessitating a re-
duction in force, nevertheless, as revealed by Beebe's testimony, the prevailing
reason for her transfer was her union membership and activities. It is now
well settled and the undersigned accordingly finds that the duties of production
clerks, such as Urick held, are not of such a confidential nature as to classify the
position managerial in character and that by transferring Urick from her pro-
duction clerk position to the polishing job, because of her union activities and
membership, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act"
2. -The discriminatory discharge of Urick
As mentioned previously, Urick was included among those employees to be
laid off on April 4, 1947, but when she protested, it was found that her seniority
,entitled her to "bump" another employee in one of the polishing departments.
She participated in the union rally on the afternoon of April 4, and continued
her union activities.
Urick testified that shortly after April 4, 1947, she had the following conversa-
tion with President Lewis during working hours:
[Lewis] came . .. out to the job where I was finishing some tea kettles
and told me I was making an ass of myself. And I asked him what he
meant, and he repeated it again, and I told him I didn't like that kind of
talk. But he would not commit himself as to what it was or why I was
doing that. And then he asked me if I didn't like working for Mr. Beebe,
and I said, "yes." Yes, I did, and he said if I hadn't been making an ass of
myself I would still be working for Mr. Beebe.
" Two or three of these employees were in the Sales Follow-up Department ; one was an
accountant, two were time-study employees, one was a "material control" employee and
the remainder were clerical employees, according to Kemp's credible testimony.
46 Armour and Company, 54 NLRB 1005. See also Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Com-
pany, 70 NLRB 348.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lewis specifically denied making the remarks attributed to him by Urick but
testified that on one occasion he had a conversation with Urick who complained
about being removed from a clerical job and put on a dirty job. According to
Lewis, he said, "I think things will iron itself out if we get some work in and
you will probably be back at your regular job again ... . Why worry about it."
In view of the other statements found to have been made by Lewis, as well
as the undersigned's impression of the witnesses and the findings in respect
to the transfer of Urick, the undersigned credits Urick's testimony and finds
that Lewis made the statements attributed to him by Urick. The undersigned
infers that Lewis was referring to Urick's union activities when he stated that
if Urick had not made such an ass of herself she would still be working as a
production clerk. Since the statements of Lewis contained an implied promise
of benefit, the undersigned finds that the remarks of Lewis constituted inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion with the rights of employees guaranteed in
Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act.
Urick testified credibly, as follows, that after her transfer to the production
job, her foreman, William Kelly, frequently inquired as to the nature of her
conversations with other employees :
. . . every time I talked with anybody [Foreman Kelly] asked me if I was
passing out union cards and talking about the union, no matter what hap-
pened, whether it was in connection with my job or not. And one time
I was going up to the tool crib for a face shield which is a celluloid piece
that come clear down over your face and I went to the tool crib and got
it. And the fellow employee that was working right near the tool crib asked
me where I was going with that thing, or what I was going to do with it,
and I told him I was going to wear it. He was just kidding me about it.
When I got down the aisle Dir. Kelly asked me what he had said and I told
him. He said, "You are sure you were not talking about the union?" I
said, "No, I wasn't." He took me down by the arm, and marched me down
by Herb Wilson. And asked Herb Wilson what I said.98
On April 7, 1947, the following notice signed by President Lewis was posted
in the plant :
NOTICE
In accordance with the long standing rule, solicitation of any kind is
strictly forbidden at any time on Company property.
Violation of this rule will result in immediate discharge.
On April 22, 1947, Urick gave a union application card to an employee in
the cafeteria during lunch period. Superintendent Crowe observed the incident.
When Urick returned to work, Superintendent Crone came to her work station
and discharged her for violation of the above-quoted no-solicitation rule. Urick
remonstrated that "it was all right because I was on my own time," but Crowe
took her to the time clock where the notice was posted and pointed out that the
rule forbade all solicitation "at any time on Company property."
It is now established that rules prohibiting union solicitation on the premises
cf an employer during employees' nonworking. time are violative of the Act,
unless it is shown that the rule is necessary to maintain production or discipline 47
98 Kelly denied the statements and occurrence testified to by Urick . Upon the entire
record and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Urick ' s testimony.
Kelly's denials are not credited.
47 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R. B.; N. L. R . B. v. LeTourneau Company of
Georgia, 324 U. S. 793. -
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 175
The credible testimony of numerous witnesses establishes that employees
having farms or truck gardens sold such produce as eggs, chickens, butter, honey,
and cream to fellow employees and in some instances to supervisors. Some of
-the female employees sold handiwork, Christmas cards, and other articles.
These sales were made on the Respondent's property, sometimes during work-
ing hours and sometimes not, and extended over a period of several years.
Such transactions were admittedly known to some of the Respondent's super-
visors." Contributions from employees for Christmas gifts to President Lewis
were solicited in the plant with the knowledge of supervisors in 1945 and 1946.
Although the Respondent contends that the rule had always been in existence,
no employees were ever discharged or disciplined for the sale of these products
or solicitation of contributions. The Respondent further asserts in its brief
that the rule was posted because of these transactions in produce and other
goods among the employees and because of the conducting by employees of
check pools, a gambling device, the existence of which several supervisors testi-
fied they had heard rumors. The Respondent also avers that because its plant
was in a rural area, the solicitation "problem was more acute than in a strictly
urban plant where employees do not have private businesses."
Granting that there was considerable buying and selling of produce and
goods among the employees on the Respondent's property, often during work-
ing hours, nevertheless, the record does not show that the transactions inter-
fered with plant discipline or production to such an extent as to justify the
enforcement of the broad no-solicitation rule. Significantly, although the pur-
pose of the rule was to stop such transactions and the rumored gambling, 9
the only invocation of the rule, so far as the record shows, was on the occasion
Urick gave an employee a union card during their lunch time in the cafeteria.
Also significant in enforcing the rule as to Urick's union activities during her
free time is the fact that Crowe told Foreman Paul Lewis that Urick and Mer-
sino were two of the employees "he would have to get . . . out of the shop,
regardless." 50 Also noteworthy is the fact that although the no-solicitation
rule was allegedly in existence since the commencement of the Respondent's
operations, it was never before posted in written form until April 1947, after
the commencement of the union's organizational campaign and the discrimina-
tory discharges of Breeze and Bjork.61
Upon the entire record, regardless of when the no-solicitation rule was enunci-
ated, the undersigned is persuaded and finds that the Respondent has not es-.
tablished any special circumstances or cogent reason, warranting extension of
the prohibition to nonworking time, when production and efficiency could not
normally be affected by union activity. The undersignet: concludes and finds
that the Respondent, by promulgating and enforcing a no-solicitation rule ap-
98 There are numerous conflicts in the testimony as to this issue The findings in this
paragraph are based upon the testimony of employees Cooper, Walters, Nichols, Graham,
Swek, and in part upon the testimony of Urick and Breeze. Viewing the record as a whole,
the undersigned is persuaded that the testimony of Urick arid Breeze as to the extent and
volume of such transactions was somewhat exaggerated. Supervisors admitting knowledge
of some of these transactions were Foreman Paul Lewis, Personnel Manager Mack, and
General Manager Kemp.
41 Superintendent Crowe testified that lie liist heard rumors of the check pool around
Christmas 1946. Since the rule was posted more than 3 months later, it seems unlikely
that such rumors were the reason for the posting of the rule.
50 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Paul Lewis. From his observation
of the witnesses and for the reasons previously stated, Crowe's denials are not credited.
51 According to Personnel Manager Mack, the no-solicitation rule existed as "an unwritten
law," prior to its posting in April 1947.
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plicable to nonworking time and by Foreman Kelly's interrogation of Urick,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, in violation of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of Wagner Act and the Act, and, by discharging Urick
for violating this rule by engaging in union solicitation during nonworking
time, discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act."
J. The refusals to rehire
1. Virginia Lawrence
Lawrence testified credibly and without contradiction that on October 3,
1947, she applied for work with the Respondent and was informed by Personnel
Manager Mack that they had no openings." Lawrence had been employed in
the polishing department prior to the April lay-off and was listed in the senior-
ity roll used in the April lay-off as employed in the grind hand department. The
Respondent's records of 1947 hirings of employees were introduced into evidence
and show that three employees were hired in the month of October 1947-one on
October 2, 1947, in the automatic buff department and the other two on subse-
quent dates in October in the cafeteria and maintenance departments. From
these records, Lawrence's experience, and the job descriptions shown by the
record, the undersigned finds that there were no jobs available for Lawrence on
October 3, 1947, and that the refusal to employ her was not violative of the
Act.
2. Egbert Ray Mersino
Nathan Wheeler, who was never in the Respondent's employ but who was a
friend of Mersino, testified that in October 1947, at Mersino 's suggestion , Wheeler
applied for a job and was told by a girl in the employment office that the Re-
spondent "was not hiring nothing but buffers." Wheeler could not identify the
girl in the office but stated that it was not Personnel Manager Mack. Wheeler
did not desire that,type of job and left the office, stopping to talk to a watchman.
While talking with the watchman, he observed Mersino enter the employment
office.
Mersino testified that in October 1947, pursuant to their agreement, Wheeler
preceded him to the Respondent's plant to seek employment by about 15 or 30
minutes and that he saw Wheeler talking to a watchman as Mersino entered
the employment office. Mersino testified that he filled out an application blank
and gave it to Personnel Manager Mack. According to Mersino, Mack took the
application to Superintendent Crowe, who was in an adjoining room, and a few
minutes later returned, saying "she was sorry, they weren't doing no hiring." °'
Mack. who was present when Wheeler testified, testified that she never saw
him in the employment office and that she was the only regular employee in
the employment office, except that on occasions of brief absences of Mack an
employee might be in the -office but with authority only to say "that Mrs. Mack
62 Urick testified that after her transfer she was assigned from time to time to odious
tasks, such as sweeping the floor in her department and sorting scrap, unconnected with
the work in her department. Inasmuch as ojher employees in various departments were on
occasion given the same tasks, the undersigned finds that such assignments do not reflect
upon the Respondent ' s motives in its transfer and subsequent discharge of Urick.
ea On October 3, 1947 , an unfair labor practice charge in respect to the termination of
Lawrence ' s employment by the Respondent was filed with the Board.
64 On August 21, 1947, the unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Respondent's
termination of Mersino ' s employment was violative of the Act was filed with the Board.
This charge was served upon the Respondent on or about August 21, 1947.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 177
was not there." Mack was not questioned with respect to Mersino's application
for re-employment.
Records of the Respondent reflecting the dates of hiring of employees refute
the testimony of Wheeler. The only employee hired in the buffing departments
in October was on October 2, 1947. In November two additional buffers were
hired on November 6 and 24, 1947, respectively. If the Respondent were hiring
only buffers, as Wheeler testified he was informed by someone other than Per-
sonnel Manager Mack, it seems likely that the hiring records would reflect the
addition of more than one buffer on October 2, and two in November. In view
of these records, the undersigned's impression of the witnesses, and' the fact that
Wheeler's application was made pursuant to a compact with Mersino, the
undersigned concludes that Wheeler's testimony is not entitled to credence.
The employment records of the Respondent do not establish that openings for
buffers existed at the time Mersino applied for employment at an unspecified
date in October 1947. The undersigned concludes that the Respondent' s refusal
to employ Mersino was not violative of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The undersigned has found that the Respondent violated the Wagner Act
and the Act by interrogating its employees concerning their union membership
and activities and the identity of employees attending union meetings ; by en-
gaging in surveillance of union meetings ; by threats of bodily harm or loss of
jobs unless employees ceased their union activities ; by threatening a reduction
in work if the Union organized the plant ; by polling the employees to determine
whether they desired to be represented by the Union as their collective bargaining
representative ; by promulgating and enforcing a rule prohibiting union solici-
tations during employees' free time on Respondent's property ; by transferring
Marian Urick from a clerical job to a polishing job ; and by discriminatorily
discharging Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick. Such dis-
crimination, in the language of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, "goes to the very heart of the Act." `5
Upon the entire record, the undersigned infers and finds that the Respondent's
illegal action, mentioned above, discloses an intent to defeat self-organization
and its objects, and an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act. Because
of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and the underlying purposes manifested
thereby, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are
persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act,
and that danger of commission in the future of any or all of the unfair labor
practices defined in the Act is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in
the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recom-
mendations are coextensive with the threat.66 In order, therefore, to make
ss N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C. A. 4).
aeN. L . R. B. v. Empress Publishing Company , 312 U . S. 426.
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent recurrence of
unfair labor practices , and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce , and thus effectuate the policies of the Act , the under-
signed will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist , not only from the
unfair labor practices herein found , but also from in any other manner inter-
fering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Florence Bjork and Annabel Breeze , the undersigned
will recommend that the Respondent offer each of them full and immediate rein-
statement to her former or a substantially equivalent position , 5' without prej-
udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges , and to make each of them
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrim-
ination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount
she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to
the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less her net earnings during
said period '
The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Marian Urick by discharging her on April
22, 1947. He has also found that by transferring Urick from her clerical position
on or about March 31, 1947, the Respondent violated Section 8 ( 1) of the
Wagner Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In order to effectuate the policies
of the Act, the undersigned finds it necessary to recommend that Urick be
reinstated to her clerical position and to be made whole for any losses in wages
that she may have incurred since the date of her transfer . 50 Accordingly, the
undersigned will recommend that the Respondent offer Urick immediate and
full reinstatement to her position as production clerk , or a substantially equiv-
alent position ,60 without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of
her transfer and subsequent discharge , by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from the date
of her transfer from the production clerk position to the date of the offer of
reinstatement , less her net earnings during such period.
Since the Respondent 's no-solicitation rule has been found to be unduly
restrictive of the rights of the employees under the Wagner Act and the Act
so far as it provides that there shall be no solicitation on company property
during nonworking time, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent
rescind its rule against solicitation on company property insofar as it prohibits
union solicitation on nonworking time.
It will also be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
5 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former positioh wherever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
position." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
58 See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 492-498.
69 Cf. Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc., 59 NLRB 486.
80 The record reveals that the position of production clerk occupied by Urick was abol-
ished at the time of her transfer but that there was some possibility of its being reinstituted.
If the position has not been reestablished, it is recommended that Urick be reinstated in a
comparable clerical job, for which the record shows she has had training and experience,
and not in the polishing job, which she held at the time of her discharge.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA 179
employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy Gregor,
Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, Doris Davis, Eva Dixon, and Myrtle Geliske,
in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, and insofar as it alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8 (1) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, except as otherwise found herein.
• Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of both the
Wagner Act and the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within'the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner
Act and of Section S (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of both the Wagner Act and the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section S (1) of the Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of both the Wagner
Act and the Act.
5. The Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy
Gregor, Marie Janka, Virginia Lawrence, Doris Davis, Eva Dixon, and Myrtle
Geliske.
RECOMDIENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the
Respondent, Stainless Ware Company of America, Walled Lake, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging and refusing to reinstate any of its employees or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union membership and ac-
tivities and the identity of employees attending union meetings engaging in
surveillance of union meetings ; threatening bodily harm or loss of jobs to
employees unless they cease their union activities; threatening a reduction in
work if the above-named Union or any labor organization organized the plant ;
polling employees to determine whether they desire to be represented by a labor
organization ; prohibiting the solicitation of union memberships on company
property during nonworking time; or in any other manner interfering with,
877359-50-vol. S7-13
ISO DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned fipds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Florence Bjork and Annabel Breeze immediate and full re-
instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of
them whole for any loss of pay that she may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her by payment of a sum of money equal to that which
she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of
the Respondent's discrimination against her, to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period;
(b) Offer to Marian Urick immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent position as a production clerk, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any.loss of
pay that she may have suffered as a result of her transfer from the production-
clerk position by payment of a sum of money equal to that which she normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of her transfer from
the production-clerk position to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings during such period;
(c) Rescind immediately the rule prohibiting solicitation on the Respondent's
property, insofar as it applies to union solicitation during the employees' non
working time;
(d) Post at its plant in Walled Lake, Michigan, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent or its representative, be posted by the Respondent iminediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Egbert Mersino, Dorothy Sawyer, Neva Cooper, Dorothy Gregor, Marie Janka,
Virginia Lawrence, Doris Davis, Eva Dixon, and Myrtle Geliske and insofar as it
alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (1) of the
Wagner Act and of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, except as otherwise found
herein.
It is further recommended that, unless the respondent shall, within twenty
(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, notify said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond-
ent to take such action.
STAINLESS WARE COMPANY OF AMERICA . 181
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National.
Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days front the date-
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,•
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding:
(including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together
with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may,.
within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the-
Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each-
of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by
precise citation the portions or' the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed
or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service
on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made
as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the board, request therefor-
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is tiled as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 17th day of August 1949.
FREDERIC B. PARRIES, 2nd,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAT,, UNION, UNITEa
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other
labor organization by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our em-
ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliations
or activities and the identity of employees attending union meetings.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with bodily harm or loss of jobs
unless they cease their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a reduction in work if the above-
named union or any other labor organization succeeds in organizing our
employees.
WE WILL NOT poll our employees to determine whether they desire to be rep-
resented by the above-named union or any other labor organization for the
purpose of collective. bargaining.
182 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF IN-
DUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE HEREBY RESCIND our rule forbidding solicitation on company property,
insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on the employees' nonworking time.
WE WILL OFFER to Florence Bjork, Annabel Breeze, and Marian Urick im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of
membership in or activity on behalf of such labor organization.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization except to the extent that this right may
be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
SFAINLESS \VARE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(P.epresentative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) clays from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.