Standard Coil Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 412 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
5. The Steelworkers moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground
that they were premature because of a contemplated expansion of the
employee complement at the Omaha plant. There were 86 unit em-
ployees on the Employer's payroll for the week ending July 25, 1954.
The Employer ultimately intends to employ between 350 and 400 em-
ployees. It was expected that the plant would commence operations
about September 1, 1954, as already noted, and that by November 1,
1954, the Employer would have employed 50 percent or more of its
anticipated employee complement in substantially all classifications.
With respect to the lithographic unit, the Employer ultimately ex-
pects to employ 4 pressmen and 4 pressfeeders. Also to be employed
in the lithographic department are 4 oven strippers and 2 coaters, not
included in the unit.
We shall provide for an election to be held by December 1, 1954, or
on such earlier date, to be selected by the Regional Director, as it shall
appear that a substantial and representative number of employees is
then employed in each of the voting groups. (Eligibility shall be de-
termined by the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of
a notice of elections .) We believe that the working force which will
be employed when the elections directed herein are held will be a sub-
stantial and representative segment of the employees to be employed
in the voting groups for a reasonable time in the future. Accordingly,
the Steelworkers' motion to dismiss is hereby denied.'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
7 See, e g , A M. & F Products, 106 NLRB 1074
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. ' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL. Case No. 1-CA-1553. October 20,
1954
Decision and Order
On June 8, 1954, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
1 The name of the Employer appears as set forth in the answer , exceptions, and brief.
110 NLRB No. 61.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 413
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case,2 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner 3
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, Standard Coil
Products Co., Inc., North Dighton, Massachusetts, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging employees from engaging in concerted activities,
or joining or assisting labor organizations, by discharging or refusing
to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) Dominating, sponsoring, promoting, assisting, interfering
with the administration of, or contributing support to the Employee-
Management Committee, or any other labor organization; from ini-
tiating or forming any other labor organization ; and from otherwise
interfering with the representation of its employees through a labor
organization of their own choosing.
(c) Recognizing the Employee-Management Committee, or any
successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to John C. Martins immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole John C. Martins, in the manner set forth in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any
loss of pay he may have suffered because of the discrimination against
him.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
2The request of the Respondent for oral argument is denied because the record and
exceptions and brief adequately set torth the positions of the parties.
I In addition to being a violation of Section 8 (a) (3), we find that John C Martins'
discharge also independently violated Section 8 (a) (1). Whether the discharge be
deemed violative of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3), we find, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner , that the remedy of reinstatement and back pay is appropiiate and necessary
to rectify the unfau labor practice.
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to an analysis of the amount of back pay and the right
of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(d) Withdraw all recognition from the Employee-Management
Committee as the representative of any of its employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and completely disestablish said organization as such
representative.
(e) Post at its plant in North Dighton, Massachusetts, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix
A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representa-
tive of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be 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 to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 This notice is amended by striking from the last paragraph thereof the words "includ-
ing International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL." This notice is further
amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" the
words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a
Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on October 15, 1953, by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the IBEW, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called, respectively, the General Counsel
and the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massa-
chusetts), issued the complaint herein, dated December 4, 1953, against Standard
Coil Products, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), 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 charge, the complaint, and notice of
hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent, the IBEW, and the
Employee-Management Committee, herein called the Committee.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance:
(1) That about September 28, 1953,' the Respondent, in violation of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, discharged John C. Martms and thereafter refused to reinstate
him because he joined or assisted the IBEW or "engaged in other concerted activi-
ties"; (2) that about September 9, in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act,
the Respondent initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted the Committee, and
thereafter assisted, dominated, contributed support to, and interfered with the admin-
istration of said Committee, in that the Respondent (a) suggested the formation
of said Committee, (b) allowed and authorized supervisory personnel to participate
1 Whenever the year is hereafter omitted in giving dates , it will be undarsteod to be 1953.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC . 415
in the formation and administration thereof , (c) granted financial assistance thereto,
(d) allowed the use of plant facilities thereto, and (e) permitted an election of
representatives of said Committee to be held on the Respondent's time and property;
and (3) that by the foregoing acts, the Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On December 14, the Respondent filed its answer which denied that the Committee
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and that the Respondent
has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practices. As to Martins, the
answer admitted only that he had been discharged on October 2 and thereafter
refused reinstatement , no explanation of said dismissal being given . As to the
Committee, the answer admitted only that the Respondent had permitted the holding
of an election of representatives thereof on company time and property, and there-
after had permitted said Committee to meet with its personnel director on its property.
Pursuant to a duly issued notice of postponement of hearing, and an order of the
Chief Trial Examiner duly designating me as the Trial Examiner herein, a hearing
was held at Taunton, Massachusetts, on January 26 and 27, 1954. The General
Counsel was represented by counsel who will hereinafter be called the General
Counsel. The Respondent was represented by counsel, one of whom, Arthur
Richenthal , is its general counsel and its secretary ? The IBEW was represented
by an International organizer . All parties participated throughout the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the
General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondent moved to dismiss the 8 (a) (3)
allegations of the complaint , initially on the ground that the evidence failed to
establish any knowledge on the part of the Respondent which would link Martins
with the IBEW. In the course of oral argument on the record participated in by
all parties , the Respondent enlarged its motion , particularly in view of the General
Counsel's contention that regardless of the issue as to whether the Respondent
had knowledge connecting Martins with the IBEW, his discharge independently
involved Martins' right to engage in "concerted activity." After all parties had been
accorded full opportunity to argue the Respondent's motion, said motion to dismiss
the 8 (a) (3) allegations was denied. In addition, I thereafter overruled an objec-
tion by the Respondent to "participation in the trial" by the representative of the
IBEW who was "not a member of the bar." At the close of the hearing, opportunity
was afforded all parties to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs and
proposed findings and conclusions. The General Counsel and the IBEW waived oral
argument; the Respondent argued orally, particularly with respect to Martins'
discharge. Pursuant to an extension by the Chief Trial Examiner of time for filing
to March 1, 1954, briefs have been filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent,
and the IBEW.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Standard Coil Products, Inc., the Respondent herein, is an Illinois corporation
which has its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The Re-
spondent is engaged in the manufacture of coils and electronic products. It has,
exclusive of its subsidiary holdings, seven plants located in different parts of the
country. The only plant involved in the instant matter is located in North Dighton,
Massachusetts, and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of tuners for television
sets.
The complaint alleges and the answer, by its silence, admits that in the conduct
of its business the Respondent has caused large quantities of raw materials used
by it in manufacturing electronic products to be purchased and transported in
interstate commerce from and through various States of the United States, other
than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that the Respondent has also caused
its products to be sold and transported from its North Dighton plant in interstate
commerce to States of the United States, other than the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. It was stipulated at the hearing that the Respondent's "sales and pur-
2It appears from the Respondent's answer and its brief that its full name may be
Standard Coil Products Co , Inc. However, no question as to the accuracy of the Respond-
ent's name as alleged in the complaint was raised at the hearing, and there was obviously
no confusion as to the Respondent's actual identity.
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chases during the last calendar year were in excess of $1,000,000." The Respond-
ent concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the IBEW, is
concededly a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The IBEW is
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and admits to membership em-
ployees of the Respondent's North Dighton plant, at which it undertook organiza-
tional activities during the latter part of August 1953.
The Employee-Management Committee, herein called the Committee, was in-
stalled at the North Dighton plant in the early part of September 1953, under
circumstances hereinafter discussed, about 21/2 months after that plant had started
operations. One of the issues in this case is whether or not the Committee is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introductory background
The Respondent's North Dighton plant started operations on June 23, 1953. It
is the newest of the Respondent's 9 plants, 2 of which are operated through sub-
sidiaries. The employees at eight of the Respondent's plants, all except the plant
involved herein, have been organized by various unions. In establishing its North
Dighton plant, which had approximately 800 employees at the time of the hearing,
the Respondent brought in only 7 of its personnel from other operations, having,
according to Vice President Stanley Andrews, the manager in charge of said plant,
"been intormed by various agencies which included the United States Employment
Service that the territory had a lot of personnel covering certain things that we could
use." 3
On June 18, at a meeting held at the North Dighton plant several days before
the plant started operations, the Respondent decided to form the Employee- Manage-
ment Committee, to which a subsequent section of this report is devoted, as soon as the
number of the employees at the North Dighton plant reached 600. The meeting, at
which the decision to form the Committee was reached, was attended by Andrews
and Richenthal, officers of the Respondent already identified, Personnel Director
Robert Matthies, and John Taska, the personnel manager of the North Dighton
plant. About September 1, the number of employees at the plant reached 600
Thereafter, pursuant to a notice posted on September 3 on the plant's bulletin
boards by the Respondent and an announcement made on September 9 over the
plant public-address system by Personnel Manager Taska, employee representatives
were elected by secret ballot on September 9. The Committee met for the first time
on September 11. Subsequently, meetings of the Committee took place on October
2, November 3 and 10, and December 9, 1953 4
In the meantime, the IBEW had started organizational activities among the Re-
spondent's employees by distributing leaflets at the main gate of the North Dighton
plant on August 21. The day prior to this distribution, International Represent-
ative Richard N. Rogers, who was in charge of the campaign, told Andrews, in
Taska's presence, that the IBEW was "about to begin organizational activities."
In all, the IBEW distributed leaflets at the main gate during "the change of shifts"
on approximately 7 or 8 occasions, the second distribution being about August 26
or 27, and the third about September 8. During said distributions, "roughly five
or six hundred" employees were entering or leaving the plant.
It was the signed card of John C. Martins, the employee whose discharge on
October 2 is discussed in a subsequent section of this report, which was the first card
received from an employee of the Respondent indicating a desire to be represented
by the IBEW. Rogers evidently had several talks with Martins about helping in
the organizational drive; during none of said talks was any representative of the
Respondent present. The first such conversation apparently was about August 26,
at the time of the second distribution of leaflets at the plant's main entrance, and
lasted some 10 minutes. As to Martins' activities, Rogers, upon whose credited
3 While the evidence does not round out the employment picture in the area involved,
the Respondent's brief mentions that "textile mills had closed down."
4 The findings in the above paragraph are based upon a written stipulation entered into
by the parties
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 417
testimony the findings in this and the preceding paragraph are based , testified
convincingly:
I gave cards to John Martins for further distribution in the plant . I asked
him to get these cards signed , which he subsequently did. I asked Martins
also if he could assist us in arranging a meeting with some of his fellow work-
ers together with himself. We also asked Mr. Martins if he would cooperate
in speaking for and in behalf of the Union in the plant.
I am satisfied from Martins' testimony that Martins tried to get the employees
together for a meeting, apparently without success ; that he gave IBEW cards to
fellow employees , and that Martins tried to get employees "to sign cards and send
them in."
While the question of whether or not the Respondent had knowledge linking
Martins to the IBEW will be reserved for subsequent analysis, two things should
be noted now . There is no direct evidence that officials or supervisors of the Re-
spondent did have such knowledge . On the other hand, Mary Cabral, the employee
representative on the Committee from Martins ' department who participated in
the discussion which led to the decision to discharge Martins, testified that nobody
said anything in the October 2 conference about Martins being a union member,
"but the whole shop was talking about it." 5 In any event , before proceeding
further with the questions involved in Martins' discharge , we will consider the issues
with respect to the Committee , for, as the Respondent states in its brief , it is "im-
portant to note that all of the facts " with respect to the Committee "also bear upon
the case of Martins' discharge."
B. The Committee
1. Further facts with respect to the Committee
The Respondent 's decision to form the Committee , and its major actions with
respect thereto , have been chronicled in the second paragraph of the preceding
section of this report . At this point, certain additional facts, particularly with
respect to the institution of the Committee and the nature of its functions , will be
developed.
The notice concerning "Employee-Management Committee ," which the Respond-
ent posted on its plant bulletin board on September 3, was addressed to "All Em-
ployees of Standard Coil Products Co., InC . at North Dighton." Said notice , issued
over the Respondent 's name followed by that of Arthur Richenthal , "Secretary-In
Charge of Company Labor Relations ," was a full-page , typewritten document, the
body of which contained 7 paragraphs , followed by a listing of the 6 sections of the
plant which were each to elect an employee representative . Save for the concluding
list of election districts specified by the Respondent, the details of which are not ma-
terial , the body of this notice , dated September 3, 1953, read as follows:
Some time ago your Company decided, when the number of employees
reached its present level , an Employee-Management Committee would be
established . The basic objective of this Committee to be the creation of a team
that, in its joint efforts , will be of benefit to all concerned , and give you a voice
in your job security.
The above is to be accomplished through such Committee by permitting both
employee and management problems to be faced and answered from the stand-
point of facts instead of rumor and hearsay.
It is anticipated that such Committee will probably discuss suggestions for
betterment of working conditions , safety, quality , propriety of dismissals, and
other topics of mutual interest.
On September 9, 1953, at 4 . 00 PM , each Section will be given closed bal-
lots to elect its representatives to this Committee which will be comprised of
your elected representatives and the Personnel Manager of this plant and one
of his employees . There will be no other representatives of Management or of
the supervisory staff on this Committee . The Personnel Manager will report
these discussions to top management of the Company after obtaining the posi-
tion of any plant supervisors whose facts are necessary before making a decision.
Within a reasonable time thereafter , the Committee will be informed of Man-
agement's final decisions.
5 Cabral was called as witness by the General Counsel, but said testimony was given
during the Respondent 's cross-examination
338207-55-vol. 110-28
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Each one of you will be free on Company time to discuss any employee-
management problems with your elected representatives so long as such use of
the time is not abused. Your representatives will, in turn, take up the matter
with other representatives of the Committee at meetings scheduled as regularly
as they are needed.
It should be definitely understood that the door to the Personnel Manager's
office has been and will continue to be open to everyone. You will be informed
of your Employee-Management Committee activity reports from the Committee
itself. Any time any member of the Committee spends in carrying on the au-
thorized functions of the Committee will be paid for by the Company. This
Committee will continue to operate so long as it serves a useful purpose.
The following sections have been established and one representative from
each section should be elected, and until decided otherwise the employee rep-
resentatives will not exceed six (6).
On September 9, prior to the holding of the election scheduled for that day by
the above notice of September 3, Personnel Manager Taska made an announcement
to the employees over the plant's public-address system. After calling for attention
and identifying himself, Taska explained that if the election of "your representatives"
to the Committee were to be held at 4 p. in. as originally planned , "the ballot
tellers would have to stay after 4:15 in order to count the ballots." Taska's
announcement then continued as follows:
Therefore, the plans have been slightly changed. Shortly before 3:00 PM
ballots will be distributed. At 3:00 PM write down the name of the person
you desire to act as your representatives on the ballot. The ballot box will
then be passed down the line at which time you can deposit your ballot.
The tellers will then count the votes cast and we will be able to let you know
who your representative is before you go home today.
Of the six employees, shown by the evidence to have been elected as employee
representatives by secret ballot on September 9 for their respective "sections," only
the representative from "Maintenance, Stores and Machine Shop," Mary Cabral,
who has already been mentioned, need be identified by name.
The first meeting of the Committee took place on September 11, when the
six elected employee representatives met from 2:30 to 4:30 p. in. with Personnel
Manager Taska, apparently in Taska's office.6 The minutes of this meeting, which
were prepared by Taska, are in evidence and cover almost four typewritten pages of
single-spaced material . The parties stipulated that the "topics of discussion" at the
four subsequent meetings of the Committee on October 2, November 3 and 10, and
December 9 "were of the same general nature as at the first meeting." Hence the
summary of the minutes of the September 11 meeting which follows will mention
all topics of discussion and will quote several portions of those minutes in full.
After listing those in attendance and noting "necessary introductions," the min-
utes indicate that the meeting "then proceeded to discuss the functions of the Com-
mittee," reference being made to the notice of September 3, which stated "the basic
objective" thereof in terms of "the creation of a team." 7 The three paragraphs in
the minutes which summarize this intial phase of the meeting are herewith set out
in full:
With such an objective in mind it would probably be best if this Committee,
in its initial efforts, would concentrate on the establishment of a free flow of
information; from the employees to management and also in the opposite
direction. This being especially true in our case due to the newness of the
operation and the fact that our oldest production employees had at most 21/2
months seniority. Thru the free flow of factual information the trouble makers,
ignorance, rumor and hearsay, would not have any opportunity to spread their
deadly venom.
These meetings would be held at least once per month, more frequently
whenever necessary. In the periods between such meetings any Representative
who encountered an employee problem, question or gripe, should feel free to
visit the Personnel Manager. Immediate attention would be given to such
situations. The situation would be factually investigated and answers obtained
as promptly as possible.
6 While the place of said meeting is not specified in the minutes thereof, I believe that
the record as a whole warrants the inference that meetings of the Committee were held
in Taska's office In any event, the Respondent's answer admits that the Committee's
meetings were held on its property.
7 See the first paragraph of the notice set out above.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 419
It was also mentioned that the Employee Representatives would have to give
some thought to the perpetuation of the Committee and providing for periodic
elections to this Committee . It was suggested that one method could be
staggered elections for the various Sections so that the Committee at all times
would have a nucleus of members with committee experience . The Employee
Representatives were receptive to this thought.
Except for the final two paragraphs of said minutes, which summarize remarks
made by two management representatives who were called in before the close
thereof, the rest of the minutes of the September 11 meeting are devoted to the
discussion of subjects which were "then introduced by various members of the
Committee ." These subjects are listed and discussed in some 3 pages of the minutes
under 10 headings : Smoking While in Line to Punch Out ; Waiting Time Involved
in Punching Out; Cafeteria ; Conduct-One Employee to Another ; Union; Lead
Girl on Line # 1; Promotions and Bulletins ; Relief Operator on Line #1 ; Identifica-
tion for Employee Representatives ; and Curtain on Line #3.
For the most part , the matters discussed were essentially in the nature of employee
grievances , complaints , or problems , albeit in some cases of relatively minor signifi-
cance . The first three subjects listed will serve to illustrate the type of problems
raised and the variety of methods of handling them . As to smoking while in the
line to punch out, the complaint was essentially that employees carrying lighted
cigarettes in line caused burns to persons and to clothing. As a result of the discus-
sion of this complaint , it was "decided that for the benefit of all concerned smoking
would be prohibited while waiting in line to punch out," and that bulletins would
be prepared and supervisors informed that "such practice was tabu."
As to the criticism of some employees of the amount of waiting time involved
in punching out, it was suggested that another time clock might be installed. Some
problems connected with doing that were discussed along with various other aspects
of the general problem . The minutes on this topic conclude with the notation that
the matter "might benefit by a careful analysis which would be done as soon as
possible and the results presented to the full Committee."
As to the anticipated "opening of the cafeteria," a problem about which some
employees were wondering and "felt that perhaps management was slighting," the
minutes set forth three paragraphs explaining various factors which had been com-
plicating and delaying said opening , and also discussing the Respondent 's policy
with respect to providing "good food as cheaply as possible."
With respect to the minutes under the caption , "Union," which are quoted here-
with in full, it should be noted that the "Mt Hope Finishing Co." (referred to
therein ) had operated at the North Dighton plant before the Respondent took over
said premises . The minutes concerning the discussion of "the Union " on September
11 read as follows: 8
One Representative asked the question if Management was in favor of or
against the Union . Management replied that they were attempting to run
a plant where people would like to work . Wage rates, benefits and working
conditions had been established not from the stand point of how cheaply this
could be done but rather from the consideration of how much could we do.
This we believe has resulted in a set up which in many ways is considerably
better than others in the vicinity . This would still be the policy followed
irrespective of the presence of a Union . What in addition could be done in
the future depended in large part on how well our employees co-operated. We
were in a competitive market and the final boss was still our customer. If we
could produce a quality tuner at prices which permitted us to meet competition,
pay out bills and still have something left over for the owners of the Company,
the future held a lot of promise not only for our employees but for the sur-
rounding communities . One Representative then mentioned that all a union
was interested in would be the dues which in our case would be a nice take.
Another mentioned most employees were not interested in a union . Another
pointed to Mt. Hope Finishing Co. as an illustration of what a union could
do for you. Another didn't see how a union could improve the working condi-
tions at the plant.
After all of the topics listed above had been discussed , a number of the representa-
tives expressed a desire to meet Manager Andrews and Production Manager Olszowka,
who is accountable directly to Andrews. Both "came into the meeting." Andrews
was asked "a number of questions concerning his thoughts on some of the questions
8 There is no evidence that any union other than the IBEW was then attempting to
organize the plant.
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
previously discussed"; in answering, Andrews "brought out the basic beliefs and
intentions" of the Respondent. Olszowka "also addressed the Committee for a
few moments and stressed his belief that no matter how trivial or simple or for
that matter how silly a question any employee might bring up it was important in
his opinion that this question be treated with respect and be answered as quickly
as possible." [Emphasis supplied.]
2. Conclusions as to the Committee
A careful analysis of the facts above found concerning the Committee leaves no
doubt that the Committee is the creature of the Respondent . The decision to estab-
lish the Committee was made by officials and management personnel of the Respond-
ent before the North Dighton plant started operations. The nature, structure, and
functions of the Committee were determined by management and the employees
were informed thereof by the bulletin posted on September 3 by the official in
charge of labor relations. The election districts and procedures were defined by
management and the election was conducted under management direction on com-
pany time and property. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Com-
mittee receives any financial support from any source other than the Respondent,
which patently makes the Committee's functions possible by arranging that they
take place on its time and property through the use of such of its facilities as are
needed.
In addition, the evidence does not show that the Respondent's employees were
afforded an initial choice between participating in the Committee or refraining from
participation therein. It appears rather that participation in the election of "rep-
resentatives" to perfect the "creation of a team" was expected of all employees in
their respective "sections." The Committee exhibits no characteristics of an exist-
ence independent of the Respondent. It has no constitution or bylaws and there are
no membership requirements or dues. In short, there appears to be nothing which
differentiates between status as an employee in the Respondent's North Dighton
plant and participation in the Committee which the Respondent has established
therein.
The core of the Respondent's position with respect to the Committee is that it is
not a labor organization proscribed by the Act, but rather "a legitimate medium
of communication with its employees " The following paragraph appears at the
beginning of an ably written section of the Respondent's brief devoted to the defense
of said position:
At the outset of the argument in support of the Committee, we wish to point
out to the Trial Examiner that we are not unaware of the Board and Court
decisions on employee representation committees which have, in the past, con-
strued provisions of the sections 8 (a) (2) and 2 (5) of the Act in the very
extreme manner exemplified by the leading case of NLRB v. General Shoe Cor-
poration, 90 NLRB 1330, 192 F. 2d 504 (6th Cir., 1951), cert. den. 343 U. S.
904, 962 L. Ed. 1323, 72 S. Ct. 635. We say, however, that to the extent that
the rule laid down in those cases has any application to the facts of this pro-
ceeding, that rule must be reexamined in the light of the times and the true
meaning of the sections of the Act which the rule is supposed to construe.
The Respondent's brief then sets out two paragraphs from a "recently made" state-
ment of the Chairman of the Board, in which the Chairman, among other things, is
quoted as recognizing that the Board is "constantly exposed to the real danger of
losing touch with the realities of industrial life and with the every day problems of
the working men and women whom our cases involve," and also pointing out that,
in the administration of so far reaching a Federal statute, there is "a tendency to
withdraw into a bureaucratic ivory tower and to become dogmatic or at least too
doctrinaire."
As I am in accord with the above-quoted views of the Chairman, I have no desire
"to squeeze a case into a convenient mold." Hence I have carefully evaluated all`
of the facets of the arguments advanced by the Respondent to support its contention
that "the time has come to recognize the change in the factual situation in the field
of labor relations, as reflected in the amendments to the Act, and at least to modify
the rule of the General Shoe case so that it does not strike down necessary and'
proper media of communication between employers and employees." Having done
so, it is my considered judgment that the Respondent's position can not prevail, and
that the Committee is well across the tenuous line which separates "legitimate means
of communication" from- labor organizations.
Most significantly, there can be no doubt that the Committee, which was insti--
tuted to consider such matters as "betterment of working conditions" and "pro--
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 421
priety of dismissals," and which clearly has taken up employee problems and has
handled grievances, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, as in-
terpreted in a long line of Board and court decisions, including the very recent and
unanimous decision of the Board in the Taussig case 0 A comparision of the facts
in the case at bar with those surrounding the establishment and functioning of the
labor organization in the Taussig case, which organization also incorporated in its
title the phrase "Employee-Management Committee," leaves no doubt as to the es-
sential similarity of the "mold." It would only belabor that fundamental similarity
to point out superficial differences between the two committees, both of which were
instituted by management under circumstances devoid of any other unfair labor
practices. 1° In addition, there can be no doubt that the Committee in the instant
matter is so completely the creature of the Respondent that, like the labor organiza-
tion in the Taussig case, it must be completely disestablished
In accordance with the foregoing findings and upon the record as a whole, I con-
clude and find that, by initiating, forming, sponsoring, and promoting the Committee
and by thereafter assisting, dominating, and contributing support to it, the Respond-
ent has, in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, interfered with the formation
and administration of the Committee, contributed financial and other support thereto,
and dominated said Committee. The Respondent has by the foregoing also, in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, interfered with the right of its employees to
engage in and to refrain from engaging in activities protected by Section 7 of the
Act
C. The discharge of John C. Martins
1 Contentions and surrounding circumstances
The role which Martins played in the IBEW's organizational activities, which were
initiated on August 21, 1953, is described above in section III, A. The substance
of the position taken in the brief filed by the IBEW, which is devoted entirely to
Martins' discharge, is that through Taska, whose responsibility for the decision of
October 2 to discharge Martins is undisputed, the Respondent, seizing upon "the
flimsiest of excuses to summarily dismiss an avowed supporter" of the IBEW, took
premeditated action which was "calculated to serve as warning to other employees
of similar sympathies," and that when all factors in the case are considered, the
only possible "rationale" which remains is Martins' "participation in union organ-
izational activity."
With respect to Martins' discharge, the General Counsel, in his brief, as he did
at the hearing in oral argument on the Respondent's above discussed motion to dis-
miss, bottoms his contentions on the alternative allegation of "concerted activity,"
without stating that he is abandoning the allegation of the complaint as to Martins'
having joined and assisted the IBEW.li More specifically, the General Counsel, after
citing numerous cases to establish that "as a matter of law," Martins and Frank
Machado, two employees who were taking up a grievance on October 2 through the
Committee, had "the right to present a grievance to the Management without fear
of punishment," contends that by discharging the employee who was acting as "the
spokesman," the Respondent illegally discharged Martins "for engaging in con-
certed activity" of a type over which "Section 7 of the Act throws a mantle of
protection."
-Ed Taussig, Itac., 108 NLRB 470, in which all five Members of the Board participated.
10 In my opinion, the chief difference in the two cases lies in the fact that, in the Taussig
case, suggestions and comments by employees weie solicited in formulating the representa-
tion plan, and the employees therein were given an opportunity to express any objections
to the plan
11 The Respondent's brief takes the position that the General Counsel "all but conceded"
at the hearing that his case with respect to Martins was not based on Martins' IBEW
membership or activities In this respect, it should be noted that the transcript shows
that the General Counsel denied making such a concession but indicated lather that his
argument on the motion to dismiss had been "assuming they had no particular knowledge
of this man's particular activities " In addition, it is evident from a study of the position
taken in said oral aigument by the IBEW, that it believed that the circumstances indicated
that the Respondent had somehow learned of Martins' union activities. In any event.
since both of the alternative theories were fully litigated at the hearing, and the General
Counsel has not specifically abandoned the theory now urged by the IBEW, that position
clearly is not precluded from full consideration merely by the fact that the General
Counsel's brief now appears to rest entirely on the other alternative Hence both of the
alternative theoi ies of the complaint are fully considered herein
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In sharp contrast to the two foregoing positions, the position which the Respond-
ent details in its brief appears, in essence, to be that the Respondent, which was ac-
tively encouraging the presentation of grievances through the Committee and had
no knowledge connecting Martins with the IBEW, discharged Martins solely as
the result of the manner in which Personnel Manager Taska was antagonized by
an "uncooperative attitude" displayed by Martins in a "rather inflammable atmos-
phere" which had been precipitated by a critical situation, referred to as the DuMont
crisis, which imperiled the plant's continued full operation. In short, as I under-
stand the Respondent's position, Martins' uncooperative attitude, which had been
previously evidenced in several ways, exhibited itself so vividly at the grievance
meeting on October 2 that it served as "the spark which set off the explosion" which
resulted in Martins' discharge.
According to the Respondent's brief, Taska, allegedly for reasons which will be
explored more fully later, "could no longer control his temper" and hence "blew
his top," thereafter discharging Martins because Taska "did not wish to have an
employee in the North Dighton plant who could be so stubborn, so selfish and so
blind to the welfare of his fellow employees at the plant and his fellow citizens in
the North Dighton area." It should further be noted that in its summation, the
Respondent acknowledges that Taska, who on all versions of the October 2 griev-
ance meeting became highly incensed at Martins, "certainly was wrong in losing his
head" and also that Taska "was possibly even hasty in discharging Martins." How-
ever, the Respondent insists that Taska was "certainly correct in his reason for doing
both" because the plant would "never have survived" the DuMont crisis, if all of
the employees had displayed "the same stubborn, selfish and blind attitude as
Martins."
The significance of the above outlined fundamental differences in the positions of
the parties will become clearer when the facts surrounding Martins' discharge have
been further developed and the respective positions themselves more fully consid-
ered. However, this preliminary reconnaissance of the fundamental contentions has
been deemed advisable as orientation for the problems posed by the evidence, espe-
cially that concerning just what actually happened during the grievance meeting on
October 2, as to which there is considerable confusion and conflict and some flat
contradiction in the testimony of the 6 witnesses, 3 of whom were called by the
General Counsel and 3 by the Respondent. But before coming to grips with the
more subtle ramifications of the events immediately surrounding Martins' discharge,
there are several other preliminary aspects of the case about which the facts are less
in dispute than their meaning. We now turn to some additional background facts
and certain subsidiary conclusions concerning them.
Martins went to work for the Respondent on June 29, 1953, shortly after the first
employees had been hired at the North Dighton plant on June 23. He was hired as
a tester at $1.05 per hour. Martins, who started working at a time when there
were "probably 20 or 25" employees on the benches, at first assisted in getting the
assembly lines in operation. However, within 2 weeks, Martins, who had had pre-
vious experience and whose "special talents" Olszowka had seen fit to recognize upon
employing Martins by noting on his application that if Martins proved within 2
weeks that he could "do the full testing job he would immediately go up to the top of
the rate," 12 was advanced to $1.25 per hour, the top rate for testers at that time.
About a month later, Martins was promoted to an analyzer at $1.30 an hour and
thereafter, about a week before his discharge, he was given an automatic increase to
$1.35 per hour.
It is thus obvious that within approximately 3 months, Martins, whose "special
talents" were recognized at the outset by Olszowka, advanced from $1.05 an hour as
a tester to $1.35 an hour as an analyzer. Taska, who had not personally supervised
Martins, testified that "everyone said he could do his work very well." Martins
himself testified credibly and without contradiction that he had never been "criticized
or reprimanded by anyone" for the way he had done his work. On all of the evi-
dence, I am satisfied and find that, as the IBEW's brief phrases it, "no complaint, dis-
ciplinary action, reprimand, warning, or even any authoritative expression of
employer dissatisfaction was ever directed to" Martins, either in connection with his
work or regarding his attitude.
To understand the factors involved in the grievance meeting held on Friday, Oc-
tober 2, it is necessary to understand the nature of the DuMont crisis with which
1 The quotations in the above finding as to Olszowka's actions are from Taska's testi-
mony. Martins testified credibly that before entering the Respondent's employ he had
"worked at the Eastern Radio Institute in Boston and the East Deforrest Company"
and that while at the latter he had had "a servicing business" of his own "on the side."
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 423
the relatively new plant was confronted at the beginning of that week . It was on
Monday, September 28, that DuMont, the Respondent 's first large eastern customer,
to which the North Dighton plant had been shipping tuners since early in Septem-
ber, returned over 3,200 tuners and gave notice that it was rejecting all of the tuners
which it had so far received from the North Dighton plant. The rejection of said
tuners ( small but rather complicated electronic devices by means of which picture
and sound signals are tuned in on television sets ) came about because of certain
defects, the details of which need not concern us. In any event , the situation appar-
ently stemmed from the fact that the Respondent was attempting to meet "a rather
heavy program" with relatively inexperienced plant personnel , and it was necessary to
take prompt action to avoid losing the entire DuMont order for 40,000 tuners, an
order amounting to "in excess of $600,000."
In fact, when this crisis arose, General Manager Andrews was called to the
DuMont plant and told that DuMont was "seriously considering dropping" the
Respondent , an action which Andrews testified would have made it necessary for
him "to lay-off approximately half of the people" employed at that time . Andrews
assured DuMont that "they would be given a certain quantity of tuners to sustain
their production ." He thereupon telephoned the plant and advised his supervisory
force "of the seriousness of the condition that existed ." Andrews directed his su-
pervision that "every effort should be made to get corrected tuners back to DuMont
as rapidly as possible ." Andrews, who felt that the Respondent , having been given
"another shot" at DuMont 's business simply "had to be accurate " thereafter, also
directed his supervision "to take anybody who had any technical knowledge that
could be spared" and assign him to testing the reworked DuMont tuners so that when
DuMont "received their tuners they would be right."
It was pursuant to the foregoing orders which Andrews issued to meet the DuMont
crisis that , beginning on September 28, quite substantial shifts in operations and
personnel were made in the plant. Thereafter, and until some time after Martin's
discharge on October 2, the plant devoted its major energies to meeting and sur-
mounting this crisis.13 No purpose would be served in trying to spell out those
changes, which are in some respects none too clear in the record , and which in-
volved rearrangements calculated to enable the Respondent to continue the pro-
duction of some tuners for its other customers while it devoted its major energies to
correcting , testing, and reshipping the rejected DuMont tuners . It is clear, however,
that among the employees who were shifted on September 28 from their regular
work to testing DuMont rejects were the two analyzers , Martins and Machado.
There is no contention that Martins and Machado were shifted from their work
as analyzers for any discriminatory reason . They were not singled out, since other
employees , including even some of the Respondent 's technical staff , were also shifted
to this emergency testing work on what was generally understood to be a temporary
basis to meet the DuMont crisis. Both Martins and Machado were certainly well
qualified by training and experience to do the testing work to which they were
temporarily assigned . Their place of work and their rate of pay remained the
same. However, from my study of the technical evidence , which need not be
detailed as to the nature of the work involved, I think that it is fair to conclude that
testing tuners is a relatively unskilled, uninteresting , and routine operation in com-
parison with the relatively skilled approach required to meet the varied situations
which confront an anaylzer , who serves as a "trouble shooter " in discovering what
is wrong with defective tuners. But while testing is less interesting than analyzing
and requires less experience and ingenuity , there is nothing in the evidence to warrant
inferring that testing is physically "more tiresome" or was conducted by Machado
and Martins under less pleasant general circumstances.
So far as the record shows, Martins and Machado tested DuMont rejects for the
first 3 days of the week ending October 2 without evincing any dissatisfaction or
raising any objections . It was apparently not until their fourth day on testing,
Thursday , October 1 , that Martins and Machado, for reasons and under circum-
stances to which we next turn , felt that they had a grievance . As will presently ap-
pear, their grievance was first stated directly to supervision on October 1. It was
thereafter presented through the medium of the Committee on October 2 when
Martins was discharged . 14 It is clear that on both occasions Martins took the vocal
is DuMont has been retained by Respondent as it customer.
"Despite the fact that Martins "just thought it was September 25th" when he was
discharged and believed that he had been testing for almost 2 weeks prior to his dis-
missal , I am satisfied from the overwhelming weight of the evidence, including documentary
evidence later mentioned , that Martins was discharged on October 2 I am also satisfied,
from the weight of the evidence , including credited testimony of witnesses for the Respond-
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
role in presenting their grievance . We turn now to the circumstances surrounding
the grievance and its presentation.-
2. The grievance , its presentation , and the discharge
During the DuMont crisis , Assistant Foreman Cote was put in charge of the
"Debit Memorandum Department " 15 and at first "all the sub line, all the repair
girls and testers and analyzers were turned over to" Cote to work on DuMont
rejects. Thus on October 1, when their grievance arose, Martins and Machado,
who as analy'lers "normally would fall under George Hackett," were temporarily
assigned to Cote, who , like Foreman Hackett, appears to have been responsible to
Foreman David Orcutt, 1 of 7 key employees whom the Respondent , in setting up
its new plant, had transferred from its other plants.
It was on the afternoon of October 1 that Foreman Orcutt learned from Hackett
that Martins and Machado were dissatisfied . rs Hackett told Orcutt that "the two
analyzers , John Martins and Frank Machado, were complaining of the fact that
they were testing rather than analyzing." Orcutt thereupon "went up to both the
two fellows involved attempting to find out their complaint." Martins and Machado
were working "side by side" when Orcutt asked them "what the trouble was." Mar-
tins "turned around and stated that he could not understand why he was testing
when he was getting analyzers ' pay." Orcutt explained that in order to expedite
the handling of the DuMont problem "as quickly as possible ," it had been necessary
to put Martins and Machado "and other individuals on testing and it was not pos-
sible to test those same tuners with those on the production line, the two had to
be kept separate and were of different tests and the reports and records had to be
kept separate ." After Orcutt made his explanation, he "saw no indication of satis-
faction or dissatisfaction " on Martins' part as the discussion , during which Machado
apparently had said nothing , ended.
While there is nothing in the testimony of Orcutt to show that during the above
discussion any question was raised as to whether other employees , qualified to do
the testing which Martins and Machado were doing, were in fact idle , a question
of that type which was clearly a part of their grievance by the following morning,
was apparently in the back of their minds on Thursday afternoon . In any event,
certain testimony of Machado , who testified under subpena by the General Counsel,
should be noted at this point. Machado impressed me by his demeanor as the
most forthright , and the least biased and interested , of the six witnesses who testi-
fied concerning Martins' discharge . 17 When asked "what the regular testers were
doing" when he and Martins were testing DuMont rejects , Machado answered
convincingly:
At the latter part of the week they were out of work; they weren 't doing any-
thing. Some of them were put on the assembly line.
It should also be noted that Cote testified that Thursday afternoon, at the time
that some "girls were taken off of the testing positions and put on production,"
Martins came to him and "wanted to know why the girls were put on the production
ent, particularly that of Andrews upon whose convincing testimony the above findings as
to the DuMont crisis are largely based , that the first DuMont rejects weie returned to the
plant on September 28 and that Martins had been testing for only about half as long as
he testified that lie had been On the other hand, I do not believe that Martins was
deliberately untiuthful in his testimony , but that his memory was poor as to dates and
times, and that it was also colored , as was that of some other witnesses , particularly
Taska, by a firm belief in the entire rightness of his cause
The normal function of this department is to receive any defective tuner retuined by
a customer on a "debit memorandum" , check, i epair , and test it ; and ieturn it with "a
new warranty date "
16 Hackett was not called as a witness, nor was he 1 of the 6 present at the grievance
meeting on October 2 itartins who (lid not iemember iaisng the question with Hackett,
testified that he did ask Oicutt about going back to the ir "regular jobs" ; that Orcutt said
they were "needed on testing" , and that he could not "place any time " for the discussion.
The findings which follow as to the grievance discussion on October 1 are made upon
ciedited and uncontiadicted testimony of Oicutt , the most convincing and poised of the
three witnesses called by the Respondent with respect to Martins ' discharge, which
testimony was fuller than and not in conflict with Martins' testimony.
17 There is no evidence that Machado was nteiested in the IBEW, and at the time of
the hearing he was still employed by the Respondent, having advanced from $135 an
hour to $1 50 an hour as a technician in the laboratory
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 425
line." Cote referred Martins to Hackett. It thus seems obvious that when Martins
had gone to Hackett on that Thursday afternoon , as I am satisfied that he did,
Martins had already begun to wonder whether he and Machado were really needed
any longer on testing work.
Friday morning Martins and Machado, who were evidently not satisfied with
Orcutt's explanation of the preceding afternoon , agreed that they "should make a
formal complaint ." Accordingly they went to the representative on the Committee
for their department , Mary Cabral . I am convinced , from my analysis of the
testimony of the three as to their conversation , that Martins and Machado registered
with Cabral what , within the intent of the procedure of the Committee , constituted
a formal grievance . In substance , Martins and Machado told Cabral that they
"would like to be put back on Ltheir ] own jobs"; that "the girls on the regular test
lines had been loafing"; and that since they were doing "the testing that [those
girls] should have been doing ," they would like to get back to their "regular analyz-
ing." 18 It is clear from Cabral 's testimony that, upon receiving the foregoing
complaint , she "went to the personnel department and put in [ her] complaint" to
Taska and that Personnel Manager Taska told her that he "would see the two of
them "
Shortly after Martins and Machado had filed their grievance , and shortly before
they were called to Taska's office, Orcutt transferred Martins to work which Orcutt
described as a temporary "analytical job" and Martins described as "sort of a re-
search job." In transferring Martins, Orcutt did not say whether Martins ' transfer
from testing was a temporary or a permanent one. Martins testified that he
"thought it was permanent ." According to Orcutt , he made no reference to Mar-
tins' grievance when giving him the new assignment on the morning of October 2;
there was no intention in so assigning him of recognizing Martin 's complaint; and
Orcutt took it "for granted" that Martins would go back to testing upon the com-
pletion of the temporary assignment.
Without going into the precise nature of Martins ' new assignment , I am con-
vinced, after considerable reflection on the evidence as a whole, that said assignment,
of which Taska was unaware when the group assembled shortly thereafter in his
office, was at least as interesting , skilled, and challenging as analyzing ; that Martins
was satisfied with his new work, and that Martins, who was still on that assignment
and had been on it for only a brief period before being called to Taska's office, did
not understand that no consideration of his grievance had been involved in making
the transfer or that his transfer from testing was only temporary . In any event, we
come now to the meeting concerning the grievance which Martins and Machado had
filed with the Committee through Cabral , their representative , and which was held
in Taska's office sometime before lunch on October 2.19
The 6 who participated in the grievance meeting were Taska, Orcutt, Cote , Cabral,
Martins, and Machado , all of whom testified, the first 3 as witnesses for the Respond-
ent and the last 3 as witnesses for the General Counsel. There are wide variations
in their testimony , particularly in the emphasis placed on certain phases of the meet-
ing. There were also marked differences in the demeanor of the witnesses during
their testimony ; some references have already been made as to the credibility of
witnesses . To explore fully the divergencies in the testimony and the various
factors bearing on credibility would prolong our discussion of the October 2 meeting.
All such factors have, of course , been carefully studied and analyzed. It is my con-
sidered judgment that the truth , in all of its detailed ramifications , assuming that it
could be distilled from the evidence despite the high degree of emotional tension
which admittedly attended the October 2 discussion , would not sufficiently contribute
to the ultimate resolution of the issues to justify protracting this report . It will be
sufficient , in my opinion , to state the gist of what my analysis convinces me did
happen, with only partial reference to the evidence.2i
18 The above quotations are from Martins ' fuller version of the grievance Machado
phrased their statement to Cabral as follows
We wanted to know why we could not be put back on analyzing since the regular
women testers weien't doing the testing
19 While the meeting evidently ran over into the lunch period , I believe that Martins
was in error in placing the opening thereof as after lunch On the other hand , I doubt
if the meeting assembled as long before lunch as the testimony of some of the Respondent's
witnesses indicates , or that as much time was given during the meeting to detailed
explanations of the DuMont crisis , a situation with which everyone present was, in my
opinion , already fairly familiar.
x It should be noted that in addition to the testimony of the six witnesses, the duly
considered evidence as to the October 2 meeting includes a one -page memoiandum, dated
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the outset , it will be helpful to note that the meeting had 4 phases of varying
length , with the number of participants ranging from 4 to 6. During the first and
longest phase, all six of the above -named participants were present . The discussion
was principally between Taska, on the one hand , who was occasionally supplemented
by Orcutt , and Martins , on the other hand , who acted as the spokesman with
Machado saying nothing. When Taska opened the meeting by asking what their
grievance was, Martins , who had been working on his new assignment when Cote
had come to take him to the meeting , replied that he "had none at the time" and that
he was "perfectly happy." 21
Taska, who in my opinion did not know what had prompted Martins to answer
as he did , asked Martins to state the grievance which they had had that morning.
In essence , Martins said that they preferred analyzing to testing , and wanted to know
why they could not go back to their regular work as analyzers since some of the
regular testers seemed to be idle. Taska asked if they understood why the DuMont
rejects were being given special consideration 22 Martins replied that they did,
but that they could not understand why they had been kept on testing when, as
Martins phrased it in his testimony , "some of the girls on the regular testing had
been loafing for about two days." Taska , who by that time evidently was "getting
angrier and angrier," told them, according to Machado 's credited testimony, which
was very similar to Martins ' on this point , that it "was none of [their] business
what they did with the testers." It must have been at about this point that Martins,
perhaps by the way he "just sort of shrugged his shoulders " in resentful acquiescence,
began to evidence the attitude of which Taska complained during his testimony,
in substance that Taska was in the seat of authority and that if that was Taska's
position , there was not much that Martins could do about it.
During the discussion which followed ,23 Taska, in an agitated and angry manner,
tried to convince Martins that the Respondent 's position was a sound one. He was
supplemented from time to time by technical explanations from Orcutt who was,
I am convinced from their contrasting demeanor as witnesses , much more composed
than Taska. Among the subjects thus covered were the crucial nature of the DuMont
crisis; the necessity for keeping the DuMont rejects separate from regular production;
the fact that many others, including Plant Manager Andrews , who had helped pack
some of the DuMont tuners for reshipment , had been doing work not regularly
their own to help to meet the emergency ; and that the Respondent had the right
to expect the cooperation of employees in such a situation.
While I doubt that any amount of study, and I have given a great deal to this
October 2 meeting, would make a step - by-step presentation of it possible, I am
satisfied in my own mind as to the essential nature of what was going on in the
latter part of this discussion . Taska, as the convincing testimony of Machado shows,
was doing his best to get Martins to understand , if not actually to admit, that there
was really no foundation for their grievance . Martins' response to Taska's efforts
October 6 , 1953 , and entitled "Discharge-Attitude ," which Taska prepared in the
ordinary course of business for the Respondent 's files , and which was admitted in evidence
at the hearing without objection from any of the parties.
21I credit Martins' testimony that be first stated that he had no grievance despite
ambiguous testimony of other witnesses indicating that Martins did not make such a
statement , or testimony that they did not remember him making such a statement.
Despite Martins ' poor memory as to dates and times , his testimony on this point was
convincing In addition , Martins' above -found response was logical , in view of his
satisfaction with , and his failure to understand the temporary nature of , the assignment
which he had received shortly before coming to the meeting In any event , Martins'
momentary disclaimer of any grievance at the opening of the meeting patently arose
because Orcutt had failed to make it clear to Martins that his new assignment was only
a temporary one Thus , the Respondent ' s position , essentially that Martins' testimony
that he had no grievance dissipates the basis of the General Counsel 's contention as to
his discharge , is not diapositive of that issue This is true because , as appeais presently,
the discussion at the Octoher 2 meeting immediately turned to the grievance which Martins
and Machado had filed that morning with Cabial , and it was what thereafter developed
in connection with that grievance which led to Martins ' discharge
22 In my opinion , it was not necessary for Taska to be briefed on the situation by Orcutt
at the opening of the meeting , and it should be noted that Taska's memorandum indicates
that Orcutt had "passed on" information before the meeting as to why Martins and
Machado were "being used to test tuners instead of analyzing "
23 The testimony of the witnesses other than Martins convinces me that there was
further discussion of essentially the nature now to be indicated , despite Martins'
abbreviated version.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 427
apparently amounted to a statement of willingness to "let it go at that," as Machado
expressed it, accompanied by a resentful attitude, but without loss of self-control
comparable to that displayed by Taska, who by this time was infuriated.24 Further,
I do not doubt that Martins' sullen attitude gave Taska the feeling, as he testified,
that Martins probably did not believe him and thought that he was "giving him a
bunch of stuff or nonsense." In any event, when Taska became convinced that
Martins, despite his expressed willingness to drop the matter. remained actually of
the same opinion still as to the validity of their grievance,25 he sent Martins and
Machado out of his office and told them "to wait in the outer office." 26
While Martins and Machado waited for some 5 or 10 minutes, as estimated by
Machado, in the outer office, the second phase of the meeting proceeded in Taska's
office with Taska, Orcutt, Cote, and Cabral present. Taska, as he testified, started
off by remarking that Martins was "a stubborn cuss"; that Martins did not seem
"to have the right attitude" about helping out on testing for a few days when he
was "getting his same rate of pay"; and that perhaps Martins was not the type
of employee they "should have around the plant." 27 Taska's opening remarks
led to a brief discussion with Foreman Orcutt and Assistant Foreman Cote about
matters which were brought up, and which Cabral characterized as "some trouble"
they had had with Martins before her "time" which indicated that Martins "always
found something to crab about."
It appears to me, after carefully studying all of the evidence pertaining thereto,
that the matters then discussed were, for the most part, rather trivial, or possibly
even tended to indicate, as the IBEW's brief points out with respect to three of them,
that Martins had "superior knowledge and capability" and actually had been seeking
to give "constructive criticism." 28 In addition, the matters discussed had never, as
appears earlier herein, been the basis of any expression to Martins of any employer
dissatisfaction. However, from the testimony of the 4 present, and despite some in-
consistencies therein, it does not appear that several matters were mentioned, and
that these so-called "faults" included, in addition to complaining about the 3 mat-
ters already enumerated in the foregoing footnote, that Martins had asked about pro-
motion procedures and had indicated dissatisfaction when certain fellow employees
had been promoted to supervisory positions; 29 that Martins had failed to show up
2} Machado, contrary to some of the other witnesses, testified that Martins was "polite
and civil in his remarks" My belief that by the end of the conference Martins was
exercising the self-control which sometimes accompanies sullen resentment, and that
Taska was demonstrating the infuriation which sometimes accompanies righteous indig-
nation, accords not only with the weight of the testimony, but also with my observation of
the demeanor of the respective witnesses during certain parts of their cross-examination
According to Taska, Martins' final response was, "If you say so, it's got to be."
2 The quotation is from Machado's testimony. The record does not warrant a finding
that they "then went back to their work "
27 In his memorandum, mentioned above, Taska stated that Martins "was just being
-difficult " He also stated therein that after the two men had left the room
Those of us who remained decided John's attitude was all wrong and had been so
since being hired Numerous incidents were mentioned illustrating his attitude. It
was decided to let him go.
It should be noted that there is nothing in Taska's memorandum, in the Respondent's
,contentions, or in the testimony of any of the witnesses other than Cabral, to indicate
that Martins at any point refused to continue to do testing, and I am convinced that to
the extent that Cabral's testimony leaves the impression that Martins "refused to do the
repairs," said testimony is confused or in error.
28 The three such "complaints" listed in the IBEW's brief are : (1) Improper shading
of the oscilloscope ; (2) insufficient tolerance in testing, and (3) variances in the working
area floor
2e During the first part of August, about the time Martins had become an analyzer,
several other employees had been made assistant foremen. Incidentally, it was Cote,
whom Martins had broke in on the job and who had worked with Martins when they
were both analyzers, who testified that on October 2 he had told Taska that Martins "just
complained about the lights and about the chair being uneven on the floor " Said matters
obviously had arisen when Cote and Martins were both analyzers As to the lights, Cote
also testified "we remedied that " I think it quite likely, from all of the evidence, that
Martins had not been happy about being passed over when others had been promoted to
supervisory positions Although there is no contention that Martins was belligerent about
the matter, I do not doubt that his displeasure was discernible
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for overtime work after he had said that he would do so; 30 and that on his first day
at the plant, Martins had remarked that there was not "a job worthwhile having
around this place."
In my opinion , no purpose would be served by presenting a complete discussion of
the evidence concerning the six matters brought up on October 2 as evidence of an
uncooperative attitude on Martins' part. In the first place, samples already foot-
noted above are sufficient to illustrate this testimony which was, on the whole, not
very convincing when given, and which also had about it the ring of afterthought.
In addition and more importantly, I think that there can be no doubt from the testi-
mony as a whole that it was what had happened just previously in the discussion of
the grievance during the first stage of the meeting that was both the activating and
the deciding factor. Thus absent the scene which had just transpired, Martins' "un-
cooperative attitude," the reason for termination thereafter inserted on Martins'
official payroll notice, would not have become "the spark which set off the explosion."
The above matters having been brought up as indicating Martins' attitude, Taska
asked each of the other three what he felt should be done. Each replied in effect
that he felt that Martins should be let go. Taska thereupon decided to discharge
Martins. However, since Machado had not said anything before he and Martins
had been sent out, it was decided that before taking action with respect to Martins,
they should call Machado back to ascertain his attitude.
This third phase of the meeting, when Machado joined the other four in Taska's
office, with Martins remaining outside, was relatively brief. According to Machado,
when he returned to the office, Taska said that he "realized he shouldn't have blown
up"; that "Martins had the wrong attitude"; that they wanted to find out whether
his "attitude was the same as Martins"'; and that if it was, they "would take the
same action" with respect to him.31 Machado testified that he replied that he did
not think "there was anything wrong with" his attitude, and that he had thought when
they had brought it up that they had "had a good grievance." Machado further
testified that "there was some other conversation"; that he could not "remember ex-
actly what it was"; that he did not think that he told Taska that he "had been wrong
in bringing up the grievance"; and that he did agree, however, that "the Company
had good reason to transfer" him from analyzing to testing during the emergency.
As to what transpired when Machado returned to the office, Taska testified as
follows:
I asked Frank that after having listened to all that had been said did he feel that
it was necessary or could he understand why it was necessary to have him per-
form this testing instead of analyzing and he indicated, yes, he did. I felt then
his attitude was entirely different from John Martins' and on that basis I decided
to send him back to work.
Taska's memorandum contains this explanation of why Machado was "sent back to
work" after the above third phase of the October 2 meeting:
I do not know if he profited by what had so far taken place and pulled his
horns back in but he did indicate a more cooperative attitude.
From the foregoing evidence, I am convinced that, whatever the phraseology ac-
tually used, Machado, who undoubtedly realized that he also might be discharged,
convinced Taska by his total conduct after he returned to the office that he fully
acquiesced in Taska's position that their grievance was not a valid or well-founded
one. In short, unlike Martins, who was only willing to drop the matter, Machado
"pulled his horns back in" and accepted the Respondent's version of the situation.
Machado thereupon was sent back to work.32
10 It was Orcutt who brought up this matter on October 2 He testified that on one
occasion Martins had said that "he would be in that evening," but that Martins had
"never returned and with no word " Orcutt was unable to give any idea as to when the
incident had occurred. Admittedly employees were not required to work overtime, and
Martins testified that he had called up to let Orcutt know that he could not be in one
evening when he had said that he would work overtime As to this incident, the evidence
concerning what had actually taken place is inconclusive
311 think the possibility that Martins might l disch.n ged had been evident when the
two employees had been sent from Taska's office Martins testified that just before leaving
the office, Taska had said that "they could end it even further than that," and that he had
thought that he "might get fired."
39 Machado evidently remained on testing for only a day or two, and was then transferred
back to analyzing.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 429
The final phase of the October 2 meeting, when Martins returned to the office after
Machado had been sent back to work, was a very brief one. The four who had par-
ticipated in reaching the decision to discharge Martins were all present. According
to Taska, he told Martins that they:
had discussed the situation among the group present and because of the
basic reason of his attitude in his lack of understanding of the seriousness of the
problem involved, his uncooperative attitude, it would be necessary for all con-
cerned that we let him go and he was discharged.
According to Martins, when he returned to the office after having been outside some
10 or 15 minutes, Taska told Martins that "he was going to have to discharge" him.
As to what then happened, Martins testified: "I asked him what the reason was and
he told me I just couldn 't get along with people." Despite dissimilarity in details,
both of the above versions of Taska's explanation to Martins for discharging him
are essentially consistent with the reason for termination inserted thereafter on
Martins' payroll notice , namely, "uncooperative attitude."
Before turning to the ultimate conclusions as to Martins' discharge , two matters
which closely followed the October 2 meeting, and as to which there are certain
contentions in the briefs, should be noted. The meeting closed with Taska telling
Martins to wait outside and asking Orcutt to get his "clothes and belongings." As
to this first matter, the General Counsel's brief points out that Martins "was not
even allowed to return to his department ." I find no significance in this fact , in view
of Taska's credited testimony that it was "normal procedure" not to allow a dis-
charged employee to return but to "get his equipment for him." As to the second
matter, referred to in the IBEW's brief as Martins' request "for reconsideration and
another chance," the only evidence in the record with respect thereto, Taska's cred-
ibly given testimony concerning his final discussion with Martins, which occurred in
Taska's office between just the two of them when Taska returned from taking
Martins' card to the payroll department, is set out herewith in full:
When I came back to the office he asked to see me again. He came in. His at-
titude was somewhat modified at that time and he asked me for another chance
to go back and in the process of doing so, the way he spoke and the words he
used, I tried to illustrate to him right then and there how he had a way of an-
tagonizing people and not being able to get along and I think I went into a dis-
cussion if he acted that way in his own business that he certainly wouldn't be
successful. I was sorry , the decision had been made . I thought it was the
right one; that we didn't hire people to fire them. I think that ended it at that
time because the check came . I don't remember this exactly . I think it came
when he had his hat on leaving.
3. Conclusions as to Martins ' discharge
Having presented the facts and the subsidiary conclusions in sufficient detail to
indicate the total setting , such of the remaining contentions as need to be discussed
come more readily into focus.33 There can be little doubt, as I see it, that Martins
and Machado brought up through the Committee, which the Respondent had estab-
lished for such purposes , what they reasonably considered to be a genuine grievance,
since they believed that girls qualified to do testing were either idle or doing work
other than testing, and since Martins and Machado also understandably preferred
their own regular work as analyzers to the less interesting and more routine work of
testing. And even if the exigencies of the DuMont crisis made it difficult for Taska
to appreciate the elements which Martins and Machado felt lent validity to their
grievance ,34 it should be remembered that in talking to the Committee some 3 weeks
earlier , Production Manager Olszowka had explained that "no matter how trivial or
simple or for that matter how silly" the question brought before the Committee might
be, it was important that the question "be treated with respect."
Whatever elements other than the DuMont crisis may have been underlying com-
ponents of Taska's anxieties when he entered the grievance meeting of October 2,35
ii Although a number of the contentions raised in the oral argument and the briefs are
not specifically discussed herein, all have been duly weighed in reaching these conclusions.
a* Taska had had a decade of experience in personnel work, a good portion of which had
involved handling grievances in organized plants, where he had worked before entering
the Respondent's employ in May 1953
:u In presenting its explanation of what happened at the October 2 meeting, the
Respondent's brief contains the following paragraph .
At this point, it should be noted that Taska was a native of the North Dighton
area, and had been employed as a Personnel Manager for five years at one of the
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I do not believe that the facts justify any conclusion that Taska lost his temper
that day merely because a grievance was filed and processed , or that he discharged
Martins because of his role as spokesman in presenting said grievance . Certainly
the right to present a grievance without being punished for doing so is clearly
established by Board decisions , 36 and I do not understand that the Respondent
contends otherwise . In fact , the concerted activity , in the context of which Martins-
was discharged , was not, in my opinion , his impromptu spokesmanship of a group
of two employees , but rather his use, along with Machado, of the facilities of the
Committee , duly initiated through the elected representative of their department.
That said Commit tee is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act has-
already been determined , and the fact that the Committee is the illegally established
creature of the Respondent does not make the use of its grievance machinery any
less a form of concerted activity.
Everything considered , particularly the fact that the Respondent established the
Committee to encourage the presentation of grievances , we must look further than
leadership in such activity to find an explanation for Taska 's anger and Martins'
discharge . After painstakingly reflecting upon all of the facts of this unusual case,
there appear to be only two reasonably plausible explanations of what transpired
on October 2, Martins' adherence to the IBEW or Martins' failure to accept as,
right the Respondent's position on the grievance . We will now consider the first
of the two possibilities, essentially the above summarized position taken by the
IBEW in its brief.
It is obvious from facts already found that when he entered Taska's office on
October 2, Martins , the first employee to join the IBEW , knew that his efforts on
behalf of that organization had made little headway and that the Respondent had
established its Committee shortly after the IBEW had publicly launched its organiza-
tional campaign , an activity of which Rogers had notified Andrews and Taska on
August 21, the day before it opened. That knowledge as to Martins' adherence
to the IBEW was not highly restricted seems evident from the spontaneous testimony
of Cabral that the "whole shop was talking about it." However, Cabral and Taska
both testified that this subject was not brought up at the meeting on October 2.
In addition, Taska, the individual responsible for Martins' discharge, and also,
Andrews, each testified essentially that neither he, nor anyone in management as
far as he knew, was aware that Martins was connected with the IBEW.
Thus despite lack of direct proof of knowledge , there are certain elements in
this case which make the IBEW 's conviction , that the Respondent somehow had
learned of Martins ' adherence to the IBEW , an understandable one, especially since-
the illustrations brought up about Martins' past behavior were far from convincing.
But the circumstances of this case fall short of being such that no plausible or
reasonable explanation of the established facts is available without drawing an
inference of knowledge of Martins' 1BEW membership or activities . 37 Moreover,
it seems unlikely that a man of Taska's experience would have lost his temper and
behaved as he did if he had been engaging in a premeditated and calculated plan
large textile mills that had once been located in that area . It should also be noted
that it is a matter of common knowledge that the entire New England area is a
depressed industrial region where business is slack and unemployment is high
While the record falls short of clearly establishing the factual basis for all that is implied
in the first sentence of the above paragraph , I have no doubt that Taska, who had worked
for 5 years for American Thread Company in Fall River , was aware of the economic-
problems facing the New England area It will be recalled that the above -quoted minutes
of the September 11 meeting of the Committee, which Taska himself had only recently
prepared , summarized a point made by one of the representatives on the Committee with,
respect to the company which had previously occupied the plant in which the Respondent
had only recently begun its North Dighton operations as "an illustration of what a union,
could do for you." It had only been about 6 weeks before said Committee meeting that
the Board had issued its decision in a case involving the company which had closed the
plant now occupied by the Respondent . An understanding of the various types of fears
with respect to said closing which must have been current in the community can be
ascertained by studying the Board 's decision in Mownt Hope Finishing Company, 106.
NLRB 480, and the decision in 211 F. 2d 365 (C. A. 4), reversing the Board because of
the court's view "that the change from Massachusetts to North Carolina was made for
economic reasons and not to avoid bargaining with the Union."
w It should be noted that the General Counsel 's brief cites several cases on this point.
in addition to and other than Joanna Cotton Mills Company, 81 NLRB 1398 , which the
Respondent 's brief points out has been reversed by the Fourth Circuit.
37 By contrast , consult N. L . R. B. v Abbott Worsted Mills, 127 F. 2d 438 (C. A. 1).
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS CO., INC. 431
to rid himself of a known union leader. In addition, Taska's denial that he had
any knowledge of Martins' connection with the IBEW did not impress me as evasive
or untruthful, and it is the knowledge of Taska, the individual responsible for the
decision to discharge Martins, which is crucial.38 Under all of the circumstances,
I find that the evidence does not support the allegation of the complaint that Martins
was discharged because he joined or assisted the IBEW. This leaves for consideration
the second of the above-stated explanations.
In my opinion, the only plausible explanation of Taska's anger and Martins' dis-
charge, which squares reasonably well with all of the established facts in this case,
is that Taska, operating under strong emotional pressures, which included his eager-
ness to see the North Dighton plant weather the DuMont crisis, became so incensed
at Martins' failure to accept what seemed to him to be the obvious rightness of the
Respondent's position that Taska decided that he simply did not want to retain
Martins as an employee. While a careful appraisal of what has already been said
about Martins' discharge would, in my opinion, make further explanation largely
unnecessary, it may be well to discuss a few points before we reach the ultimate
question, whether Taska's action, taken for the above reason, was repugnant to the
Act.
We must bear in mind that Martins did not refuse to do the assigned testing; that
there is no contention that he did it improperly or inefficiently, that Martins raised no
question until others whom he felt could be used on testing were put on nontesting
work; and that his grievance was not that he had been taken off of his more interest-
ing work to help meet the DuMont crisis, but rather that he was being retained
on testing when others capable of testing were available, if not actually idle It
can scarcely be contended that Martins and Machado did not present a plausible
grievance in good faith. Further, I am convinced that, especially in view of Taska's
behavior, Martins' conduct was not only reasonably temperate, but understandable,
since he must have soon begun to feel that his only way out, short of complete
acquiescence, was to get the matter dropped.
Although the facts in this case present such a novel situation that, in my opinion,
none of the cases cited by the parties can be said to be controlling, I am convinced
that Taska's action on October 2 in discharging Martins was tantamount to dis-
charging him for engaging in protected concerted activities. This is so because the
"uncooperative attitude" displayed by Martins in failing to accept as right the Re-
spondent's position on the grievance constituted so integral a part of the grievance
process that to strip Martins of protection in his right to retain his own opinion,
especially after he had behaved in a reasonably temperate manner and had indicated
his readiness to drop the grievance, would be to strip the Act of any semblance of
vitality in its protection of the grievance process, a process in labor relations which,
like collective bargaining itself, is fundamental.39
In the light of all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that, by discharging Mar-
tins on October 2, 1953, and thereafter failing to reinstate him, the Respondent has
38 See Price Electrio Corporation, 107 NLRB 1474 Under the novel circumstances of
this case, it seems to me that the uncommunicated knowledge of Cabral is not controlling,
even though she was one of the representatives on the Committee which was the dominated
creature of the Respondent, and even though she had a minor role in Taska's reaching the
decision to make the discharge Apparently Cabral's participation consisted of indicating
that Martins was "always griping" and that "if he wasn't happy he should be let go."
3e See The Bettcher Manufacturing Corporation, 76 NLRB 526, 527, and the Board's
recent decision in West Texas Utilities Company, 108 NLRB 407, in which the Bettcher
decision is cited with approval. In my opinion, what the Board said in the foregoing
two cases, under circumstances less favorable to the employees involved, applies with
equal force here, although collective bargaining, rather than grievance procedures, were
therein involved The following language from the Bettcher decision is particularly
applicable to the circumstances of this case, since Martins' behavior certainly fell short
of transgressing the line "beyond which an employee may not with impunity go":
A frank, and not always complimentary, exchange of views must be expected and
permitted the negotiators if collective bargaining is to be natural rather than stilted.
The negotiators must be free not only to put forth demands and counterdemands,
but also to debate and challenge the statements of one another without censorship,
even if, in the course of debate, the veracity of one of the participants occasionally
is brought into question. If an employer were free to discharge an individual
employee because lie resented a statement made by that employee during a bargaining
conference, either one of two undesirable results would follow • collective bargaining
would cease to be between equals (an employee having no parallel method of retalia-
tion), or employees would hesitate ever to participate personally in bargaining
negotiations, leaving such matters entirely to their representatives.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminated against Martins in regard to his hire and tenure of employment , thereby
discouraging employees from engaging in concerted activities and from membership
in labor organizations in general , in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) 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 con-
nection 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discharged John C. Martins because of his
attitude while engaging in concerted activity. It will be recommended that the Re-
spondent offer Martins immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position,40 without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay which he may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by payment
to Martins of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of rein-
statement, less his net earnings during said period.41 Back pay shall be computed in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, and the Respondent shall make such reports available to the agents of the Board
as are provided for therein.
It has been found that the Respondent initiated, formed, sponsored, promoted,
assisted, interfered with, dominated, and contributed support to the Employee-Man-
agement Committee. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from all interference with and support of said Committee, and further
that the Respondent disestablish said Committee as the representative of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that the Re-
spondent refrain from recognizing the Committee, or any successor thereto, for
any of the foregoing purposes.
Not being convinced, after a good deal of reflection thereon, that the circum-
stances of this case, considered in their total context, warrant my concluding that
the Respondent has an intent to interfere generally at its North Dighton plant with
the rights guaranteed its employees by the Act, the recommendations below will
encompass only- conduct like or related to that established herein, rather than all
types of employer conduct repugnant to the Act. I am convinced, however, that the
unfair labor practices found herein have occurred in a context so closely related to
the IBEW that, realistically considered, the effects of said unfair labor practices
cannot be dissipated, and the remedial purposes of the Act effectuated, without the
reference to the IBEW which is incorporated in the notice to be posted.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of Standard Coil Products, Inc., North Dighton, Massachusetts,
occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, and the Employee-Management Committee, are labor organi-
zations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John C.
Martins, and thereby discouraging employees from engaging in concerted activities
and from membership in labor organizations in general, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
40 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
41 Concerning "net earnings," see Crosset Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497. The
remedy necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act is identical, whether the discharge
of Martins be considered a violation of Section 8 (a) (3), or of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. Southern Oxygen Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 894.
SOUTHLAND COTTON OIL COMPANY 433
4. By initiating, forming, sponsoring, promoting, assisting, interfering with, domi-
nating, and contributing support to the Employee-Management Committee, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Appendix 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 Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activities, or membership in any labor
organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute financial support thereto.
WE WILL NOT otherwise interfere with the representation of our employees
through a labor organization of their own choosing.
WE hereby disestablish the Employee-Management Committee as the repre-
sentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor
thereto for any of the foregoing purposes.
WE WILL offer John C. Martins immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization, including International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL, except to the extent that said right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We have not discrimi-
nated, and 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 nonmembership in any such labor organization.
STANDARD COIL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By---------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
SOUTHLAND COTTON OIL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 525, AFL. Case No. 15-RC-1110. Oc-
tober 20, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Fred A. Lewis, hearing
11.0 NLRB No. 60.
338207-55-vol. 110-29