The AP Parts Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 301 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

J
In the Matter of THE AP PARTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AuToMOBH.E, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 14 (CIO)
Case No. C-2059.-Decided April 9,194,2
Jurisdiction : automobile and truck mui#lers, tail and exhaust pipes assembling
industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, , Restraint„ and Coercion: anti-union statements ; statement of
president that Company would not meet with "outsiders"; questioning of
employees by principal stockholder and supervisors concerning union affili-
ation and activity ; prepared speeches of principal stockholder cautioning
employees against allowing the union to interfere in employer-employee rela-
tions ; conditioning effective date of bonus upon employee repudiation of the
union ; posting of bulletin, discriminatory in effect as to union discussion ;
employer-conducted ballot on employees' choice of dominated committee, the
union, or neither.
-Company-Dominated Union: following advent of union, suggestions of president
for formation of Shop Committee ; prepared speeches and statements of prin-
cipal stockholder encouraging revival of Shop Committee and suggesting
methods of reorganization ; support thereto.
Remedial Orders : company-dominated Shop Committee disestablished.
Mr. Harry L. Lodish and Mr. George H. O'Brien, for the Board.
Welles, Kelsey, Cobourn & Harrington, by Mr. Frank M. Cobourn
and Mr. Fred A. Smith, of Toledo, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Henry L. Racicot, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Max E. Halpern, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE -
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed by International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of,America,
Local No. 14, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
'The original charge was filed on July 15, 1941, and the amended charge on October
13, 1941
40 N. L. R. B., No. 55.
- 301
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region
(Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated November 17, 1941,
against The, AP Parts Corporation, Toledo, Ohio, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
,meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were
duly served upon the respondent, the,Union, and the Shop Commit-
tee, herein called the Committee, a labor organization allegedly domi-
nated by the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent: (1) questioned employees concern-
ing their union membership; advised employees against joining an
outside union; threatened to discharge dunion member in order to
provoke a strike; conducted an election on or about September 25,
'1941, in the plant; made statements derogatory to the Union and'in
favor of the Committee; (2) initiated, formed, sponsored, and con-
tributed support to the Committee; (3) discharged and refused to
reinstate James Arthur Greer because of his membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union; and (4) by the foregoing acts
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 24, 1941, the respondent filed with the Regional
Director an application for extension of time within which to file its
`answer and for an adjournment of the hearing; a motion to strike
from the complaint certain allegations, with respect to interference,
restraint, and coercion, on the ground that said allegations were not
included in, or based upon, the amended charge; and a motion to
make definite and certain various enumerated paragraphs of the
complaint, together with a memorandum in support of said motions:
The Regional Director did not pass upon the motions but extended
the time within which to file an answer and postponed the hearing
to December 8, 1941. The respondent's answer filed on or about
December 6, 1941, admitted the jurisdiction of the Board, and denied
that the respondent had engaged in the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices. On December 6, 1941, the respondent filed an amendment to
its answer further denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices and averring that the statements of officers and agents to
any of its employees were made in the exercise of the right of free
speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.
'In connection with these motions, it may be noted that counsel for the Board by
letter dated December 2, 1941 , informed the respondent 's counsel of"the time and place
of, and the names of the respondent 's agents allegedly engaging in, the conduct complained
of.
1
THE AP PARTS CORPORATION 303
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from December, 8 toj 12,
'19411 at Toledo, Ohio, before Mortimer Riemer, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel, the Union by its representa-
tive, and all participated in the hearing. The Committee, although
served with a copy of the complaint, notice of hearing, and notice of
postponement thereof, did not appear and was not represented at
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded the parties.
At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the Board intro-
duced in evidence a stipulation of settlement. covering the alleged
discriminatory discharge of Greer and disposing of, all issues con-
nected with his discharge. Thereafter on motion of counsel for the
Board all parts of the amended charge and the complaint pertinent
to the discharge were stricken. Counsel for the Board then moved
to strike portions of the answer not relevant to the issues framed by
the complaint. This motion was granted, in part, over the objection
of the respondent." The respondent then renewed its motion to
strike and moved, in the event said motion was denied, to make the
complaint more definite and certain. The motion to strike was denied
and the latter motion granted in part. The respondent was granted
leave to apply for a•continuance if surprised by the evidence adduced
by the Board. No such application was thereafter made. The re-
spondent's motion for a separation of witnesses, opposed by the
Board, was granted. At the conclusion of the Board's case, the
respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Board's motion to conform the plead-
ings to the proof was granted over the respondent's objection. The
respondent's motion to , conform its answer to the proof was then
granted. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on the respondent's
motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the hearing.
In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner denied this motion.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings
on other motions and on objections to the-admission of evidence.
' The following portions of the answer were stricken : from paragraph 5 (c), "respondent
further alleges that the I . U. A. A. & A. I. W., C. I. 0., has many thousands of members
and is one of the most powerful unions in Toledo at the present time ; that it is impossible
for a small plant, such as operated by the respondent , to infnence in any wise its employees'
choice of representation for 'collective bargaining to the' prejudice of the union ; and that
respondent is informed and believes and, therefore , alleges that a majority of the active
members of the former shop committee are also members of the union and that some of the
members of the present shop committee were members of the union" ; and from paragraph
5 (d), "(if the union had actually signed up a majority of the employees , it was as to a
great many of them obviously under duress and coercion and did not represent their free
choice, as evidenced by the vote conducted by the employees)
304 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the' Trial Examiner and finds
that no' prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. Following the hearing the respondent filed a brief with
the Trial Examiner.`
On January 19, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were served on all parties. He found that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate
-affirmative action. On February 19, 1942, the respondent filed its
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of such
exceptions. -
On February 26, 1942, pursuant to notice served on all parties,
the respondent and the Union presented oral argument before the
Board in Washington, D. C. The Board has considered the respond-
ent's exceptions and briefs and, save for those exceptions which are
consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, The AP Parts Corporation, an Ohio corporation,
has its principal office and place of business in Toledo, Ohio, where it
'is engaged in the business of buying, treating, and distributing auto-
mobile and truck mufflers, tail pipes, and exhaust pipes. During the
year 1940, the respondent's purchases totaled slightly less than
$1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent came from without
the State of Ohio. In this same period the respondent's gross sales
amounted to $1,250,000, of which approximately 90 percent were
shipped to points outside the State of Ohio. The respondent employs
about 60 employees.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local No. 14, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor, organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent.'
The Shop Committee is an unaffiliated labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent.
THE AP PARTS CORPORATION 305
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
The events hereinafter set forth concerning the respondent's rela-
tions with the Union and the Committee at its main plant and ware-
house occurred for the most part within a period of 8 months from
March to and including October 1941. During that time the Union
succeeded in organizing a substantial group' of the respondent's
employees.
In 1940 it was the respondent's practice to hold monthly meetings
of its employees where such matters as wages, \its bonus plan, and
other conditions affecting employment were discussed. Clifford Cope,
the superintendent, called the meetings and Ralph Rule, the presi-
dent, addressed them. The last meeting prior to March 1941 was
held in December 1940, when the respondent gave the employees their
Christmas bonuses and Rule told the in that they might expect a
wage increase in about 3 months.
About March 1, 1941, just before the close of the day shift, the
supervisors summoned the employees to a meeting in the boilerroom.
The meeting was attended by Clifford Cope and Basil Snyder, as-
sistant superintendent and traffic manager, and was addressed by Rule
who asked the employees to cooperate in correcting mistakes that had
.occurred in past shipments of goods. Rule then mentioned a com-
pany that had a shop committee that had been effective in the
handling of employee grievances and suggested that such a committee
might serve to present employee grievances to the respondent. There
was at that time no shop committee in the plant and the employees
had expressed no desire to have one. Rule, when asked at the hearing
if he did not suggest that a "shop committee would be a good thing,"
replied : "I mentioned the fact that if they chose to handle it in
that way the company would be happy to meet with a shop committee
and, at the same time, as I have stated, I told them that what the
company was concerned in was if they had complaints to know about
them, and any easy way for them to bring them before the company's
attention' would be welcomed on the part of the management."
Pursuant to Rule's suggestion, on March 4, 1941, the employees
met again in the boilerroom. At the-meeting five employees were
elected or appointed to serve on the Committee. On March 5, 1941,
the respondent received an inter-office communication from Isabelle
Kaczmarek, a 'typist in'the traffic department, informing it of the
election of the Committee.
455771-42-vol 40-20
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A few days,thereafter, the respondent held its first meeting with
the Committee.4 The principal subject of discussion at this and
following meetings was a group insurance plan that the respondent
was proposing for its employees. Heiney; a member of the Commit-
tee, testified that at the first meeting Rule declared that be was glad
to meet with employee representatives but that the respondent would
not meet with "outsiders." Rule admitted the first part of this state-
ment, but denied any reference to outsiders. Upon the entire record
we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Rule made the statements
attributed to him by Heiney. Following the first meeting, the 're-
spondent met on about five other occasions with the Committee.
These meetings were always called by the respondent, and Rule,
Clifford Cope, or Basil Snyder were present for the respondent.
The committee functioned without a constitution, bylaws, rules, or
dues, and no minutes were kept of its meetings with the respondent.
There is no evidence that the Committee met in the absence of the
respondent's officials or that it ever reported to the employees at
general meetings. Clifford Cope testified that its- last meeting was
held in August 1941 after which it "just gradually died out."
In May 1941 the Union's efforts to organize the. employees came
to the respondent's attention. Toward the end of the month Super-
intendent Cope asked Ray Fisher, a member of the Committee, whether
Claude, Snyder, another member of the Committee, or Dale Enten-
mann, an employee, was passing out union application cards.6 By
the end of June the Union had obtained about 14 members out of 60
employees.
During the summer of 1941, Luke Meadows, an employee, was
questioned by Clem Cope, in charge of welding and the dip tanks
with-supervision over three or four men, and a brother of Superin-
tendent Cope, concerning his union membership. Meadows testified,
without contradiction, as follows in regard to the conversation with
Clem • Cope : -
Clem come to me one day in there, I guess. He said, "Luke,
they tell me that you joined the union."
I said, "Well, nowadays they will tell you anything." and he
said, "Well, we are going to make it hard. on them if it takes
ten years."
He said, "We will find it out if it takes ten years."
* This first committee consisted of Fred Heiney, George Owens , Lucille Arps , Ray Fisher,
and Claude Snyder, the brother of Basil Snyder , Assistant Superintendent Fred Heiney,
who later joined the Union , was elected a member of the Committee . He was (opposed
for election by Al Sawicki , night superintendent.
6 Cope did not deny that lie thus interrogated Fisher, although he denied generally that
he ever "talked to anyone on the subject " of the Union. The finding in the text is based
on the testimony of Fisher , which we credit , as did the . Trial Examiner.
THE AP PARTS CORPORATION - '307
At or about the same time Traffic Manager Snyder asked Earl Block,
day foreman of the warehouse, if he knew who were the union mem-
bers. Snyder testified that he sought this information out of curi-
osity and that it made no difference to him whether an employee
was a member of the Union or not. Snyder admitted that when he
questioned Block there was talk about the possibility of the Union
organizing the plant.
On July 2, 1941, the Union distributed to the respondent's em-
ployees a leaflet in which it-stated that, the respondent was attempting
i o resell the-Committee -to- the employees in an effort to prevent self-
'organization designed to achieve better wages and working condi-
tions. Rule saw a copy of this leaflet and on July 3 called a meeting
'of the employees at which he announced that the respondent would
give each employee as a bonus a sum which was the equivalent of
4 hours' pay. The respondent's asserted reason for this special
,award was to celebrate for the week ending July 2, 1941, its achieve-
ment in shipping its greatest production to date. No such award
had been made by the respondent for the week ending May 10, the
previous all=time high in tonnage shipments. The reason assigned is
not persuasive. The award of July 3, 1941, coming as it did immedi-
ately after the distribution of the leaflet and when the organizing
drive was beginning to show results, indicates that the respondent
hoped by this gesture to dull the effect of the Union's efforts among the
employees. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the bonus was
a calculated step in the respondent's plan to combat the Union.
The Union continued its organizing campaign and enrolled seven
additional members in the month of August. On 'September 12,
1941, the Union mailed to the respondent a proposed contract which
provided, among other things, for exclusive recognition of the Union
and a seniority clause which restricted eligibility for seniority to
union members and allowed all non-union employees 30 days within
which to join the Union.e Rule consulted Fred A. Smith, the re-
spondent's attorney, and they decided to do nothing until John
Goerlich, principal stockholder, returned to Toledo from a trip out-
?ide that'city. On September 16, or 17, Henry L. Racicot, president
of the Union, accompanied by an international representative, con-
ferred 'with Rule, who would not commit the respondent without
consulting Goerlich. The parties arranged for a further conference
upon Goerlich's return. -
For 3 or 4 years prior to September 1941, Goerlich had left the
management of shop and personnel problems to Rule and Superin-
tendent Cope. He returned to Toledo on the afternoon of' September
23 and way -notified by Rule of the conference with Racicot and of
These are the provisions referred to by the respondent as a closed -shop clause.
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the union contract. According to Goerlich, Rule told him that a.
majority of the employees "were not willing members of the union."
Thereupon Goerlich spent/the rest of that afternoon and the follow-
ing day talking to a majority of the employees about union member-
ship and whether the Union represented a majority. He denied
that he asked any specific employee whether he belonged to the Union
but admitted that he "lent a receptive ear to whoever wanted to talk
to [him]." Moreover, Goerlich testified that as a result of his talks
to the employees he concluded on Septembei r 24 that the Union did
not represent a. majority. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
Goerlich did in substance, on September 23 and again on September
,24 ask the employees whether they were members of the Union.
Sometime during the day of September 24, Goerlich consulted
with Smith and prepared an address for delivery to the employees
the next day. Accordingly, on the afternoon of September 25, Super-
intendent Cope called the employees together on company time and,
in the presence of Rule, Cope, and Smith, Goerlich read the prepared
speech.? Goerlich's prepared address, a copy of which was intro-
duced in evidence, was in parts as follows :
Before I left, a raise was O.K.'d for you. As Mr. Rule has
already told you in a bulletin, the reason the raise has not yet
gone into effect is because representatives of the C. I. O. called
on Mr. Rule while I was away, and said that they represented
some of our employees.
* * * * * * *
The Union tells us that they have a majority of our employees.
We doubt it, and for your sakes as well as ours, so we, may know
how many of you want a Union to represent you, we are going
to ask you to signify now whether you want a Union to repre-
sent you or whether you wish to continue to be represented by
a Shop Committee. We have a simple ballot here. It is not
to be signed. No one will know how you voted. You will
simply check with a lead pencil and I now read the questions
asked on this ballot:
"I desire to continue to be represented by a Shop Committee
---------------------------
"I desire to be represented by the U. A. W., C. I. O. --------
"I do not desire to be represented by anyone but myself ----- 71
a Entenmann , a witness called by the respondent , testified , without contradiction, that
all supervisors except one were present.
THE AP PARTS ^ CORPORATION 309
The Union's have told you their side of the story. Now we
want to tell you ours. When you join a union and choose them-
to do your talking for you, you lose the right to talk face to
face with the boss, as man to man. You turn over to a stranger,
whom neither you nor we know, the right to handle one of the
most important-things, in your-life-your job. You spend more
time in this plant in a year than in any other place except in
your home, so be slow in losing your right to talk to your boss
personally on a man to man basis.
* *
If you decide on a Union, you won't have much to say once
they get you signed up and then your relationship between you
and the company will become one of stranger to stranger. When
these union men come into their meetings with the management,
they come as strangers to us and the only way they can hope
to get anything is by threatening and if you know me, you know
I don't bluff worth a damn.
* * * * * * *
I asked Mr. Smith, the attorney, what happened when a strike
was actually, called. He, said, the strike is run by Union officials
at Union headquarters. You go to Union headquarters daily
for information but generally are not asked what your opinion
is; in other words, the Union takes over your rights to go back
to work. _
* * * * * * *
. . . You have a wage increase that was passed you before the
Union ever came in. It is held up this minute only until we
find out whether you want a Union or not and what the Union
is going to do about it.
Now we are going to ask you to vote. Do you want to work,
with us' as you have in the past, trying as man to man to work
out these problems or do you want to turn your life over to the
Union?,
Sometime during the meeting Superintendent Cope passed out bal-
lots, the form of which had been prepared by Attorney Smith, upon
which they could record their vote in the manner indicated above.
Following Goerlich's talk, the ballots were marked, and then counted
in the presence of the employees by 2 volunteer tellers. Goerlich
announced the results as follows : "There were 66 votes cast-45,
Shop Committee;.9 C. I. 0.; 10 Represent Themselves, and 2 saw fit
to leave their ballot blank . . "
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employees were paid for their time spent in attending this.
meeting, the first that Goerlich had ever addressed. Although the
Committee had expired more than, a month.before, there'was'no ex-
pressed desire on the part of the employees for its revival or con-
tinuance, and there was at this time no mention or talk, other than
Goerlich's injection of the issue, that the Union was calling a strike
of the respondent's employees.
Following the announcement of the results of the election, and in,
the presence of the employees,.the following dialogue took place be-
tween Goerlich and Smith :
Now, Mr. Smith, what is the next move?
Mr. SMITH. I would think if that is what they prefer that
they get the Shop Committee functioning. You say the present.
Shop Committee expired September 1st, and I. think it,is up-to,
the employes now. You can choose your Shop Committee any
way you want to and can have any number you want. I think
the employes should go ahead and select whom they want.
Mr. GOERLICH. How shall we go about forming a Shop Com-
mittee? What is the right procedure? [Italics supplied.]
Mr. SMrnr. Any number you,want or anybody, you want.
The company has nothing to do with it. I believe you selected
one before.. You can pick them any way you want. Nominate
and vote for one or up to five or you can get together here and
select them. It is up to the employes and the company has noth-
ing to do with it. '
Mr. GOERLICH. The important thing is that you do something
about it. The C. I. O. will be here tomorrow. We will expect
you- to, confirmhow'-hone'stly and openly', this-'balloting was
done. As soon as we get the C. I. 0. to accept that you want
your own Shop Committee, your raise is in and it is retroactive.
[Italics supplied.]
On September 26, Goerlich met Racicot for the first time. He
explained that the plant election was necessary because he "was
satisfied that [the] men were not willing members of the union"
and since the Union claimed to represent a majority, he "had to
ascertain whether the majority of [the] men did or did, not want
union representation, as the union claimed." Goerlich told Racicot
that he would not "accept" the 'proposed contract because he knew
that the Union did not represent a majority of employees. Racicot
offered union application cards in proof of the Union's majority,
but Goerlich told Racicot that on the advice of his attorney he re-
jected this evidence of the Union's majority, and desired a Board
, THE AP PARTS CORPORATION ' 311'
election to determine the question. Racicot refused to consent to.
an election. No arrangements were made for further meetings.
Goerlich testified that following September 26, he had "constant
and' daily" conversations with individual employees "concerning the'
controversy" (referring to union and committee activities). On
either September 26 or 27 he approached Ottis Meadows, who was
working upon a scaffold. According to Meadows, Goerlich invited
him to serve as a member of the Committee; but he declined, stating
that he would not"be any good on that kind of a committee." ; Goer-
lich testified that he and Meadows engaged in the following conver-
sation in the presence of a "crowd" of employees :
I [Goerlich] said, "Don't spit on me, Otto [Meadows]."
He said, "I won't spit on you, Mr. Goerlich."
I said, "Otto, you hate me enough you probably would."
He said, "No, I wouldn't spit on,you, Mr. Goerlich."
I said, "Otto, I think I will climb up there and search you and
see if you have any union cards on you."
Goerlich could not remember whether there was any talk about.
Meadows serving on the Committee. Thomas Karatosis, an em-
ployee who was present, corroborated Meadows and testified further
that Goerlich said that Karatosis as well as Meadows would make
effective representatives on a committee. Karatosis replied, accord-
ing to his testimony, that "the last shop committee we had wasn't
worth a damn because every time they would go in they would
come back out and we wouldn't know from nothing, and they were-
all older fellows, and every time we would ask them something they
would say nothing happened." On the basis of the foregoing testi-
mony of Meadows, Karatosis, and Goerlich, we find that Goerlich.
suggested that Meadows and Karatosis serve on the Committee, and
suggested further, searching Meadows for union cards.
On Monday, September 29, 1941, the Union distributed a leaflet
advising the employees that the Union would hold. a strike vote'
that night because the "management had refused to negotiate."
Goerlich learned of the leaflet and immediately questioned the em-
ployees about the meeting and why it was being called. That night,
the Union voted to strike on Thursday, October 2, 1941.
About 10 o'clock on the morning of September 30, the respondent
summoned the employees to the boilerroom where Goerlich read'
another paper prepared for the occasion. In that talk, Goerlich•
said, among other things :
I understand that the members of the Union have voted for
a strike to start Thursday, if the company, by that time, has.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not gotten down on their knees and begged for mercy. Re-,
member, it is an easy thing to call a strike-the important,
thing is to be sure you can stop it. Have you who have voted
for the strike talked this over with your families, and are you
prepared, if a strike is called by the Union officials, to let week
after week go by without a paycheck? We do not feel a ma-
jority of the employees have voted in favor of a strike. Do you
feel that it is fair to throw the rest of the employes out of
work when you are a minority? Do you who voted for the
strike know what the contract asks for that the Union submitted,
or did you.just vote "Let's strike"? Certainly you must know
what is in this contract or you would not tell the Union you
would be willing to give,up your job so that they can enforce
their wishes.
... It is my honest impression the way things are going that
a few of you are strike drunk and that unless you who don't want
a strike, act immediately, there will be a strike in this plant before
the week is over.
* * * * * *
Unless you arrange now to have a meeting place for you ' all
to meet, you won't even be able to get together excepting in,
a Union hall where you will always be under pressure. If you.
do not do something immediately to stop this strike talk, I
don't see how a strike can be avoided.
My recommendation is that you meet tonight immediately
after the clay shift and before.the night shift goes on and ap-
point your Shop Committee. This Committee should be told
whether the majority want, a strike or not and instructed to,
see that the Union knows what the majority of you wants.
* * * * * *
Following this talk at the main plant, Goerlich, accompanied by,
Superintendent Cope and his secretary, went to the warehouse where
the employees had been gathered by Earl Block, the day foreman, and'
there repeated the address. According to the undisputed testimony
of Donald MacDonald, Goerlich then asked the warehouse employees
why they wanted to join the Union since the respondent would give
the employees everything that the Union could get for them. Goer-'
lick also pointed out that the Union's proposed contract contained'
a closed-shop clause. This MacDonald disputed. Goerlich 'testified
that 'MacDonald said, 'after hearing the seniority provisions read,
that there was no such article in the contract when he had last
seen it.
THE AP PARTS CORPORATION 313
Goerlich then returned to the mftin plant. He testified of this
incident: "On the impulse, I walked right through the plant;-down
to the boiler room, where I knew there would be people eating their
lunch, and told them what MacDonald had just,told me, and asked
'them,. the employees, if they knew that this clause was in the con-
tract." Much testimony was adduced concerning what occurred
there. In summary it appears without contradiction that Goerlich
.told the union members present that they were striking for a closed
.shop. When they disputed this, he read the aforementioned senior-
ity provision in support of his argument. Goerlich expressed sur-
prise that unioii members who had voted to strike did not know
,what was in the contract; and stated that when union members voted
to strike they ought to understand what they were striking for.
Goerlich did not deny the statements attributed to him by Meadows,
that, "I hate,the God damn union"; that it broke his heart to realize
that employees had to pay dues for the rest of their lives when they
,could, get as much and more without joining the Union; and that
the Committee could do as much for the men as the Union.8
After these remarks, some of the employees present, including
union members, asked Goerlich what could be done to prevent the
,strike. He replied that the employees who had voted for the strike
,could call it off. He told Karatosis and Entenmann, "You two*fel-
lows are here as representatives of the Union. You know Mr. Raci-
cot, and you are the logical men to go to Mr. Racicot''and tell him
what the feeling and attitude of the employees towards a strike is."
On the afternoon of September 30, Harold Maas, the respondent's
truck driver and one of the oldest employees in point of service,
,circulated among the employees, using a company time sheet to
check off their names, and asking them to ' attend a meeting to be
held at the close of work in the boilerroom. Maas did this on com-
pany time. At the meeting attended by most of the employees on the
day shift and by a few from the night shift, the following either
volunteered or were appointed to serve upon a committee to con-
sult with Racicot in an endeavor to have him call off the strike:
Forest Aldrich, Ralph Zeman, Dale Entenmann, Gene Elendt, Thomas
Karatosis, and Earl Saunders. Five of this group had already
joined the Union or had signed application cards. Maas denied
that any company executive had anything to do with his arranging
this meeting. It is clear, however, that Maas acted upon Goerlich's
original suggestion that this should be done. Although Goerlich
denied any knowledge as to the way this meeting was arranged and
the committee organized, from his own testimony it is clear that
a Karatosis and Fisher corroborated this testimony
.314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'he' suggested to Keratosis' and Enterimann in the presence of others
that they should call .upon Racicot. The committee, however, first
'went to Goerlich's office, told him of its mission to inform the Union
that- the employees did not want to strike, and from there 'telephoned
Racicot and made an appointment to see him immediately. The
group then called upon Racicot and informed him that•the employees
'did not want to strike. Although Racicot would make no commit-
ment, Goerlich's ' strategy proved successful and the strike did not
-take place on October 2, 1941. The month of September, however,
-closed with the Union obtaining 11 new members. Thus by the
lend of the month, 33 employees had indicated their intention to join
.the Union, exactly one-half the number voting in the plant election
on September 25. ,
On or about September 30, union members began to wear their'
:union buttons in the plant. On October 1 while Fred Heiney, a
-member of the Committee who had joined the Union, was at work,
he'was told by his superior, Al Sawicki, to report to Goerlich's office.
There Goerlich asked him if he, had 'any complaints and when Heiney
'answered that he was a member of the Union, Goerlich stated that that
,was "0. K."; asked Heiney what advantages he could get from the
Union; and remarked that the Union was a handicap to men like
Heiney because it "tended to level off wages." These comments,
-which Goerlich did not deny making, were made in the presence of
Sawicki, Heiney's,9uperior, and Superintendent Cope. Goerlich also
invited Heiney, to attend a gathering, of employees he planned to
'hold Friday afternoon, October 3, in the boilerroom.
This meeting was held as scheduled and all the employees attended.
In the presence of'Rule, and Supervisors Snyder and Clifford Cope,