The Federal Bearing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 467 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of THE FEDERAL BEARINGS Co., INC. and its affiliate or
subsidiary, SCHATZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LOCAL 297, IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-195.-Decided December 10, 1937
- Ball Bearing Industry-Interference, Restraint , or Cocrcion : repeated threats
and warnings to employees to refrain from activity on behalf of union ; surveil-
lance of union meetings-Discrimination : discharge-Company-Dominated
Union : domination and interference with formation and administration of ;
sponsoring and fostering growth of ; active solicitation permitted during work-
ing hours but denied to petitioning union-disestablished as agency for collec-
tive bargaining-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Lester M. Levin, for the Board.
Mr. Johan E. Mack and Mr. Carl Ehlermann, of Poughkeepsie,
N. Y., for the respondents.
Mr. Frank H. Niessen, of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Howard Lichtenstein, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been filed by Local 297,
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by Elinore M. Herrick, Regional Director for the Second
Region (New York City), issued and duly served its complaint dated
May 25, 1937, against'The Federal Bearings Co., Inc.' and its affiliate
or subsidiary, Schatz Manufacturing Company, of Poughkeepsie,
New York, the respondents herein, alleging that the respondents had
.engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 31, 1937, the respondents
filed their answer to the complaint in which they 'denied that they
had engaged in or were engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged therein.
'Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Poughkeepsie, New
York, commencing on June 3, 1937, before James C. Batten, the Trial
Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Federal Bearing Co., Inc.
467
468 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re.
spondents were represented by counsel, and the Union, by its-
financial secretary. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and,
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the Board's
case,-the Trial Examiner granted the motions of counsel for the
Board to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged the discrim-
inatory discharges of George Kaiser and Charles Zimmer and the
refusal of the respondents to bargain collectively with the Union.
On July 3, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, in which he found that the respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in the unfair practices alleged in the complaint,
except in so far as it alleged that the respondents had engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) by re-
fusing to bargain collectively. with the Union.
On July 16, 1937, the respondents filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and to various rulings of the Trial Examiner, and
presented oral arguments thereon before the Board. The Board
has reviewed the rulings. of the -Trial Examiner on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has also considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and' finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents, the Federal Bearings Co., Inc., and Schatz
Manufacturing Company, are located in the Village of Fairview,
Town of Poughkeepsie, New York, where they engage in the man,
ufacture of ball bearings used in motors, automobiles, and other
machines. The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., manufactures "precision"
bearings as' distinguished from the commercial bearings produced
by Schatz Manufacturing Company.
Members of the Schatz family hold a controlling `amount of the
outstanding stock of both of the respondents, and each respondent
holds some stock of the other. In addition, The Federal Bearings
Co., Inc., through stock ownership, controls the Waterbury Steel Ball
Company of Waterbury, Connecticut.2
The plants of the two respondents occupy adjoining plots of land
and are jointly served by a siding of the Central Railroad of New
England, a branch of the New Haven system. Both of the respond-
I The issues herein do not concern the Waterbury Steel Ball Company.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 469,
eats engage in the same type of productive operations and use the
same types of labor, though production workers are not transferred
between the plants. In all other respects , however, the respondents
are jointly operated by single clerical , employment , sales, and receiv-
ing departments .- Although each respondent is under the direction
of its own superintendent , both superintendents are directly respon-
sible to Herman Schatz , who actively participates in the manage-
ment of both respondents as the president and treasurer of each.
Each plant is divided into functional departments where, through
successive operations , bearings are manufactured , submitted to heat
treatment , grinding , and assembling . The bearings are then in-
spected, packed and shipped . Production in both plants is scheduled
on order, although reserve stock is sometimes built up in antidipa-
tion of future business.
Approximately 85 per cent of the steel balls used by the respond-
ents are purchased and delivered in trucks from the Waterbury Steel
Ball Company in Connecticut . In 1936 purchases of the respondent,
The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., amounted to $977,460 , and consisted,
in addition to the steel balls procured from the Waterbury Company,
of high grade alloy steel shipped by rail ,from Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut , and New Jersey. During the same year its total gross
sales amounted to $2,630,000 , 96.65 per cent of which were- shipped
outside the State of New York, principally to Detroit , Michigan and-
Muncie, Indiana.
In 1936 the respondent , Schatz Manufacturing Company, pur-
chased raw materials amounting to $100 ,360 which, in addition to the
steel balls shipped from the Waterbury Company, consisted for the
most part of cold drawn steel shipped from Pennsylvania, Connecti-
cut, and New Jersey. During the same year its total sales amounted
to $448,650 , of which all except 15.5 per cent represented shipments
to states other than New ' York. '
During 1936 the respondent , The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., em-
ployed from 650 to 800 employees on an annual pay roll of $1,000,000.
In the same year the respondent , Schatz Manufacturing Company,
employed approximately 70 employees , its annual pay roll amounting
to $125,000.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 297, International Union, United Automobile Workers of-
America, is a labor organization , affiliated with the Committee for-
Industrial Organization , admitting to membership all production
and maintenance employees of the respondents, except supervisory -
and clerical employees . Local 297 was organized in March 1937, and
received its charter on April 20, 1937.
470
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Schatz Employees' Association, later known as Schatz
United Employees Association, Inc., and herein called the Associa-
tion, is likewise a labor organization but is not affiliated with any
other organization. The Association was first organized early in
April 1937, and was incorporated under the Membership Corpora-
tions Law of New York State in May of the same year. The Asso-
ciation admits to membership all employees of the respondents, except
foremen.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint and coercion
The conduct of the respondents designed to interfere with the
formation of the Union and to discourage their employees from be-
coming members is clearly revealed in the history of union activity
in the respondents' plants. Early in March 1937, Carroll Smith, an
employee in the grinding department of the respondent, The Federal
Bearings Co., Inc., broached the subject of union organization to two
other employees, Frank Niessen and Carl Mulder. On March 14,
11 employees convened at Carroll Smith's home and agreed to act
as an organizing, committee'for a union tentatively to be called the
Dutchess County Council of Industrial Organization. On March 21
another meeting was called at Carroll Smith's home and attended by
16 employees including Carroll Smith, Gezi Czapp, James Keady,
George W. Theil, Thomas Smith, John T. Owen, Frank Niessen,
Edward Wilson, Martin Nicolek, Edward Odell, and Louis Volino,3
all named in the complaint as having been discriminatorily dis-
charged. Carroll Smith was elected chairman, Niessen was elected
secretary, and Thomas Smith and Theil were appointed chairman of
the organization committee and treasurer, respectively. The meeting
was addressed by the president of the Tarrytown local of the United
Automobile Workers of America, and official application cards for
membership in that union were distributed. During the week com-
mencing on March 21 considerable union activity, including the solici-
tation of members, was carried on throughout the plants, in some
instances during working hours. During the same week the or-
ganization decided to apply for a charter from the United Automo-
bile Workers of America. On Sunday, March 28, the Union held a
mass meeting attended by over 100 of the respondents' employees.
Thereafter meetings were held regularly and the Union attempted to
function as the collective bargaining agent for the employees of both
respondents.
, Gezi Czapp, Geoige W Theil, John T Owen. Edward Wilson. and Louis volino are
incorrectly referred to in the complaint respectively as Gezi Zsapp. Geoige Theil, John
Owens, Ed Wilson, and Louis Bolino.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 471
Between March 24, 1937 and April 9, 1937, 18 of the most active
Union members, including 11 of the 18 charter members, were dis-
charged by the respondents after repeated threats and warnings de-
livered by the respondents through supervisory and confidential
employees failed to discourage union organization .4 Several in-
stances of such threats and warnings clearly reveal the attitude of
the respondents toward the Union activity. On March 25, Hor-
lacher, superintendent of the respondent, The Federal Bearings Co.,
Inc., called Carroll Smith from his machine, told him that "the
rumors about the organizing" were being traced, and added : "You
know, if you get fired for anything like this you can't get on another
job in town. You,are blacklisted." On March 14, Evans, a foreman,
told Theil, one of the active Union members who was later dis-
charged, that he was foolish to try to organize a union. Several
days later, Evans warned him : "You better be careful about starting
a union in the shop or you are liable to lose your job." Ebling, an-
other foreman, cautioning Edward Wilson, after his discharge and
reinstatement, said : "Don't you boys know you are making ,a mis-
take?" During early organization activity by the Union, William A.
Bennett, a foreman, advised Frank Niessen, Union secretary : "You
know if we have any labor trouble in this shop we will all lose our
jobs. . . . You know H. H. (Schatz) is a stubborn Dutchman and
he can very,-easily close up the shop and take a nice vacation in
Germany." On several occasions during the month of April, West,
a foreman whose activities on behalf of the Association' are herein-
after described, was observed by Union members watching the meet-
ing hall of the Union during the evenings when members convened.
Although the respondents produced witnesses to deny that its
supervisory employees had expressed any hostility toward union
,organization, in the light of the discharges and other activity
directly initiated by the respondents, and described below, the denials
merit little credence. The anti-union attitude displayed by super-
visory employees proved to be but one element in the respondents'
campaign to discourage union organization.
B. The discharges
1. James Palatucci 6 had been employed by the respondent; The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since 1934, and at the time of his dis-
charge on March 24, 1937, was working in the turret department on
piece work, averaging $23.92 for a 451/4 hour week.6 When Palatucci,
* The discharges are considered below
Referred to as James Finn in the complaint.
e The wages and hours of the discharged employees are averages computed from
Respondents' Exhibit No 12, the employment record of the individuals named in the
complaint
67573-38-vol. iv-31
472 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who held seniority over some 20 other employees in the department,
asked why he was discharged, his foreman, Terhune, said : "I don't
know, I just got orders to let you go." Terhune testified that
Palatucci had been an efficient worker, and the only reason assigned
by the respondents for his discharge was that he talked too much.
Palatucci had joined the Union on March 21, 1937.
2. Frank Catanzaro 7 had been employed by the respondent, The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since 1934, and at the time of his dis-
charge on March 24, 1937, was working in the polishing department
on piece work,. averaging $25.86 for a 43'3/4 hour week. Catanzaro
also held seniority over other employees in the department, and was
not given a reason for his discharge. He was reinstated on May 5,
1937. Catanzaro has been a member of the Union since Marefi 21,
1937.
3. George Avello s had been employed since 1929, and at the time
of his discharge on March 24, 1937, was working in the receiving
department operated jointly by the two respondents. Avello received
44 cents per hour for a 481/4 hour week. The reason assigned for his
discharge by Parsons, his foreman, was that business was slack.
Parsons, however, testified that Avello was not industrious, although
he never warned Avello nor complained about his work. Shortly
after Avello's discharge his place was taken by a new employee.
Avello had been a member of the Union since March 22, 1937.
4. George W. Theil had been employed by the respondent, The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since 1934, and at the time of his discharge
on March 24, 1937, was working in the grinding department at 42
cents per hour for a 73 hour week. Theil, a Union member since
March 21, and its treasurer, had previously been warned by Evans,
his foreman, that his union activities were obnoxious to the respond-
ent, although when he was dicharged, Horlacher, the superintendent,
stated that he did not know the reason for his discharge. Indeed,
Evans, his foreman, testified that Theil was laid off, and not dis-
charged, though it was not denied that he was replaced by an
employee transferred from another department. No attempt was
made by the respondents to show that Theil was not an efficient
employee.
5. Martin Nicolek, a charter member of the Union, had been
employed by the respondent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since
1934, and at the time of his discharge on March 24, 1937, was working
in the bore grinding department on piece work, averaging $23.72 for
a,481/4 hour week. A week before his discharge Nicolek had been
laid off for several days by his foreman, Bennett, who said : "What
are you trying to do? Organize or make trouble around here?" At
I Referred to as Frank Catsanzaro in the complaint.
8 Refei red to as John Avello in the complaint.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 473
the time of his discharge Bennett told him : "We have to make a
few changes around here and I have to let you go." At the hearing
Bennett testified that Nicolek was an efficient piece worker but that
he was not industrious when paid on an hourly basis. The specific
reasons assigned for Nicolek's discharge were absences and tardiness.
6. Edward Wilson, a charter member of the Union, had been
employed by the respondent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since
1929, and at the time of his discharge on March 24, 1937, was work-
ing in the bore grinding department on piece work, averaging $28.38
for a 481/4 hour week. As in the case of Nicolek, Bennett told him
that "new arrangements" were being made and that he "would have
to go." Bennett himself testified that Wilson was an efficient worker
and that the order to discharge him came from Horlacher over his
protest. Wilson was reinstated on May 11, 1937.
7. Thomas Smith, a member of the organizing committee of the
Union since March 21, 1937, had been employed by the respondent,
The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since 1934, and at the time of his
discharge on March 25, 1937, was working in the polishing depart-
ment on piece work, averaging $29.73 for a 48 hour week. Smith's
foreman, Ebling, told him on March 25 that he did not know the
reason for his discharge. One week later Smith applied for rein-
statement to Horlacher, who said : "They haven't gotten at the
bottom of things yet and they are checking it all over and they are
hitting and missing." Ebling testified that Smith-was a competent
worker, although he had received complaints that Smith spent con-
siderable time away from his machine. As in the case of Wilson's
discharge, it is significant that the order to dismiss Smith originated
in Horlacher's office.
8. John T. Owen had been employed by the respondent, The Fed-
eral Bearings Co., Inc., since July 1936, and at the time of his dis-
charge on March 26, 1937, was working in the inspection department,
receiving 42 cents per hour for an average of 38 hours per week. On
March 26 he was told by Le Pan, his foreman, that he was being
discharged because the department was overstaffed. Several days
later Owen applied for reinstatement to Horlacher who advised him
that changes were being made in the department and that after the
"trouble" was settled, Horlacher might reconsider him. Le Pan testi-
fied that Owen was dismissed because he was inefficient. Owen had
joined the Union on March 21, 19 7. He was a charter member, and
a member of the organizing committee of the Union.
9. Frank Niessen had been employed by the respondent, The Fed-
eral Bearings Co., Inc., since 1929, and at the time of his discharge on
March 25, 1937, was working in the bore grinding department on
piece work, averaging $24 for a 43 hour week. Niessen had previ-
ously experienced the effects of the respondent's labor practices in
474 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1935 when he was laid off for a week because, pursuant to a notice
which had been placed on the bulletin boards by the respondent invit-
ing suggestions for the improvement of labor conditions, he had
'had the temerity to propose a method for the presentation of griev-
ances. Niessen had no illusions regarding the labor policies of the
respondent, and during the week of March 21, 1937, fearing that his
Union activities would jeopardize his employment, he reminded his
foreman, Bennett, of the'1935 episode, and told him that he was not
soliciting Union members during working hours. Niessen was one
of the most active members of the Union, and as we have noted above,
had been elected temporary secretary on March 21, 1937. The reason
assigned for his discharge was his interference with the work of other
'men. Bennett testified that Niessen was not inefficient, but that he
had been told by Horlacher to watch Niessen.
10. Louis Volino, a charter member of the Union, had been em-
ployed by the respondent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since July
1936, and at the time of his discharge on March 24, 1937, was working
in the grinding department on piece work, averaging $15.70 for a
39 hour week. Evans, Volino's foreman, testified that he was laid off,
and not discharged, although Volino's position was filled by an em-
ployee transferred from another department two days after Volino's
dismissal. As in the cases of the other discharges, the respondent
maintained that Volino visited with other men and talked during
working hours. 'vans admitted, however, that he had never received
complaints of Volino's work from the operator to whom Volino had
been assigned as a helper.
11. Harold Auchmoody had been employed by the respondent, The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since 1929, and at the time of his discharge
on March 30, 1937,9 was working in the bore grinding department,
receiving 61 cents per hour for a 49 hour week. Auchmoody was
notified of his dismissal by Brown, another employee, who was also
a deputy sheriff. When Auchmoody asked his foreman, Bennett, for
the reason, Bennett said that he did not know. Auchmoody was rein-
stated on May 8, 1937, by Schatz, who told him that the reason for his
lay-off was "shop politics". Bennett testified that Auchmoody was an
efficient employee and that he had protested against his 'dismissal.
Although Auchmoody had not joined the Union until April-7, 1937,
the evidence indicates that he had enthusiastically discussed Union
affairs as early as March 20, 1937.
12. Gezi Czapp had been employed by the respondent, The Federal
Bearings Co., Inc., since December 1936, and at the time of his dis-
charge on March 30, 1937, was working in the race grinding depart-
ment on piece work, averaging $21.88 for a 46 hour week. Traver,
9 Auchmoody testified that he was discharged on April 6, 1937 According to the
respondents ' employment record, however, he was laid off on March 30, 1937.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 475
his foreman, could not give Czapp a satisfactory explanation for his
discharge, telling him that he was compelled to dismiss him. At the
hearing Traver testified that Czapp had been discharged for ineffi-
ciency and lack of seniority. It is significant that three new em-
ployees were hired on the day of his discharge, and that the respondent
made no effort to show by reference to production records that Czapp,
was less efficient than his fellow employees.10 Czapp had joined the
Union on March 21, 1937, was a charter member, and on its organizing
committee.
13. Carroll Smith had been employed by the respondent, The Fed-
eral Bearings Co., Inc., since 1933, and at the time of his discharge
on March 30, 1937, was working in the grinding department on piece
work, averaging $28.84 for a 49 hour week. As we have indicated
above, Smith had called the first Union meeting on March 14, 1937.
He had also been elected Chairman of the meeting on March 21.
Smith had been warned by Horlacher because of his union activities
five days prior to his discharge. The reason assigned for his discharge
was that he talked too much.
14. Wilbur Robinson had been employed by the respondent, The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since July 1936, and at the time of his
discharge on March 30, 1937, was working in the race grinding de-
partment on piece work, averaging $25.45 for a 43 hour week.
Traver, his foreman, testified that he had been laid off because he
spent too much time away from his machine, and talked with other
operators. Robinson was reinstated on April 28, 1937. He had been
a member of the Union since March 22, 1937.
15. Michael Bloomer had been employed by the respondent, The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since 1929, and at the time of his dis-
charge on March 30, 1937, was working as a punch press operator
on piece work, averaging $22.81 for a 48 hour week. Bloomer joined
the Union on March 23, 1937. He had been absent from work the
week prior to his discharge because of a death in his family, and he
was informed of his dismissal by Garner, a set-up man," on April 2,
1937. When Garner told him he had been discharged, he also asked
Bloomer whether he had joined the Union. McManus, Bloomer's
foreman, testified that he was a "good worker" but that he "roamed."
McManus further testified that Bloomer was laid off because he was
the least dependable employee in the department. However, Mc-
Manus admitted upon cross-examination that he had never warned
Bloomer with respect to his work, nor did he compare Bloomer's
10 At the request of the Trial Examiner, Traver submitted production records of several
employees, including Czapp, subsequent to the hearings. However, the records fail to
reveal Czapp's relative efficiency since be did not produce the same types of parts produced
by the others, to any great extent.
11 The record discloses that set-up men have some supervisory duties, and are con-
sidered supervisory employees.
476 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production records with those of other operators in the department.
16. James Keady had been employed by the respondent, The Fed-
eral Bearings Co., Inc., since 1929, and at the time of his discharge
on March 30, 1937, was working in the inspection department, earn-
ing 42 cents an hour for an average 48 hour week. Keady was a
charter member of the Union, having joined on March 21. Le Pan,
his foreman, testified that Keady "loafed and talked," but he ad-
mitted saying to Keady when he discharged him : "I want you to
know this is none of my doings."
17. Edward Odell had been employed by the respondent, The
Federal Bearings Co., Inc., since December 1936, and at the time
of his first discharge on March 30, 1937, was working in the inspec-
tion department, receiving 42 cents an hour for a 49 hour week.
Odell was discharged at the same time that Keady was dismissed,
Le Pan, his foreman, stating that he was sorry and that he was not
responsible for the discharge. Odell had been active in the Union
since March 21, 1937, when he had attended the meeting at Carroll
Smith's house and had joined. Le Pan testified that Odell was a
"fair worker" and that he had been dismissed only because he had
been in the last group of employees to be hired. Le Pan admitted,
however, that he had made no attempt to ascertain Odell's seniority
status before discharging him. Odell was reinstated on May 7, 1937.
Following his reinstatement Odell succeeded in soliciting new mem-
bers for the Union, although he confined his activities to periods
outside of working hours. On May 14 the respondent, The Federal
Bearings Co., Inc., posted the following notice on its bulletin boards
throughout its plant :
"We again remind our employees that there must be no propa-
ganda of any kind during working hours. This applies impartially
to all labor organizations." 12
The evidence with respect to Odell's second discharge on May 17,
1937, is undisputed. Before work commenced on that morning Odell
was given a signed union application card by another employee.
Frances Cavaretta. During working hours Miss Cavaretta came to
Odell's bench and asked that the card be returned to her. Fearing
to cause a disturbance by refusing, Odell told her to return to her
work, and several minutes later, when he left his bench to get a drink,
he passed Miss Cavaretta's bench and returned the card. Odell's
actions were observed by Mabel Dunn, a timekeeper, and Paul Ro-
zelle, another employee, who reported the incident to Le Pan. Odell
was promptly discharged.
Shortly thereafter Odell explained the transaction to both Hor-
lacher and Schatz, neither of whom rescinded the discharge order.
12 Board's Exhibit No. 13.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 477
That Odell had been discharged for his union activities on March
30 is clearly revealed in the record. Prior to his reinstatement on
May 7, the respondent, itself, elicited the testimony that Schatz had
specifically warned him not to solicit members during working hours
after his reinstatement. The record is equally clear that Odell both
heeded the warning and enjoyed considerable success recruiting new
members for the Union outside of working hours. If the return
of the union application card constituted "propaganda" within the
meaning of the respondent's notice, it is obvious that the respondent,
with full knowledge of the facts, eagerly seized upon a technical
violation of its rule to dismiss Odell.
We do not believe, however, that Odell's actions on May 17 con-
stituted a violation of the respondent's rule, and we conclude that
the dismissal of Odell on May 17 constituted a discriminatory dis-
charge within the meaning of the Act.
18. Dorothy Keady, the wife of James Keady whose discharge is
described above, had been employed by the respondent, The Federal
Bearings Co., Inc., since 1934, and at the time of her discharge on
April 9, 1937, was working in the inspection department on piece
work, averaging $16.53 for a 431/2 hour week.
Mrs. Keady had been a member of the Union since March 30, was
a member of the organization committee, and active in Union af-
fairs. The evidence shows that prior to April, the respondent was
suspicious of her union activity and on several occasions she was
questioned by Camburn, her foreman, with respect to her husband's
affiliation with the Union. There is some evidence that she was the
object of the ridicule of other employees in the department because
of her Union membership, and she had asked Camburn to prevent the
other girls from molesting her.
On April' 7, 1937, Camburn, having heard that Mrs. Keady was
spreading a false story that he was a member of the Union, called
her from her work and asked her why she had spread the rumor.
At the same time he said: "Why don't you get wise to yourself and
take that damn (union) button off." Mrs. Keady denied that she
had spread the rumor, and accused Charlotte Ean and Vera Merkle,
two of her fellow workers, of reporting her. Camburn responded
that he did not believe her, and told her that neither of the girls she
had mentioned had carried the story to him. Mrs. Keady, over-
wrought, retired in tears to the ladies' room where, in the presence
of several employees, and with a generous use of profanity, she ex-
pressed her opinion of Charlotte Ean and Vera Merkle. Mrs. heady
was discharged, allegedly for using profanity and for causing a
disturbance in the ladies' room 18
is The record discloses that Mrs. Beady had in fact initiated the false rumor regarding
Camburn's Union membership. This conduct, however, is not assigned by the respondent
as a reason for her discharge.
478 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In- the light of all the evidence we are satisfied that the respondent
discharged Mrs. Keady solely because of her activity on behalf of
the Union. For a period of over a week she had been subject to abuse
by other employees because of her Union membership, which the
respondent made no effort to stop. She had been questioned previ-:
ously by Camburn about her husband's activities, and on March 30,
after James Keady had, been discharged, Camburn had told her
that the respondent was dismissing the employees who were sus-
pected of, Union affiliation. We cannot take seriously the reasons
that the respondent urges for her discharge. Neither Charlotte Ean
nor Vera Merkle was present in the ladies' room at the time of the
alleged disturbance, and it is not denied that the "disturbance" con-
sisted only of Mrs. Keady's characterization of them in opprobrious
terms. A factory wash room is not a place where decorum in the use
of language is commonly observed, and from the obscenities used by
other witnesses while testifying at the hearing, we are satisfied
that the words attributed to Mrs. Keady did not create the furore
which' the respondent's witnesses, calmly repeating her words in open
court, would have us believe.
C. Conclusions regarding the discharges
The respondents contend that, with the exception of Dorothy
Keady, the other employees were laid off and not discharged,, the
object being to bolster efficiency and to improve discipline in 'the
plants. Indeed, but with one or two exceptions, all of the respond-
ents' foremen who appeared as witnesses testified that they were not
aware that Union affairs were being discussed until March 29 and
30, after most of the discharges had occurred.
Horlacher, the superintendent of The Federal Bearings Co., Inc.,
testified that he noticed considerable unrest throughout the' plant,
that employees were congregating in the wash rooms, visiting in other
departments, and otherwise failing to attend to their duties. Fur-
thermore, his attention was called to a decrease in production which
was not attended by a corresponding decrease in the pay roll. On
March 22 he called a conference of the foremen and told them to lay
off the employees responsible for the breakdown of efficiency and
discipline. In the words of Schatz, such lay-offs would be "good
medicine" and impress the remaining employees with their obligation
to work. It was not contended that the employees who were laid
off were inefficient. Rather, they were alleged to be the nucleus of
the unrest and a disturbing influence upon other employees.
The respondents' contentions, however, fall in the face of the over-
whelming evidence which conclusively establishes the true motives
for the respondents' conduct. Even the respondents' primary justi-
fication for their actions is confused. From the record it is not clear
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 479
whether production was allegedly curtailed because of inefficiency or
because orders had decreased. Schatz testified that in February he
had instructed salesmen not to solicit new customers. In any event,
at the time of the discharges in March, many of the departments
were operating on both day and night shifts, and there is reliable
evidence that the operations of the departments were at least normal.
It is significant that the respondents, by their own admission, never
consulted production records to determine which departments were
operating inefficiently, or what was causing the unusual unrest
among the employees. Horlacher testified that he was not even
interested in determining the cause for the unrest, despite the alleged
drop in production and widespread disintegration of discipline.
It is impossible to give credence to the respondents' protestations
of ignorance regarding union activity in their plants, or to their
contention that the lay-offs 14 were not motivated by the desire to
crush all attempts of their employees to organize into an independent
union. It is significant that 17 of the 18 employees who were dis-
missed were the most active officers or members of the Union. It is
also significant that all these active Union members were discharged
within a very short period of time. With but few exceptions, which
are to be expected in plants as large as the respondents', no other
employees were shown to have been laid off or dismissed. It is
undisputed that no rules or regulations of the respondents forbade
employees from talking, and it is admitted that their duties required
some amount of visiting from one department to another.
Most of the discharged employees were engaged on piece work for
which accurate records are maintained. Certainly, if these employees
were chiefly responsible for the breakdown of discipline and the drop
in production, their inattentiveness to duty necessarily would have
been reflected in their individual production records. However,, no
attempt was made by the respondents to produce such records, and it
is reasonable assumption that the activities of these employees did
not affect their work. It follows that their activities could not have
affected the work of other employees, as alleged by the respondents.
On the other hand, the record is replete with evidence that the
respondents were aware of union activity, and that their conduct,
"Whether the 17 employees were discharged or, as alleged by the respondents , whether
they were laid off , is immaterial to the issues except to illustrate the gross insincerity
with which the respondents attempted to refute the charges The evidence unquestion-
ably revealed that when an employee was ordinarily laid off it was customary for him
to retain his identification button , and, since employees were paid weekly for the
previous week ' s employment , he would be compelled to return the week after his lay-off
in order to obtain his final wages . In these cases , however, and without exception, the
employees were ordered to turn in their buttons , and they received, their wages in full
to the date their employment terminated . In the face of this uncontradicted evidence
of the respondents ' practice, and the unrefuted evidence that this practice was not fol-
lowed herein , we cannot take seriously their insistence that these employees were not
discharged.
480 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including the discharges, was designed to smother the Union cam-
paign for membership. As we have stated above, many of the
employees were warned by their superiors that the respondents did
not favor the advent of the Union. These warnings were buttressed
by a display of force which could only have the effect of instilling in
their employees the fear that their organizational activities would
meet with violent opposition. Both Horlacher and Schatz testified
that 12 deputies were hired for "plant protection" some time between
March 22 and March 29.15 Finally, on March 22, a general five per
cent increase in wages was granted throughout the plants. In the
face of the alleged unrest, decrease in production, and impaired dis-
cipline, we cannot believe that the respondents would have proffered
ageneral wage increase unless they were desirous of counteracting
union propaganda which they knew was attracting their employees.
We find that the respondents discharged James Palatucci, Frank
Catanzaro, George Avello, George W. Theil, Martin Nicolek, Edward
Wilson, Thomas Smith, John T. Owen, Frank Niessen, Louis Volino,
Harold Auclimoody, Gezi Czapp, Carroll Smith, Wilbur Robinson,
Michael Bloomer, James Keady, Edward Odell, and Dorothy Deady
because they joined and assisted the Union. We further find that by
the discharges and the threats and warnings circulated among their
employees, the respondents have discriminated against their employ-
ees in regard to hire and tenure of employment, and have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Since the above named
employees, except Frank Catanzaro, Wilbur Robinson, Edward Wil-
son, and Harold Auchmoody, who have been reinstated, have not
found substantially equivalent employment since their discharges, at
all times thereafter, they retained their employee status with the
respondents.
D. Interference with the formation and administration of Schatz
United Employees Association
In contrast with their attitude toward Union organization and
their treatment of Union members, the respondents encouraged the
formation of the Association, fostered its growth, and left no doubt
in the minds of their employees that the Association was the favored
organization. The respondents adduced evidence to prove that sev-
eral of the employees whom they had discharged had openly recruited
Union members during working hours. Although such conduct
11 Schatz testified that he had learned on Sunday , March 28, that a sit-down strike
would be called in the plants , and for this reason the deputies had been hired. Upon
cross-examination , however, neither he nor Horlacher could recall whether the guards had
been employed on March 22 or March 29 . Schatz could give no reason for his fear of a
strike except that he had heard a rumor when attending church.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 481
should not ordinarily be condoned, the record is replete with evidence
that the respondents afforded that privilege to members of the Asso-
ciation. Where privileges are granted to one organization and with-
held from another, the resulting discrimination necessarily has the
effect of encouraging membership in the organization upon which
privileges have been conferred and discouraging membership in the
organization from which the same privileges have been withheld.
The respondents cannot, therefore, be heard to complain that Union
members actively solicited other employees during working hours.
Following a conference with Schatz early in April 1937, Charlotte
Ean, an employee in the inspection department of The Federal Bear-
ings Co., Inc., drew up a petition with the intention of organizing an
association which, she testified, would engage in social and welfare
work among the employees of both respondents. Although Char-
lotte Ean denied that her conference with Schatz in any way in-
fluenced her desire to initiate the formation of the Association, she
admitted that the Union had been discussed. In any event, her ac-
tions, following the conference, raise a reasonable inference that the
Association was conceived, at least with the blessings of Schatz.
Furthermore, from all the evidence, it is clear that the Association
was conceived as a labor organization and not as the social and wel-
fare organization described by Charlotte Ean. Thereafter a group
of employees of the two respondents solicited members, in some in-
stances during working hours, and with the active encouragement
and support of assistant foremen, timekeepers, set-up men, and other
employees in trusted' positions. Applicants for membership signed
petitions left on desks and benches throughout the plants, or signed
their names on printed forms of the respondents, including time
tickets, wash tickets, requisition slips, job tickets, inspection tickets,
and memorandum slips. In an atmosphere of open hostility to the
Union, and immediately following the discharges of union employees,
it is not surprising that the membership campaign of the Association
flourished.
John B. West, foreman of the stock department of The Federal
Bearings Co., Inc., and an employee of the respondent for 18 years,
actively participated in organization activities. As we have noted
above, West had been discovered in a doorway across from the Union
hall and on one occasion had been accused by Carroll Smith and
Frank Niessen of spying. West testified that he resented the accusa-
tion, that he then determined to organize another union, primarily to
feed his resentment. West thereupon assumed the obligation of
financing the Association, advanced almost $100, and ordered mem-
bership cards printed by Finkbinder, an employee who also undertook
printing assignments from the respondents.
482 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Early in May arrangements were made for the first meeting of
the Association. As a final step in the campaign for recruits, on
May 14 the respondents circulated the following notice among their
departments :
Many of you have worked with me and my brothers for years,
and all of you know I have always had your welfare in my mind
and in my heart.
Wages are good. Hours are good. Plant conditions are good.
In response to inquiries, I wish to give full publicity to the
following statement :
Organizers for an outside union I understand are now trying
to enroll members in this plant. I shall scrupulously comply
with any law which requires me to bargain collectively with rep-
resentatives chosen to bargain collectively for our employees.
My information is that a vast majority of you would prefer
in any collective bargaining to be represented not by some out-
side union but by some committee or organization of your own
choosing selected by yourselves from among your own friends
and neighbors who are now working in this plant with you. This
is your right and your privilege, and if you choose to organize
your own representatives for this purpose I shall be ready to
bargain collectively with your representatives to the full extent
required by law.1o
On the same day the further notice forbidding union propaganda
of any kind was also posted.17
The two notices, coming at this time, are particularly significant
in revealing the attitude of the respondents toward the Association.
The "information" that a "vast majority" of the employees would
prefer to be represented "not by an outside union" could only have
the desired effect of prodding those employees who had not yet
expressed their preference for the Association. For a period of
almost two months, during which the respondents knew that union
activity was being carried on in their plants, no rule forbidding such
activity had ever been circulated. Not until May 14, after the Asso-
ciation campaign for membership had been concluded with a final
word of encouragement, did the respondents find it necessary to order
the cessation of all propaganda.
Finally, on May 18, 1937, the first meeting of the Association was
called. William Eckerline, an employee under the supervision of
West, presided, and Robert Horlacher, a tool maker and brother of
the superintendent of The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., addressed the
meeting Officers were elected, and it was decided to incorporate the
18 Board's Exhibit No. 12.
17 Board's Exhibit No. 13, referred to in the discussion of Odell's discharge , supra.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 483
Association. A month later, at the time of the hearing, although
printing and legal expenses had been incurred, no provision had been
made for the collection of dues, the Association presumably relying
upon the beneficence of West.
We find that the respondents dominated and interfered with the
formation of the Association in April 1937, and at all times there-
after dominated and interfered with, and contributed support to it.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
1. Locat 297, International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. Schatz United Employees Association, Inc., formerly known as
United Schatz Employees' Association, is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Frank Catanzaro, Wilbur Robinson, Edward Wilson, Harold
Auchmoody, and Edward Odell were employees of the respondent,
The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., at the time of their discharge and
at all times thereafter continued to be employees of this respondent,
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act; James Palatucci,
George W. Theil, Martin Nicolek, Thomas Smith, John T. Owen,
Frank Niessen, Louis \Tolino, Gezi Czapp, Carroll Smith, Michael
Bloomer, James Keady and Dorothy Keady were at the time of
their discharge, and' at all times thereafter, employees of the respond-
ent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., within the meaning of Section
2 (3) of the Act; Edward Odell was at the time of his discharge
on May 17, 1937, and at all times thereafter, an employee of the
respondent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., within the meaning of
Section 2 (31 of the Act; George Avello was at the time of his dis-
charge, and at all times thereafter, an employee of the respondents,
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., by discriminat-
ing in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Frank Ca-
484 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tanzaro, Wilbur Robinson, Edward Wilson, Harold Auchmoody,
Edward Odell, James Palatucci, George W. Theil, Martin Nicolek,
Thomas Smith, John T. Owen, Frank Niessen, Louis Volino, Gezi
Czapp, Carroll Smith, Michael Bloomer, James Keady, and Dorothy
Keady, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, and the respondents, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., and
Schatz Manufacturing Company, by discriminating in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of George Avello, and thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization, have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
5. By their domination and interference with the formation and
administration of United Schatz Employees' Association, now known
as Schatz United Employees Association, Inc., and by contributing
support thereto, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of
the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondents,
The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., and its affiliate or subsidiary, Schatz
Manufacturing Company, and their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
,certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act ;
(b) From in any manner discouraging membership in Local 297,
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or
any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging,
refusing to reinstate, or otherwise discriminating against their em-
I
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 485
ployees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or,
condition of employment;
(c) From in any manner dominating or interfering with the ad-
ministration of Schatz United Employees Association, Inc., or any
other labor organization of their employees, and from contributing
support to Schatz United Employees Association, Inc., or to any other
labor organization of their employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) The respondent, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., shall:
I. Offer to James Palatucci, George W. Theil, Martin Nicolek,
Thomas Smith, John T. Owen, Frank Niessen, Louis Volino, Gezi
Czapp, Carroll Smith, Michael Bloomer, James Keady, Edward Odell,
and Dorothy Keady, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, dismissing if necessary • any employees at present holding
such positions;
11. Make whole said Frank Catanzaro, Wilbur Robinson, Edward
Wilson, Harold Auchmoody, James Palatucci, George W. Theil, Mar-
tin Nicolek, Thomas Smith, John T. Owen, Frank Niessen, Louis
Volino, Gezi Czapp, Carroll Smith, Michael Bloomer, James Keady,
Edward Odell, and Dorothy Keady for any losses of pay they have
suffered by reason of their discharge, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which he or she would normally have
earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of such
offer of reinstatement, or in the cases of Frank Catanzaro, Wilbur
Robinson, Edward Wilson, and Harold Auchmoody, to the date of
their reinstatement ; and in the case of Edward Odell, such payment
shall, in addition, make him whole for any losses he has suffered, as
aforesaid, between the date of his first discharge on March 30. 1937.
and his reinstatement on May 7, 1937.
(b) The respondents, The Federal Bearings Co., Inc., and Schatz
Manufacturing Company shall:
1. Offer to George Avello immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges, dismissing if necessary, any employee at present hold.
ing such position ;
II. Make whole said George Avello for any losses of pay he haE
suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstate-
ment ;
III. Withdraw all recognition from Schatz United Employees
Association, Inc., as representative of their employees for the purpose
486 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work,
and completely disestablish Schatz United Employees Association,
Inc., as such representative;
IV. Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
their plants and maintain such notices for a period of thirty (30)
consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondents will cease and
desist as aforesaid, and (2) that the respondents will withdraw all
recognition from Schatz United Employees Association, Inc., as the
representative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and that Schatz United Employees Association, Inc., is dis-
established as such representative;
V. Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.