The General Industries Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 712 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert
jurisdiction in these cases.
The Respondents in this consolidated hearing are independent 2
automobile dealers engaged in the business of selling new motor cars,
trucks, parts, and accessories, and also in the repairs of motor vehicles,
locally in the city of Montrose, Colorado, or within the State. Hart-
man deals in Dodge and Plymouth cars and trucks; Carrington in
Chevrolet and Cadillac cars ; Dozier Motors, in Ford vehicles and
Gilbert Motor Company, in Pontiacs and Buicks. The purchases of
new cars by the first three Respondents for the year ending June 1952,
amounted to approximately $200,000 each and for Gilbert Motor Com-
pany, the purchases were approximately $100,000.3 Each of the Re-
spondents purchases its stocks of nationally advertised makes of cars,
which are manufactured outside the State of Colorado, under a non-
exclusive dealer's selling agreement with the manufacturer.
Although the Board has, in the past, asserted jurisdiction over auto-
mobile dealers on the basis of franchise agreements for the distribu-
tion of nationally advertised products, we find, for reasons stated in
the Wilson-Oldsmobile case,4 in which the Board reexamined its policy
in this respect, that the existence of a franchise agreement alone is
insufficient to warrant a finding that the Respondent's operations have
such an impact on interstate commerce as to justify the assertion of
jurisdiction by the Board. As no other basis exists under the Board's
present jurisdictional standards for asserting jurisdiction, we shall
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 There is no evidence that the Respondents are members of an employers ' association
or that they function as a single integrated enterprise.
9 See Carrington Chevrolet Company, et at., 101 NLRB No 34 ( not reported in printed
volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) There are no new additional jurisdictional facts
in the instant proceeding
4 William T. Wilson, etc., d/b/a Wilson -Oldsmobile , 110 NLRB 534.
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA , CIO. Case No. 8-CA-880. November 3, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a charge and amended charges duly filed by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, CIO, herein called the UAW, the General Counsel
110 NLRB No. 112.
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 713
of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General
Counsel 1 and the Board, respectively, through the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued a complaint, dated
September 28, 1953, against The General Industries Company, herein
called the Respondent, alleging that it had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge and amended charges
upon which the complaint was based, and notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the Respondent and the UAW.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the Respondent (1) discharged the following em-
ployees on or about the date shown alongside each of their names,
and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them because they had
joined and assisted the UAW, wore union buttons or insignia, and
engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid and protection :
June Rifenburg______________________ August 11, 1953
Zelda Gregg------------------------- August 10, 1953
James Bursley_______________________ August 12, 1953
Thomas Greco_______________________ August 12,1953
Harriet Wilson______________________ August 19,1953
(2) from on or about July 26, 1953, continuously to the date of the
complaint, through its officers and agents, (a) interrogated its em-
ployees concerning their union activities, affiliation, and wearing of
union buttons or insignia; (b) threatened and warned its employees
to refrain from assisting, becoming, or remaining members of the
UAW; (c) warned its employees to refrain from wearing union but-
tons or insignia in the plant and threatened them with loss of their
jobs or other disciplinary action if they continued to do so; (d)
warned its employees to refrain from any union activity in the plant,
and threatened them with loss of their jobs if they continued such
activity; and (e) threatened and warned its employees not to engage
in activities for and on behalf of the UAW in the plant while per-
mitting employees to engage in activities on behalf of the Mechanics
Educational Society of America, Local 18, and to engage in other
activities in the plant.
Respondent's answer denied the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices, and alleged affirmatively that the five named individ-
uals were discharged for cause.
1 The term specifically includes the counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the
hearing.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elyria, Ohio, on Novem-
ber 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11, 1953, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties
were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce rele-
vant evidence, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs. A
brief was received by the Trial Examiner from Respondent, and has
been duly considered.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings
on motions and on objections to the admissibility of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial error was committeed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
After the conclusion of the hearing, Trial Examiner Ruckel became
unavailable to the Board for the purpose of preparing an Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 102.36
of its Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, issued an order that
the case be transferred to and continued before the Board, that no
Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report be issued in the case, and that
proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed
order be issued.
On July 14, 1954, the Board issued its proposed findings of fact, pro-
posed conclusions of law, and proposed order in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the UAW and the General Counsel filed exceptions thereto,
and supporting briefs. The request of the UAW for oral argument
is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, including the exceptions
and briefs, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has considered the proposed findings of fact, proposed
conclusions of law, and proposed order, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the
State of Ohio, is engaged at its Elyria, Ohio, plant, in the manufac-
ture and distribution of plastic products and small electric motors.
In the course of its business, it annually ships finished products valued
in excess of $1,000,000 to customers outside the State of Ohio.
We find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, CIO, and Mechanics Educational
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 715
Society of America , Local 18, referred to herein as MESA, are labor
organizations as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. UAW organizing activities
Respondent's production and maintenance employees have been rep-
resented by MESA, Local 18, for approximately 15 years. The bar-
gaining contract in effect between Respondent and MESA during the
period involved herein, July-August 1953, contained the following
provision :
It is agreed that there shall be no solicitation or collection of dues
by union representatives at the plant during regularly scheduled
working hours. Any violation of this clause will subject the em-
ployee to appropriate discipline.
The UAW began to organize at the plant on or about July 26, 1953.
An organizing committee of employees was formed and the usual ac-
tivities, such as soliciting memberships, signing authorization cards,
and passing out union buttons and insignia was immediately begun.
The peak of the campaign was reached by the second week in August.
According to Board records the UAW filed a representation petition
covering the plant's employees on September 17, 1953, which was dis-
missed in the Region on December 17, 1953, for lack of a sufficient
showing of interest.
The five dischargees were all members of the UAW organizing com-
mittee and wore at all times in the plant a large badge which bore the
legend, "Vote-Join UAW-CIO Organizing Committee." Other
UAW adherents wore a smaller badge, easily distinguished from the
committee's badge, which read : "Let's Make it 100 Percent UAW-
'CIO." Gregg and Rifenburg, two of the dischargees, were appointed
to the committee late in July, and Bursley, Greco, and Wilson, the
other dischargees, the first week in August. All participated more or
less actively in soliciting members and in getting signatures on author-
ization cards during their free time at the plant, that is, before and
after their shifts, on their lunch time, and during the official rest
periods.
The extent of solicitation by UAW organizing committee members
at the plant during periods other than their free time is one of the
major issues in the case, and is the subject of conflicting testimony.
Zelda Gregg, an inspector on the second shift, 4 p. in. to 12: 30 a. m.,
testified on direct examination that she had limited here organizing
activities to the official rest periods and to her supper time. On cross-
examination, she admitted that she had signed up or solicited fellow
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees during other breaks which she took during working hours,
to go to the restroom. She said it was customary for employees to
take additional breaks whenever they were caught up with their work,
and during the organizing period she might have gone to the restroom
6 or 7 times per day. Gregg also admitted on cross-examination that
she had talked to employees at their jobs about the UAW, but still
denied that she had signed up anyone on company time.
Rifenburg, an inspector on the first shift, 7: 30 a. in. to 4 p. in., testi-
fied that she had signed up about five people in the UAW, all on her
own time. She denied that she had ever been warned about taking ex-
cessive restroom breaks or being away from her work. Her super-
visor, Varner, testified that he had watched her during the organizing
period, that she had been spending a lot of time in the restroom, and
that he had warned her about it once. Since she continued talking in
the department and leaving frequently for the restroom he had told'
Walsh, the factory manager, and Hamner, his own supervisor, about
his warning to Rifenburg.
Bursley testified that he had passed out authorization cards during
his lunch and rest periods. He denied that his supervisor, Bodman,
had warned him during the organizing campaign to stop running
around and leaving his job, but admitted he had been warned at least
once about his laxity at work before the campaign started. On cross-
examination, Bursley could not recollect whether he had solicited cer-
tain named employees during working hours, but admitted that in his
visits to the restroom during the period of the campaign he had
passed out campaign material. Greco's testimony was similar, that
he had limited his UAW activity to his lunch and rest periods, and
before and after work. He denied that anyone had ever complained
to him that he was slowing up production on his assembly line by
leaving his lathe. Wilson testified that the extent of her organizing
activity had been to pass out one card in her department.
James Newell, a witness for the General Counsel, testified that he
had been on the UAW organizing committee during the campaign and
had passed out authorization cards both during his free time and on
company time, but had spent no more than 5 minutes passing out cards
in his own department. Newell was a maintenance electrician whose
work took him into various departments of the plant. On cross-exam-
ination, he admitted that he had passed out cards and buttons in other
departments, and that he knew that one foreman had asked that he
stay out of his department because he had been bothering the employees
there.
To rebut the testimony of the organizing committee members that
their solicitation activities at the plant had been confined to their free
time, Respondent produced many witnesses who testified that they
had been solicited on company time by the dischargees. Frawley, who
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY ' 717
had himself been active in organizing during working hours, testified
that he had been solicited by Gregg and that she had spoken to him
4 or 5 times at work about signing an authorization card. Smith, a
foreman in Gregg's department, said that he had received reports from
employees on her shift that Gregg was organizing for the UAW dur-
ing working hours. Moore, one of those who had reported to Smith,
testified that Gregg had told him she was organizing for the UAW,
that she had spoken to him about 5 times during working hours as to
the desirability of joining the UAW and had spent approximately 5
minutes each time, but had never asked him to join. Another em-
ployee, Rising, said that Gregg had asked him on working time what
he thought of the UAW, and on a second occasion had asked him if
he had changed his mind. These conversations lasted only a few min-
utes, but Rising also said that he had seen Gregg in conversation away
from her place of work approximately 8 or 10 times a day during the
campaign. Other employees also testified that Gregg had solicited
them or had engaged them in conversations about the UAW either
at their work places or in the restroom.
Greco operated a lathe on a progressive assembly line turning out
armatures. They were wound at the head of the line and passed
through various operations until they came to Greco, who turned them
on his lathe, and sent them on for cleaning and inspection. Accord-
ing to his supervisors, Greco frequently kept the line off balance by
leaving his machine and letting the work coming in to him pile up.
On his return he would quickly turn out what had accumulated, there-
by flooding the employees behind him on the line. Three or four
supervisors in Greco's department testified that Greco was an average
worker, but his lackadaisical attitude had created problems even be-
fore the start of the UAW campaign. Production on Greco's line fell
off during the period of the campaign, but the testimony of Respond-
ent's supervisors indicates that this was due as much to the disruption
which the UAW campaign allegedly caused as it was to Greco's per-
sonal dereliction. But whether or not Greco's habits during the cam-
paign caused a drop in production on his assembly line, there is other
testimony that Greco engaged in solicitation activities on company
time. Three or four nonsupervisory employees testified that Greco
had been passing out badges in the restroom and had been observed
talking to different people in departments other than his own.
Three or four other employees testified that Rifenburg had actively
solicited them and other employees to join the UAW in the restroom
and on the plant floor during working time. One of these employees
reported Rifenburg's activities to two MESA officials and a foreman.
Four additional employees testified that they had been contacted by
Bursley about joining the UAW during working hours at the drinking
fountain or at their assigned work areas.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A number of nonsupervisory employees testified that Wilson had
stopped them while they were at work and had engaged them in con-
versation about the UAW. Although none of these conversations
lasted very long, they were certain that Wilson had initiated the con-
versations and that she had tried to find out how they, or their fellow
employees, felt about the UAW.
Tapper, chairman of the MESA shop committee, testified that most
of his time at the plant was spent on union affairs, and that his work
required him to visit throughout the plant. Employees had become
jittery, he said, because of continued UAW solicitation at work places.
Walcott, secretary-treasurer of the MESA local, also testified that
employees had complained to him that they were being bothered at
work by the UAW campaigners. Walsh testified that practically
every supervisor in the plant had complained to him about the effect
of the UAW campaign on the employees. Lenhart, industrial rela-
tions manager, said that he had received complaints from supervisors
and MESA officials as to the UAW activities, that whenever he walked
into the plant he saw people talking in little groups and wandering
around the departments, and that he felt an atmosphere of tension.
Findings as to UAW Solicitation at the Plant
Except for Dahl , foreman of Greco 's department , who testified that
production on Greco's line fell from a normal quota of 1,350 motors
per day to an average 900 or so during the period July 24 to August
20, Respondent's witnesses did not blame the dischargees alone for the
alleged fall in production . They testified generally that production
at the plant was impaired by the upsetting effect of the UAW cam-
paign on MESA members and other employees. Whether production
was seriously affected by the conduct of the campaign is no more than
a subsidiary issue in this case, only relevant as one factor in the deter-
mination as to whether the dischargees had been engaged in soliciting
for the UAW during regularly scheduled hours in violation of the
contract provision against such solicitation.
On that point, the dischargees admitted that they engaged in cam-
paigning for the UAW at the plant , but only on free time and without
affecting production . The Respondent does not dispute their right to
solicit at the plant for the UAW on their own time. It does, however,
take sharp issue with the General Counsel on the extent of UAW
activities at other times . On direct examination , all the dischargees
testified that they limited their union activities to what is admittedly
nonworking time , that is , the regular rest periods , lunch periods, and
pre- and post-shift time. On cross -examination, however, all but
Rifenburg admitted to more. Gregg said she had done some soliciting
during her visits to the restroom . She also admitted speaking to at
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 719
least two employees about the UAW while they were at work, justify-
ing her action by saying that she did not try to sign them up. One
of the employees to whom Gregg spoke referred to two separate oc-
casions when Gregg had approached her at work and had spent 5 to
10 minutes each time talking about the UAW. Bursley at first said
that his solicitation was limited to lunch and rest periods, but on cross-
examination admitted going to the restroom 6 or 7 times daily, and
further admitted as a possibility that he may have talked about the
UAW at other times. Greco quibbled a good deal on cross-examina-
tion. When asked whether supervisors had complained about his
leaving his lathe frequently during the period of the organizing cam-
paign, Greco answered that there had been remarks made to him but
he did not know if they were complaints. Wilson admitted that she
had engaged in "general conversations" with a number of employees
about the UAW on company time and had talked to at least one
employee about attending a union meeting.
Witnesses for the Respondent, on the other hand, who testified as
to solicitation by members of the organizing committee, or who had
observed the activities of the dischargees in the restrooms and in
working areas, did not have their stories substantially shaken on cross-
examination. Although many of Respondent's witnesses were still
employed at the plant and were also MESA members, presumably op-
posed to the attempt to supplant their union, we are nevertheless
impressed by their straightforward, detailed recollections which
cumulatively establish a continued disregard of the no-solicitation
provision on the part of the UAW organizing committee members.
We credit their testimony as to the extent of the dischargees' activities
on behalf of the UAW during regularly scheduled working time. We
find, therefore, that Gregg, Rifenburg, Bursley, Greco, and Wilson
each violated the contract rule against union solicitation during
regularly scheduled working hours.
B. The warning interviews and the discharges
We are satisfied that Respondent had, in the violation of the no-
solicitation rule, sufficient grounds for discharging the five members
of the organizing committee. The basis of the complaint is, however,
that the discharges were motivated by other considerations, namely,
by Respondent's opposition to the fact that the dischargees had joined
and were assisting the UAW, that they wore union badges, and were
engaged in other protected concerted activities. We have already
noted that the five dischargees each wore a large badge identifying
him as a member of the organizing committee. These were worn con-
tinuously at the plant by each member after his appointment in late
July or early August 1953. In each case, the dischargee was warned
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the factory manager or another supervisor, and was then dis-
charged the following day or soon thereafter for failure to heed the
warning. The purport of the warning is in dispute, the General
Counsel contending that it was against wearing the union badge, and
the Respondent asserting that the warning was to cease interfering
with other employees during regularly scheduled working hours.
Gregg testified that on Friday afternoon, August 7, just before the
beginning of her shift, she was approached at her work station by
Walsh, the factory manager, who said to her, "Don't you know we
have a union here?" Gregg replied that the CIO was trying to or-
ganize in the plant and Walsh rejoined, "Don't talk back to me. I
told you to take the button off or you won't have a job." Walsh then
walked away. Gregg did not remove her badge, but asked her fore-
man for permission to leave the plant so she could find out if she had
a right to continue wearing it. With his permission, she punched out
and went to union headquarters, returning in about an hour. She
then worked the rest of her shift until 12:30 a. in. She testified fur-
ther that the following workday, August 10, she was approached by
Walsh and Lenhart at her bench. Gregg testified that Walsh said to
her, "You're still wearing the button. Come with us to the personnel
office." She asked why she was being fired and Walsh said that it was
for union activities and for wearing the union button. Gregg then
said that she had not done anything on company time, and Walsh
replied that wearing the button was enough for him.
As to this incident, Walsh said that he had told her on August 7
that she would have to quit running around the plant and interfering
with people during working hours; that her badge was like a red flag
to the rest of the employees and her production was falling off; that
he did not care which union they had in the plant but they were not
going to interfere with production, and he would not have turmoil
around there with the CIO trying to organize on company time.
Walsh denied telling Gregg that she would be discharged just for
wearing a UAW button. His version of their conversation the fol-
lowing Monday was that he had told her that she had not quit her
union activities on company time and he was going to have to let her
go. He does not intimate that he was discharging her because she
had left the plant to visit the outside organizer, although his testi-
mony shows that he may have considered that as an indication that
Gregg did not intend to discontinue her union activities.
Rifenburg testified that Walsh approached her at her work station
about 2 p. in. on August 10, and the substance of their conversation
was that she would have to take her badge off or be fired. She re-
turned to work the next day still wearing the badge. That morning
about 8: 30, her supervisor, Varner, told her that she was through and
to go to the personnel office. She denied that she had ever been
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 721
warned about engaging in union activity on company time, or that
Walsh had told her that wearing the CIO badge and going around
to other employees in the plant was interfering with production. As
for Rifenburg 's discharge, Walsh testified that he had had complaints
about her production falling down , that he had gone to her and told
her in substance what he had told Gregg.
Bursley testified that his supervisor , Bodman, had come up to him
on August 11, just before the end of the shift , had asked him why
he was wearing the CIO button, and said that he did not like him
to wear it because it was bothering the other people in the depart-
ment . Bursley asked what would happen if he continued to wear
the button and Bodman is supposed to have said , "Wait and find out."
The next morning, according to Bursley , Bodman and Walsh ap-
proached him, and Walsh said , "You're all through, boy." Bodman
and Walsh both testified that it was the latter who had warned
Bursley on the afternoon of August 11. Walsh said that in Bodman's
company, he had told Bursley in substance that he could not run
around the plant and interfere with production and leave his machine
as he had been doing. Bodman corroborated Walsh and also testified
that he had not noticed Bursley's badge during their first conversa-
tion, that it was not until later in the afternoon when he had a chance
to speak to him alone and repeat Walsh's warning that he saw
Bursley's badge and asked him what it was . Bodman said it would
be better if Bursley left it off , it was bothering the help too much.
The next morning Bursley went to the restroom twice in the first
hour after the beginning of the shift, so about 8 : 30 a. in. Bodman
called Walsh who came down and discharged Bursley.
Greco testified that the afternoon of August 11 Walsh and Dahl
came up to him and Walsh said that if he did not have his button off
by the next morning he would be fired . Greco said, "Do I have a
choice?" and Walsh reportedly said, "You can pick your check up
now." Greco then said , "Well, I have the rest of the day." The next
morning Dahl came up to him and said, "Okay, this is it." Greco
was wearing his union button when he was discharged . Dahl testi-
fied that Walsh had told Greco it was a violation of the contract to
solicit on company time , and that Greco 's habit of leaving his machine
frequently was interfering with production . Walsh said that he had
had more complaints about Greco than anyone else and in their talk
on August 11 he had in effect told Greco that he was neglecting his
work and interfering with production . He admitted that he had
probably referred to Greco's union badge.
Wilson testified that a day or so after she began wearing her or-
ganizing committee badge her foreman, Sharkey, asked her if she
understood the full responsibility of what she was doing and if she
338207-55-vol. 110-47
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knew it was a serious thing. Wilson said that she was not taking it
lightly, that she understood her rights as to when they were to cam-
paign, having been instructed the previous evening. Sharkey then
asked her if she was sure she wanted to go through with it and she
replied that she was. Later that day Lenhart stopped her to ask why
she was wearing the badge. She was discharged on August 19 by
Sharkey who said that her behavior in the last few days had been
unsatisfactory and that he had to let her go. Sharkey admitted
speaking to Wilson on Augustr 11 about whether she was serious in
continuing her organizing activities. Two or three days later he had
another talk with her after Tapper, a MESA official, had complained
to him about Wilson and had told him there might be a work stop-
page if she did not end her soliciting. Tapper gave him the names
of two employees whom Wilson was supposed to have solicited on
company time, and Sharkey questioned them. When they confirmed
that Wilson had been after them to join the UAW, Sharkey went to
Wilson and warned her to stay at her work or be discharged. Sharkey
denied that anyone had instructed him to discharge or discipline any
particular person. The day before Wilson's discharge, Foreman Cliff
Smith had complained to him that Wilson was again leaving her
department frequently. Sharkey told him to keep a record of Wil-
son's activities the following day and it was on the basis of that check,
which showed that Wilson had left her work for a total of an hour
and 45 minutes between 7: 30 a. m. and 3 p. m., that she was
discharged.
Four employees testified that they had been warned or questioned
about UAW activities in the plant, but had not been discharged.
Charles Weibling testified that he had begun wearing a number of
small CIO buttons the first week in August. On August 12 or 13,
his foreman, Clifford Hamner, said he understood that Weibling was
wearing a CIO button. Weibling admitted he was and Hamner then
told him that he had been ordered by Walsh to contact everyone wear-
ing a CIO badge and tell theirs to remove the buttons or be discharged.
Weibling said he told Hamner he could see no harm in just wearing
the badge and not organizing or talking about it, but Hamner said
he was under orders to warn such people and also said, "I have already
had to let two of my best help go, two women working in my depart-
ment, because they refused to remove their badges." Weibling there-
upon removed the CIO button he was wearing. Ten or 15 minutes
later Walsh and Hamner came up to him and Hamner said, "I be-
lieve everything is all right, he just got his badges off." According
to Weibling, Walsh then said that everyone wearing a CIO badge
would be contacted, given fair warning, and if they refused to remove
their badges they would be discharged; and that he had fired up to
that time five people who had refused to remove their badges. Weib-
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 723
ling also stated that Walsh had said that in his book wearing a badge
was agitating and it interfered with production. Weibling did not
again wear CIO buttons openly at the plant.
Hamner contradicted Weibling's testimony that Walsh had told
him to warn his people to take their buttons off during working hours.
Walsh had told him, he said, that as long as they had bargaining
rights with MESA he wanted the campaigning stopped; that he was to
warn his people about conducting union activities on company time
and to stop it. Hamner specifically denied that Walsh had told Weib-
ling that the wearing of the CIO button was wrong in itself. Hamner
admitted on cross-examination that he had received no complaints
about Weibling's activities in the organizing campaign but had merely
talked to him because he wanted him to stop. He did not remember
how he knew that Weibling was a UAW supporter and he could not
answer when he was asked why he talked to Weibling about union
activities since he had received no complaints about him. Walsh's
version of this conversation with Weibling was that he had asked
him if he was going around trying to organize on company time, and
that Weibling had told him that he was not an organizer but was
just going along with the crowd.
James Newell testified that he had been a member of the UAW
organizing committee, had passed out authorization cards during com-
pany time, but had spent no more than 5 minutes passing cards out in
his own department. He said he had been approached three times by
supervisors about his union activities, in all of which he had been
warned to remove his button. His last conversation was with Walsh
who asked him why he wanted to wear the CIO button and hold up
production. This induced Newell to remove his badge and end his
organizing activity. Walsh testified that he had had reports that
Newell was the leading organizer in the plant, and had called him to
his office to ask him what it was all about. Newell admitted that he
had been organizing on company time but, according to Walsh, said
that he now saw the error of his ways and would stop organizing if
he could have another chance. Of the other two supervisors who
allegedly warned Newell, one was not called as a witness while the
other denied generally that he had warned anyone against wearing
the union button.
Mildred Hennes, an inspector on the second shift, was a member of
the UAW organizing committee and began wearing her badge at work
on July 27. On August 10, Foreman Hamner spoke to her at her
bench saying, "If you like your job you will have to remove your but-
ton or be fired. Those are my orders from my boss." Hennes testified
she removed her button immediately and never wore it again. The
next day she began her vacation. Hennes denied that Hamner had
said to her that her organizing activities were interfering seriously
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with production or that he had told her anything about wandering
around and going to the restroom too often. As to this incident,
Hamner testified that he had told Hennes about his instructions from
Walsh that the UAW campaign had been creating confusion and that
union activities on company time had to cease. He could not recall
whether he had said anything to her about wearing the UAW badge.
Charles Greer, a MESA steward during these events, but a secret
UAW adherent, testified that Bodman had told him that there were
3 or 4 girls wearing CIO buttons in the department and if they did
not take them off they would be fired. Although Bodman was called
as a witness by the Respondent and testified on other matters he was
not asked about a conversation with Greer.
Frawley had signed a UAW authorization card early in August at
Gregg's solicitation, and had thereafter become active in organizing.
Testifying for the Respondent, Frawley said that Walsh had spoken
to him about his organizing activities, saying that he had heard that
Frawley was campaigning for the CIO on company time and had
made some threats. Frawley denied threatening anyone but admitted
that he had been organizing at the plant. After his conversation with
Walsh he stopped all further activities. Frawley admitted on cross-
examination that Walsh had told him that there would be no more
buttons worn in the shop.
We have noted previously that Bursley was discharged the day fol-
lowing his warning after his foreman noticed that he had gone to the
restroom twice within the first hour, and that Wilson was discharged
by Sharkey on the basis of a report given him by Foreman Smith as
to the amount of time Wilson had been away from her work area the
previous day. Witnesses for the Respondent also testified as to the
activities of Gregg, Rifenburg, and Greco between their warnings and
discharges. In substance, the testimony as to all three was that they
continued to absent themselves from their work stations, contacted
others who were at work, and showed no intention of changing their
ways. Specifically and directly denying this testimony, the dis-
chargees testified that they solicited no one, stayed in their work
areas,2 and performed their usual duties between the time of the
warning and that of their discharge.
Findings as to the Warning Interviews and Discharges
The witnesses for the General Counsel and Respondent are in con-
flict as to whether Respondent's supervisors warned the dischargees
2 Gregg was excused by her foreman shortly after her talk with Walsh to permit her
to visit UAW headquarters for an hour or so.
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY 725
about wearing UAW buttons or about soliciting on company time.
The General Counsel's witnesses contend the former, Respondent's the
latter. We have found above that the dischargees were engaged in
soliciting support for the UAW on company time. There is also
credible testimony that as a result of the campaign activities produc-
tion declined and that MESA officials made strong representations to
Respondent's top officials about the UAW's organizing activities on
company time in violation of the contract provision against such con-
duct. In these circumstances, it seems improbable that Respondent
would warn the dischargees about wearing UAW buttons rather than
about the soliciting on company time which was causing disturbances,
complaints, and loss of production. Moreover, with two exceptions,3
all the employees warned by Respondent either admitted that they
had, or were proved to have, engaged in union activities on company
time. Finally, the witnesses for the General Counsel who testified to
the warning were for the most part the same witnesses who denied
carrying on organizing activities for the UAW on company time. We
have not credited these witnesses on their organizing activities, and
we perceive no reason in view of the foregoing for crediting their ac-
counts of the warning. Accordingly, we credit Respondent's witnesses
who testified that the warnings delivered to the dischargees were to
the effect that the latter were to stop organizing on company time or
be discharged. As the alleged discriminatees ignored Respondent's
warning and as Respondent discharged them for this reason, we find
that the discharges were for cause and were lawful. Our Order will
therefore provide for dismissal of the allegations of the complaint
which relate to Section 8 (a) (3).
C. Interference , restraint , and coercion
The complaint alleged that Respondent ( a) interrogated its em-
ployees concerning union activities and the wearing of union buttons,
(b) warned its employees to refrain from such activities and from
wearing union buttons, and ( c) permitted employees to engage in
activity in behalf of MESA in the plant while denying the same privi-
leges to those who favored the UAW, all in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act. Allegations ( a) and ( b) are bound up with the cred-
3 Walsh had warned Weibling about engaging in union activities on company time,
although Weibling was, in fact, inactive in the CIO campaign. Walsh was apparently
misinformed about Weibling. Hennes, a member of the organizing committee, who worked
on the second shift, admitted that she had signed up some employees at her bench before
the beginning of her shift. Although this may have been on company time if the em-
ployees solicited were working on the first shift, there is no evidence connecting her solici-
tation activity with Hamner's warning She appears to have been warned as part of
Respondent 's campaign to put all members of the organizing committee on notice that
further union activity on company time would lead to discharge.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ibility determinations made in disposing of the allegations of dis-
criminatory discharge. In view of such determinations and the ab-
sence of other substantial evidence to support these allegations, we find
that they have not been sustained. There remains for consideration
the allegation that Respondent threatened and warned its employees
not to engage in activities on behalf of the UAW in the plant, while
permitting employees to engage in activities on behalf of MESA. The
facts relating to this allegation are that about the time of the warn-
ing interviews and discharges, MESA officials took action to oppose
the UAW efforts to supplant it as bargaining representative. It dis-
tributed handbills outside the plant, and its members took to wearing
MESA badges at the plant. Weibling and Newell testified without
contradiction that MESA stewards passed out such badges to em-
ployees at the plant during working hours. Greer, who was then a
MESA steward, said that about this period he had been given a boxful
of MESA badges by another steward and told to distribute them in
his department. He spent 20 or 30 minutes on 2 separate days passing
out the badges in view of his foreman who smiled and said nothing.
Uniform application of the no-solicitation contract provision re-
quired that Respondent accord MESA no greater privileges, even as
the incumbent bargaining representative, than it allowed the UAW.
On the other hand, it did not require that MESA should be held to a
stricter standard than its rival. We have found that the dischargees
were terminated for continuous, protracted violation of the contract
rule in behalf of the UAW, after they failed to heed warnings to
desist. Balancing the course of the UAW's conduct against the lapse
from the contract rule in which MESA was indulged, we do not be-
lieve, even assuming that this constituted disparate treatment of the
two labor organizations, that it would effectuate the policies of the
Act to issue a remedial order based solely on a violation so trivial in
nature.
In accordance with the foregoing our Order will dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, The General Industries Company, is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. It has not been established that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Zelda Gregg, June Rifenburg, James Bursley, Thomas
Greco, or Harriet Wilson in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
or engaged in acts of interference, restraint, or coercion in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]