The National Screw and Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 583 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

11
In the Matter of THE NATIONAL SCREW AND MANUFACTURING Co. and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
•CCULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORIiiRs OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. C-2627.-Decided July 01, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 31, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent has
not discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of
Edward Honey, as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that
the complaint herein be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the Union filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its ex-
ceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon request of the Union and pursuant to notice, a hearing was
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 15, 1943, for
the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief filed by the Union, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, cojiclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein against the re-
spondent, The National Screw and Manufacturing Co., Cleveland,
Ohio, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MIL•LIs took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 101. °
583
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REILATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John A. Hull, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Maurice F. Ha'nning, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Maurice Sugar, of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Edward Hall and Mr. Robert
Lorton, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on April 23, 1943, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Ifnplement Workers of America
(CIO), herein called the Union, the National Labor 'Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland,
Ohio), issued its complaint, dated April 24, 1943, against The National Screw
and Manufacturing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in-and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section S (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the respondent on November 18, -1942, discharged Edward Honey because
of his union membership and activities, and that thereby, and by threatening
to discriminate against and discharge employees because of their union sympa-
thies, membership, and activities, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On
May 8, 1943, the respondent filed an answer denying the alleged unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 10 and 11, 1943, at Cleveland,
Ohio, before Max G. Baron, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. 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 close of the Board's case, counsel
.for the respondent moved to dismiss, for lack of evidence, the allegation in the
complaint as to threats, above referred to. There was no objection. The motion
was allowed. At the close of the Board's case, and again at the close of the
hearing, the undersigned granted, without objection, motions of counsel for the
Board to amend the complaint to conform to the proof as to formal matters. At
the close of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety. Ruling on this motion was reserved ; it is disposed
of as hereinafter indicated. The parties argued orally at the conclusion of the
hearing, and were granted 5 days in which to file briefs with the undersigned ;
no briefs were filed.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following-:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The National Screw and Manufacturing Co. is an Ohio corporation engaged
at its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, in the manufacture of bolts, nuts, screws, screw
machine products, and other types of fastenings. It employs approximately
THE NATIONAL SCREW AND MANUFACTURING CO . 585
3,000 persons. For 2 years it has been engaged exclusively in the manufacture
of airplane parts for the armed forces. During the year 1942, the respondent
purchased raw materials valued in excess of $3,000,000, of which approximately
80 percent were shipped to it from points outside the State of Ohio. During
the same period, approximately 90 percent of its fluished products, valued in
excess of $18,500,000, were shipped by it to points outside the State of Ohio.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning,of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America ( CIO), is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
With the dismissal from the complaint of the allegation that the respondent
had made certain threats, there remains only the allegation that the respondent
had discriminatorily discharged Edward Honey on November 18, 1942.
A. The discharge of Edward Honey
Edward Honey was hired by the respondent in March 1935 as a machine
helper at 45 cents per hour. He was a good worker and was well liked by his
supervisors. Foreman Joseph Schnur took a personal interest in him, and in
February 1942 he gave Honey his last,promotion and also an increase in pay.
About October 1, Honey received a further raise in pay ; at this time his pay
was $1.10 per hour plus incentive bonuses. For the last 6 weeks or so of his
employment with the respondent, Honey was in charge of the operation of three
bolt-making machines. These machines were intricate, delicate, expensive, and
required constant attention to prevent jamming, breakage, and tie-up in work.
Absence of the operator of the machines causes loss in production. Honey had
two women helpers who fed wire into two of the machines.
In June 1935, Honey joined an independent union then in the plant, and be-
came active therein as representative of his department and as a member of its
executive committee. In December 1940, he resigned from that organization.
About July 1941, Honey joined the Union. He was shortly thereafter made
temporary chairman of the Union's organizing committee. In the summer of
1941, the Union began an organizing campaign among the respondent's employees.
During the course of this campaign, several circulars bearing Honey's name as
chairman of the organizing committee, were distributed among the employees.
The campaign was unsuccessful and ended in December.
Ten months later, on October 20, 1942, a new membership campaign was begun.
Honey was again made chairman of the organizing committee. Letters were
mailed to employees, and circulars soliciting membership and advertising meet-
ings were distributed at the entrances of, and carried into, the plant. During
both campaigns Honey continuously wore at work a clearly visible union button.
Other employees wore similar buttons. One of the circulars, bearing Honey's
name as chairman of the organizing committee, was placed on the respondent's
bulletin board in, the plant, where it remained for at least a day. Honey also
handed out application cards in the plant to certain employees. At no time did
the respondent object to any of these activities, although it must, because of
their nature and extent, have been aware of at least most of them. Indeed,
though one of the 1942 circulars stated that "Company rumors try to make you
believe you can't organize because a war is going on," and that "THIS IS NOT
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE TRUTH," and though the respondent had done nothing to warrant the
making of any such statement, nothing was said to Honey about it. On the other
hand, as has been said, Honey received increases in pay, each time of 10 cents
an hour, in February and about October 1, 1942.1
Prior to May 14, 1942, it had been a common practice for the respondent's
employees to visit other departments, for reasons unrelated to their work, almost
at will. This situation became the subject of criticism in May, as the result of
a visit of Army inspectors to the plant' The inspectors criticized the indiscreet
discussion by the employees of the plant operations, and their roaming about
the plant. Because of this criticism, the respondent on May 14 posted on its
bulletin board a notice calling attention to the war emergency, the nature of
the work being done, the necessity for unusual precautions, and the criticisms
of the government; the notice warned that "In the future no employee is to
leave his department without the knowledge and consent of his foreman," and it
requested the cooperation of the employees.'
The "roaming" did not entirely stop, however, and, as the result of further
criticism by government inspectors, a further meeting of the foremen was held
and, on November 1, another notice was posted. This notice recited that since
the plant was engaged in war work "we must naturally abide by governmental
rules and regulations governing plants on government contracts" ; that "the
promiscuous visiting which has existed in the past" could not be permitted ;
that written permission was required for necessary trips to other departments ;
and that "Failure to abide by this rule must be considered sufficient cause for
immediate dismissal."
Honey was aware of both notices. The earlier one had indeed been read by
Larry Lawrence, assistant foreman of Honey's department, to all the employees
therein including Honey. And Honey at the hearing conceded that it was neces-
sary for the respondent to post both of them. Employees "promiscuously"
visited other departments, he said, and there was much "loose talk" concerning
,the operations of the company. Roaming had, he testified, become "pretty
predominant" and "almost too free and easy."'
Despite this, Honey constantly engaged in the proscribed activities. Early in
November, Lawrence caught Honey coming over the ramp from the adjoining
i These findings are based principally upon Honey's testimony. Honey did testify, also,
that after the distribution of the 1942 circulars the "attitude" of the foremen became "a lot
colder" toward him, that "they were watching every move" he made; that he knew that
several times he was being "watched" ; that "Several times" foremen-followed him into the
lavatory where they broke up groups of men. Honey testified further that about September
1942, lie and Foreman Schnur "argued" about a "point of seniority" ; that Schnur "didn't
agree ; he didn't believe seniority worked that way" ; and that during that conversation
Honey "just brought it out that a good union would bring seniority into the plant and
[Schnur] said he didn't think so." Honey also testified that in October, Assistant Foreman
Lawrence asked him why he was wearing a Union button, adding that it "Won't do you any
good," that the Union "would never be in the plant" ; but that no one talked to him about
wearing the button "Except in a joking way" and that Lawrence "never bothered [him]
much." None of this testimony was corroborated . Scbnur denied the reference to him.
The undersigned discredits any inference that Honey was being especially watched,. credits,
Schnur's denial, and discredits Honey's reference to Lawrence. The attitude of certain
supervisory cfficials , which is more fully related hereinafter , was based upon a different
ground, as will be seen
2 Because the plant was engaged in war orders , government inspectors visited it from
time to time.
3 Prior to the posting of the notice, the respondent also called a meeting of the foremen
at which the criticisms of the War Department were discussed and which it was stated
that the notice would be posted.
THE NATIONAL SCREW AND MANUFACTURING CO. 587
building. ' He asked Honey whether he had the necessary permission to leave
his department. Honey merely shrugged his shoulders and walked away.`
Lawrence reported the incident to Honey's foreman, Joseph Schnur. Honey had
been away from his job on many previous occasions without permission. Schnur
had warned him on several earlier occasions to behave, and Honey had promised
to do so. Following Lawrence's report, accordingly, Schnur called Honey to
him, conducted him to the bulletin board, and said : "Honey, did you read those
bulletins?" Honey replied that he did. Schnur then said : "Behave yourself,
Honey, you've gotta stay on your job or that'll be your last chance."'
While Honey testified generally that he did not leave his department without
written permission after November 1, the record belies this contention. He con-
tinued to violate the notices even after Schndr's warning to him early in
November Within a few days, Lawrence twice broke up groups of men, includ-
ing Honey, who were gathered in the lavatory engaged in horse play, and
ordered them back to their work." On one or more occasions during the same
week Lawrence ordered him out of the adjoining department. On still another
occasion, about the same time, Honey conceded that he was outside his depart-
ment, but claimed that it was outside his working hours ; even that, however,
required permission, which he did not have. Night Foreman Joseph Pausche
also warned Honey on several occasions when he discovered him in other parts
of the plant "chewing the rag" with other employees ; he warned the men to
"break it up" and get back to their jobs. In an attempt to excuse his violations,
Honey, at the hearing, pointed out the fact that his two women helpers also left
their department without permission, but he admitted on cross-examination
that they did so to go to the only women's room in the building.
Both Lawrence and Schnur complained to other employees that they too had
violated the notices. They were asked by these men, in substance, why Honey
could roam around while they could not. "So I just put my foot down on that,"
testified Schnur. He informed Honey that he was setting a bad example, and
warned him again.
The incident which was the immediate cause of Honey's discharge occurred
the night of November 18. Honey testified that about 8 o'clock that night he
missed a "chuck key" which he needed to operate a lathe in the tool room in his
department, about 30 feet away from his machines ; that he made another, and
went into the tool room to polish some dies. In 3 or 4 minutes he finished his
work, he testified, and made ready to leave. At this point, he testified, Albert
Fuldauer and George Besmer, two electricians, came in to do some work. The
three men then engaged in a discussion concerning hunting, fishing, and other
things Some disagreement arose as to the date when the hunting season began.
Honey had a digest of the Ohio game laws in his pocket, in the form of a pamphlet.
It was taken out 'and placed on the work bench in the tool room, and the men
leaned over the bench to inspect it. Fuldauer had a pencil in his hand and
was. marking or copying part of the pamphlet. The discussion among the men,
up to this point, had lasted several minutes. At this juncture, Night Foreman
Pausche walked into the tool room.
'This finding is based on Lawrence's,testimony. Honey was uncertain in his testimony
as to the incident, though he said he believed it occurred upon an occasion 'e hen he had
permission to go to the other building.
5 This finding is based on Schnur's testimony, partially corroborated by- Honey. Honey
testified that he bad a faint recollection that on one occasion "someone" pointed out the
notices to him "probably to refresh (his] memory." He did not "think," he said, that
,Schnur had warned him of dismissal for further violations.
6 Honey conceded this in his testimony.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pausche had been looking for a wire man and had entered 'the tool room in
the belief that he might be there. When he entered, he saw Honey and the elec-
tricians at the work bench. Honey immediately asked Pausche if Pausche
know where the chuck key was.' Pausche replied that he did not, that Honey
should know where it was. Pausche left the room ; he had been in it but a
minute or less.
Honey followed Pausche out. There is, at this point, some disagreement be-
tween Pausche and Honey as to what occurred. According to Pausche, Honey
again asked him if he knew, the whereabouts of.the chuck key ; ° that he replied
that Honey was not looking for the chuck key, but "for something else" ; that
Honey asked "for what" ; that he replied that Honey knew ; that Honey then
asked if he should "go home right away," and that Pausche said he would let
Honey know about that shortly. Honey, on the other hand, testified that as he
was leaving the tool room, Pausche called him over, and told him that he was
sorry but that he would have to "pull [his] card" ; ° that he asked Pausche "what
for" ; that Pausche replied that Honey knew, "for organizing on company time" ;
and that Honey replied, "Well, if that's what you think, all right," and that he
then went back to his work. As between these two versions, the undersigned
credits Pausche's. Among other reasons it is borne out by what occurred imme-
diately thereafter "
Following the conversation with Honey, Pausche telephoned to Schnur at the
latter's home. He told Schnur that he had found Honey loafing on the job again ;
that he was not at his work ; that he had been caught in the tool room talking
to other men leaning over a bench "signing something" ; and he asked Schnur what
to do. Schnur had told Pausche several times previously to warn Honey for
being away from his work. This time he told Pausche to "pull" Honey's card
and to inform Honey to return the next day, for his pay apparently."
Pausche accordingly went to Honey, informed him that he was through, and
that he should return the next day at 3 p. in. The following day, Honey went to'
the personnel office where the personnel manager handed him a check for his pay
and' a "release" (a separation report used in connection with the Ohio unem-
ployment compensation laws). This release- recited that Honey "Repeatedly
spends too much time away from his machine. Is not on the job as he should
be." Honey at first refused to accept the document because of this language
in it, or the check either, but he returned about '2 hours later and accepted
both.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The nature and extent of Honey's activities in the Union, and his connection
with it, were such that it may fairly be inferred, and the undersigned finds,
that the respondent was aware of them. The issue, of course, is what
motivated Pausche and Schnur in discharging him. The Union urges that
Honey was specially selected for discharge because he was the leader, among
the employees, in the Union campaigns. It points to the fact that no others
I Since Honey had made another chuck key , this request would have had to be for the
one that was missing.
8 At the hearing , Pausche referred to this as an "alibi."
° That is, discharge him.
70 It seems strange, assuming Honey's version to be the correct one, why he did not
immediately inform Pausche that be (Honey ) was not in fact "organizing on company
time," or that he did not call upon the others in the tool room for confirmation. This is
an additional reason which casts doubt upon Honey's version of the conversation
It was customary for Pausche to telephone to Schnur at his home concerning employees.
Pausche could not, moreover , discharge anyone without Schnur 's approval.
THE NATIONAL SCREW. AND MANUFACTURING CO. 589
were discharged of those whom the respondent says also violated the posted
notices, and that Honey was discharged during the midst of the 1942 campaign.
"Why pick on Honey?" asks the Union, in effect.
But there was no evidence that the 1942 campaign was any greater in
intensity than the one the year before, and yet with knowledge of Honey's
connection with the 1941 campaign the respondent, in February 1942, gave him
a promotion and a raise in pay. And since the 1941 campaign had ended
months before the first of the two notices were posted by the respondent in
1942, it cannot be urged that the Union activity motivated the respondent in
posting it. Both the May 14 notice, and the later one of November 1, were
posted at the request of representatives of the armed forces. That at the
time of the posting of the second the Union was again engaged in an organiza-
tional campaign, was no more than coincidental. Honey had in the meantime
been given a further raise in pay.
It is true that others besides Honey had also violated the notices and were
not discharged. But, as Schnur testified, the others did not make a habit of
it; Honey was the worst in this respect. Schnur warned Honey that con-
tinued violation of the notices -would mean discharge. The second notice
specifically gave this warning also. Honey promised to behave. He did not
keep his promise but continued as before. Schnur became "fed up," as he
testified. The last straw had been placed on the camel's back. He ordered
Honey's discharge. To find, under these circumstances, that the respondent
was motivated by'anti-union considerations would be clearly unwarranted.
It is urged that both the posted notices emphasize that employees are not
to leave their "departments" without permission, and that Honey's visit to
the tool room on the evening of November 18 was not outside his department,
since the tool room is located in it. This contention misconceives the obvious
purpose of the notices, which is mainly that the employees should stay at their
jobs so that production will not suffer. Moreover, the notices also speak of
roaming "in the plant" and "the promiscuous visiting which has existed in
the past." Honey had several times been warned to stay on the job. He had
often been away from it improperly. While it is assumed that he did go to
the tool room at about 8: 00 p in. the night of the 18th for the purpose of
polishing dies, as he testified, he lingered for a purpose totally unrelated to his
work. Production suffered no less by reason of this than if he had been to
another department. In any event, this incident cannot be considered in
isolation's It was but the culmination of a long series of violations on his
part. At least, it cannot fairly be contended that Pausche and Schnur thought
otherwise."
The undersigned finds that the respondent did not discharge Edward Honey
by reason of his Union membership and activities or to discourage membership
in the Union, as the complaint alleges.
12 So far as the events in the tool room are concerned, Honey was guilty of derelictions
-beyond what have been described, though, because neither Pausche nor Schnur were aware
of them, they played no part in Honey's discharge. One Hendricks, employed in the tool
room, testified that Honey had been in and out of the tool room five or six times earlier
that evening with a gang of other men "chewing the rag" and arguing about "one thing
and another." The undersigned credits this testimony.
13 In describing Honey as having the worst record for roaming about the plant, Schnur
added : "I don't know why, but he just had that in his blood, I imagine " It Is of interest
to compare this with the testimony 'of Fuldauer, one of the electricians who had engaged
in the conversation with Honey about hunting, etc. on the night of the 18th. Fuldauer
was also a Union man. He testified that he nicknamed Honey as "Noisy" ; that "he seemed
rather jolly and he'd holler around" ; that other men called him the "Mad Russian" and
"stuff like that."
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
in the case , the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent , The National Screw and Manufacturing
Co., Cleveland , Ohio, occur in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America ( CIO), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint , within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) or 8 ( 3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended , effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the'case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building,
Washington , D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon , together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
MAx G. BARON,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 31, 1943