The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 355 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS, A CORPORATION
and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
In the Matter of TIIE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS, A CORPORATION
and GEORGE BILLETDOUX
Cases Nos. 2-C--5'I'0i and 2-C-5600, respectively .Decided July 11,
1946
Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board.
Mr. Walter C. Boss, of Springfield. Mass., for the respondent.
Mr. Daniel P. Sheehan, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Julius Serot, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed by United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, and George Billetdoux, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its com-
plaint dated April 10, 1945,1 against The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass
Works, a corporation, Hudson Falls, New York, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served
upon the respondent, the Union, and George Billetdoux.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as
amended at the hearing, alleged in substance : (1) that from and after
December 1943, the respondent (a) villified, disparaged, and ex-
pressed disapproval of the Union; (b) interrogated its employees
respecting their union affiliation and activities; (c) urged, persuaded,
and warned them to refrain from assisting, joining, or remaining
1 The Board , by order dated April 4, 1945, had ordered that the cases involving the
separate charges be consolidated.
69 N L R. B., No 42.
355
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members of the Union; (d) threatened them with penalties if they
did so; and (e) kept union meeting-places, activities, and meetings
under surveillance; (2) that on April 10, 1944, the respondent dis-
charged George Billetdoux because of his membership in and activi-
ties on behalf of International Association of Machinists, herein
called the I. A. M., and because he gave testimony under the Act; (3)
that from September 16 to September 20, 1944, the respondent dis-
charged approximately 139 employees, including 32 employees whose
names were unknown, and thereafter refused to reinstate all but 13
of the discharged employees, because they had assisted or become
members of the Union or had participated in, or refused to work dur-
ing, a strike; 2 and (4) that by such acts the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent thereafter filed an answer, dated April 20, 1944, in
which, among other things, it admitted that it discharged the 139
employees referred to in the complaint but alleged that they were
discharged for good cause beyond its control; and it denied the
commission of any unfair labor practice.3
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Glens Falls, New
York, from April 26 through May 8, 1945, and at Kalamazoo, Michi-
gan, on May 19, 1945, before Josef L. Hektoen, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel and the Union appeared by
its representative; all participated in the hearing. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the
close of the hearing at Glens Falls, a motion by counsel for the Board
to conform the complaint to the proof as to formal matters was al-
lowed without objection. During the course of the hearing, and in
his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
' The complaint, as originally issued , alleged that the respondent had discharged approxi-
mately 140 employees and had thereafter refused to reinstate all but 8 of them One of
the 8 allegedly reinstated was named in the complaint as C. J . Grant. At the hearing, the
complaint was amended on motion by counsel for the Board , without objection by the
respondent , to include the names of 6 additional employees whom the respondent had
allegedly reinstated . One of the 6, Charles Grant, is apparently the same person listed in
the original complaint as C J. Grant The complaint was further amended at the hearing
by striking the name of Ernest waters from the list of employees therein alleged to have
been discharged , reducing the total number of discharged persons to 139.
8 On April 17, 1945 , the respondent filed with the Regional Director a written motion to
dismiss the complaint in Case No . 2-C-5600 on the ground that it was not engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act at Thompson , New York, as alleged in the complaint.
The motion was referred to the Trial Examiner who reserved ruling thereon at the hearing
and thereafter denied the same in his Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner 's ruling
Is hereby affirmed.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 357
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
After the close of the hearing, counsel for the respondent filed a brief
with the Trial Examiner.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
In the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3) and (4)
of the Act, and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. On September 13, 1945, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
On March 28, 1946, upon request of the respondent and pursuant to
due notice, the Board, at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument in
which the respondent and the Union participated.
The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and briefs
and, insofar as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a New York corporation with its principal place
of business at Glens Falls, New York, is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of paper mill machinery, deck machinery, and
automatic towing winches. In 1944, the respondent purchased raw
materials from points outside the State of New York having a value
of more than $250,000, and sold and shipped to points outside the State
of New York finished products having a value of more than $375,000.
In the same period, it was engaged almost exclusively in the produc-
tion of materials necessary to the war effort, about 95 percent of all
articles then manufactured in its plant being for the use of the United
States Navy. From some time in 1942 or 1943 and through at least
April 1944, the respondent was engaged in dismantling, at Thomp-
son, New York, certain heavy machinery, owned by another person or
firm, for the purpose of sending it, at the owner's request, to Mexico.
If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, and International Association of Machinists
are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events 4
In the fall of 1942, several of the respondent's employees, including
George Billetdoux, whose discharge is hereinafter considered, took
steps to organize the employees at the respondent's plant into a union,
On November 6, 1942, the respondent dismissed Billetdoux and two
other employees immediately after they had appeared before the re-
spondent's president, Frank A. Juckett, and stated that they did so
to present demands for improved working conditions on behalf of
employees who desired to organize a union. The I. A. M., which
thereafter engaged in organizational activity at the plant, filed with
the Board a charge alleging discrimination by the respondent against
the discharged employees and other acts of interference in contraven-
tion of the provisions of the Act. After a hearing, the Board, on
February 4, 1944, issued its Decision and Order, in Case No. 2-C-5071,
finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and ordering
it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
to remedy its unfair labor practices.-5 The Board's order was there-
after enforced by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.6
The I. A. M.'s organizational activity, referred to above, was not
attended by success. Late in 1943, a group of employees in the re-
spondent's welding shop, dissatisfied with wages and working condi-
tions, began a movement in the plant to establish another labor organi-
zation. They interested representatives of the Union in their plan
and, in December 1943, began distributing handbills and soliciting em-
ployees to join the Union. The respondent thereafter, as is set forth
infra, unlawfully interfered with the Union's organizational efforts.
In April 1944, the Union established an organizing local, elected officers,
appointed shop stewards, and began to hold regular meetings in its
own meeting place, announcements of which were circulated among
the respondent's employees.
Sometime before June 15, 1944, the Union filed with the Board a
petition for investigation and certification of representatives, but
because the respondent had not complied with the Board's order in
Case 2-C-5071, referred to above, and because of the I. A. M.'s opposi-
tion thereto, withdrew it.
4 The facts set forth in this section are either matters of record , facts admitted by the
pleadings or by stipulation made at the hearing , or facts established at the hearing by
competent , credible , and uncontroverted testimony or by documentary proof.
6 Matter of Sandy/ Hill Iron & Brass Works , 55 N. L R. B, 1.
N. L R B v. Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, 145 F. ( 2d) 831 (C. C. A 2 ), decided on
November 22, 1944.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 359
On July 18, 1944, the Union filed a second petition for certification.'
On September 15, 1944, while the petition was pending, about 325 of
the respondent's production and maintenance employees went out on
strike.,, On September 16, 1944, the Board issued a notice of hearing
on the petition, which the respondent received on September 18, 1944.
On September 16, 1944, at the request of a representative of the Union's
International, and pursuant to the intervention of a New York State
Mediator, the strikers decided to return to work. When the strikers
reported to work that day, the respondent laid off 10 of the strikers,
whereupon the men struck again. On September 18,9 1944, the strikers
were again persuaded to terminate the strike and return to work. As
they reported for work on the various shifts on that day, a number of
them, perhaps 60 or 70, were laid off. Sometime during that day, the
respondent changed its policy and began to discharge rather than lay
off its employees. Between September 18 and September 20, 1944,
the respondent discharged at least 139 employees, including those laid
off on September 16 and September 18, 1944:0 All were formally dis-
charged as of September 18, 1944. On September 22, 1944, a hearing
in the representation case was held before a Trial Examiner. On
October 12, 1944, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion." On November 9, 1944, the Board conducted an election among
the respondent's production and maintenance employees.12 There-
after, the respondent filed objections to the conduct of the election and,
on January 18 and January 19, 1945, pursuant to Board order, a hear-
ing was held thereon before a Trial Examiner. Thereafter, on Feb-
ruary 19, 1945, the Board ordered that the record in the representation
"proceeding be . . . closed." That proceeding is still before the
Board pending a determination of challenged ballots and objections
to the election.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 13
In the winter of 1944, the day after George Curtis and a number of
other employees had paid their dues at a union meeting, Superintend-
ent Ernest Waters told employee Curtis, in substance, that he would
not be able to deduct his union dues payments in his income tax return,
P Case No. 2-R-4903.
8 The respondent submitted into evidence a chart showing that on September 15, 1944,
it had in its employ 518 production and maintenance employees, of whom about 30 were
supervisory employees or plant guards The respondent' s officials testified without contra-
diction that about two-thirds of the remaining 488 employees participated in the strike.
9 Sunday, September 17, was not a work day.
Of these, 13 had been reemployed at the time of the hearing.
11 58 N. L R B. 949.
1a Of the 405 ballots cast at the election, 126 were cast for and 178 against the Union,
100 were challenged, and 1 was void.
13 The findings in this section are based upon credible and undenied testimony of wit-
nesses for the Board.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adding that he, Waters, knew Curtis to be 1 of 25 employees who had
paid dues at the meeting.
In the early spring of 1944, Foreman Peter Merlow and Foreman
Arthur Langlois called employee Charles Rovell to a plant office and
stated that they had reports to the effect that Rovell was the moving
spirit behind the Union. Rovell, who was a leading union member,
nevertheless denied the imputation. Langlois thereupon stated that
"this God damn thing [the Union] has to be stopped," and as Rovell
left the office Merlow warned him, "You better watch your step." Two
or 3 weeks later, Langlois told Rovell that he, Langlois, had once been
a member of a union but that it had done nothing for him. ".
All they do is just take your money. You pay your dues and you don't
get nothing out of it." During the spring of 1944, Foreman Merlow
frequently spoke to Rovell about the Union and, on one occasion, after
Rovell's meeting with Langlois and Merlow referred to above, Rovell
was told by Merlow that he had heard that Rovell had joined the Union,
that Merlow and Langlois did not want Rovell to lie about that fact,
and that Merlow and Langlois knew that all but one employee in the
welding shop were union members. On another occasion during the
same period, Merlow told Rovell that the Union would not succeed
in organizing the employees and that after it had been dissipated the
respondent would discharge those who had been members; and when
Rovell replied that he would not want to continue to work for the
respondent without the Union, Merlow told Rovell that he was foolish.
In March 1944, Foreman Langlois accused employee Carson Bennett
of spending 2 hours of working time soliciting for the Union. Upon
checking Bennett's work, Langlois admitted that he was mistaken
because the amount thereof negatived Bennett's having been able to
spend so much time in other pursuits.
During the early summer of 1944, Foreman Clayton Howe asked
employee Silas Patten what he thought of the Union; Patten was
non-committal. The Union issued steward buttons to its shop stewards
about July 15, 1944, and Patten thereafter wore one at work. Shortly
after he began doing so, Howe asked Patten why he wore the button.
Patten answered, "Because I want to," and Howe thereupon told him,
"I don't think much about [of] that, and the company doesn't either."
A short time later, when Patten brought a handbill issued by the
Union into the plant and put it on his workbench, Howe crumpled
the handbill and stated that he did not want to see any more of them
there. A similar incident occurred when Patten brought in a hand-
bill announcing a meeting of the Union. Patten continued to bring
handbills to his bench and Howe on two occasions told him that if he
stopped doing so, took off his steward button, and ceased distributing
leaflets, the respondent would be more favorably inclined toward him.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 361
On four or five other occasions, Foreman Howe reiterated this state-
ment, adding that if Patten did not cease his activities he would be
discharged, that the respondent would never recognize the Union,
and that if Patten would drop his union activities the respondent
would be more helpful to him in the matter of his Selective Service
status.
In July or August 1944, Superintendent Waters told employee
Gordon Clark that the union dues would be $10 a month. A few
weeks thereafter, Waters told another employee, in Clark's hearing,
that if he stayed out of the Union he would profit because the re-
spondent would make lay-offs after the war.
During the summer of 1944, Foreman Merlow told employee George
Hyatt that he was a good fellow but would get nowhere if he con-
tinued to associate with certain union members with whom he cus-
tomarily ate lunch; Foreman Fred Gaulin told employee Donald
Baker and a group with whom Baker was chatting that they would
not get anywhere if they continued to cast their lot with the Union;
Superintendent Waters told another person standing near Baker,
in Baker's hearing, that the respondent would lay off all employees
having anything to do with a union, and informed employee Theodore
Krebs that he would be foolish to join the Union, advising him
against so doing; Foreman Langlois told employee Wilbur Ringer
that the Union was "no good," that it was peopled by racketeers,
and that, if Ringer persisted in distributing union applications, the
respondent would discharge him; Foreman Van Tasker told em-
ployee Lyman Durkee and several other union members who were
discussing their loss of overtime resulting from their having been
deprived of Sunday work, that "That is what the union fellows get" ;
Foreman Langlois asked employee Elgenor Varney why the employees
were dissatisfied and why they were organizing a union and caus-
ing "a lot of disturbance"; Foreman Tasker asked employee Frank
Smith what he thought about this "union business" and told him that
if the Union came into the plant, the employees would be forced
to leave the plant when their particular work was completed and
would no longer be shifted to other tasks in the plant as was the cur-
rent practice; on several occasions after employee Leonard Tougaw
began wearing his steward button in the plant, Foreman Gardner
Goodro criticized the Union, asked Tougaw why he had joined it,
said that it was made up of radicals looking for trouble, and informed
Tougaw that President Juckett was surprised that Tougaw was a
union member.
In or about May or June 1944, employee Philip Bertrand began
wearing a steward's button in the plant. Sometime in July 1944,
Superintendent Waters told Bertrand that it was "some" decoration
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and asked him to remove it. On several occasions during the sum-
mer of 1944, Foreman Howe spoke about the Union to employee Clif-
ford Roberts and told him that "The Union is no good," that he,
Howe, had once been a member of another union, that it had done
him no good and that if the Union penetrated the plant the em-
ployees "would have to keep [their] noses right to the machines ..."
In June or July 1944, when Roberts told Superintendent Waters,
whom he had earlier unsuccessfully asked for a raise in pay, that
the plant needed a union, Waters replied : "That you will never get."
From time to time during 1944, Foreman William Knapp spoke to
employee Curtis and, on one occasion, said it might be a good thing
if the employees had a union in the plant, but on other occasions
expressed a willingness to bet that the Union would "never get in
the plant."
We find that by the statements and conduct of Superintendent
Waters the foremen, and the other supervisory employees named
above, and by the totality of such statements and conduct, the re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 14
C. The strike; the lay-offs and the discharges; further interference,
restraint, and coercion
1. The facts and circumstances l5
On September 13, 1944, at an evening meeting, the Union voted to go
on strike on September 15, 1944.
On September 14, 1944, Foreman Merlow warned employee Rovell
to be sure to come in to work on September 15 because the respondent
would discharge all striking employees; Superintendent Waters
warned employee Brown not to permit other employees to fool him or
to get him "in wrong" and predicted that 90 percent of the employees
would be working on the next day; and Foreman Knapp asked em-
ployee Curtis to come to work, offered to wager $50 that the Union
would not succeed in organizing the plant, and announced that only
half-a-dozen employees would go on strike.
On Friday, September 15, 1944, about 325 of the respondent's ap-
proximately 488 rank and file employees is went out on strike as a result
14 The Trial Examiner found that the respondent did not engage in surveillance of the
Union's meeting place, or of its other activities, in contravention of the Act, as alleged in
the complaint. Neither the Union nor counsel for the Board has taken exception to such
finding Under the circumstances, and in the light of all the evidence as to such alleged
surveillance, our finding that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act is not predicated
upon any evidence as to alleged surveillance of the Union.
15 Except as otherwise indicated, the findings in this section are based upon uncontra-
dicted and credible testimony of witnesses for the Board.
11 See footnote 8, supra.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 363
of a current labor dispute and the Union established a picket line
around the plant. International Union Represttative Daniel P.
Sheehan, who arrived at the scene on the same day, summoned New
York State Mediator John Forster. At a union meeting on Saturday,
September 16, Forster and Sheehan urged the strikers to return to
work. When Sheehan told the employees at the meeting that the
TAM had, in effect, consented to an immediate hearing upon the
Union's pending petition for certification and that the Regional Office
of the Board would immediately proceed with such hearing, the Union
abandoned the strike and summoned the afternoon shift to return to
work.
As the employees reported for work on September 16, and before all
had reported, the respondent singled out and laid off 10 of the strikers,
informing each of them that he was being indefinitely laid of .17 Of the
10, 9 were union officers and stewards, including the president of the
Local, or employees who were otherwise active in the Union or whom
the respondent thought to be active union members.'' The Union
thereupon reestablished its picket lines and a number of strikers who
had returned to work left the plant.
On Sunday, September 17,'9 according to the undenied testimony of
employee Varney, which we credit, President Juckett and Foreman
Langlois called at the home of Michael Geruski, a union officer who
had gone on strike. Varney, Geruski's brother-in-law, was present.
Juckett asked Geruski to return to work. Geruski refused. Varney
then asked Juckett why the respondent did not recognize the Union.
Juckett replied that he would have nothing to do with the Union and
that he would "fight back" by cancelling contracts and leaking a lay-off.
On September 18, despite the lay-off of September 16, the Union's
officials "ordered" the striking employees back to work, and the strike
was abandoned. Many employees returned on the same day. As the
employees reported to work on the various shifts throughout the day,
11 They were handed forms, printed by the respondent on the night before, reading as
follows :
HUDSON PALLS, N Y.
September 16, 1944.
-------------------- No. --------------------
The completion and cancellation of certain war contracts of the Company makes a
reduction of our forces so necessary that your services will not be required until
further notice. THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS.
18 Six of the ten, Clark , Baker, Patten , Belden , Lyons and Bertrand , were union officers
or stewards ; another, Bennett , a union member for a year , although not an officer, had
been accused by the respondent of soliciting for the Union on plant premises ; another,
Arcuri , had openly distributed union application blanks and , on several occasions, had
told 2 of the respondent 's foremen that a union was "a great thing" and that, in sub-
stance , a union brought about better working conditions , and another , Whaley, an active
union member , bad openly distributed union literature at the plant gates The only 1 of
the 10 who was not a union member when he was laid off was Asher Havens Although
not a member , he had participated in the strike called by the Union by refusing to report
for work because his fellow employees were on strike.
19 The plant slid not operate on that day.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they were lined up by the respondent at the plant gates. The respond-
ent called certain of them out of line and notified them that they were
being laid off. Sometime during that day, the respondent changed its
policy from one of lay-off to one of discharge, and thereafter distrib-
uted formal discharge slips to the employees called out of line.20 Many
of the strikers had not attended the meeting at which the Union decided
to abandon the strike and, although the Union took immediate steps to
call them all back to work, were unaware that the strike was over until
sometime after September 18. During the next few days, many re-
ported at the plant gates and, as they reported, were given discharge
slips. Others received discharge slips in the mail before reporting at
the plant for work. Discharge slips were also distributed, by mail or
otherwise, to those who had been laid off on September 16 and Septem-
ber 18. In all, a total of at least 139 employees were discharged on Sep-
tember 18, September 19, and September 20,21 all being formally dis-
charged as of September 18, 1944. With few exceptions, all those
discharged were strikers.22 Included among those discharged were all
but one of the Union's officers,23 many of its stewards, and a number of
other members.24 In a number of cases, the respondent insisted that in
order to obtain a release the discharged employee sign an application
therefor. Although the employees were admittedly discharged, the
respondent so worded the application as to indicate that the employee
who signed it had voluntarily resigned.25 However, although the re-
spondent sought to have employees sign these applications, it issued
releases even to those who refused to sign.
m As stated above , on this day the respondent received notice that a hearing in the
representation ease would be held on September 22.
u In its answer filed in this proceeding , the respondent admits, in substance , that on
September 18-20, 1944 , it discharged approximately 139 employees including 107 whose
names appear in the complaint and 32 additional employees whose names do not appear
in the complaint . As hereinafter noted , however, the record indicates that possibly 154
employees were discharged during that period
2 This finding is based upon the testimony of Personnel Director Freeman, more fully
discussed below in connection with the respondent 's contentions , that, in substance, of the
139 discharges , "2 or 3" or "possibly 8 or 12 " were non-strikers.
23 "Mike " Geruski was the only one of the eight union officers in the plant who was not
discharged
21 Union member H. A. Brown struck and remained away from work on September 15, and
September 16. He was taken back by the respondent when he reported for work on Sep-
tember 18 Employee Asher Havens struck on September 15, was laid off on September
16, and was thereafter discharged . He was not then a union member, but joined the Union
within a few days thereafter The record does not show precisely how many of the stewards
were discharged , nor how many union members were discharged
a The application , which Personnel Director Freeman admitted was printed for the
occasion , read as follows.
HUDSON FALLS , N. Y , ------------------------, 194--
I hereby apply for a release as I no longer want to work at the Sandy Hill Iron and
Brass Works , Hudson Falls, N Y.
------------------------------------------------------
(Sign here)
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 365
On September 19, 1944, the respondent, theretofore operating 3
shifts with an 8-hour day and a 48-hour week, changed to a single
shift with a 9-hour day and a 56-hour week, with a small second shift
of about 30 workers .26
Subsequently, the respondent reinstated 13 of the discharged em-
ployees but, to the date of the hearing herein, it has made no offer to
reinstate any of the other discharged employees. None of the Union's
officers has been reinstated.
2. The respondent 's contentions with respect to the discharges
a. The reduction in force
The respondent contends , in substance , that it laid off and discharged
the employees because a decline in the volume of its business neces-
sitated a general reduction in its force . Vice-President Joslyn and
Plant Manager Doane credibly testified without contradiction that the
respondent 's volume of business was declining and that over a period
of time before September 15, 1944 , the number of its employees had
gradually declined . Normally , the respondent manufactured paper
machinery . During the war it manufactured , to the extent of about
95 percent of its total production , landing-craft winches for the United
States Navy . The evidence shows that on or about August 1, 1944, the
Navy cancelled contracts for 81 of 240 winches then on order for manu-
facture by the respondent . According to Joslyn and Doane, the re-
maining 159 winches were then about 60 percent completed .27 Joslyn
testified that when the respondent received the notices of cancellation,
it decided that a general reduction in force would be necessary 28 It
is undisputed that on September 18, 19, and 20 , the respondent re-
duced its force by at least 139 employees . The record also shows that
since then the respondent has operated its plant with a substantially
reduced personnel . 2° We are satisfied and find, upon all the evidence,
that on September 18, 19, and 20 , the respondent reduced its force
because of business reasons and that the general reduction in force, as
distinguished from the selection of employees for separation , was not,
in itself, violative of the Act.
Officials of the respondent so testified.
During September 1944, the respondent received an order from the Navy for six addi-
tional winches.
29 According to Joslyn and Doane , at the time of the cancellation no definite date for the
reduction in force was set, but it was expected to take place on or about October 1, 1944.
Joslyn testified that when the strike occurred , " the men being out," the respondent decided
that the time was appropriate to effectuate its contemplated reduction . We credit such
testimony of Joslyn and Doane.
w At least 5 or 6 new employees were hired after the general reduction in force. In
addition , about 13 new employees were hired for temporary work on a project undertaken
by the respondent at the Thompson plant hereinafter referred to.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. Selection of employees for discharge
The respondent contends, in substance, that its selection of em-
ployees for discharge was based solely upon a comparison of the abil-
ity and general efficiency of its employees.30
That the strike precipitated the lay-offs and discharges, is ad-
mitted.- Joslyn and Doane testified that on the night of Septem-
ber 15, having determined to take advantage of the strike to accom-
plish the reduction, the respondent "evaluated" the various jobs in
the plant and instructed its foremen to "evaluate" the employees and
sclect for retention employees with a view toward maintaining "the
best crews they possibly could to meet our schedules . . " On the
same night, or on the following day, the foremen prepared lists of
employees to be retained or discharged. Foreman Howe testified
that, "We went through the list [of employees under his supervision]
and picked out to the best of our ability the best men in that list of
employees as far as workmanship, ability to get along with other
employees, regularity of attendance and so forth." Howe was the
only foreman called as a witness by the respondent and, except for
similar testimony given by higher officials of the respondent, testi-
mony as general in content as Howe's, the respondent offered no
evidence in support of its contention that the employees chosen for
discharge were selected only because they were not as efficient as those
retained. Although the hearing lasted 11 days, the respondent pro-
duced no records to show that upon the basis of its asserted formula
for selecting employees for discharge, namely, "workmanship, abil-
ity to get along with other employees, regularity of attendance and
so forth," the discharged employees were not equal to the employees
who were retained. On the other hand, the record shows that at
least some of the discharged employees were capable, efficient em-
ployees whose services the respondent had valued, at least before the
strike. Thus :
30 Although the respondent does not give any other explanation for the selection of the
employees who were discharged , Personnel Director Freeman testified that , in substance,
"some" of the discharged employees were discharged solely because they failed to report for
work on September 18 According to Freeman , certain of the dischargees had originally
been scheduled for retention but when they failed to appear at the plant on September 18,
the respondent decided to discharge them because "We had assumed by then they had
quit rather than get a lay-off , if they did not come back ." Beyond stating that "some"
of the dischargees were discharged for this reason , Freeman could not estimate the number
of employees who were discharged because they failed to report on September 18 and the
respondent produced no records or other evidence that any of the employees were discharged
for the reason stated by Freeman. Moreover , Freeman Insisted that he had no part in the
selection of employees for discharge . We do not credit this testimony of Freeman.
31 Vice-President Joslyn testified that "the men precipitated [ the lay-offs and discharges]
maybe a couple of weeks ahead of time," and that the employees were laid off and dis-
charged "possibly " 2 weeks earlier than they would have been had there been no strike.
In its brief , the respondent admits , in substance , that the strike "brought about a lay-off
about 2 weeks before it was to take place."
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 367
(1) Union President Clark was one of the most highly skilled
machinists in the plant. He had worked for the respondent at vari-
ous times since 1918 and steadily since 1937. He had made sugges-
tions which resulted in material savings in time and money in the
respondent's operations and had received a $100 war bond from the
respondent in reward for one of them. At the time of his discharge,
he was earning $1.05 an hour, the top rate for his type of work, and,
so far as appears, was the only first-class machinist not retained or
reinstated by the respondent;
(2) Employee Rovell's work was praised by Foremen Merlow and
Langlois and, during the summer of 1943, the respondent refused to
give him a release which he had requested to enable him to attend to
his ailing wife;
(3) Employee Patten's work as a machinist was praised by Foreman
Howe ;
(4) Foremen Merlow and Langlois praised the work of employee
Hyatt ;
(5) Employee Baker performed more work as a shaper than most
of the other employees performing like tasks ;
(6) Employee James Michelucci, a top-pay burner, was senior to
all employees doing similar work who were retained by the respondent;
(7) Employees Ringer, Nicholas Fragassi,32 and Varney, top-pay
welders, were three of four employees who successfully passed a diffi-
cult Navy test qualifying them to perform certain special work in the
plant.33 Fragassi kept Langlois' shopbooks when the latter was ab-
sent from the plant, and on one occasion, when Fragassi had difficulty
with his eyes, he was informed by Samuel Foster, then production man-
ager, that he could have any job in the plant at the same high rate of
pay that he was earning as a welder ;
(8) Foreman Tasker complimented employee Durkee on his work
and, because of its excellence, other foremen competed among them-
selves for his services in the plant ;
(9) In 1943 or 1944, Doane, then in charge of inspection, told eln-
ployee Carl Arcari "I am going to put you on the night trick. I know
I can rely on you. I will get you a little raise in pay." Arcari there-
after made a valuable suggestion to the respondent and received a
$10 award therefor;
(10) Employee Bennett, a top-pay welder and burner, was sought
after by Foreman Merlow for his shift because of Bennett's superior
production record;
*Fragassi's father was the owner of the union meeting place on Main Street.
m The fourth was Geruskl As related above, he was the only union official not discharged
by the respondent and was the object of President Juckett's solicitation on September 17
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(11) Shortly before the strike, employee F. C. Lyons on two occa-
sions asked Superintendent Waters for a release and was refused; 34
(12) Foreman Knapp complimented employee Curtis on his work
and, about March 1944, procured a 10-cent an hour increase in pay for
him in order to keep from losing Curtis, whom Knapp referred to as
one of his best men ;
(13) About September 1, 2 weeks before the strike, employee Tou-
gaw asked Supervisors Goodro, Waters, Doane, and President Juckett,
for a release in order to accept a daytime position. He was refused
and told that he was needed in the plant ; 3'
(14) A week before the strike, Superintendent Waters refused em-
ployee Bertrand a release, telling him that he was indispensable to
the respondent;
(15) Despite the fact that, on the day before the strike, employee
Roberts engaged in an argument with Superintendent Waters about
an increase in pay, in the course of which Roberts called Waters a liar,
the respondent refused to accede to Roberts' request for a release; 36
All the employees mentioned in paragraphs (1) to (15) above,
except the supervisory employees and officials, were, according to their
undenied and credible testimony, members of the Union and partici-
pants in the strike.
Joslyn, Doane, and Howe testified that the discharged employees
were selected without reference to their union membership or activiti-
ties, and that the strike played no role in the selection. Yet, none of
them was able to explain why the 10 employees who were laid off on
September 16 were all strikers, nor why the respondent included among
those 10, the very first to be laid off, the Union's president, several other
union officers, several shop stewards, and other active union members.
None was able to explain why the 139 discharged employees were
selected almost exclusively from the ranks of the strikers. Indeed,
the respondent has made no attempt to explain why it confined its
selection of employees for discharge almost wholly to the strikers; it
simply denies so doing. The respondent does not assert that all the
jobs available under the reduced plan of operation were filled by non-
strikers retained to replace strikers; it contends that the strike played
no role in the selection, and that the employees selected for discharge
included non-strikers as well as strikers. However, the record shows
that the number of non-strikers selected for discharge was minute in
comparison to the number of strikers who were discharged.
34 Joslyn admitted that the respondent's refusal to grant releases shortly before the
strike to those who requested releases "might be" some indication that, at the time such
releases were refused, the respondent had not planned to discharge those employees.
85 Tougaw was working on the night shift at the time.
36 The findings set forth above in paragraphs numbered ( 1) to (15 ), inclusive, are based
upon undenied and credible testimony of witnesses for the Board.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 369
In January 1945, at a hearing on the petition for certification filed
by the Union, Personnel Director Freeman, who issued the lay-off no-
tices and discharge slips, testified at one point that he "guessed" that
"possibly" 8 or 12 non-strikers were included among the employees
discharged on September 18 to September 20, 1944, and, at another
point, that "2 or 3" of the discharged employees were non-strikers; ar
he admitted, however, that but a "small number" of non-strikers were
discharged as compared to the number of strikers who were discharged.
At the hearing in the instant case, this previous testimony was read
to Freeman and he admitted that it was accurate. Neither Freeman
nor any other official of the respondent who testified could, or would,
state the precise number of non-strikers who were allegedly dis-
charged. The respondent's admission in its answer that on September
18 to September 20, 1944, it discharged approximately 139 employees,
together with the testimony of Freeman that 2 or 3, or "possibly" 8
or 12, of the employees discharged at that time were non-strikers, es-
tablishes, and we find, that the discharged employees, at least, came
almost exclusively from the ranks of the strikers. Moreover, the
record indicates the possibility that all of the 139 employees alleged
in the complaint to have been discharged were strikers and that, if
any non-strikers were discharged, they were in addition to and exclu-
sive of the 139 employees referred to in the complaint.38 A chart
submitted into evidence by the respondent shows that as a result of
the mass discharge as of September 18, 1944, the respondent's pro-
duction and maintenance personnel, inclusive of guards and super-
visors, was reduced from 516 to 364, a drop of 154, or 15 more than
the 139 alleged in the complaint to have been discharged.39 It is
possible that these 15, or some of them, comprised the non-strikers
who were discharged and that all of the 1:39 employees referred to in
the complaint were strikers. In any event, whether the 139 employees
sere all strikers or whether a comparatively small number of them
were non-strikers, it is clear from Freeman's testimony, and we find,
that a grossly disproportionate number of the discharged employees
were strikers40 Wholly unexplained is this disparity between the
"At the instant hearing, Freeman testified that "probably" more than two or three of
the discharged employees were non-strikers.
39 The respondent furnished the name of only one non-striker who was discharged on
September 1S to September 20, 1944 , his name does not appear among those named in
the complaint
' The record does not show that any of the guards or supervisors were discharged.
4° Even assuming that the 139 employees referred to in the complaint included non-
strikers, the few figures which the respondent furnished are in themselves evidence that
a disproportionate number of the discharged employees were strikers. As noted above,
the respondent submitted into evidence a chart showing that at the time of the strike it
employed, exclusive of supervisory personnel and plant guards, 488 production and main-
tenance employees If, as Vice-President Joslyn testified, two-thirds of these employees
struck, about 325 were strikers and 163 were non-strikers Accepting the highest esti-
mate given by anyone as to the number of non-strikers included among the discharged
emploiees, Freeman's estimate of 12, only 12 non-strikers of a total of 163 non-stiikeis
701592-47-vol 69-25
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
number of strikers who were discharged and the number of non
strikers who were discharged. Although the respondent contended
that it selected the employees for discharge because, in substance, they
were the least capable or efficient of all the employees, it offered no
evidence to show that any of the discharged employees were not as
capable or efficient as any of the employees who were retained. Absent
evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to infer that, in so large
a group, at least some of the discharged strikers were as capable and
efficient as the non-strikers who were retained. Indeed, as heretofore
noted, at least 17 of the discharged strikers were capable, efficient, and
valuable employees. No reasonable explanation appearing therefor,
the explanation for the disparity lies, we are convinced, in the respond-
ent's knowledge of the union activity in its plant,41 its hostility to the
organizational efforts of its employees, and its attempt, by the intimida-
tory conduct of its officials and supervisory employees, and its attempt,
by the intimidatory conduct of its officials and supervisory employees,
to forestall the strike.42 That the strike was, contrary to the respond-
ent's contention, a determining factor in the selection of employees for
discharge is further indicated by Personnel Director Freeman's testi-
were discharged , the remaining 127 of the 139 discharged employees came from the 325
strikers In other words, about 7 percent of the non-strikers were discharged , and
whereas about 39 percent of the strikers were discharged, and a little over 8 percent of
the discharged were non-strikers and about 92 percent were strikers
i The respondent obviously knew which of its employees had struck ; that it knew
which of its employees were active in the drive to organize the plant is also clear Clark,
president of the Union, had worn his chief steward's badge in the plant and his office in
the Union was known to the respondent through its perusal of the Union's literature, so
identifying him, openly distributed at the plant gates through which passed numerous
supervisory employees Other employees who were discharged had openly worn steward's
badges in the plant, assisted in the distribution of union literature, picketed during the
strike, and had otherwise openly demonstrated their membership in or adherence to the
Union Moreover, Doane admitted kuonmg that the Union had adherents among the
respondent s employees and Joslyn admitted that he was aware of the Union's presence in
the plant. Finally, the instances of interference, restraint and coercion, hereinbefore set
forth, demonstrate clearly that the respondent knew at least some of the union members
among its employees.
n See Montgomery Ward & Co, v. N L R B, 107 F (2d) 555 (C. C A. 7), in which the
court held, in substance, that an inference that employees were discriminatorily dis-
charged may be drawn upon a showing of (1) anti-union activity on the part of an em-
ployer, (2) knowledge by the employer of union activity by employees, and (3 ) a "high
percentage of union men among employees discharged. . .
In Matter of E H. Moore, Inc., 40 N L R B 1058, 1075, 1077, as in the instant case,
the employer contended that the employees were selected for lay-off upon the basis of com-
parative ability and not because of then union membership or activities The evidence
showed that the respondent was hostile towards the Union, that it knew who the union
members were, and that a disproportionate number of the employees laid off were union
members Quoting from Montgoincry Ward & Co v N L F B , supra, we there said
No efficiency ratings, production sheets, or other objective proof of comparative
ability were produced or, so far as the record shows, used by the respondent
In view of the iespondent's hostility to the Union and the disproportionate selection
of union members for lay-oft, . . "This inference of discriminatory discharge leaves
it up to the employer to give an adequate 'explanation for the discharge' even though
the burden of proof remains on the Board, since it is obvious that the reasons of the
discharge 'lay exclusively within [the employer's] knowledge' "
See also F W. Woolworth Co. v. N. L R B , 121 F ( 2d) 658 (C. C A. 2), enf'g, 25
N L R B 1362
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 371
molly at the hearing in January 1945 in the representation proceeding.
At that hearing.. Freeman testified that the reason most of the dis-
charged employees were selected from the ranks of the strikers was
because "we felt" that the non-strikers showed their interest in their
work by coming to work and the strikers showed their lack of interest
by striking. At the hearing in the present case, Freeman admitted
that he had so testified in the previous hearing, although lie insisted
that he had taken no part in the selection of employees for discharge
and that his testimony in the previous hearing was merely an expression
of his personal opinion43
As to the change in the respondent's policy on September 18 from
that of lay-off to that of discharge, Joslyn asserting that receipt on
that day of the notice of hearing in the representation case had noth-
ing to do with the change, testified in substance that the respondent
decided to issue discharge letters rather than lay-off slips in order to
permit the employees, pursuant to War Manpower Commission regu-
lations, to apply for other work. Yet, the evidence shows that, even
before the respondent decided to issue discharge letters rather than
lay-off slips in order to permit the employees, pursuant to War Man-
power Commission regulations, to apply for other work. Yet, the
evidence shows that, even before the respondent decided to issue dis-
charge letters, it issued, along with the lay-off slips, releases witlit
which, so far as appears, the employees could apply for work in other
plants. Plant Manager Doane's explanation for the respondent's
change in policy on September 18 is no more convincing than Joslyn's
explanation mentioned above.''
43 In addition, Plant Manager Doane, who admittedly suggested that the respondent
effectuate its contemplated reduction at the time of the strike rather than 2 weeks later
testified that in making the suggestion to President Juckett, he said :
[the reduction] would have to come and might as well come now . we
would undoubtedly be charged with discrimination if we went through with our plans
of laying [the employees ] off on October 1. It will be discrimination now, and we
might as well have it over now.
Doane , Joslyn , Freeman , and Howe all testified , in substance , that it was not until the
strike that the respondent decided which employees to discharge . If, as Doane and Joslyn
asserted, and as we have found , the respondent ' s business necessitated an economic reduc-
tion , it is difficult to see why Doane should fear that the respondent would be charged
with having committed unfair labor practices in effectuating such reduction , unless he
knew that the employees to be discharged , whether in September or October, would be
selected largely from among the strikers It was Doane who instructed the foremen to
prepare lists of employees for discharge.
"Personnel Dnector Freeman admitted in his testimony that in a conversation with a
Boar d agent, sometime prior to the heaun, herein, he had informed the Board agent that
while the lay-offs were m progress the respondent derided upon permanent discharges rather
than temporaii lay-offs Rofeiring to this testimony by Freeman, Doane testified as
fi,llow s
Q Mr Freeman's testimom here was to the effect that when the lay-off was first
decided upon it was to be of a temporary nature, but apparently your testimony la
contrary to that is it not"
A The only reason it would he temporary was if we could get the other contracts-
Q Was it contemplated, when you first made the cut that it was going to be a
temporary cut and the men were going to be recalled or was it your contemplation
that this cut was a final lopping off of employment-a permanent ent^
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the other hand, the record shows that on September 18, the re-
spondent at first continued, as it had done on September 16, to lay off
employees in order to effect its reduction in personnel, that sometime
during that day the respondent received the notice of hearing in the
representation proceeding which normally would result in an elec-
tion in which laid-off employees could vote, and that sometime during
the same day the respondent decided to discharge rather than lay off
its employees. Under all the circumstances, we are convinced and find
that the respondent's asserted reasons for its sudden change in policy
were not the true reasons for the change and that the respondent
changed its policy upon receiving notice of hearing on the Union's pe-
tition in order to eliminate completely from its pay rolls those em-
ployees who might vote favorably for the Union in the prospective
election.
Upon the entire record, we are persuaded and find that the respond-
tnt's asserted reasons for selecting for lay off and discharge the 139
employees alleged in the complaint to have been discharged, are with-
out foundation in fact.
Conclusions
Admittedly, the strike precipitated the lay-offs and discharges. On
September 16, 10 strikers were laid off, of whom 9 were either officers,
stewards , or otherwise active members in the Union . On the follow-
ing work day , September 18, the respondent continued to lay off
strikers . Sometime during that day the respondent received notice
that on September 22 the Board would hold a hearing on a pending
petition for certification of the Union as the collective bargaining
representative of the respondent 's employees ; whereupon the respond-
ent determined to discharge employees . The respondent then dis-
charged at least 139 and possibly 154 employees, including those who
had previously received lay-off notices , all as of September 18. With
one exception, all the Union 's officers were discharged . Many of the
Union's shop stewards and other active union members were also
discharged.
A It was my recollection, Mr. Baker, that after we considered it more, we figured
it was not fair for the men to say, "Well, this is just a lay -off," and keep them on pins
and needles It would be better to have the separation final and have it over with,
because there didn't seem to be any immediate chance of getting contracts so that
we could keep the men going
Q . . Why did you not, in the first instance , discharge the men rather than
merely issue lay-off slips?
A Call it an error in my judgment, if you will.
Q That is the best explanation you can give us for that?
A Yes
Q When was there the first discussion about making this a permanent discharge
A It must have been either [September 16, 17 or 18], either one of those three days.
Q You don't know when 9
A I could not place it exactly, no
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 373
The respondent is charged with discriminatorily discharging 139
employees on September 18-20, 1944. As heretofore noted, the record
indicates the possibility that 154 employees in all were discharged
during that period. According to Freeman's testimony, very few of
the discharged employees, perhaps 2 or 3 and possibly 8 or 12, were
non-strikers. Thus, at least 139, and perhaps 152. of the discharged
employees were strikers.. It is possible that the 139 employees re-
ferred to in the complaint were all strikers and that the 8 or 12 non-
strikers to whom Freeman referred formed, in part, the balance of tlio
154 discharged employees. On the other hand, whether 154 or only 139
employee ; were discharged, it is possible that of the 139 employees
referrred to in the complaint 8 or 12 were non-strikers. But, in either
event, it is evident, as we have heretofore found, that a disproportion-
ate number of the discharged employees were strikers. That fact,
considered together with (a) the respondent's hostility toward the
organizational efforts of its employees; (b) its attempt, by threaten-
ing to discharge strikers, to forestall the strike; (c) its knowledge
of the union membership or activities of its employees; and (d) the
fact that it obviously knew which of the employees had participated
in or refused to work during the strike, gives rise to an inference
tnat the respondent, by its mass discharge of employees on September
18-20, 1944, discriminated against all, or almost all, of the employees
alleged in the complaint to have been discharged during that period.41
This inference is further supported by (a) the fact that all of the 10
employees laid off on September 16 were strikers; (b) the fact that
all but one of the Union's officers, many of its stewards, and a num-
ber of other active union members were discharged; (c) the fact that
the respondent decided to discharge rather than lay-off the employees
in order to eliminate employees who might vote for the Union in
the prospective election ; and (d) the fact that the mass discharge
was, admittedly, precipitated by the strike. If any of the 139 em-
ployees referred to in the complaint were non-strikers, then, under
the circumstances of this case, the respondent, by showing which
of the employees were non-strikers, would have rebutted to some
extent the inference of discrimination against such employees. Sim-
ilarly, had the respondent adequately supported, by documentary
evidence or otherwise, its contention that, in substance, the discharged
employees were selected on the basis of comparative ability and
efficiency, the inference of discrimination would have been rebutted.
But, although such information was peculiarly within its possession,
the respondent failed to show that any of the 139 employees referred
to in the complaint were non-strikers or that any of the discharged
employees were selected for discharge upon its asserted basis for
15 See cases cited supra, footnote 42.
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selection . By its failure to divulge pertinent information and by
its general discrimination , the respondent has negatived the possibil-
ity of a determination as to whether any of the 139 employees alleged
in the complaint to have been discriminatorily discharged would have
been discharged , absent discrimination . It must bear the conse-
quences of such action , for "it rested upon the tort -feasor to disen-
tangle the consequences , for which it was dhargeable from those for
which it was immune." 46
Whether or not any of the discharged strikers were members of the
Union, their right to engage in a strike called by the Union, thereby
assisting a labor organization , is protected by the Act. Discrimina-
tion against employees by discharging them for exercising that right
discouraged membership in the Union within the meaning of the Act.
All the circumstances in the case , and particularly ( 1) the respond-
ent's record of previous unfair labor practices ; ( 2) the respondent's
vigorous and persistent efforts to combat the organizational activities
of its employees and its attempt to intimidate its employees into refus-
ing to join in the strike called by the Union, including threats to dis-
charge strikers ; ( 3) the fact that it confined its selection of employees
for discharge almost exclusively to the strikers , as set fortli above; (4)
the elimination from the plant of almost all the Union's officers, many
of its shop stewards, and other active union members in the midst of
the Union's organizational drive for the purpose, among others, of elim-
inating potential union voters in the election which would normally
follow the imminent hearing in the pending representation case; (5)
the respondent's failure to supply any of its records at the hearing; (6)
the reluctant , fragmentary , and unconvincing testimony of its officials
and supervisory employees with respect to the discharges and circum-
stances surrounding them, although obviously within their knowledge ;
(7) the unconvincing reasons assigned for selecting for discharge the
employees alleged in the complaint to have been discharged ; and (8)
the discriminatory discharge of Billetdoux, hereinafter discussed, com-
bine to convince us, and we find , that on various dates from September
18 to September 20, 1944, the respondent discharged , as of September
18,1944, the employees alleged in the complaint to have been discharged
and thereafter failed to reinstate all but 13 of said employees , because
they were members in or active on behalf of the Union or joined with
it in concerted activities by participating in or refusing to work during
a strike called by the Union. We further find that the respondent
thereby discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of the employees so discharged , thereby discouraging membership in
the Union , and that such discrimination , by the acts and statements
' See N L R. B v Remington Rand , Inc, 94 F . ( 2d) 862 ( C. C. A. 2 ), cert . denied 304
U. S. 576.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 375
of Merlow, Waters, Knapp, and Juckett, set forth above in Section III
C 1, by the other unfair labor practices hereinabove and hereinafter
found, and by the totality of such conduct, the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The discrimination against Billetdoux g'
George Billetdoux was employed by the respondent as a general
laborer in June 1941.48 On November 6, 1942, the respondent dis-
charged him, together with several other employees. On September
20, 1943, after charges of unfair labor practices alleging that the
respondent had thereby discriminated against them had been filed by
the I. A. M.,49 the respondent reemployed him as an office janitor. On
December 2, 3, and 4,1943, a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner
of the Board upon a complaint issued by the Board pursuant to such
charges and Billetdoux therein testified as a Board Witness. On
December 29,1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
finding that the respondent had discriminated against Billetdoux.
On December 30, 1944, the Intermediate Report was duly served upon
the respondent and its counsel.
On January 14, 1944, Samuel Foster, then general manager of the
respondent,60 told Billetdoux that he would be transferred to the
"Thompson plant" 51 on the next day. Foster simultaneously warned
Billetdoux to abstain from visiting the Hudson Falls plant thereafter.
This was a unique interdiction inasmuch as customarily employees in
general were at liberty to enter it.
On January 15, 1944, Billetdoux began working as a laborer at the
plant in Thompson. On January 19, 1944, having suffered a hernia,
he returned to Hudson Falls, was thereafter operated upon, and
necessarily remained away from work for about 10 weeks.
On January 25, 1944, Billetdoux filed with the Board a charge alleg-
ing that by transferring him to the Thompson plant, the respondent
had discriminated against him in violation of the Act.52 The Board
thereafter issued a complaint thereon, and on March 16, 1944, held
47 Except as otherwise noted, the findings of fact set forth in this section are based upon
undenied and credible testimony of witnesses for the Board or upon findings in prior Board
decisions , invol,ing the respondent and Billetdoux , of which we take judicial notice
48 The Board has so found in two proceedings (55 N. L. R. B. 1 and 56 N. L. R. B. 1654).
In the instant proceeding Billetdoux testified that he was first employed in 1940 We
find that he was mistaken in such testimon,
48 Case No 2-C-5071
50 He terminated his connection with the respondent in August 1944
Rl Located 8 to 10 miles from Hudson Falls, the Thompson plant is a paper mill, the
machinery of which the respondent was dismantling and shipping to Mexico as agent for
the owner, as stated herein above
42 Case No 2-C-5406
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before a Trial Examiner a hearing at which Billetdoux testified as a
witness for the Board.53 -
Meanwhile, on February 22, 1944, the Board issued its Decision in
the original case involving Billetdoux, finding that the respondent
had discriminatorily discharged him on account of his role in pro-
moting the unionization of the plant.
On April 10, 1944, Billetdoux reported at the Hudson Falls plant
and spoke to Foster. According to Billetdoux, whom we find to be a
credible witness, he told Foster that he, Billetdoux, was reporting
back for work and showed Foster a doctor's certificate to the effect
that Billetdoux was qualified to perform all types of work except heavy
lifting; Foster read and returned the certificate to Billetdoux and
thereupon consulted with President Juckett outside Billetdoux' pres-
ence ; when Foster returned, lie told Billetdoux that the respondent
had no work for him; and Billetdoux received a release and left the
plant.
Foster denied that he had discharged Billetdoux. He testified, and
the respondent contends, that on April 10, 1944, Billetoux voluntarily
resigned. Foster testified that Billetdoux stated to him, "I guess the
right thing for me to do is to ask for a release"; that Foster agreed;
that Billetdoux then requested a release; and that, after Foster con-
sulted Juckett, a release was handed to Billetdoux, who then left the
plant. Foster denied seeing, being handed, or reading, the doctor's
certificate.
On cross-examination by counsel for the Board, Foster testified that
Billetdoux' work as a janitor at the Hudson Falls plant was con-
fined to the office "and from there down to the boiler house to dispose
of his refuse, that is, office waste," but that he had received reports
and himself observed that Billetdoux circulated and talked to em-
ployees in the plant at places to which his work did not take him. Al-
though there was no rule against conversation by employees, Foster
stated that Billetdoux was "killing time . . . [and] killed the time of
the other men." But, so far as is disclosed by the record, neither Foster
nor any other supervisor spoke to Billetdoux respecting such alleged
excessive talking. His work was never criticized by the respondent.
Foster also testified that Billetdoux' transfer was not a disciplinary
measure and that "it was either [a transfer] or lay him off." When
confronted with testimony that he had given in the second Billetdoux
proceeding, that Billetdoux was transferred for the purpose, in part at
On June 26, 1944, the Board issued its Decision finding that Billetdoux' claim of
discrimination was premature in that he had not, at the time of the hearing, been refused
a transfer back to the Hudson Falls plant, and dismissed the complaint It stated, how-
ever. ". if and when the respondent takes action against him without proper cause, a
claim of discrimination may then properly be made." (Matter of The Sandy Hill Iron &
Brass Works, 56 N L R B 1654 )
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 377
least, of disciplining Billetdoux, Foster admitted that his previous
testimony was true.
Foster testified, further, that Billetdoux was transferred because
of Foster's fear that Billetdoux might commit an act of arsons' Ac-
cording to Foster, he was afraid to let Billetdoux roam through the
plant because tense conditions, engendered therein by the respond-
ent's strenuous efforts to fulfill arduous Navy contracts and by the
fact that Billetdoux felt that the respondent had previously discriln-
inated against him,as might cause Billetdoux to revert to his allegedly
latent disposition to commit arson, and that it was for this reason that,
despite the respondent's urgent need of manpower at the time, he had
put him to work as a janitor and had subsequently banished him to
Thompson. As janitor, Billetdoux' duties included the burning of
trash under almost a complete lack of supervision and carried him
through various parts of the plant, including the boiler room, shop,
and office. Yet, Foster admitted that he had employed Billetdoux as a
janitor with full knowledge of his record of arson. According to Fos-
ter, he was not so much afraid that Billetdoux's duties as a janitor
might afford Billetdoux an opportunity to start a fire as he was afraid
that Billetdoux might commit arson if lie were allowed to enter places
where his duties did not carry him. We are not impressed by this
tortuous reasoning.
Foster also testified that the respondent desired to be rid of Billet-
doux at Hudson Falls on January 14, and that it retained that desire
on April 10, 1944, when he appeared there.,'6 In addition, Foster as-
serted at the instant, hearing that Billetdoux had testified falsely
respecting an officer of the respondent at the hearing in the first Billet-
doux proceeding. This assertion is not supported by the record.
The respondent's asserted reasons for transferring Billetdoux to
Thompson are inconsistent, not supported by any credible evidence,
and, in at least one respect, patently absurd. We are convinced that
none of these reasons was the real reason for the transfer.
Because of Foster's unconvincing testimony respecting Billetdoux'
transfer to the Thompson plant, and all the surrounding circumstances,
we are persuaded, and find, that the incident of April 10, 1944, oc-
curred as testified to by Billetdoux, and that, on April 10, 1944, the
respondent discharged Billetdoux.
54 The Board, in Case No 2-C-5071, found that, in 1938, Billetdoux had been convicted
of second degree arson and had served term theretor This fact was known to the respond-
ent when it first hired him and was also known to Government authorities who, after the
beginning of the war. invethgated the plant's employees and allowed Billetdoux to remain
at work,
U Foster testified that he feared that Binetdoux might be harboring resentment toward
the respondent for its discrimination against him in 1942
56 The respondent way then at the peak of its manpower need
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent's 1942 discrimination against Billetdoux, its resent-
ment against him because of his allegedly false testimony at the hear-
ing in connection therewith, its shifting, inconsistent, and incredible
explanations of his transfer to Thompson,57 the fact that he was trans-
ferred to Thompson just two weeks after the respondent received the
Intermediate Report in which the Trial Examiner found that the re-
spondent had discriminated against him, the fact that he was dis-
charged at the first opportunity which arose after the Board had issued
its Decision finding that the respondent had discriminated against
him,58 the fact that he was discharged at a time when the respondent
was urgently in need of help,59 Fosters admission that at all times since
November 1942, he desired to be rid of Billetdoux, the chronology of
events, the respondent's unrelenting campaign against efforts to or-
ganize its employees, the unfair labor practices hereinbefore found,
and the entire record in the case, combine to convince us, and we find,
that the respondent discharged Billetdoux because he gave testimony
under the Act in the proceeding arising out of charges filed by the
I. A. M., thereby violating Section 8 (4) of the Act.
We further find that the respondent thereby discouraged member-
ship in a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act, and thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent set forth
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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
57 The complaint did not allege the transfer to have been discriminatory, but alleged only
that the respondent discharged Billetdoux on April 10 because of his I. A. M. connections
and because he had testified in the original proceeding.
69 As heretofore noted, this Decision was issued on February 22, 1944. Billetdoux was
then sick and did not report for work until April 10, the day that he was discharged.
ss Foster testified , in substance , that in April 1944, the respondent was hiring new
employees , "working up to its peak employment ," and "still needed people."
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 379
We have found that the respondent selected for discharge, and dis-
charged, 107 employees, listed in Appendix "A" attached hereto, and
32 other employees whose names are presently unknown to us, because
of their union membership and activities or because they participated
in or refused to work daring a strike called by the Union, thereby un-
lawfully discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment. We have also found that these discharges were part of a
reduction in force which was not, in itself, motivated by any unlawful
consideration. Under these circumstances, sufficient positions may not
be available for all the employees affected by the respondent's discrimi-
nation who desire reinstatement. Accordingly, we shall order the re-
spondent to reinstate the 139 employees found to have been unlawfully
discharged, including the 32 -employees whose names are presently
unknown to us,60 but except Vincent Price, hereinafter referred to, and
except those listed in Appendices B and C, in the following manner:
each employee shall be reinstated to the position that he occupied, or
would have occupied, but for the respondent's discrimination, or to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, the respondent to dismiss, if necessary,
all persons now employed in the same or similar positions who were
hired after the repondent's discrimination ; if, after dismissal of all
such employees, there are insufficient positions remaining for all em-
ployees, including those ordered reinstated, the available positions
shall be distributed among all employees without discrimination
against any employee because of his union membership or activity or
participation in the strike, following such a system of seniority or
other non-discriminatory practice to such an extent as has been here-
tofore applied in the conduct of the respondent's business; those em-
ployees, if any, remaining after such distribution, for whom no em-
ployment is immediately available shall be placed on a preferential
list, with priority among them determined in accordance with such
system of seniority or other non-discriminatory procedure as has been
heretofore applied by the respondent in the conduct of its business,
and, thereafter, in accordance with such list, shall be offered reinstate-
ment to positions as provided above, as such employment becomes avail-
able and before other persons are hired for such work.
0' Cf Republic Steel Corp . v. N. L R B , 107 F. (2d) 472 , 478 (C . C. A 3), reversed in
other respects 311 U. S. 7; Stewart Die Casting Corp, V. N. L. R . B., 114 F. ( 2d) 849, 856
(C C A. 7), cert denied 312 U S 680; Berkshire Knitting Mills v N. L. R B, 139 F.
(2d) 134, 141 (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied 322 U. S 747.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Of those discriminated against, the following whose names are listed
in Appendix B, attached hereto, have been reinstated by the respond-
ent as of the dates set opposite their names :
H. E. Parry September 25, 1944
H. L. Brown September 25, 1944
C. J. Grant September 26, 19443'
Al. M. Myott September 29, 1944'''
J. W. Rickets October 2, 19416,1
E. T. Wentworth October 2, 1944
J. A. Tarantino October 3, 1944
R. G. Mylott October 10, 1944
John W. Weber February 28, 1945
Alphonse Delsole September 21, 1944
Frank Leonard September 19, 1944
Anthony Pitizak September 20, 1944
Gerald Winch September 18, 1944
We shall therefore not direct that the respondent offer them reinstate-
ment.
Of those discriminated against, Theodore Krebs and Philip Ber-
trand, whose names are listed in Appendix C, attached hereto, testified
that, as of April 1945 and December 8, 1944, respectively, they did not
desire reinstatement. We shall therefore not direct that the respond-
ent offer them reinstatement.
Of those discriminated against, James Michelucci, Wilbur Ringer,
Nicholas Frigassi, Lyman Durkee, Francis C. Lyons, and George
Curtis, whose names are listed in Appendix D, attached hereto, testi-
fied at the hearing, in effect, that they were unwilling to return to
work unless the respondent recognized the Union. We shall therefore
direct that the respondent's offer of reinstatement to them be condi-
tioned upon their application for work .64
We shall not direct the reinstatement of Vincent Price, one of the
discharged employees listed in Appendix A, inasmuch as he died on
October 13, 1944.
We shall also order the respondent make whole all employees
against whom it has discriminated, as hereinabove found, for any
losses that they may have suffered because of the respondent's dis-
"'As heretofore noted Giant 's name appears both in the list of those originally alleged
to the complaint to have been reinstated after discharge and in the list added to the com-
plaint by amendment at the hearing. By such duplication the total number of reinstated
employees is reduced to 13
sa We assume that he is the Moses Mylott who appears on the list of those discriminated
against which is attached to the complaint
°d Rickets' name does not appear on the list attached to the complaint ; however, inas-
much as the respondent admitted discharging and reinstating him, we find that it took such
action with respect to him
94 Matter of McGoiigh Ifaheries corporation, 58 N. L R B S49
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 381
crimination, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to
the amount that he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of such discrimination to the (late of the offer of reinstatement,
or placement on a preferential list, as the case may be, less his net
earnings during said period.6-1 It is possible, however, that one or
more of these employees might have been discharged in the course of
the reduction in personnel even if the respondent's selection had been
made on a non-discriminatory basis. This possibility will be taken
into consideration in determining the amount due to the employees in
compliance with our Order herein.
Inasmuch as Vincent Price, hereinabove referred to, died on October
13. 1944, the period to be used in calculating the amount of back pay
due him -hall terminate on October 13, 1944, and any back pay found
due hint from the respondent shall be paid to his estate in accordance
with the laws of the State having jurisdiction over his estate. As to
those whose names are listed in Appendix B, back pay shall terminate
on the respective dates of their reinstatement, as set forth above; back
pay for those whose names are listed in Appendix C shall terminate
on the respective dates on which they first decided to refuse reinstate-
inent, as set forth above; eC back pay for those whose names are listed
in Appendix 1) shall accrue from the date of the discrimination against
them to the date on which they testified at the hearing, and, in the
event of a refusal of reinstatement as to them by the respondent after
application therefor, additional back pay shall accrue during the
period from five (5) days after the date of such application to the
date of offer of reinstatement.e
We have also found that the respondent discharged George Billet-
doux because lie gave testimony under the Act in a proceeding arising'
out of charges filed by the I. A. M., thereby violating Section 8 (3) and
(4) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to rein-
state hlnl to the position that he would have occupied but for the
respondent's discrimination against him, or to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges. We shall also order the respondent to make George Billet-
doux whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered because of the
respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages
65 By "net earnings" is meant the definition of the term in Matter of Crossett Luml er
Company, 8 N. L R B. 440 , and Republic Steel Corporation v X. L. R . B , 311 U. S T.
a As heretofore noted Theodore Krebs, one of the employees listed in Appendix C, testi-
fied that , as of April 1945, when be secured new employment, he did not desire reinstate-
ment with the respondent . Inasmuch as he did not specify the precise date in the mouth
of April 1945, on which he first decided that he did not desire reinstatement, we shall
direct that the peripd to be used in calculating the amount of back pay due him from they
respondent shall terminate on the date on which he obtained such new employment
67 See footnote 66, supra.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
front the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer of rein-
statement, less his net earnings."
As we have noted above, the respondent failed to furnish any of its
records with respect to the names of the employees who were dis-
charged during the period from September 18 to September 20, 1944.
As a result, we are presently unable to identify 32 of the discharged
employees. The respondent's records were subpoenaed for produc-
tion at the hearing herein, but the respondent persistently refused to
honor the subpoena and failed to produce any of its records. In view
,of the respondent's previous refusal to supply adequate personnel-
record information, and inasmuch as the pertinent information, from
which an adequate determination cart be made of the rights to reinstate-
ment and back pay, is peculiarly within the possession of the respond-
ent, we shall, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, order the
respondent to furnish to the Regional Director for the Second Region
from its pay-roll or other records the following information: (1) the
names of all persons employed by the respondent during, and since,
the pay-roll period immediately preceding September 18, 1944; (2)
their respective Social Security numbers; (3) the respective dates on
which they were hired; (4) the respective departments in which they
are or were employed; (5) their respective occupational classifications;
and (6) the names of all such persons whose employment has been ter-
minated, together with the respective dates of such terminations and
data as to the nature of the respective terminations, that is, whether by
way of discharge, lay off, voluntary termination, or otherwise. The
transmission of such information as is required by our Order herein
shall not be deemed in any way to limit the Board in requiring any
further necessary information at any future time.
We expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and reinstate-
ment provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions in the
future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become
necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a specific
set of circumstances not now apparent 69
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
68 See footnote 65, supra.
69 See Matter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 64 N L R B 824 ; ef. N. L B B. v New
York Merchandise Company, Inc., 134 F ( 2d) 249 (C. C A 2) ; International Union of
Mine Workers v Eagle-Pieher Mining & Smelting Co, 325 U S. 335.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 383
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of its employees, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of George Billetdoux, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. 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 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 respondent, The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass
Works, a corporation, Hudson Falls, New York, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., or International Association of Machinists, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition
thereof;
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee
because he has given testimony under the Act;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., or International Association of Machinists, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the 32 unnamed discharged employees and those listed
in Appendix A, but not including Vincent Price, and, upon applica-
tion, offer to those listed in Appendix D, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the
manner set forth above in that section of the Decision entitled, "The
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remedy," and place those employees for whom employment is not im-
mediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in
said section and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as
it becomes available;
(b) Offer to George Billetdoux immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position at the Hudson Falls,
New York, plant;
(c) Make whole the employees whose names are listed in Appen-
dices A, B, C, and D, and the 32 unnamed discharged employees, and
George Billetdoux, for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by
reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount that each normally
would have earned as wages during the applicable period or periods, in
the manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled The rem-
edy," less his net earnings during said period or periods; 7°
(d) Post at its Hudson Falls, New-York, plant, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix E." Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director of the Second Region, shall,
after being signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, nn conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
R?asonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director of the Second Region in,vriting,
Within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
sl.ondent has taken to comply herewith, and within such time, furnish
the Regional Director for the Second Region from its pay roll or other
records the following information: (1) the names of all persons em-
ployed by the respondent during, and since, the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding September 18, 1944; (2) their respective Social
Security inunbers; (3) the respective dates on which they were hired;
(A) the respective departments in which they are or were employed;
(5) their respective occupational classifications; and (6) the names of
all such persons whose employment has been terminated, together with
the respective dates of such terminations and data as to the nature of
the respective terminations, that is, whether by way of discharge, lay
off, voluntary termination, or otherwise.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
°° In determining the amount due under this provision of our Order, consideration shall
he given to the possibility that one or more of the employees referred to might have been
discharged during the course of the reduction in personnel even if the respondent' s selec•
tion had been made on a non-discriminatory basis.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS
Havens, S. E.
Brown, E. E.
Repo, Antonio
Smith, R. H.
Battease, Albert,
Parrott, James
Parrott, E.
Ross, C.
White, Earl H.
Manoif, Anthony J.
Taugaw, Leonard A.
Nailer, Dayton L.
Villano, Dominick A.
Sullivan, Timothy
Cosgrove, Daniel
Potts, Franklin
Clark, G. C.
Whaley, James
Cunningham, Robert
UeGrechie, Earnest
1lorr111, Allie
Bushey, W. E.
Arcuri, Carl
Belden, Frank
Ostrander, H.
ewhard, H. J.
B,nnett. Carson
Corlew, Claude
Potter, Clarence J.
Kudan, Nathan
Ringer, Harry
Borer, Will
Clark, Truman J.
Bowe, Joseph E.
Willett, H. T.
Phillips, Paul
Jones, Myrddin
Hughes, Elias
Smith, Frank O.
Havens, Asher
Cronin, Robert
Adams, William
701592-47-vo1 69-26
APPENDIX A
Doty, David
Jause, Andrew
Baker, Donald
Hickey, D. A.
Messier, Gerald
Terrio, Fred
Truesdale, W. G., Jr.
Smith, Howard
Kelly, Lawrence
Gannon, John
Sofia, Sam
Patten, S.
Varney, Elgeiior
Sniatko, Andrew J.
Rovell, Charles
Parry, Owen
i'abian, August
Hyatt, George W.
Bemis, John E.
Bertrand, Phillip
Closs, John W.
Constant, Wilfred
Coon, George S.
Dangelico, Angelo
Dangelico, Savino
Evans, William J.
Gordon, Armand
Gordon, Charles E.
Greene, Harold Y.
Ilulett, Frederick
Jones, Robert H.
Leroux, Arthur
Loomuis, Leslie G_
Lynch, James E.
Mattison, Lewis
Maziejka, Stanley
Pfitze. Hans A.
Ptlcher, Cornelius I.
Price, Vincent
Roberts, John J.
Shine, Francis J.
Simmons, William.
385,
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sullivan, John L.
Tobin, John
APPENDIX A-Continued
Waters, Edward
Roberts, Clifford
APPENDIX B
H. E. Parry
H. L. Brown
C. J. Grant
M. M. Myott
J. W. Rickets
E. T. Wentworth
J. A. Tarantino
Theodore Krebs
James Michelucci
Wilbur Ringer
Nicholas Fragassi
R. G. Mylott
John W. Weber
Alphanso Delsole
Frank Leonard
Anthony Pitizak
Gerald Winch
APPENDIX C
Philip Bertrand
APPENDIX D
Lyman Durkee
Francis C. Lyons
George Curtis
APPENDIX E
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steel Work-
ers of America, C..I .0., International Association of Machinists,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named or referred to below
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
George Billetdoux and all employees discharged during the
period from September 16 to September 20, 1944.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS 387
Thirteen of said employees have been reinstated, two do not
desire reinstatement, and one has died, and six are required to
apply for work. WVe will make all employees whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination, including the
estate of the deceased, Vincent Price, as provided in the Decision
and Order above referred to.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above named unions or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization, or because
he has given testimony under the Act.
THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS
WORKS, A CORPORATION,
Employer,
Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after dis-
charge from the armed forces.
This notice must relnain posted for 60 days from the date thereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.