Union Screw Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1107 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of UNION SCREW PRODUCTS, A PARTNERSHIP, and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 59
Case No. 8-C-4998.-Decided August 19, 1948
Mr. John A. Hull, for the Board.
Messrs. W. S. Hoopes and C. A. Hoopes, of Marysville, Ohio, and
Mr. Craig Carnes, of Cambridge, Ohio, for the Respondents.
Mr. Howard Tausch,, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. R. W. Beverly, of
Marion, Ohio, for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 7, 1947, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices,' and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices and recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. There-
after, counsel for the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief; 2 the Respondents filed a brief. The Respond-
ents and the Union also requested oral argument. Because the record,
the exceptions, and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties, the requests for oral argument
are hereby denied.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
1 The provisions of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
which the complaint herein alleged were violated , are continued , without any change mate-
rial to this proceeding , in Section 8 (a) (1), 8 (a) (3), and 8 ( a) (5) of the Act, as
amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
2 The Union filed no exceptions or brief, but requested that the Board consider the ex-
ceptions and brief of counsel for the Board as an expression of the position of the Union.
78 N. L. R. B.. No. 159.
• 1107
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications noted
below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondents
violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. In so finding, however, we rely
solely upon the discriminatory discharges, discussed below, and upon
the coercive statement of Superintendent Schultis 3 to employee Far-
son, shortly before the Board election in January 1946, that, if the
Union got into the plant, "he [Schultis] was going to treat everybody
like Goddamn employees."
Although Schultis made other derogatory remarks about unions to
Farson and to Lockwood, another of the Respondents' employees, these
remarks appear to have been expressions of opinion, free from threats
or promises, and therefore privileged. Moreover, although an •anti-
union petition was circulated among the Respondents' employees at
some time in July 1946, there is no convincing evidence to warrant
the Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondents promoted and spon-
sored it. The petition was prepared and circulated by non-supervisory
employees, and, except for the fact that one shift foreman, Floyd Sears,
signed the petition, there is no direct evidence that the Respondents
or any supervisors knew of the activities of these employees or partic-
ipated in them.4 We note, too, that the Respondents had not interfered
with the organizational activities of the Union except by Schultis'
statement to Farson, referred to above ; that one of their foremen,
Henry Kaufman, had been active in behalf of the Union ; and that
the Respondents had recognized and entered into contractual relations
-%vith it. Under these special circumstances, we do not believe that the
employees could reasonably have regarded the Respondents' failure
to reprimand the employees who took part in the preparation and
circulation of the petition, Sears' signing it, or the Respondents' fail-
ure to make an affirmative disavowal of responsibility for it, as show-
ing that the Respondents promoted and sponsored it.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondents
were justified in discharging employee Forest Meddles because of his
misconduct at a meeting in General Manager Hoopes' office on June
10, 1946; we do not agree with his further finding that they were jus-
tified in also discharging employees Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley
Meddles, either because of their own conduct at that meeting or on
the ground that they were chargeable for Forest Meddles' misconduct.
8 Misspelled "Shultis" in the Intermediate Report.
' Sears admitted that he had signed the petition, after finding it on the work bench, and
that he "might " have discussed it with some of the employees However , he denied that
he requested or ordered anyone to sign it, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1109
As set forth in detail in the Intermediate Report, on June 10, 1946,
Wesley and Forest Meddles, the latter a member of the Union's shop
committee, filed grievances with the committee because of the Respond-
ents' failure to recall them to work after a strike, and then went with
Farson and Smallwood, the other -members of the committee, to
Hoopes' office to discuss the matter with him. Although the meeting
had not been arranged in advance, and was not held at a time regularly
scheduled for such discussions, Hoopes permitted the employees to
enter the office, and accepted the grievances from Farson, the chair-
man of the committee. Farson then began a discussion of the matter,
during which Hoopes asked the employees to leave the office, saying
that the grievances would be considered later. The employees, how-
ever, disregarded the request, and an argument ensued between
Hoopes and Forest Meddles regarding the latter's own grievance.
During the course of this argument, Meddles became very angry, and
finally made what Hoopes justifiably considered to be a physical attack
on himself. At this point, Hoopes again asked the employees to leave
the office, and they did so. On the following day, all four employees
were discharged because of the events at the conference.
On these facts it is clear, as the Trial Examiner found, that the
employees, in going to Hoopes' office to discuss grievances, were en-
gaged in a form of concerted activity within the protection of the
Act. Under such circumstances, as we have previously held, em-
ployees must be permitted freedom of expression and action, in order
to make their lawful activities effective.5 We agree with the Trial
Examiner, however, that Forest Meddles' conduct went beyond the
bounds of such permissible action, and afforded justification for his
discharge.
The only misconduct on the part of Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley
Meddles, however, was their failure to comply with Hoopes' request
to leave his office. We do not regard this as sufficient either to justify
their discharge, or, as the Trial Examiner found, to terminate the
protection afforded to their concerted activities by the Act, for the
record shows that Hoopes thereafter discussed the matter in question
with them and thereby indicated his acquiescence in their remaining
in his office. It is true that they were present during Forest Meddles'
subsequent attack on Hoopes. However, they took no part in this at-
tack; nor do we believe that, in accompanying Forest Meddles to the
office, they could reasonably have foreseen it. Under the circum-
stances, therefore, we shall reverse the Trial Examiner's finding as to
Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles. We accordingly find that,
Matter of The Betteher Manufacturing Corporation, 76 N. L. It. B. 526 ; Matter of
Atlantic Towing Company, 75 N L. R B 1169.
798767-49-vol. 78-71
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by discharging Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood, and Wesley
Meddles on June 11, 1946, the Respondents discriminated in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby-discouraging member-
ship in the Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act s
THE REMEDY
We have found that the Respondents, on June 11, 1946, discrimina-
torily discharged employees Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood,
and Wesley Meddles, in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. We
shall therefore order the Respondents to cease and desist from such
conduct. We shall also require them, in order to effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act, to offer these three employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,z
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as
wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date
of the Intermediate Report herein, and during the period from the
date of our Decision and Order herein to the date of the Respondents'
offer of reinstatement," less his net earnings 9 during said periods.
By their action in discriminatorily discharging the three employees
named above, and by Superintendent Schultis' coercive remark to em-
ployee Farson, the Respondents have demonstrated a determination
generally to interfere with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
6 Members Reynolds and Murdock are of the contrary opinion, and agree with the Trial
Examiner that the failure of Farson , Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles to leave Hoopes'
office at the latter 's request , and the responsibility of the members of the committee for the
misconduct of Forest Meddles, afforded the Respondents a justifiable basis for their
discharge.
I In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N. L. R B: 827.
1In accordance with our practice , the period from the date of the Intermediate Report
to the date of the Order herein will be excluded in computing the amount of back pay to
which these individuals may be entitled , because of the Trial Examiner 's recommendation
that the complaint be dismissed as to them Matter of E. R. Ilafelfinger Company, Inc.,
1 N. L. R B 760; Matter of Container Mfg. Co., 75 N. L. R B. 1082.
6 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondents , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity for his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. R. B. 440 . Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS
Act. We shall therefore also order that the Respondents cease and
desist from in any manner violating Section 8 (1) of the Act io
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Union Screw
Products, a partnership, Marysville, Ohio, and their agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists, District 59, or in any other labor organization of their
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their em-
ployees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, of coercing
their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Association
of Machinists, District 59, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining 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 Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood, and Wesley Med-
dles immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood, and
Wesley Meddles for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the Respond-
ents' discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have
earned as wages during the period from June 11, 1946, the date of
the discharges, to May 7, 1947, the date of the Intermediate Report
herein, and during the period from the date of our Decision and Order
ION. L. R. B v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426 ; May Department Stores Co. v.
N. L. R. B ., 326 U . S. 376.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein to the date of the -Respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said periods;
(c) Post at their plant at Marysville, Ohio, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondents or their representative,
be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated Section
8 (1) of the Act except in the respects found above ; that they violated
Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging Forest Meddles ; and that they
violated Section 8 (5) of the Act by increasing the wages of their
employees without consulting the Union and by refusing to bargain
collectively with the Union with respect thereto.
APPENDIX A
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, as amended, 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 INTERNATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 59, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
11 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals , there shall
be inserted, before the words, "A Decision and Order," the words, "A Decree of the United
.States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing."
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1113
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination :
Harold W. Farson
Eugene Smallwood
Wesley Meddles
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union 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.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS, A PARTNERSIhIP,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John A. Hall, for the Board.
Messrs. W. S Hoopes and C. A. Hoopes, of Marysville, Ohio, and Mr. Craig
Carnes, of Cambridge, Ohio, for the respondents.
Mr. Howard Tausch, of Cleveland , Ohio, and Mr. R. W. Beverly , of Marion,
Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge filed on November 15, 1946, by International
Association of Machinists , District 59, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for
the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated December 2,
1946, against Union Screw Products Company, a partnership, Marysville, Ohio,
herein called the respondents . The complaint alleged that the respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint , the amended charge, and a notice of hearing were served upon the
respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the respondents violated Section 8 (1) of the Act ( a) by urging , persuad-
ing, and ordering their employees to withdraw from the Union and to cease sup-
porting the Union, ( b) by ordering their employees to engage in surveillance of
union members and union activities , ( c) by threatening to discharge their em-
ployees because of their union membership and activities, and (d) by deprecating
and vilifying their employees because of their union membership and activities ;
(2) that on or about June 11, 1946, the respondents violated Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act by discharging Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood , Wesley
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meddles, and Forest Meddles, because they were members of the Union and were
active in behalf of the Union, and because the respondents wished to discourage
membership in the Union and activities on behalf of the Union ; and (3) that
on or about July 15, 1946, the respondents violated Section 8 (1) and (5) of the
Act by increasing the wages of their employees within an appropriate bargaining
unit without consulting the Union and refused to bargain collectively with the said
Union and to negotiate in a bona fide manner concerning said conditions of
employment within the meaning of the Act, although at that time, and at all
times thereafter the Union represented a majority of employees in the said
appropriate unit.
In their answer the respondents denied generally their commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from December 19, 1946, to December
21, 1946, inclusive, at Marysville, Ohio, before the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondents,
appearing by counsel, and the Union, appearing by representatives, participated
in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At
the conclusion of the Board's case counsel for the respondents moved to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety. The undersigned denied the motion. This motion
was renewed at the close of the hearing, at which time the undersigned reserved
ruling thereon. The motion is hereby denied in part and granted in part as will
he more fully set forth hereinafter. The undersigned granted, without objection,
a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof in formal
matters. The hearing was closed after oral argument before the undersigned
by counsel for the Board and for respondents. The parties were advised that they
might file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the
undersigned. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with brief in
support thereof has been received by the undersigned from the respondents.
FINDINGS OF FACT 1
The respondent company is a partnership composed of William S. Hoopes, H. B.
Salter and D. W. Morey, having its plant and office at Marysville, Ohio, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of screw machine parts for plumbing fixtures.
The principal raw material used is brass rod.
During the past 12 months the respondents purchased raw materials having a
value in excess of $100,000, all of which was received from points outside the State
of Ohio. During the same period the respondents manufactured products having
a value in excess of $200,000, of which amount more than 5 percent was shipped to
points outside the State of Ohio. The remainder of their finished products were
shipped to the H. B. Salter Manufacturing- Company and associated companies;
50 percent of the finished products of these companies was shipped to points
outside the State of Ohio.
The respondents admit and the undersigned finds that they are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
1 The respondents, as indicated heretofore, have submitted to the undersigned, proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The undersigned hereby rules thereon as follows :
He accepts proposals 2 and 3, and rejects proposal 1 and rejects the proposed conclusion of
law based on proposal 1.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1115
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , District 59, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondents.
III. THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
In December 1945, the Union started its organizational drive among the re-
spondents ' production and maintenance employees . At this time there were
about 25 employees in the plant who were eligible for membership in the Union.
Among the employees who joined the Union and who were active on its behalf
were Harold W. Farson and Eugene Smallwood.
Sometime in January 1946, the parties entered into a consent election agree-
ment to be conducted by the Board's agents among the respondents ' employees
in the following stipulated unit : all production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the respondents at their plant in Marysville, Ohio, excluding office and
clerical employees and all supervisory employees with the authority to hire, pro-
mote, discipline , discharge , or otherwise effect changes in the status of any
employee or effectively recommend such action . In accordance with said agree-
ment the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighth Region, conducted an
election on January 26, 1946, among the employees in the stipulated unit. The
Union was chosen by the employees as their collective bargaining agent in the
election and was certified by the Regional Director on January 30, 1946.
Following the certification of the Union, a committee was chosen to meet with
the respondents for the purpose of negotiating a contract. The committee was
composed of the following employees: Harold W. Farson, chairman, Eugene
Smallwood, and Forest Meddles. The committee met with the respondents on
several occasions but were unable to reach an agreement . As a result a strike
of the employees in the unit was called which closed the plant from April 30,
1946, to June 3, 1946. During the course of the strike the plant was picketed.
Among those picketing the plant were Farson, Smallwood, Wesley Meddles, alld
Forest Meddles. While the strike was in progress the committee continued to
negotiate with the respondents. An agreement was finally reached and embodied
into a written contract, which was signed by the parties on May 29, 1946.
On June 3, 1946, the plant reopened and a majority of the employees were
called back to work. Among those not recalled were Forest Meddles and Wesley
Meddles.
On June 10, 1946, the two Meddles boys met with the respondents' general
manager, William S. Hoopes, and were informed that they were being tempo-
rarily laid off on account of lack of material . They were given separation slips
to that effect. Shortly thereafter they, accompanied by Farson and Smallwood,
members of the shop grievance committee , again met with Hoopes in, his office.
During the course of this meeting an altercation occurred between Hoopes and
Forest Meddles . As a result of this Farson , Smallwood , Wesley Meddles, and
Forest Meddles were discharged by the respondents on the following day allegedly
for insubordination.
On or about July 15, 1946, the respondents granted a wage increase to their
employees in the appropriate unit without formally discussing the matter with
the Union.
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Board in its complaint as amended alleged inter alia that the respondents
interfered with, restrained and coerced their employees in the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act by urging, persuading and ordering their employees to
withdraw from the Union, and to cease supporting the Union, through one Earl
Shultis, a supervisory employee.
In support of this allegation the Board offered the testimony of Beryl Lock-
wood, concerning the circulation of an anti-union petition in the plant during
the month of July 1946.2 According to Lockwood's undenied and credible testi-
mony, he saw Irene Johnson, a fellow employee, come out of the respondents'
office with a piece of paper in her hand which he later identified as the petition
and shortly thereafter saw Maurice De Vore, also a fellow employee, circulating
it among the employees during working hours. He next saw the petition on the
desk of Earl Shultis, the respondents' plant superintendent. At that time it
contained the signatures of 15 or 20 employees and bore the following caption :
We the undersigned employees of the Union Screw Products, do not wish
to be represented by the International Association of Machinists, and hereby
petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an election to
establish the fact that we are a majority of all employees.
Irene Johnson was called by the Board as a witness. On direct examination
she testified that she first saw the petition on her work bench and that she did
not know who placed it there. Later, however, she changed her testimony and
testified that she typed the petition on her own initiative at her home and then
brought it to the plant to be circulated among the employees. Upon further
questioning by counsel for the Board she admitted that she typed it in the
respondents' offices on paper furnished her by Maurice De Vore ; that she did not
ask permission from any supervisor to use the respondents' office and typewriter
for typing the petition ; that it was typed by her during working hours ; that
she did not ask permission from any supervisor to leave her working place; and
that while typing it she was alone in the office. Upon further cross-examination
she testified that she copied the heading on the petition from a piece of paper
given her by Maurice De Vote, which was written in longhand
The respondents contend that the petition was circulated without their knowl-
edge or consent. In support of their contention they offered the testimony of
-Maurice De Vote.
De Vore's version of the incident was that he initiated and sponsored the cir-
culation of the petition after first discussing the idea with several other em-
ployees, among them Ralph Heller 'and Raymond Jordan He denied that he had
discussed the matter with any representative of management. The heading on
the petition was drafted by him without assistance. He then went to Shultis
and asked for permission to use the typewriter in the office, but did not tell him
why he wanted to use it. Shultis granted his request, and he then asked Irene
Johnson to do the typing. Johnson complied with his request, and then turned
the petition over to him. He signed it and started its circulation among the
employees in the plant.
'The record does not show the exact date on which the petition was circulated.
2 Ralph Heller, former foreman on the night shift , was called by the respondents as a
witness and testified that De Vore did not discuss the drafting of the petition with him.
Jordan was not called as a witness by the respondents.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1117
On cross-examination De Vote insisted that the phraseology used in the head-
ing of the petition was his own composition, and that he "writ it" out in longhand
on the paper which he turned over to Johnson to type. He insisted that the
legal cap paper used by him in drafting the petition was secured from the re-
spondents ' offices sometime prior to the circulation of the petition, and that he
kept a supply of it in his tool box at all times for his personal use. After the
petition was circulated among the employees on both shifts, De Vore found
it on his bench. He then took it to Shultis and asked him where he should
send it. Shultis told him that the respondents could not give him any informa-
tion in this regard. He then left it with Shultis, who accepted it.
Shultis was called by the respondents as a witness and did not deny that De Vote
had left the petition with him.
An examination of the petition shows that among those signing it was Floyd
Sears. He was called by the respondents as a witness and testified that at the
time he signed the petition he was foreman on the night shift. The petition was
on his bench when he came to work He read it and signed it and discussed it
with the employees under his supervision who also read it and signed it.
William S Hoopes, partner and general manager of the respondents, testified
that Shultis advised him that the petition had been circulated in the plant and
that it concerned "getting rid of the Union." He further testified that he informed
Shultis that he did not want to see it and at the time reprimanded Shultis for
permitting its circulation in the plant; that he told Shultis to ". .. put it
away someplace. I don't want it"; and that he did not see the petition until
2 or 3 weeks prior to the hearing in the instant case.
The respondents offered no evidence showing that they disavowed responsibility
for its circulation to their employees.
In view of the entire testimony, the undersigned is convinced that the respond-
ents were aware that the anti-union petition was being circulated in the plant
during working hours among the employees in the appropriate unit. Moreover
he is also convinced that the respondents were aware that the petition was typed
in their office during working hours by Irene Johnson. Shultis did not deny
De Vore's testimony that he had granted permission to him to permit Irene Johnson
to use the typewriter. While it is true that there is no direct evidence that
Shultis was aware of the purpose for which Johnson was to use the typewriter,
it is not likely in view of the size' of the plant that the respondents were unaware
of Johnson's presence in its' office, especially in view of her testimony that she
had no stenographic duties Again, De Vore's testimony relative to the drafting
of the heading on the petition does not ring true. He impressed the undersigned
as an unreliable witness. Also, it is not likely, in view of his educational and
industrial background, that he was competent to prepare, without assistance, the
heading of the petition. Accordingly, the undersigned discredits his testimony
in this regard
Viewed in the light of the size of the respondents' plant, Johnson' s conflicting
testimony, the failure of Shultis to reprimand either De Vore or Johnson for
leaving their working places during working hours in order to prepare and
circulate the petition , Sears ' active participation in its circulation in his depart-
ment,' and, finally, the failure of Hoopes as general manager to disavow to the
4It is clear from the testimony adduced at the hearing from numerous witnesses called
by both the Board and the respondents that the iespondents' plant is a one-story building
and so constructed that all departments are visible from any one of them.
5 See Matter of Wessel Co , 26 N L R B. 192 ; Springfield Woolen Mills Co., 41 N. L. R B.
921, 926 ; Elorne Knitting Mills Inc., 43 N L. R B. 1374, Harbison -Walker Refractories
Co., 43 N L R B. 711
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees responsibility for the circulation of the petition, it is a reasonable in-
ference that the respondents promoted and sponsored its circulation among the
employees in the appropriate unit e
The Board also alleged in its complaint that the respondents have interfered
with, restrained and coerced their employees in the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act by ordering their employees to engage in surveillance of
union members and union activities.
In support of this allegation the Board offered the testimony of Henry R.
Kaufman, a former supervisor in the respondents' plant. Kaufman testified
that sometime in December 1945, he met with Hoopes and Shultis in the respond-
ents' office and that in the conversation that followed lie was requested by Shultis
to find out who were the leaders in the Union's organizational drive. He further
testified that during the course of the conversation both Hoopes and Shultis
accused him of actively participating in the Union's organizational drive and
that he was threatened with demotion if this was true ; that he denied the accusa-
tion and was successful in convincing Hoopes of the veracity of his denial but
not Shultis ; that Shultis stated that if the respondents learned who were the
leaders of the Union's organizational drive they would be fired from the plant;
and that Shultis stated it was rumored that Harold Farson and Eugene Small-
wood were the leaders of the Union. On cross-examination Kaufman denied that
he had participated in the Union's organizational drive. However, he admitted
that on several occasions employees left sealed envelopes containing money on
his desk with instructions to turn them over to Eugene Smallwood, a union
committeeman, and that they were later picked up by the latter. He denied that
he had ever solicited any of the employees to join the Union. He further testi-
fied that he did not know who was active on behalf of the Union until after the
Board election on January 26, 1946.
Farson and Smallwood testified on direct examination that they were active
on behalf of the Union from the time the drive started until the election on Janu-
ary 26, 1946, and served as shop committeemen thereafter. They further testified
that they made no effort to conceal their activities from the respondents At the
time the drive occurred there were approximately 25 employees in the plant.
The respondents deny the Board's allegation in this regard, and in support of
their denial offered the testimony of several witnesses who testified that Kaufman
not only solicited their membership in the Union but accepted their initiation
fees as well.
Among those testifying for the respondents in this regard was Afton Bumps.
He testified that Kaufman solicited his membership in the Union and accepted
the money for his initiation fee. Bumps further testified that he was on the
picket line during the strike at the respondents' plant from April 30, 1946, to
June 3, 1946.
Lucile Parker, a witness called by the respondents, also testified that Kaufman
solicited her membership in the Union.
Farson, Smallwood, Bumps and Parker impressed the undersigned as honest
witnesses. Kaufman on the other hand did not so impress him. Accordingly
the undersigned credits the testimony of Farson and Smallwood to the effect
that their activities on behalf of the Union were open and notorious both before
the Board election and subsequent thereto, and he finds that the respondents
" In re failure to effectively disavow acts of supervisory employees , see Matter of Ne-
braska Power Co , 19 N. L R. B. 357 , 365 ; S'chult Trailers , Inc., 28 N. L. R. B. 974 ;
McCleary Timber Co., 37 N. L. R. B. 725, 730 ; McLachlan & Co., Inc ., 45 N. L. R. B. 1113,
1119.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1119
were well aware of their activity at the time of Kaufman's conversation with
Hoopes and Shultis. The undersigned also credits the testimony of Bumps
and Parker that Kaufman solicited their membership in the Union and accepted
the application for membership and initiation fees from Bumps.
The foregoing findings when viewed in the light of the size of the respondents'
plant, the small number of employees therein, the admission of Parson and
Smallwood that they made no effort to conceal their union activities, lead to
the reasonable inference and the undersigned finds that the respondents did not
request Kaufman to engage in surveillance of the union members and their
activities. The undersigned will accordingly recommend that this allegation
in the Board's complaint be dismissed.
The Board further alleged in its complaint that the-respondents by threaten-
ing to discharge their employees because of union membership and activities
interfered with, restrained and coerced their employees in the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
The only testimony offered by the Board in support of this allegation was
that of Henry R. Kaufman, referred to above. As noted herein above William
S. Hoopes, partner and general manager of the respondents, called a meeting
of all the supervisory employees shortly after the Union started its organiza'
tional drive. According to Kaufman the purpose of the meeting was to find
out from him the identity of employees who were active on behalf of the Union
and to interrogate him on his own activities in this regard' He further testified
that during the course of this conversation Shultis said to him that "if the
leaders of the . . . in the organization of the Union were revealed, that they
would be fired from the plant."
As indicated above, the undersigned has found Kaufman to be an unreliable
witness. Hoopes testified that he called the meeting referred to by Kaufman
in his testimony, and that the purpose of the meeting was to caution not only
Kaufman, but the other supervisory employees as well, to remain neutral during
the course of the Union's drive. The undersigned is convinced that Hoopes'
version of what transpired at the meeting is correct. Parson and Smallwood,
the most active union men in the plant, testified that no member of management
either criticized or threatened them because of their union activities, or discussed
the formation of the Union with them. Accordingly, the undersigned discredits
Kaufman's testimony in this regard.
In view of the foregoing and upon the record as a whole the undersigned is
convinced and finds that the Board has failed to establish by substantial evidence
the above allegation in its complaint. Accordingly, he recommends that this
allegation be_ dismissed.
The Board also alleged in its complaint that the respondents by deprecating
and vilifying labor organizations, the Union, its members and organizers, inter-
fered with, restrained and coerced their employees in the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
According to the undenied and credible testimony of Harold Parson, Shultis
on several occasions made disparaging remarks about the Union and labor or-
ganizations in general, both prior to the Board election on January 30, 1946, and
subsequent thereto. An examination' of this testimony shows that Shultis'
remarks concerning labor organizations in general were, for the most part,
made during the period of the C. I. O. strikes in the automobile and steel indus-
* As noted above, Kaufman denied to Hoopes that he had engaged in union activity.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tries, in the early part of 1946. On one occasion he stated to Farson that the
C. I. O. was a bunch of Communists Farson further testified that Shultis had
a, regular habit of provoking arguments with him about unions, religion and
Negroes, while he was at his work in the toolroom . This condition became
intolerable and Parson took the matter up with Hoopes.' He informed Hoopes
of Shultis' proclivity in this regard. Hoopes promised to take the matter up
with Shultis and evidently did because Shultis refrained from this activity for
about a week and during this period did not speak to Farson. Shortly there-
after, however, he renewed this course of conduct and continued it up to the
time of Parson's discharge on June 11, 1946.
Farson further testified that shortly before the election on January 26, 1946,
Shultis said to him that if the Union got into the plant "that he was going to
treat everybody like Goddamn employees" ; that on another occasion Shultis
came into the toolroom while he and Beryl Lockwood were working and said
to Lockwood that the veterans had "nothing to gain whatsoever by union ac-
tivities. If the Union came in they had nothing to gain whatsoever."
As noted above Shultis did not deny the above remarks. Accordingly, the
undersigned credits Parson's testimony in this regard.
According to the credible and undenied testimony of Beryl Lockwood, a G. I.
trainee in the respondents' plant,' Shultis on numerous occasions made dis-
paraging remarks to him about the Union . On one occasion he said to him
that the "International Association of Machinists was a pretty good outfit until
Jack run away with the money, and then he said they weren't any good any
more." Io
As indicated above, Lockwood's testimony in this regard stands undenied in
the record . He impressed the undersigned as an honest and forthright witness ;
accordingly the undersigned credits his testimony in this regard.
Concluding findings
The undersigned has found above that the respondents promoted and sponsored
the circulation of the anti-union petition among their employees in the appro-
priate unit during working hours. The Board and the courts have consistently
held that such conduct constitutes interference with, restraint and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. To elaborate on the effect of such con-
duct on the respondents' employees would merely encumber this report.' Suffice
it to say that the respondents by promoting and sponsoring the petition and
actively participating in its circulation among their employees through their
supervisors, and by their failure to disavow their responsibility for such conduct,
clearly put their stamps of approval upon it. Thus, the respondents imparted
to their employees their hostility towards the Union and their disapproval of
their continued membership therein.
8 This occurred during a conversation between Hoopes and Farson relative to employees
loafing in the toolroom . See infra under the section of this report styled "The discrim-
inatory discharges "
° Lockwood worked in the toolroom with Farson , who was teaching him the trade of tool
making.
11 Shultis had reference to Bill Jack, one of the partners in the famous Jack and Hines
Company in Cleveland, Ohio
It N L R. B v. New Era Die Co., 118 F. (2d) 500 (C. C. A. 3), 19 N. L. R. B 227 ; Roebling
Employees Association, Inc. v. N. L R . B.; N. L. R . B v. John-Roebitngs Sons Company,
120 F. (2d) 289 (C. C. A. 3), 17 N. L. R B 482 ; N. L. R. B. v. Lane Cotton Mills Co., 111
F. (2d) 814 (C. C. A. 5), 9 N. L. R. B. 952.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1121
The undersigned has also found herein above that Earl Shultis, the plant
superintendent, made certain derogatory and coercive remarks to the respondents'
employees regarding the Union during the course of its organizational campaign.
His statement to Farson in the toolroom that if the Union got into the plant,
the employees would be treated like "Goddamn employees" was clearly coercive
in that he could have meant to convey but one thing and that was that if the '
Union was selected by the employees as their bargaining agent, they could expect
to be treated harshly and severely thereafter by the respondents.
In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole the undersigned is con-
vinced and finds that the respondents by promoting and sponsoring the circula-
tion of an anti-union petition among their employees in the appropriate unit,
during working hours, and by the coercive statements of their plant superin-
tendent, Earl Shultis, the respondents have interfered with, restrained and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharges
1. The events leading up to the discharges on June 11, 1946
The events leading up to the discharge of Darold W. Farson, Forest Meddles,
Wesley Meddles and Eugene Smallwood were as follows: As noted above, the
employees in the respondents' plant engaged in an economic strike from April
30 to June 3, 1946. On the latter date the plant reopened and a majority of the
respondents' employees returned to work. June 3 fell on a Monday-and during
the preceding week end the respondents notified all but a few of their employees
to return to work. Among those not called back to work were Forest Meddles,
Wesley Meddles and Mary Jane Chapman 12
On June 10, 1946, Forest Meddles and Wesley Meddles came to the respondent's
plant and had a conference with William S. Hoopes, the respondents' general
manager. According to the credible testimony of the two Meddles boys and
Hoopes, they met on a friendly basis and the conversation which ensued was
without rancor of any kind. During the course of the conversation the Meddles
boys asked Hoopes when they could expect to be called back to work. He told
them that he did not know just when, but it would be at a later date for the reason
that the respondents were short of materials. They then asked him for their
separation slips, and he made them out, stating thereon that they were benig
laid off on account of "lack of materials." They accepted the separation slips
and left Hoopes' office. As they were leaving, Forest Meddles recalled that he
had left some personal belongings in the plant and he asked Hoopes for per-
mission to get them. Hoopes told him that he could and that it was all right
for both of them to go into the plant. When they got inside the plant they went
into the toolroom and had a conversation with Harold W. Farson, chairman
of the Union grievance committee. In the course of the conversation Forest
Meddles was.advised by Farson that among the employees recalled by the re-
spondents was one man who had less seniority than he had. This particular
employee, however, was employed as a helper and not as a machine operator,
which was Meddles' classification. Farson then suggested that they fill out
a grievance form and discuss the matter at once with Hoopes. Smallwood was
then called into the toolroom and all four of them led by Farson proceeded to,
12 Chapman was recalled to work at a later date See infra.
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hoopes ' office . When they arrived in the hall outside of the office Parson opened
the door and stuck his head in and said to Hoopes that they wanted to discuss
some grievances with him. Hoopes permitted the group to come into his office.
According to the testimony of Harold W. Parson, Hoopes sat down at his desk
and he and the others stood up. He asked Hoopes what he intended to do about
certain grievances that he had previously presented to him ; that Hoopes replied
that he did not intend to do anything about them ; u that he then handed to Hoopes
the grievances of Wesley Meddles and Forest Meddles ; and that Hoopes took
them and advised that he would look at them later. Hoopes advised Parson
that he could not take the Meddles boys back at that time for the reason that the
respondents were short of material . Parson then pointed out to Hoopes that
the respondents had called back an employee who had less seniority than Forest
Meddles. Hoopes admitted this and stated that the respondents would permit
Meddles to "bump" this particular employee , but that he would have to take the
pay of a helper, which was the classification of the job that was involved. Med-
dles then spoke up and said that he was hired as an automatic machine operator
and entitled to be paid as such . Hoopes disputed Meddles' statement in this
regard , and an argument between them ensued and culminated in Meddles becom-
ing very angry . While in this mood he went around to the side of the desk
and placed his hand under Hoopes ' chin and jerked his head up , and said to
him, "Bill, don't call me a liar." Hoopes then jumped up and ordered all of
them out of his office . Parson and Smallwood then retprned to their work and
the Meddles boys went home.
The next morning Hoopes called Parson and Smallwood into his office and said
to them that he had "taken too much from you boys in the last few weeks. I
am letting you go." He then gave each of them separation slips which stated
thereon that they were discharged for "insubordination ." H. B. Salter, one of
the partners , was present during this meeting.
The Meddles boys received by mail a few days later similar separation slips
which also stated that they too were being discharged for insubordination.
Parson's version of the meeting in Hoopes ' office on June 10, 1946 , is corrobo-
rated by the testimony of Eugene Smallwood and Forest Meddles.
Hoopes' version of the meeting is substantially the same as that of Parson
and Smallwood , except in certain respects which will be set out in detail
hereinafter.
According to Hoopes , he first met with the Meddles boys on the morning of
June 10, 1946, and had a friendly conversation with them about the work and
gave them their separation slips as requested . He also corroborated their
testimony that he gave them permission to go into the plant to pick up some
personal belongings.
He further testified that shortly thereafter the Meddles boys accompanied
by Parson and Smallwood came into his office without knocking or having made
any previous arrangement to meet with him. Parson was the spokesman for
the group and asked him what he intended to do about certain grievances.
He told him that he could not do anything at that time , but that he would
discuss the matter with him at a later date . He then asked them to leave and
reminded Parson that he had discussed certain grievances with him earlier
in the day and on several occasions the week before ; that he also told him that
'g The grievances referred to, concerning the payment of wages to certain employees who
had not been called back to work after the strike , for the period from the date the strike
,ended to the date they were called back.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1123
as a result of these meetings his work was being neglected ; that Farson ignored
his request to leave and continued arguing about certain grievances, particularly
that of Mary Jane Chapman ; that be again requested Farson and the others
to leave but they refused ; and that it was at this point in the meeting that the
incident involving Forest Meddles occurred.
Hoopes' testimony in regard to his altercation with Forest Meddles is sub-
stantially the same as that of Farson, Smallwood and Forest Meddles.
As indicated above, the testimony of Farson, Smallwood, Forest Meddles and
Hoopes is substantially the same in regard to the incidents that occurred on
June 10, 1946, except as to the manner in which Farson and his group entered
Hoopes' office and the opening statements made by Hoopes and Farson.
As found above, both Farson and Smallwood testified that Hoopes told them
that he would discuss the grievances at a later date. Hoopes' version was that
he not only told them that he would discuss the grievances later but that he
also requested them to leave his office; and that they ignored his request and
Farson continued to aggressively present the grievances. Hoopes' testimony in
this regard is undenied in the record. 14 In view of this and the record as a whole
the undersigned is convinced and finds that the events of June 10, 1946, occurred
in accordance with the testimony of Hoopes.
Hoopes further testified that following the above incident he immediately got
in touch with his partner, H. B. Salter , and told him what had occurred. As a
result of this conference the respondents decided to discharge all who had
participated in the meeting in Hoopes' office.
Hoopes' version of the actual discharge of Farson and Smallwood was as
follows :
Q. As a result of that conference, what did you and Mr. Salter decide
to do?
A. Decided we would have to discharge him. So he met with me at my
office before working hours the next morning. And, of course, the Meddles
boys weren't there, but Farson and Smallwood were. And I called them into
the office and told them that I had done the best I could to get along with
them. And I had put up with some things that I would not have ordinarily
put up with. And I couldn't see any more I could do. That I felt they had
gone too far when they came into my private office without knocking ; re-
fused to leave when I asked them to ; and later one of them came around
and at least I thought tried to assault me. And that I would have to let
them go.
Trial Examiner SHAW. Let us hear some more testimony on that.
The WITNESS On what?
Trial Examiner SHAW. You say one of them tried to assault you. Let us
hear some more testimony on it.
Q. (By Mr. Carnes.) Well, what were you referring to when you said
that?
A. I am referring to the fact that Forest Meddles turned very red. He
was very angry. He was shaking all over, he was so mad. And he picked
up this contract and shook it under my face, and actually hit my face, I
think I had to push it out of the way. And I asked him to take it out of
my face.
14 Counsel for the Board did not offer any testimony to rebut that of Hoopes in this
regard.
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The individual discharges
Forest Meddles
Forest Meddles was hired by the respondents in October 1945. He worked as a
set-up man and as an operator on a Gridley automatic screw machine.
Meddles joined the Union sometime after the Board election on January 26,
1940 He was appointed a member of the negotiating committee and participated
in its meetings with the respondents in their efforts to negotiate a contract. At
the completion of the negotiations he along with Farson and Smallwood signed
the contract on behalf of the Union. During the course of the strike of the re-
spondents' employees he served on the picket line
As found herein above it was on his behalf that Farson assembled the shop
grievance committee and met with Hoopes on June 10, 1946. Moreover it was
he who precipitated and committed the attack on Hoopes, as a result of which
he was discharged by the respondents for insubordination on June 11, 1946.
While it is true that he along with Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles
were engaged at the time in presenting grievances, he by his impulsive and intem-
perate conduct, clearly went beyond the bounds of the protection provided by the
Act. Such conduct is not condoned by the Act, and an employer is not helpless in
such a situation,16 and may with impunity discipline the offending employee.
Accordingly, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondents did not
discriminate in the discharge of Forest Meddles.
Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles
As heretofore found, Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles along with Forest
Meddles, participated in the meeting with Hoopes on June 10, 1946. Farson was
chairman of the shop grievance committee and Smallwood was the other member
in the plant. Wesley Meddles at the time was temporarily laid off on account of
lack of materials, having been given his separation slip a short time before.
As indicated above, the respondents in their answer denied that the above em-
ployees were discharged because of their membership in and/or activities on
behalf of the Union, but that they were discharged for their disrespectful attitude
and conduct and refusal to comply with the reasonable orders of the respondents'
general manager. Also found above, the reason given for their discharge on their
separation slips was insubordination.
During the course of the hearing the respondents offered testimony purporting
to show that in addition to insubordination, there existed other grounds which
justified their discharge. The undersigned has considered and weighed all of
this testimony, and is convinced upon the record as a whole that none of the inci-
dents occurring prior to the meeting in Hoopes' office on June 10, 1946, now relied
upon as partial justification for the discharge, were actually motivating causes
of the said discharge. For this reason, and for reasons which will be apparent
hereinafter, the undersigned makes no detailed findings as to respondents' conten-
tions in this respect.
Harold W. Farson was hired by the respondents as a tool maker in November
1945, and worked as such continuously until he was discharged on June 11, 1946,
except for the time lost by reason of the strike from April 30 to June 3, 1946.
"See Matter of Prosper Brazen, individually and d/b/a B. B. Crystal Company, 70
N. L R. B. 985.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1125
Farson joined the Union shortly after it started its organizational drive. His
activities on behalf of the Union were well known to the respondents. He openly
solicited applications for membership in the Union from his fellow workers, acted
as an observer at the Board election, and was chairman of the shop committee.
During the course of the strike he regularly served on the picket line. In addition
he was a member of the committee that negotiated a contract with the re-
spondents .l° After the plant reopened on June 3, 1946, he served as chairman of
the shop grievance committee."
Farson testified that he never was criticized by either Hoopes or Shultis about
his work, but on the contrary had been complimented by Hoopes on its quality.
His testimony in this regard is undenied in the record.
As heretofore found, Farson was the spokesman for the group who met with
Hoopes on June 10, 1946.
Also, as found, Farson was the chairman of the shop grievance committee at
the time of his discharge on June 11, 1946. According to his credible and undenied
testimony, he met with Hoopes on several occasions after the plant reopened on
June 3, 1946, for the purpose of discussing various grievances. He was instructed
by Hoopes to report all grievances immediately after they were brought to his
attention as chairman of the shop committee
Eugene Smallwood
According to the credible and undenied testimony of Eugene Smallwood, he was
hired by the respondents in July of 1945, as a machine operator. When he first
went to work the plant was on a 10-hour day basis. At that time his health was
bad and after working a short time, he was forced to quit on account of the long
hours When he returned to the plant for his check he had a conference with
Hoopes who persuaded him to come back to work and arranged it so that he would
work but 8 hours per day. He accepted this arrangement and thereafter worked
continuously for the respondents until his discharge on June 11, 1946.
Smallwood joined the Union shortly after it started its organizational drive,
and was active on its behalf until his discharge on June 11, 1946. He openly
solicited applications for membership in the Union In addition he was on the
contract negotiating committee with Farson and Forest Meddles. During the
strike lie served on the picket line. After the strike he was a member of the shop
grievance committee that was headed by Farson.
As indicated above, Smallwood participated in the meeting with Hoopes on June
10, 1946, and was present when the incident involving Forest Meddles and Hoopes
occurred.18
"The other members of the committee were Smallwood and Forest Meddles.
17 Eugene Smallwood was the other member of this committee
IF After the close of the hearing the respondents filed with the undersigned a stipulation
signed by all the parties which provided that a copy of a formal decision by the State of
Ohio , Board of Review Bureau of Unemployment Compensation , in re the claim of Eugene
Wesley Smallwood , Appeals Docket No. 49126 , 16587-REF-46 , be marked as respondents'
exhibit No . 6 and admitted in evidence . The undersigned by order dated March 27, 1947,
admitted it in evidence.
An examination of said exhibit shows that the Ohio Board of Review rejected Small-
wood 's appeal from the administrator ' s finding that he was discharged for just cause in
connection with his work, in that he was an aggressor and a participant in the unprovoked
assault on Hoopes on the moaning of June 10 , 1946, and was therefore not entitled to
maximum benefits under the Ohio Unemployment Insurance Laws
The undersigned has considered the above and is of the opinion that the finding of the
Ohio Board of Review is not controlling here. See N L. R. B .'v. Hearst Publications, Inc.,
322 U S . 111 at page 123
798767-49-vol. 78-72
11
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the morning of June 11 , 1946, he along with Farson was called into Hoopes'
office and at that time was discharged . The reason for his discharge as stated on
his separation slip was insubordination.
Smallwood 's version of the meeting with Hoopes the morning he and Farson
were discharged is substantially the same as that of Farson and Hoopes . Hoopes'
version, however , is more detailed and his testimony in this regard was as follows :
Q. (By Mr . Carnes. ) Returning to the conversation that you had with
Farson and Smallwood on the day that they were discharged , did Mr . Farson
and Mr. Smallwood have anything to say?
A. Gene Smallwood said, "Well , what did I say ?" I said , "Gene, you came
in here with these other fellows. You refused to leave when I asked you to.
None of you would leave. And you stood around and participated in what
happened . As far as I am concerned you are as guilty as the fellow that
actually did it."
Q. And what did Farson say , if anything?
A. Farson asked me if I knew what I was doing. I told him I thought
I did.
Wesley Meddles
Wesley Meddles was hired by the respondents on December 6, 1945, as a ma-
chine operator and worked as such until the strike on April 30 , 1946. When the
plant reopened on June 3, 1946 , he was not called back to work by the respondents.
As heretofore found above he and Forest Meddles called upon Hoopes, the re-
spondents ' general manager , on the morning of June 10 , 1946, and at that time
be was advised that he would be called back to work as soon as the respondents
received some material . During the course of this meeting he was given his
separation shp which stated thereon that he was being laid off on account of
"lack of materials ." Shortly thereafter on the same day, he along with Farson,
Smallwood and Forest Meddles again met with Hoopes and he was present at
the time the altercation occurred between Hoopes and Forest Meddles, which
has been described hereinabove . Within the next day or two he received another
separation slip from the respondents which stated that he had been discharged
for "insubordination."
As noted above , Meddles was present at the meeting of the Union committee
and Hoopes in the latter ' s office on June 10, 1946 . According to the undenied
and creditable testimony of Farson and Smallwood neither Wesley Meddles nor
Smallwood said anything during the course of the meeting.
At the time of the hearing Wesley Meddles was working as a turret lathe
operator for the Bellefontaine National Brass Company in Bellefontaine, Ohio.
This plant is owned and operated by H B. Salter , one of the partners , and C. A.
Hoopes, the father of William S . Hoopes, partner and general manager of the
respondents.
3. The contract
As indicated above, the respondents and the Union entered into contractual
relations on May 29, 1940. The members of the Union committee who negotiated
the contract with the respondents and who signed it on behalf of the Union
were: Harold W . Farson, Forest Meddles and Eugene Smallwood.
According to the creditable evidence , the parties met without rancor during
the period of negotiation and parted amicably after an agreement was reached
and formally executed.
11
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1127
According to the terms of the contract, grievances were to be handled in a more
or less informal manner. The contract in this regard provided as follows:
ARTICLE V
Shop Committee and Grievances:
(a) There shall be established a committee of three members, two from
the day shift and one from the night shift. This committee shall be recog-
nized as the authority for taking up suggestions and grievances with the
Company, and exercising such further rights and powers as are specifically
given to it by the terms of this agreement. (b) The personnel of the Shop
Committee shall be certified by the Union in writing to the Company as being
duly accredited members constituting such Committee, and in like manner
the Company shall be advised from time to time as changes in the member-
ship of such Committee shall be effected. (c) The employees covered by
this agreement and the Company agree to put forth earnest efforts to adjust
all misunderstandings and grievances that may arise from time to time, as
speedily as possible, and in harmony with the following procedural steps :
(1) All grievances shall be stated in writing by the aggrieved employee
within forty-eight (48) hours from the date the grievance arose.
(2) The grievance shall be first taken up between the Committee in the
department and the Foreman in charge of that department, who together
shall endeavor immediately to settle the grievance. If within forty-eight
(48) hours no satisfactory settlement is reached, then 1
(3) The grievance shall be submitted by the Shop Committee to the Gen-
eral Manager, who together shall attempt to promptly settle said grievance.
If within forty-eight (48) hours thereafter no satisfactory settlement is
reached, then
(4) Three written copies shall be made of the grievance and presented to
the Company officials by the Shop Committee and the duly accredited repre-
sentative of the Union, who together shall endeavor to settle said grievance
within forty-eight (48) hours unless extension of time is agreed to between
the Company and the Union.
(5) If the grievance cannot be satisfactorily settled in the foregoing
manner, the Conciliation Service of the United States Department of Labor
may be availed of with representatives of the Company, the Shop Committee
and duly accredited representatives of the Union.
(6) It is mutually agreed that there shall be no strike or lockout pending
the operation of the above grievance procedure.
The Company officials will meet with, the Shop Committee at a time
mutually satisfactory to the Company and the Union, for the purpose of
adjusting any grievance which may arise. Meetings shall be held during
working hours and on Company time. All grievance forms are to be fur-
nished by the Company. The regularly scheduled meetings with the Shop
Committee will be Thursday at the last half hour of the day. In the event
there is nothing to take up, making the meeting unnecessary, the Shop Com-
mittee will so inform the Company. [Emphasis supplied.]
4. Concluding findings as regards the discharges of Parson, Smallwood, and
Wesley Meddles
An examination of the respondents' answer, the testimony adduced at the hear-
ing in their behalf, and their brief discloses that in the main they rely on the
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleged insubordination of Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles, that arose
out of the meeting on June 10, 1946, and which culminated in the affray between
Forest Meddles and Hoopes, as justification for the discharges. In effect the
respondent's position in this regard is as stated by Smallwood, who testified with-
out contradiction that Hoopes told him on the morning of his discharge that even
though he did not take an active part in the meeting on June 10, 1946, he was
present and thus was as guilty as those who did participate therein.
The undersigned has found above that this theory of the respondents is ap-
plicable to Forest Meddles, and has recommended the dismissal of the Board's
allegation in its complaint as to him. The question remains, however, whether
the theory of the respondents as stated hereinabove, is applicable to Parson,
Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles.
As found, Farson was the chairman of the shop committee ; the other member
was Smallwood. Wesley Meddles was a temporarily laid off employee, and
as such had filed a grievance with the shop committee as regards his tenure of
employment. It was on account of the latter that be accompanied Farson and
Smallwood to Hoopes' office. The record is also clear that the grievance machin-
ery as provided for in the contract and as mutually modified by the parties, had
great latitude and the meetings between Farson and Hoopes prior to June 10,
1946, had been informal, and at times that were convenient to both. In view
of this background it is clear that Farson went to Hoopes' office on the morning
of June 10, 1946, with Smallwood and the Meddles boys, with eN cry reason to be-
lieve that Hoopes would discuss their grievances at that time. The undersigned
has found above that Farson opened the door to Hoopes' office, stuck his head in
and asked for permission to discuss with him the grievances involved herein and
that Hoopes invited him in. The undersigned has also found above that follow-
ing the entrance of Farson and the others into Hoopes' office, and Parson's state-
ment to Hoopes of the purpose of the meeting, that Hoopes told him that he did
not care to discuss the grievances at that time, suggested a later date, and re-
quested that they leave his office. Farson, however, ignored Hoopes' request and
continued to present the Union's position as regards not only the grievances of
the Meddles boys, but others as well, and Hoopes then actively participated in the
conversation.
It is in the light of this background that the issues involved herein must be
resolved.
The undersigned is convinced that Parson's action in assembling the committee
and then proceeding to Hoopes' office to discuss the grievances of the DIeddles
boys was protected concerted activity, when viewed in the light of the past
custom of the parties on such matters. It was a protected activity up to and
including their entrance to Hoopes' office. It ceased being a protected activity
however, when Hoopes requested the committee to leave, and suggested that they
discuss the matter at a later date.18
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the altercation between Forest
Meddles and Hoopes arose out of Parson's aggressive action in continuing the
discussion of the grievances after he and those accompanying him had been
requested to leave the respondents' office -by Hoopes. By their refusal to leave
when requested to do so all became participants in the events that followed, and
as such are chargeable for them, including the attack on Hoopes by Forest
Meddles.
"See N L. R B. v. Condenser Corp of America, 22 N. L R B. 347, 128 F. (2d) 67
(C. C. A. 3).
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1129
In view of the foregoing the undersigned is convinced and finds that the re-
spondents were justified in discharging Farson, Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles
on June 11, 1946, for insubordination.20 Accordingly. the undersigned will rec-
ommend that the complaint insofar as it alleges that Harold W. Farson, Eugene
Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles were discriminatorily discharged by the re-
spondents in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be dismissed.
D. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the undersigned finds that all
of the production and maintenance employees employed by the respondents at
their Marysville, Ohio, plant, excluding office and clerical employees and all
supervisors with the authority to hire, promote, and discipline, discharge, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of any employee, or effectively recom-
mend such action, at all times material herein constituted and now constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. The majority
At the hearing in the instant case the parties stipulated that on January 26,
1946, the Regional Director for the Eighth Region conducted a consent election
among the employees in the above-described unit and that a majority of said
employees selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. The Regional Director certified the Union as the bargain-
ing representative for the employees in the above-described unit on January 30,
1946. Shortly thereafter the Union selected a committee to meet with the re-
spondents for the purpose of negotiating a contract. The members of the com-
mittee were Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood, and Forest Meddles. The
International Union was represented by R. W. Beverly, business representative,
of Marion, Ohio. The committee met with representatives of the respondents
on several occasions until April 30, 1946. The parties were unable to reach an
agreement, and on that date the employees in the above-described appropriate
unit went on an economic strike. During the course of the strike the committee
continued to meet with the representatives of management, and on May 29, 1946,
an agreement was reached which culminated in the signing of a written con-
tract by the parties. The committee signed the contract on behalf of the Union.
On Juge 3, 1946, the strike ended and the employees in the above-described unit
returned to work.
The contract, inter alia, had the following provision insofar as the granting
of wage increases is concerned :
ARTICLE IX-WAGES
The wage rates now in force shall be continued subject to the following:
When the average productivity computed on a monthly basis reached fifty
per cent ( 50) there shall be a flat increase of wages of all production em-
20 See Matter of Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, 63 N L. R. B. 1340; Matter of Enid
Cooperative Creamery Association, 63 N. L R B 728; C G. Conn v N L. R. B., 108 F. (2d)
390 (C. C A. 7), 7 N. L. R. B. 337 and 10 N. L. R. -B. 498; N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Main-
tenance Machinery Co., 116 F. (2d) 350 (C C A 7) setting aside 13 N. L. R. B. 338, 315
U. S. 282 reversing 116 F. (2d) 350 with modifications.
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of ten cents (10¢) per hour. For increases above fifty per cent (50%)
there shall be a further proportionate increase in wages of said workers.
When any increase in sales price of Company products shall be put in
effect the Company will immediately notify the Union of such increase and
will enter into a discussion as to whether such increase justifies any increase
in wages.
As found hereinabove, Farson and Smallwood were discharged by the re-
spondents on June 11, 1946. The record is clear that with their discharge the
Union was without a shop committee from that date until July 18, 1946, when
R. W. Beverly, business representative of District Lodge No. 59, of the Union,
which had jurisdiction over the local in the respondents' plant, wrote the re-
spondents as follows :
Please be advised that the Union Committee representing the employees
in your plant at Marysville, Ohio, is composed of the following employees,
Martin Justise, W. B. Lockwood, and Mary Jane Chapman.
There is nothing in the record showing that the Union had perfected formal
organization, other than the appointment of the shop committee at the time the
events hereinafter described occurred.
The Board contends that the respondents by granting the wage increase with-
out consulting with representatives of the Union, did thereby refuse to bargain
collectively with the Union and to negotiate in a bona fide manner concerning
said conditions of employment within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
The respondents allege in their answer that they at no time refused to bargain
with the Union and did nothing contrary to their contract with the Union and
did not increase wages except in compliance with their agreements with the
Union. They further contend in their brief that since Hoopes informed Lock-
-wood, a member of the shop committee, of their proposed action, that this was
sufficient notice to the Union, and in accordance with the terms of the contract.
In July 1946, the respondents granted a 10-cent per hour wage increase to the
employees in the above-described appropriate unit. Shortly before granting the
raise Hoopes told several employees that since the respondents were permitted
to increase the selling price of their finished products, due to the removal of
O. P. A. restrictions, they would, in accordance with their agreement with the
Union, increase the wages of their employees 10 cents per hour.
- Beryl Lockwood was one of the employees contacted by Hoopes. According
.to Lockwood's version of the incident, Hoopes came around to him and advised
him that the respondents were going to grant a wage increase of 10 cents per
hour, and that later on they might be able to grant another 10 cents per hour
raise. He further testified that he did not discuss with Hoopes the proposed
wage increase, either before it was contemplated or subsequent thereto. Accord-
ing to Lockwood he was a member of the shop committee at this time, and had
been so notified by receiving a copy of a letter from Beverly, the business repre-
sentative of the Union, addressed to Hoopes. This letter was dated July 18,
1946 a
Hoopes' version of his conversation with Lockwood about the wage increase
was as follows. He went to Lockwood and informed him that the respondents
were going to increase their prices and that in accordance with their agreement
with the Union they were going to increase the wages of everybody 10 cents per
21 The complaint alleges the wage increase was granted on or about July 15, 1946; how-
ever counsel for the Board offered no substantive evidence showing the actual date of the
increase.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1131
hour; and that he asked Lockwood if this was satisfactory and that Lockwood
said it was. According to Hoopes, this was either in June or July 1946. He
could not recall the exact date.
R. W. Beverly, business agent for the Union, testified without contradiction that
the respondents did not notify him that they were going to increase their prices
or that they contemplated granting a wage increase to their employees.
Hoopes' testimony that he asked Lockwood if the proposed wage increase of
,10 cents per hour was satisfactory, and that Lockwood replied that it was,
stands undenied in the record, unless Lockwood's testimony that there was no
discussion of the proposed wage increase between him and -Hoopes, stands for
a denial. In this state of the record, the undersigned credits Hoopes. Lockwood
testified that he was a member of the shop committee at the time the conversa-
tion with Hoopes occurred, and therefore it is reasonable to infer that the wage
increase was not given on July 15 but at some later date not established by the
Board.
Conclusion
The undersigned has found above that Hoopes informed Beryl Lockwood, a
member of the shop committee, of its contemplated wage increase, and that Lock-
wood approved it.. Thus the question arises, was Hoopes' notification to Lock-
wood of the respondents' contemplated' action sufficient notice to the Union so
that it could reasonably have been expected to approach the respondents on the
question of wages in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Under the terms of the contract the respondents were to notify the Union
when any increase in the sale price of its finished product was to be put into
effect so that the parties could then negotiate on the question of an increase in
wages.
In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole the undersigned is con-
vinced and finds that Hoopes by informing Lockwood of the respondents' con-
templated action in this regard was sufficient notice to the Union and in accord-
ance with the terms of the contract. The respondents were under no duty to
police the contract for the Union and to thus interfere with its internal affairs
by insisting that it send a special committee to meet with them and discuss the
contemplated wage increase. The Board and the Courts have consistently held
that the "act imposes upon the Union the burden of instituting bargaining
negotiations with employers." 22
In view of the foregoing and upon the record as a whole the undersigned con-
cludes and finds that the respondents by granting a wage increase of 10 cents per
hour in July 1946, did not refuse to bargain collectively with the Union and to
.negotiate in a bona fide manner concerning conditions of employment within the
meaning of the Act. Accordingly the undersigned will recommend that this
allegation in the Board's complaint be dismissed. .
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The.activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
22 N L. R. B. v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Company, 306 U. S. 292, 298, 595 S.
Ct. 501, 504, 83 L Ed 660; Reliance Manufacturing Company v. N. L. R. D, 125 F. (2d)
311 (C. C. A. 7), 28 N. L. R. B. 1051; M. H. Ritowoller Co. v. N. L. R. B., 114 F. ( 2d) 432
S. Ct. 436, 15 N. L R. B. 15.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
among the several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action -designed to effectuate the-policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists , District 59, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed hereby recommends that the respondents , Union Screw Products , a part-
nership, Marysville , Ohio, their officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist Interna-
tional Association of Machinists , Local 59, unaffiliated , or any other labor organ-
ization of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities tor 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 undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant in Marysville, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondents,
be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof , and maintained by them for
sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations.
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
the respondents violated Section 8 ( 1) of the Act : ( 1) by ordering their em-
ployees to engage in surveillance of union members and union activities ; and
(2) by threatening to discharge their employees because of their union member-
ship and activities.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS 1133
It is also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondents violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging Forest
Meddles, Harold W. Farson, Eugene Smallwood, and Wesley Meddles, for their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondents violated Section 8 (5) of the Act by refusing'to bargain
collectively with the Union in good faith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondents notify said Regional Director
in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to take
the action aforesaid
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or coun-
sel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25,
1) C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof; and
any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original
and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel
for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy with the Regional Director
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall
be promptly made as required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said
Section 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before' the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
(lays from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
JAMES A. SHAW,
Dated May 7, 1947. Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL 59, or any other
labor organization.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
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 em-
ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization.
UNION SCREW PRODUCTS , A PARTNERSHIP,
Employer.
By --------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------