Weirton Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 1145 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Cases Nos. C-1184 and R-1229.-Decided June 25, 1941
Jurisdiction : steel manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General employer held responsible for: the lawless conduct of special watch-
men ; action of employees in evicting and excluding " outside" union em-
ployees from plant.
Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: engaging in industrial espionage by
utilizing labor spies supplied by an "industrial service company" ; assaults,
beatings, and other acts of intimidation directed against "outside" organizers
by special watchmen employed and paid by employer ; attempts to impress
upon employees "approval of employer-dominated Plan . . . and its condem-
nation of •'outside union" by an "endless stream of propaganda" through
the Bulletin, a semi-monthly publication prepared and published by the
employer and distributed to employees without cost to them
Company-Dopttnated Unions: employer who formed and dominated an Employee
Representation Plan prior to the effective date of the Act by determining
its essential nature, participating in, its administration, and subsidizing it
by large annual payments for operating expenses, by payment of a salary
to the Plan chairman and special monthly salaries to employees' represen-
tatives and by permitting employees to engage in Plan activity on Company
time and property continued to participate in the Plan and to sponsor it
by financial and other means despite some amendment to the Plan and
ostensible withdrawal of financial support therefrom, after the effective date
of Act-employer likewise dominated the "Security League" whose primary
objectives were to forestall outside organizations and to provide a rank and
file membership for the Plan, by acting through officials and other super-
visory employees, employee representatives, and the Plan, the Bulletin, a
Community League, and affiliated banks to cause its formation ; employer
subsidized it by contributions, loans, free advertising, check-off, and dona-
tion of company time and property ; participated in its administration ; aided
it by solicitation; assisted in its demonstration activities, and encouraged
membership therein by numerous acts of interference, restraint, coercion,
and discrimination. -
Discrimination : discriminatory evictions and exclusions of outside union mem-
bers by employees incited, instigated, encouraged, approved, ratified , partici-
pated, and acquiesced in by employer ; discharges of several evicted employees ;
charges of, dismissed as to several employees.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated organizations, ordered; em-
ployer ordered to cease and desist from or assisting others in engaging in
physical acts of violence ; employer ordered to cease and desist from maintain-
ing surveillance of union or employing Any manner of espionage ; reinstate-
ment and back pay awarded.
32N.L R.B.,I'o 179.
1145
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, employees discriminatorily
excluded and ejected from employer's plant are ordered reinstated to their
former or substantially equivalent positions notwithstanding Trial Ex-
aminer's refusal to permit proof that these employees obtained other regular
and substantially equivalent employment.
Where a number of the employees are not familiar with the English
language, notices are ordered posted in the English language as well as
languages familiar to these persons, as specified by the Regional Director.
Definitions
Organization having as its stated purpose support of an Employee Repre-
sentation Plan and opposition to an "outside" organization, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of the Act where it has designated employee
representatives under the Plan as its representatives for collective bargain-
ing; alleges in its various pleadings that it is a labor organization; and
where the employer states in its exceptions that "it has functioned and is
functioning as a labor organization."
Evidence - '
The Board gave no weight to testimony of a certain witness heard by
Trial Examiner in chambers, in so far as it may have been unfavorable to
the employer where the Trial Examiner had excluded an individual whose
presence was desired by the employer.
Remarks expunged by Trial Examiner as obnoxious to him held not
prejudicial where the Trial Examiner used this disciplinary measure spar-
ingly and where nothing suggests that their presence would have added to
the objecting party's case.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed in view of lapse of time since filing
Held: that the conditions upon which the Board granted sunpenas to the
employer as prescribed in Section 21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, are fair as well as designed to prevent obstructive
tactics or other abuse of the Board's subpena power and that it is unneces-
sary to make the conditions expressly applicable to Board agents since the
Board has ample supervisory power to prevent improper conduct on the part
of its employees.
Adjournment of hearing to a different place by second Trial Examiner
held not to have denied employer a fair hearing where: it does not appear
that the second Trial Examiner abu'ed his discretion by transferring the
hearing ; there is no showing that such action prevented employer from
offering a full defense ; and the employer stated that it did not rely upon
any matter which' occurred since this Trial Examiner was designated as
showing that it had been deprived of a fair hearing.
Employer's contention that the Trial Examiner's exclusion of one of its
attorneys from further participation in the hearing was for the purpose
of hampering its defense held without merit, the Board found the exclusion
was proper and that the employer in the absence of this attorney was able
to and did present an exhaustive and complete defense.
Alleged bias of Trial Examiner because of his alleged erroneous rulings
is rejected since it is elementary that error does not of itself convict a man
of bias; further such errors as committed by the Trial Examiner did not
prejudice the objecting party's cause since they were inadvertent and not
ascribable to any animus.
Hearing was not so regulated as materially to impair the effectiveness
of defense despite objection to miscellaneous rulings of the Trial Examiner
in connection with the proper control of counsel, witnesses, and the hearing.
WEIRTON SPEiETL COMPANY 1147
Rulings of the Trial Examiner in regard to permitting and forbidding
leading questions even if assumed to be erroneous held not prejudicial where
there is nothing to suggest that it caused the suppression of information
helpful to the defense or prevented the Board from distinguishing between
credible and incredible testimony.
Mr. Isadore Polier, Mr. Winthrop A. Johns,.Mr. John W. Porter,
Mr. Allen Heald, Mr. William Logan Donnel, Mr. William W.
Stafford, Mr. R. E. Greene, and Mr. David Rein, for the Board.
Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, by Mr. Clyde A. Armstrong,
Mr. John E. Laughlin, Jr., Mr. R. G. Bostwick, Mr. Donald W.
Ebert, Mr. L. J. Kelly, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. Robert M. In-
gram, of O'Hara Township, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. William T. Fahey, of Weirton, W. Va., for the Plan.
Mr. T. F. McKenzie, of Weirton, W. Va., for the Security League.
Mr. Benjamin Sigal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. Lee Pressman and
Mr. Anthony Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the C. W. O. C.
Mr. Aaron Lewittes and Mr. Bliss Daffan, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 6, 1937, the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein
called the S. W. O. C., filed with the Regional Director for the Sixth
Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) a petition alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Weirton Steel Company, Weirton, West Virginia,
herein called the respondent, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat: 449, herein called the Act.
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the S. W. O. C.,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board by the
Regional Director, issued and duly served its complaint, dated July'
31, 1937, against, the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging. in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3), and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Thereafter the S. W. O. C. duly filed
several amended charges and the Board issued and duly served sev-
eral amended complaints.'
The amended complaint alleged in substance (1) that the re-
spondent dominated and interfered with the formation and admin-
1 The complaint as finally amended will hereinafter be called the amended complaint.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
istration of the Weirton Steel Employees Representation Plan,
herein called the Plan, and of the Weirton Steel Employees Security
League and its subsidiary leagues,2 herein jointly called the Security
League, and contributed financial and other support to them; (2)
that the respondent discouraged membership in the S. W. 0. C.
and otlier. labor organizations and encouraged membership in the
Plaxi and the Security League by discrimination in regard to the hire
and tenure of 132 named employees; 3 and (3) that by the above
acts and conduct, by publication of its preference for the Plan and
the Security League and' its hostility toward the S. W. 0. C., by
bribery, threats, loyalty pledges, espionage, lawless acts, and ejec-
tions, and by other, meliiis, the, respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its 'employees* in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of^the Act.
On August 10, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an
investigation of the alleged question concerning representation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to
Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of
the said Rules and Regulations, ordered that the representation and
complaint cases be consolidated.
The respondent filed its answer, dated August 13, 1937, and there-
after it filed several amended answers denying that it had engaged
in the alleged unfair labor practices 4, By rulings, dated August 14,
1937, the Regional Director granted permission to the Plan and to
the Security League to intervene. Thereafter, answers and amended
answers were duly filed on behalf, respectively, of the Plan and of
the Security League.
Pursuant 'to notice, a hearing was held at various times between
August,16, 1937, and January 30, 1939, at New Cumberland, West
Virginia, Steubenville, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Wash-
ington, D. C., before E. G. Smith and James C. Batten, the Trial
Examiners duly designated by the Board. The Board, the rem
spondent, the S. W. 0.. C., the Plan, and the Security League were
2 Weirton Tin Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security Leagiie, herein called the
Tin Mill Unit; Sheet Mill 'Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League, herein called
the Sheet Mill Unit: Strip Steel Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League, herein
called the Strip Steel Unit. Steel Works Unit. Weirton Steel Employees Security League
herein called the Steel Works Unit , and Stubenville Tin Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Em-
ployees Security League, herein called the Steubenville Tin Mill Unit
i The original complaint named 279 such employees By various motions of counsel
for the Boaid, granted by the Trial Examiner, the number thus named was reduced to
122 Seventeen of these are the so-called eirction or exclusion cases discussed in detail
below
4 The answer as finally amended will hereinafter be called the amended answer
WEIRTON SmEEIL COMPANY 1149
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded' all parties.
During the hearing, on July 11, 1938, the Trial Examiner barred
and excluded Clyde A. Armstrong, counsel for the respondent, from
further. participation -in the hearing because' of his defiant, con-
temptuous, and contumacious conduct at the hearing on July 7, 1938.5
By permission of the Board, the respondent and Armstrong filed a
motion in writing in the nature of an appeal from the foregoing
ruling. A hearing upon the motion was duly held before the Board
at Washington, D. C., on July 20, 1938. The Board, the respondent,
and Armstrong were represented by counsel, participated in the hear-
ing, and were afforded an opportunity, to, adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to pre-
sent oral argument. On July 25, 1938, the Board affirmed the Trial
Examiner's ruling on exclusion and ordered that the hearing on the
amended complaint be in recess until August 24, 1938, in' order to
enable the respondent to retain other counsel or otherwise to prepare
to resume the presentation of its defense c
Toward the close of the hearing the respondent, the Security League,
and the Plan moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds
that the evidence did not support the allegations of unfair labor prac-
tices and that they were denied a fair hearing. The Trial Examiner
in effect dismissed 32 named employees from the amended complaint
on the ground that the record did not support the amended complaint
as to them, and reserved ruling on the, remaining portions of the mo-
tions. At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a
motion by the attorney for the Board that the complaint be amended
to conform to the proof adduced during the hearing.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiners made nu-
merous rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iners and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. Except as
noted below, the rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 6, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to 'Article II,
Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, transferred the proceeding to and con-
5 Section 6 (a) of the Act provides that "the Board shall have authority from time
to time to make, amend , and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of the Act ." Article II , Section 31 , of the Board Rules and
Regulations provides that "contemptuous conduct at any hearing before a Trial Examiner
or before the Board shall be ground for exclusion from the hearing "
9 Matter of the Appeal of Weirton Steel Company and Clyde A Armstrong from the
Ruling of the Trial Examiner excluding Mr. Armstrong from further participation in the
hearing, 8 N. L. R. B. 581 The Board pointed out, among other things , that at the time
of Armstrong ' s exclusion by the Trial Examiner the respondent was represented of record
by four counsel other than Armstrong
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinued it before the Board for action pursuant to Section 38 of Article
II of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, and directed that no Intermediate Report be issued,
and that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions, and
Proposed Order be issued.
On July 11, 1940, the Board issued .and served upon all the parties
its Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and
Proposed Order. Thereafter, the respondent, the Plan, the Security
League, and the S. W. O. C. filed exceptions to the proposed findings.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on November 8, 1940.
The respondent and the S. W. O. C. were represented by counsel and
participated in the argument. Thereafter, the Plan and the Security
League filed briefs in lieu of oral argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs, and, save as
the exceptions are consistent 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
1. ALLEGED DENIAL OF A FAIR HEARING
The respondent in its exceptions to the proposed findings and in
oral argument before the Board contends that it was denied a hearing
within the meaning of the Act and within the due process clause of
the United States Constitution. With full cognizance of the gravity
of this contention, which was earnestly urged upon us, we have given
careful consideration to all the grounds specified by the respondent in
support thereof in order to determine its validity. The claims, ad-
vanced with sufficient specificity to warrant discussion, relate to the
Board's practice with respect to subpoenas, the adjournment of the
hearing to Pittsburgh, and the rulings and other action of the first
T rial Examiner, which we shall discuss seriatim.
We are of the opinion that the conditions upon which the Board
granted subpoenas to the respondent are fair as well as designed to
prevent obstructive tactics or other abuse of the Board's subpoena
power.7 It is unnecessary to make the conditions expressly appli-
7 Section 21 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series I, as
amended, read as follows :
Any member of the Board may issue subpenas requiring the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesses and the production of any evidence , including books, records,
correspondence , or documents that relate to any matter under investigation or in
question , before the Board, its member , agent, or agency, conducting the bearing or
investigation . Applications . for the issuance of such subpenas may be filed by any
party, to the proceedings with the • Regional Director , or, during the hearing, with
the Trial Examiner . Such applications shall be timely and shall specify the name
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY - 1151
cable to Board agents since the Board has, ample supervisory power
to prevent improper conduct on, the part of its employees.8 Further,
it in no way appears that the practice pursued with respect to sub-
poenas prevented the respondent from introducing evidence relevant
to the issues herein found against it or otherwise prejudiced its
cause.'
The first Trial Examiner moved the hearing, from Steubenville
to Pittsburgh for some 9 days between, February 28 and March 10,
1938, without objection by any party and under clearly proper cir-
cumstances, and we do not understand the respondent to complain of
this action now. After the second Trial Examiner was designated,
he held the hearing at Washington, D. C., for a few days, and then
upon due notice removed the hearing to Pittsburgh from November
7, 1938, until its close. The respondent objected thereto and now
claims that the Trial Examiner by holding the hearing at Pittsburgh
deprived the respondent of a fair hearing. Adjournment of a hear-
ing to a different place lies within the Trial Examiner's sound dis-
cretion,10 and it does not appear that the Trial Examiner abused
his discretion by transferring the hearing to Pittsburgh. Moreover,
the respondent has not offered to show, and it does not otherwise
appear, that such action prevented the respondent from offering a
full defense. Finally, the respondent, toward the close of the hear-
ing, stated that it did "not rely upon any matters which have oc-
curred since the, present [second] Trial Examiner was designated"
as showing that it had been deprived of a fair hearing.1' -
of the fitness and the nature of the facts to be proved by him, and must specify
the documents , the production of which is desired , with such particularity as will
,enable them to be identified for purposes of production
During the hearing, the Board authorized the Trial Examiner to grant applications for
subpoenas made by the respondent
"Cf. Bethlehem Steel Company V. N. L. R. B , - F. (2d) - (C. A. D. C.)
9 Cf. The North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass'n. v. N. L. R. B., 109 F. (2d) 76 (C. C. A. 9),
cert. den 310 U S 632
io Cf. National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
Section .10
In the discretion of the Trial Examiner , the hearing may be continued from day
to day, or adjourned to a later date or to a different place, by announcement thereof
at the hearing by the Tiial Examiner, or by other appropriate notice.
"'Respondent's counsel stated :
This motion is a motion to dismiss the complaint. .
Two grounds are specified . . .
The second ground I would like to comment upon very briefly because of our respect
for your position.
The second ground specified in the motion to dismiss is that the record in the above
entitled pioceedmgs shows that the respondent has been denied a fair and impartial
bearing. ,
With respect to this ground , I think the counsel for the respondent, -and the
respondent itself, in justice to you as Trial Examiner , should state that the respond-
ent, in connection with this ground, does „not rely upon any matters which have
occurred since the present Trial Examiner was, designated, and the matters to which
it relates so far as , the record is concerned , relate, solely to transactions occurring
prior to that date. ,
1152 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent earnestly contends that the first Trial Examiner
deprived it of a lair hearing and insists in this connection that he
interfered directly and' indirectly with its effort "to meet the issues
in the case.", We have carefully examined the respondent's position
in this regard and have come to the conclusion that under all the
circumstances of the case, the respondent has not suffered prejudice
and thatit has received a hearing comporting with the requirements
of the Act and of, due process.' Although we do not believe that
the respondent was denied the required hearing, we do not mean to
imply that we consider the conduct of the hearing by the first Trial
Examiner as entirely satisfactory or that we approve all his rulings.
We decide only that upon the* entire record the respondent has not
been deprived of the essentials of a fair hearing. We turn now to
a' brief discussion of specific contentions made by the respondent and
of circumstances which lead us to believe that the respondent has not
suffered prejudice.
-The respondent complains of the length of the record and the
expense in connection therewith. Inconvenience and expense are;
however; unfortunate but 'necessary incidents of all litigation.1'
The respondent was not put to expense for the purpose of harassing
it. , The length, and complexity, of the record did not in fact deprive
the respondent of making a full defense; the record attests, rather,
to the:completeness thereof. -
In large part the hearing dealt with the respondent's alleged un-
lawful discrimination against some 115 individuals- and the re-
spondent relies heavily, on alleged erroneous rulings with respect to
this part of the case. But the proposed findings and our decision
herein dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent
discriminated against these 115 persons, and such alleged errors of
the first Trial Examiner'were therefore not prejudicial.
The remainder of the case, in which we make findings adverse to
the respondent, involves alleged discriminatory treatment of 17 em-
ployees, domination of the Plan and the Security League, and other
specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. Such findings
rest in large part upon undisputed evidence 14 Indeed, if we relied
only on such evidence we would still be compelled to find that the
respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
12 Cf. Myers v . Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41.
13 See footnote 3, above
''' E. g., stipulations : statements under oath of Ernest T Weir, chairman of the board
of directors of, National Steel Corporation which owns and controls the respondent, of
J. C: Williamson , late president of the respondent , of other company officials, and of
persons favorable to the Plan , the Security League, the Weir-Cove Community Security
League, herein called the Community League, and the respondent ; other undenied testi-
mony ; 'Plan, Security League, and Community League documents ; and publications of the
respondent.
WETRPON STEEL COMPAATfY 1153
of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. The issues. -with respect -'to
which we make findings adverse to the respondent were fully liti-
gated. We believe that the respondent has had a genuine oppor-
tunity to contest these issues and that our findings of unfair labor
practices are predicated on a full picture of the situation.15
The respondent asserts that the, Trial Examiner admitted irrel-
evant, remote hearsay, and otherwise far-fetched evidence offered by
Board counsel but did, not allow its counsel a similar privilege.
Such error, if committed, was not prejudicial, since the Board has
not considered evidence of this character in making its-decision.
The respondent complains also of the Trial Examiner's rulings
in regard to permitting and forbidding leading questions. If we
assume that one or more of these rulings was erroneous, we are of
the opinion, nevertheless, that such error was not prejudicial because
we find nothing to suggest that it caused the suppression of infor-
mation helpful to the respondent or prevented the Board from dis-
tinguishing between credible and incredible testimony.
The respondent contends that the Trial Examiner excluded, evi-
dence relevant to its defense, and in particular that it unduly re-
stricted the respondent's- cross-examination of witnesses. We have
already noted that this contention, if true, is nevertheless immaterial
in so far as it relates to the part of the complaint which we dismiss.
With respect to the issues determined adversely to the respondent,
we are of the opinion that the exclusions complained of were cor-
rectly made, or harmless, or remedied later in the hearing, or directed
to testimony or other matters upon which our ultimate findings-
that the respondent infringed Section 8 (2)' as to the. Plan and the
Security League, Section 8 (3) as to 17 employees; and.Section 8- (1)
by these and other enumerated acts-do not-and need not depend.1,
Similar considerations apply to the scope of, cross-examination per-
mitted to the respondent.17 As regards credibility, we have, of
course, taken into account the nature of the cross-examination al-
lowed, as well as the other factors bearing on credibility, in estimat-
ing the weight to be given to a witness' testimony. '
15 At the oral argument , respondent 's counsel noted that "the record on the subject of
the evictions is very complete" Our findings of discrimination' within Section 8• (3)
concern only these so-called eviction'cases.
19 Thus, for example, where a witness gave testimony as to an alleged incident but was
permitted to and did withhold , over the respondent's objection ,' the identity of 'a person
supposedly involved therein or the record or the contents of a record probative thereof,
no consideration has been given to such testimony The Trial Examiner was of the
opinion in these cases that the undisclosed matter was privileged He made similar
rulings in behalf of witnesses for or favorable to the respondent.
. .
"Thus, for example, where the Trial Examiner merely sustained an objection to , the
form of the respondent's question or on the ground that the respondent should postpone
the question to another stage of the proceeding. '
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent claims that the Trial Examiner's exclusion of
Armstrong, one of the respondent's attorneys, on July 7, 1938, from
further participation in the hearing, was for the purpose of hamper-
ing the respondent's defense. As noted above, we have already found
that the exclusion of Armstrong was proper 18 Moreover, in the ab-
sence of Armstrong from the hearing, the respondent was able to and
did present an exhaustive and competent defense.
The respondent adverts to the fact that the Trial Examiner heard
Daniel Hicks, a witness, in chambers and excluded therefrom his
master mechanic, whose presence was desired by counsel for the re-
spondent. We need not review the circumstances because of and un-
der 'which the Trial Examiner considered it advisable to take this
action, since we have given no weight to the testimony of this witness,
in so far as it may have been unfavorable to the respondent.19 The
respondent protests the Trial Examiner's having expunged certain
remarks, apparently deemed obnoxious by him. The Trial Exam=
iner used this disciplinary measure sparingly. We find nothing to
suggest that the presence of the expunged remarks would have added
to the respondent's case.
The respondent also objects to other miscellaneous rulings in con-
nection with the proper control of counsel, witness, and the hearing;
e. g., the Trial Examiner segregated certain witnesses, allegedly per-
mitted a witness to be flippant and the Board counsel to be hostile
and intimidating to witnesses, instructed a'witness not to discuss his
testimony except with counsel during an over-night continuance. The
number of issues and witnesses made the hearing difficult to moderate.
We 'regret that counsel, witnesses, and bystanders did not always
exercise that self-restraint, courtesy, and good temper which should
characterize a hearing no matter how important the outcome of the
proceeding may be to the immediate parties and the public. They
thereby rendered more difficult the Trial Examiner's task. The Trial
Examiner , however, was courteous to counsel and witnesses, and made
a good-faith effort to conduct the proceeding in an orderly manner.
We are persuaded, further, that the hearing was not so regulated as
materially to impair the effectiveness of the respondent's defense.
The respondent asserts that the Trial Examiner was biased, and
adduces in support thereof his alleged erroneous rulings and his
alleged grant to Board counsel of greater latitude in the examination
and cross-examination of witnesses. It is elementary that error does
18 See footnote 6, supra.
19 Although the Trial Examiner also adjourned the hearing into chambers when Thomas
C. Baillie was on the stand , the Trial Examiner did not exclude therefrom any persons
whose presence was desired by counsel . This action was not prejudicial.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY, 1155
not of itself convict a man of bias. The Trial Examiner did,not
make hostile statements. He refrained from partisan examination
or cross =examination' of witnesses. He heard argument and requested
arid' searched legal. authorities with respect to his rulings. Where
the Trial Examiner committed error, such error was inadvertent and
not ascribable to any animus, and did'not prejudice the respondent's
cause.
The first Trial Examiner retired substantially before the close of
the hearing. He did not prepare an Intermediate Report or other-
wise participate in the determination of the issues. He was succeeded
by a Trial Examiner against Whom no claim of prejudice is made. -
Under both Trial Examiners, the respondent engaged in intensive
and extensive examination and cross-examination and presented a
minutely detailed defense.
In sum, we are of the opinion that, although the taking of evidence
in this case was not at all times regulated in a manner which the Board
deems wise or advisable, its deficiencies are not of such character as
to deprive the respondent of a fair hearing. In view of the con-
siderations hereinabove mentioned, we do not perceive what legitimate
advantage the respondent would derive if we set aside the present
record and ordered that evidence be taken anew. With respect to the
unfair labor practices herein found, the respondent had timely notice
through detailed' charges, complaint and amendments thereto, and
proposed findings;,the respondent made a painstakingly thorough de-
fense through examination and cross-examination of witnesses, sub- -
mission of numerous exhibits, and presentation of argument and
exceptions; and the respondent had the record considered and the
issues determined by the Board, without aid from the Trial Examiner
under attack. Under all the circumstances, the respondent has failed
to show that it was, and we are satisfied that it was not, deprived
of that to which it was entitled, "a hearing in a substantial sense. 1120
The intervenors also contend that they were denied a fair hearing,
but they do not advance any considerations requiring further dis-
cussion.
We find that the respondent and the intervenors were accorded a
hearing which complies with the mandate. of the Act and the Federal
Constitution.
H. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Weirton Steel Company, a Delaware corporation
having its principal office in Wilmington, Delaware, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of semi-finished and finished steel
20 Morgan v. U S, 298 U S. 468, 304 U. S. ], 304 U S.23
44869 2-42-vol 32--74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
products, pig iron, and coke. It is one of the world's largest pro-
ducers of tin plate. This proceeding is concerned with its plants in
Weirton and in Clarksburg,21 West Virginia, and in Steubenville,
Ohio. At these plants the respondent employs more than 10,000
persons.
The respondent admits in its ' answer that a "preponderant por-
tion" of the raw materials used at these plants comes from States
other than West Virginia and Ohio. The respondent's outgoing
shipments are also preponderantly interstate in character. Thus,
in 1936 the Weirton, Clarksburg, and Steubenville plants sold more
than $68,000,000 worth of coke, iron, and steel products, and between
80 and 90 per cent of these products were shipped outside West
Virginia and Ohio. The respondent transported 90 per cent of the
Weirton and Clarksburg plants' output to States other than West
Virginia and 80 per cent of the products manufactured at the Steu-
benville plant outside of Ohio.
III. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, herein
called the Amalgamated, are labor organizations affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization,22 herein called the C. I. O.
They admit to membership employees of the respondent.
Weirton Steel Employees Representation Plan is an unaffiliated
labor organization. 'It admits to membership only employees of
the respondent.
Weirton Steel Employees Security League and its " subsidiary
leagues are unaffiliated organizations admitting to membership only
employees of the respondent and having as their stated purpose
support to the Plan and opposition to the S. W. O. C. The Security
League has designated the employee representatives under the Plan
as its representatives for collective bargaining purposes. We de-
scribe below in further detail the intimate relationship obtaining
between the Plan and the Security League. The, Security League
alleges, in its various pleadings, that it is a labor organization. The
respondent states, in its exceptions, that "Each of the said units [of -
the Security League] has functioned and is functioning as a labor
organization." We find that the Weirton Steel Employees Security
League and its various subsidiary leagues are labor organizations.
21
The Clarksburg plant has not been in operation since the close of 1936.
22 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY
IV.' THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1157
A. In general; the respondent's policy; scope of the unfair labor
practices
Prior to June 1933 23 there was no labor organization at the re-
spondent's plants. In that month the respondent established the
Plan. In subsequent months •the Amalgamated failed to obtain
recognition as the employees' collective bargaining representative.
Thereafter the Amalgamated 'became dormant and the Plan con-
tinued to flourish 24
On June 3, 1936, the C. I. O. and 'the Amalgamated executed an
agreement creating the S. W. 0. C. and, in substance, inaugurating
a campaign to organize the employees of the steel industry, including
those of the respondent, into labor unions affiliated with the C. I. O.
Members of the steel industry, through the American Iron and Steel
Institute, placed themselves in articulate opposition to this cam-
paIgn25 -
The respondent participated in the movement to forestall the
S. W. O. C. The respondent's strategy of direct attacks upon the
C. I. 0. and of diversion of the organizational -energies of its
employees to the company-dominated Plan receives abundant il-
lustration in subsequent sections. This two-fold policy appears, in
epitome, in a letter dated December 28, 1936, from E. T. Weir,
chairman of National Steel Corporation owning and controlling,
the respondent, to John Larkin, chairman of the Plan :
I wish to convey to you and to each of the other 44 men who
were elected to serve as employee representatives for the year 1937
my hearty congratulations on your selection by your fellow
employees at Weirton and Steubenville .for these important
posts of leadership.
23 Events prior to July 5, 1935 , the effective date of the Act , are relevant and material
for purposes of continuity and for the light they cast upon the respondent ' s activities
subsequent to that date . N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U. S. 261 ;
N L. R B. v Pacific Cre` ihotind Lines, Inc., 303 U S. 272; N. L R. B. v Newport News
Shipbuilding it Dry Dock Co , 308 U S 241
24 In U. S. v. Wterton Steel Company , 7 F. Supp 255 , 10 F. Supp 55 (Del. Dist ),
District Judge Nields dismissed a bill for an injunction against the respondent, on the
grounds that'its business did not affect commerce within the meaning of the, National
Industrial Recovery Act, and that its conduct in relation to the Plan did not infringe
Section 7 ( a) thereof.
zs The Board and the courts have reviewed the unfair labor practices of several members
of the steel industry , prior to and also in connection loth the S W. 0. C campaign. See,
for example , N. L. R.'B. v. Jones it Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U S 1, rev'g'83 F (2d)
998 (C. C. A. 5), and • enf'g -1 N. L. R., B. 503; Republic Steel Corp v N. L R B , 107 F.
( 2d) 472 (C C. A. 3), 311 U S 7, enf'g as mod. 9 N. L. R. B. 219; Union Drawn Steel Co.
v. N. L. R. B., 109 F. ( 2d) 587 (C. C. A. 3), enf'g as mod 10 N. L. R B. 868 ; Matter of
Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Crgawizing Committee , etc, 9 N L. R B. 783, set
aside and rem 109 F (2d) 9 (C. C A. 7) ; Bethlehem Steel Co v. N L R B, 120 F (2d)
641 (C A. D. C) enf 'g 14 N L R B 539
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Millsop sent me the tabulation which you gave him show-
ing the percentages of employees who participated in the
election.
It is particularly interesting to note that more than 97
per cent. of the workers who were eligible to participate in
this election actually cast ballots and that of these almost
1,000 were off duty on election day, yet came into the. mills
expressly to vote.
I am sure you will agree with me when I say that this election
is proof that our workers, after a long day-by-day experience
with their representation plan, regard it as a practical and effec-
tive medium for collective bargaining.
This is not hard to understand because this plan, as it is
conducted at Weirton, is an instrument of, by, and for steel
workers, readily adaptable to those conditions which are peculiar
to steel mills and properly understood only by steel men.
I am especially impressed by the results of this election be-
cause it coincides almost identically with results of the election
held at Weirton one year ago and the elections held in almost
all other plants of the steel industry earlier in this year.
Your election, coming as it does after months of propaganda
and high pressure organizing effort emanating from the head-
quarters of the Committee for Industrial Organization, dis-
proves the claim that the employee representation plans are
being destroyed.
Of course I know that none of you employee representatives
are fooled by the professed aims of the CIO. I believe, more-
over, that comparatively few steel workers have been fooled.
They 'know what CIO is after. They know that there is no
issue of wages and hours. They know that the CIO wants to
bring the steel industry under its domination so that' it can
exact tribute from the steel workers, and dictate the terms
under which a man can get and hold a job. '
I believe that steel workers as a whole resent the, fact that
CIO has branded them in the public' eye as a lot of helpless
invertebrates totally incapable of handling their own affairs
and forced to beg for leadership of coal 'miners , and' milliners.
That is rather grotesque in view of 'the fact that in ' the .steel
industry wage rates are nearly 20 per cent higher than in' the
boom year of 1929, and the fact that the number of dollars iii
Christmas pay envelopes approached boom year totals. ' '
The newspapers are full of reports of - strikes and threats of
strikes, in such important industries as automobiles, rubber and
glass. Any shut-down of those industries would throw, millions
WETRTON STEEL COMPANY 1150
out of work and have a paralyzing effect upon the whole country.
These sinister threats are being made just at a time when bus-
iness is getting on its feet', when wages and jobs are increasing
after long years of depression. The real issue involved in these
threats is not better wages and working conditions for employees
but the closed shop which would put workers in the power of a
ring of labor-politicians:
The menace of these strike threats is the only obstacle I see in
the path of continued recovery for the steel industry. Judging
from the practically unanimous participation of Weirton em-
ployees in the recent election there is no doubt in my mind that
they are determined to avoid any interruption of the present
improvement.
I am writing you at length and very frankly because these are
matters that bear on the welfare of every member of our organi-
zation from top to bottom. As the elected leaders of your fellow)
employees, you are custodians of the welfare of those employees,
and this imposes upon you the obligation to fulfill not-only those
duties that arise from within the plant but also to guard' against
dangers that arise from the outside. -
As you prepare to assume your duties for the coming year, I
pledge to you in behalf of the Weirton management the fullest
cooperation with you in your work. Let us look forward to 1937
as a year of increasing prosperity and as one that will continue
and strengthen our present friendly and beneficial relationships.
[Italics supplied.]
The first seven paragraphs of this letter constitute unambiguous
sponsorship of the Plan. The seventh and succeeding paragraphs
defame the C. I. 0., and single out its "sinister threats"-the "real
issue involved in these threats [being] the closed shop which would
put workers in the power of a ring of labor-politicians"-as "the
only obstacle . . . in the path of continued recovery for the steel in-
dustry." The penultimate paragraph places upon the plan leaders,
if they would insure this continued recovery, a dual obligation : "to
fulfill . . . those duties that arise from within the plant" and "to
guard against dangers that arise from the outside."' In view of the
preceding paragraphs, this paragraph obviously invites the leaders of
the Plan "not only" to perform the duties prescribed in the Plan in-
strument 26 "but also" to engage in attacks upon the C. I. 0: The
final paragraph contains the determination of E. T. Weir and the
management with respect to this double obligation : "I pledge to
you in behalf of the Weirton management the fullest cooperation
26
The document establishing the Plan, and its structure and ostensible operation, is
hereinafter referred to as the instrument..
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with you in your work." Thus E. T. Weir, in this communication
to an employee, advocates the Plan, attacks the C. I.`O., exhorts the
leaders of the.Plan to pursue this dual course, and pledges the re-
spondent's collaboration in promoting the Plan and opposing the
C. I. O.
We turn now to a discussion of the ways in which the respondent
pursued its policy of coercion with respect to the fundamental rights
guaranteed in the Act.
B. Espionage
The respondent engaged in industrial espionage through Central
Industrial Service Company.
From March 31, 1934, to May 14, 1937, Central Industrial Service
Company billed Earl Reed of the firm of Thorp, Bostwick, Reed &
Armstrong, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, attorneys for the respond-
ent herein, periodically, for "services rendered." Reed paid Cen-
tral Industrial Service Company the amounts of these bills by check
of National Steel Corporation, and National Steel Corporation
charged the respondent in turn for these amounts.
The invoices rendered by Central Industrial Service Company do
not reveal on their face the nature of the services which Central
Industrial Service Company performed for the respondent, except
that a number of them state that Central Industrial Service Coin-
pany supplied "inspectors." What these persons inspected appears
from the reluctant, unwilling, and evasive testimony of William B.
Groves, vice president of Central Industrial Service Company in
charge of that company's Pittsburgh office.
Groves described the business of his company as follows :
Q. What was the nature of the business?
A. Investigating:
Q. . . . What type of investigation?
A.- What type of business? Investigations of all kinds ex-
cept domestic.
Q. Including labor espionage?
A. I don't feel I can answer that question until I' have had an
opportunity to consult with an attorney.
Groves also gave the following testimony in this connection :
Q. Did anybody ever work for you to report on the activities
of unions?
A. Well, I have had people work for me that may have re-
ported on such activity of unions, yes.
Q. Did you fire them for that?
A. No.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1161
Q. What did you do with their reports?
A. .I don't know what I did with them, probably went to the
client.
Central Industrial Service Company employed circuitous and se-
cretive methods in conducting its business. It paid its operatives
in cash and never by check. It kept no written records identifying
its operatives. Indeed, its only substantial written records were bills.
Groves explained this paucity of record as follows :
Q. Why were those [bills] the only records kept?
A.• Because we didn't care to keep any others.
Q. Why didn't you care to keep any others?
A. Because we didn't want to.
Q. Why didn't you want to?
A. I don't know why we didn't want to.
Q. Was it so that no one could find out from the records what
your business was?
A. Probably.
At the hearing Groves stated that Central Industrial Service Com-
pany furnished inspectors to the respondent for "general investi-
gating work." He was extremely evasive when pressed to reveal
the assignment more specifically. He described the work performed
by his operatives for the respondent in connection with the Wil-
mington trial 27 as follows :
A. . . . he [Reed] employed me to investigate rumors of
agents, and so forth, who were in Weirton and were interviewing
people, and I don't remember the details of it all .. .
Q. Please tell us again so far as you can recall the nature of
that work.
A. As far as I can recall, it was simply checking on different
things. I remember some of it was compensation work. The
other was checking on people who were supposed to be in Steu-
benville and were checking on different employees and so forth.
I don't recall the nature of it.
Q. What were you trying to find out about those employees?
A. We were trying to find out what people were doing. Mr.
Reed told me he had information that they were-that they
were people in Weirton who had gotten rumors were Govern-
ment agents, and other people, and that they were trying to get
,information from these people and a lot of people were giving
them false information, a lot of false rumors, and that was my
job to make a watch for it.
17Sec snp?([ , tontnote 24
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From this testimony, ambiguous as it is, it appears that,Central In-
dustral Service Company was doing more than merely assist the
respondent in the preparation of a defense for the Wilmington trial.
Central Industrial Service Company's operatives, under a commis-
sion to do "general investigating work" for the respondent, were
"checking on different things," "trying to find out what people were
doing."
That preparation of the defense was not the burden of their work
is clear since the same order to do "general investigating work" con•
tinued after the close of the Wilmington trial. Groves testified to
the nature of his work for the respondent following the Wilmington
trial as follows:
Q. Can you tell us in any respect what the observers of the
Central Industrial Service Company were doing in Weirton in
any part of 1936?
A. You mean in detail what they were doing?
Q. Well, what were they observing?
A. I don't remember any of the details of what they were
observing. They were observing whatever they happened to see
or pick up.
Q. Well, do you know that in 1936 an organization called the
S. W. O. C. or the Steel Workers Organizing Committee became
active in organizing in Weirton?
A. I probably read it in the paper. My recollection is that
the papers were full of it.
Q. Were your operatives observing anything with respect to
them in 1936?
A. They were not instructed to. I don't recall whether they
were-reported on any of it or not.
Q. What were they instructed to observe in 1936?
A. They were instructed to observe generally. I said they
were not instructed to observe the S. W. O..C.
Q. What were your men reporting in 1936?
A. I don't remember. [Italics supplied.]
It will be noted that although Groves claimed there were no specific
instructions to observe the S. W. O. C., such instructions were clearly
implied in the order to do "general investigation work" and in the
instructions to operatives "to observe generally." It will be noted
further that the operatives "were observing whatever they happened
to see or pick up." Groves did not deny that this included infor-
mation about union activity. '
We find that Central Industrial Service Company was engaged in
the business of supplying labor spies. We find further that the
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1163
respondent utilized the labor, spies supplied by Central Industrial
Service Company between March 21, 1934, and May 14, 1937, for the
purpose of obtaining information about and for the purpose of
frustrating self-organization of its employees. We predicate these
findings upon the secretive methods of business of Central Industrial
Service' Company; the circuitous character which the respondent
used to employ and pay Central Industrial Service Company; 'the
commission of Central Industrial Service Company to do general
investigating work and to observe generally for the. respondent ;
Groves' admission that his operatives observed "whatever they hap-
pened to see or pick up" during 1936 when the S. W. 0. C. was con=
ducting its steel organizing campaign and when the respondent was
engaged in an aggressive counter drive; Groves' admission that when
his operatives reported on union activity such reports were trans-
mitted ' to the client ; Groves' extreme evasiveness in answering the
questions of the Board's attorney in connection' with the fact that
such evasiveness occurred during a period of strong public reaction
against labor espionage; failure of the record to reveal any probable
alternative explanation as to why the respondent employed operatives
of Central Industrial Service Company; and, finally, upon the fact,
noted below, that the respondent trailed S. W. 0. C. sympathizers
through its own employees.
We find that the respondent, by engaging in labor espionage as
set forth above, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in-the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection.
C. Assault and battery and other harassment of the S. TV. 0. C. by
special watchmen of the respondent during 1936
During the months following the initiation of the S. W. 0. C.
campaign the respondent employed special watchmen, in addition to
its regular police force, ostensibly to guard the plant gates against a
supposed-prospective invasion by the C. I. 0. These special watch-
men were chosen from among the loyal supporters of the Plan and
Security League by the employee representatives and paid for their
services by the respondent. These special watchmen roamed the
streets,'trailed the C. I. 0. sympathizers, and assaulted S. W. 0. C.
organizers. We shall describe a number of these incidents first, and
then discuss the respondent's responsibility for them.
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Koch and Barron-August 31, 1936
Following his discharge from the respondent's employment on
August 3, 1936, Kenneth Koch became, on August 13, a paid organizer
of the S. W. O. C. for the respondent's plants. On or about ' Aug ist
28, because Koch had been followed at night and a rock had been
thrown through the window of his automobile, he selected Steve
Barron, a former employee of the respondent and a local constable, to
act as coorganizer.
On or about August 31 Koch and Barron were distributing copies
of Steel Labor, the S. W. O. C. newspaper. They identified several
persons as trailing them while they were so engaged and as involved
in a brick-throwing incident, described below, which occurred shortly
thereafter. Although some of the persons thus identified denied
participation therein, we are satisfied from the circumstantial and
mutually corroborative accounts given by Koch and Barron and from
the failure of John Kazienko, a special watchman, to deny that he
took part therein, that the following occurred.
As Koch and Barron were distributing Steel Labor, Claude Con-
way an employee representative, head of the special watchmen and
later chairman of the Security League, George Bush, an employee
representative and one of the leaders of the special watchmen, and
Foster, a special watchman, weaved in and out of buildings, follow-
ing Koch and Barron. During a temporary separation of Koch and
Barron, an unidentified man poked Koch in the back and stated that
people get killed for passing out the type of literature Koch was
engaged in distributing. -
Thereafter, Koch and Barron returned to their respective homes.
About 10 minutes after Koch parked his car outside his home, an
unnamed captain of the respondent's police and other persons came
along in an automobile and parked halfway down the street. Sev-
eral minutes later another car driven by Bush passed by and parked
around the corner. Within a short time both, cars disappeared.
Between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening Koch received an anonymous
telephone call threatening to wreck his car that night. Koch tele-
phoned Barron, informed him of the threat, and requested him to
come to Koch's home. Barron did as requested and both watched the
street from the porch of Koch's house.,
They saw Foster drive up and down the street several times. About
1 o'clock in the morning, a light brown or tan sedan, driven by
Virgil Conway, Claude's uncle and a special watchman, and a black
Chevrolet, belonging to Kazienko, drove by Koch's home with their
lights out, and parked nearby. Four men, one of whom Koch was
WE'TRTON STEEL COMPANY 1165
able to identify as Kazienko, approached Koch's car with clubs and
bricks in their hands. They showered it with bricks, breaking the
windows. Some of the bricks landed on the floor of the car. There-
upon Koch threw-three bottles into the street, and yelled, "get them
gang." The men ran to their cars and left,the vicinity. Koch and
Barron followed the light sedan, in Koch's car, to Virgil Conway's
home. Koch and Barron then drove to a street known as Avenue
"H" in Weirton. There they found Kazienko's Chevrolet, parked and
empty. Its radiator was still hot. They returned, to Virgil Con-
way's house. Opposite it they observed a building under construc-
tion. In its construction was used the type of brick which they
found on the floor of Koch's car. Koch and Barron returned home,
without further incident, that night.
2. Riser and Kowalsky-September 2, 1936
Tony Kowalsky became an S. W. O. C. organizer in Steubenville
and Weirton on July 6, 1936. Richard Riser, a former employee of
the respondent, became an organizer for the S. W. O. C. in the
Steubenville district on July 12, 1936. On September 1, 1936, Kowal-
sky and Riser attended a C. I.- O. meeting at Weirton Heights, West
Virginia. At midnight they left the meeting and started for Steuben-
ville, Ohio, in an automobile. At the Fort Steuben Bridge, dividing
West Virginia from Ohio, they were stopped by the police of Holiday's
Cove, a city adjoining Weirton, searched, and brought back to the
police headquarters of Holiday's Cove. They were detained at the
station for about 40 or 45 minutes, purportedly waiti>:ig for the ar-
rival of Homer Smith, a Holiday's Cove police officer. When Smith
arrived he searched the car again, found some pistol and rifle shells
which Kowalsky .used for ground-hog hunting, and also some C. I. O.
literature and application blanks which Smith confiscated. Smith
then stated to them : "We don't need no reds or no organizers- in here,
so you get in that car and get the hell out of town. I will give you
three minutes to get out of the State." 28
The State boundary line, at Fort Steuben Bridge, was about a mile
from the police station. Kowalsky and Riser left the station in order
to proceed on their way over the bridge to Steubenville.
Upon their arrival at the police station there were no cars parked
nearby. When they left, Kowalsky observed a line of cars along the
curb about an eighth of a mile from the police station. These cars
began to trail the automobile in which Riser and Kowalsky were rid-
,, 28 Smith denied that he made these statements or that he confiscated C. I. 0. literature
:nid application caids The testimony- of Kowalsky- and Riser is credible, however, and
ww e reject Smith's denial
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing. What occurred thereafter appears from the following testimony
of Riser : -
I looked back and seen a bunch- of automobiles following us, four
or five of them . So one car pulled around us and headed into the
side walk, and three or four of the fellows jumped out and started
running towards us, and had clubs in their hands . . . I said-to
Tony ?Kowalsky'!, I said, "Turn up this alley here ." - We turned
to the right , and we turned out that street to the right , and the
first alley we come to we turned to the left . We drove down this
alley. We could see these cars then going out the other street.
There was another car cut in the alley ahead , but we beat him to
that alley . So we drove on to the way you come in to the 'inter-
section and , to go to the bridge again , but there is an off street, a
blind street. There was a Chevrolet blocked us there, just about
half, and I seen some of the fellows jump out and I told Tony
to step on it, that we tried to knock their car out of the way.
because I knowed we was trapped . Tony stepped on it, and we
hit the car, and knocked it out of the way to a certain extent, so
that our car would go, would get by.
Thereupon a large tan car plowed , into the organizers' car. They
left it in an effort to escape from their assailants . What happened
to Kowalsky appears from his testimony as follows :
Well, I didn't get very far. The next thing somebody conked
me over the top of the head from the back. I don't know what
lie hit me with , but I went down , "and as I went down it just
seemed like the whole mob jumped on me then. I got up and
they knocked me back down and started beating me up kick-
ing at me.
Well , there was so many kicking they was kicking each other
in the shins around there . They just beat me up. Well, I could
not get up, kept jumping all over me , and finally after I thought,
well-I didn't quite pass out anyway , I heard a whistle blow and
they all beat it as quick as a flash, all , scattered , and as they
scattered I crawled in between two buildings , and on my hands
and knees and I don't know , I think I passed out because it
might have been five minutes or so until I come to, and I began
to wonder where my buddy was at. So I backed down the
street, crawled down, hand after hand, , and-the houses set on the
street on a point there, and I crawled off and on , my, hands and
knees and got down to the highway and I seen my buddy, Dick,
trying to stop A bus coming down the road . When I seen him
I felt pretty good .. .
WE'IRTON STEEL COMPANY 1167
What happened to Riser in the meanwhile appears from his testi-
mony as follows :
I opened the door. When I, stepped out why there was one big
fellow run into me with something in his hand to hit me with.
I throwed up my hand and caught that hand and that is the
last thing I seen for a little bit there. I was knocked down and
and they started to kicking. I did hear one fellow cussing the
other one for kicking him because there was so many kicking
at me they was kicking one another ... They kicked there until
the whistle blowed, and then when the whistle blowed everybody
went and jumped into a car . . . It sounded like one of these
police whistles. And I looked up and the last car I seen leaving
was 9085, a black sedan that we wrecked . . . It was a Chevro-
let . . . So I went there to a house to telephone, and I called
sheriff's office here at New Cumberland. I was told by the
sheriff that there was nobody in that could come to our rescue,
if somebody comes in they would send him down. Well, by that
time there was a policeman that come walking over from a car
parked over on the left hand side of the road . . . He said,
"What's wrong?" and I said, "Well, you ought to ask that ques-
tion." . . . So he said, "You better get out." I said, "I can't
leave until I, find my buddy." That was Tony Kowalsky.
Q. Did the policeman offer to help you at all?
A. No. So I went to look around for Tony, and I couldn't find
him . • . . So I went to telephone again to call for a taxi to
take us to Steubenville. I tried to get to a telephone and the
people wouldn't let me in, said they was afraid ... So this here
fellow at the gas station said to me there will be a bus along in
a few minutes. So I went on looking for Tony, and I seen the
bus coming. I ran out and flagged him, and I was telling the
driver to wait a minute until- I could find my buddy when Tony
come straggling out of the alley all beat up and blood all over
him.
Riser and Kowalsky took the bus to Steubenville and then went by
taxi to a hospital. Riser left the hospital that night. Kowalsky re-
mained several days.
Officer Smith gave the following testimony in connection with the
assault upon Riser and Kowalsky : _
Q. Did you ever make an investigation of an alleged attack on
Tony Kowaisky?
A. When I cane from my lunch at midnight, the man at the
desk informed me that there had been an accident, or a drunken
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fight or something, at Market Street. Well, I went down Wash-
ington to Market, and I looked both up and down; I did not see
anything unusual. I went up Market and back down, and at
the intersection of Second and Twenty-second, near Crago's gas
station, was this same car. It had been wrecked.
Q. Kowalsky's car?
A. Kowalsky's car, and I inquired around of the station boys
there, and some other boys located there, and all the information
I could get, that they thought there was a drunken fight. They
said one fellow got pretty badly beaten up, and had got on the
bus already, and went to Steubenville.
Q. Did you make any further investigation?
A. Shortly after that I got a phone call from the Ohio Valley
Hospital, wanting to know if I had got any report. I told them
that I had. They said that Kowalski was in the hospital and
pretty badly beaten up but his condition was fair.
Q. Did you make any report of that occurrence to Mr. Kerr
(Chief of Police of Holiday's Cove) ?
A. I did. I left a written report on the desk for Mr. Kerr.
Kerr testified that he went to the hospital to interview Kowalsky, but
that Kowalsky would not talk to him.
At the hearing Kerr claimed that he had ordered Kowalsky's arrest
because he had received information that, because of a previous arrest
of Kowalsky, Kowalsky had said in Wheeling, "God be with the next
Holiday's Cove policeman that stops me," and had displayed a
sawed-off, shotgun. Neither Kerr nor any other police officer offered
any explanation for the detention of, Riser. Moreover, with respect
to Kowalsky, it does not appear that the police officers had attempted
to swear out a search warrant against him or a warrant for his arrest.
Furthermore, assuming that Kowalsky was arrested because of his
alleged threat against the Holiday's Cove police, the police officers
did not attempt to explain at the hearing why, after searching his car
and not finding any firearms, they brought Riser and Kowalsky to
the Holiday's Cove police headquarters.
Incredibility of the explanation given by Kerr and Smith for the
arrest of Kowalsky, their failure to explain the arrest of Riser, the
fact that Riser and Kowalsky were detained at police headquarters
for three-quarters of an hour, Smith's anti-union statements to Riser
and Kowalsky at headquarters, the close proximity between their
arrest and the assault upon them, and the inadequate investigation
conducted by the Holiday's Cove police officers, lead to the conclusion
that the Holiday's Cove police officers were acting in collusion with
the assailants of Riser and Kowalsky.
WE'TRTON STE[EQL COMPANY 1169
While neither Kowalsky nor Riser recognized any of their assail-
ants, they observed the license number of the Chevrolet into which
their car had collided. This car was the property of Kazienko, the
special watchman referred to above. Kazienko did not take the stand
to deny that he participated in this assault upon Riser and Kowalsky.
We find, accordingly, that he did so participate.
3. Koch and Barron-September 11, 1936
On September 11, 1936, Koch and Barron made a further effort to
distribute S. W. O. C. literature on the streets of Weirton. During
the morning of that clay Koch and Barron requested Sheriff Tope for
protection while they were engaged in distributing this literature.
Tope claimed that he had "only ... a handful of deputies to patrol
the whole county" but promised, nevertheless, to attempt to have Jack
Coulter, a deputy sheriff, "watch and see what happens" while they
were distributing the literature.
About 3 o'clock that afternoon, during a change in 'shifts, Koch
and Barron stationed themselves about a block or a block and a half
from the gate of the respondent's strip-steel department. They did
not take a post adjoining the plant assertedly because employees were
afraid to be, seen taking 'S. W. O. C. literature. Neither Deputy
Sheriff Coulter nor any other officer of the law was observed in that
vicinity. Shortly after 3 o'clock, a group of men, including Skeets
Kelly, a special watchman, assaulted Koch and Barron.29 The cir-
cumstances of this assault appear from the following testimony of
Koch and Barron :
[Testimony of Koch] We were passing papers out for about 15
minutes, I presume, when three men walked down the street. I
think the three toot a paper, but I wouldn't say for sure. And
three more men followed them about 10 feet apart. I don't
recall whether they all three took a paper or not, but one of them
did take a paper. But previous to this, also a man that had been
following us [Sully Rothstein] was in or around that vicinity,
and he went in and out the stores and beer parlors where-in
the neighborhood of the stores where we were passing out the
papers, and he come right over and looked directly at us . . .
The other three men who went passed, three other men were
about 10 feet apart. There were others in back of them, whether
they were included in this group of men, I don't know, but one
29 Kelly 's companions included Joe Delfiender , Don Mario Pasche, Tony Soldani, Henry
Soldani, and Daniel Lapenna. Koch and Barron subsequently caused the arrest of this
group of persons but the grand jury refused to indict them Neither Kelly nor the others
testified in this proceeding
1 170 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man,30 he took a paper, and the minute he- opened it up, he says,
"What is this ?" and he swung at me and a couple of them
grabbed me by the bottom , around my ankles , and pulled me
down on my knees and drug me for about 25 or 30 feet, and
kicked men and jumped on me.
[Barron's description of what occurred to him after Koch was
hit and thrown to the ground] He [Stube Soldani] made a pass
at me, and he just glanced off the top of my shoulder , and I hit
him in the eye . So when I hit him in the eye, they begin to get
close around me, and I dodged in the shoemaker's shop there.
As soon as I got into the shoemaker 's shop I reached down and
I grabbed a hammer. When I grabbed this hammer , why, this
man by the name of-nickname , Stubl, he reached up and he
grabbed the hammer right away in my hand ... There was a
man on each side of my arm pulling on me. One of them was
Kelly, and one was this Delfender , a cousin to Soldani . . .
[Stube Soldani ] started to pulling on the hammer , and finally
he got the hammer away from me. When he did , I start putting
my hand up to block the blows when he was swinging the ham-
mer at me. He -hit me several times on the finger tips, but never
seemed to catch lne on the arm any place because I was trying to
block the hammer as best I. could. And then there was a crowd
of people crowded around outside , and when they crowded
around outside , why, these men run out.
Following the assault , Koch and Barron got into their automobile
to drive to Steubenville for medical attention . As they passed the
gate of the respondent 's strip-steel department , they observed Kelly
and their other assailants drive, through it into the respondent's
plant.
4. Koch and Barron-October 14, 1936
In a further effort to distribute S. W. O. C. literature, Koch con-
ferred with the West Virginia State Police on October 14, 1936,
and requested protection. The State Police referred him to Sheriff
Tope. Accordingly, Koch informed Tope that he was going to
distribute papers from house to house and requested protection
while engaged in such activity. Tope again claimed that he was
"short of deputies" but promised to have Joe Platenburg, chief
deputy, accompany Koch.
About 10 minutes before 1'o'clock in the afternoon of October 14,
with Platenburg in the vicinity, Koch and Barron prepared to
distribute the S. W. O. C. papers in a house-to-house campaign.
They did not distribute papers on that occasion, however, because
'"Barron identified this person as one of the Soldanis.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1171
the block in which they were "was practically surrounded" by a
group of men.31 These men- were in two . automobiles which had
followed Koch and Barron . Koch asked Platenburg, "Is this the
kind of protection I am going to get?" Platenburg replied, "I don't
see anyone." As he made this statement, Brown, a special watch-
man, and the others in the two cars "drove right around him." Koch
and Barron returned to Steubenville to consult with attorneys for
the S. W. O. C.
Later in the afternoon of October 14, Koch and Barron attempted
again to distribute union literature from house to house in Weirton.
Deputy Platenburg watched them for awhile and then "disappeared."
They had been distributing papers thus for about 10 minutes when
a group of men including George Brown, William Foster, George
Bush, John Kazienko, and John Mazurowski, special watchmen, at-
tempted to surround them.32 Accordingly, Koch and Barron aban-
doned their distribution of S. W. O. C. papers and took refuge
in Barron's home located nearby. Barron telephoned friends to
assist Koch and himself in the paper distribution and such assistance
arrived shortly after the special watchmen had left the vicinity.
After the special watchmen had left, Deputy Platenburg reappeared
and asked Barron whether he had called for help.
Koch, Barron, and the seven or eight persons who came to assist
them decided not to distribute any further papers that afternoon
but to enlist the aid of more C. I. O. sympathizers and to distribute
papers in the evening. That evening "close to 85 or 90" persons
distributed S. W. 0. C. literature throughout Weirton and there-
after celebrated the occasion with a party "up on the hilltop." At
the close of the celebration, Koch, Barron , and William Hayes, an
employee, drove home in Koch's automobile. They were followed
part of the way by a group of men in a car which came from the
road leading to the respondent's industrial relations building. This
road was on company property.
5. Koch and Barron sisters-October 16, 1936
The Democratic Club a local political organization, arranged a
card party to be held in the evening of October 16, 1936, at Weirton
Heights. Koch, his wife, Barron, and Barron's two sisters, Helen
and Candila Barron, decided to attend the party. About 7:30 that
evening Koch drove his wife and Barron to Weirton Heights, let
them out of the car, and then returned to pick up Helen and Candila
Barron. Koch noticed upon his way to the Barron residence that
' The only person specifically identified by Koch was George Brown, a special watchman.
Brown did not testify.
' Of these persons, only Foster and Bush testified . They denied that they followed
C. I. O. organizers , but the credible evidence requires rejection of such denials.
445692-42-vol. 32-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he was being followed by a grey sedan car. He recognized as one
of the occupants therein Foster,33 a special watchman. This grey
sedan started to follow Koch at the point where, on October 14, a
car had started to follow Koch, Barron, and Hayes; that is, at a
place near the respondent's industrial relations building on a com-
pany road. Koch entered the Barron residence without molesta-
tion. While completing their toilet, one of the Barron sisters tele-
phoned Emma Young, another Barron sister, and" arranged for
Koch and the Barron sisters to meet her at the old post office in
Weirton within 10 minutes. This post office building is "practically
across the street" from the hospital and industrial relations building
of the respondent. Koch drove the Barron sisters to the post office
to meet Young. As he parked, and before the occupants of the car
got out, three cars hemmed his car in, so that he could not drive
away. One car, the grey one which had followed Koch earlier that
evening, pulled in front of Koch, a second parked at his side, and
the third at the back. Men armed with clubs and bricks were
hanging on the running boards of these cars. What happened there-
after appears from the following testimony of Koch and the Barron
sisters :
[Koch's testimony] I seen I didn't have no time to get out of
the car so I reached over and locked the doors. The minute
all the men got out they commenced throwing rocks and bricks
and broke every window in the car. One of them tried to take
one of the Barron girls out of the car.' I reached over and
grabbed his hand and by that time somebody had black-jacked
me...
[Helen Barron's testimony] They hit Kenny [Koch] on
the head until he was dazed. And I asked them in God's name
to stop beating him over the head, and threw up my arms over
his head to protect him, and they beat me on my hand from
my thumb, my arm was black and blue from my thumb to
.my elbow.
[Candila Barron's testimony] . . . Then they dragged him
[Koch] out of the car .. .
[Koch's testimony] They blackjacked me on the head four or
five times and split my head open. I was unconscious, I imagine,
for several minutes and what brought me to I do not know, but all
at once I felt somebody kicking me in the side of the feet, and
then I heard one of the girls yelling ... ,
[After Koch was dragged out of the car and while he was being
beaten, as above described, the following occurred to the Barron
33 Ibid.
WETRTON 'STEEL COMPANY 1173
sisters. Candila Barron's testimony] And I got out of my side
of the car and when I stepped) on the running board some man
says. "Get out of the way, lady," and he pushed me in the chest.
And I called him something and I waded into him. I wasn't going
to let him beat me up. And I tore his shirt off, and he had a
jacket on and a shirt, and I tore his jacket off, and when I tore
his jacket off, why, his pocket book fell out ... I kept tearing
on his clothes. That is about all I could do. And he kept punch-
ing me in the back and twisting my arm. He broke my wrist
watch and he fought a little bit, too.
[Helen Barron's testimony] And then they jerked me out of
the car, and I got out of the car on'the other side and run around
to the back of the car. Big Mazie [Mazurowski] had my sister
and was punching her in the back. As I went around I saw
something drop from his pocket, which I picked up. And I went
over again and asked him [sic] to leave Kenny alone and stop
beating him, and one fellow reached out over Kenny and struck
me right under the left eye, kind of cut my eye open a little. And
I began to scream for help. And I was heard about two blocks
away, although the police station was half a block and • they
didn't hear it ... the Weirton police station. And then I
fainted.
Following these events the assailants ran away, Helen regained con-
sciousness, Helen announced that she had picked up the pocketbook of
the man who had been beating Candila, and Helen and Candila walked
over to Koch. Blood was streaming from Koch's head. The Barron
sisters helped Koch to his legs. He was "still kind of dazed." They
tied a handkerchief around Koch's head and proceeded in Koch's car
to Weirton Heights. When they arrived there, Barron came to the
side of the car and, seeing that the car had been smashed, asked what
had happened. Koch replied, then fainted. Barron had Koch taken
to the hospital in Steubenville. His head was stitched. He then went
home and remained there for several days.
Helen and Can'dila also received medical treatment because of the-
injuries received in the assault. Candila had accompanied Koch to
the hospital and was escorted home from there by her "boy friend."
When this person arrived home, he received an anonymous telephone
call "that if he didn't stop running around with me [Candila] they
would beat him up, too."
It will be recalled that Candila's assailant dropped his pocketbook.
The victims of the assault identified this person as Mazurowski, a spe-
cial watchman, and the contents of his pocketbook, introduced into
evidence, corroborate this identification. Mazurowski did not testify.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The victims also identified as among their assailants Claude Conway
and Harry Long, special watchmen. Long did not testify. Although
Conway denied that he engaged in assaults, we do not credit his denial
because of the credible, circumstantially detailed, and mutually cor-
roborative testimony of Koch and the Barron sisters concerning the
assault; the undenied participation therein of Mazurowski and Long,
special watchmen; the undisputed fact that Claude Conway was one
of the head special watchmen; and other credible testimony in the
record showing that Claude Conway and other special watchmen were
involved in other instances of harassment of C. I. 0. organizers and
sympathizers. 34
6. Koch-miscellaneous
The respondent's special watchmen constantly harassed Koch after
he became an organizer for the S. W. 0. C. on August 13,1936. Thus,
we find from credible and, in part, undenied testimony that in addi-
tion to the above-mentioned instances of shadowing by special watch-
men, Koch was trailed on various occasions on and after August 13,
1936, by one or more special watchmen, including Claude and Virgil
Conway, George Bush, William Foster, Tom Rector, Benjamin Cos-
tello, Joe Figurski, Walter Rogowski, Julius Nagy, John Mazurowski,
Paul Popp, and George Brown 3-' and by other special watchmen or by
persons acting in association with them. 36
7., Concluding findings
The respondent employed and paid the special watchmen.
Through the Plan, which, as noted below, it dominated, the respond-
ent selected and controlled them. The respondent was engaged in
a campaign of coercion against the C. I. 0., the special watchmen
were appointed during this campaign, and they participated in it.
Special watchmen were created pursuant to the Plan's suggestion,
"The Barron sisters testified that they also recognized George Bush , one of the special
watchmen, as among their assailants Bush denied this testimony and testified that he
was at home playing cards with Owen L. Greer, an employee, on October 16 during the
period when the assault occurred . Greer and others corroborated Bush's testimony in
this respect. We do not find it necessary to resolve this conflict.
The Grand Jury of Hancock County, West Virginia , on January 14, 1937, returned an
indictment against Claude and Virgil Conway, Joseph Delfrinda , George Bush, John
Kazienko, John Mazurka , and Harry Long, upon the charge of an alleged assault and
battery upon Kenneth Koch alleged to have occurred on October 16, 1936. Thereafter,
pursuant to agreement of the interested parties, this indictment , along with an indictment
against certain C. I. O. sympathizers , was dismissed.
85 Rector , Figurski , Rogowski , Nagy, Mazurowski , and Brown did not testify.
80 Daniel Lapenna, Don Mario Pasche, Henry Soldani, and Tony Soldani . These persons
did not testify.
WETRTON STEEL COMPANY 1175
following an alleged rumor "about outsiders coming in and shutting
the mill down" and talk "about the C. I. O. organizing." At this
time the respondent was condemning the C. I. O. affiliates on various
grounds, including the charge that they were "outsiders." The re-
spondent's policy was to instigate the Plan leaders, in the words of
Weir, to "guard against dangers that arise from the outside."
Clearly, the respondent incited and instigated the above-described
lawless conduct of its special watchmen. Such conduct is therefore
attributable to it.37 Besides, the special watchmen were agents of
the ,respondent, binding it with respect to these "'acts. Moreover,
under the circumstances disclosed by this record, we are of the opin-
ion that the respondent, directly and through the Plan, created these
special watchmen for the express purpose of terrorizing its em-
ployees. There can be no doubt that the respondent, directly and
through the Plan, approved and ratified the special watchmen's
intimidation.
Thus, the respondent continued the system of special watchmen
despite their coercive tactics. Upon their arrest pursuant to com-
plaints of C. I. O. sympathizers victimized by them, the Plan engaged
counsel to defend them. E. G. Walsh, chief of the respondent's
regular police force, executed bonds on their behalf in connection
with their arrests. The counsel fees came from the treasury of the
Plan, at a time when the respondent supplied all or almost all of
its income. The respondent continued to sponsor the Plan and to
attack the C. I.' O. Indeed, Weir sent his above-quoted letter to
Larkin shortly after the occurrence of the assaults hereinabove
described.
The respondent claims by testimony that the special watchmen
were supposed to remain at the plant gates during shift changes to
allay the employees' fears that the C. I. O. would physically invade
the plants. In view of the circumstances already set forth, however,
we find that the respondent must be held responsible for the above-
described acts by the special watchmen.
We find that the respondent, by the above-described assaults, beat-
ings, and other acts of intimidation, engaged in by its special watch-
men and by persons associated with them, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
'i' Clover Fork Coal Co. v. N . L. R. B., 97 F. ( 2d) 331 (C. C. A. 6).
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. Coercive statements; and th e Com'mu'nity League
1. In general ; the Bulletin
The respondent , by an endless stream of propaganda, impressed
upon the employees its approval of the Plan, the Security League,
and the Community League, and its condemnation of the C. I. O.
This propaganda began with the formation of the Plan .3$ It con-
tinued during the hearing in the present proceeding .39 The Weirton
Steel Employees Bulletin, herein called the Bulletin, was an impor-
tant instrument in this campaign . The respondent began this semi-
monthly publication in April 1934 . Between 1934 and 1937, inclu-
sive, the respondent expended more than $70,000 upon it. It is
prepared and published by the respondent 's industrial relations de-
partment . Its editor, J. B. Meagher , is an employee therein, and
the respondent distributes the Bulletin to the employees without cost
to them.
2. Bulletin material in support of the Plan, prior to 1937 4e
a. Early communications
The Bulletin issued on June 1, 1934,, carried on its first page a
letter from the respondent's president, J. C. Williams, lauding the
Plan and assuring the employees that it was a "permanent institu-
tion." The letter follows :
To All Employees Of The Weirton Steel Company :
The Employees' Representation Plan is a permanent institu-
tion in the Weirton Steel Company. I believe in it, Earnest
Weir believes in it, and so does every Director of our Company.
This plan is not in force for the duration of the NRA, but is a
permanent institution. It has done a great deal of good in
improving 'working conditions and also in giving the man-
agement of the company, who are somewhat removed from the
daily contact with the employees, a better idea of the aims and
aspirations of all our employees.
It is absolutely necessary that every manager, 'superintendent
and foreman make an elaborate study of the Representation
Plan so as to make this plan function smoothly and efficiently
and secure the greatest cooperation possible between all the
employees of the Weirton Steel Company, whether they be man-
agers, superintendents, mechanics or laborers.
38 See infra, pp. 51-52.
89 See infra, pp. 45-46.
AU Further Bulieton material in support of the Plan , prior to and during 1937, appears
in subsequent sections.
WETRTON SPEMFML COMPANA 1177
Above all, this Representation Plan is a permanent proposi-
tion and we expect as time goes along that with more experience
it will function even better in the future than it is functioning
or has functioned in the past.
On June 15 , 1934, the Bulletin published , on its first page, the
following appeal for a "united front" in support of the Plan :
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES,
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY,
Weirton, W. Va., June 14, 1934.
Fellow Employees :
The amended By-Laws of the Employee Representation Plan
have been completed and are now being distributed to all em-
ployees of the Weirton Steel Company. The General Rules
Committee has been working continuously on these By-Laws in
order that the revised booklet would fully cover the Plan of
Employee Representation as now operating.
Each employee is urged to study the revised by -laws care-
fully and don't hesitate to question your Representatives, if any
points are not clearly understood . We believe our Plan is one
of the broadest and is more workable than any other Plans of
Representation developed in other industries up to this time.
Our Plan meets every requirement of Section 7 (a) of the NRA
and' makes it possible for any employee to get quick action on
any real grievance which might arise.
The important thing for every employee to understand is that
we have the machinery to get quick results without the loss of
wages and without paying out any money to outsiders who know
nothing about our problems . If any employee fails to benefit by
our Plan of Representation , it will be because he hasn't taken the
trouble to find out how the Plan operates.
A poll has been taken covering 10,261 employees working at
Weirton and Steubenville which showed that 9,801 employees
(95.5%) will work in case an attempt is made to cause any
trouble. Your representatives are pledged to protect this large
majority of our loyal employees and everything right up to nor-
mal in order that there will be no loss of wages at this time when
everyone of us needs all the dollars he can earn.
We urge every employee of the Weirton Steel Company to
work with the Representatives and with a united front we have
no fear for the future.
For The Employees ' Representatives,
J. LARKIN,
General Chairman.
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This issue also contains an editorial cartoon headed "A `Big Five'
Combination That Can't Be Beat !" and bearing the legend "It isn't
always the huskiest team that wins the tug-of-war. Brains, team-
work and the will to win means victory in any undertaking!!"*
The cartoon depicts a crowd cheering a team of five men engaged in
a tug-of-war. The five men represent "managers-superintendents-
foremen-representatives-employees."
The issue of November 15, 1934, carries on its first page the head-
line "Employees' Representatives Will Soon Complete Year Of Use-
ful Service-Many benefits gained in 1934." The article appearing
thereunder takes up two columns of the first page and runs over to
the seventh page. Its theme is "the concrete facts regarding" the
achievements of the Plan during its first year of existence. These
benefits are described under the following headings: "The Recreation
Committee Has a Number of Lasting Achievements"; "572 Cases
Were Handled by Representatives in Current Year"; "Attachments";
"Section 7 (a) of the NRA"; "You Have a Right to Expect Action
From Your Representative."
A substantial part of the Bulletin 'for December 15, 1934, deals
with the Plan elections of that month. The banner headline of the
first page proclaims "ALL RECORDS BROKEN IN ELECTION OF EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1935." Under it is the further headline "9,858
Employees Voted-98% of 10,065 Eligible Voters." These headlines
introduce an article, starting on page 1 and continuing on page 3,
which is devoted to proving that "an almost unbeatable record vote
was cast." ^ The final paragraph recapitulates the number of griev-
ances handled by the employee representatives during the year 1934
and concludes as follows :
A difficult year requiring many adjustments will soon end but
an important new year is about to begin and with the same kind
of cooperation in 1935 as has been shown throughout 1934, we
are headed for new records and greater accomplishments.
Page 1 also contains in box form the names of the employee repre-
sentatives elected for the year 1935, and page 3 gives their pictures.
The cartoon in this issue depicts a beacon light on the shore, close
to a series of waves. The cartoon is headed "No Rocks Along This
Shore ! ! !" and carries the further, legend, "The Big `Comber' Just
Keep A Rollin Along." The beacon is named "Industrial America"
and the light which it emits symbolizes a "Square Deal." The top-
most wave in the cartoon,'the "comber," symbolizes "employee's rep-
resentation." The accompanying editorial praises the Plan and calls
WEIRTON 1rEEIL COMPANY 1179
upon the employees as "one big happy family" to "pull together" in
support of the Plan :
The high water mark set in the regular election for Employee
Representatives last week has never been equalled, so far as
known, in any other of the larger industries of this country.
This unusual record would not have been made if the Repre-
sentatives elected a year ago had fallen down on the job and not
performed their duties in the best interest of those who elected
them. Weirton Steel Employee Representatives have just been
given the greatest vote of confidence ever accorded. It goes
without saying that none of the men elected to serve their fellow
employees during 1935 will hold this trust lightly. An Employee
Representative not only has his regular job to take care of but in
addition devotes many hours to the development of such things
as will make life happier and more worth, the living for his fellow
workers and their families. Better understandings have been
established during the past year and as time goes on the problems
of management will be better understood by employees in gen-
eral through the medium of their Representatives. We are all
working together in one big family with the same common in-
terests and if we all pull together, nothing can stop us.
The January 1, 1935, issue of the Bulletin contains on its first page
a photograph of Jack Larkin; general chairman of the Plan, and
under it a letter from him to the employees thanking them for his
reelection as general chairman and continuing in part as follows :
During the past year and a half the Representatives have had
many difficult matters to handle, but without complaint as to
the extra hours it has taken to make the necessary adjustments,
your Representatives have worked along together and have made
our Plan of Collective Bargaining a great success. There were
10,065 employees eligible to vote in the annual election last month
and when 90 per cent of these eligible turned out to vote, no
one can say that your Representatives haven't been doing a
satisfactory job.
Page 1 of this issue has as its main headline "EMP oYEEs REPRE-
SENTATIVES HoLD ANNUAL CONFERENCE." Under this headline is an
article recounting the outcome of the elections at the annual con-
ference in- which the employee representatives select persons from
among them to serve on the various committees of the Plan. Page 1
contains the names of the newly elected committeemen and page 3
contains their photographs.
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The February 1, 1935, issue runs an article on the first and eighth
pages. Its theme is the large number of grievances handled success-
fully by the Plan during the year 1934.
b. Further communications in connection with Plan elections
As indicated below, when the respondent instituted the Plan in
June 1933, it made careful arrangements to insure a large turn-out for
the election of employee representatives. The Bulletin issue imme-
diately preceding the 1934 elections sought to accomplish a similar
purpose by giving prominent attention to the Plan and its achieve-
ments, and the issue immediately following these elections capitalized
upon the almost complete participation of the employees in the bal-
loting. By using the fallacious argument that their participation
proved that they did so voluntarily, the respondent, of course, in-
creased the pressure upon them to enter and remain within the Plan
fold. That the respondent continued to use this technique to com-
bat the C. I. 0. appears from E. T. Weir's above-quoted letter com-
menting upon the 1936 elections and from the issues of the Bulletin
immediately preceding and following the 1935 and 1936 elections.
Before the 1935 elections.-The issue, dated November 15, 1935,
carried a long article by Larkin, under the heading, "Employees' Rep-
resentatives Will Finish Successful Year of Service Next Month."
The following issue, released on December 1, 1935, appeared with the
banner headline, "Elect Employee Representatives December 9 &
13," with the subheadline, "All Employees on Payroll 60 Days Be-'
fore 9th Have Vote in Election," and with an article, concerning the
forthcoming Plan elections. Its editorial encouraged the employees
to participate in the balloting:
Every employee who is eligible to vote in the Annual Election
for Employee Representatives next week, will have a chance to
express himself by secret ballot. When the ballots are all counted
it will be found that some of the boys have been reelected while
others might be outdistanced by one of their fellow workers.
But from the experience of the past, there will be no hard feel-
ings and the successful candidates will take up their responsi-
bilities as Representatives with wishes of "the best of luck" from
those who preceded them. The record of things accomplished to
date is something that cannot be denied and is generally ap-
preciated by many employees who have been benefited. Any
employee who is entitled to vote but does not take the trouble to
go to the polls, will have no kick coming if things don't go the
way he thinks they should. Next week's election will be entirely
in the hands of the voters and may the best man "cheat the
mourners."
WETRTON, STEEL COMPANY 1181
After the 1936 elections.-The Bulletin of December 15, 1935, is de-
voted in large part to the then recently held Plan elections. The ban-
ner headline of the first page proclaims " EMPLoYEEs ' VOTE SETS NEW
Tops' IN ELECTION FOR 1936 REPRESENTATIVES." This is followed by the
further headline "11,159 Employees Cast Ballots-99.19% of 11,250
Eligible Voters." Under these headlines appears an article which con-
tinues on the fourth page. Page 1 also carries the names of the newly
elected representatives and page 3 reprints their photographs.
The Bulletin of January 3, 1936, carries on its first and third pages
the story of the "Annual 'Conference of the entire body of Employees'
Representatives," including the names of the committeemen elected at
this conference. Page 1 reprints a photograph of Larkin. Page 3
reprints photographs of the newly elected committeemen. It also car-
ries a letter from; Larkin to the employees similar in character to that
printed in the Bulletin issue of January 1, 1935.
The Bulletin published on April 17, 1936, carries on its eighth, page
the story of the belated Plan election held at the Steubenville plant.
Before the 1936 elections.-The issue immediately preceding these
elections was headed
EMPLOYEES ' REPRESENTATIVES ' ANNUAL ISSUE
Practically all of the 12 pages of the issue are devoted to the activi-
ties of the Plan. The stated purpose of the issue is "To tell about the
accomplishments of your Representatives during the past year, and
for the benefit of any new employee, the working of the Representation
Plan is explained." The central portion of the first page contains
photographs of the general committee of the Plan, and further photo-
graphs in connection with Plan activity appear on each of the remain-
ing pages. The main article on page 1, which continues on page 6,
describes the wage increase "made possible as a result of the continued
active work of the Employee Representatives." Further stories start-
ing on page 1 and continuing on the back page are introduced by the
following headlines : "REPRESENTATIVES WON BEST VACATION PLAN IN
THE INDUSTRY"; "Many Cases Are Adjusted by the Representatives";
"WEIRTON REPRESENTATION PLAN IS SELF-OPERATING"; "Annual Elec-
tion Will Be Held December 14th & 18th." The other pages of the
issue describe miscellaneous activities of the Plan, including accident
prevention work, athletics; social and cultural gatherings, community
welfare, and philanthropy.
Its editorial cartoon depicts a man supporting a globe and carries
the legend, "The Strong Man of Modern Industrial Progress." The
globe represents "Industry the Basis of Modern Civilization" and the
man supporting it symbolizes the "Employee Representatives." The
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accompanying editorial, characterizing the Plan "as a permanent and
vital part of management," is as follows :
The mere statement that "a thing is true" does not prove it to
be so unless the weight of evidence, through a preponderance of
,undisputed facts, eliminates all arguments to the contrary. No
one can properly question the "preponderance of facts" as re-
corded in this "Annual Issue" of the Bulletin, proving by
"weight of evi dence" that Employees and Community alike have
profited greaty through the efforts and services of the elected
Employee Representatives of the Weirton Steel Company. It is
unfortunate that there are always a few who, through the desire
for personal gain, try to misrepresent and distort real facts,
stopping at nothing to gain their own selfish ends. But such
tactics never get very far without being uncovered and brought
out into the open, to be assigned to the "scrap pile" where they
properly belong. In these modern times, nothing can long sur-
vive unless it has merit and will stand up against the severest
kind of "acid test." The Plan of Employee Representation at
Weirton has kept in step with the times and has gained in
strength through worthwhile accomplishments. From the very
outset the Weirton Plan has operated on the basis of "the
greatest good for the greatest numbers." There is no "lost
motion" or endless "red tape" in the process of "collective bar-
gaining" under the Representative Plan at Weirton. Two years
ago a Federal Judge was called upon, for the first time in the
industrial history of this country, to hear the facts and pass
judgment on the Weirton Plan of Employee Representation.
The, "Opinion of the Court" in this important matter was filed
in February, 1935, and stands as a conclusive record which can-
not be set aside. In this Opinion the Court states : "Production
in quantity and quality with consequent wages, salaries and
dividends, depends upon a sympathetic cooperation of manage-
ment and workmen. A relation acceptable and satisfactory to
both workmen and management is an essential feature of the
enterprise. It is said that this relation involves the problem
of the economic balance of the power of Labor against the power
of Capital. The theory of a balance of power or a balancing
of opposing powers is based upon the assumption of an in-
evitable anal necessary diversity of interest. This is a traditional
Old World theory, it is not-the Twentieth Century American
Theory of that relation as dependent upon mutual interest,
understanding and good will. This modern theory is embodied
in the Weirton Plan of Employee Organization. By a clear
preponderance of evidence this Court finds that the Plan of
Employee Representation in effect among the employees of the
Weirton Steel Company, affords a lawful and effective organ-
ization of the employees for collective bargaining through Rep-
resentatives of their own choosing; that in all respects it is
directly operated and controlled by the employees themselves
and is not dominated or controlled by the Company or its agents
and that in all respects the Plan is satisfactory to the great
WETR .TON STEEL COMPANY 1183
majority of the Company's Employees." The conclusion of law,
as so clearly stated by the Court, after hearing scores of wit-
nesses well qualified to give the'facts, leaves nothing to be said.
The greater abundance we have enjoyed in America, through
forward steps which have marked the advances of our modern
civilization, could not be possible without progress enlightened
industry, the very foundation of which is STEEL ! Behind all
this is enlightened, intelligent, cooperative management which
today embody the successful functioning of Employees' Repre-
sentatives as a permanent and vital part of management, so well
demonstrated in the WEIRTON PLAN OF EMPLOYEE REPRESEN-
TATION !
After the 1936 elections.-The December 23, 1936, issue of the
Bulletin is headed "Election Issue." As with the previous issues
following elections, this issue of the Bulletin makes much of the almost
complete "turnout" to vote in the Plan elections. In addition, it car-
ries the names and photographs of newly elected employee repre-
sentatives. Page 1 carries a series of photographs under the heading,
"Scenes in Election of Employees' Representatives," and page 10 car-
ries a photograph under the heading, "Election of Representatives
Keeps Voting Booths Filled."
It reprints a cartoon which appeared in the December 15, 1935,
issue of the Bulletin. The cartoon compares the growth of the Plan
to that of a rolling snowball leaving in its path "better understand-
ing" between "American workmen" and "American employers."
Above the cartoon appears the legend "AND STILL GOING STRONGER."
The accompanying editorial is as follows :
Another milestone in the history of the Weirton Plan of Em-
ployee Representation was reached a few days ago when prac-
tically every employee eligible to vote, participated in the annual
election of Employees' Representatives. No form of employee
representation could have a more definite or significant "stamp
of approval" than the active support given voluntarily to the
Weirton Plan this week by virtually a unanimous participation
upon the part of Weirton steel employees. Behind this thor-
ough endorsement stand the votes of those who realize efficient
means are at their disposal through the Representation Plan for
satisfactory adjustments. The "record" of the employees' repre-
sentatives during 1936, which was printed in the last issue of the
BULLETIN, described many of these adjustments. When the 45
newly-elected Representatives, many of whom served during the
present year, take office, they will find a "legacy of achievement"
that has been passed on to them as a result of efforts of Repre-
sentatives who acted during the present year.
1184 DECISIONS OP' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With few words, the BULLETIN 'S Cartoonist hit the bulls-eye
with a cartoon which is reprinted on this page from the Decem-
ber 15, 1935, issue of the BULLETIN. Through the work of the
Representatives, "the widening path" of "better understanding"
between men and management has steadily widened. Better
wages, steadier employment, better working conditions, etc. are
being achieved as the Weirton Plan of Employee Representa-
tion has rolled on like the inimitable "snowball getting bigger
and better with every turn."
3. Bulletin material in support of the Security League, during 1937 41
The Security League was formed during 1936 under circumstances
which we describe below. During 1937 the five subsidiary leagues
of the Security League, known as units and corresponding with the
main sections of the Plan and of the respondent's plants, were estab-
lished.42 The Bulletin supported the Security League and its units
through extensive publicity.
Thus, the Bulletin of April 2, 1937, carried on its first page the
headline
MEMBERSHIP CARDS ARE ISSUED BY TIN_ MILL UNIT, SECURITY LEAGUE
followed by the subheadline, "Employee-Sponsored Organization In-
cludes Women's Auxiliary; Headquarters in Rex Hall"; and followed
by an article, which ran over to page 6, describing in laudatory terms,
the formation and organizational set-up of the Tin Mill Unit. This
article and a special box on page 6 reprint the pro-Plan, anti-C. I. O.
language appearing on both sides of the membership cards issued.
The Bulletin of July 16, 1937,43 devotes all of page 14 and almost
all of page 15 to the Security League, its purposes, and activities.
Page 15 reprints what purports to be a photostatic copy of a news
article. This news article states that the "position taken by execu-
tives of four independent steel mills against the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization was commended today by the Weirton Steel
Security League through Claude Conway, chairman of its advisory
board," and quotes the following telegram sent by Conway to Re-
11 Further Bulletin material in support of the Security League, prior to and during 1937,
appears in subsequent sections.
"The tip-mill, sheet -pill!, steel -woriis , and strip -steel departments at Weirtop , and the
plant in Steubenville ; see, supra, footnote 2.
4' This issue also contains an article attacking the C. I. 0. as revolutionary and totali-
tarian, and an editorial adopting , and elaborating upon, this attack ; see , infra, p. 37,
et seq.
WEIRTON STE'-FTL COMPANY 1185
public Steel Corporation , Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company,
Inland Steel Company, and Bethlehem Steel Company :
Please accept the sincere congratulations of 9843 members of
the Weirton Steel Employees ' Security - League, consisting of our
Tin Mill, Steel Works, Strip Steel, Sheet Mill and Steubenville
units, to you and your. associates for the fearless and determined
stand taken by you on the attempt by the CIO , through in-
timidation and threats , to have you sign a worthless contract.
We truly thank God that we citizens of the United States
still have men of your calibre that are not afraid to stand up
and fight for their Constitutional rights and will not sell their
employees out to a disreputable organization.
Swing from the ankles and don't pull your punches. We are
behind you to the man.
and quotes the following telegram from Conway to - United States
Senator Rush D. ,Holt :
Please accept the sincere congratulations of 9843 members of
the Weirton Steel Employees ' Security League, consisting of
Tin Mill , Sheet Mill, Steel Works, Strip Steel and Steubenville
units, for the fair and impartial stand you have taken guaran-
teeing Tom Girdler , an American citizen, the right of free speech.
We, as steel men, are supporting Mr. Girdler one hundred
per cent in his stand against signing a worthless contract with
the disreputable CIO.
We thank God that a man of your courage is representing us
in the United States Congress.
Underneath the reprinted photostat appears the following : "The Em-
ployees' Security League, agreeing with the stand taken by the in-
dependent steel companies who. refuse to sign `worthless contracts'
in spite of `intimidation and threats ', forwarded its approval to the
steel companies in a telegram reproduced above, from the Weirton
Times. Their replies appear below ." More than half of page 14
is taken up with reprints of the replies of the four steel companies,
in substance thanking Conway for his telegram and 'endorsing the
sentiments therein expressed.
The rest of page 14 is taken up by • a letter to the editor from the
Security League and its units explaining "What Is the Employees'
Security League? " The Bulletin reprints the letter in full under the
following headings : "A Voluntary Organization"; "Seeks To Build
Up Community"; "Self Supporting"; "'No Paid Organizers."' The
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
letter closes with the request that the Bulletin reprint the various con-
stitutions and bylaws adopted by the different units. The Bulletin
in an editorial note explains that the various constitutions and bylaws
"are similar in essential respects," and then, taking up most of page
15, reprints the constitution and bylaws of the Tin Mill Unit. We
may note here the following reprinted portions of this document :
Preamble
In view of the unrest in the Steel Industry which is being
brought about by the efforts of outside labor organizations to
organize the steel workers, the members of the Weirton Steel
Employees' Security League protest the methods used by organ-
izers and members of labor unions in their efforts to force the
employees of the Weirton Steel Company into an outside
union ... .
Section 2. The object of this League shall be the promotion
and protection of our fellow employees and to promote the gen-
eral welfare of each member of the League and to pledge our
loyalty to our employer. All employees of the Weirton Tin Mill
who accept membership in this League are satisfied with their
present working conditions. The members of this League are
satisfied and will support the Employees' Representative Plan
now in force in our plant and do not want an outside organiza-
tion. We shall unite in open protest against any organization or
body of men who try to force a member of this League into any
sort of an organization against his will or to molest him in any
way in his efforts to earn an honest living.
Security Members Pledge
3. That we ' believe in the Employees' Representative Plan for
Collective bargaining purposes and will vigorously oppose any
and all attempts of the Committee for Industrial Organization
to disturb the present satisfactory conditions under which we are
working at the present time.
In order to retain the affiliation of the employees and to raise funds,
the various units of the Security League sponsored dances, a smoker,
wrestling matches, a picnic, a fish fry, a boat ride, parties, and other
forms of entertainment. The following chart illustrates the kind of
support which the Bulletin gave the Security League in connection
with these activities :
WETRTON STEEL COMPANY 1187
Issue dated Page Approximate space
Photograph or
news item Subject
May 1,1937 2 About half of page____ Photograph -----
6 About a quarter of
page.
Photograph-----
May 7,1937 2 About half of page Photograph -----
July 2,1937 1 Somewhat less than
half a column.
Article ----------
7 Entire page ----------- Photographs ----
July 16,1937 11 About 6" x 3"_________ Photograph -----
Aug. 6,1937 3 2" x 134 ---------------- Article ----------
Aug 20,1937 10 About half of page____ Photograph -_ _ _ _
Sept. 3,1937 2 4, x 4 ------------------ Photographs----
Sept . 17,1937 1 About third of column- Article __________
12 Entire page ----------- Photographs----
Oct 2,1937 1 About half of page____ Photograph_____
1 2;6" x 2-- --------------
Article ----------
7 Three-fourths of page__ Photographs----
Oct 22.1937 17 Almost entire page---- Photographs----
Nov. 5,1937 7 Entire page ----------- Photographs----
Nov. 19,1937 3 Entire page ----------- Photographs _ _ _ _
A meeting of Strip Steel Unit held in the
Colonial Ballroom , Weirton.
Election meeting of the Steel Works Unit
Dance sponsored by the Auxiliary of the
Tin Mill Unit Boxing match at "Se-
curity League Smoker "
Announcement of wrestling match to be
held July 2, 1937, sponsored by Tin
Mill Unit
"Security League Picnic" of the Tin
Mill Unit.
Scene from a wrestling match sponsored
by the Tin Mill Unit.
Announcement of fish fry and boat ride to
be sponsored by Steel Works Unit.
"Thousands of sport fans crowded into
the Weir-Cove athletic field to witness
one of the series of wrestling matches
staged by the Tin Mill Unit of the Em-
ployees' Security League."
Girls' wrestling match sponsored by the
Tin Mill Unit.
Announcement of wrestling match to be
sponsored by the Tin Mill Unit
Party sponsored by the Strip Steel Unit.
Reception and dance sponsored by the
Strip Steel Unit
Notice of wrestling match held and one to
be held under the auspices of the Tin
Mill Unit.
Wrestling match sponsored by the Tin
Mill Unit. The central photograph is
of a sign outside the place in which the
wrestling match was held , known as
the "Arena ." This banner is in part
as follows : "For God-For Home-For
Country. Weirton Steel Employees'
Security League "
"Tin Mill Unit , Security League, enter-
tains foremen" at a party held in their
honor.
"Girls' Auxiliary of the Tin Mill Secu-
rity League Unit sponsor Halloween
party."
Entertainment known as "Family
Night" at the headquarters of the Tin
Mill Unit.
4. Bulletin material in support of the Community League, during
1937
The Weir-Cove Chamber of Commerce formed the Community
League in December 1936 and January 1937 . The Community
League, composed of several commercial organizations and enter-
taining "the firm conviction that our problems are our own and
that we do not need any outside assistance in solving them," de-
clared its purposes in full -page advertisements in The Weirton
Daily Times and in The Herald-Star , a Steubenville newspaper, on
or about January 12, 1937:
THAT WHEREAS during the past few years the nation has been
experiencing a depression causing untold hardships upon its
citizens, and,
448692-42-vol. 32-76
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WirrREAS, at the present time we are well on the road to a re-
covery, the payrolls of our local steel mills beiiig at the highest
point in history, and,
WHEREAS, at the present time in many cities there is labor
trouble resulting in strikes and consequently causing untold
hardships upon the people of the communities affected, and,
WHEREAS, it is apparent by recent demonstrations of the
workingmen in our own local mills that they are perfectly satis-
iiied with conditions existing in our local mills and desire to
avoid all interference from outside labor organizers, now, there-
fore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned organizations that we give
our full and complete support to the Weirton Employees Secu-
rity League in their efforts to keep harmony in the local steel
mills between the Weirton Steel Company officials and their
employees and in their endeavors to assist in maintaining the
high wages now paid the employees, the satisfactory working
conditions existing in the local mills and the friendly relation-
ship now existing between the Weirton Steel Company and its
employees.
The respondent exploited the community pressure thus generated
by the Community League. It adopted, and communicated to the
employees its adoption of, the Community League as an integral
part of its campaign for the Plan and against the C. I. 0.
Thus, shortly after the formation of the Community League and
its full-page advertisements in the Herald-Star and the Weirton
Daily Times, the Bulletin, dated January 15, 1937, carried an edi-
torial cartoon depicting an aerial view of Weirton and Holiday's
Cove, overshadowed by a man in a business suit. The businessman
symbolizes the Community League. He is shown shaking hands
with a worker who represents the Security League. The entire
cartoon carried the legend, " COMBINED TO PROTECT COMMUNITY, HOME
AND JOB." The accompanying editorial described the progress of
the respondent, its employees, and the Weir-Cove communities dur-
ing 1936 . It quoted the remarks of T. E. Millsop, president of the
respondent, at the annual conference of the Plan, to the effect that
this progress was made because everyone in the entire organization
strove for a common goal. It then continued as follows :
As the New Year gets under way, there is every indication that
this unity of purpose will be strengthened and will continue to
flourish here in the Weir-Cove District, where the best interests
of the Community and employee are identical, the Weir-Cove
Security League, composed of Civic, Commercial, Professional
WETRTON STEEL COMPANY 1189
and Fraternal organizations, has combined the full force of its
membership to back the Employees' Security League in the on-
ward march to a successful living free from interruptions by any
group of outside agitators.
The editorial set forth in black type the final paragraph of the above-
quoted resolution of the Community League and concluded as fol-
lows :
With such unity of thought and support existing between
the Community and Employees, so clearly and forcefully ex-
pressed by the Community Security League, we can all look to
the New Year confident in the belief that 1937 will bring even
greater happiness and prosperity than did 1936.
On July 2, 1937, the Bulletin again published an editorial cartoon,
described below, identifying the respondent with the objectives and
activities of the Community League.
5. Bulletin material in connection with demonstrations, during 1937
The Security League, with the assistance of the respondent, the
Plan, and the Community League noted below, promoted a series of
employee demonstrations to whip up pro-Plan and anti-C. I. O.
sentiment. The Bulletin implemented these demonstrations by sup-
porting publicity, photographs, editorials, and cartoons.
Thus, the Plan and the Security League jointly sponsored a
parade on January 2, 1937. The Bulletin, dated January 4, 1937,
publicized this parade under the following banner headline :
SECURITY LEAGUE MEMBERS PARADE IN "OPEN PROTEST"
and the two-column headline :
Rain Fails to halt Huge Procession in Answer to "Outside
The article took up a column on the first page and ran over to the
final page. The two lead sentences of the story are as follows :
I
The most impressive parade of its kind ever held in this dis=
trict was staged Saturday, January 2, by members of the Weir,
ton Steel Security League. In spite of several hours of heavy
rainfall, nearly 9,000 employees (practically all except those
who were working at the time) turned out to join the huge
parade as an "open protest" against "outside interference" with
them and their work.
Agitators"
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The story describes, besides, the impressiveness of the demonstra-
tion and quotes a loud speaker at the front of the march as blaring
forth : "This is an open protest against labor racketeers or organizers
coming to town to disturb the peace or work against the Employees'
Representative Plan of Collective Bargaining." The article, in clos-
ing, speaks of the parade as "one of the finest spontaneous labor
demonstrations in this district."
All of pages 4 and 5 of this issue of the Bulletin are devoted to
photographs of the paraders and the banners carried by them. Some
of the banners thus photographed read as follows : "WE ARE SATIS-
FIED AND SECURE"; "WE WON'T SUPPORT JOHN L. LEWIS"; "WE WON'T
SIGN" ; "CIO MEANS IOU" ; "SECURITY LEAGUE MEANS WORK" ; "WE
DON'T WANT LEWIS NOR HIS C. I. 0." ; "WE DON'T WANT A DICTA-
TOR"; "WE DON'T NEED THE C. I. 0."; "98.11 PER CENT OF Us Em-
PL YEES ARE SECURITY LEAGUERS."
On May 30, 1937, the Security League and the Community League
jointly sponsored a Decoration Day demonstration. The June 4 issue
of the Bulletin described the demonstration in an article covering
part of the first page and running over to the fourth page, under
the banner headline, "SECURITY LEAGUERS MARCH 10,000 STRONG,"
and under the two-column headline, "Address by George E. Sokolsky
at Cove Field climaxes Joint Parade." The lead sentence described
the affair as "the greatest labor demonstration in the history of this
district," and as "a spectacle of mass strength that far out-shadowed
any labor demonstration ever dreamed of in this section of the coun-
try." It characterized the demonstration as "a `show of strength'
taken by many as an `answer' to `outside agitators"'; and called at-
tention to the fact that "paraders jammed the park to hear George
E. Sokolsky, internationally famous labor speaker."
Half of the first page and all of page 3 are taken up with photo-
graphs of the demonstrators and of banners carried by them. They
display the American flag in a prominent manner.
More than three columns of the eighth page are devoted to a re-
print of excerpts of Sokolsky's talk. The reprinted excerpts praise
the demonstrators because "you run your own affairs"; admit "that
it is not the function of the employer to tell him (an employee) what
to join and what not to join"; assert "that it is not the business of
anybody else to tell him what to join and what not to join (ap-
plause)," and "that it is none of his (an employer's) business to sign
a contract that forces you to join an organization that you do not
want to join [applause]"; deprecate the then current strikes on the
ground that their purpose "is that the companies sign a contract.
Nothing is said in their demands about the needs of the worker";
predict that the ultimate purpose of the contracts is to obtain the
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1191
closed shop and the check-off; condemn the closed shop, the check-off,
and the National Labor Relations Act ; and state the following :
It is possible through a tie-up of politics, through, a tie-up
with politicians, and by the use of a professional class of pickets,
who do nothing but picket, to perform exactly the same type of
dis-service as was performed by the fly bootleggers and the fly
racketeers under the Volstead Act. What right has a band of
men who don't live in your town, who don't work in your fac-
tories, who are not a part of you, who do not belong to your
fraternal organizations, who do not belong to your churches,
whom you do not know by name, to gather outside your factories
and say to you you cannot work?
These reprinted excerpts also accuse C. I. 0. affiliates of: unfair play,
impairing freedom of speech, interfering with the Security League,
"preventing people to live as they please," saying "a man has not
the right to -decide for himself whether he wants to work or not,
... we will decide for you whether you can work or cannot work";
and being Communists, revolutionaries, destroyers of private prop-
erty and of "the authority of management," and enslavers of the
worker by dictatorship. Finally, Sokolsky is quoted as advising the
demonstrators to "fight with every ounce of blood, against the de-
struction of American Democracy and against the imposition of a
labor dictatorship that destroys the rights of the working man
[applause]."
The respondent, the Plan, the Community League, and the Weir-
Cove Chamber of Commerce jointly sponsored a demonstration on
July 5, 1937. Shortly before this demonstration, the July 2 issue of
the Bulletin appeared. It contained an editorial cartoon headed,
"United We Stand" and bearing the legend, "The Spirit of 1776 is
the Weirton Spirit- of 1937." The cartoon depicts in the foreground
two drummers and a fife player and in the background an American
flag, bayonets, and marching soldiers. The drummer in the middle
carries the legend, "Employees' Representatives." The drummer on
his right bears the legend, "Community Security League," and the
fife player on his left carries the legend, "Employees', Security
League." The theme of the accompanying editorial is that the C. I. 0.
treatment of workers is comparable to the British oppression of the
American Colonies and that opposition to the C. I. 0. is comparable
to the action taken by the American patriots of 1776. The editorial
refers to the steel strike of 1937 as the "'turning point' which will
finally restore those American rights for which our forefathers paid
so dearly with their blood." It suggests that the C. I. 0. represents
"forces which if unchecked, would completely destroy our rights, as
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
free Americans"; speaks of alleged violence by the steel strikers, but
does not refer to the allegations of misconduct by the employers; 44
contains further strictures against the steel strikers, and refers to a
result of the strike as follows : °
Much valuable time has been lost but, before it was too late
there is good reason to believe that the workers in the industries
of our country will be protected from the invasion of lawless
racketeers and men will again be permitted to enjoy their free
right to work without paying tribute to anyone for that American
birthright.
The editorial characterizes the strike issue of the employers' refusal
to sign a written contract as a " `smoke screen', to hide the real issues
which 'are to force upon otherwise free workmen, the `closed-shop'
and the `check-off' of regular monthly dues with unlimited assess-
ments at the will of some outside Dictator. 11 45 The editorial, con-
tinuing, speaks of union dues as " `taxation without representation,'
until our laws are changed making labor unions liable and fully
responsible for their acts"; asserts that "the great mass of work-
ers . . . ask to be ]et alone . the protection of the law for them-
selves and their families,' and that "given this protection . . . the
answer is clearly given by the mass movement of workers back to
their jobs"; states the "real issue" between the C. I. 0. and its
opponents as
. .. whether all workers ought to be forced to pay tribute
for their right to work ..., whether they ought to receive the
protection of the law or ought to be driven through fear of bodily
injury into joining an organization which has even avoided
drawing up a Constitution and By-laws to at least indicate its
intents and purposes;
refers to the C. I. 0. leadership as "the present one-man Dictator-
ship"; and concludes as follows:
As we join in the community wide patriotic celebration in
Weirton and Holiday's Cove on July 5th, the keynote will be
"INDUSTRIAL PEACE." Let us not forget that the interests of
employees, management and the community as a whole are as
one and cannot be separated one from the other. A great spirit
of unity has developed at Weirton which has brought up peace
and continued prosperity. It is within our power to maintain
this peace and prosperity just so long as we stand shoulder to
*' See, for exaniple ,,N. L. R B. v. Republic Steel Corp., 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3),
311 U. S. 7, enf'g a9 mod. Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organiz-
,inu Cofaninttee, 9 N. L. R . B. 219.
But compare the Republic Steel case, ibid
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1193
shoulder which will be so well demonstrated to the World in
the "WEIRTON SPIRIT OF 1937," on next Monday.
Following the Independence Day celebration , the Bulletin issue
of July 16 , 1937, appeared , with an editorial cartoon in praise of
industrial peace at Weirton. The cartoon carries the legend, "The
American Eagle Shows Its Claws, " and it depicts an eagle chasing
"Force and Violence." The accompanying editorial , after - referring
with satisfaction to the "crowds and more crowds of happy and con-
tented" men, women, arid children gathered in Weirton in Holiday's
Cove on July 5, in celebration of another Independence Day, proceeds
as follows :
No such event would have been possible without the united
effort of every interest in our community working harmoniously
together . Because of this undisputed fact , the Weir-Cove Inde-
pendence Day Celebration this year , took on a. new significance-
which must not be overlooked. While other communities were
being infested by invading racketeers who were using , the weapons
of force and violence to destroy property and endanger the
lives of innocent American citizens , at home we had peace. No
one who spent the day in our community on July 5th, could fail
to realize that here was an outstanding example of a happy and
contented people, free from any form of oppression . This, after
all is the reason for our annual observance of Independence Day
when we, as Americans, re-dedicate ourselves to the cause of
liberty and the right to live as free citizens of a great Republic.
Although we can review the events of July 5th, with great
pride and satisfaction , we must not become two self-satisfied and
neglect to remain "on guard." Our Nation is going through
a period which in the years to come may well be looked upon as
just as serious a crisis as were the periods of our Revolutionary
and Civil wars. In 1776 the Colonies were fighting for their
independence from the tyranny of a British King. At Gettys-
burg in 1863 , President Lincoln made his historical address in
which he said-
We are engaged in a great civil war to test whether this
Nation, or any other Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to
the proposition that all men are created equal, can long endure.
Since the time of Lincoln there have been those in our midst
who would destroy our Government . In our time we saw new
Democracies established as a result of the World War, only to
pass into Dictatorships . In America today this same danger
confronts us as is so well pointed out in the article by George
E. Sokolsky which has been reprinted on Page 3 in this issue
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the BULLETIN. No form of Dictatorship has any place in
our American standard of living which above all else establishes
certain fundamental rights and liberties for the individual. We
cannot°submit to any movement in this country which attempts,
through ruthless force and intimidation, to say to us-"You join
my organization and pay me or you don't work." That is the
issue which confronts all free American workmen today and
there can be no compromise in our fight against such tyranny
until there has been a complete and permanent victory. Men
must be protected in their free right, to work without coercion
or intimidation from any source, and without being required as
a condition of employment to join or not join any organization
of any kind. To be forced to follow any other road will lead to
the kind of destruction Mr. Sokolsky tells us about.
The time has come when the great force of an aroused public
will demand the enactment of laws which will properly protect
American workmen. Such laws had to be enacted a few years
ago in Great Britain to protect English workmen against the
dangers of a Labor Dictatorship. In America, the events of the
past few months point out, only too clearly, that forces are at work
which must be stamped out no matter what the cost. THE
AMERICAN EAGLE HAS SHOWN HIS CLAWS and is
swooping down on all lawless mobs of irresponsible labor rack-
eteers. But we must all remain "on guard" until another fight
has been won again maintaining "the proposition that all men
are created free and equal," to the end that such rights will be
secured and endure for all time.
The reprint of the article by George E. Sokolsky, referred to with
approbation in the above-mentioned editorial; is entitled : "Revolu-
tion: Another Step" and takes up most of that page. The burden
of the article is that the C. I. 0., by seeking to organize the govern-
ment personnel, the basic industries, and the press, is seeking to bring
about a revolution. This revolution the article describes in the
following language:
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD Do WELL To GRASP Now Ex-
ACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM AND TO THEIR SACRED
INSTITUTIONS. THERE Is No USE MINIMIZING THE EFFECTS OF
THE REVOLUTION. THEY CANNOT BE MINIMIZED. A PROCESS IS
AT WORK TO TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT, To ABOLISH DEMO-
CRATIC INSTITUTIONS, To PUT AN END TO HUMAN RIGHTS, To
RELEGATE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE
BUREAU OF ARCHIVES.
All this we ought to know and understand. There are many
Americans who favor what is taking place. There are many more
who are opposed to it. But we all ought to understand it. AND
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1195
JOHN LEWIS TRIES To MAKE THE PIc rtRE So ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
HE DOES NOT HIDE His LIGHT BEHIND A BUSHEL . HE Is OUT IN
FRONT ANNOUNCING WHAT HE WILL Do NEXT. LET Us TAKE HIM
AT HIS WORD AND Acr ACCORDINGLY.46
The hearing in this case was scheduled to open on August 15, 1937.
On August 15 the Security League sponsored a huge demonstration to
express its opposition to the C. I. O. A large part of the following
issue of the Bulletin, dated August 20, 1937, was devoted to extensive
reprinting of the banners carried by the demonstrators, to the text of
a speech delivered by Senator Holt to the demonstrators,'to other pub-
licity concerning the demonstration, and to an editorial cartoon and
editorial thereon.
Some of the banners photographed and reprinted follow :
No CHECK OFFS OR DICTATORS
C. I. O. NUTS
WE ARE SATISFIED "LET Us ALONE"
This is Our Answer STAY OUT C. I. O.
We Want Jobs Not Dictators
No Labor Racketeer Needed Here
Comical
Who In Hell Wants Industrial Outlaws
We'll Take Weir Not Lewis
We Have No Check Off
The S. W. 0. C., C. 1. 0., and N. L. R. B. Not Needed Here
We Have a Peaceful Community, Let Us Alone
We Don't Need John L. Lewis or the C. I. O.
Let Us Alone, We Need No Outside Help
"We Ask" and "We Receive" Through our ERP The Best
Plan in the Industry
The ERP is Fair to All
The ERP is our Protection
We Voted for the ERP
No Guessing -We Have It-ERP
We Run Our Own Affairs-WE ARE NOT DOMINATED
The Best Plan is the ERP
+e At the close of the article the following appears in parenthesis : "The views expressed
are Mr. Sokolsky ' s own opinions and are not .to be construed as representing the editorial
policy of this newspaper ." This ostensible disclaimer by the editor appears at the close
of some other articles similar in attitude to this one and reprinted in other issues of the
Bulletin. Despite this . ostensible disclaimer ; it is clear that the respondent, by reprinting
and by transmitting to its employees these articles , sought to influence the employees with -
respect to the matters contained in them, since substantial space was devoted to them,
some of them were placed on the editorial page, some appeared in association with editorials
of like import and were used by such editorials , and it does not appear that any of the
Bulletins reported any articles favorable to the C. I. O . or to concerted activities associated
with affiliated labor organizations.
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
One of the pictures shows a donkey wearing a banner, which reads,
"C. I. O. Brains."
The leading news story in the issue describes the Security League
demonstration, quoting liberally from Senator Holt's talk. The con-
cluding paragraph of this news story carried the subheadline "Lam-
neck Explains Wagner Act" and gives the following quotation from
Congressman Lamneck's talk at the demonstration :
In the Wagner Labor Act the government recognizes your right
to organize a union . You don't have to organize a CIO union ;
you don't have to organize an American Federation of Labor
union-you can organize any union you want to. Stick to your
guns, don't be afraid of anybody, but don't let anybody fool
you with CIO because that spells communism and I think you
don't want that.
The Bulletin, in addition to quoting extensively from Senator Holt's
talk at the demonstration in its report thereon, takes up the entire
page 11 with a reprint of the speech. The speech as reprinted is
an elaborate diatribe on the C. I. O. It condemns "certain unscrupu-
lous leaders in stirring up class hatred, whipping up violence, mob
spirit and secretly preaching lawlessness;" characterizes John L.
Lewis as follows :
I do not want to see men thrown out of work, their families
suffer, business injured and all business thruout the country
injured just because some labor leader wants to acquire power
in his own right and in his own name and not for labor but for
himself. Much of this has been through forced stoppage of work.
Not to get better wages, not to get shorter hours, not for better
working conditions but in order that one certain labor leader and
his organization could be named as the sole and exclusive bargain-
ing agency for the men employed in these operations. . . . the
men who join under his leadership have no assurance of democracy
or representation. On the contrary, his record indicates that
they will have the same autocratic control as those who have ac-
cepted him in the past . . . I refer to that beetle-browed, deep-
voiced ham actor of the labor movement, John L. Lewis;
describes Lewis' "iron" rule of the United Mine Workers of America ;
asks rhetorically : "Are you in the steel industry any more certain that
he will not treat you as he has treated the United Mine Workers?";
compares elections conducted by John L. Lewis to "Hitler's elections
in Germany-you can only vote one way and that is for him"; quotes
uncomplimentary language used by Lewis at one time or another in
describing persons currently associated with him in the C. I. 0.; sug-
gests that the C. I. O. is Communistic; speaks of the money allegedly
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1197
lost by workers in the steel strike, and draws the :following moral : "In
other words, $9,000,000 was taken out of the pockets of the steel work-
ers in order that John Lewis' influence could be felt in the steel works";
states, while purporting to recognize the right to strike, that the steel
workers "were called out because John Lewis called them out"; attacks
the forthcoming hearing of the National Labor Relations Board on
the ground that the Board "is an adjunct of the C. I. 0."; and con-
cludes as follows :
The American labor movement believes in Americanism and
through Americanism we will enter a happier today as we ap-
proach tomorrow. Their answer will be the best answer to the
Board, or to any group, that try to destroy democracy, and I hope
and wish and ask that all of you will cooperate so that America
will be happier in industrial cooperation instead of stirring up
industrial strife.
The same issue of the Bulletin carries an editorial cartoon illustrat-
ing the reprint of Holt's talk. The cartoon, entitled "Senator Rush
Holt-'Take a Look at the Facts,"' contrasts the condition of the coal
miners with the condition of the steel workers at Weirton, to,the dis-
favor of the organized miners. The accompanying editorial com-
ments with approval, and elaborates, upon the talks delivered by Holt
and Lamneck, and explains in detail the alleged contrast between the
condition of the organized coal miners and that of the steel workers at
Weirton. The editorial states, among other things, the following :
... Senator Holt held his vast audience on the edge of their
seats by his fiery statements of facts exposing the labor racketeers
who have sprung up in this country and by preaching lawless-
ness, violence and class hatred, have become a serious menace not
only to the honest workmen in industry but to the country as a
whole.
... At one time Senator Holt believed in John Lewis but
when it was found that Mr. Lewis put his own personal inter-
ests above the interests of the men he was pledged to represent,
from then on Senator Holt took sides with the workers and
against John Lewis. Quite properly the Senator pointed out
that from the official figures he had obtained from the Govern-
ment, the coal miners in John Lewis' original organization are
the men who should be helped before Mr. Lewis starts talking
about what he is going to do for the steel workers. Again and
again Senator Holt warned against being fooled by a lot of
promises which have also been made in the past but never were
made good !
[The editorial gives figures to prove that "there has been little
progress in the earnings of the soft coal miners" and that earn-
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings of employees of the respondent are "not far from being
twice as much as the average annual earnings of the soft coal
miners" and continues:] Is it any wonder that Senator Holt
warned against being fooled by a lot of promises which would
end in the "check-off" of excessive monthly dues plus whatever
other assessments might be thought necessary in order to keep
a lot of organizers in soft jobs and housed in fancy offices? A
coal miner never can be sure how much will be in his pay en-
velope when he gets it and it is hard to believe that many steel
workers will walk into this vicious system with their eyes open.
.. you can be assured that the warning of Senator Holt is
quite unnecessary at Weirton. The employees of the Weirton
Steel Company will not be fooled :
Through self-organization the Weirton Steel employees have
gained a long list of benefits without strikes or shut-downs which
always involve great losses in wages to those who can least af-
ford such losses. Congressman Lamneck made it clear that the
Wagner Act gave employees the right to form their own organi-,
zation just as has been done at Weirton. "Select your own
leaders," he said, "and let them deal with your Company-If
that doesn't suit John Lewis tell him to go to hell." Great ad-
vances have been made at Weirton in the past through fair deal-
ing between men and management. No "outsiders" have had any
part in this progressive program and it is difficult to see how
any "outsiders" will ever be able to do a better job for the men
than they can do for themselves. And remember, the "out-
siders" will insist that they be well paid for their promises ! Let
us not soon forget the very timely advice of Senator Holt and
Congressman Lamneck.
6. Bulletin material disparaging the C. I. 0., during 1937 47
On May 5 and 6, 1937, as described below, C. I. O. sympathizers
were evicted from the respondent's plant by persons loyal to the Plan
and the Security League. On the editorial page of the Bulletin, dated
May 7, ;1937, there appears a cartoon in praise of work without inter-
ruption. The accompanying editorial elaborates the point of the
cartoon as follows :
... We are able to have these things ["steady work and good
wages"] because we have avoided strife and have enjoyed peace
in our community. Continued peace means "lots of smoke up the
stacks" and the hum of machinery in the mills at Weirton. In
calm weather with full sail set, we are headed for continued
17 Similar material is set forth in other sections.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1199
prosperity and the best that the future has in store. Lets not
strike a reef and flounder ! Let's have nothing interrupt our
peaceful sailing. !
Immediately thereunder is a reprint of an article by Sokolsky entitled
"Strikes Cost Us Plenty." The article discusses in detail the alleged
cost of strikes to various classes of persons, including employees, but
makes no reference to the causes of strikes or to their alleged necessity,
so long as their causes remain unremedied.48
The Bulletin issued on May 21, 1937, contains, on the editorial page,
a long article entitled "Boake Carter says." It is devoted for the
most part to endorsement of quotations from a pamphlet allegedly
prepared by "Maurice R. Franks, National Business Agent, Railway
Yardmasters of North America, one of the oldest and best respected
unions in the United States." The quoted pamphlet is entitled
"Strikes." It concedes "that labor has been highly persecuted by cer-
tain individual industrialists through their greed, but this cannot be
said of ALL the industrialists"; advises that a strike "should be a
LAST resort"; states that "no labor leader . . . should have com-
plete authority to call out a body of men according to his personal
idiosyncrasies," that arbitration preliminary to a strike should be
compulsory, that "in many cases" "so-called" labor "leaders are nothing
more than politicians, or `racketeers' with no capabilities"; describes
what the "wise labor leaders" should do before declaring a strike; and
concludes as follows :
The biggest and best strike that the workers of the Nation
could "pull" at this time would be to strike at the labor "rack-
eteers," who are pulling strikes so promiscuously, and stay out on
such a strike until those "racketeers," who are themselves the ones
"unfair to organized labor," are eliminated from the ranks of labor
Then everyone would respect labor as a whole 49
On June 18, 1937, the Bulletin reprinted, on the editorial page,
an article by Westbrook Pegler. The article is entitled "Union Mem-
bers Need Government Protection From Union Dictators." After
4B Compare the findings and policy of the United States expressed in Section 1 of the
Act : "The denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal
by employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other
forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of
burdening or obstructing commerce . . . Experience has proved that protection by law
of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from
injury, impairment or interruption and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain
recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest . . . It is hereby declared to be the
policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to
the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these ' obstructions when they have
occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by
protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association , self-organization, and
designation of representatives of their own choosing . .
49 See supra, footnote 46.
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quoting Senator Guffey as blaming the "steel trouble" on the refusal
of three companies to sign contracts with the C. I. 0., it states that :
"the contract with the CIO isn't worth a damn, and won't be until
the law provides some penalty in case of repudiation by the C. I. 0.";
"a union has no more responsibility than a cyclone, and a leader who
may be a thief or dictator on the rise ... may treat a contract as a
scrap of paper if it suits his convenience to do so"; "the statesmen
could do much worse than inquire into the affairs of labor in general
with an eye to coercion, extortion, and the unofficial but inescapable
income tax which is levied on the earnings of nominally free Ameri-
can workmen by labor unions to which many of them have no desire
to belong" ;
if Mr. Guffey were to pursue the matter he undoubtedly
would find many employees earning as little as $18 or $20 a
week and exempt from the income tax, whose right to earn a
small living has ceased to be a right, and becomes a concession
sold by private organizations having no responsibility for their
actions.
There is no ground for criticizing the voluntary payment of
dues to labor unions by people who want to belong, but when
membership becomes a necessity preliminary to employment, then
the dues are not voluntary payments, but extortion or at least
a tax;
and "a general investigation of union affairs" "might" reveal "that
the rank and file workmen has very little voice in the business of
his union, but is whipped around by professional leaders who are
experts in their line and the masters of parliamentary tricks which
nullify the rights of the individual." The reprinted article con-
demns what it calls "private courts in labor unions . . . dominated
by labor leaders with no legal responsibility of their acts," and con-
cludes as follows :
.If Senator Guffey were to extend his investigation of the steel
strike he might find that the union members now need the Gov-
ernor's protection against union dictation as badly as they ever
needed laws to protect them from unscrupulous employers.
He might find ruthless dictatorship robbing the children of
the workers, and courts inflicting punishments, all without re-
sponsibility under the protection of the United States Govern-
ment, and in the guise, of altruistic labor leadership.
It is worth looking into.
The Bulletin of June 2,'1937, devoted three columns of the page
opposite the editorial page to a communication from a New York
State Assemblyman, Laurens M. Hamilton, to the New York Herald
Tribune. The three columns carry as a headline "She Is Not
Afraid" and a sub-headline "Assemblyman Hamilton Transmits a
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1201
Letter of a Mill Worker's Wife." The Hamilton communication
describes the mill worker as an employee of Republic Steel Corpora-
tion who "is" one of that large "group of workers who` are still
working in spite of the efforts of the C. I. O.,", and is devoted to an
attack upon the C. I. 0., purporting to show how the C. I. O. op-
presses the workers. Its tone is suggested by its concluding
paragraph:
I suggest that readers of this article think of Mrs. Irwin
[the "mill worker's wife"] as they go home tonight. I suggest
that they think of how many Mrs. Irwins there may be in their
own home community. I suggest that if labor trouble occurs in
their community, they think of it as something close to them-
selves and not just as something which does not involve them
directly. I am sure that most of them would rescue a woman
and her children from-a burning building, particularly if they
realized that that woman and her children were defenseless, but
unafraid, I suggest that they be equally ready to rescue, or, what
is even better, to protect the women and children of independent
workers in their community from the un-American, un-Christian,
unscrupulous actions of incendiary labor agitators.
The final page of this issue also reprints a column entitled "Boake
Carter Says." It is an attack on the check-off as an allegedly forth-
coming demand of the C. I. O. After recounting the alleged evils
of the check-off, it concludes as follows :
No wonder Mr. Lewis, Roosevelt & Co. want the checkoff
system. It's the best-paying racket in the United States.
On September 17, 1937, the Bulletin published on its editorial page
an unsigned article purportedly reprinted from the September 1937
issue of a publication known as the Commentator. It is entitled
"Overhead For The Underdog" and its theme is an attack upon the
check-off and upon C. I. O. finances. The article states, among
other things, the following :
. . The C. I. 0., however, has used its funds for two pur-
poses only, viz: for political contributions and strike expendi-
tures. The workers, then, can never get back what they con-
tributed in any form of direct benefits because the dues and
fees and assessments go into war-and are wasted as funds are
wasted in war.
Very few unions publish accounts of receipts and expenditures.
Theoretically, the secrecy of union bookkeeping is to prevent
the enemy from knowing how weak or strong the organization
is. Actually, secrecy serves to keep the worker in ignorance con-
cerning the affairs of his union... .
Often officers of unions are granted "allowances" which may
amount to more than the actual salary. In most unions the
expenditure of the strike fund is so strictly secret that it becomes
the principal source of income for the labor racketeer.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In a word, secrecy naturally lends itself to corruption. In the
modern corporation, secrecy in accounts is forbidden by
law.. '. .
No one inspects the accounts of labor unions. Their secrecy
is the greatest evil in American trade unionism.
The article, continuing, gives an estimate of "the income of the
United Mine Workers of America, of which John Lewis is President
and Phillip Murray, Vice President," and characterizes such amounts
as "received by the officers of the unions in this industry and expended
by them as they see fit without any control or supervision." It states
also that some of this income "may have gone astray"; and concludes
as follows :
Another question that arises in this connection is whether the
check-off is legal under the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act for-
bids the employer to contribute financial or other support to a
labor union. This is designated as an unfair labor practice. Is,
then, the employer who agrees to the check-off breaking the law? 50
7. Policy of the Bulletin after April 12, 1937
The Supreme Court decisions of April 12, 1937, sustaining the con-
stitutionality of the Act, did not deter the respondent from its coercive
use of the Bulletin. In addition to the Bulletins illustrative of this
continued policy, we have the admission of Meagher, its editor :
Q. Now, that [the Bulletin of December 4, 1936], I believe
is entitled the "Employees' Representatives' Annual Issue"?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the significance of the title? Does that mean that
the issue was prepared by the [employee] representatives, or that
it it concerned with the [employee] representatives largely?
A. Well, both.
Q. Have there been any changes of any kind , either in the
operation or in the policies of the paper since the middle of April
of this year [ 1937] ? .. .
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Not at all?
A. There has been no definite change of policy made deliberate-
ly. For instance , I feel that the readers might get tired of some
particular style of type or lay -out and type of story, and I make a
change, but there hasn't been any delibeiate preordained chance.
° The legitimacy of the check-off arrangement with an otherwise unassisted union is
not open to doubt. See N. L. R. B. v. J. Greenebaum Tanning Company, 110 F. ( 2d) 984
tC. C. A. 7).
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1203
Q. And no fundamental change?
'A. No.
8. Disparagement of the C. I. O. through the publications' of company-
assisted organizations, during 1936 and 1937
a. The Plan
The Plan sponsored the distribution of Board Exhibit No._35. This
is a circular headed :
"AVE WON'T SIGN"
Employees Tell C. I. O. Organizers
The central portion of the leaflet has a photograph of a man holding
up a smudged copy of "Steel Labor," a C. I. O. publication. Above
the photograph appears the following legend : "Among the strangers in
our midst-this organizer tells you to follow him." Under the photo-
graph the following legend appears : "One of ( two words blurred) out;
of-towners in the C. I. O. `flying squadron ' ( semble ) who tried to dis-
turb peaceful working (semble ) conditions in Weirton ." On the left
of the photograph is a declaration dated December 10, 1936, signed by
"Weirton Steel Employees ' Security - League." The declaration accuses
outside organizers of "distributing pamphlets on prominent corners
and trying to pick a fight," and continues : "The Security League will
not interfere with any peaceful activities of any organization, but
there have been many instances where law-abiding citizens have been
beaten up by labor organizers and we intend to protect our workers
from such outrages ." The declaration accuses the Amalgamated of
"lawlessness during the 1933 strike in Weirton " and resolves that:
... we don't intend to permit labor organizers and outsiders to
carry on that way in Weirton again. We have the right to our
own organization , free from interference , from John L. Lewis or
any labor racketeer and we will defend our rights.
To the right of the photograph is an article describing the Se-
curity League as "a,wbluntary association of employees of the Weirton
Steel Co., who "believe in the `Plan ' and who are opposed to attempts of
the C . I. O. to disturb present peaceful operations of the mills.
J. P. Meagher, editor of the Bulletin since its inception , prepared.-the
text of this leaflet ;designed its lay-out , took the photograph appearing
thereon with film and camera belonging to the respondent , and de-
veloped it with company material in the respondent 's developing room.
Meagher also ordered the printing of Board Exhibit No. 35. Although
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Plan paid for the printing of the leaflet, the Liberty, Engraving
Company in Pittsburgh made a cut of the photograph for the circular
without cost to the Plan. Meagher testified that the Liberty Engrav-
ing Company derives business from the Bulletin acid that this com-
pany made the cut gratis as a "personal favor" to Meagher, and that
Meagher did his work on the leaflet,as a "personal favor" to Larkin.
Meagher's characterization of these services as "personal" does not
alter the essential facts that these services included use of the, re-
spondent's facilities, that Meagher, a Bulletin editor, had authority
to use such facilities, and that Meagher, acting for the respondent,
employed the Bulletin for the very purposes for which the Plan dis-
tributed Board Exhibit No. 35. Under these circumstances, we find
that Meagher's characterization is incredible and, whether or not
credible, immaterial.
Meagher's assertion that he did not prepare the photograph with
Board Exhibit No. 35 specifically in mind is also immaterial 'ili this
connection, because the crucial fact remains that the respondent,
through Meagher and the Plan, used the photograph coercively in the
distribution of the Plan's leaflet. Moreover, the respondent had a
hostile motive in snapping the Steel Labor newsboy, as'appears from
the testimony of Gordon R. Dodrill, Bulletin photographer; cartoon-
ist; and reporter:
Q. To whom were you doing a courtesy when you took the pic-
tures of the persons who were handing out "Steel Labor"?
A. Oh, I think I benefited, 10,000, men, that is the employees of
Weirton Steel.
Q. How did you benefit them?
A. Well, everyone knows that they don't want the. C. I. 0., and
we give them what they want.
In view of this hostile purpose, Meagher's assistance in the prepara-
tion of Board Exhibit No. 35, and the respondent's other acts sponsor-
ing the Plan and attacking the C. I. 0., we attribute the preparation
and distribution of this document to the respondent.
b. The Security League
In or about May,1937 the Steel Works Unit clrcularized , Board Ex-
hibit No. 71. This is a leaflet headed "No GANGSTERS FOR Us." The
leaflet denounces "violence," "strikes ," "large. dues to a few big, shot
`ORGANIzERs'-over whom we have no control,." It expresses the credo
of the Steel Works Unit as follows:
The local Employees ' Representative Plan is sound and fair'to
all parties concerned . They have secured vacations with piiy.
WEIRTON STEEL -'COMPANY 1205
They have' secured time and one-half for over time. Working
conditions in 'our community are all that any reasonable persons
can ask. Wages are on a par with or above competitive industrial
wages. We do not need help from - any outside organization to
solve our problems. We request outside .organizations to stay out
of Weirton and leave us alone. We are able to handle our own
affairs. ; - • , . -
Organize For Peace
On, or about June 18, 1937, the Security League distributed to the
employees of the respondent by mail a four-page leaflet. The-Security
League obtained•the'addressed envelopes in which to send this leaflet,
from the respondent, through the Plan., The first page, printed in
red type and in the form of a letter "to they employees of the Weirton
Steel Company," stated that the pamphlet reproduces reprints so that
the employees may "know,exactly where the,C. I. O. is trying to lead
them.", Prominently displayed on the, first page is a box headed "Com-
munist Honor, Roll, 1937." Under it is the symbol of the Communist
Party and thereunder appear in columnar form a series of names.
John L. Lewis' name appears in the largest type. The second and third
pages of the, leaflet purport to prove that the C. I. O. is under Com-
munist control., •
On July 6, 1937, the S. W. O. C. filed with the Board its petition
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives for the
respondent's employees. In response thereto the Security League pre-
pared for the signature of employees a petition reading as follows:
To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
In order to answer the absurd and untrue claims which have been
made by the Steel Workers' Organizing Committee in their Peti-
tion to the National Labor Relations Board for investigation and
certification of representatives, the undersigned, who are employ-
.ees of the Weirton Steel Company and active members in good
standing. in the Tin Mill Unit of the Weirton -Steel Employees,
Security League, wish to place on record our approval of, the
policies and purposes of the Weirton Steel Employees Security
League and to pledge our support to and approval, of the principles
and activities of the Plan of Employee Representation at the
Weirton Steel Company, the said Plan of Employee Representa-
tion being our freely chosen and exclusive agency for collective
• bargaining with our employer. - ,
Samples of this petition; along with notices to the employees as to
where they should go to sign the petition, were posted in about 10
places in the respondent's plants.
1206 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The membership cards of the Security League also contained anti-
C. I. O. material. On the back of each card the following ap-
peared :
I am not a member' of, and will not support in any way any
outside labor organization
If at any time the Weirton Steel Company recognizes any
labor organization other than the Employees' Representation
Plan, as It bargaining agency for any group of employees with-
out first holding an election 'to determine if the majority of
employees want another labor organization, we will protest by
whatever means necessary to prevent such recognition.
The Security League distributed honorary membership cards to su-
pervisory employees of the respondent. The back of these cards
contained the "above-quoted resolution. The Bulletin. of April 2,
1937, also reprinted the front and back parts of these cards.
The respondent underwrote the Security League pro-Plan anti-
C. I. O. pamphlets by supplying addressed envelopes and its bulletin
boards for the purpose of disseminating this propaganda among the
employees, by its supervisory employees acceptance of honorary mem-
bership cards containing a pledge of loyalty to the Plan and op-
position to the C. I. 0., by the Bulletin's reprinting of this pledge;
and- by its other conduct encouraging membership in the Security
League and discouraging affiliation with the S. W. O. C. Conse-
quently, we attribute the propaganda campaign of the Security
-League to the respondent.
9. Coercive statements by supervisory employees
The record contains ' much testimony ascribing oral coercion to
supervisory employees, which they deny or seek to explain. We are
not'-impressed by the veracity of these defenses. The respondent's
officials manifested an open disregard for the rights guaranteed in
the Act. Thus, Thomas Millsop, the respondent's president, testify-
ing in regard to whether he wore a Security League button on more
than one occasion, stated: "Not to my recollection, but regardless of
whether it is a violation of the Wagner Act or not, if I wanted to -
wear one, I would." [Italics supplied.] E. T. Weir's letter, the
Bulletins, and similar undisputed evidence demonstrate that the re-
spondent; including its highest officials, "wanted" to and did restrict
its employees' right of self-organization by written coercive state-
ments as well as by other acts. Supervisory employees of the re-
spondent, accepted honorary membership cards from the Security
League, by which they pledged themselves to support the Plan and
WEIRTON' STEEL COMPANY 1207
oppose, the C. I. O. Under these circumstances, we believe that • the
supervisory employees engaged in oral coercive statements.
'Illustrative thereof is the talk which J. P. Caine, manager of the
sheet-mill department, delivered to the shipping employees, in the
plant, at one of the department's "operating" meetings, held in the
winter of 1936-1937. Julius Mehozonek, an employee present at this
meeting, testified that Caine stated
It is a dirty shame for the men to carry Weirton Steel Coin-
pany dollars-in their pockets and go ,up against the Weirton
Steel Company with outsiders, agitators. There is some in this
crowd. They got men so they feel like they go with these agi-
tators, I wish they go out and stay out.
The respondent's counsel, after quoting the above testimony 51 to
Caine, asked, "Did you make a speech like that ?" On the witness
stand, Caine replied, "I believe I recall a meeting, which is probably
the one that Julius [Mehozonek] is referring to." Thereafter, Caine
asserted generally that he never discussed unions or union organiza-
tion at these departmental meetings and then testified as follows :
A. What I said was : 52
That I had received complaints from our men that we had
several individuals that were advocating doctrines during
working hours that did not meet with approval, and I said
that I thought that that was wrong, for any man to be ac-
cepting Weirton Steel money for working and not working,
doing something else; in other words, using his time for
propaganda, we might say.
Q. Did these doctrines have anything to do with unions?
A. No, nothing whatsoever.
Q. Did they have anything to do with the S. W. O. C. or
C. I. O. ?
A. No.
On cross-examination, Caine testified that he had "Communism" in
mind and that
A. I did not specify communism exactly, but I think I re-
ferred to it so that anybody who had engaged in those activities,
he would know what I was talking about. •
Q. Yes, but what would the others know?
A. 'Well, I have been credited ,with a lot of things, but not
being a mind reader _ •
Gl Counsel's quotation appears to have varied somewhat from Mehozonek's testimony, but
the variation , if any , did not confuse Caine.
51 Caine admitted that he could not remember his exact words.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If we accept Caine's version of what he told the, men, he warned
them not to engage in disapproved propaganda during working
hours. As we have noted, the respondent permitted the use of
usual working hours and other company facilities for the dissemina-
tion of approved propaganda, that condemning the C. I. Q. and
supporting the Plan. At the time of this speech, the S.^ W..0. C.
was attempting to organize the respondent's employees; and the
respondent was opposing such efforts, among other means, by brand-
ing the C. I. O. as Communist. Under these' circumstances;' ;we do
not believe that Caine intended to attack Communist activity' and
not the C. I. 0.; and we do believe that Caine, in warning his em-
ployees not to engage in disapproved propaganda during working
hours, sought to discourage C. I. O. activity, not _ because of any
occurrence during working hours, but because it was disapproved.
10. Concluding findings
We find that the respondent-by its statements to the employees
through the Bulletin, the Plan, the Security League,, and its super-
visory employees, promoting, the Plan, the Security League, and the
Community League; and disparaging the C. I. 0., in part set forth
above, in connection with the other conduct engaged in' by the re-
spondent-interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, and
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage iii concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E. The Plan
1. Formation
In May 1933 Ernest T. Weir conferred with the executives of
other steel companies, including Bethlehem' 'Steel Corporation,
Wheeling Steel Corporation, and American Rolling Mills, ^ with re,-
spent to the employee representation plans then in operation at the
plants of these companies. Pursuant thereto, Bethlehem Steel Cor-
poration presented Weir with a copy of the Bethlehem Steel Cor-
poration plans of employee representation along with, other literature
pertaining to such plans. Weir transmitted the Bethlehem plans to
J. C. Williams, then president of the respondent, with the comment
that in Weir's opinion the Bethlehem plans were "very effective'!
WE' IRTON STEEL COMPANY 1209
plans.-13 At this time the respondent's employees were not agitating
for a "company plan" or any other kind of "plan." Weir admittedly
took the above-described steps "entirely" on his own initiative and
not because of any suggestion originating with the employees. Weir
testified in this connection at the Wilmington trial 54 as follows :
The matter was written up in the newspapers that Section 7
(a) was to be part of the new NRA and in case the employees
should want a form of collective bargaining, I developed a form
and that was already in use and that was suggested. ,[Italics
supplied.]
About the middle of May 1933 President Williams conducted nu-
merous meetings with management representatives to discuss the plan
of employee representation thus recommended by Weir. Finally,
Williams instructed these management representatives to "feel out
the sentiment of the men in the mill." Pursuant to such instructions,
representatives of the management informed employees that a plan
of employee representation would be instituted and asked them for
their reaction thereto. Thereafter, about the middle of June the rep-
resentatives of the management reported to Williams that not "one
single objection or any voice" was raised against the proposed Plan.
Upon such report the respondent considered the Plan instituted. Thus
Williams testified at the Wilmington trial : "When that was done, as
far as the company was concerned, we then adopted the plan." The
employees never voted on the question whether or not they desired
the Plan thus proposed, recommended, and adopted by the respondent.
On June 22 the respondent issued to the employees a letter announc-
ing the respondent's adoption and sponsorship of the Plan. The body
of this letter follows :
BEGINNING JULY 1ST, THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATION PLAN
WILL BE ADOPTED BY THE WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY. THIS PLAN
WILL PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND MEANS OF
CONTACT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES ON MATTERS
PERTAINING TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH THE EMPLOYEES WILL WORK.
On the same date the respondent issued letters to the employees of
the tin-mill department at Weirton and to the employees at Steuben-
cs It may be noted that in Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, etc. and Steel Workers
Organizing Committee , 14 N. L. R. B. 539, enf 'd in Bethlehem Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 120
F. (2d) 641 (C. A. D. C .), the Board found that Bethlehem Steel Corporation dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the Bethlehem plans and contributed
support thereto . Cf. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp . v. N. L. R . B., 114 F. (2d) 930
(C. C. A. 1), enf'g 11 N. L. R. B. 105.
54 See supra, footnote 24.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ville which referred to the above-quoted letter as "announcing the
inauguration" of the Plan.
The, respondent arranged elections, by which the employees were
to choose officers of the Plan, to,be held on June 27 and 29; that is,
on dates subsequent to the respondent's announcement that the Plan
had been instituted. The method of selection of the election com-
mittees appears from the testimony of Williams at the Wilmington
trial and in substance was as'follows: At the final meeting of repre-
sentatives of the management with respect to the adoption of the Plan
held in the middle of June 1933, "after discussion about the best way
of starting out, it was decided that we contact the principal people that
we had in the mill, employees, and asked them to organize themselves
into a committee or into committees, as the case may be, to operate
these elections."
The respondent, in addition to its ex parte installation of the Plan
and its selection of key employees, promoted the elections by providing
the facilities for them and by printing and distributing about 15,000
copies of the Plan instrument. The respondent also issued letters
to the employees announcing the names of employees who would act
as temporary election committees and calling for employee participa-
tion in the elections and the Plan, as follows :
I [George W. Vreeland, general superintendent of the respond-
ent] sincerely hope that every employee of the Weirton Tin Mills
will cooperate with this committee in their efforts to complete
this organization, and give whole-hearted support to the plan.
2. Structure and operation
The respondent determined the initial structure and functioning
of the Plan which it established in Weirton, Clarksburg, and Steu-
benville. Thus, as President -Williams stated, the Bethlehem plans
"were the best ones we knew of, and we recommended them, and they
were the original ones adopted" at the respondent's plants.55
The original instrument establishing the Plan at the respondent's
plants contains, inter alia, the following features : 56 Participation in
the Plan does not depend upon application for, or admittance to,
membership; and is contingent upon continued employment by the
respondent. No provision is made for dues, for general membership
meetings, for the giving of instructions by, the employees to the Plan
'officers, committees, and employee representatives, or for the expres-
sion of the wishes of the employees. Ordinary participants in the
Plan have no voice in the amendment of the instrument, in the oper-
The Bethlehem plans are analyzed in detail in Matter of Bethlehem Steel Corporation,
supra, footnote 25.
14 we discuss below the financial features of the Plan
\vE'1RTON STEEL. COMPANY 1211
ation of the Plan, except to select representatives and -present'griev-
ances, or in the execution of agreements with the employer. " Only
American citizens,,21 years of age and over, who have been on the
respondent's pay roll for 1, year prior to nomination, may serve as_
employee representatives. Termination of employment' or transfer
to another voting unit vacates the representative's position. ' The re-
spondent may designate a management representative, one of 'whose
duties shall be to "interview [employee representatives]; from time
to time, with reference to matters of concern to employees." ' Ballots
in Plan 'elections are to be "counted under the direction 'and'super-
vision" of a committee, known as the committee on` rules; and the
management representatives. Management representatives` `also help
determine the times and' places of meetings' of committees of em=
ployee representatives 'and also apparently whether special' meetings
of such committees shall be held. Committees of employee represen-
tatives may summon management representatives into conference.
The respondent may refer "any matter" to committees of employee
representatives "for consideration and report." Provision is made
for so-called "joint committees" composed, of employee' representa=
tives and management representatives and for meetings of such joint
committees. The respondent may veto amendments of the instru'
ment and terminate the Plan.
Between June' 1933 and June 1934 amendments of the instrument
eliminated the provisions for management supervision' of the count-
ing of ballots, management selection o'f the place of meeting of em-
ployee representatives, joint committees,s' and veto over amendment of
the instrument or termination of the Plan, by the respondent.' A fur-
ther amendment empowers the president'of the respondent to convoke
special meetings of employee representatives.
Although the record does not show that the respondent attempted
to exercise its power of veto over amendment of the instrument, the
record 'does show that during 1934 the respondent, through George T.
Fonda, manager of the industrial relations department, and Earl
Reed, attorney for the respondent, advised the employee representa-
tives concerning amendment of the instrument in an ostensible effort
to make the Plan, lawful under the National Industrial Recovery Act.
The instrument was also amended at various times 'between June
1934 and May 1937. The instrument, as amended to May 1937,
authorizes employer-, participation ' in the following respects : Com-
mittees of employee. representatives may summon management repre-
sentatives to their meetings, such committees may receive matters for
their consideration from management representatives, and the instru-
G4 Provision for an annual joint conference between the respondent and the employee
representatives remains, however, and also management representatives may sit with
certain committees of employee representatives, although they do not have power to
iotc at meetnigs of such ommittees.
1212 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meet mentions agreements by, the respondents concerning grievances,
the independence of employee representatives, and wage changes.
The instrument, as amended to May 1937, also contains a provision
purporting to preserve, employee rights under the National Labor
Relations Act.` Although the provisions of the original, instrument,
disqualifying non-, voting employees and transferees, to difFerent.voting
units from, being employee representatives have been eliminated, the
instrument, as amended to May 1937, does not materially change, the
nature of the Plan or increase the potential activity of ordinary
employees, in,, or their control over, the organization. Thus; provision
is made for dues but such payment is not obligatory.. Membership
remains automatic., No provision is made in the amended instrument
for general membership, meetings or for other means by which,em-
ployees, may confer concerning their common interests, or instruct,
or make known their collective wishes to, the employee, representa-
tives.
The , minutes of various committees under the Plan in evidence
reyeal that both before and after amendment of the instrument
representatives of the management attended numerous meetings,of
such committees. The minutes designate them as "management rep-
re,sentatives." Management representatives remained in attendance
at these meetings during the transaction of business of the, employee
representatives. Such, participation was not at all times passive.
Thus at one meeting the Plan' designated T. Ovington, a manage-
ment, representative, who was. in attendance at this meeting, to act for
it in arranging a demonstration to be held on July 5, 1937.
The respondent participated in the Plan, in, other respects. The
auditor of the respondent audited the financial records, of the Plan.
Such an audit was made by, Auditor Tournay in November 1937.58
Moreover, supervisory employees of the respondent acted as. employeeloyee
representatives.59 Further examples of employer participation in the
operation, and activities of Plan are given below.
3: Financial and other support
The respondent contributed financial and other support to the Plan
sytematicalily and regularly from its inception to dates 'subsequent to
April 12, 1937, as follows:
(1) The respondent subsidized the activities of the Plan by an an-
nual lump-sum payment to it of 150 cents per. person eligible to partici-
pate in the Plan. This contribution amounted to more than $5,000
Tournay 's assertion that he conducted this audit on behalf of the Plan merely in the
capacity of-an "individual" is incredible as well as immaterial
The following Nsere both employee iepretientatnes and foieien during the same
penods Alerle w;iltz (chaiiman of emplo } ee reine,entatne5 of tin-mill department)
C Livingston , E At McGinnis , and J. W Weaver
WEIRTON STEEL''COMPANY 1213
for each of the years 1935, 1936, and 1937. This last payment was
made in January 1937 and was intended to cover the expenses of the
Plan'for the entire calendar year 1937. Following the decisions of
the'' Supreme' Court sustaining the constitutionality of the Act, the
respondent- informed the Plan that it would no longer pay this per
`capita' assessment. At this time the Plan still' had in its treasury a
balance from the per capita assessment paid by the respondent in
January 1937. The respondent did not seek the return of, nor' did
the Plan offer to return, such balance.
(2) During November 1936 the Plan obtained a $3,000 loan from
respondent to enable it to 'pursue its activities . By subsequent ar-,
rangement this advance was transformed into a contribution by''the
respondent to the Plan.
(3) The respondent paid each of the approximately 50 employee
representatives $25 a month for his -services as an employee repre-
sentative , in addition to the amounts earned as an employee. 'The
respondent continued to pay this monthly stipend 'to the' employee
representatives from the middle of 1933 through April 30, 1937.
Some of the employee representatives received their April 1937 com-
pensation after April 12, 1937 . The respondent' attributed discon-
tinuance of this monthly subsidy of ' the employee representatives
toI the decisions of the Supreme Court sustaining the constitution-
ality of the Act. For May 1937 and for , some months thereafter
employee representatives continued to 'receive a monthly salary 'of
$25, the payments being made by the ' Security League: We find
below that the respondent ' dominated ; interfered with, and supported
the Security League. We find, therefore ,' that the respondent is
also responsible for this monthly s'ubsid 'y' of the employee repre-
sentatives in and after May 1937. '
(4) The respondent , in addition' 'to the monthly payments to the
employee 'representatives , compensated them for any time which they
spent on Plan ' business ,' including attendance at Plan ' meetings and
participation in. any other activity connected with the Plan.' The
respondent ceased making these payments after April ' 12, 1937.
(5) Prior to April 1937 the respondent reimbursed employee
representatives for their travel and hotel ' expenditures ' when engaged
in Plan activity as, for example , when the Steubenville employee
representatives came to Weirton ori' Plan business.
•'(6) The respondent did not make-any deductions from the regular
wages of 'employees for time spent by them on behalf of the Plan
as employee representatives during the usual ' working hours. Fol-
lowing 'the 'Supreme Court decisions ' of April 12 , 1937 , 'the resp'ond=
ent informed the Plan that its 'custom of not making ` these ' deduc-'
tins would continue provided the' activity engaged in '"during usual`
1214 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working hours involved conferring with management. Regular and
special meetings of various committees of employee representatives
for the transaction of Plan business continued to be held during
working hours after April, 12, 1937. As we have noted above, man-
agement repreentatives, not uncommonly attended such meetings.
The, respondent, purporting to treat these meetings of Plan com-
mittees, during working hours as conferences with management, re-
frained from making deductions from the usual wages of the em-
ployee representatives for the time spent at such meetings. The
presence, of management, representatives at these meetings, and their
occurrence during working hours, without deductions from the swages
of the employees for their attendance at these meetings, were forms
of support of the Plan originating before, and not ceasing after,
April 12, 1937.
(7) John Larkin, a roller, was chairman of the Plan from its for-
mation until, January 1, 1938. Larkin ceased doing any but Plan
work in 1935 or 1936. The respondent paid him a, salary during this
period and continued to pay him one throughout the year 1937.
(8) Respondent supplied the Plan and its various divisions with
office facilities' on company premises. This form of support was not
discontinued following April 12, 1937.
(9), The Plan conducted periodic elections for the selection by the
employees of employee representatives. The respondent interfered
with and made numerous material contributions to these elections
beginning with the first election in June 1933 and. continuing through
December 1936. Thus, the, respondent prepared the list of names
determining the eligibility of persons, to participate in the elections.
It prepared, installed, and removed, the, requisite materials for the
balloting, including booths, chairs, and tables. The elections were
held on company premises during usual working hours. Foremen
advised 'employees that the polls were open and that they could
leave their work to vote. The respondent supplied special crews to
substitute for those who went to the polls. Employees who served
on the, election committees received special compensation from the
respondent.
r,,The respondent, performed *,these same services for the December
1937„ elections except that it did not give extra compensation to
election committeemen and it levied a charge upon the Plan for
some of these services. This charge did not change the essential
character of the respondent's services as forms of support ,to the
Plan. Thus it did not purport to cover all the-, above-mentioned
services; for.example, the conduct of the elections on company prop=
erty,during working hours. Moreover, the respondent had paid into
larsthe _Plan,.,treasury some thousands, of dol for the year 1937.
W.E'IRTON :Srr!E!EL COMPANY 1215
Finally, the similar circumstances under which all the elections were
conducted show the continuity of the respondent's support of them.
(10) The respondent undertook to publish and distribute the Bul-
letin, partly in response to the request of the Plan. The respond-
ent permits the Plan to aid in the determination of its contents and
editorial policy. J. P. Meagher, employed by the respondent in its
industrial relations department as editor of the Bulletin, testified
as follows in this connection :
Q. Can you say whether the first steps toward the introduc-
tion of this publication [the Bulletin] were taken by the em-
ployees or by the Company?
A. Well, I would say they were taken by the employees gen-
erally, and probably specifically by the employees' representa-
tives.
Q. . . . what goes into it normally?
A. Contributions from employees.
Q. And how are those obtained?
A. Principally through the employees' representatives, either
directly or through individuals that they suggest to me would
make good reporters ... We have, of course, the [employee]
representatives themselves who report a good deal of the news
in addition to some reporters who are not [employee] represent-
atives.
Q. What would you say in a general way is the nature of the
material which they contribute?
A. Well, it is a hard question to answer. We get personals,
we get safety items, we get stories about [employee] representa-
tives, what they have done ...
Q. . . . From what point of view do you review the material
besides the technical? ...
A. I found out from my experience on papers that you got to
put out a paper that the individuals read . . . For instance,
there are some things that would make a hit with two or three
fellows but for a whole department to run that it would antago-
nize the whole department. With that view in mind I have been
consulting the employees' representatives on practically every
article or news item that was a departure from any previous
established precedent, and that is what I mean by saying that
anything that comes up out of the way different from what I
have done before, that seemed directly concerned with the men
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the mill, I will consult, the" [employee] representatives, and
I have gotten the opinion of the majority of the fellows in the
mill through the [employee] representatives. . . . Because, oh,
I would 'say, over 90' per cent of the fellows in the, mill are in
daily contact with the [employee] representatives and it would
be impossible for me to go through the mills and contact 12,000
or so, employees myself,: . . I have got to take the word of the
[employee] representatives because I know they are close to the
men in the mill.
A. . . . The news' is gathered exclusively through the em-
ployees' representatives, or in some cases they may suggest the
names of individuals who are employees 'but are not represent-
1 11
atives.
Q. And' when you get the material and you have gone over
the.material yourself before publishing it, do you make a, fur-
ther check with the employees' representatives, and others?
A. Oh, yes. Yes.
Q. Will you explain that to us?
A. Well, practically-I can't recall any particular issue that
has not been checked before publication, checked by the em-
ployees' representatives.
Q. . _ . where do you get the material and the thoughts that
are incorporated in those editorials?
A. Well, I get them specifically from the employee represent-
atives, and from the reporters, and, of course, I walk-through
the mills constantly and'talk to individual employees who are
not representatives nor reporters.
Through the Bulletin the respondent constantly exercised direct
pressure 'upon the employees to remain loyal to the Plan. We have
already set forth some of this material. ' '
(11) Following the inauguration of the S. W. O. C. campaign, the
respondent employed special watchmen whose anti-C. I. 0: activities
we have already described above. As- noted, the respondent per-
mitted the employee representatives to select these special watchmen
from among the respondent's regular employees. The respondent
thereby enhanced the power of the Plan.
(12)' The' respondent' also delegated a substantial portion of man-
agerial power to the Plan, thereby "contributing to' it a potent form
of support; in connection with' the reorganization of the hot mill and
allied divisions of the tin mill department at Weirton, in and after
October, 1936. This reorganization involved the lay-off of several
hundred employees. The respondent in determining which em-
ployees'to select for lay-off conferred with, and relied in, large part
WE'IRTOON STEEL COMPANY 1217
upon, the advice of the employee representatives for the divisions
involved. The respondent informed employees laid off in this re-
organization to go to their employee representatives to discover why
they had been laid off and what their chances were of reemployment.
Following these lay-offs the employee representatives decided that
too many persons had been laid off. They so informed the respond-
ent and the respondent accordingly agreed to reinstate to the hot mill
and allied divisions a certain number of the persons laid off in the
reorganization. The respondent in determining which persons to
reemploy to these divisions again conferred with, and in large part
relied upon, the advice of these employee representatives.
(13) As noted elsewhere the Security League and the Community
League were formed in order to, and did, foster the Plan among the
respondent's employees. Moreover, by the methods specified else-
where in this decision, the respondent supported the formation and
operation of these leagues. We find,- on this record, that the respond-
ent contributed further support to the Plan through the Security
League and the Community League.
(14) The respondent, as we find hereinafter, encouraged member-
ship in the, Plan on and after May 5, 1937, by discrimination in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of persons who sym-
pathized with the C. I. 0.
(15) The respondent also encouraged adherence to the Plan, by
the acts of coercion hereinabove set forth.
4. Concluding findings
In sum, the respondent formed the Plan; procured its adoption
by employees; determined its essential nature, as an unaffiliated
organization in which participation, and the chances of control, by
the rank and file employees, are reduced to a minimum; during the
crucial formative period, had express authority to veto amendment
of the Plan and to terminate it ; participated in administering the
Plan and amending the governing instrument; subsidized the Plan
by large annual and other payments to it, by payment of a salary
to the Plan chairman while he devoted his entire time to Plan busi-
ness, by payment of a special monthly salary to the employee repre-
sentatives, by other special payments to them, by payment of special
compensation to Plan election committeemen, and by permission to
the employees to engage in Plan activity on company time, and prop-
erty; delegated management power to it in connection with the
special watchmen and the tin-mill reorganization; encouraged affilia-
tion with the Plan by discrimination in regard to hire and tenure
of employment and by other acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion; and contributed further support to the Plan, in connection
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with its elections and other activities through the Bulletin, the
Security League, and the Community League.
Despite some amendments of the Plan instrument concerning com-
pany participation therein, and the respondent's ostensible with-
drawal of financial support therefrom after April 12, 1937, the record
demonstrates that the respondent continues to participate in the
Plan and to sponsor it by financial and other means.
The respondent and the Plan rely on the fact that the Plan con-
tributed to the- welfare of its members. But this is immaterial under
the Act if the respondent has in fact interfered with, supported, and
dominated the Plan.60 That the Plan secured benefits does not prove
that it was free from the-interference, support, and domination of
the respondent.61 Indeed, these alleged benefits were further instru-
ments by which the respondent, in part through the Bulletin,
sponsored the Plan .62
The respondent and the Plan also point to the large percentage of
voters at Plan elections. But under the circumstances presented here
we find that this extensive turnout was procured through the re-
spondent's coercion and cannot prove the freedom of the Plan from
the respondent's interference, support, and domination.63 Upon this
record, testimony by employees that their participation in the Plan
was not secured through, or subject to, interference, restraint, coer-
cion, or domination, and that they preferred the Plan to the S. W.
0. C., is entitled to little or no weight.64
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Plan, and has contributed finan-
cial and other support to it; that by its aforesaid acts, the respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
F. The Security League
1. Formation; the loyalty pledge
Shortly before the S. W. 0. C. began to organize among employees
of the respondent, a group of about 20 persons, most of whom were
employee representatives, determined to form the Security League.
60 N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 308 U. S. 241.
01 Ibid.
63 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. American Potash and Chemical Company, et al., 98 F. ( 2d) 488
C. C. A. 9) ; M. H. Ritzwoller Company v . N. L. R. B., 114 F. (2d) 432 (C. C. A. 7).
83 N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n (U. S. A.) 310 U. S. 318; N. L. R. B. v. Newport
News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, 308 U. S. 241.
"See N. L. R. B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584; N. L. R. B. V. Brown Paper Mill Com-
pany, Inc., 108 F. (2d) 867 (C. C. A. 5), cert. den'd 318 U. S. 651; Matter of The M. A.
Hanna Company, etc. and Steel Workers Organizing Committee , etc., 21 N. L. R. B. 962.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1219
Its primary objectives were to forestall outside organizations and to
provide a rank and file membership for the Plan.65
Employees were invited to attend a meeting of the incipient Secur-
ity, League. At this gathering, held in June 1936, at a place known
as the Fox Hunters' Barn, following denunciations of the C. I. 0.,
the persons present selected John Larkin and Norman Moore, chair-
man and , secretary, respectively, of the Plan, for corresponding posi-
tions in the new organization, and a rules committee, under the chair-
manship. of-Russell Congleton, an employee representative, and ar-
ranged to meet again at the same place toward the end of June.
At this final general meeting of the Security League, the rules com-
mittee recommended adoption by the Security League of the follow-
ing loyalty pledge :
WEIRTON STEEL 'EMPLOYEES' SECURITY LEAGUE
IN VIEW OF THE UNREST IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY wHICII IS-BEING
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE EFFORTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION TO ORGANIZE THE STEEL WORKERS INTO ONE VAST UNION
UNDER TIIE LEADERSHIP OF JOHN L LEWIS, WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO
HEREBY AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES AND PLEDGE OUR SUPPORT.TO THE
FOLLOWING-:
1 THAT WE BELIEVE IN AND WILL SUPPORT TO•THE FULL EXTENT OF
OUR ABILITY, MR T. E. MILLSOP, PRESIDENT, AND ALL OTHER OFFICIALS
,OF THE WIERTON STEEL COMPANY.
'
2. THAT WE WILL, AT ALL TIMES, ENDEAVOR TO DO OUR ASSIGNED WORK
'IN SUCH:A MANNER, THAT THE PRODUCTS OF THE WEIRTON STEEL COM-
PANY WILL BE SECOND TO NONE IN THE STEEL MARKET.
3. THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT MEAIBERSIIIP IN THE WEIRTON STEEL
EMPLOYEES' SECURITY LEAGUE DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANY MEMBER'S
PERSONAL RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN ANY SECT, CREED OR POLITICAL PARTY
4. THAT WE BELIEVE IN THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE PLAN FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND WILL VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE ANY AND ALL
ATTEMPTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION TO DIS-
TURB THE PRESENT SATISFACTORY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICII WE ARE
WORKING AT THE PRESENT TIME.
Further events at this meeting included denunciation of the C. I. 0.,
circulation of the loyalty pledge for the signatures of persons pres-
ent, and a determination also to circulate the pledge throughout the
respondent's plants.
The employee representatives 'undertook the task of procuring the
signatures of the employees to the loyalty pledge. They made a sys-
tematic canvass, 'of 'the employees for this purpose. Under the cir-
cumstances of this case, including the respondent's support and dom-
ination of the Plan, we find that the employee representatives, in
forming the Security League and circulating the loyalty pledge, acted
w It will be recalled that the Plan does not provide for application for, or acceptance
into, membership . ' At the oral argument counsel for the respondent characterized "this
movement in 1936 " as "frankly a pact of the plan."
443692-42-vol 32--78
1220 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the respondent.66 The respondent sponsored the distribution o
the loyalty pledge in numerous other ways.
Thus employee representatives met on company time and property
for the purpose of discussing methods of circulating the loyalty
pledge. They obtained blank copies of the pledge, and stored the
signed copies, within the respondent's plants.
The solicitation of employees' signatures to the pledge occurred at
the plants, during working hours, over a period of several days:
Jack' Richards, hot-mill superintendent, L. J. Renfrew-, assistant su-
perintendent of the coke plant, and Frank Hale, hot-mill foreman,
admittedly knew' of this canvass. The other supervisory employees
necessarily had similar knowledge because the circularization was
both widespread and notorious.
It will be recalled that at this time the respondent paid each em-
ployee representative a special monthly- stipend of $25, did not make
deductions frorn their regular wages for time spent on Plan activity
during usual working hours, and paid them additional sums for extra
time spent on Plan business. Since circulation of the loyalty pledge
AN-as a Plan project, the respondent contributed these three subsidies
to procure signatures to the pledge. G7
The solicitation occurred in the presence of supervisory employees
of the respondent. For example, Assistant Superintendent Renfrew
testified that he saw an employee representative circulating the pledge
among the employees in the coke plant during usual working hours
and that-
You saw it being passed around for the men to sign, is that
right?
A. That is right, and went up to see what is this.
Q. And he [the employee representative] showed it:to you, is
that right?
A. Yes. Yes, and I read it.
Presumably, the employee representative in question continued to pro-
cure employees' signatures to the pledge. In the hot mill department
the employee representatives stationed themselves in the supervisors'
office, had the foremen send the employees to the office, and there're-
quested them to sign a petition relating to hours of work and ti e
loyalty pledge. Superintendent Richards and the various turn fore-
men made use of this office during the solicitation. Frank Sileino,
01Cf Internat ional Association of Machinists , etc., v N L R . B, 110 F . ( 2d) 29 (C. A
for D. C ), 311 U . S 72, enf 'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union,
etc, 8 N L . R B 621.
07 Thus, during the first half of July 1936 , the period of circulation of the pledge , Andrew
Koper and Calderon Lyons , employee representatives who helped procure signatures thereto,
received compensation respectively , for 76 and 68 hours of extra time spent on Plan work,
numbers of hours greatly in excess of the number of hours similarly spent by either in
other semi-monthly periods
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1221
pusher, admittedly- used the office for this purpose while Foreman
Hale was present. Claude Conway, employee representative at this
time, and later one of the-head special watchmen and head of the
Security League, admitted that the foremen "may have come in" and
out of the office while he was procuring the employees to sign the
pledge. The solicitation necessarily occurred in the presence of the
hot mill supervisory employees and of the other supervisory employees
because of its open and extensive occurrence on company time and
property. Their presence at this time, in view of the intimate rela-
tionship between the respondent and the Plan, intensified the coercive
character of the solicitation. -
Supervisory employees also solicited employees to sign the loyalty
pledge. Denials of such activity are incredible in view of the con-
trary, credible, circumstantial, and mutually corroborative testimony
of a number of employees; the circumstances under which the canvass
took place; the respondent's other support of the Plan, of the Security
League, and of the pledge, and discouragement of the S. W. O. C.; the
similarity between the loyalty pledge and E. T. Weir's pledge in the
above-described letter to Larkin; and the respondent's subsequent ex-
ploitation of the campaign to procure signatures to the loyalty pledge.
Thus we find that Superintendent Jack Richards and Foreman Risher,
-Richard Mort, Joe Fabianich, John Solomon, Frank Hale, Charles
Areto, Eatery Dunkle, Frank Rutherford, and Perry Cassella, in sub-
stance, told employees to sign the loyalty pledge.
Employee Representative Congleton sought to obtain further sig-
natures to the loyalty pledge, through Ernest A. Manack, chief clerk
of the sheet mill department, in the following manner. On pay day
Congleton informed Manack that he wanted to speak to approxi-
mately 15 named employees in the basement office of the sheet mill.
Accordingly, Manack had the pay-roll department deliver to him
the pay checks of these employees and send them to him when they
'requested their earnings. Manack told these men that Congleton
wanted to see them in the basement office and gave them their checks.
Congleton wished to see these men because they had previously refused
to sign the loyalty pledge. Upon their reporting to the office Congle-
ton asked them again to sign it. Manack thus placed his position and
the' pay-roll department at the disposal of the Plan, 'and Congleton
utilized this mechanism to procure additional signatures to the loyalty
pledge. Consequently, whether or not Manack knew of Congleton's
purpose, the respondent, through Manack, gave further aid to the
loyalty pledge project. Besides, under the circumstances of this case,
including the method by which Manack summoned the employees, we
do not,credit his alleged absence of culpable knowledge or motive, and
find that he deliberately conjoined to delivery of the checks and
Congleton's, request to speak to them in order to suggest to the em-
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees that their continued refusal to sign the pledge might jeopardize
Their jobs.
The Bulletin, issued July 17, 1936, exploited to the full the possibili-
ties of this loyalty pledge. The first page carried the following
streamer headline : "EMPLOYEES' SECURITY LEAGUE SHOWS MEMBERSHIP
Is 99% or ELIGIBLES." Immediately thereunder appeared the follow-
ing headline : "Signers of Pledge Determine to Work Out Problems
With No `Outside' Interference." These headlines were then followed
by an article on the Security League and the pledge, occupying more
than a column of the first page and more than a column on the second
page. It announced that "The objectives of the Security League have
been unanimously endorsed by not only the entire body of employees
but also by the townspeople of Greater Weirton, Steubenville and
Clarksburg," and that these objectives were "clearly" set forth in the
loyalty pledge; and quoted the entire pledge in heavy type. The article
then commented on the pledge under the subheadline "'Outsiders' Told
`Hands Off'," as follows :
The objectives of the Security League are stated in clear cut
paragraphs which cannot be mistaken and in the plain language of
some of the members, "stands as notice to all `outsiders' to keep
`hands off,' which means that members of the League will oppose
any attempt to disturb the satisfactory conditions under which we
are working at this time."
It stated further that :
Security means just what it says, job security and the right to
work without being forced or otherwise intimidated by threats of
violence to pay tribute to some outside organization in order to
hold our jobs and support ourselves and families ... These men
believe that if there are any -grievances to be adjusted, the best
machinery to do the job is through the elected employees' repre-
sentatives, who are in a position to quickly get'the true facts in
every case, without supporting a lot of "outsiders" in soft jobs
who have no interests in the every-day problems of the men in the
mills. '
The article, after referring to a trust fund left by J. C. Williams, late
president of the respondent, to the citizens of the community, _stated :
The value of this Trust Fund 'depends upon the continued suc-
cessful operation of the Weirton Steel Company and it-is the
vowed intention of the, Employees' Security League to protect
this investment along with the individual rights of all employees
to work and be free from all interference from any source. The
Weirton Steel Employees' Security League is the 1936 edition of
another Declaration of Independence!,
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1223
The same issue of the Bulletin published the following editorial in
praise of the Plan and the newly formed Security League, and in
opposition to "outsiders":
The spontaneous action of Weirton Steel employees in forming
their own Security League carried with it a significance which,
should be a signal' to the wise to STOP, LOOK and LISTEN !
The word "Security" has been well chosen and, as has been said by
spokesmen of the League, means "hands off" to all "outsiders" who
by ,any means may try to coerce or intimidate any employees of
the Company, in an effort to force them to pay tribute for the
right to work. As a matter of personal privilege, no one has the
right to interfere with our constitutional rights as free men and,
despite the efforts of soap box orators, no one can tell us that we
must join and pay dues to any organization in order that we, may
hold our jobs. Those "outsiders" who are trying to make the steel
industry the battle ground to settle the question of who is to be
"crowned king," so that he may sit on top of the money bags,
filled with the hard earned dollars of loyal American workers,
will soon learn that the men , who make steel stand in a body
against this kind of a racket and will defend their rights against
all.comers. It takes red blooded "he-men" to produce steel and
these men know their own problems better than any "outsiders"
ever will. The very fact that an attempt is being made to tell
steel workers what they MUST do by those representing the
workers of such industries as Clothing, Textile, Ladies' Garments
and Ladies Millinery, is enough to prove how little these people
know about the men they are trying to trick into believing a lot of
foolish promises which will only cost $1.00 a month-"TO
START." Employees of the Weirton Steel Company have their
own organization 'made up of Representatives they have chosen.
If they do not properly do the job, the men have the power to re-
call any, Representative and elect another in his place. Who'can
do a better job, for his fellow-workers than' a freely chosen Repre-
sentative of these men who see and know all of the every day prob-
lems because he is shoulder to, shoulder with his buddy day and
night and will go to no end to clear up any difference of opinion
on a fair and square. basis? The "outsiders" are seeing the end of
their soft jobs, as Employees' Representatives build up better un-
derstanding and closer cooperation within the steel industry and
the drive is' on , to try to smash all such employee organizations.
Next would come the smashing of all Employee Relief and Bene-
ficial Associations and in exchange for all this would come the
iron fist of the "Outside Dictator" who would say "pay me or you
don't work." The Weirton Steel Employees' Security League
1224 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gives the answer to all this when they say "they will oppose any
and all attempts to disturb the satisfactory conditions under which
we are working at the present time." This is plain English which
anyone should be able to understand !
2. Financial and other support of the Security League
The respondent contributed financial and other support to the
Security League, subsequent to its formation, as follows :
(1) The Plan defrayed the initial expenses of the Security League.
The Plan acted thereby as a conduit for the respondent, since the
respondent was supporting the Plan at this time -by financial and
other contributions.
(2) Shortly after the formation of the Security League, it dis-
tributed among the employees buttons which carried its name, em-
bedded in the colors of the American flag. C. B. Dodd, then director
of athletics in the respondent's industrial relations department, pre-
pared and submitted the above design and another for the approval
of officials of the Security League, and transmitted to Bastian
Brothers Company an order for the above badges. The order, on
stationery of the respondent, was signed "C. B. Dodd-Director of
Athletics," and it gave Bastian Brothers Company the option of
billing him or shipping the buttons C. 0. D. The Plan advanced
the money for the payment of these badges. The employee repre-
sentatives circulated the buttons throughout the plant. The Bulletin
of July 17, 1936, printed a photograph and explanation of them to
accompany its publicity on the formation of the Security League.
The respondent, through the use of its property, and through Dodd,
the Plan, and the Bulletin, thus aided in the distribution of the
Security League insignia.
(3) Thereafter, the Security League sponsored a series of demon-
strations. The respondent assisted in this activity in addition to
the respects already mentioned."' The December 12, 1936, parade
formed in the yard of the tin-mill department. Through the Plan,
the respondent paid for the signs used in the January 12, 1937, parade.
The respondent also curtailed operations to a minimum to facilitate
employee participation therein. The Community League raised funds
to pay for the demonstration held on May 30, 1937. The respondent
approved, ratified, and thereby adopted this support because of the
Bulletins dated January 15 and July 2, 1937, which in substance in-
corporated the activities of the Community League into its program
of fostering the Plan and the Security League and of hindering out-
side organization. The respondent also encouraged its employees
"Frank Hale, superintendent of the cold-rolls division of the tin-mill department,
loaned his car tor use in one of these parades.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1225
to. attend the May 30 demonstration, in that a large sign advertising
the demonstration was posted in the Steubenville plant, the parade
formed in part at least in the yards, of the Weirton plant, it marched
into and halted in the respondent's Weir-Cove Field where the
speakers delivered their speeches, and at least 1 supervisory employee,
Anna, Kostur, forelady of about 200- employees in the, assorting di-
vision of the tin-mill department with authority over several assist-
ant foreladies, marched in the parade. A photograph of the as-
sorters' section of, the formation, appearing in the June 4, 1937,
Bulletin, prominently, displayed Kostur at the head of the section.
The August 15, 193,7,,deinonstration formed again in the respondent's
yard and. used its Weir-Cove Field.
(4) The, respondent's, officials and other supervisory employees
accepted honorary, memberships in the various units, wore Security
League insignia in the presence of employees, attended its social func-
tions,, and contributed money, to it. Joseph H. Carse,, trestle, foreman
in the blast-furnace division of the steel-works department during
1937,, loaned the Steel Works Unit almost $1,000 during this period.
Most of this loan remained unpaid on November 6, 1937. Richard
Grace, extra turn foreman in the blooming-mill division of the, steel-
works department during July 1937, loaned the Steel Works Unit
$500 in this period. This loan remained unpaid on Nov;einber 6, 1937.
A. G. Parks, chief clerk of the steel-works department, helped the
Steel Works Unit arrange a boat excursion in, July 1937. Supervisory
employees acted as officers of the Security League."
(5) The Security, League or one or more of its units used the re,
spondent's. plants for meetings, solicitation of memberships, solici-
tation of donations, and sale of tickets; the respondent's Weir-Cove
Field for athletic events; and the respondent's wholly, owned sub-
sidiary bleacher seats for events in the "Arena," a place rented by
the Tin: Mill Unit.70,
00 Mike Bobby (foreman at various, times in 193,7, iecording secretary, of the Sheet Mill
Unit- for 1937) ; Geoige McHendry- (foreman, and financial, secretary and treasurer of the
Sheet Mill. Unit during. 1 937),; J Kane ( foreman and financial secretary and treasurer
of the Strip Steel Unit during 1937) ; Richard Grace (extia foreman at various tines
in 1937,, president of the Steel Works Unit ands secretary of the General Advisory Com-
mittee of the Security League for, 1937 )1, J. H. Carse ( foreman and recording secretary
of the Steel Woiks, Unit during 1937) , V Curtis (foreman at various times in 1937, re-
cording secretary of the Steel Works Unit during 1937) ; Alex Lenial (foreman and
chairman of the entertainment committee of the Steel Works Unit during 1937)
10 The respondent contends that it purchased the bleacher seats for its own use and that
it permitted the Security League to use them in the "Arena" because it thereby secured
a convenient means of storing then during the winter While the; record, raises, certain
suspicions that the respondent purchased the bleacher seats, when it did , for the primary
purpose of lending them to the Security League, we do not make such a finding . Whether
or not the,respoident consideied•the "Arena"a convenient storage place., the other support
which, the respondent gaic to the Security Ieague convinces ns, and we find, that one of
the respondents purposes in loaning the bleacher scats to the Seenrit-3 loeague, if not its
sole pui9000, was to assist the 5ecuiity League
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(6) 'Prior to April 15, 1936, the respondent; through the Plan,
established a Baseball Club at the Steubenville plant to promote and
finance a baseball team. For the pay-roll period of April 15, 1937,
the respondent deducted $178.50 from the wages of its Steubenville
employees, under arrangements for such deduction, and paid this sum
to the Plan in connection with the Baseball Club. Upon the forma-
tion of the Steubenville Tin Mill Unit, the respondent, through the
Plan, gave to the Steubenville Tin Mill Unit the sponsorship and
financing of the Baseball Club and the funds already accumulated
in connection therewith. The respondent, through the Plan, thus
gave the Steubenville Tin Mill Unit a net balance of $120.50. The
respondent continued this check-off during May and June 1937,
thereby turning-over to the Steubenville Tin Mill Unit another $711.25.
Between May 15 and August 15, 1937, the respondent deducted $61
from the wages of its employees, under an arrangement for such de-
duction, and paid this sum to the Sheet Mill Unit in' connection with
the sale of baseball tickets.
(7) During 1937, each of the five units of the Security League spent
more money than it earned. Thus despite an apparent balance of
$233.32 on November 29, 1937, the Sheet Mill Unit had a deficit of
$66.68 on that date because of an unpaid loan amounting to $300. The
Community League, one of whose purposes was to aid the Security
League, made this loan to the Sheet Mill Unit on August 17, 1937.
The Sheet Mill Unit entered the amount thus received, on its records,
as "Sheet Mill portion of donation from Weirton, Holliday's Cove,
W. Va., and Steubenville, Ohio, businessmen." For the reasons already
mentioned, we find that this item of support -must be attributed to the
respondent.
The Tin Mill Unit had a nominal balance, on January 1, 1938, of
$90.71, and an actual deficit of $607.63 because of unpaid bills amount-
ing to $348.34 and an unpaid loan, unentered on its records, amounting
,to $350. The Strip Steel Unit had an apparent balance of $112.04 and
an actual deficit of $307.05, because of unpaid bills amounting to
$194.09 and an unpaid loan, also unentered on its records, amounting
to $225, as of December 1 and 2, 1937. These loans to the Tin, Mill
and Strip Steel Units were made upon the strength of unsecured notes
executed by the respective officers of the two units. The Strip Steel
Unit obtained its loan of $250, on April 20, 1937, from the Peoples
Bank of Holiday's Cove, the only bank in that city, and the Tin Mill
Unit received its loan of $350, in October or November 1937, from the
Bank of Weirton, the only bank in Weirton. These two banks are
affiliated with each other and' with the respondent. J. C. Williams,-
late president of the respondent, was president of the Peoples Bank
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1227
of Holiday 's Cove until about January 1936 . H. Kline Weir, E. T.
Weir's son, succeeded him. E . T. Weir is president of the Bank of
Weirton. H. Kline Weir and E . T. Weir are among the directors of
both banks .- • Both banks also have other officers and directors in
common. In view of the substantial identity of control over the
respondent and the two banks , the circumstances surrounding the
loans, and the relationship between the respondent and the Security
League, we-find that the'respondent supported the Security League
through the respective loans of the Bank of Weirton and the Peoples
Bank of Holiday 's Cove to the Tin Mill and Strip Steel Units.
(8) As above noted, the respondent contributed further support
to the Security League through the Bulletin , the Plan, and the
Community League.
(9)= The respondent encouraged membership in the Security League
on and after May 5, 1937 , as noted below, by discrimination in regard-
to the . hire and tenure of employment of C. L - 0. sympathizers' '
(10) The respondent also encouraged membership in the Security
League by its,other acts of interference , restraint , and coercion set
forth above. 1
3. Concluding findings
'The respondent-acting through officials. and other supervisory
employees, employee representatives, and the Plan, the Bulletin, the
Community League, and affiliated banks-formed . the Security
League; subsidized it by contributions, loans, free advertising,
check-off, and donation of company time and property; participated
in the administration of the Security League; aided it by solicitation,
editorials, cartoons, and other coercive publicity in connection with a
loyalty pledge, insignia, demonstrations, membership campaigns, and
other league activities; and encouraged membership in the Security
League by numerous other acts of, interference, restraint, coercion, and
discrimination. The Security League, including its various units,
was a potent device, by which the respon dent succored, the Plan and
frustrated the S. W. O. C. Moreover, in view of the integral relation-
ship between the Plan and the Security League, including its several
units, it is clear that by virtue- of the respondent's interference, with,
support, and domination of, the Plan, it has interfered with, supported,
and dominated the Security League.
We-find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Security League, and has con-
tributed financial and other.support to it; that by its aforesaid acts,
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment;
evictions and exclusions
The respondent's unfair labor practices, described above, drove the
S. W. O. C. under cover. Following the Supreme Court decisions of
April 12, 1937, sustaining the constitutionality of the Act, the
S. W. O. C. determined again to organize openly among the respond-
ent's employees. The Amalgamated held a meeting in Weirton,
elected officers, and published their names. The respondent, as noted
above, did not abate its campaign against the S. W. O. C: The cam-
paign intensified, in fact, by reason of the revival of the Security
League at this time, through the establishment of its various units.
The Security League, pursuing its anti-C. I. O. objective, evicted
or excluded from the Weirton plant : about 13 employees on and after
May 5, 4 on May 6, 1 on May 17, 2 on June 1, and 2 on and after June
19, 1937. The amended complaint and Appendix "A," attached
hereto, name 17 of these employees as victims of this discrimination.
Numerous witnesses gave testimony, conflicting in part, with re-
spect to the circumstances preceding, surrounding, and following the
evictions and exclusions.71 Considering this evidence in the light of
the above-described purposes and conduct of the respondent and the
Security League, we find that substantially the following occurred :
1. The evictions from the cold-rolls division of the tin-mill department
on May 5, 1937
a. Events immediately preceding the evictions
On or about May 3, 1937, Costas Lainbros reported for work in the
cold-rolls division of the tin-mill department, wearing a S. W. O. C.
button. George Ellison, Weirite inspector, an employee representa-
tive, and Lambros' cousin, asked him why he had joined the
S. W. O. C., and intimated that the respondent could easily find a
pretext for discharging him. Ellison also warned Louis Xindas,
employed in the cold rolls, not to "mix" with the S. W. O. C.
On May 4 Louis Xindas and his brother, Steve, also a cold rolls
employee, appeared in the plant with S. W. O. C. buttons. Edwin O.
Burgham, manager of the tin-mill department, approached to within
a foot of Louis, and stared at his S. W. O. C. insignia. Burgham also
scrutinized Steve's badge and called him a "hell of a guy." Shortly
thereafter Steve was summoned to the cold-rolls office. There, in the
presence of Superintendent Hale, Ellison- scolded him for wearing the
41 we note below some, but not all, of the conflicts . In arriving at our findings we have,
of course , considered all the evidence.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1229
S. W. O. C. button and warned him that it might cause '.trouble."r'
Joe Porco , cold -rolls strawboss , summoned Lambros to the Office, too,
where Paul Campbell , a salaried order tracer in the tin -mill department
and recording secretary of the Tin Mill Unit , demanded that Lambros
surrender either his Security League or his C. I. O. card. Campbell
testified that he made this demand because employees complained to
him that the S. W. O. C. sympathizers were stating that persons who
did not join the S. W. O.,C. then would lose their jobs later or be com-
pelled,to pay large initiation fees.
On May 5, during the shift from 4: 00 p . in. to 12: 00 midnight,
Campbell asked Mike Frangakais , a cold-rolls employee , whether he
had displayed a C. I. O. badge, and Frangakais admitted he had.
Pursuant to Campbell 's demand , Louis Xindas surrendered his Secur-
ity League card. Campbell also asked Shirley Cox , a cold-rolls em-
ployee, who was wearing a S. W. O . C. button, to hand in his card.
Cox promised to do so the following day. Shortly thereafter , Conway
came into the cold-rolls division and demanded Cox's Security League
card, using threatening language and shaking his fist at Cox . Conway
observed the C. 1. 0. insignia on Markos Nikitas , a cold-rolls employee.
He thereupon asked Nikitas whether Nikitas had joined the S . W. O. C.
and, receiving an affirmative reply, asked Nikitas for his Security
League card. Charles Eddy, superintendent of the black-plate divi-
sion' of the tin-mill department, called Cox "a dirty double-crosser"
and threatened to "fix" him that night.
b. The evictions
The eviction 'project was first broached, in the evening of May 5,
at a meeting of the Security League. About 10-: 30'p. in. Paul Camp-
bell, Louis Pagur, tin plate roller levelling foreman, and others decided
to carry 'through the evictions from the cold rolls that night because the
S. W. O. C. sympathizers were getting "bolder and bolder." Accord-
ingly, a number of the ringleaders' went through the various depart-
ments to collect men and` the mob gathered at the hot-mill office.
Toward the close of the 4 to 12 o'clock shift, when persons scheduled
to work ' on the next shift began to appear , the mob swarmed from the
hot mill into the cold rolls. About half the men in the hot mill joined
the mob before the end of their turn . Although James McKenzie,
hot-mill foreman on duty at the time, claims that he did not know why
they were going toward the cold rolls ; that he asked some of them not to
go; that upon the return of some from the. cold rolls , he asked them
12 Although Ellison spoke in the Greek language and Hale did not understand Greek,
Hale's presence intensified the coercion inhering in Ellison's talk and its surrounding cir-
cumstances. -
1230 DECISIONS OF' NATIOATAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what had happened; and that they would not tell him, it does not ap-
pear-that he made an'y' real effort to prevent' his men from joining the
mob or to discipline those who did. He did not attempt, that night,
to report this irregular exodus of his crews to Night Superintendent
Jones or to Dunkle, the next turn foreman. Moreover, although he
admittedly learned of the evictions from the cold rolls before he left
the plant that night, he went home without trying to report them to
Jones or Dunkle. Some of the persons in the mob were armed with
sticks and blocks. The most prominent participants therein included
Claude Conway, Weirite inspector, head of the Security 'League, and
in 1936 one of the head' special watchmen whose assaults upon
S. W. O. C. organizers we have discussed above; Paul Campbell, sal-
aried order tracer and secretary of the Tin Mill Unit; and Tom Long,
hot-mill roller, employee representative, and a leading member of the
Security League.73 Others included Otto Price, assistant shipper of
the black-plate division of the tin-mill department; George Bush,
brush man in the tin house of the tin-mill department, and one of the
head special watchmen in 1936 ;74 Louis Pagur, tin plate roller levelling
foreman and one of the persons who planned the eviction; and Harry
Long, William Foster, and John Kazienko, special watchmen in 1936.
The mob, under -Conway's leadership, evicted 13 employees from
the' cold-rolls division.75 The following incidents characterize the
actions of Conway and his associates. Conway pulled off the C. I. O.
insignia of Defont and Nikitas and pushed them. While Harry Long
stood close by with clenched fist, Conway grabbed Steve Xindas by
the shoulders, shook him, cursed, and told him to "get the hell out"
and "stay out" if he did not want to be killed. Conway grabbed
Lambros' arms and pushed him. Price tried to pull off Cox's C. I. O.
button and Conway told him that he could work for the C. I. O.
as he was "out of a job" with the respondent: Two men took hold
of Dimitry and chased him out of the cold rolls. Upon Bonnizzio's
refusal to surrender his C. I. O. button immediately, Charles Stewart
punched him in the eye. Stewart took Silvestros' button and told
him. to leave the plant. Conway grasped Louis Xindas' hand and
instructed him to leave. Tom Long and another held Frangakais by
the arms, from the rear, and ordered him out. On his way out,
73 Long became chairman of the Plan on January 1, 1933.
14 Bush became night superintendent of the tin house, effective as of June 15, 1937.
75 Named in Appendix "A": Shirley Cox, Anastasos Dimitry, Mike Frangakais , Costas
Lambros, Markos Nikitas, Themistockles Rusus, George Silvestros , Louis Xindas, and Steve
Xindas Not named in Appendix "A" : Nicholas Bonmzzio , Jack Defont ,- Steve Phillips,
and William Vasilins. Eleven of these thirteen employees worked on the 4 to 12 o'clock
shift and were about to end their turn when they were evicted. The other two , Lambros
and Rusus , scheduled to work on the succeeding shift, had arrived in the cold -rolls division
on May 5, as usual, some time before midnight. Although Lambros and Rusus may have
left the plant shortly after the other 11 employees , they, in common with the other 11,
were victims of the mob's anti-C. T 0. assault.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1231
Conway snatched his. C. I.' 0. badge, called him a "son-of-a-bitch,"
and threatened to kill him. - , ;
During the evictions Conway mounted a platform and spoke as
follows :
Men, in 1933, here is where our strike started and you men
seen what has happened to these fellows that has been trying
to start trouble again. If there is anyone else around here that
is in the same frame of mind, they will get the same dose that
these fellows got tonight.
Conway stated also that the evictees could return when they "learned
to be satisfied" and were ready to keep their "mouths shut like regular
workers." Pagur told the evictees :
Boys, you have been doing a lot of hotfooting in here causing
a lot of trouble in here, and we decided we would not stand, for
it. We decided to take you boys out until you decide, you can
behave yourselves and come back and go to work.
Marcus Freese was the foreman on duty in the cold-rolls division
at the time that the evictions occurred. When the mob swarmed
into this part of the plant, he first -approached it, then went to shut
down the motor operating the cold rolls, upon being told to do so by
a voice, assertedly because he did 'not know what was happening,
and then returned to the edge of the crowd where one of the ejectors
told him "we are putting out some trouble-makers." Freese sent for
Jones. He remained inactive at the fringe of the mob• until it dis-
persed a few minutes before midnight. (Although Freese testified
on direct examination that he,tried unsuccessfully to get to the center
of the crowd-where the snatching of badges was taking place-he
admitted on cross-examination that he knew that the route he chose
to get to the center was blocked and that he did not try to use
another route, unobstructed, by which he could have gotten to the
center.
Jones was having his meal during the eviction. At about 12:20 or
12:25 a. m., after the crowd had dispersed, a man reported', to him
that Freese wanted him as there was ; "trouble" in the cold • rolls.
Jones then went to the - cold iolls. He reported the evictions t6
Burgham by telephone. ' ' •, -
The respondent's police did not prevent the evictors from enter-
ing the respondent's property although a number of them were not
scheduled to work on the midnight -turn.' . Foreman McKenzie and
Freese did not attempt to communicate with the police during the
evictions. The police did not appear on `the ,scene to prevent the
evictions or arrest Conway or the other ringleaders.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The evictees left the plant. That night a number of them went
to the S. W. O. C. headquarters in Steubenville and there signed
affidavits describing their ouster.
2. The evictions from the cutting-lines division of the "tin-mil[
department on May 6, 1937
a. Events immediately preceding the evictions
Among the Amalgamated officers elected. in April 1937 were Ed
Wright, president, and Everett Snodgrass, recording secretary, both
of whom were employed, in the cutting-lines division of the tin-mill
department. Shortly thereafter, Burgham approached Snodgrass,
scrutinized his S. W. O. C. button, shook his head, and then left. On
the day the newly elected officers' names were published, Kenneth
Campbell, cutting-lines foreman, heretofore friendly toward Wright,
refused to 'talk to him. Jones and he stood by the side of Wright's
machine and watched him for 10 or 15 minutes.
The following night Charles Eddy, black-plate superintendent,
came into the cutting lines several times with James Vall,' assistant.
shipper of the black-plate division and treasurer of the Tin Mill
Unit, Paul Campbell, and Louis Pagur; and pointed gat Wright:' At
the close of the turn a crowd of people from the assorting room and
from the black-plate division, including Vall, came toward Wright
to jeer at him. He left the plant without being further molested: ,
On May 3 a group of 8 or 10 men approached Snodgrass at-his
machine and booed him.
On or about May 4 Don Risher, cutting-lines foreman, offered to
reward Leonard Marshall, Jr., employed in this division, with a
better job if Marshall would work as Snodgrass' boxboy, pick a quar-
rel with him, and thereby secure his discharge. Marshall revealed
this offer to Snodgrass, and Snodgrass asked Marshall to become his
boxboy.
On May 5 Risher,accused Marshall of trying to "play both sides
of the game." Risher assigned inferior material to Snodgrass for
shearing, then reprimanded him for not having sheared it properly.'
Later the same night Risher asked`,Snodgrass not to resent•Risher's
conduct because Risher was obligated to give him a "dirty deal."
Still .later,, Risher brought back the: material previously 'sheared by
Snodgrass, threw it on the scrap pile' and warned, Snodgrass against
a recurrence of his alleged mistake. Risher also asked Marshall what-
he would do if the S. W-0. C. sympathizers were evicted, predicting
that their, stamina, would be tested the following day. • f ' •
WEIRTON STEEL,COMPANY 1233
b. The morning evictions
We' leave already described the cold-roll "evictions taking place
on May '5, before midnight. Following them, Claude Conway, Paul
Campbell, and other ringleaders determined to "clean up" the cutting
lines the following morning, May 6. The morning shift started at
7:00, a: m: Wright and Marshall reported for work, wearing
S. W. O. C. buttons. About 7:30 a. in. a mob which included Claude
Conway, Tom Long, Pagur, Otto Price, Bush, Vall, Foster, Walter
Rogowski, special watchman in 1936, and Burley Davis, black plate
assistant, shipper, invaded the cutting-lines division. A number of
the hot-mill employees in the crowd carried tongs. Vall described
the attitude of the mob as "determined . . . it looked like it was
going to be very serious, and I began to have my doubts as to how it
was going to end up."
Vall grabbed Wright by the hand, whirled him around, tore his
C. I. O. button off,, threatening him, and told him to "get out"
because the men "don't like your agitation around here; they don't
like the button you are wearing." Rogowski grasped Marshall's
C. I. O. badge and Conway warned him- to stay out of the plant lest
he be thrown out.
Kenneth Campbell was the cutting-lines foreman on duty at .the
time the crowd entered this section of the plant. Campbell stood
by while Vall and his associates assaulted Marshall and Wright.
Marshall showed Campbell his torn shirt. Campbell remained silent
and "beat it." As Wright started toward Campbell he "ran away."
Wright, with Tom Long's arm hooked into his, went to the office
of Eugene Risher; cutting-lines superintendent, but Eugene Risher
had riot yet arrived at Work. As Wright started to return to his
machine, Foster suggested that he be given a thrashing. The mob
then forced Wright and Marshall to leave the cutting lines. On
their way out of the plant, they reported to B. H. White, the com-
pany policeman on duty at the gate of the tin-mill department, that
they had been threatened and driven from the cutting-lines section
by,a mob. White told them lie could do nothing. He allegedly did
not "think much". of their "story." We may note in this connection,
Bush's admission that the plan of ousting Wright and Marshall that
morning was known "all around the mill, all the departments." He
did not attempt to investigate it until he had completed writing a
routine report on another matter. Thereafter, he "walked out" of his
office and saw "nothing unusual." He did not report the eviction
to, his superior until he went off duty in the evening, although he had
a telephone available at his station.
1234 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon Superintendent Risher's arrival at the plant that morning
at about 8:00 a. in., Foreman Campbell reported the cutting-line
evictions to him. Risher thereupon reported them to Burgliam.
c. The afternoon evictions
The afternoon shift in the cutting-lines section began at 3: 00 p. in,.
Snodgrass and Homer Marshall, a cutting-lines employee, appeared
for work wearing their C. I. O. badges.: At the beginning of the turn,
a mob surged into the cutting-lines section to eject Snodgrass and
Homer Marshall. The notoriety of this project appears from the
testimony of Bush, a member of the mob:,
Q. Can you tell us how you happened to be there?
A. The same thing took place there that took place in the
morning. It seems everybody in the mill knew that they were
going to the cutting lines, and everyone followed them. When
I got there; they were leaving [the cutting lines] .. .
Other members of the mob included Otto Price, Davis, and Harry
Kirk, vice president of the Tin Mill Unit. The mob was armed
with tongs and clubs. There were shouts: "Take them,out, throw
them out." Price explained that he went along to prevent violence
because "several of the crowd seemed to want. to get rough."' Price
told Snodgrass to surrender his C. I. O. badge and leave the mill,
else "the boys was going to get rough." Price tore off Homer
Marshall's button while another grabbed Snodgrass'. The crowd
then took the two to Don Risher, cutting-lines foreman, who stated
to them that they were not discharged. Snodgrass and Homer
Marshall left the plant, while Foreman Risher went to report the
evictions to Burgham and the police.
3. The exclusion from the sheet-mill department on May 17, 1937
Julius •Mehozonek; a loader in the shipping division of the sheet-
mill department, was elected vice president of the Amalgamated
local at its above-mentioned meeting in April 1937. In the evening
of May 16, Mike Bobby, weighmaster in the hot-mill division of
the sheet-mill department, and secretary of the Sheet Mill • Unit,
E. J. Cannane, employee in the galvanizing division of the sheet-mill
department and sergeant at arms of the Sheet Mill Unit; 7 and
Dave Beardon, an employee in the hot-mill division of the sheet-mill
department, "decided to have a talk with him [Mehozonek] theYfol-
lowing morning." The purpose of the "talk" was in the words- 6f
76 Bobby also acted as foreman at times. Thus , he was a foreman for the pay-roll period
immediately preceding Afay 16.
I-. Canuane.isbi'ted the respondents cuuu,cl ni lbia lnu^.ecdmg
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1235
Beardon, as follows: "for the simple reason [Mehozonek] had been
passing out C. I. O. literature, and the conditions and the way things
were at that time, I thought it was a good way to put a stop to some
of it anyway . . ." Accordingly, on the morning of May 17, Bobby,
Cannane, and Beardon stationed themselves at the gate of the sheet-
mill department and waited for Mehozonek to report for work.
When Mehozonek arrived, the three men took Mehozonek outside
the gate, threatening to carry him out if he resisted, and stated to
him, "you ain't going inside today." The,company policeman sta-
tioned nearby did not interfere with these proceedings. On the street
outside the gate, Bobby "as recording secretary of the sheet mill
unit," warned him against "passing out C. L O. literature and Com-
munistic propaganda" whether he belonged to "the Security League
or the C. I. 0." Bobby advised him "to keep his mouth shut in the
mill"; to join the Security League; and that "if you go with the
company and drop this C. I. O. you are O. K., you go to work."
Mehozonek refused to abandon the S. W. O. C. for the Security
League. As Bobby, Cannane, and Beardon stood between him and
the clock office wherein his time card was filed, Mehozonek crossed
the street and waited there. Beardon and Bobby approached
Mehozonek on successive occasions to continue their discussion with
him, then left the vicinity. Finally, Cannane approached Mehozonek
and, according to Cannane, "told him that he had better hurry up
and get to work because he only had about six or seven minutes before
eight o'clock [the beginning of the turn], provided he would go in
now, and keep his mouth shut, and if" he did, he would not "hear
anything about it." In other words, if he did not "keep his mouth
shut"; that is, refrain from activity on behalf of the C. I. 0., he
would "hear" further from his three assailants.
Because of their interference with his access to the plant, Meho-
zonek reached the shipping division about 15 or 20 minutes after
the start of the turn. Mehozonek reported to Ramadan Ali, his
foreman, that his tardiness was due to his having been excluded
from the plant. Ali, having already assigned a man to do Meho-
zonek's work, sent Mehozonek home under circumstances which we
discuss further below.
After Mehozonek left the plant, Ali "asked a few guys" about
Mehozonek's exclusion and one of them informed him that Cannane
and Bobby had participated in the exclusion. Thereafter Ali spoke to
Bobby about the incident but not to Cannane, allegedly because Ali
was too "busy to go any further" although the section of the plant in
which Cannane worked adjoined All's division. Ali did not question
Mahozonek about the reason for his exclusion, or report the incident
to Manager Caine or to the ejectors' superiors for appropriate discipli-
nary action against them.
448692-42-vol. 32-79
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The eviction from the assorting room of the tin-mill department
on June 1, 1937
The S. W. O. C. and the Security League both planned to hold public
demonstrations on May 30,1937. Some time before that John Franga-
kais, acting superintendent of the assorting room, remarked to Mike
Tsouvalos, an assorting reckoner under him, that if the men discovered
be was affiliated with the C. I. O. they would prevent him from
working. On the day before the parades John Frangakais summoned
the reckoners to his office. He instructed them to attend the Security
League demonstration. On May 30 Tsouvalos and Milan Ralich'71, a
fellow employee, attended the C. I. O. parade and not that conducted
by the Security League.
On May 31 a group of employees in the assorting room decided not
to work with Tsouvalos and Ralich because they had aligned them-
selves with the S. W. O. C. Accordingly, on the following morning
this group, including among others Bush and Pagur, evicted Ralich
and Tsouvalos. Bush told Ralich : "if I were you I would get my
clothes on and get the hell out ... Whenever you can see things our
way, come back to work." Pagur told Tsouvalos : "Mike, the boys
don't want to work with you. They say you are C. I. 0., and I would
like to have your [Security League] membership card." Pagur also
told Tsouvalos to "go home and stay home." Ralich and Tsouvalos
left the plant.
John Frangakais learned of the evictions on the day they occurred
but did not report them to his superiors, if at all, until a number of
weeks thereafter.
5. The evictions from the hot-mill division of the tin-mill department
on June 19, 1937
Nick Moulakis, an employee in the hot-mill division of the. tin-mill
department, was elected financial secretary at the Amalgamated meet-
ing in April 1937. Shortly thereafter he was summoned to the tin-mill
office. There Ellison remonstrated with him for having become affili-
ated with the C. I. 0., and asked him why he was not satisfied with
the respondent. Beginning with a few days after the publication of
the S. W. O. C. officers' names, groups of employees, including among
others Kazienko, Harry Long, and Joe Figurski, former special watch-
men, approached Moulakis, at work, pointed at him, and "bawled
him out."
On June 19 Moulakis and Steve Paich, a fellow employee, were
scheduled to work from midnight to 8:00 a. m. About an hour after
the turn started, a mob, including among many others, Conway, Tom
11 Ralich is not named in the amended complaint or in Appendix "A."
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1237
Long, and Kazienko, surged into the hot-mill section of the plant to
evict Moulakis and Paich because they had become "bold in their
thoughts," telling fellow employees that they would have steady jobs
if they joined the C. I. O. and that they would have to pay big initia-
tion fees if they joined later.
Conway told Moulakis to "get the hell out of here," and to go to
the C. I. O. for a job. Conway punched Moulakis in the face,
grabbed hold of the towel around his neck, and pushed him. Kazi-
enko hit him on the head. Others in the mob poked him in the ribs.
Conway- grabbed Paich's wrist, tore off his C. I. O. badge, and told
him to get out and to return when he could keep his "mouth shut."
Tom Long stated to Paich : "These men are not going to work with
you."
The crowd paraded Moulakis and Paich down the center of the
mill, thereby subjecting them to ridicule, and then out of the plant.
The company policeman stationed at the clock house stood by and
laughed. On the outside, Kazienko threatened to kill them. Conway
advised Kazienko : "We will let them go this time, and we catch
them next time." Moulakis and Paich then went home. Moulakis
required medical treatment because of the assault upon him by
Conway and his associates.
Dunkle and Dudley, hot-mill foremen on duty during the 12 to 8
o'clock shift on June 19, were working in their office when Moulakis
and Paich were driven from work. Upon their leaving the office,
one of the men informed them of the eviction. Dunkle allegedly
made an unsuccessful effort to overtake Moulakis and Paich before
they left the plant, then reported the ousters to Superintendent
Jones,, who was working in another section of the plant when they
occurred.
Conway was arrested because of his participation in the June 19
evictions. Captain E. G. Walsh, chief of the respondent's police
force, signed the bond which Conway filed in connection with this
arrest.
6. Events subsequent to the above-described evictions and exclusions,
including further exclusions
a. Cold rolls-Steve Xindas, Lambros, Cox, Dimitry, Nikitas, Rusus;
Louis Xindas, Silvestros, Frangakais
These nine employees, named in Appendix "A," are among those
who were ousted from the cold-rolls division shortly before midnight
.on May 5, 1937. We turn now to their subsequent employment
histories.79
RO We discuss these nine cases in chronological order, according to the last date on which
these persons worked or sought to enter the plant for that purpose.
1238 DECISIONS OF_ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Steve Xindas. Upon his ejection from the plant oil May 5, Steve
Xindas went to the S. W. O. C. office in Steubenville, made his affi-
davit concerning the evictions, visited a physician for treatment for
an injury to his shoulder inflicted by the evictors, then returned
home. He remained in bed for several days, pursuant to the doctor's
instructions.
On May 6 Steve's brother, Louis Xindas, reported Steve's absence
from work, and the reason therefor, to Foreman Marcus Freese."'
Steve Xindas was afraid to return to the plant subsequent to his
eviction from it :
Q. Did you go back to the mill after?
A. After that scare I got that night? No. No.
The respondent did not assure Steve Xindas of adequate protection
if he did resume work. Most of the employees named in Appendix
"A" were subjected to one or more assaults after Steve Xindas' ouster
and failure to return to the plant.
Costae Lambros, his back injured by the evictors, required the
support of Rusus in leaving the plant. Upon so leaving, he informed
Walter Freese, his foreman, that he was ill. Lambros remained at
home, under a physician's care, for about a week, then returned to
the plant. Discovering that he still could not perform his regular
duties as a rougher because of the injury to his back, Lambros started
to do lighter work. Superintendent Hale, upon learning that
Lambros was not doing roughing, sent him home, and told him to
return when "he felt all right."
Accordingly, Lambros remained home another week. Thereafter,
lie went to the plant to resume work but was not permitted to enter
the plant by Tom Long and a number of other persons whose names
were unknown to Lambros. The following day he attempted again
to enter the plant for the purpose of working. He was again ex-
cluded by two of the unnamed men who had prevented his entry the
previous day. These men told him that he had no job and that he
should "scram."
In a further effort to return to work, Lambros requested John
Stamas, a fellow employee, to notify Walter Freese that Lambros
wished to see him outside the gate of the plant. Stamas delivered
the message to Freese. Freese made no reply. Thereafter Lambros
waited outside the plant for Freese but to no avail."' Lambros
80 The testimony is in conflict as to whether Superintendent Hale told Louis that Steve
could return when he recovered . For reasons appearing below, we need not resolve this
conflict.
81 Freese testified that he met Lambros "at the bus one time .. . probably two or three
weeks later [apparently 2 or 3 weeks after the last time Lambros worked] . . . I asked
him why he was not working . He said that he had a job at Woodlawn . . Lambros
denied this incident . We need not resolve this conflict.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1239
made no further efforts to enter the plant, even for the purpose of
collecting wages already earned, because he was "scared."
Shirley Cox returned to the plant on May 6. He worked without
interruption until May 14. On that day a substantial amount of
iron was rolled crosswise instead of lengthwise on the machine at
which Cox and Louis Xindas worked as openers. Although Xindas
informed Superintendent Hale and Foreman Freese that he assumed
full responsibility for the error, Hale penalized both Cox and Xindas
by laying each of them off for 1 week.
On May 22 Cox drove to the plant for the purpose of returning
to work, after having paid the 1-week penalty. At the parking lot
on company property, six or seven lnen, including Stewart, Glen
Batson, and one Smith,82 accosted Cox. They told Cox : "Get the
hell out of here, and get out quick before there is trouble. You are
liable to get hurt in here . . . you are not going to work." Cox
returned to the gates of the plant. When Hale came along, Cox
informed him that a gang composed of Stewart and Batson, among
others, had prevented him from working. Cox also asked Hale for
protection. Hale advised him to see "somebody higher up." Upon
Burgham's arrival at the gates, Cox stated to him that "Charley
Eddy's gang stopped me in the mill yard," naming two of the persons
in the gang.83 Burgham advised Cox to come to his office, which
Cox did some time later that morning. As Cox entered the office he
observed Eddy and Claude Conway standing in the adjoining cor-
ridor. Burgham summoned Hale and told him in Cox's presence
that exclusions from the plant should cease, and that Burgham would
"hold him personally responsible to see that Shirley [Cox] got his
job back." Burgham advised Cox to report for work Monday, May
24, and that he would receive protection.
On May. 24 Cox drove to the plant to report for work. On the
way, he picked up Nikitas, one of the employees evicted with him
on May 5. As they parked in the company yard, a group of men,
including Batson and one Morgan, a strip-steel employee, confronted
them. Morgan remarked that 95 per cent of the employees were
"satisfied" with the Plan and told them, "you are not going to work."
Accordingly, Cox and Nikitas left the plant. Cox made no further
efforts to return to work.
On the following day, Cox and Nikitas, accompanied by Sheriff
Dan Ferguson, went to the plant to, and did, obtain their pay.
Anastasos Dimitry returned to the plant on May 6. He worked
until June 14, when Hale laid off or discharged him.
83 These three had participated in one or more of the above -described evictions.
83 The group which stopped Cox included persons employed in the black-plate division,
of which Eddy was superintendent.
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon his return Foreman Marcus Freese told him to remove his
C. I. O. button if he wanted to work, as Freese did not wish further
disturbances in his division. Within 2 weeks prior to Dimitry's
release, Frank Salerno, his pusher and an active member of the
Security League, offered him a Security League button which he
refused.
Dimitry had worked for the respondent since June 1929. During
1936 he was in Salerno's crew. Salerno claims that he discovered at
this time that Dimitry was a "poor worker," that he therefore secured
Dimitry's transfer to another crew, that Dimitry "went on all three
turns," that "finally I got him back again" in 1937, that Dimit.ry
continued to do unsatisfactory work, and that he so informed Hale,
requesting again that Dimitry be transferred to another pusher.
Salerno testified further that Hale made a personal inspection and
summoned Dimitry to the office, and that Dimitry, upon leaving the
office, attributed his release to Salerno and threatened to "get" him.
Hale testified that he laid off or discharged Dimitry because Dimitry
"persisted in doing what he wanted to do," instead of doing as "he
was told" by the pushers. Hale, however, in informing Dimitry
of his release, stated to him that he no longer had a job because he
was affiliated with the C. I. O. In view of this statement by Hale,
Freese's instruction to him to remove his C. I, O. badge if he wished
to work, his spurning of Salerno's offer of a Security League badge
shortly before his release, his eviction, his long-standing employment
with the respondent prior to his release, his tenure with the respond-
ent long after it allegedly discovered his inefficiency, Salerno's alleged
recommendation that be be transferred, the vagueness of Hale's testi-
mony, and the other circumstances disclosed by the record, we find
that the respondent's release of Dimitry oil June 14, 1937, was
discriminatory.
Markos Nikitas returned to the plant on May 6, worked for about
an hour, became ill, and went home. The following day he also left
early. Thereafter he returned and worked until May 24. On that
day, as noted, he and Cox were prevented from working by Morgan
and a group of men. He appeared for work on May 25. Hale in-
formed him that he was to be penalized by a 1-week lay-off for not
having reported his absence on the previous day. Nikitas explained
that he had been forcibly excluded from the plant. Hale replied that
that was not his fault and refused to withdraw the penalty.- Ac-
Yet hale testified as follows upon cross-examination in connection with Steve Xindas :
Q. Well, did Steve report off?
A. Steve did not.
Q. Why is it that he wasn't penalized?
A. Because I had heard that he had been taken out [i. e ., evicted from the plant]
the evening before.
Upon further cross-examination Hale stated that if Steve Xindas had appeared for work
after May 6 Hale might "have laid him off for not reporting " his absence on May 6.
WEIRTON' STEEL COMPANY 1241
coidingly, Nikitas remained home for a week, and then returned to
work.
On or about July 21-the respondent discharged Nikitas. Walter
Freese, acting -superintendent, entered on Nikitas'' release slip as
the reason therefor : "threatening his fellow workman." On the wit-'
ness , stand Manager Burgham attributed Nikitas' discharge to an
alleged report by .Freese -that Freese had observed Nikitas attack
John Stylianos.8' A few days before the respondent discharged
Nikitas, he and Stylianos had an, argument with respect to their
work, but Nikitas neither attacked nor threatened him on this or
on any other occasion.86 Under all the circumstances disclosed by
the record, we find that the respondent's discharge of Nikitas on or
about July 21, 1937, was discriminatory.
, Temistockles Rusus returned to the plant and worked on the 12 to
8 o'clock shift on May 7. On the following Saturday morning, "about
' Is Steve Xindas had Veen rougher on Nikitas ' machine until his eviction , when he was
replaced by John Stylianos. Some time after Nikitas ' lay-off and return to .work, Stylianos
informed Burgham that .Nil itas and another employee had been chalking "C. I 0 ".on the
tin plate . " Burgham summoned Nikitas to his office Nikitas denied responsibility there-
for. During the interview in Burgham 's office , Burgham told Nikitas to leave his employ-
ment with the respondent if he was not "satisfied "'and accused- him of speaking about the
C I '0 in the plant - The respondent does not claim that it discharged Nikitas for defacing
plate. -
8R We do not believe the testimony of Freese and Stylianos that Nikitas grabbed Stylianos
by the neck , among other reasons, because :, (1) although Freese asserts that he -saw
Nikitas grab Stylianos by the neck on about six prior occasions, Stylianos does not claim
that this occurred ' umore than once and Nikitas denies that it occurred at all; (2) while
Freese testified that he dthcharged Nikitas immediately after the alleged assault , Stylianos,
Nikitas, and,other eye-witnesses are agreed that the argument , during which the attack
allegedly occurred, was not followed immediately by Nikitas' discharge but that he worked
for some days thereafter; ( 3) although Freese and Stylianos claim that Freese was an
eyewitness to the incident , Freese asserts that it occurred shortly before 4. 00 p. in. and
Stylianos asserts that it occurred shortly before 8:00 a in ; (4) although Freese asserts
that j the incident occurred during his shift, from 8 to 4 o'clock, Stylianos, Nikitas, and
other eyewitnesses agree that the argument occurred during the preceding shift; (5) the
release 'slip only charged Nikitas with "thieatening" Stjlianos , not attacking him,-and
Freese testified at first : "I discharged him for threatening his rougher" ; ( 6) Freese could
not recall the date of the alleged attack and gave 'confused testimony as to the periods
during which he had an 'opportunity to observe Nikitas attack Stylianos at work; (7)
although Freese testified on,'direct examination that Nikitas was no longer working for
the respondent because he "was no good when he was there," Freese admitted on cross-
examination that Nikitas' work had been satisfactory ; ( 8) on cross -examination , Freeze
testified that Nikitas "had it in for" Stylianos, that they had been having "trouble"
for about 2. weeks prior to Nikitas ' discharge, and that he saw Nikitas jump on Stylianos
"half a dozen times" ' over a period of 2 weeks prior to Nikitas' discharge ; upon being
confronted with the fact that he and Nikitas did not work on the same turn for 2 successive
weeks prior to Nikitas' discharge , Freese gave evasive testimony as to his turns, then
shifted his ground to claim that not only he but Hale had also warned Nikitas about
attacking , Stylianos (Hale made , no such claim , testifying that he had "absolutely nothing
at all" to do }with Nikitas' discharge) ; upon being reminded that he had claimed that he
had seen the attacks for 2 weeks , Freese shifted his ground again to claim that "I did
not say t'eo weeks in succession" ; then shifted his ground again to claim apparently that
he did work 2 successive weeks with Nikitas, although his subsequent testimony shows
that he' could not have worked with Nikitas for the 2 successive weeks prior to Nikitas'
41184 h ,u ge, then shifted back to his explanation that his witnessing of the attacks occur red
during 2-but not successive-weeks; (9) Louis Xmdas and Alike Frangakais, who worked
near Nikitas and Stylianos at the time the argument occurred, corroborated Nikitas' denial
that he grabbed Stylianos by the throat
1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an hour before the close of the turn, Rusus reported to Porco, his
pusher, that he was ill and left early. He did not appear for work
the following day. Upon his appearance, the day after, on or about
May 10, Hale ordered him to lay off work for a week as a penalty
for not having reported his illness to a foreman, although Rusus
informed him that he had reported it to Porco. Accordingly, Rusus
remained at home for a week, then returned to the plant.
Prior to July 7 Rusus, who, according to Hale "had always been
complaining about being ill," arranged with him for a leave of ab-
sence from the plant to visit his physician in Baltimore. Hale
testified in this connection as follows :
... he tRusus] come to me and told me he wanted to take
a couple of weeks to go to Baltimore. Well, I told him that
was just fine, "You go to Baltimore and get yourself fixed up
and then maybe you can work steady." He told me that he
had a couple of days [of earned vacation owing to him] and
he would require maybe a little longer than that, a little longer
than two additional weeks. I said, "If you take that much
time you are going to have to be reexamined when you come,
back. I advise you to take just your two weeks and come back
and go to work."
Pursuant to this arrangement, Rusus went on leave on July 7.
Rusus did not work for the respondent after July 7. The respon-
dent contends, in its answer, that he "voluntarily left the respondent's
employment," and produced Hale and Walter Freese as witnesses in
support thereof. Freese testified that Rusus "had been off over two
weeks," that he reported "along late in July," that Freese instructed
him that he could not work until lie was reexamined at the plant
hospital, and that lie never reported for work thereafter. Hale was
away from the plant on vacation during the second half of July.
Hale testified that upon his return to the plant, Rusus came to see
him, that he told Rusus a reexamination would be a prerequisite to
his resuming work, and that Rusus never reported for work
thereafter.
It will be recalled that Hale told Rusus prior to July 7 that if
he remained away for 2 days and "a little longer than two additional
weeks," he would be required to undergo another medical examina-
tion; and that he should therefore "take just your two weeks," in
order to avoid it. While this testimony is in part ambiguous, it
means apparently that Rusus could have taken 2 days' vacation and
14 days' leave of absence and still have avoided the reexamination.
Neither Hale nor Freese asserted that Rusus remained away more
than 16 days. Moreover, Hale's testimony means that Rusus could
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1243
have remained away a total of at least 14 days, on vacation and on
leave, without being subjected to a physical examination. Freese
testified only generally that Rusus had taken "over two weeks" and
Hale did not testify as to the period Rusus remained away. On the
other hand, Rusus testified, specifically, that he returned to the plant
on July 21.87 We credit Rusus and find, accordingly, that Rusus
reported for work in time to avoid a reexamination even if the re-
spondent allowed only 2 weeks' absence, including vacation and leave,
without an examination as a condition of reemployment. Thus the
respondent, through Freese and Hale, imposed upon Rusus' resump-
tion of work a condition which its usual practice did not require and
which it did not otherwise justify or explain. Under all the,circum-
stances disclosed by the record, we find that this treatment, effectively
terminating Rusus' employment, was discriminatory.
Louis Xindas returned to the plant on May 6, worked until May
14 when, as noted above, he and Cox were laid. off for a week for
causing an error in the rolling of some plate, and then worked until
July 22.
On July 22 Xindas and Silvestros, scheduled to work from 8 to 4
o'clock, entered the plant gates at about 7: 30 a. am. A group of men,
including Stewart, were in a boxcar stationed nearby. Stewart left
the car, approached Xindas and Silvestros, and ordered them to "get
out." They returned to the gate, and complained to J. F. Mulligan,
company policeman on duty there, of their exclusion from work and
requesting him to accompany them to their department. Mulligan
declined thus to accompany them, on the asserted ground that he
was not permitted to leave the gate. He told them to "get in touch
with Captain Walsh and he will take care of you." Although
Walsh allegedly instructed his police, following the May evictions,
that "whenever they went through the mill . . . if they heard of
anything like that going on, to get in touch with me, right away,"
it does not appear that Officer Mulligan attempted to report the
exclusion of Xindas and Silvestros to Walsh. Such report could
have been made by telephone.
Upon leaving Mulligan, Xindas and Silvestros went to Walsh's
office. They informed him of their exclusion. Walsh advised them
to come to his office for an escort before they made any further
81 From Rusus ' further testimony , it would appear that upon his return on July 21,
Freese told him that Hale had given him 3 weeks' leave although he had asked only for
16 days' leave , and that he should therefore report for work the following week ; that he
did so report ; that Freese told him to see Hale when Hale returned from his vacation :
that he did so see Hale .; and that Hale informed him that the respondent had been required
to lay off a number of employees and that Rusus was included among them . Freese and
Hale, in substance , denied Rusus ' testimony . We do not find it necessary to resolve this
conflict.
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
efforts to enter the plant."' He also told them to return to his office
at 10:00 a. m. and that, in the meanwhile, he would consult with
Burgham. They returned at 10: 00 o'clock. Walsh instructed
Xindas and Silvestros to telephone Burgham and to report to' .work.
Xindas and Silvestros telephoned Burgham's office three times but
did not succeed in speaking to him. Accordingly, they- made no
further efforts to get to work that day.
..On July 23 Xindas and Silvestros reached the clock : office about
7::30 a. m., but could not find their time cards. They asked A. S.
Harney, company policeman on duty there, where they could find
their time cards. He professed not to know where they were. Dur-
ing the, conversation between Harney and the two employees, they
pointed Stewart out as the man who had excluded them on the
previous day. It does not appear that Harney acted on this informa-
tion. 'Pursuant to Harney's suggestion, Xindas and Silvestros went
to the timekeeper in the tin-mill department main office. The time-
keeper, after searching unsuccessfully for their time cards, told them
to go to work and that he would punch their cards later. Following
a private conversation between Harney -and the timekeeper, how-
ever, the timekeeper instructed Xindas and Silvestros to ask the pay-
master about their cards. They questioned the paymaster. ' He too
claimed not to know where their time cards were. Thereafter they
approached Edward E. Paddock, assistant manager of the tin-mill
department, who instructed them, through Harney, to wait for
Burgham, at the clock office.
About 8: 30 a. in., after the start of the turn on which Xindas and
Silvestros were supposed to work, Burgham arrived at the plant.
Following a private conversation between Harney and Burgham,
Burgham approached Xindas and Silvestros and asked them what
their "trouble" was. They informed him that they had been evicted
by "Jack" Stewart on the, previous day. and that this morning they
could not find their time cards. Burgham left them, asking them
to await his return. Upon his return he ,told them he knew no
person named "Jack" Stewart. He then summoned Walter Freese,
acting superintendent, and asked Freese-why Xindas and Silvestros
had not been able to work that day. Freese assigned,,as the reason
therefor, their failure to report on the previous day. Burgham
informed Freese that Xindas and Silvestros claimed to have been
excluded from the plant the day before and instructed Freese "to
put. them back at work immediately." Freese stated that, since he
had already, filled their positions for that day, it would be more con-
sa Thereafter Walsh instructed Dallas R Higgins, company police lieutenant, to bring
Xindas and Silvestros to Walsh "unless they stopped for protection to go over into the
mill "
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1245
venient if they reported for work on the following day. During
this conversation Burgham and Freese were "looking at each other"
in 'a manner that suggested to Silvestros that "they were playing
something,' you know, about us." - Burgham assured Xindas and
Silvestros that they would receive protection. They agreed to resume
work on the following day, Saturday, July 24.8°
On' July 24 Xindas and Silvestros went to the clock office,but
could not find their time cards or a company policeman. Stewart
and a "husky fellow;" getting out of a boxcar stationed on company
property, followed them to the clock office. Steward hit 'Silvestros
a' number of times with his clenched fist, and told Silvestros and
Xindas to get the "hell out," not to "come back no more," and that
if they did he would "break every bone of your body."
- Silvestr'os and Xindas went to Walsh's office and informed him of
what had occurred, including Stewart's assault upon them.' Walsh
stated to them : "Didn't- I tell you not to go in the -mill before you
seen m0" He then told them that a "gang" was 'operating in the
tin-mill department; that he could not control the gang; that- it
might harm or even kill them if they tried to resume work; that
therefore they had better "stay away from the tin mill and don't come -
l ack'no more and that so long as he was "chief of police .' . -. ' I
won't permit you to go in the mill." Xindas and Silvestros informed
Walsh'that their vacation was about to start and asked permission
to secure their vacation pay. Walsh instructed them to return to
his office later that day. They did and, accompanied by one of the
respondent's police officers, went to the paymaster's office where they
received their vacation pay. -
After leaving the plant Xindas and Silvestros swore out warrants
,for Stewart's arrest. Although Burgham asserted on the `witness
stand that he had not heard, prior to the present proceeding, of
Xindas' and Silvestros' exclusion from the plant after July 23 or of
their ' consequent complaint against Stewart, and that he did `not
know' any Stewart 90 Walsh admitted that after Xindas and Sit=
vestros mentioned Stewart as their evictor, he learned that Stewart
worked in the tin-mill 'department; that he reported. Stewart to
Burgham, before July 27, as the guilty person; :and-that he received
no instructions, from Burgham in' respect to Stewart as Burgham
"would handle it himself,"-as Stewart's manager. It does not appear
that the respondent discharged or otherwise disciplined Stewart.
July 26 was pay 'day for employees of the tin-mill department.
Accordingly, Xindas and Silvestros, who were on vacation, and
80 During this conversation , Xindas requested and obtained leave to take his vacation
beginning the following Sunday or Monday, July 25 or 26 _
90The respondent 's records show that Burgham approved the employment of Stewart
as a laborer in the black -plate division of the tin-mill department in September 1936.
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nikitas, who, as noted above, had been discharged on or about July 21,
went to the plant together to obtain their pay. Lieutenant Higgins
intercepted them, and brought them to Walsh's office. Walsh repri-
manded them for not having come to him before attempting to enter
the tin-mill department. He then permitted them, accompanied by
a police officer, to secure their wages.
On July 27 a local justice of the peace tried Stewart, placing him
under bond, on the complaint of Xindras and Silvestros, because of
his assault upon them. Walsh attended the trial and executed two
bonds on Stewart's behalf in connection therewith.
Xindas made no further attempts to return to work because, as
he testified, `.`I value my life more than my job."
George Silivestros returned to the plant and worked on May 6 and
7. On May 8 Silvestros, Louis Xindas, and John Kavouras, an em-
ployee, reached the clock office together. Silvestros wore his C. I. O.
button. A group of men, including Stewart, stood nearby. Stewart
grabbed Silvestro's C. I. O. button, and ordered him to leave the com-
pany grounds. Silvestros requested Xindas and Kavouras to report
his exclusion, then went home. Stewart did not prevent Xindas and
Kavouras from entering their department. Xindas went to the cold
rolls office and informed Hale that "somebody" had prevented Sil-
vestros from "coming in the clock office." Hale replied, "That's his
hard luck. It ain't my fault." Xindas told Silvestros later that he
had reported Silvestros' exclusion.
On May 9 Silvestros reported for work. Marcus Freese informed
him that Hale had imposed upon him a week's lay-off for not working
on the previous day. Silvestros explained that he had been forcibly
prevented from entering the department and that he had reported
through Xindas and Kavouras. Freese told him to interview Hale
the following morning.
Accordingly, on May 10, Silvestros went to Hale's office and told
him that he had reported his inability to appear at work the previous
Saturday, May 8, through Xindas and Kavouras. Silvestros and
Hale engaged in the following conservation :
[Silvestros] Why you give me a week off?
[Hale] Why don't you show up Saturday night?
[Silvestros] I couldn't. They stop me by the mill gate. They
don't let me in.
[Hale] Why they stop you to come in?
[Silvestros] I was wear the C. I. O. badge . . .
[Hale] Why you join the C. I. O. then?
[Silvestros] Because I want to.
[Hale] You got to take a week off,
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1247
.
Silvestros paid the week penalty, returned to the plant, and worked
until July 22. We have already described Silvestros' experiences of
July 22, 23, 24, and 26, in connection with our discussion of Xindas'
case.
Silvestros, it will be recalled, had been on vacation on Monday and
Tuesday, July 26 and 27. On Wednesday, July 28, Silvestros went
to the plant, prepared to work on his shift from 4 to 12 o'clock. He
went through the main gate to the clock office. Not finding his time
card there, he went into the tin mill department in search of his
foreman. Silvestros was close to the office of the cold rolls division-
only between 100 and 200 feet away-when he met Lieutenant Hig-
gins. Higgins arrested his progress. The following ensued:
Q. And he said he was trying to see his foreman?
A. [Higgins] Yes, sir.
Q. And he asked to be allowed to see his foreman , didn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you refused to allow him to see him?
A. I told him he was informed by Captain Walsh to stop for
police protection before he came into the mill.
Q. He was already in the mill?
A. Sure, but he did not-
Q. You refused to allow him to see his foreman?
A. Yes, sir . . al
Although Silvestros was already in the tin mill, Higgins compelled
him to leave it on the alleged ground that he should have sought
protection from Walsh before entering it, and in order to be able to
enter it unmolested by Stewart and his associates.
Higgins paraded Silvestros through the tin-mill department to
Walsh's office. Walsh reprimanded Silvestros for not coming to him
before entering the tin-mill department, but it does not appear that
Walsh then offered to have a policeman accompany Silvestros to the
tin-mill department. On the contrary the following occurred: Walsh
interrogated Silvestros as to how he had gotten into the mill; osten-
sibly instructed Higgins to have Silvestros taken to jail; and, upon
Silvestros' protesting that he had done nothing wrong, told him,
"Never mind . You go sit down." While Silvestros sat in the next
room, Higgins pretended to be using the telephone. Walsh then
recalled Silvestros and interrogated him again as to how he had
91 Higgins concluded this answer as follows : "because he had no business in there when
he was not working." Higgins admitted in the next breath, however, that he did not
know whether Silvestros was supposed to work that day, and that it is not necessarily
true that a man may not enter the mill to see his foreman unless he is working. There
can be no doubt that Silvestros was in the mill in legitimate search of his foreman because
he was supposed to work that day and could not find his time card.
1248' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
entered the mill. Silvestros insisted that he had passed through the
main gate. Walsh characterized this as a lie, accused Silvestros of
also lying the day before at Stewart's trial before the local squire,
and boasted that he had saved Stewart from jail. Walsh and
Silvestros engaged in the following colloquy :
he [Walsh] said, "So you find your' card when you went to the
mill?" I [Silvestros] say, "Sure, I'find it." He say, "You lie."
I say, "What do you mean I am lying? Do you know what I
was no find my card?" He say, "Yes." I told him, "Thank you,
that is all I want to know."
Walsh ostensibly suggested to Higgins that they make Silvestros pay
a $25.00 'ne. Finally, Walsh told Silvestros to "get the hell out
from here," and Silvestros left the plant.
Thereafter, Silvestros attempted without success to signal to Burg-
ham. He made no further efforts to return to the plant.
Mike Frangakais returned to the plant on May 6 and worked until
July 23.
On July 23 a group of men, including Stewart, were in a boxcar
stationed near the plant entrance on company property. As Fran-
gakais passed through the company yard on his way to work, Stewart
and another man jumped from the boxcar, grabbed Frangakais, and
stated : "Come on, get out of here." Accordingly, Frangakais started
to leave the plant. On his way out, he met Walter Freese,- acting
superintendent. FrAngakais informed Freese that the men in the
boxcar had prevented him, from going to work. Frangakais pointed
out the boxcar and its occupants to Freese, and "asked him to take
me along with him" to the cold-rolls division. Freese instructed
Frangakais to "wait here and twill go inside and . . . I will get you
inside." After Freese left and while Frangakais was waiting for him
to return, a number of occupants of the boxcar approached Franga-
kais again and insisted that he "get out of here." Frangakais met
Freese about 4: 30 p. in. Freese told him that he, would be safe ,in
coming to work the following day.
• On July 24 men from, the boxcar accosted Frangakais again in the
company yard and stated to him : "Didn't we tell you yesterday not
to come back? If you come back again we will break your face."
Frangakais left the plant.. That afternoon he met Freese in the same
place at which they had met on the previous afternoon. Freese told
him he could resume work the following day, and, upon learning from
Frangakais that his vacation started then, agreed that lie could return
to the plant following his vacation. •
WE'IRTION STPE'&L COMPANY 1249
Frangakais remained on vacation for several days, and at its close
went to the plant prepared to work on the night shift from 12 o'clock
midnight to 8: 00 a. in. Frangakais entered the clock office and
searched for, but could not find, his time card. Because no policeman
was in the vicinity and because Frangakais feared the boxcar gang,
he made no further effort to enter his department that night. '
Frangakais went to the plant early the following day in search of
"the boss." He met Freese who told him to see Hale.. Accordingly,
Frangakais went to the cold rolls office to wait for Hale. Shortly
thereafter, a company policeman chased him from Hal'e's office and
told him, "the only place you can see your boss is at the clock office."
This instruction was not in accord with the respondent's practice,
which permitted an employee to enter the mill if he desired to speak
with his "boss" about resuming work. Pursuant to the policeman's
instruction, however, Frangakais returned to the tin mill.clock office.
There another, company policeman interrogated him with respect
to his having entered the mill. Frangakais explained that he wished
to speak to his "boss," since he could not find his time card the night
before. This police officer left him in the tin mill clock office, returned
within about half an hour, took him to, and left him at, the steel works
clock office, returned within about an hour, and said : "Captain Walsh
is looking for you." Accordingly, Frangakais went to Walsh's office.
Walsh interrogated him with respect to his entry into the plant and
Frangakais explained again that "since I didn't, find my card on the
rack I wanted to find out what was wrong." Walsh refused to permit
him to remain in the plant, informing him that "the only place for
you is to go out in the street and wait on them (his superiors)."
Frangakais left the plant. That afternoon he attempted without
success to communicate with Burgham and Hale on the street outside
the plant. He waved to them and shouted "Hey" as they passed.
They "turned back, . . . heard my voice, . . . saw me, . . . look at
me, and . . . went" on without stopping to talk with him.
Frangakais proceeded to the company hospital to receive treatment
for an injury which he had previously sustained at work. A nurse
asked him if, he had resumed work. He told her what had occurred,
including his` exclusion from the plant by the police. The nurse
telephoned a number, told Frangakais to wait as his "boss was busy,"
then told him to return to the hospital in the evening. He did and
was told to return the following day. Upon his arrival at the hospital
the following day, the nurse informed him "that she received a call
from my boss, and that the boss told her that there was no more job
for me." '
Frangakais did not return to the plant thereafter.
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. Cutting lines-Leonard Marshall, Jr., Wright, Snodgrass, and
Homer Marshall
These four. evictees from the cutting lines division, named in
Appendix "A," did not work for the respondent subsequent to their
expulsion from the plant on May 6,1937.
Leonard Marshall, Jr. On May 7 Foreman Don Risher, meeting
Leonard Marshall, Jr., in the street, "told him his job was there when
he came back."
On or about May 13 Marshall went to the plant prepared to resulne
work. He testified in this connection as follows :
Q. Why didn't you return sooner than that?
A. They told me to stay out of the mill. I stayed out until
I considered it was safe enough to go back without endangering
myself.
Upon his return, Marshall "reported to Don Risher for work."
The respondent had already filled Marshall's position. Accordingly,
Don Risher sent Marshall to Eugene Risher, superintendent. Eugene
Risher asked Marshall why he had not returned sooner. Marshall
replied that he had been "afraid." He then informed Marshall that
the respondent had given Marshall's job to another employee.92 Before
Marshall left the plant, Don Risher suggested to him that an open
repudiation of the C. I. O. would enhance his chances of obtaining
reinstatement. Marshall made no further efforts to return to work.
Edgar Wright. The respondent assigned another man to Wright's
duties on May 6, the day of Wright's eviction from the plant. About
2 weeks later Burgham sent Tom Long, one of the prominent evictors,
to Wright's home, allegedly to "get him to come back to work." There-
after, Long visited Wright and spoke with him concerning labor
organization. Long claims he told Wright : "I was sent out here to
get you to come back to work." Wright denied this testimony 93
Long admits he stated to Wright that his function was to "stop" the
92 Marshall claims that Eugene Risher told him there was "no use of me trying to get
hack there any more." Risher contends that he said : "'I put another man in your place.
I cannot fire him. It would not be fair to him .' I would find another job for this man,
if possible , before I let him [this man?] go and for him [Marshall ?] to come back in
three or four days , or by the middle of next week and I would be able to take care of
him . . We need not resolve this conflict , among other reasons , because the statement
which Risher alleges he made does not constitute a definite and unequivocal offer of rein-
statement . It did not set a definite date upon which Marshall could resume work. Also
it appears to condition reinstatement upon further application . Finally, it appears to
condition reinstatement upon Risher 's ability to find another position for the man who
replaced Marshall. But whether or not Eugene Risher ' s alleged offer is definite and
unequivocal , Marshall 's claim remains unaffected because he received no assurance of
adequate protection at work, further ejections tool: place , and the respondent as appears in
the text in substance conditioned his reinstatement upon an open repudiation of the C. I. O.
°? For the reasons appearing below, we need not resolve this and other conflicts as to
the contents of the conversation between Long and Wright.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1251
C. I. O. and to prevent it "from g ttng hold of a bat, let alone get to
first base"; reminded Wright of "the morning that you were told to
leave the mill , we told you what to do , and come back when this was
all over"; asked Wright "why should you stay in this thing [the
C. I. 0.] now"; and advised him to "come back and go to work, and
keep your mouth shut in the mill ." Wright did not seek thereafter
to return to work.
Homer Marshall and Everett Snodgrass , although informed by Don
Risher during their eviction on May 6 that such eviction did not
constitute a discharge , did not attempt to reenter the plant to resume
work because they were "afraid to."
On May 7 Don Risher reported their absence to Eugene Risher, who
stated that "lie would get hold of them ." Eugene Risher testified
generally that he sent one Tony Lebutis to notify Homer Marshall
that his "job was there for him" and that Lebutis reported that Mar-
shall had "told Lebutis that he was not coming back to work until
the Weirton Steel Company had signed a contract with the C. I. 0."
With respect to Snodgrass , Eugene Risher gave the following vague
testimony :
Q. Did you send anybody to see Everett Snodgrass?
A. I sent someone ; I don't remember now who it was; over
to tell him, and I don 't remember exactly whether I sent them
or whether I told Don [Risher], but anyhow the report came
back that Everett was not coming back to work due to the fact
that I had heard several rumors to that effect, I decided that
he meant it.
From the testimony of Marshall and Snodgrass it appears and we find
.that they received no notice from the respondent , after May 6, to return
to w ork.9"
Shipping-Meh,ozonek
Julius Meh,ozone/e. We have noted above that Mehozonek, whose
name is listed in Appendix "A", reported for work shortly after the
start of his turn on May 17 because Bobby, Cannane, and Beardon
had interfered with his access to the plant; and that by the time he
arrived in the shipping division , Foreman Ali had assigned another
91 On the second pay day of the month , on or about May 25, the paymaster 's office
requested Snodgrass to return to the respondent a pair of goggles , which the paymaster's
office thought he had in his custody, as a condition to receiving his pay check. Wright
testified as follows in this connection :
Q. . . . when a man is discharged , will you state whether or not it is customary
to ask for his equipment to be returned?
A. Well, if he had any . . .
Q. But if he is to continue in the employment of the company, is it customary to
ask for the return of equipment before the pay check is given?
A. No.
448602-42-vol. 32--80
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee to Mehozonek's position. Although Mehozonek explained
the reason for his tardiness, Ali stated : "I ain't got nothing to do
with you. Here is the way to go." Accordingly, Mehozonek left the
plant. On May 20 Mehozonek applied to Ali for, and was refused,
reinstatement. The respondent has no plausible explanation for its
discharge of Mehozonek.95
Assorting-Tsouvalos
Mike Tsouvalos, named in Appendix "A", was evicted from the
assorting room of the tin-mill department on June 1, 1937. Within
the next 2 weeks Tsouvalos' mother asked Foreman John Frangakais
on 2 occasions-to reinstate Tsouvalos and he replied : "Aunt, I can't
do it for you because he is a CIO man, and he even went in the [CIO]
parade." Although Frangakais testified generally that he told Tsou-
valos' sister and mother that Tsouvalos could resume work, it appears
from Tsouvalos' testimony, and we find, that he received no such
notice.9°
Hot mill-Moulakis and Paich
These two employees, named in Appendix "A", were evicted from
the hot-mill division of the tin-mill department on June 19, 1937.
Foreman Dunkle testified that before the close of the shift on June
19 he requested Robert Prosser and Jack Madden, the rollers, re-
spectively, of Moulakis and Paich, to notify them to return to work,
and that the following night Prosser and Madden reported to him
that they had given the desired notice.
Nick Moulakis did not receive any such notice. He returned to
the plant on or about June 19 to report to his foreman that he had
been evicted, that he had "got hurt" during the evictions, and that,
therefore, he would not "be able to work for about two weeks or
more." Carter, the company policeman on duty at the tin mill, pre-
vented him from entering the mill and refused to notify Moulakis'
foreman that Moulakis wished to speak with him,'although Moulakis
explained to Carter the purpose of his visit, and Carter admitted at
ss All testified that on May 17 Mehozonek agreed to return on the following day ; that he
did not return until May 20 ; that because of such delay All told him to take a 2-day
lay-off as a penalty ; that he never reported thereafter ; that he was not discharged ;
and that he quit. Our findings in the text are based , however , not only on Mehozonek's
credible testimony , but also on the respondent ' s admission , in Its amended answer, that
it "discharged" Mehozonek "on or about May 17 , 1937."
' Frangakais testified that he did not give personal notice to Tsouvalos because he had
heard from Charles Miller , an employee , and other persons whose navies he could not
recall, that Tsouvalos had threatened him with bodily harm. The respondent failed
to explain , however, why it did not communicate with Tsouvalos by other means. Besides
this testimony of Frangakals is incredible , among other reasons, because: (1) although
counsel for the respondent called Miller to the stand after Frangakais testified , they did
not question Miller with respect to . Frangakais ' assertion; (2) Tsouvalos denied that he
threatened to attack Frangakais ; and (3 ) as noted above , other supervisory employees
did not attempt to communicate directly with evictees subsequent to their respective
evictions.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1253
the hearing that the company police customarily admit employees to
the mill to see their foremen if they have a "good alibi." Moulakis
made no further efforts to return to work.
Steve Paich did not attempt to return to work, following his evic-
tion, because he remembered the evictors' threat to kill him if he re-
turned. On or about June 25 Paich met Foreman Harold Dudley
in the street and asked him whether he could resume work. Dudley
assured him that his job was still available. Thereupon Paich asked,
"Who protect me if I go back to work?" Dudley shrugged his
shoulders and replied, "I don't know." Paich stated that he could
not return to work without protection as his life had been threatened.
7. Concluding findings
The respondent concedes that employees were driven from its
plants and prevented from working, but contends that it is not re-
sponsible for the above-described ousters. We reject the respondent's
defense for the following reasons :
(1) The respondent called a number of witnesses to testify that
the employees named in Appendix "A" were ejected because they
conducted their activity on behalf of the S. W. O. C. in an obnoxious
manner; for example, by parading through the plant, and by making
boastful statements concerning the strength, prospects, and plans of
the C. I. O. The employees named in Appendix "A" denied this
testimony and we credit such denials. Besides, a comparison be-
tween the alleged conduct of the evictees and the conduct of the re-
spondent and employees, in behalf of the Plan and the Security
League and in opposition to the C. I. 0., demonstrates that the
activity of the ousted employees gave offense, not because of its time,
place, or manner, but because it was on behalf of the S. W. O. C.
Moreover, whether or not its form was unpopular, the statements
and behavior of the evictors and the other facts hereinabove set forth
show that its substance-promotion of the C. I. 0., an affiliated "out-
side" organization-was an important cause of the ousters. The evic-
tors victimized the employees named in Appendix "A" because of
hostility to the C. I. 0., and in order to champion the Plan and the
Security League.
(2) The respondent, in addition to merely possessing and manifest-
ing those motives, inspired them in the employees, thereby causing
the evictions and exclusions. As noted above, the respondent, prior
to, during, and following these breaches of the peace in behalf of the
Plan and the Security League, formed these organizations, subsidized
them, and incited support of them by numerous pressures, including
inflammatory propaganda. Similarly, these outbursts against the
employees named in Appendix "A" were preceded, accompanied, and
followed by the respondent's coercive campaign directed against the
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. I. O. The evictors' hostility toward the outside organization and
their advocacy of the intramural organizations, underlying the ejec-
tions, were not "sincere and spontaneous" reactions of the employees 97
They were the fruits which the respondent planted in 1933 and nur-
tured carefully in the ensuing years by numerous acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion.911 That sources other than the respondent
may also have contributed to the evictors' motivation is immaterial in
this connection99 Since the respondent is responsible for the evic-
tors' bias, we find that it is responsible for the evictions and exclusions
to which such bias led.100 Other findings also compel the conclusion
that these unlawful ousters are attributable to the respondent..
(3) The respondent instigated these ejections by its policy of ap-
proving riotous action in opposition to the C. I. O. It will be recalled
that special watchmen, for whom the Plan and the respondent were
responsible, assaulted, beat, and otherwise harassed C. I. O. sympa-
thizers in 1936. Shortly thereafter, a special pre-election Bulletin, de-
voted to praise of the Plan's accomplishments during 1936, appeared.
The editorial in this issue ascribes the progress of industry to "co-
operative" management and includes the Plan without qualification
"as a permanent and vital part of management." E. T. Weir's letter,
written in December 1936, will be recalled in this connection. Weir
in substance commissioned the Plan leaders, in collaboration, with the
respondent, to continue their attacks upon the C. I. O. The pre-elec-
tion Bulletin and E. T. Weir's exhortation, in the context of this case,
evidence the respondent's endorsement of violence by, or in behalf of,
the Plan.
°' See N. L. R. B. v. Asheville Hosiery Company, 108 F. ( 2d) 288 (C. C. A. 4).
Cf. Matter of Bradford Dyeing Ass 'n (U. S. A.), etc. and Textile Workers' Organizing
Committee of the C. I. 0 ., 4 N. L. R. B. 604, enf'd Bradford Dyeing Ass 'n (U. S. A.) v.
N. L. R. B., 310 U. S. 318 , rev'g 106 F (2d) 119 (C. C. A. 1) ( held: unfair labor practices
caused resignations from the charging union and affiliations with the dominated union) ;
Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co . and Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers of America, 8 N. L. R. B. 866, enf ' d Newport News Shipbuilding
& Dry Dock Co . v. N. L. R. B., 101 F. ( 2d) 841 (C. C. A. 4), 308 U. S. 241 ( unfair
labor practices caused result of referendum "at which a sweeping majority of the com-
pany's employees signified , by secret ballot, their satisfaction with the plan as revised
in 1937 and their desire for its continuance") ; Matter of The Falk Corporation and
Amalgamated Assn. of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, etc., 6 N. L. R. B.
654, enf d 102 F. (2d) 383, 106 F. (2q) 454 (C. C. A. 7), 308 U. S. 453 ( unfair labor
practices , despite cease and desist order, affect outcome of Board -directed elections) ;
Matter of Highland Park Mfg. Co. and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 12
N. L. R. B. 1,238, enf'd N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 110 F. (2d) 632 (C. C. -A. 4)
(unfair labor practices caused decline in union membership ) ; Matter of Clover Fork Coal
Company and District 19, United Mine Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 202, enf 'd Clover
Fork Coal Co. v. N. L. R. B., 97 F. (2d) 331 (C. C. A. 6) ( unfair labor practices caused
refusal of employees to. work with union members and caused union members to leave
work).
90 Cf. N. L. R. B . v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2), cert. den'd 304
U. S. 576, 585 ; Republic Steel Corp . v. N. L. R. B., 107 F (2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3), 311
U. S. 7.
110 Clover Fork Coal Co. V. N. L. R. B., 97 F. (2d) 331 (C. C. A. 6).
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1255
(4) The respondent also provoked the series of ejections from May
through July 1937 through the above-described conduct of Manager
Burgham, Superintendent Eddy, Foremen Risher, Campbell, and
Pagur, and Assistant Shipper Vall, and by permitting the jeering
of C. I. 0. sympathizers, following the Amalgamated elections in
April 1937 and immediately preceding various evictions.
(5) The respondent planned, and participated in, the ejections,
through Foreman Pagur and Assistant Shippers Price, Vall, and
Davis, supervisory employees.
(6) The respondent participated in the discriminatory exclusions,
through the statements and other acts of Captain Walsh, Lieutenant
Higgins, and its other regular police officers, in respect to Louis
Xindas, Silvestros, Frangakais, and Moulakis, on or about June 19,
July 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, and August 1, 1937.
(7) Since the respondent sponsored the Plan and the Security
League for the purpose of obstructing the C. I. Q., and since employee
representatives and Security League officials planned, provoked, and
executed these anti-C. I. 0. ejections, we attribute such participation
also to the respondentlm
(8) The special watchmen of 1936 played a prominent part in the
evictions and exclusions. Although they were no longer employed as
special watchmen during these ejections, they carried over to these
ousters the lessons of lawlessness, in respect to the C. I. 0. on the re-
spondent's behalf, which they had learned in the respondent's service
during 1936. Because these persons had been special watchmen, en-
gaged in 1936 in violent anti-C. I. 0. conduct attributable to the re-
spondent, several of them continued to be prominent in the Plan and
the Security League, the respondent's regular police participated in
the exclusions, and the respondent's anti-C. I. 0. campaign of 1936
and 1937 was continuous, we ascribe to the respondent the former spe-
cial watchmen's implication in the ouster of the employees named in
Appendix "A."
(9) The respondent, through its supervisory employees, prolonged
the unlawful exclusions by imposing lay-off penalties upon, or remov-
ing time cards of, excluded employees for absences, although such
unlawful exclusions caused these absences, and the respondent knew,
or should have known, that such absences were so caused. Superin-
tendent Hale's lay-off of Silvestros and Nikitas on May 24 and 25, re-
spectively, Foreman Ali's discharge of Mehozonek on or about May 17,
and Acting Superintendent Freese's removal of Louis Xindas and
Silvestros' time cards on or about July 22, fall within this category.
'o' Cf. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. v. N. L. R. B., 119, F. (2d) 903 (C. C. A. 8)
enf'g as mod. Matter of Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co., etc., and International Union
of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, etc., 16 N. L. R . B. 727.
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(10) The respondent collaborated with the evictors in preventing
the evictees from working because of their union sympathies, or at
least in conditioning their continued employment upon their desertion
of the C. I. 0. for the inside organizations, by various other acts of
harassment and discrimination. Under the circumstances disclosed
by this record, we find that the following occurrences, hereinabove
described in greater detail, during the period of the ejections, are
instances of such unlawful collaboration :
May
6-Foreman M. Freese told Dimitry to discard his C. I. 0.
badge if he desired to work.
10-Superintendent Hale imposed upon Rusus a 1 week lay-off
penalty for not reporting an absence to the foreman,
although Rusus informed Hale that he had so reported
to his straw-boss.
13-Although L. Marshall, Jr., was driven from the plant on
May 6, was told by Foreman Don Risher on May 7 that
his job would be, available when he returned, and returned
on May 13 when he felt it might be safe to do so, upon
such return, the respondent informed him that his posi-
tion had been filled; Superintendent Eugene Risher did
not make him a definite and unequivocal offer of rein-
statement; and Foreman Don Richer suggested to him
that an open repudiation of the C. I. 0. would enhance
his chances of obtaining reinstatement.
14-Superintendent Hale penalized Cox for an error for which
another employee had taken full responsibility.
20-The respondent purported to notify Wright to return to
work, 2 weeks after his eviction. The respondent chose
as its agent Tom Long, a prominent evictor. Long, in
purporting to convey such notice, in substance repeated
the evictors' demand that the evictees abandon their
C. I. 0. activity.
22, 23-Upon Cox's informing Superintendent Hale that he had
been excluded from work, and requesting protection, Hale
told him to see "somebody higher up," although Hale was
the head of the division in which Cox worked. There-
after, Burgham ostensibly charged Hale with personal
responsibility for insuring Cox's return to work. Cox
was excluded again the following day. It does not ap-
pear that Hale took any steps to fulfill his alleged personal
responsibility.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1257
(toward end of month) -Following Lambros' exclusion from
the plant, he communicated to Foreman W. Freese a desire
to see him. Freese ignored the message.
June
14-Superintendent Hale discriminatorily released Dimitry.
(about) 14-Following Tsouvalos' eviction, Foreman John
Frangakais informed his mother that he could not resume
work because he had marched in the C. I. 0. parade of
May 30.
July
21-Acting Superintendent W. Freese discriminatorily dis-
charged •Nikitas.
21 (and after ) -Superintendent Hale and Acting Superin-
tendent W. Freese discriminatorily conditioned Rusus'
continued employment upon a new medical examination.
22-Upon their exclusion from the plant ,. Louis Xindas and
Silvestros were instructed by Captain Walsh to telephone
Manager Burgham about returning to work. They did
so and were informed that Burgham was unavailable.
23-Despite Acting Superintendent W. Freese's knowledge that
Frangakais ' access to work had been impeded, he did not
permit Frangakais to accompany him from the company
yard to the mill; instead , telling him to wait in the yard,
where he was subject to continued interference by evictors.
(11) The respondent approved , or acquiesced in, the ejections,
through Foreman Don Risher 's prediction to Leonard Marshall, Jr.,
on or about May 5, that C. I. 0. sympathizers in the cutting-lines
division would be evicted ; through Foreman John Frangakais ' state-
ment to Tsouvalos ' before May 30 that if the men discovered Tsouvalos'
affiliation with the C . I. 0. they would prevent his working; and
through the above -described apathy of various supervisory employees
and company police during and following a number of the ejections.b02
102 In Matter of General Shoe Corporation and Georgia Federation of Labor, 5 N. L. R. B.
1005, mod. anel enf'd by consent, N. L. R. B. v. Gen'l Shoe Corp., 99 F. (2d) 223 (C. C. A.
5), involving a similar situation, the Board said:
The respondent here owned the plant, exercised exclusive control over it and ex-
clusive authority over its employees and the conditions under which they worked.
It had the correlative and affirmative duty to protect its employees during working
hours and to maintain safe working conditions for them. Instead of fulfilling the
obligation which every employer owes to his employees, instead of exercising the
authority, inherent in its position, to protect them from assaults, it stood by idly
and indifferently surrendering complete control to a group who proceeded to carry
out the respondent's desires . Viewed in the light of the events that occurred, the
respondent's conduct amounted to a delegation of authority which it knew and
expected would be invoked and unlawfully exercised at the expense of union em-
ployees.
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(12) The respondent ratified the ejections by aiding the defense
of the ejectors. Thus when Moulakis caused Conway's arrest in con-
nection with his ouster`froni the plant on June 19 and 'when Louis
Xindas and Silvestros caused Stewart's arrest in connecti6ii ! with
their exclusion therefrom on July 24, Captain Walsh 'executed bonds
on behalf of Conway and Stewart. By such'assistance, the respond-
ent encouraged subsequent ' ejections . ' d ' '
(13) ' The respondent was associated' with the' unlawful actors and
implicated in the unlawful acts, in the above-mentioned respects.
The respondent was therefore obligated to disassociate itself from
these acts-the evictions and the 'exclusions-by appropriate action.
The respondent's failure to adopt "vigorous remedial measures,
clearly brought to the attention of the -employees" constituted a
further 'ratification.103 Thus, the respondent did not, by notice to
the employees generally; convey to them "the knowledge of a guaran-
tee of an unhampered right in the future to determine their labor
affiliatiolis ." 104 The respondent did not'notify the body, of evictors
that CA. 0. sympathizers "had the legal right to work at their jobs
without molestation." 105 It is true that Burgham purported to give
such notice to the leaders of the Security League following the May
5 and 6 and June 19 evictions,•but the respondent did not convey such
notice to the evictors generally, or even to the leaders'following other
ejections. Moreover, the purported notice on May 6 and June 18 did
not effectively terminate the ejections 100 ' Mere instructions by the
management to its own staff, supervisory and police, not to permit
a recurrence of the ejections were, obviously insufficient to -exculpate
the respondent, under the circumstances of this case. 107 , , -
Although the purported notices and instructions did not prevent
further violence, the respondent 'did not. take disciplinary, action
against the, Security League leaders, supervisory employees, police;, or
other, persons participating, acquiescing, or otherwise . implicated in
such, violence. The respondent's failure to do so contrasts strangely
with its alleged stringent rule requiring the discharge of employees
who engage in fights or assaults on ' company 'property.108 The re-
103 See Matter of ]Vest Oregon Lumber Com pany and Lumber and Sawmill Workers, etc.,
20 N L R B 1, mod and enf d by consent 1, L R B v West Oregon Lumber Company,
(C C A 9)
101 See N. L R B
V,
The Falk Corp ., 102 F. ( 2d) 383 , 106 F. (2d) 454,,(C C A 7),
30 38 If S. 45, enf'g 6 N L R B 654 ;,, cf. Kansas City Power and Light Compann,„etc v
N L. R. Zi, 111 F. (2d) 340 (C. C. A. 8 ) , mod'g and enf'g 12 N. L. R B 1414; , iVesting-
house Electric &• Mf'g Co . v. N. L R', B., 112 F. (2d) 657 (C. C. A 2), aWd per, curiam
312 U S 660
n 105 See N. L . R. B. v.,Asheville Hosiery Company , 108 F . ( 2d) 288 , (C. C. A 4)
1007bid. - ^, ^
lm Cf . Swift & Co V . N L R ' B ', 106 F. ( 2d) 87, 94 (C. C. A. 8 ) ; N. L. R. B. v. Hearst,
102 F. ( 2d) 658 (C. C. A. 9).
108 Burgham testified that he told the Security League leaders : . . you have violated
one of the rules of the company . as far as I am concerned [ you might consider your-
selves discharged]."
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1259
spondent contends that it did not discharge the Security League lead-
ers because they threatened, if discharged, to precipitate a strike.
This contention does not explain why the respondent did not other-
wise discipline them. Indeed, the respondent promoted a former head
special watchman and one of the evictors, George Bush, to be night
superintendent, effective as of June 15, 1937; that is, within 2 weeks
of his having engaged in the assorting-room ousters. Harry Kirk, a
Security League official and one of the evictors, also received promo-
tion to a foremanship shortly after the ejections. Besides, the re-
spondent's contention does not explain why it did not discipline the
supervisory employees and company police who were involved. Fur-
thermore, the alleged strike threat of the Security League leaders does
.not excuse the respondent's failure to discharge them.109 In the Gen-
eral Motors case we overruled a similar defense in the following
language applicable to this case:
. . since the conduct and the anti-United feeling of the
evicting employees had been incited and fostered to a large degree
by acts and omissions of the respondent, the respondent cannot
excuse its admitted failure to safeguard its employees because of
any helplessness before s; "loyal-employee" revolt whose alleged
overwhelming power resulted from the respondent's own policies.
Finally, under the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that
the respondent desisted from discharging the Security League leaders
as a disciplinary measure, because of the threatened strike.
The evictors told the evictees in substance, it will be recalled, that
their continued employment, if any, would depend upon a renuncia-
tion of C. I. 0. activity. The respondent, through the evictors, there-
by imposed an unlawful condition on employment.110 The respondent
did not effectively dispel this condition. Burgliam testified that he
met with the Security League leaders on May 6; that he demanded
their assurance that the evictees would be permitted to resume work
without molestation ; that they gave him such assurance, announcing
their publication in a local evening newspaper of an article in which
"assurance was given to these men [the evictees] that if they came back
and behaved themselves they would be permitted to work without any
molestation"; and that he replied, "Well, that part of it is all right
109 Matter of General Motors and Delco-Remy Corporation and International Union, etc.,
14 N. L. R. B. 113, enf'd N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 116 F. (2d) 306 (C. C. A.
7). The threat of a strike does not constitute a legitimate reason for an employer's per-
mission to one group of employees to discriminate against another group. Cf. N. L. R. B.
v. Star Publishing Company, 97 F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9).
n9 Matter of Sunshine Mining Co. and International Union, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 1252,
enf'd N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 110 F. (2d) 780 (C. C. A. 9) ; Eagle-Picher Mining
d; Smelting Co v. N. L. R. B., 119 F. (2d) 903 (C. C. A. 8) enf'g as mod. Matter of Eagle-
Picher Mining & Smelting Co., etc., and International Union of Mine, Mill 4 Smelter
Workers etc., 16 N. L. R. B. 727.
T260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.:." '[Italics supplied.] -The, 'article' to which' this, testimony
refers is hardly an unequivocal offer of reinstatement despite its state-
ment that the evictees could return to work without "discrimination."
This statement is sandwiched in,between' attacks on the C. 'I. O. and a
misleading description of: the evictions under the banner headline.
LEAGUE CHARGES CIO INTIMIDATION
Burgham testified further that on May 7 at another conference. with
the Security League leaders he referred to this article as follows
. . inasmuch as this article had been published in the paper
assuring the men that they would be given their jobs back
and wouldn't, be molested, that I wasn't going to say anything,
further at that time' . . .
In view of the contents of the article sponsored by the 'Security
League and, its leaders' construction thereof, as assurance that the
evictees would not be evicted again so long as they "behaved them-
selves," in connection with the enunciation of the discriminatory con-
dition and the occurrence. of unlawful ejections before and after the
publication, of this article, ,we, find- that this article in substance re-
newed, this unlawful condition, and that the respondent through
Burgham affirmatively sanctioned such unlawful condition. In
any event,, the article did not eliminate the unlawful condition other-
wise imposed. Besides, the respondent affirmatively sanctioned the
unlawful condition through Superintendent E. Risher's and Fore-
man D. Risher's statements to Leonard Marshall, Jr., on May 13, and
Tom Long's statements to Wright on May 20.
Because of its implication in the ejections, the respondent was
obligated to give notice to the victims to return to work and to assure
them of adequate protection.11' The respondent did not fulfill this
obligation. Thus, of the 14 employees, named in Appendix "A",
whose employment ceased peimanently following an ejection, none-
received a, definite and unequivocal offer of reinstatement accompanied
by-an assurance of adequate protection, subsequent to such, final
eviction or exclusion. ,
In sum, we find that the respondent incited, instigated, encouraged,
approved, ratified, and participated and acquiesced in, the discrimina-
tory evictions and exclusions which occurred during the spring and
summer of 1937. We find, therefore, that they must be attributed to
the'responderit. These unlawful ejections, in effect, terminated the
employment of 14 of the employees named in Appendix "A". The
"'The respondent recognized that it had this duty . On May 6 Burgham instructed the
superintendents "to make sure their men were all notified to come hack and to guarantee
them protection when they did come back
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1261
respondent, as noted above, also discriminatorily terminated the em-
ployment of the remaining three employees named therein.112
The respondent contends that ejected employees conspired to and
did provoke their ejection, remain away from work, and hope to
secure back pay without working. The testimony in support of this
contention, denied by the ejectees, is unworthy of belief in view of
its internal deficiencies and its inherent incredibility under the cir-
cumstances of this case. Moreover, whatever plot ousted employees
may have had in mind, the crucial fact remains that the respondent
unlawfully caused them to be driven from their jobs. Whether or
not such employees hoped to obtain back pay thereafter without work-
ing is, of course, immaterial. Employees against whom an employer
has. discriminated need not make application for reinstatement."
The employer, rather, must make them an appropriate and bona fide
offer.114 This the respondent did not do as to any of the employees
named in Appendix "A," subsequent to the final discrimination
against them.
We find that the respondent, by evictions, exclusions, discharge, lay-
off, and other acts hereinabove mentioned, discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure and terms and conditions of employment of
the employees named in Appendix "A," thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Amalgamated and the S. W. O. C. and encouraging
membership in the Plan and the Security League, labor organizations,
and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
H. Other alleged discrimination
The amended complaint alleges and the amended answer denies
that the respondent also discriminated against named employees other
than those listed in Appendix "A." The Trial Examiner, in effect,
struck the names of a number of such employees from the amended
complaint by excluding further evidence concerning them. The em-
ployees, named in the amended complaint but not in. Appendix "A"
and who were not thus eliminated by the Trial Examiner, are herein-
after referred to as charging employees. The record contains much
112 Dimitry, Nikitas, and Rusus. -
113 Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Local Division, etc., 1 N. L. R. B.
1, enf'd N. L. R . B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 91 F. (2d) 178 (C. C. A. 3), 303
U. S. 261 ; Matter of Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, etc ., and American Radio
Telegraphists ' Ass'n, etc., 1 N. L. R. B. 201, enf'd N. L. R. B. v. Mackay Radio & Tele-
graph Co., 304 U. S. 333, rev'g 87 F. (2d) 611, 92 F. (2d) 761 (C. C. A. 9 ) ; Matter of
Sunshine Mining Company and International Union, etc ., 7 N. L. R. B. 1252, enf'd
N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 110 F. (2d) 780 (C. C. A. 9 ) ; Eagle-Picher Mining d•
Smelting Co. v. N. L., R. B., 119 F. (2d) 903 (C. C. A. 8).
na Such an offer might bar reinstatement and limit back pay but would not entirely
exculpate the employer. Cf. Matter of M. T. Heyward, etc., and American Federation of
Labor, 18 N. L. R. B. 542.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conflicting testimony in regard to the charging employees, and indi-
vidual discussion of their cases would unduly lengthen this decision.
Careful consideration of the entire record, including the respondent's
unfair labor practices described above, compels doubts as to the bona
fides of the respondent's various- defenses in respect to the charging
employees. On the other hand, the affiliation of these employees
with the S. W. O. C. prior to their discharge, lay-off, or refusal of
reinstatement, has not been established by credible evidence. We are
not satisfied, on this record, that the respondent selected the charging
employees for discriminatory treatment.
We find that the respondent, by discharging, laying off, or refusing
to reinstate the employees named in the amended complaint other
than those listed in Appendix "A," did not discriminate in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, thereby discouraging or en-
couraging membership in a labor organization, or interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section IV above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section II 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Plan and the Security
League and has contributed financial and other support to them.
Their continued existence is a consequence of violation of the Act,
thwarting the purposes of the Act and rendering ineffective a mere
order to cease the unfair labor practices.115 In order to effectuate the
policies of the Act and free the employees of the respondent from
such domination and interference and the effects thereof, which con-
stitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the
rights guaranteed them in the Act, we will order the respondent to
"I Consolidated Edison Company, v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 107.
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1263
withdraw all recognition from the Plan and the Security League
as representatives of the respondent's employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work,
and to disestablish them as such representatives 116
We have found that the respondent discriminated against the em-
ployees named in Appendix "A" in regard to their hire and tenure
and terms and conditions of employment. It appears that the Trial
Examiner refused to permit proof that these employees had obtained
other regular and substantially equivalent employment. Assuming
that they have secured such employment, we find, nevertheless, that
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it is necessary to, and
accordingly we shall, order the respondent to offer to them reinstate-
ment tq their former or substantially equivalent positions.117 The
offer of reinstatement shall be without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights, and privileges.
We shall also order the respondent to make payment to each of
the employees named in Appendix "A" an amount equal to that which
he would have earned as wages and bonus during the period from'
the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings 118 during that period, had the respondent not
discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure and terms and
conditions of employment.
Since a number of employees of the respondent are not familiar
with the English language, the notices, which the respondent will
be required to post, shall be in the languages familiar to these per-
sons, as specified by the Regional Director, as well as in the English
language.
THE PETITION
In view of the lapse of time since the filing of the petition by the
S. W. 0. C. for investigation and certification of representatives, and
the fact that, the parties did not introduce evidence with respect to
its allegations, we will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
118 N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261 ; N. L. R. B. v. Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 272; N. L. R. B. v. Fansteei Metallurgical Corporation,
306 U. S. 240; Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company v . N. L. R. B., 308
U. S. 241; N. L. R. B. v. Falk Corp., 308 U. S. 453.
117 Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union United Automobile Workers
of America, etc., 31 N. L. R. B. 994.
118 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with seeking work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment ' elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies re-
ceived for work performed upon Federal, State, county , municipal , or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corp . v. N. L. R. B., 311
U. S. 7.
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLnsloNs OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America; Steel Workers Organizing Committee; Weirton Steel
Employees Representation Plan ; Weirton Steel Employees Security
League ; Weirton Tin Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security
League; Sheet Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League;
Strip Steel Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Steel
Works Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League; and Steuben-
ville Tin Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of, and
by contributing financial and other support to the Plan, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of and by contributing financial and other support to the
Security League, including its subsidiary leagues, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against the employees named in Appendix
"A" in regard to their hire and tenure and terms and conditions of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated
and in the S. W. O. C. and encouraging membership in the Plan and
the Security League, including its sudsidiary leagues, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
7. By discharging or laying off or by refusing to reinstate the em-
ployees named in the amended complaint other than the employees
named in Appendix "A," the respondent has not engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
WEIRTON STEEL, COMPANY 1265
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders ` that the re-
spondent Weirton Steel Company, and its officers , agents , successors,
and' assigns , shall :
.1. • Cease and desist from :
(a) In ,any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of the -Weirton Steel Employees Representation Plan; Weir-
ton Steel' Employees Security League ; Weirton Tin Mill Unit, Weir-
ton Steel Employees Security League; Sheet Mill Unit, Weirton
Steel Employees Security League ; Stri}) Steel Unit, Weirton Steel
Employees Security League; Steel Works Unit, Weirton Steel Em-
ployees Security League; and Steubenville Tin Mill Unit, Weirton
Steel Employees , Security League, on the formation or administra-
tion of any other labor organization of its , employees , and contributing
any support to these organizations or any other labor organization of
its employees;
(b), Recognizing the Weirton Steel Employees Representation
Plan; Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Weirton Tin Mill
Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League ; Sheet Mill Unit,
Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Strip Steel Unit , Weirton
Steel Employees Security League; Steel Works Unit, Weirton Steel
Employees Security League ; and Steubenville Tin Mill Unit, Weir-
ton Steel Employees Security League as the representatives of any
of,, the employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of
employment, or conditions of work;
(c) Discouraging membership in- the Amalgamated Association
of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Steel Workers
Organizing Committee , or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees; or encouraging membership in, any, labor- organization of
its employees , by discharging,' laying off , or refusing to reinstate any
of - its , employees , or in any other manner discriminating in respect
to. hire , or.- tenure of employment or any 'term or condition of
employment ; I • - _ • , ^ ' ! - , ,
. (d) Assaulting , beating, or otherwise engaging in physical vio-
lence, or inciting, encouraging , or assisting, others to assault ,,,beat; qr
otherwise engage in physical violence , for, the purpose of -discourag-
ing membership in, or activities on behalf , of, the Amalgamated.Asso-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Steel
Workers Organizing Committee , or any other labor organization;
(e) Inciting , encouraging , or assisting Weirton Steel Employees
Representation Plan; Weirton Steel Employees Security League;
Weirton Tin Mill Unit, Weirton ; Steel Employees Security League ;
Slieet , Mill ,Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League ; ; , Str-ip
Steel Unit, ,Weirton Steel Employees Security , League;- Steel Works
Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Steubenville Tin
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Weir-Cove
Community Security League, or any other organization to interfere
with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations affiliated
with Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America or Steel Workers Organizing Committee or other
labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activity for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed in Section . 7 of the National Labor Relations Act;
(f) Maintaining surveillance of or employing any manner of
espionage for the purpose of ascertaining or investigating the activi-
ties of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America, of Steel Workers Organizing Committee , or of its
employees in connection with such organizations or any other labor
organization , or any other activity which is in exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join , or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activity for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Weirton Steel Employees
Representation Plan; Weirton Steel Employees Security League;
Weirton Tin Mill Unit , Weirton Steel Employees Security League;
Sheet Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Strip
Steel Unit , Weirton Steel Employees Security League; Steel Works
Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League, and Steubenville
Tin Mill Unit, Weirton Steel Employees Security League as the rep-
resentatives of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of work, and com-
pletely disestablish these organizations as such representatives;
(b) Offer to the employees named in Appendix "A" immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges;
(c) Make whole the employees named in Appendix "A" for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure and terms or condi-
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY 1267
tions of employment, by payment to each of them respectively of a
sum of money equal to that which each would have earned as wages
during the period from the date of the discrimination to the date of
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings,119 if any, during said
period, had the respondent not discriminated in regard to his hire
and tenure and terms and conditions of employment;
(d) Immediately post notices in the English language and in such
other languages as may be designated by the Regional Director for
the Sixth Region in conspicuous places throughout its plants, and
maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating :
(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which,
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e), (f), and (g) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of
this Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become
or remain members of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
and Tin Workers of North America, and Steel Workers Organizing
Committee; and (4) that the respondent will not discriminate against
any employee because of membership or activity in said organizations;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discrim-
inated against employees named therein other than the employees
named in Appendix "A."
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives be, and it hereby is, dismissed without
prejudice.
APPENDIX A
Shirley Cox
Anastasos Dimitry
Mike Frangakais
Costas Lambros
Homer Marshall
Leonard Marshall, Jr.
Julius Mehozonek
Nick Moulakis
Markos Nikitas
Steve Paich
Themistockles Rusus
George Silvestros
Everett Snodgrass
Mike Tsouvalos
Edgar Wright
Louis Xindas
Steve Xindas
119 See footnote 118, supra.
448692-42-vol. 32-81