Wichita Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1382 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNIONUNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
Case No. 16-C-1225.-Decided February 26,1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 3, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had -engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral argu-
ment before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any of the
parties, and none was held.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the respondent's brief and exceptions, and the entire record
in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, additions, and
modifications hereinafter set forth.
1. Unlike the Trial Examiner, we do not find that President Bolin
referred to union officials at the August 3 meeting as "chiselers," inas-
much as the record contains no such evidence.
2. The Trial Examiner found, among other things, that in the
meeting on or about May 1, 1945, referred to more fully in the Inter-
mediate Report, President Bonin told the respondent's employees,
"... if the distribution of similar union leaflets continued he would
probably have to shut the plant down." The record discloses that
employee Raymond Parvin testified, as follows :
If we didn't get that stuff [postwar contracts]-of course he had
a leaflet in his hand-and that if they [the Union] went ahead
they'd [the respondent] probably have to'shut the plant down
under those conditions.
65 N. L . R B., No. 230.
1382
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1383
Bolin denied that he made such a statement. We credit Parvin's
testimony. - It is reasonable to infer and, we find, that by the quoted
portion of Parvin's testimony, Bolin intended to convey the idea, as the
Trial Examiner implicitly found, that future distribution of union
literature would probably cause the respondent to suspend plant op-
erations and that the employees at the meeting so understood Bolin.
By such statement the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act.
In any event, on the basis of such statement and the statements and
acts set forth in the Intermediate Report, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, the respondent engaged in a course of coercive conduct
which, taken as a whole, violated Section 8 (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the
Act by making the coercive statement that the plant would probably
shut down unless union activity was discontinued; by interrogating
its employees concerning their union activities; by vilifying and dis-
paraging the Union; by unlawfully urging and persuading its em-
ployees to withdraw therefrom; by sanctioning and assisting in the
distribution and wearing of anti-union safety pins; by having printed
the anti-union poem and the "Say No To CIO" cards and distributing
the poem and the cards to the employees; by not repudiating the anti-
union statements expressed in the Phillips' personnel department let-
ters and in the Peterson anti-union meetings which were held in the
office of M. B. Whatley, the respondent's personnel manager, during
working hours; and by creating and sponsoring, a labor organization
in the form of a grievance committee composed of departmental rep-
resentatives of its employees.
Upon the entire record, we infer and find that the respondent's il-
legal activities referred to disclose a purpose to defeat self-organiza-
tion and its objects and an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the
Act. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and the underly-
ing purposes manifested thereby, we are convinced that the unfair
labor practices found are persuasively related to the unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by the Act, and that danger of commission in the
future of any or all of the unfair labor practices listed in the Act is to
be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past. The pre-
ventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coex-
tensive with the threat.' In order, therefore, to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of un-
fair labor practices, and, thereby minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the
, See N L R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426; May Department
Stores Company v. N. L. R. B., 66 S. Ct. 203.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist not only from
the unfair labor practices herein found, but also from in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Wichita Engineering Company,
Wichita Falls, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Questioning employees concerning union membership or ac-
tivity; directly or indirectly warning or threatenng employees to re-
frain from becoming or remaining members of the International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization
of its employees ; threatening its employees with a plant shut-down
or other loss of employment because of union membership or activity;
sanctioning the use of company premises for the conduct of anti-union
meetings or the use of company time for such or other anti-union
activities; and forming, interfering with, dominating, or supporting
a labor organization of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a), Post at its plant in Wichita Falls, Texas, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1385
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our
employees are free to become or remain members of this union,
or any other labor organization.
We will not (1) question our employees regarding union mem-
bership or activity; (2) directly or indirectly warn or threaten
our employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members
of the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW-CIO), or any
other labor organization; (3) threaten our employees with a plant
shut-down or other loss of employment because of union member-
ship or activity; (4) sanction the use of company premises for the
conduct of anti-union meetings, or the use of company time for
such or other anti-union activities ; and -(5) form, interfere with,
dominate, or support a labor orgganization of our employees.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ---------------- By ------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Ebner Davts, for the Board.
Nelson, Montgomery & Robertson, by Dlessrs. Otis E. Nelson and Ernest Robert-
son, of Wichita Falls, Tex., for the respondent.
Mr. Joseph L. Sayen, of Dallas , Tex., for the Union.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge filed July 24, 1945, by International Union.
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth,
Texas), issued its complaint dated August 6, 1945, against the Wichita Engineer-
ing Company, Wichita Falls, Texas, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act,
Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleged in substance that in the summer of 1945 the respondent had
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (1), warning, persuading, and threat-
ening its employees against assisting or becoming members of the Union, by
distributing safety pins signifying opposition to the Union and/or handbills
disparaging the Union; and.threatening to close its plant if the Union became
their bargaining agent; (2) interrogating its employees concerning their union
affiliation and activity; (3) during the 2-week period preceding a Board con-
ducted election discouraged membership in the Union by granting a large num-
,ber of wage increases to the employees; and (4) sponsored and organized a labor
organization, and urged its employees to become members of and assist such
organization.
On or about August 13, 1945, the respondent filed its "Exceptions and Answer"
to the complaint. The answer admitted the allegations in the complaint as to the
nature and extent of the respondent's business , but denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices'
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Wichita Falls, Texas, on August
21, 22, and 23, 1945, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel, the Union by its international representative. All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues At the opening of the
hearing counsel for the respondent moved for the exclusion of witnesses. The
motion was granted over objection, of Board's counsel. At the conclusion of the
hearing, a motion to conform the complaint to the proof in formal matters was
granted without objection. The parties waived oral argument but were granted
time to file briefs with the Trial "Examiner after the close of the hearing. No
briefs have been filed. After the close of the hearing, the undersigned, on his
own motion, ordered certain corrections made in the record.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Wichita Engineering Company is a Texas corporation having its principal
office and place of business at Wichita Falls, Texas. It is engaged in the manu-
1 The exceptions set forth that the allegations of unfair labor practices in the com-
plaint were too broad and constituted conclusions. In effect, the exceptions amounted
to a motion to make such allegations more definite and certain. At the opening, of the
hearing, the undersigned denied the motion and overruled the exceptions.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1387
facture, sale, and distribution of air conditioning equipment, oil field supplies, and
various war products. Approximately' 70 percent of the $750,000 worth of
materials used semi-annually comes to the plant from points outside the State
of Texas. About 80 percent of approximately $3,000,000 worth of products
manufactured during the same period is shipped outside the State. At the hear-
ing, the respondent stipulated that it was and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondent.
Ht. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Findings
The respondent, then a small concern with about 25 employees, was in financial
difficulties in 1937. About 1938 it was partially reorganized and refinanced by
D. H. Bolih,Z who presently controls and is president of the corporation For
several years after 1938, the business continued in a small way but by 1942 the
respondent secured some war contracts, and the number of its employees grad-
ually increased to a peak of 756. After the close of the European fighting in
April 1945, the war work and necessarily the number of employees declined some-
what. At the time of the capitulation of Japan on August 15, all remaining war
contracts held by the respondent were cancelled. Since that time it has continued
production on a non-war contract with a force reduced to about 160, employees.
In 1943, an effort was made to organize the employees in an American Fed-
eration of Labor union but after an election which that union lost, the activity
ceased. So far as the record discloses, there was no subsequent organizational
activity among the employees in the plant until early April of 1945 when the
charging union started a campaign which culminated in a Board conducted
election on June 12 to determine whether the Union should be the bargaining
representative of the employees. The Union lost the election but filed objections
to the conduct thereof and continued its campaign to secure additional members
among the respondent's employees
The events which resulted in the issuance of the complaint took place during
this period of union activity, particularly from about the first of May to the early
part of August 1945.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Events up to the June 12 election
Management's warning
The union campaign began shortly after the 1st of April 1945, and consisted
at first of the distribution by Joseph L. Sayen, International Representative of
the Union, of a weekly union letter or pamphlet to the employees, as they entered
the plant gate. About May 1st, President Bolin passed word among the em-
ployees on the first shift of the assembly department that he desired to talk
with them in his office at the 4: 30 p. m. quitting time. Bolin had before him on
2 Bolin's main interest was and still is in developing oil wells. He had had no previous
experience in any manufacturing business.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his desk one of the union pamphlets' containing a cartoon depicting a worker
pumping profits through .a large pipe into a management container and through
a very small pipe into a bucket for the worker . The pamphlet also critized the
'r'espondent 's attitude toward the Union and its wage policy Bolin picked up the
pamphlet and told the 18 or 20 employees who had responded 'to his call that he
did not like the pamphlet and that it was "dirty and unfair , and untrue" ; that
he had received no profits and no dividends had been paid to the stockholders, but
that all 'earnings had been left in the business, to keep it going after the war ;
that he was trying to get post-war contracts and did not want any dissention that
might, affect the prospects therefor ; and that if the distribution of similar union
leaflets continued he would probably have to shut the plant down. '
While Bolin was talking , Vice-President Harvey, whose office adjoined, came
into the meeting . After seating hemself in the group , Harvey said , "as far as
this union business is concerned , to hell with all of it " Bolin told Harvey to be
careful what he said. Harvey then added that he had been away trying to secure
new contracts ; that he had some contracts promised but that "he had a bear
by the tail" and "he didn ' t know whether he could hold him or not". Bolin then
took over and intimated that he also had been indiscreet in his language but
that he expected the assistance of the workers present in case he "got in jail."
He asked all present who wanted post-war work with the respondent to raise
their hands , and they all did so . The meeting lasted about 30 minutes and
the employees present were paid for their time
Notwithstanding these admonitions from management , a Lew mornings later,
Cecil Cottrell , who had been at the office meeting , was in front of the gate wearing
a union button and passing out pamphlets to the employees . Bolin drove up in
his automobile , stopped, and asked Cottrell if the latter thought he was "right."
On receiving an affirmative response , Bolin asked , "Well, are you sure you're
right?" Cottrell responded "I sure am" Bolin replied , "Alright, go ahead
then. Give me a leaflet ," and on receiving it he drove into the plant.`
The Phillips letters
On June 4, the Union filed with the Board a petition for investigation and
certification of representatives of the production and maintenance employees of
the respondent. Pursuant to such petition the parties on June 8 agreed to hold
an election under Board auspices on the afternoon of Tuesday, June 12. In the
meanwhile, the distribution of union pamphlets continued and many of the em-
ployees appeared on the job wearing union buttons.
To offset the effect of the union pamphlets, Maxine Phillips, one of the 3
stenographers and clerks in the office of Personnel Manager, M. B. Whatley,'
on June 7, typed at her home the following letter :
3 Bolin testified that he secured this and other union pamphlets from the guard who had
been instructed to get copies of all pamphlets distributed at the gate.
" Harvey was not called as a witness and did not testify. The findings relative to
the meeting in Bolin's office are based on the testimony of employees Parvin and
Cottrell Bolin in his testimony admitted that he and Harvey talked to the employees
from the assembly department but did not recall some of the statements attributed to
him at that time by Parvin and Cottrell.
G Bolin testified that he "did not deny" the above testimony of Cottrell but did not
recall the occasion.
9 Miss Phillips testified that she was Whatley's "secretary". However, another
stenographer piimarily took dictation from Whatley but during her absence from the
office, Whatley would give dictation to either Phillips or a third office girl For the most
part, Phillips' duties were clerical and consisted mostly of keeping records relative to
accidents, sickness, and employment. The Personnel Manager's office is in a separate
building from that which houses the main offices.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1389
DATE : JUNE 7, 1945
SUBJECT UNION ELECTION
AND YOUR INTEREST IN IT
TO: EMPLOYEES OF THE WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1945, YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CAST YOUR VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE C. I. O.
LET ME NOW URGE YOU AS A FELLOW WORKER, TO USE THAT
RIGHT TO VOTE AS IF YOU WERE VOTING FOR YOUR NEXT MEAL.
WHETHER YOU VOTE FOR OR AGAINST BE SURE AND VOTE
WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME GOOD IN ALL THINGS
BUT ALSO SOME BAD IT SEEMS THAT WARTIME IS DOING A VERY
GOOD JOB IN BRINGING OUT THE BAD IN THESE LABOR ORGANI-
ZATIONS
ALL OF US HAVE BROTHERS, FATHERS, SONS AND HUSBANDS IN
THE SERVICE WOULD YOU CARE TO VOTE FOR A SLOW UP IN
THEIR RETURN HOME. AND IF THEY WERE HERE WITH THE
PRIVILEDGE TO VOTE HOW WOULD THEIR BALLOT BE CAST IN
THIS ISSUE? WOULD THEY VOTE AWAY THE LABOR FREEDOM OF
THEIR COUNTRY?
YES, THE UNIONS HAVE DONE GOOD WORK WHERE COMPANIES
AND LARGE CORPORATIONS ARE UNABLE TO HANDLE THE PER-
SONEL COMPLAINT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL BUT AVE ARE A COM-
PARATIVELY SMALL COMPANY OUR WAGE SCALE IS HIGHER
THAN TT--IE AVERAGE FOR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH WE LIVE
WITHOUT UNIONS THE POST-WAR FUTURE FOR US LOOKS BRIGHT
BUT IF WE ORGANIZE ------------ WELL, WHO CARES TO WORK IN
A PLACE OF WAGE DISPUTE, STRIKE AND STRIFE.
c
PEOPLE WHO VOTE NO
BE SURE THAT YOU DO VOTE
PEOPLE WHO VOTE YES
ARE YOU EDUCATED IN THE WAYS OF THE UNIONt
PERSONNEL DEPT MAXINE M PHILLIPS
The nest morning she did not go to work and purchased some stencils and
paper at her own expense After making a stencil of the letter she went to
Bolin's downtown office in his absence, and his secretary, Enid Gassett7 assisted
her in locating a mimeograph machine, where, while Gassett stood by, Phillips
ran off from 300 to 500 copies of the letter She reported for work that noon
and in the afternoon between 2 . 45 and 5 p. nn 8 distributed the mimeographed
copies of her letter to the employees outside the plant gate. Later that evening
she prepared and stenciled the following letter:
Series II
Date: June S, 1945
Subject : Union voting
To : Employees of The Wichita Engineering Co.
There are some of us employed here that are from areas where wages
are much higher and in coming here have brought discontentment. But have
At this time, Bolin's oil interests were inactive and Gassett' s work had to do with
the affairs of the respondent
8 The record does not disclose Phillips' working hours, but as the Personnel Manager
usually left about 5 p. in., it is assumed his staff left on or about the same time.
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
, we stopped to figure that in each area that wages are stabalized to take care
of the cost of living in that particular area?
It is to the interest of this company that each of you bring his or her
problem to the management or Personnel where it will receive due considera-
tion as has previously been our company's policy.
What additional advantages will we as individuals gain by Union repre-
sentation?
Is your job worth a vote to you? Each of you be sure to call at the Time-
keepers offices on the West Side of the Main Shop from 2: 30 until 6: 30 on
Tuesday to see if you are eligible to vote and if so, then vo'r !
Anybody interested in a gabfest meet outside the main gate Mon. at 12: 30.
Personnel Dept. M. M. Phillips
The next day, June 9, she did not report for work and after mimeographing
copies of her second letter at the office she used the previous day, she came to
the plant entrance and distributed the copies of the second letter to the employees
from about 2: 45 to 5: 00 p. m 9
Safety Pins
Lloyd Gwinn, a tool maker who had been employed by the respondent since
July 1942, except a, period from October 1943 to February 1945, and who had
been active in the 1943 campaign on behalf of the A F. L. union heretofore re-
ferred to, was equally as active against the charging Union. On June 7 or 8 he
suggested to a group of from 75 to 100 employees at a meeting lie had called off
company time outside the gate that they appear at work wearing an ordinary
safety pin to indicate they were opposed to the Union and to counteract the
effect of the union buttons being ww orn. The next morning a number of the em-
ployees appeared at work wearing such safety pins, and Gwinn wore a brass
laundry safety pin about 5 inches long. Thereafter, and until the election, the
pins were available to all employees in a refreshment stand in the plant operated
by the respondent, and known as the Snack Bar Wanda Trusty, in charge of
the Snack Bar, asked Raymond Parvin and Freddie Mae Harman to remove
their union buttons and put on safety pins. Clara Broutherton, who did sec-
retarial work for both President Bolin and Vice-President Harve.N, met Parvin
in front of the Snack Bar and also asked him to substitute a safety pin for his
union button. When the Snack Bar ran out of pins, Bioutherton, at the request
of Trusty, ordered the respondent's truck driver, Squires, to purchase a handful
of safety pin cards for her Part of these Cards she gave to Trusty. When the
Snack Bar again ran out of pins Trusty came to the office and was given addi-
tional cards. Broutherton also distributed pin cards to others who inquired at
the office. She wore a safety pin at work as (lid Chief Inspector Wilmuth,
Leonard Hirshfeld, foreman of the Delco Department, and Jack Snow, one of
the foremen in the machine shop. - Hirshfehl not only wore a pin but on the day
of tha election distributed two or three dozen of the pins to employees in his
department."
° Phillips was not certain as to her dates, but testified each letter was distributed
either the same or the day following its writing. She was having some dental work
done at the time, and according to the company records, she worked June 7, was off
one-half day June 8, and the following three days was off full time.
10 All foremen as well as the chief inspector had supervisory authority to the extent
that their activities among the employees were chargeable to the respondent.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY
Group meetings
1391
George Peterson, a machinist who entered the employ of the respondent in
March 1945, after overseas duty as a bombardier in the Air Force, also vigorously
campaigned against the Union. He told William Pierce who worked on the night
shift 11 that the thing to do was to organize the women employees against the
Union. About June 11, it was agreed that Peterson arrange a meeting place
and Pierce round up women employees. Accordingly, the same afternoon, Pe-
terson, who had secured permission from his foreman, Jack Snow, went to Person-
nel Director Whatley and asked the latter if he could use his office for a con-
ference Without inquiring the purpose, Whatley agreed and left the office.
Pierce, who was on his own tinge, then brought a total of about 25 or 30 women,
employees from the machine shop and the inspection department to the office in
3 different groups These group meetings in Whatley's office were held with the
knowledge of Chief Inspector Wilmuth of the inspection department, and of
Snow and Reeves, foremen of departments in the machine shop, all of whom ex-
ercised supervisory authority over some of those attending the meetings. In fact,
Wilmuth and Reeves actually told the women in their respective departments to
attend the meetings.
Although Pierce attended the group meetings, Peterson did most of the talking."
He appealed to each group to vote against the Union. He recalled some of his
experiences overseas, and stated that unions generally called strikes and were
prolonging the war; that if the boys were home they would vote against the
Union and any woman with a son or husband overseas who had a sane mind
would do the same; that Bolin could not pay the wages the Union was demanding,
and that if the Union got in the plant it would mean trouble and the plant
would probably shut down when the existing contracts expired.
Peterson used the Personnel Manager's office for the above meetings from
about 2:10 to 4:30 p. in. (quitting time). All the employees attending the meet-
ings, except Pierce, who was off duty, were paid for their time. Whatley was in
and out of the plant during this period but did not return to his office until the
last group meeting was breaking up. At that time lie told Nelson and Pierce,
"If you are having a meeting in here regarding the election you cannot have it."
No effort was made then or later by Whatley or any other official to dissipate from
the minds of these women, or the other employees, any impression that the
meetings were held with the knowledge and approval of management." At about
the same time, Peterson made a similar talk to the women employed in the Delco
department and to those in the shell department The latter meetings were not
prearranged but he talked to those he met in the Delco department during the
lunch period, and similarly to those he could find in the shell department during
the 2:00 to 2 :10 pr in rest period.
Anti-union pamphlets and cards
The afternoon of June 11, two first shift employees of the respondent, Frances
Herinanson and Guy Tarter were on company property inside the gate during the
change from the first to the second shift and distributed to the employees cards
" Peterson worked days
"Pierce observed 1laiy Gullatt was not wearing a safety pin and requested her to
wear a pin, but she refused
's The above findings as to the Whatley office meetings are based on the testimony of
Mary Gullatt and Fi eddie Mae Harman as reconciled to the testimony and admissions
of Peterson and Whatley. Pierce did not testify.
ci
679100-46-vol 65-89
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on which were printed in large letters "SAY 'NO ' TO C. I.
on which appeared the following "Poem."
The Boss is just a tight wad,
"He's a crank" they say,
As they gang up on His time
To talk about his pay.
Yeah he's just a glutton
THIS is CIO talk
He's the meanest man they
They even cuss his walk.
know,
But to me he seems quite different,
Never seems to cause much fuss,
He's done a lot for Uncle Sam,
and made good jobs for us.
No Sir, I ain't squawking,
And there is one think I know
That we won't speed up V day
By Joining the CIO;
So, if you say, we'll forget the Boss
And show him no respect at all ;
But turn our thoughts to the GI Joes
Who are doomed to fall
While they 're in there fighting
A battle hard we know,
We stand around on our jobs
and holler CIO.
Yeah, they're in there pitching,
Fighting like a blaze
And they're not griping either
To get a pickle raise.
Then let's think of the GI's kiddies
As they're told a story sad-
(You're Dad was killed in action
But he gave 'em all he had)
So let's have cooperation
And show our respect to Joe
And vote against those trouble makers:
Namely, CIO.
Let's give 'em stuff to fight with
Until this battle's won
That's doing very little
Compared with what they've done
And as they fight to keep down trouble
So they can come home soon,
Let's vote against the trouble makers
Tomorrow afternoon.
0." and also circulars
If you care to know this author
Well, I'll tell you gentlemen
He's in your midst working 0
And he wears a safety pin.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1393
Although President Bolin and Personnel Manager Whatley denied any knowl-
edge of the card or the poem until after their distribution , the record discloses
that 500 copies of the poem were mimeographed and an equal number of the
cards were printed by the Avery Letter Service of Wichita Falls. They were
ordered by two men, one of whom was Albert Ecklecamp , foreman of the respond-
ent's welding department . The copies so ordered wei e thereafter picked up and
the $8 50 bill paid for in cash by the respondent 's truck driver , Squires , who left
them at the plant gate. Freddie Mitchell, clerk in the ante-room that separates
the offices of Plant Manager Kelley and Purchasing Agent Brown , asked employee
Lloyd Gwinn to distribute the leaflets to the employees at the gate . He refused
but agreed to get someone to do this work, and accordingly arranged to have
it done by Miss Hermanson and Guy Tarter.14
Other warnings by management
During this period immediately preceding the election , Chief Inspector Wil-
muth, who as heretofore noted wore a safety pin , told some of the employees in
his department , when a collection was being taken up, that they would be "shelling
out more than that" when the Union came in. On another occasion before the
election , he told some of his workers that if the Union got in the plant the Snack
Bar would be closed except during the lunch hour and rest periods , and that all
employees would have to work "from whistle to whistle." He told the inspectors
under him to be sure to vote at the election , even if they voted "wrong." 15
Foreman Reeves told two women employees under him that wages would be
frozen if the Union got in the plant The morning of June 11, while Parvin,
who had attended the May 1 meeting in the president's office , was at work and
wearing a union button , Bolin came into the assembly department . He told
Parvin that he would like to have a little talk with him provided Parvin would
not "turn him in," and Parvin agreed . He then asked why Parvin wanted the
Union in the plant, and the latter answered in effect that it was to better working
conditions and secure higher wages . Bolin replied that he could not see where
the Union would help any and "didn't believe we needed one" ; he referred to
two local concerns who had union contracts and stated that their wage scales
were very little higher than those of the respondent . He added that he had
put "everything" into the respondent company and "hated to see it ruined" and
wanted all the employees to have post-war jobs ; as he left Bolin told Parvin to
"think it over ." That afternoon Bolin again came to him as he was working and
asked if he had changed his mind about "that damned button you got on there."
Parvin replied that he had not as yet, and Bolin , as he walked away, said , "think
it over pretty serious." The next day, election day, Bolin again came to Parvin
and referring to his talk to Parvin the day before said , "I still see that you have
a button on . I thought you would have that off. I made you a good speech." "
2. Events subsequent to the election
The Union lost the election but promptly filed objections to the conduct thereof 17
and continued its efforts to secure new members. A number of the employees
11 Both Hermanson and Tarter , at Gwinn ' s suggestion , punched out at 4 p. in.
1s Wilinuth did not testify , and there was no showing of his unavailability The
above finding is made on the uncontradicted testimony of Freddie Mae Harman , one of the
inspectors under Wilmuth
11 Bolin testified that Parvin ' s testimony relative to the above incidents was substan-
tially true
11 Subsequently the Regional Director filed a report on the objections finding that
some of the objections were well taken Apparently no further proceedings were had
with reference to this report and in the meanwhile on June 14, the Union filed a charge
alleging that the pre-election activities of the respondent were illegal.
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continued to wear the union button, including Parvin and Cottrell. Noting
this, Bohn said to the 2 named, "I don't see why 158 people would vote for the
union,-there must be something wrong going on." Bolin added that he had
talked to some of the other employees, and proposed to talk to all of them to see
if he could find out "what was the matter." Bolin came to John M. Crawford
who was also wearing a button at work and said, "how long you guys gonna
wear them damned buttons?", and again said that he was going to talk to all the
employees to find out-"What you folks want." 18
The Committees
On June 19, Bolin called a meeting on company time of all the employees then
on duty and suggested that each department in the plant elect a committee for
the purpose of discussing with him increased production, grievances, and "any-
thing that would be proper." Within a day or two thereafter committees repre-
senting each department were so elected, and conferred once or twice with Bolin
within the week. At these meetings a few complaints relative to working condi-
tions were adjusted and some requests for raises were voiced.
On Saturday, June 30, Bolin called at the Sixteenth Regional Office of the
Board at Fort Worth and was advised that his activities relative to the formation
of the department committees were probably illegal. The following Monday,
July 2, Bolin called the employees together again on company time and an-
nounced that the department committees could no longer function and were dis-
solved, as he had been advised that their legality was in question . He told the
employees to take up any future grievances with their various foremen. None
of the committees have functioned since and they have been completely dis-
banded1°
Bolin's August 3 meeting
In addition to filing objections to the conduct of the election and charges that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices, the Union continued the
distribution of its weekly pamphlets to the employees at the plant gate. The
pamphlets notified the employees of union meetings and among other things
criticized the respondent's wage policy. On August 3 Bolin called a meeting of
the employees on company time. After announcing that a planned picnic for the
employees was postponed, he began to criticize the Union's methods in attempting
to organize the employees. He accused it of making untrue statements in its
pamphlets and said that such tactics were "yellow and un-American." He re-
ferred to the union officials as "chiselers, foreigners and racketeers" and said
that Joseph L. Sayen, its International Representative, was "yellow and a
coward," without nerve to debate the issues with him before the employees"
He referred to union stool pigeons in the plant and said there was one such in
the audience who was yellow and had "turned hint in" to the Union (referring
apparently to but without naming Parvin, who was present). Bolin then in-
timated that lie might have said too much and might get in trouble. After ex-
18 The above findings are based on the testimony of Parvin and Crawford, not denied
by Bolin.
,'° Bolin visited the Regional Office at the suggestion of the Regional Director , probably
to discuss the unfair labor practice charge the Union had filed on June 14, or the first
amended chaige which was filed June 22 The discussion during the conference turned
to the recent formation of the committees.
10 Within about a week after this meeting Sayen wrote Bolin offering to debate the
issues with him Bolin testified that lie did not answer and accept the challenge because
of the war news and the imminency of the plant closing.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1395
plaining, in answer to inquiries from the audience, why a rumored bonus could
not be paid , the meeting ended.
C. Concluding findings
The record clearly establishes that Bolin, who controlled and managed the
respondent corporation, was opposed to the Union organizing its employees. If he
had confined himself to explaining to the employees his opposition in temperate
and uncoercive language without any threats of reprisal, his statements standing
alone would have been privileged under the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution 2' But Bolin's statement to the employees from the assembly
department on or about May 1 that if the Union continued its tactics the plant
might have to close, taken in its context (and supported by Vice-President
Harvey's implication that the Union might jeopardize the securing of contracts),
was it clear warning to the employees that if the Union won in the election the
employees might thereafter find themselves without jobs Likewise, his several
talks with Parvin immediately prior to the election wherein lie questioned the
latter as to the reason for his union activities, sought to get Parvin to abandon
the union because he "hated to see" the respondent "ruined" and wanted the
employees to have post-war jobs, carried an implied warning of similar import.
The pamphlets distributed by the Union before and after the election, so far as
the record discloses, contained cartoons depicting labor generally as receiving
the short end of the profits from industry, and language which, while directed
to the respondent, was largely argumentative and actually more subdued in tone
than similar union "literature" in the past characterized by the Board as "sales
talk." Certainly there was nothing in any of them to warrant Bolin's outburst
on August 3" that such tactics were "yellow and un-American"; that the union
officials were "chiselers, foreigners and racketeers," or that International Rep-
resentative Sayen was "yellow and a coward."
Futhermore, these statements of Bolin to the employees must be considered
in the light of other anti-union activities in the plant for which management must
in whole or in part be held accountable.
For instance, while the record discloses that the idea of wearing safety pins
to show opposition to the Union originated with a non-supervisory employee,
the respondent sanctioned and assisted the activity through the wearing of safety
pins by three of its supervisors, their distribution by Foreman Hirshfeld, and
by supplying the Snack Bar and employees with safety pin cards. Although Clara
Broutherton was not a supervisor she did secrettial work for both President
Bolin and Vice-President Harvey. She kept safety pin cards on hand in their
outer office and there distributed the cards to those who came for them Manage-
ment made no effort to offset any impression in the minds of the employees that
Broutherton's activities carried their approval. In fact the actions of its three
supervisors above referred to support such an impression. Under the circum-
stances, and lacking repudiation of Broutherton's activities in the above respect,
the respondent must accept responsibility for them in view of her close association
with management.
21 N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric if Power Go, 314 U. S. 469; N. L. R B. v. American
Tube Bending Go, 134 F. (2d) 993 (C C A 2), cert den 320 U S 768 In re Oval Wood
Dish Corporation, 62 N. L. R B 1129 , In re Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, 63
N. L It B. 1.
22 Although the election was over by August 3 the Union had not ceased its campaign
for members. Furthermore the question of representation by the Union had not been
settled. Objections to the election had been filed and the Regional Director for the
Board ' s Sixteenth Region had ordered the election set aside and a new election held at
some future date , as presumably he had authority to do under the consent election
agreement. The respondent was aware of the fact on August 3 that the question of
whether the Union should represent its employees was still undetermined
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Similarly , no effort was made by Whatley or other management officials to
disabuse the employees' minds that the preparation and distribution of the
Phillips letters signed "Personnel Department" was unauthorized by manage-
ment, although both Whatley and Bolin saw copies of the letters.
The respondent also permitted the use of its personnel manager's office for most
of one afternoon to hold anti-union group meetings of women employees on com-
pany time, ordered and paid for 500 printed copies each of the anti-union poem
and "Vote No" cards that were distributed to the employees the day previous to
the election. Through Chief Inspector Wilmuth it told employees in the inspec-
tion department that the use of the Snack Bar would be curtailed and the em-
ployees would have to work from "whistle to whistle" if the Union won ; it in-
formed two employees through Foreman Reeves that wages would be frozen if
the Union came in the plant 23
Although Bolin promptly repudiated his suggestion that the employees elect
committees to meet with him, when informed that such action on his part was
probably illegal, his action on June 19 constituted meddling and interference in
the employees' organizing efforts, and in conjunction with the other activities
detailed above, and for which the respondent is accountable, constituted a plan
and course of action violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act 2i
It is therefore found that, by the statements and acts of President Bolin, the
statements of Chief Inspector Wilmuth and Foreman Reeves, the sanctioning
and assistance in the distribution and wearing of the anti-union safety pins, the
printing of the poem and "Vote No" cards, the non-repudiation of the Phillips'
Personnel Department letters, and the Peterson anti-union group meetings in
Whatley's office on company time, all as heretofore detailed, the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The wage increases
The complaint alleges that "during the two week period preceding the election"
the respondent discouraged membership in the Union in violation of the Act, by
granting a "large number of wage increases to its employees." There is no
allegation that the wage increases were discriminatorily applied.
From the time it took over the war contracts in early 1942, the number of
employees rapidly increased until the summer of 1945, and there was a monthly
labor turn-over of about 20 to 25 percent. In the fall of 1944, at the request of
the War Labor Board, the respondent filed a schedule of its wage scale range
in the various classifications'' Partial approval of this schedule was obtained
23 Although Bolin testified generally that all "key" employees were instructed by him
to be neutral, he was unable to give any specific instances either as to time or individuals.
Furthermore, Bolin admitted in his testimony that the rank and file employees were at
no time informed of such instructions The testimony is therefore not credited
24 It is to be noted that on July 2 Bolin told the employees that the legality of his action
in suggesting the formation of the committees had been put in question and for that
reason the committees were to be dissolved. He said nothing to the employees then or
later to the effect that he would not in the future interfere with their right to self-
organization , or that they were free to join the Union or any other labor organization
of their own choosing.
25 This schedule showed' the minimum and top figures per hour that could be paid in
the designated classifications The range of increase varied from five to forty cents per
hour depending upon the classification . The War Labor Board general order under which
the respondent was working , however, provided that the average increase in any one year
beginning July 1st could not exceed five cents multiplied by the total number of employees
classified . If an employee received a raise but left before July 1, his hourly raise rate
became available to increase another employee in the same class , provided it was au-
thorized before the end of the annual period. This tended to increase the number of
raises as July 1 approached.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY 1397
from the War Labor Board in January 1945, but final approval of some of the
schedules was held up until May 16. Some raises were granted before May 16
on approved classifications, but other raises recommended by foremen in un-
approved classifications were temporarily held up. As a result, after the final
approval, and also because of the near approach of the end of the annual period,
90 raises were granted effective June 1, while only 48 raises had been made
effective as of May 1. In July, after the election, when the respondent started
a new wage scale year and had a full year's allotment for wages per classification
to work on, 162 raises were announced
In June, the respondent had about 700 employees, of whom approximately 479
were eligible to vote in the election. The 221 clerical, supervisory, and other
employees not eligible to vote benefited in a reasonable proportion in the May,
June, and July raises. In view of the restrictions the respondent was working
under, the record does not warrant a finding that the respondent granted raises
prior to the election to discourage membership in the Union," and no such finding
is made.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW-CIO), is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by raising wages
preceding the June 12, 1945, election.
20 Mary Gullatt testified that about May 15 she asked for and Foreman Reeves agreed
to recommend a raise for her. On June 6 she again inquired and Reeves said he had over-
looked it but that he would send in the recommendation to be effective the first of July.
Later, on June 11 Reeves told her that he had talked to Bolin and they were making her
raise effective as of June 1, because if the Union came into the plant the wages would
be frozen and therefore the July 1 raise would be ineffective. Reeves testified that he
recommended raises every month effective the first of the next month, and that in this
instance he told Gullatt and another girl whose name he could not recall that their
recommended raise was being made retroactive to June 1 because if the Union came in*
it would be quite a time before "they got straightened out" and raises could be effective
again. While this statement of Reeves constitutes interference as otherwise found herein,
it is inadequate to support a finding that pre-election raises were granted to discourage
interest in the Union, especially in view of the restrictions on raises detailed above.
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire
record in , the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent , Wichita
Engineering Company , Wichita Falls , Texas , and its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1 Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with , restraining , or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in its plant at Wichita Falls , Texas, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A " Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Sixteenth Region shall , after being duly signed by the
respondent 's representative , be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the respondent during the 2-week period preceding the election
conducted by the Board discouraged membership in International Union, United
Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America ( UAW-CIO),
by granting wage increases to its employees.
It is further recommended that unless , on or before ten (10 ) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board , Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 2 ,5, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or prQceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions ) as he relies upon , together with the original and four copies of a brief
in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief , the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director . As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be
made in writing within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
J. J. FITZPATRICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 3, 1945.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL E\IPLOYEES
1399
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to
become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
WICHITA ENGINEERING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the (late hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.