Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1939

10 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
UNITED ELECTRICAL & RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 227,
'C. I. O.
Case No. C'-753.-Decided January 20, 1939
Lock and Hardware Manufactavring Industry-Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion: contribution of support to one labor organization; more favorable
treatment accorded to one labor organization in conduct of its organizational
activities than to another ; employment of persons to investigate union activities ;
distribution of anti-union magazine to selected employees; discrediting union:
by posting statement falsely inferring union has been threatening employees with
physical violence or illegally, by statements of foremen; interference with
consent election : by adopting a false rumor discrediting one of unions par-
ticipating in election, by systematic effort to maliciously spread a false rumor,
charges of, not sustained-Discrimination: as to tenure of employment: dis-
-charges, for union membership and activity; charges of, dismissed as to three
persons-Recnstatenzent Ordered: employees discharged for union activity-
Back Pwy: awarded : employees discharged for union activity ; monies received
by employees for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or
other work-relief projects to be deducted and paid over to agency which supplied
funds for said projects-Election: consented to by parties : interference with :
not nullified, where held 18 months prior to Board Order.
Mr. David A. Morse, for the Board.
Porter & Taylor, by Mr. Louis H. Porter and Mr. F. C. Taylor,
of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Samuel Gruber, of Stamford, Conn., for the United.
Cressy, Bartrara, Melvin d Sherwood, by Mr. Joseph L. Melvin,
,of Stamford, Conn., for the Association.
Mr. Warren L. Shar/man, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the United Electrical & Radio Workers
of America, Local No. 227, affiliated with the Committee for Indus-
trial Organization, herein called the United, the National Labor Re-
lations Board, herein called the Board, by Elinore Morehouse Herrick,
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), duly
lO N L B B, No. 116.
1321
1322 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued its complaint , dated July 13, 1937 , against Yale & Towne
Manufacturing Company, Stamford , Connecticut , herein called the
respondent , alleging that it had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair labor practices affecting commerce , within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( 1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. The complaint
and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent,
the United , and the Yale & Towne Employees ' Association , herein
called the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged
in substance that between May 14 and May 27, 1937 , the respondent
discharged four named employees and laid off nine other named em-
ployees because they joined and assisted the United . It further
alleged that on June 3, 1937, while a consent election was being con-
ducted to determine the collective bargaining agent which would rep-
resent the employees at the respondent 's plant, the respondent engaged
in a systematic effort to spread a false and malicious rumor in order
to persuade its employees not to vote for the United.
On July 20, 1937 , the respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint, denying that the persons named in the complaint were dis-
charged or laid off for joining the United , and alleging that their
employment had been terminated either because of incompetency, or
lack of work , or their own desires. The answer also denied that the
respondent had wilfully spread a false rumor on June 3 , 1937, in
order to influence the way in which its employees should vote, and
alleged that the rumor , in various forms, was widespread not only
in its plant but throughout the city of Stamford. On July 21, 1937,
the Association also filed an answer.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Stamford , Connecticut,
from July 22 through August 17, 1937 , before Paul Davier , the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board , the respondent,
the United , and the Association were all represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard , to exam-
ine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the
motion of the Association to intervene in the proceeding in so far as
the question of the validity of the consent election of June 3, 1937,
was in issue.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the
Board's motion to amend the complaint by including Albert Miller
with the four other employees who were alleged to have been dis-
charged by the respondent because they joined and assisted the
United.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1323'
At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the
Board's motion to dismiss the complaint as to eight of the nine indi-
viduals named in the complaint as having been laid off by the re-
spondent because they joined and assisted the United. The complaint
was not dismissed as to Margaret Lundelius.
During the course of the hearing, and in his Intermediate Report,_
the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 16, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate-
Report, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, in
that it had discharged five named' employees because they joined
and assisted the United, and had interfered with the consent election,
of June 3, 1937, by spreading a false rumor detrimental to the inter-
ests of one of the parties appearing on the ballot. He recommended
that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices,.
and reinstate with back pay the five employees found to have been
discharged because they joined and assisted the United, and that the-
election of June 3, 1937, be considered null and void.
On November 5 and November 10, 1937, respectively, the respondent
and the Association filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report of
the Trial Examiner. On May 6, 1938, the Board notified the respond-
ent, the United, and the Association that they had a right to apply
for oral argument before the Board or for permission to file briefs.
The Association's request to file a brief was granted, and on June 4,.
1938, it filed a brief on its exceptions. The Board has carefully con-
sidered the exceptions of the respondent and the Association, but, save
for those exceptions which are consistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, 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. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, a Connecticut corporation
organized in 1882, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of locks,.
hardware, and kindred products at its main plant in Stamford, Con-
necticut, with which we are here concerned. During the first 6
months of 1937 the respondent booked $3,627,915 worth of orders at
its Stamford plant where approximately 3,400 persons are employed.
Between 60 and 70 per cent of the raw materials used by the
respondent in its manufacturing processes are shipped to Stamford
1324 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from points outside of Connecticut . About 90 per cent of the finished
products manufactured by the respondent at Stamford are shipped
by it to points outside of Connecticut.
The respondent maintains a force of salesmen who regularly cover
defined areas both in the United States and foreign countries. Ship-
ments from Stamford account for 5 to 10 per cent of the respondent's
foreign business.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical & Radio Workers of America is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It
admits to membership employees in the electrical and radio industry
and the employees of any manufacturer whose products are used in
the production of electrical and radio products . Local No. 227 of the
United admits to membership only employees of the respondent at its
Stamford plant.
Yale & Towne Employees ' Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization which admits to membership persons who are employed
by the respondent at its Stamford plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The employees of the respondent were first organized in 1919
when the respondent established the Industrial Council. The Council
dealt with grievances and carried on various social functions through
groups made up equally of Employee and Management Representa-
tives . The expense involved in carrying on the Council was borne
by the respondent, and the Employee Representatives were paid for
the time they spent at Council meetings. By its own motion the
Council ceased functioning , except for its social activities , on June
1,1937.
In February 1937 the United formulated plans to organize the
respondent 's employees under the leadership of Steve Moore, a na-
tional organizer . Active organization started around April 5, 1937.
At that time about 20 members of Local No . 1557 , International
Association of Machinists , which admitted to membership some of
the respondent 's employees, voted to join the United . Plans were
then made for the organization of a local of the United, and about
^2 weeks later a charter was granted to Local No . 227. The organiza-
tion of the respondent 's employees into the United proceeded, and
shortly after the middle of May the United claimed that 1,750 of the
respondent's 3,400 employees had joined . On May 14 the United
met with the respondent and requested recognition as the exclusive
bargaining agent for the respondent's employees . This request was
denied, but a further conference was arranged for May 21. On May
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1325
19, however , the United filed a petition with the Regional Director
for the Second Region ( New York City ) requesting an investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
Act.
In the meantime the Employee Representatives on the Industrial
Council, having grave doubts as to the validity of the Council since
the Act had been declared constitutional , appointed a committee on
May 4 to draw up a constitution and bylaws for an inside organiza-
tion. On May 12, after receiving the approval of the Employee
Representatives on the Council, the committee mailed to each of the-
respondent 's employees a copy of a constitution and bylaws, an ap-
plication card, and a covering letter explaining the proposed organi-
zation, named the Yale & Towne Employees ' Association. On May
19, after a group of 150 employees had voted to accept the constitu-
tion for the Association, a committee representing the Association
met with the respondent and asked to be recognized as the exclusive
bargaining agent for the respondent's employees. This request was
denied.
On May 21, when the United had a second meeting with the re-
spondent, it was informed that the Association had also requested
recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent for the respondent's
employees. On May 26, 2 days after a conference with the Regional
Director for the Second Region, the respondent, the United, and the
Association signed an agreement providing for an election to deter-
mine which of the organizations would represent the employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent. It was
finally determined that the election should be held on June 3, 1937.
Between May 14, when the United first conferred with the respond-
ent, and May 27, the day after the agreement for an election was
signed, the respondent discharged five employees and laid off nine
others, because , the complaint alleged, they had joined and assisted
the United.
Contemporaneously with the efforts to organize the respondent's
employees, the United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, Local
No. 219, herein called Local No. 219, under the direction of Steve
Moore, was engaged in organizing the employees of the Norma-Hoff-
man Bearings Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut, herein called the-
Norma -Hoffman. On April 26, 1937 , Local No. 219 presented certain
demands to the Norma-Hoffman , but the Norma -Hoffman refused
to consider them or recognize Local No. 219 as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent for its employees. On May 7 the Regional Director for
the Second Region, held an election among the Norma -Hoffman em-
ployees, and on May 10 the Regional Director reported that Local
No. 219 had been selected as the exclusive representative of the em-
1326 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining. On May 12 the
Norma-Hoffman recognized Local No. 219 as the exclusive bargaining
agent of its employees, and negotiations were commenced looking
toward the execution of a contract covering the matters included in
,the demands of Local No. 219. The negotiations failed because the
Norma-Hoffman refused to agree to the demands of Local No. 219
for a closed shop and the check-off, and refused to negotiate further
until Local No. 219 dropped these demands. On May 14 Local No.
219 called a strike at the Norma-Hoffman which resulted in a cessa-
tion of all production. Shortly thereafter, Morgan R. Mooney of the
'Connecticut Department of Labor intervened in the dispute. By May
27 he had persuaded Local No. 219 and the Norma-Hoffman to sign a
temporary agreement which provided for the elimination of the
demand of Local No. 219 for the closed shop and, apparently, its
demand for the check-off. However, the withdrawal of these demands
by Local No. 219 was conditioned upon the entrance by the Norma-
Roffman into negotiations on its other demands within a reasonable
time. On June 2 the Norma-Hoffman sent a letter to its employees
quoting the temporary agreement entered into between it and Local
No. 219, and concluding that the demands for the closed shop and
check-off were withdrawn. Subsequently, the Norma-Hoffman and
Local No. 219 entered into further negotiations, and on June 21 they
signed a contract and the employees returned to work.
On June 3 the election was held at the respondent's plant and the
report on the ballot issued on the following day by the Regional
Director showed that the Association had been selected by a majority
'of the employees as their exclusive representative for the purposes
,of collective bargaining with the respondent. Prior to this report
the watchers for the United and the Association had certified that
the election was conducted fairly and impartially. However, the
United later protested the election of June 3, claiming that on the
-day of the election the respondent had interfered with the free
'choice of representatives of its employees by circulating a false rumor
that the Norma-Hoffman strikers had returned to work under the
conditions existing before the strike and that Local No. 219 had
withdrawn its support from the strikers. This claim was embodied
in the amended charge filed by the United with the Board on July
12, and in the complaint issued by the Board on July 13.
A. Interference, restraint, or coercion
1. Interference with the election of June 3
The charges of interference with the election of June 3 preferred
against the respondent by the United, and embodied in the Board's
complaint, together with our- findings with respect to the progress
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1327
of the strike of Local No. 219 at the Norma-Hoffman, have already
been set forth above. The respondent's answer, in addition to deny-
ing that it spread a false rumor as to the status of the strike at the
Norma-Hoffman in order to interfere with its employees' free choice
of representatives, alleged that on and before June 3 various rumors
as to the settlement of the Norma-Hoffman strike were prevalent
throughout the city of Stamford as well as in the respondent's plant;
that an official of the respondent upon hearing a rumor that Local No.
219 had given up its demands for the closed shop and the check-off
telephoned an official of the Norma-Hoffman and found that it was
true; and that, later, when questioned by a representative of the
United as to the rumor, said official of the respondent told him that
he was advised that the rumor was true.
It is perfectly clear that on June 3 a great variety of rumors con-
cerning the settlement of the Norma-Hoffman strike were wide-
spread throughout the respondent's plant. At one extreme the rumor
was that Local No. 219 had lost all of its demands and abandoned
the strikers, who had returned to work. At the other extreme it was
that Local No. 219 had won all of its demands, including a 10-per
cent wage increase, and that the strikers were returning to work. In
between these two extremes the rumor took various other forms which
more nearly represented the actual fact.
It is also clear that similar rumors were being repeated by a great
many people throughout Stamford. The Stamford Advocate„ a
newspaper, reported general rumors of settlement. The letter of
June 2 from the Norma-Hoffman to its employees which accurately
discussed the state of the negotiations between it and Local No. 219
was also a source of information, which was often distorted during
the course of its transmission. That other sources served as a basis
for the knowledge of the respondent's employees and officials as to
the status of the Norma-Hoffman strike is amply illustrated by their
testimony. It shows that a group of them, including Ray O'Connell,
Bernard Schoen, William Redfern, and Dorothy Redfern, all regular
employees, and Frank Sleeper and Larry Smith, timekeepers, were
told by Redigan, a reporter for the Stamford Advocate, that Local
No. 219 had given up its demands for the closed shop and the check-
off. This disclosure took place on the night of June 2 at the con-
clusion of the Association's last meeting prior to the election.
William Redfern, a regular employee, was happy, by his own admis-
sion, to spread the rumor to 15 or 20 employees in the shop the
following morning. Larry Smith also spread the rumor, but in an
exaggerated form. A number of the persons he talked to testified
that he told them that the employees of the Norma-Hoffman were
returning to work and that Local No. 219 had lost its demands.
Other employees and officials of the respondent received information
1328 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the Norma-Hoffman strike from Meyers, Herman, Wilson,
Malone, and Burroughs, all employees or officials of the Norma-
Hoffman. Still others received information on the subject from
Bender, an organist in a local church, from Snead, an engineer
working for Roth & Strong, Inc., from Mayett, the steward at the
Elks' Club, and in general conversation at the Odd Fellows Lodge
and at several different restaurants.
Four of the respondent's timekeepers, Lowry, Sleeper, Smith, and
Dolan, an instructor, Lillian McCabe, a gatekeeper, Robert Marsden,
and a secretary, Miss Shepard, all spread misinformation as to the
status of the Norma-Hoffman strike on June 3. None of these per-
sons were directed to take any action in this direction by any of
the respondent's officials or agents. As none of them have super-
visory authority, and as the respondent was not otherwise connected
with their activities, the respondent cannot be held responsible for
those activities.
While a perusal of the foregoing evidence indicates that in many
instances the rumor entered and circulated through the respond-
ent's plant independently of any action on its part, nevertheless, if
the respondent was responsible for the spread of the rumor in other
instances, as alleged in the complaint, then it cannot evade the restric-
tive language of Section 8 of the Act by showing that a concurrent
cause was operating independently toward the same end, for it is
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act for an employer to interfere with the rights of his employees
guaranteed in Section 7 irrespective of the success of such inter-
ference.
We turn to a consideration of the activities of the respondent's
officers and agents. Dow Roof, the assistant director of industrial
relations, testified that he heard the rumor that Local No. 219 had
withdrawn its demands for the closed shop and the check-off as he
entered Marsden's gate on the morning of June 3, but that he does
not know who told it to him. That afternoon he took three groups
of employees who had been laid off recently into the plant to vote.
He testified that as the first group was leaving the polls he asked
Margaret Vermilya if she had heard the rumor that Local No. 219
had withdrawn its demands for the closed shop and the check-off.
However, Margaret Lundelius and Hilda Grabowski, both of whom
were in this group which Roof took to vote, testified that on the way,
to vote Roof asked Lundelius and Vermilya if they had heard about
the Norma-Hoffman strike, and that when they said no, he told
them that the Norma-Hoffman employees were going back to work
under the old conditions. Grabowski, whose husband worked at
the Norma-Hoffman, testified that she told Roof "it was a lie."
Roof offered to make a bet, and when she said she had no money he
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1329
offered to bet an ice cream cone and told her to read the Monday
paper. Roof denied that he made any such statement. Lundelius
corroborated Grabowski even on the details of this conversation.
Steve Moore testified that on the afternoon of June 3 Lundelius and
Grabowski reported to him that Roof told them that the Norma-
Hoffman strikers had gone back without their demands and that he
was willing to bet on it. Their report to him accorded with their
testimony.
The rumor that Roof testified he heard at Marsden's gate was sub-
stantially different from that heard by other persons at the same
place. John Williams, the director of industrial relations for the
respondent, entered the plant at the same place Roof did and only a
few minutes later. The rumor he testified as having heard there was
the same as the one which Lundelius and Grabowski testified Roof
repeated to them.
We find that Roof spread a false rumor concerning the status of
the Norma-Hoffman strike to Margaret Vermilya and Margaret
Lundelius as they were about to vote in the election of June 3.
Anthony Marco, an apprentice, testified that John B. Chalmers,
director of the apprentice school, addressed a group of apprentices
on the subject of the Norma-Hoffman strike as they were waiting in
room 12 to go to vote on the morning of June '3. After being con-
tradicted on this point by Chalmers and nine other apprentices, Marco
testified that he had made a mistake in hiss original testimony and
that Chalmers spoke to a number of the apprentices about the Norma-
Hoffman strike on the landing outside of room 13 as they were on
their way to vote. This, too, was denied by another group of ap-
prentices, and was in conflict with the testimony given by Chalmers.
Chalmers admitted, however, that as he was directing a few appren-
tices from room 13 to room 12, Larry Smith, a timekeeper, carne by
and asked him if he had heard the rumor. Chalmers testified that
he had heard a rumor a week before that the men were going to deal
directly with the Norma-Hoffman if Local No. 219 did not drop its
demands for the closed shop and the check-off, as they were anxious
to return to work. He assumed that this rumor was what Smith had
reference to and his best recollection was that Smith added nothing
to that rumor. The testimony of Chalmers' secretary, Miss Shepard,
that she heard Smith tell Chalmers that the Norma-Hoffman strike
had been broken, is more reliable. Chalmers testified that when the
apprentice boys questioned him about the Norma-Hoffman rumor
immediately after Smith left he repeated the rumor he had heard
the week before, that the men wanted to return to work at the Norma-
Hoffman. However, Chester Rysz, one of the apprentices, testified
that as he came up to room 13 Chalmers was telling a group of seven
or eight apprentices that the C. I. O. had withdrawn from the Norma-
1330 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hoffman and that the strike was over. The testimony of the other
apprentices did not conflict with this. In fact their testimony cor-
roborated Rysz in so far as it indicated that immediately thereafter
the apprentices discussed the Norma-Hoffman strike rumor while
going from room 13 to room 12. The sense of this discussion was
that the Norma-Hoffman strike was over and that nothing had been
gained.
We find that Chalmers, in answer to a question from an employee,
spread a false rumor concerning the status of the Norma-Hoffman
strike to a group of the respondent's employees just prior to the time
when they were to vote in the election of June 3.
Myles Twigg, who was employed as a plumber by the respondent,
was told by John Murphy, another plumber, on the morning of June
3 that Larry Smith, a timekeeper, was spreading a rumor that Local
No. 219 had been thrown out of the Norma-Hoffman and that the
men were going back under the old conditions. Twigg, being active
in the United, was greatly perturbed, and after being unable
to get in touch with Steve Moore or the Board representatives in
charge of the election, went to see John Williams, the director of
industrial relations, and after telling him of the rumor, asked him
to stop it. According to Twigg, Williams said he could not do any-
thing as the rumor was true. On cross-examination Twigg was
interrogated concerning this conversation on the basis of a statement
prepared by Williams, who was ill at the time. The statement agreed
with Twigg's testimony that he reported a rumor that Local No. 219
had lost the Nornia-Hoffman strike and that Williams said the rumor
was true. It also stated that in this conversation with Twigg he
told Twigg that he had checked the rumor with an officer of the
Norma-Hoffman and found that it, was true. Twigg stoutly denied
that Williams made the latter statement. When Williams later took
the stand, having recovered from his illness, he testified that what
he said to Twigg was that the United had withdrawn its demands
for a closed shop and the check-off, and that an officer of Norma-
Hoffman had confirmed the report. The Trial Examiner, who had
an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and form
an opinion of their credibility, was more favorably impressed with
the testimony of Twigg than with that of Williams.
We find that on June 3 John Williams, in answer to a query from
Myles Twigg, stated that a false rumor concerning the status of the
Norma-Hoffman strike was true although he knew that it was not.
Over 20 of the respondent's foremen, 8 of its superintendents, sev-
eral of its assistant foremen, and the works manager were called by
the respondent or the Association to testify as to their knowledge of
the Norma-Hoffman strike rumor on June 3. While it appears from
this mass of testimony that many of these supervisory officials men-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1331
tioned or discussed various forms of the rumor among themselves, it
does not appear that any of them spread this rumor among the
employees.
We do not find that the respondent was engaged in a systematic
effort to spread a false and malicious rumor concerning the status
of the Norma-Hoffman strike in order to interfere with its employees'
free choice of representatives at the election of June 3, as alleged in
the complaint. It is true that Roof repeated a false rumor concern-
ing the Norma-Hoffman strike to two voters before they had cast
their ballots, but this was done in the course of a casual conversa-
tion, was not repeated to other groups of employees which Roof took
to the polls to vote, and was not a knowing misrepresentation of the
Norma-Hoffman situation. It is also true that John Chalmers re-
peated a false rumor concerning the Norma-Hoffman strike to a
group of employees before they had cast their ballots on June 3.
Apparently one of the employees overheard Larry Smith, timekeeper,
telling Chalmers something about the Norma-Hoffman strike situa-
tion. After Smith left, the employee asked Chalmers what the con-
versation was about. It was at this point that Chalmers, casually, in
answer to a question, and without having had an opportunity to verify
the remarks of Larry Smith, repeated the rumor which he had just
heard and which later proved to be inaccurate. We do not find that
the actions of Roof and Chalmers were, in this situation, sufficiently
improper to warrant characterization as violations of the Act. On
the other hand, John Williams adopted as his own a rumor concern-
ing the Norma-Hoffman strike, which he knew to be false, by telling
Myles Twigg that it was true. Williams' statement was made at a
meeting between Twigg and himself which Twigg had arranged for
the express purpose of stopping the rumor. Williams' remarks were
directed at the only item of business before him and were not state-
ments made in the course of casual conversation.
We find that the respondent, through its agent John Williams,
interfered with its employees' free choice of representatives at the
election of June 3.
2. Other forms of interference
Although the complaint did not allege that the respondent had
dominated the formation of the Association, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act, it did allege that the respondent had inter-
fered with the rights of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act. It is proper, therefore, to examine
into the respondent's activities in connection with the formation of
the Association.
1332
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The reason for the establishment of the Association is to be found
in the decisions of the Supreme Court on April 12, 1937, upholding
the constitutionality of the Act. At the May 4 meeting of the Em-
ployee Representatives on the Industrial Council, Plumley, the works
manager, in answer to questions, stated that in his opinion the Coun-
cil was likely to be declared illegal under the Act but that the em-
ployees could form a new organization if they wished to. The Em-
ployee Representatives then voted to form an independent association,
and a committee was appointed to draw a constitution and bylaws
for the new organization. The Association had its origin, then, in
the Industrial Council, which Plumley admitted was likely to be
declared illegal under the Act.
The committee which drew the bylaws and constitution started to
work about May 8. Part of the preparation of the constitution was
done on the respondent's time, the employees receiving their regular
pay. Bernard Schoen, who was active in this work, testified that
his superior knew he was busy with Industrial Council affairs and
never questioned him when he left the room. The completed con-
stitution and bylaws, together with membership application cards,
were mailed to all employees on May 12. Ray O'Connell, one of the
ringleaders in the organization of the Association, furnished the nail-
ing list, but although present at the hearing lie failed to take the
stand and explain how lie obtained it. The constitution and bylaws
of the Association were sent to practically all of the respondent's
supervisory employees, and at least one, Carlson, a supervisor in room
104, joined the Association.
On May 13, the respondent posted a notice, signed by Plumley, the
works manager, containing the following language:
In order to avoid any misunderstandings, we wish to advise:
1. No one has the right to coerce or intimidate any employee
either to join or not to join any union. We want any evidence
that any employee has been threatened or intimidated by anyone.
Plumley testified that lie posted the notice after receiving com-
plaints from employees about the coercive activities of the United
"within the plant," and that lie did not know the exact status of the
Association at the time and had not received any complaints about
its activities. While Plumley testified that "there must have been
two dozen" such complaints, he in no way indicated that the com-
plaints concerned the use of physical force or threats thereof by the
United's organizers. The only elaboration as to the nature of the
complaints appearing in Plumley's testimony revealed that the
"threats" were that the United was going to obtain a closed shop and
that non-joiners would lose their jobs.
But the notice was so worded as to create the impression in the
minds of the employees reading it that individuals had been threat-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1333
ening employees with physical violence, or illegally? The employees,
like Plumley, knew that only the United was attempting to organize
the respondent's employees at the time, and, therefore, that the notice
referred to the activities of the United. The employees did not know,
however, as Plumley did, that the organizational efforts of the United
were being carried on without illegal threats or threats of physical
violence. By creating the impression that the United had been threat-
ening employees with physical violence, or illegally, which we find
to have no basis in fact, the respondent discredited the United, and
thereby interfered with the self-organization of its employees.
Organizational activities for the Association were carried on dur-
ing working hours by Lillian McCabe, Bernard Schoen; Frank
,Sleeper, William Lockwood, and others without interference by the
respondent. The contention of the respondent's officials that they
were not aware of such activities is difficult to believe in view of
their knowledge of the United's activities during working hours and
their efforts to terminate them, as noted in Section III B, below.
That the respondent maintained an attitude of open opposition
toward unions is amply illustrated by the record. In 1936 the re-
spondent hired "investigators" from the National Metal Trades Asso-
ciation whose duties included the investigation of union activities
among the respondent's employees. Paul Miller, one of the so-called
"investigators," served as a stool pigeon for the respondent after
attaining the position of vice president of Local No. 1557, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, whose members later formed the
nucleus of the United. This opposition to bona fide unions was com-
plemented by support of certain other forms of labor organization.
Williams, the director of industrial relations, studied the relative
merits of bona fide trade unions and employee representation plans,
,concluded that the latter were more beneficial to all concerned, and
so presented the Industrial Council to the employees in 1919. His
views on the subject have not changed since he made his original
study. Another example of the respondent's attitude toward unions,
especially affiliates of the C. I. 0., is to be found in its subscribing
to the magazine Industry and Labor for about 100 of its employees,
including all of the Employee Representatives on the Industrial
Council. Plumley, the works manager, testified that the respondent
felt that the magazine "was one which would stimulate the thinking
of some of our supervisors and workmen along the lines of this prob-
lem of industrial harmony and how to produce it and keep it." An
examination of the magazine shows- it to have a decided anti-C. I. O.
bias, and no amount of cautioning to the recipients of the magazine
'The discrepancy between the testimony of Plumley as to the nature of the complaints
'he had received and the situation envisaged by the notice makes it evident that Plumley,
.In fact, intended to create this impression.
147S41-39-vol 10--85
1334 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the unsigned articles only represented the views of the authors
could prevent the employees from realizing that the respondent was
opposed to the C. I. 0., and therefore to its affiliate, the United, and
that such magazine was distributed in such manner by the respondent
for the purpose of conveying this impression.
While Plumley explained to his foremen and superintendents that
the Act gave the employees freedom in the choice of representatives
and instructed them not to interfere or influence the employees in
their choice, it appears that Dunlop, foreman of room 185, made
remarks derogatory to the United in the presence of Albert Miller;
that Leonard Lee, foreman of the woodworking department, told
Phillip Blasser, one of his employees and a witness for the Board,
to be careful what testimony he gave at the hearing; and that
Harold Isbell, foreman of the key records room, understood Plum-
ley's instructions to have been that it was all right for foremen to
express their personal opinions on the relative merits of the Associa-
tion and the United, and that he expressed his opinion on this
subject to his employees on several occasions.
3. Conclusion as to interference, restraint, and coercion
We find that the respondent, by interfering with its employees'
free choice of representatives at the election of June 3, by con-
tributing support to the Association, by posting the notice dated
May 13, by allowing the Association freedom in its organizational
activities while restricting the activities of the United, by employing
persons to investigate union activities among its employees, by dis-
tributing the magazine Industry and Labor to a group of its em-
ployees, and by making remarks, through its supervisors, which
were derogatory to the United, has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that the re-
spondent discharged five of its employees because they joined and
assisted the United. The respondent admitted the discharges but
denied that they were for that reason. The complaint also alleges
that the respondent laid off nine other employees for the same rea-
son. However, at the conclusion of the hearing the Board moved
to dismiss the complaint as to eight of the nine employees. This
motion was granted. The respondent denied that it laid off the
ninth employee, Margaret Lundelius, for joining and assisting the
United.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1335
We turn to a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the
alleged discriminatory discharge or lay-off of each of the employees
involved.
Julia Kovacs and Pauline Sabaloff. These two discharges may
properly be considered together because of the similarity of the facts
involved in both cases. Julia Kovacs was employed intermittently
by the respondent from August 1933 until May 1937. She worked
steadily in room 152 under Edward Slawson, the foreman, from
November 1936 until May 14, 1937, when Slawson discharged her.
Pauline Sabaloff worked for the respondent for substantial portions
of the period from May 1935 to May 1937. She worked steadily in
room 152 from February 1937 to May 14, 1937, when Slawson dis-
charged her a few minutes after discharging Kovacs.
Kovacs and Sabaloff were close friends both in and out of the
plant. They both joined the United on April 23, 1937, and were
elected as representatives for room 152. In that capacity they were
actively engaged in organizing the other girls who worked in the
room. Sabaloff signed up a few girls and Kovacs, with the aid of
Dennis Fitzpatrick, signed up 27. No other girls were similarly
engaged, and no others were laid off at this time. Slawson knew
that Kovacs and Sabaloff belonged to the United at the time lie
discharged them.
During the course of their early employment Kovacs and Sabaloff
spent a considerable amount of time on "backing-off," which Plumley,
the works manager, described as a machine operation to round the
back of pin-tumbler lock keys so as to establish the location of the
back in relation to the grooves. Through an improvement in process
this operation was largely eliminated by December 1936. Thereafter
backing-off was done only on special orders and when old key blanks
were used. Plumley and Slawson testified that the cessation of the
backing-off necessitated a reduction in the staff. Slawson declared
that he shifted the employees formerly engaged on backing-off to
other work, but that when he got caught up on other work he finally
had to lay some people off.
Slawson testified that several days after speaking to his superin-
tendent about the necessity of laying people off he came into the
room and saw Kovacs and Sabaloff running for their benches, and
decided to lay them off. Although Slawson told both of the girls
that they were being laid off because of lack of work, he gave each
of them a green check, which is the form used when an employee is
separated from the pay roll. Both girls were surprised and indignant
when Thompson, a timekeeper, told them they were not laid off but
"green-checked," since neither Sabaloff nor Kovacs had ever signed
a green check when laid off before. Williams testified that persons
1336 NATIONAL LA130R RELATIONS BOARD
temporarily laid off do not usually sign green checks. Each of the
green checks stated, "Due to the lack of work and stopping the back-
ing-off which this girl did I had to lay her off." After the girls
had signed the green checks Williams asked Slawson to answer the
question on the green check, "Worthy of re-employment? " and he did
so by filling in the word "yes."
No complaint was ever made as to the quality or quantity of work
done by Kovacs or Sabaloff. Slawson testified that he had not talked
to them when he saw them running to their benches on previous oc-
casions because he had no fault to find with their work.
Neither Kovacs nor Sabaloff was working on backing-off at the
time they were discharged, and both of them had plenty of work to
do at that time. Mary Neforas, who was junior to both of them in
service, was working on backing-off when they were laid off. Five
other girls, some of whom were inexperienced, worked on backing-
off after they were discharged. Of the eight other girls who were
laid off from room 152 after Kovacs and Sabaloff were discharged,
three were transferred to other rooms. One of the three transferred
and one of the girls retained for several weeks after the discharge
of Kovacs and Sabaloff, were junior in service to both of them.
Neither Kovacs nor Sabaloff applied to the respondent for work
after being discharged as they were both told that they would be
called when work was available. Neither of the girls has secured
any other employment, and both of them would like to return to work
for the respondent.
.
We find that Julia Kovacs and Pauline Sabaloff were discharged
because they joined and assisted the United, and that by such dis-
charges the respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure
of employment, and has thereby discouraged membership in the
United. We also find that by such action the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
James Sansone. James Sansone was first employed by the respond-
ent in July 1916. From that time until his employment was termi-
nated on May 21, 1937, he left the employ of the respondent on five
different occasions, four of which were voluntary. He worked stead-
ily spraying lacquer in room 105 under Peter Karukas, the foreman,
from July 1933 until May 1937. All of the respondent's witnesses
admitted that Sansone was a very skillful worker.
A good deal of testimony was elicited both by the Board and the
respondent concerning Sansone's conduct prior to May 20, 1937. Most
of this involved his actions during the year 1937. Upon the basis of
(their dealings with Sansone, Plumley and Karukas characterized him
,as being a disturbing factor in the plant. However, as Karukas, who
had the power to discharge Sansone, testified that all of the objec-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1337
tionable features of Sansone's conduct up to May 20 were "dead
stuff," we will not consider them in detail.
Sansone was elected as an employee representative on the Industrial
-Council in January 1937. A great many of his difficulties with the
respondent resulted from his activities on behalf of other employees
while serving in this capacity. He was not disciplined for his alleged
insubordination in these instances, because, as a member of the Indus-
trial Council, he was entitled to certain guarantees of independence.
Other instances of Sansone's objectionable conduct arose from the
controversy between the United and the Association. Sansone joined
the United some time in the latter part of April 1937. From that
time on he was active in soliciting and securing members and in col-
lecting dues for the United. He was a member of the United's bar-
gaining committee which accompanied Steve Moore to the conferences
with the respondent on May 14 and 21. As a representative on the
employee side of the Industrial Council Sansone voted against the
organization of the Association. Presumably because of his standing
with other employees, many persons favoring the Association came to
his bench to persuade him to support the Association in preference to
the United. Many disturbances ensued. When Karukas repri-
manded Sansone for the noise he made, Sansone told Karukas to keep
the people away from him and there would be no difficulty. Karukas
complied with Sansone's request on several occasions. All such dis-
turbances resulted from people coming to Sansone.
As was pointed out above, whatever Sansone had done, Karukag
had no thought of terminating his employment until the incidents of
May 20 and May 21, which will be discussed below. As a result of
those incidents the respondent claims that Sansone requested his green
check, which meant that he was resigning, and that he was guilty of
insubordination which would have required his discharge if he had
not asked for his green check.
Shortly before 5 o'clock on the afternoon of May 20, Lusky, the
foreman of room 125, stopped at Sansone's bench and said, "Hello
C. I. 0., better jump on the bandwagon." A squabble followed and
Sansone called Lusky a "rat." During the course of the argument
Karukas came over and told them to stop and asked Lusky to leave.
Karukas went out with Lusky and explained to him that he was not
sticking up for Sansone even though it appeared that way, and that
Lusky could report Sansone if he cared to. The closing whistle blew
before Karukas could talk to Sansone.
The following morning Karukas decided to talk to Sansone and get
the whole story in case Lusky reported the event and he was asked
about it. He had no intention of discharging Sansone.
Sansone testified that early in the morning on May 21, Karukas
lectured him for the Lusky incident and told him if he did not stop
1338 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would get a green check. Sansone said it was up to Karukas.
Karukas then gave him an exit check, which he tore up as he had not
asked for it. Later, he, testified, he thought he should see his lawyer
and when Karukas returned to the room he asked for an exit check
and went out. When he was told his green check was ready for him
in the afternoon he was given no reason for his discharge. He also
testified that when he said, "All right I'm getting fired for tmion
activities," Karukas only grinned.
Karukas described the course of events on May 21 as follows :
Shortly after 7 o'clock in the morning he went to Sansone and asked
him about the Lusky incident of the preceding afternoon. In telling
him about it Sansone mentioned the C. I. 0., and Karukas was
reminded to tell Sansone that he would have to stop his union activ-
ities during working hours. Sansone did not answer, but 10 minutes
later as Karukas went by his bench Sansone called him over and said,
"I am not going to stop my union activities at all. I am going to
continue to work for the C. I. 0. I don't give a damn about anybody
in Yale & Towne either. There is nobody here can stop me. You
can go ahead and tell Plumley, Dalton, Williams, Carey, or anybody
else, if they can go out and work for the Yale & Towne Association
I can work for the C.. I. 0." Karukas told him he would not tolerate
his actions any longer. Sansone told Karukas he could give him his
check if he did not like it. Karukas made out a yellow exit check
and gave it to Sansone, who brushed it to the floor and said, "I don't
want this check. I want my green check." Karukas told him he
could not have it then but that he could have it later. Sansone then
tore up the exit check. Karukas then reported the whole matter to
Manning, his superintendent, because of the seriousness of the cased
Manning told him to write out a report. While he was doing so
Sansone asked for another exit check so that he could -go out to see
his lawyer. When Manning received Karukas' report, he had it typed
and sent to Williams, who called Karukas and asked him to send
down some employees who witnessed the incident. Karukas sent
Frank Fidele and Pauline Scarvey to Williams. A little before noon
Manning told Karukas to make out the green check Sansone asked
for, and gave him a paper which he was to copy in filling' it out.
The green check stated that Sansone asked for his green check, and
said that he was not worthy of reemployment because he was "very
insubordinate." • Manning also told Karukas to tell Sansone, "That
green check that you requested this morning is downstairs waiting for
you," when he came back from the conference between the United
and the respondent in the afternoon. Karukas carried out these
instructions.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1339
The gaps in Karukas' testimony were filled in by the respondent's
-other witnesses. Manning corroborated Karukas, and added that
Williams had suggested that Sansone be given the green check he
requested. He also testified that he discussed the matter with Plumley
after lunch, and Plumley said Sansone should be discharged. Wil-
liams testified that after Manning reported the incident to him he
investigated it and reported to Plumley. In making his investiga-
tion Williams called in Fidele and Scarvey. Both said, according
to Williams, that they saw Sansone tear up a paper, and Scarvey
heard the words "green check" but did not know who used them.
Plumley testified that he got a report from Williams about Sansone
and that he discussed the matter with Manning and Dalton, the
general superintendent. Dalton corroborated this. Plumley, Dalton,
Manning, and Williams all thought Sansone should be discharged for
his insubordination.
Sansone emphatically denied that he asked Karukas for a green
check, or that he called Karukas to his bench and made the state-
ment which Karukas attributed to him. His testimony that he did
not request his green check is corroborated by his actions a week
later when he signed his green check and got his final pay. At that
time he insisted that Roof, the assistant director of industrial rela-
tions, cross off the words "quit job" before he would sign it. Roof
admitted this. The respondent put on a group of witnesses who
testified that they heard Sansone ask for his green check. The testi-
mony of each is weakened in one respect or another, as the Trial
Examiner found, by the fact that one was not sure who used the
word "check," that another heard Sansone make this particular state-
ment at a time when he was further distant from the dispute than
at another time when he heard nothing of the same dispute, that most
of them were working near fans whose noise made it difficult to hear,
and that none of them heard anything else that was said.
Williams' investigation of Sansone's insubordination on May 21
is not impressive. Williams admitted that it was oiie-sided and that
no attempt was made to hear Sansone's version of the affair. The
accounts of the incident given him by the two witnesses he called
did not extend to any of the important aspects of Karukas' story.
Moreover, one of the two witnesses testified that she never told
Williams that she heard the words. "green check," but only the word
"check," and that she did not know who said it. The other em-
ployees who witnessed the incident and testified at the trial failed
,to corroborate Karukas' story as to Sansone's insubordination.
The respondent's method of handling Sansone's discharge was
inexplicably peculiar. Karukas could have given Sansone his green
check without more if Sansone had requested it, yet he reported it
1340 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD0
to Manning. Manning unnaturally required a written report. Wil-
liams suggested givin'Cr him the green check he requested, and then
made a farcical investigation of insubordination. Manning told
Karukas for the first time exactly what to put on the green check
and what to say to Sansone. Plumley and Dalton undertook to pass
on Sansone's insubordination after it was decided to give him the
green check he requested.
We do not believe that Sansone requested his green check, but
even if he did in the heat of the argument with Karukas, it is ap-
parent from the elaborate actions taken by the respondent that the
request was not originally considered by it as a resignation but
rather as though Sansone had said, "Give me my green check then
if you want to."
The termination of Sansone's employment must be considered,
therefore, as though he were discharged. The silence of the wit-
nesses the respondent produced to corroborate Karukas' story of
Sansone's insubordinate statements, when coupled with Sansone'ss
emphatic denial that he made such statements, convince us that they
were not made. Nor do we believe that the respondent's officials
honestly thought that such statements were made. The nature of
Williams' investigation indicates that it was a mere formality to
establish a record, rather than an attempt to determine whether
Sansone had been guilty of insubordination. Even if the respond-
ent's officials believed that Sansone made these statements, we can-
not find that they discharged him for that reason. They were accus-
tomed to such outbursts on his part in the past, and must have
expected such actions from him in this instance which resulted from
his being baited by Foreman Lusky and from being lectured on
union activities by Karukas.
Sansone never asked the respondent to take him back as he did
not think it was his duty to make such a request after being dis-
charged. He has had no other employment since his discharge, and
would like to return to work for the respondent.
We find that James Sansone was discharged because he joined
and assisted the United, and that by such discharge the respondent
has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment, and
has thereby discouraged membership in the United. We also find
that by such action the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act.
Albert Miller. Albert Miller was employed by the respondent in
March 1937 as a trucker in room 103. He was discharged by the
respondent on June 25, 1937. Miller joined the United on May 10,
1937, and was openly active on its behalf. At the end of May he
was elected as a representative in his room.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1341
The respondent denied that Miller was discharged because of his
:affiliation with the United , but contended that he was discharged
because the consolidation of room 103 and room 185 eliminated the
need for a trucker. These rooms were consolidated on June 25, and
John Dunlop, the former foreman of room 185 and new foreman of
the consolidated room 103, discharged Miller because only one trucker
was needed . He retained Morgan, the trucker from room 185. Dun-
lop discussed the consolidation with C. E. Horne, his superintendent,
several weeks before it was effectuated , and pointed out that one of
the economies resulting from the consolidation would be achieved
through the elimination of a trucker . Horne, who did not testify,
consulted Roof and Williams to determine whether Miller or Morgan
should be discharged . These officials agreed that Morgan should be
retained , even though he was 3 weeks junior in service to Miller,
because he had a wife and child.
Doubt is cast upon the respondent 's contention because of Horne's
connection with the discharge . Dunlop, who gave Miller his green
check, was not acquainted with his activities or work. However,
Dunlop consulted Horne, and Miller testified that when he asked
Horne about his discharge Horne told him he had heard stories
about him. Horne did not take the stand to deny this.
The stories which Horne referred to were brought out by Miller,
Carlson , a supervisor in room 103, and various other employees in
that room. The principal one was that Miller had been favoring
the C. I. 0. girls by distributing easier work to them . Carlson testi-
fied that he heard this story , and that his investigation in one case
showed it to be true . The testimony of the single witness allegedly
discriminated against did not bear him out. Miller denied the
whole story . Carlson and Miller agreed that the former threatened
Miller's discharge on one occasion for smoking . Miller testified
that Carlson had seen him smoking before and never said anything,
that there were no signs up, and that a great many others smoked
there. Carlson also criticized Miller for mixing up some work, and
for delaying the girls by speaking to them about the United during
working hours . However, Lillian McCabe , an instructor , spoke to
the girls about the Association during working hours , and Carlson
belonged to the Association himself.
No one has replaced Miller, and it was not shown whether Morgan
belonged to the United or not. Miller's discharge occurred a month
after the other discharges and 3 weeks after the Association had been
selected as the exclusive bargaining agent for the respondent's em-
ployees.
Upon 'the evidence in this case, we do not find that the respondent
,discharged Albert Miller because of his membership in the United.
1342 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Florence Sotire. Florence Sotire was first employed by the re-
spondent in February 1934. She worked as a machine operator until
July 1934 when she was laid off because of lack of work. She was
reemployed in February 1937 as a machine operator and worked
steadily until she was discharged on May 27, 1937.
Sotire joined the United on May 5, and was elected as the United's
representative in room 113 on the same evening. From this time on
she solicited other employees to join the United, and succeeded in
signing up 10 or 12 girls. She testified that she carried on her union
activities during lunch hour and after work, but a number of her
fellow employees testified that she solicited during working hours
both in the shop and in the ladies' room. Ernest Seifert, the foreman
of room 113, was aware of these activities because they were reported
to him by various employees. He also discussed the matter with
Sotire, and told her she would be discharged if she did not stop such
activities during working hours.
On May 27 Seifert discharged Sotire because she was not "making
out." By that he meant that she was not producing enough work at
the regular piece rates to entitle her to the sum of money which was
paid to her under the respondent's minimum wage-that she was not
earning what she was paid. Seifert went on to explain that her 3-
month trial period was just about up, and that she would soon be
entitled to a higher minimum wage which would increase the dif-
ferential between her earnings and the amount which the respondent
would, have to pay her.
The respondent introduced two exhibits to show that Sotire was
not "making out." Both of these exhibits compiled data comparing
Sotire's work with that of certain other employees from May 6 down
to the date of her discharge. From this it appears that the respond-
ent is contending only that Sotire was unable to do her work after
May 6. It was from that time on that Sotire, hired as a machine
operator, was shifted to bench work. While such a shift would be
normal if there was no machine work to be done, there was no evi-
dence of any shortage in machine work at the time the shift was
made. Seifert explained that when he called Sotire over to tell her
to stop her union activities on May 6, she complained that "his pets
got all of the gravy on the bench work." He transferred her to bench
work the following day. Sotire denied that she made any complaint
in those terms, but she admitted telling Seifert that the bench workers
had better jobs than she did. Sotire never complained to Seifert
about having been put on bench work.
The respondent's exhibits, referred to ' above, show convincingly
that Sotire was not "making out" from May 6 until her discharge,
although her work was satisfactory on one or two jobs. This view
was substantiated by the testimony of Seifert, George Raymond, the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1343
head of the rate department , who made up the exhibits, and several
of the girls whose production was compared with that of Sotire.
A number of Sotire's fellow employees testified that during the
last month of her employment Sotire admitted that she was not
making out and was not trying to as Seifert was afraid to discharge
her. They also testified that she solicited for the United during
working hours , and spent a good deal of time in the ladies' room.
Sotire admitted the latter vas true. These activities coincided with
her failure to make out.
Upon the evidence in this case , we do not find that the respondent
discharged Florence Sotire because of her membership in the United.
. Margaret Lundelius. Margaret Lundelius worked for the respond-
ent for substantial portions of the period from July 1918 to May
1937. She was last hired in November 1936 and worked continuously
until her employment was terminated on May 27, 1937.
Lundelius joined the United on April 26, 1937, and in May 1937
she was chosen as a delegate for room 104 along with five other girls.
In this capacity she was active in securing members and collecting
dues for the ' United. Together with the other representatives she
signed up approximately 200 persons . Her activity continued down
to the time she stopped work.
Lundelius ' work was terminated in the following manner: On May
27 while she was countersinking pinholes , Maddox , the machine set-
ter, shifted her to reaming pinholes . She had worked on this for
only a short time when Maddox told her her work was running out
and that she should see Merritt, the assistant foreman . Lundelius
did so. Merritt asked her if she- could finish the job she was on by
noon, and she said that she could not. Lundelius said she would
come back in the afternoon and finish that job . Lundelius did not
return to work that afternoon but came in the following morning and
asked Merritt for work. He asked her why she had not returned the
previous afternoon , and told her he might have found another job
for her then but that there was no work available at the time. Lun-
delius said that she had not returned because she felt bad about being
laid off when newer girls were retained.
Charles Raymond, the foreman of room 104, testified that a falling
off of the work in room 104 in May resulted in a reduction in his
working force from 175 to 150 and a reduction in working hours
from 48 to 40. A record of the lay-offs of 18 of his employees was
introduced into evidence. Merritt, who is now foreman of room 104,
testified that 27 other employees were laid off from room 104 in June,
July, and August, 1937.
The respondent contends that Lundelius failed to return to work
and was not laid off, but that even if she had returned on the after-
noon of May 27 she might have been laid off because of the slack in
1344 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work and her inefficiency. The evidence of a slack in work. has been
noted above. To show Lundelius' inefficiency the respondent intro-
duced an exhibit which tabulated the hours worked, amount earned,
and wages received by Lundelius, together with the amount made
up by the respondent from January 7 to May 27. It shows that for
every week from February 11 to May 27 the respondent paid Lun-
delius amounts varying between 15 cents and $4.91, which she did
not earn under regular piece rates. Lundelius' testimony corrobo-
rated that of Charles Raymond and Merritt that they had criticized
her for some time before the United started to organize the respond-
ent's plant because she was not making out. Raymond testified that
she had been given special treatment on various occasions in order
to improve her work, and that she was kept on only because of the
need for workers during the upturn in business in the early spring.
Upon the evidence in this case, we do not find that the respondent
laid off Margaret Lundelius because of her membership in the
United.
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 de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
TIIE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent interfered with its employees'
free choice of representatives at the election of June 3, and thereby
committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act. Under such circumstances the Board ordinarily, in
addition to ordering the employer to cease and desist from such
activities, declares the election null and void.2 However, in the
present situation we shall only order the respondent to cease and
desist from such activities. The election of June 3 was conducted
pursuant to the consent of the parties and not at the direction of
the Board. There is no petition for an investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act pending
before the Board, and the Board would not, therefore, at this time
2 Matter of Carrollton Metal Products Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel & Tin IVorkers of North America, Local No. 1311, 4 N. L. R. B 142 and 6 N. L R B.
569, Matter of Industrial Ration Cornoiation , a Delaware Corporation and Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, 7 N L R B 878
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1345
direct a new election. Moreover, since the election was held over 18
months ago, the designation of representatives at said election is no
longer of controlling effect in determining collective bargaining
representatives at this time.' We, therefore, do not declare the elec-
tion of June 3, 1937, null and void.
Since we have found that Julia Kovacs, Pauline Sabaloff, and
James Sansone were discriminatorily discharged, -we shall order the
respondent to offer them reinstatement without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges. We shall further order
the respondent to make the discharged employees whole for any loss
of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective discharges
by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 4 during
said period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, Local No. 227,
and Yale & Towne Employees' Association are' labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Julia Kovacs, Pauline Sabaloff, and James Sansone, thereby
discouraging membership in the United, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.-
3 Cf Matter of Bamberger -Reinthal Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union , 9 N L R B 1057
4 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlaw-
ful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See
-Matter o f 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
received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided - below in the Order , shall be
deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the
appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or
governments which supplied the funds for said work - relief projects.
1346 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The respondent, in the discharge of Florence Sotire and Albert
Miller, and in the lay-off of Margaret Lundelius, has not engaged
in' unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) 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
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, Stamford, Con-
necticut, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical & Radio
Workers of America, Local No. 227, or any other labor organization,
by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing 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, or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose 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) Offer to Julia Kovacs, Pauline Sabaloff, and James Sansone
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Julia Kovacs, Pauline Sabaloff, and James San-
sone for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment, by
payment to each of them, respectively, a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages from the date-of his
discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during said period; deducting, however, from the
amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies ' re:
ceived by said employees during said period for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects;
and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency
,of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or
governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
,(c) Post immediately notices, in conspicuous places in its plant
stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner afore-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1347
said, and maintain said notices for a period of sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date of posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region within
teen (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the 'respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint
be, and they hereby are, dismissed with respect to Florence Sotire,
Albert Miller, and Margaret Lundelius.