Aetna Bearing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 845 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

AETNA BEARING COMPANY, ETC. 845
against any employee in regard to his hire, tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment, except as authorized by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten, warn, or otherwise inform any employee that we will
discontinue any operation, go out of business, deny employment to any employee,
or withhold any wage increase if employees choose or support a labor organiza-
tion as their bargaining representative, or engage in any union activity.
WE WILL NOT interrogate any employee as to any employee's interest in, or
activity in, with, or on behalf of, any labor organization, in a manner constitut-
ing interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT offer or promise any employee any wage increase, or any other
benefit or reward, or any improvement in any term or condition of employment,
in order to influence any employee in the choice or rejection of a bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
THE starting time of all sandwich department employees who were in our
employ on March 10, 1964, is 7 p.m.
WE WILL offer Stuart Greene, Marie Vale, Janice June Smith, and Evelyn
Boone immediate and full reinstatement to their respective former or substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and reimburse each of them for any loss of pay such individual
may have suffered by reason of the fact that we discriminated against such
person.
WE WILL notify any of the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Mili-
tary Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
MARBRO FOOD SERVICE, INC., d/b/a FAB'S FAMOUS FOODS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Information regarding the provisions of this notice and compliance with its provi-
sions may be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations
Board, 17th and Champa Streets, 609 Railway Exchange Building, Denver, Colorado,
Telephone No. 297-3551.
Aetna Bearing Company, a Textron Division and Local 151,
United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America
(UE). Case No. 13-CA-6253. May 25,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 8, 1964, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his
Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
152 NLRB No. 85.
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an
answering brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that
Respondent, Aetna Bearing Company, a Textron Division, Chicago,,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the fol-
lowing modifications.2
Substitute the following paragraph for paragraph 1(b) of the
Order :
"In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7
of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as-
amended."
1 For the reasons stated by him in The Flvn.tkote Company , 149 NLRB 1561, footnote 2,.
Member Brown would not decide this case at this time Rather , he would withhold
action pending arbitration under the operative contractual arrangement for revolving
disputes
'In his Decision the Trial Examiner stated that he would recommend a broad cease-
and-desist order against further interference with the employees ' Section 7 rights. How-
ever , the Trial Examiner inadvertently recommended a narrow order against further
interference although he included the broad order in the notice In view of the nature
of the violation herein , we agree with the Trial Examiner that a broad order is appropriate
and modify the Recommended Order accordingly.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was held before Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan at a hearing in
Chicago , Illinois, on August 31, 1964, on the complaint of General Counsel and the
answer of Aetna Bearing Company, herein called the Respondent. The issue litigated
AETNA BEARING COMPANY, ETC. 847
was whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.' The parties waived oral argument. The General
Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a Rhode Island corpora-
tion with its principal office and place of business at 4600 West Schubert Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois, herein called the plant, where it is engaged in the business of manu-
facturing, selling, and distributing bearings and related products.
Respondent during the past year manufactured, sold, and shipped from its plant
products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Illinois, and pur-
chased and shipped materials valued in excess of $50,000 to its plant directly from
points outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The foregoing findings are admitted by the answer.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 151, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE),
herein referred to as the Union, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleged and the answer denied that in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, the Respondent on or about February 14, 1964, suspended
employee Richard Dolatowski for a period of 1 week because he engaged in union or
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or
protection .3
Background
Article IX, section 2, of the present agreement between the parties provides as
follows:
Section 2. Unless permission shall be otherwise obtained from the Company
there shall be no other general distribution or a posting by employees of
pamphlets, advertising or political matter, notice or any kind of literature upon
company property other than as herein provided.
The same language has appeared in the contract since at least 1954.
This no-distribution provision had become an issue between Respondent and the
Union on two occasions previous to the instant case-once in 1954 and again in
1960. In 1954 Respondent filed a grievance against the Union concerning the distri-
bution of "printed political matter" on Respondent's premises by union officers. The
grievance was settled by the union statement that while the literature had not been
intended for distribution in the shop the Union "accepts the responsibility for the
error and will make an honest effort to prevent a recurrence."
1 The charge was filed March 2, 1964, by the Union and served on Respondent on
March 4, 1964 The complaint issued on June 4, 1964.
The record is corrected as follows:
Page 9 lines 6-7, change "publicity and educational director" to "Publicity and'
Education Director" and whenever it appears thereafter.
Page 129 lines 5-6, change "General Counsel" to "Respondent" to reflect the fact
that Matthew Pasternak was called as Respondent's witness and not as General
Counsel's witness.
s The answer admitted that he was suspended for 1 week but denied his suspension
was for the reason alleged in the complaint. At the hearing the Respondent amended
its answer further to state that it suspended Richard Dolatowski because of its good-faith
belief he engaged In unprotected activity in violation of the labor agreement existing at the
time between the Respondent and the Charging Party and that said labor agreement was
In full force at the time of his suspension and at all times material herein.
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The second incident occurred some 6 years later in April 1960 involving the Union's
distribution, without permission, of its literature on Respondent's property. On that
occasion Union President Harry Brocksome and Chief Steward Robert Siegel were
found to be distributing "political printed matter on company property without seek-
ing prior company permission." Brocksome and Siegel were suspended by Respond-
ent for 1 day and Respondent again filed a grievance against the Union. Respondent
stated that it considered that grievance to be a "final written notification in this
regard." The Union in turn filed its own grievance against Respondent concerning
the suspension of Brocksome and Siegel. The two grievances were resolved by
Respondent's recision of the suspension of the two distributors of the union literature
and the union statement that it would make "every effort ... in the future to avoid a
repetition of distributing union literature on company premises without permission."
In early 1962 employee Richard Dolatowski was elected to the union office of
publicity and education director. Part of his duties included the making up and
distribution of the union shop newspaper, the Union Bearing, which appeared about
once a month. On one day each month the Union Bearing was passed out to the
employees in the morning before work between 6 and 6:40 a.m. at Parker Street
and Schubert Street employee entrances to the plant.
Dolatowski usually distributed the paper to the employees himself with the help
on each occasion of one or two additional employees. Dolatowski was regularly
assisted in the monthly distribution of the paper by employees Bruno Piekosz and
Matthew Pasternak. On a less regular basis employees Ted Flisnik and Raymond
Maliszewski also aided Dolatowski in the circulation of the paper.
Dolatowski was aware of the contractual provision prohibiting the distribution of
union literature on Respondent's premises without permission. He also knew about
the 1960 (but not the 1954) grievance which had arisen from article IX, section 2,
of the contract. Accordingly, at the time they began assisting him, Dolatowski
instructed each of his distributors including Bruno Piekosz that while passing out the
papers they should stay outside of the buildings at all times. From time to time
thereafter Dolatowski repeated to Bruno Piekosz and the others the instructions that
they must not distribute the newspaper on Respondent's property. Dolatowski's
instructions were followed. Previous to February 14, 1964, at no time during Dola-
towski's tenure as union publicity and education director were papers passed out
within the plant and there were no complaints from management concerning the
distribution of the paper and no dispute of any sort between Respondent and the
Union relating to the distribution of union literature since the grievances of April
1960.
The Events of February 14, 1964
The February 1964 issue of the Union Bearing was distributed to employees on the
morning of February 14. Publicity and Education Director Dolatowski on that
morning utilized the services of Bruno Piekosz and Raymond Maliszewski in assisting
him in the distribution of that paper. Matthew Pasternak was scheduled to help but
did not. Dolatowski stationed himself together with Maliszewski at the Parker
Street entrance to the plant. Piekosz was alone at the employee entrance on Schubert
Street.
Previous to the distribution on February 14, Dolatowski met Piekosz in the plant
about 6 a.m. He gave Piekosz his wrapped-up bundle of newspapers, said good morn-
ing to him, and left for his own post on Parker Street. Dolatowski did not see
Piekosz again until shortly before work starting time about 6:40 a.m. At that time
he went back to the employee entrance on Schubert Street to pick up the undis-
tributed papers. He found Piekosz, his job completed, in the vestibule of the plant
entrance, collecting together the unused papers. Dolatowski thanked Piekosz, took
the remaining papers and left. Dolatowski was at this time and in fact until about
2 p.m. that afternoon unaware that Piekosz had been distributing the papers in the
vestibule of the plant on the morning of February 14.
But in the meantime before Dolatowski returned at 6:40 a m. to pick up the left-
over papers Piekosz did something that he had not before done in the approximately
2 years in which he had been assisting in the distribution of the union newspaper.
He went onto the company premises. As Piekosz explained it he had forgotten to
wear his jacket and on February 14 the weather was cold outdoors. About 6:30 a.m.
after he had been passing out papers on the public sidewalk for about 25 minutes he
decided to go inside the door of the vestibule and to complete the distribution there.
He did so and for about the next 10 minutes between 6:30 and 6:40 a.m. Piekosz
stood just inside the door of the vestibule of the employee entrance on Schubert Street
and handed the papers to passing employees. Among those who passed through the
vestibule while Piekosz was distributing papers were several supervisors who reported
to management that Piekosz was distributing the Union Bearing inside the plant.
AETNA BEARING COMPANY, ETC. 849
The foregoing facts are undisputed.
About 2 o'clock on the afternoon of February 14, Piekosz was called to the person-
nel office where he was met by Industrial Relations Manager Thadeus Malin and
Superintendent Albert Alberts, both admitted supervisors within the meaning of the
Act. Piekosz was asked whether he had distributed the paper on that morning, and
if so whether he had passed out the paper inside the building. Piekosz admitted that
he had handed out the paper and that he had done so while standing inside the
building. When asked Piekosz stated that he was aware of the circumstances of the
1960 grievance, but said he had thought that it applied only to the distribution of
political literature. When asked who had given him the papers to distribute on that
morning, Piekosz answered that Dolatowski had given him the papers. Then, either
Malin or Alberts inquired whether Piekosz had been instructed by Dolatowski as to
where he should stand in relation to Respondent's property while passing out the
union newspaper. Piekosz testified that he responded that Dolatowski "didn't tell
him that morning but I said he told me several times not to stay in the building."
According to Malin, Piekosz replied to the question of whether he had received any
specific instructions as to where he should stand while distributing the paper by
saying that he had not. Alberts stated that Piekosz had simply said that no one had
told him that he was in violation of the contract.
Employee Matthew Pasternak was then called to the personnel office. According
to Malin's testimony, he asked Pasternak whether he had been distributing the union
newspaper on that morning before the shift started and Pasternak replied that he had
done so. Malin testified that he next asked Pasternak whether his distribution of the
literature on that morning had been on or off company property and that Pasternak
answered that he had been doing it off company property. Malin further testified
that he then asked Pasternak the question of whether he had been instructed by
Dolatowski as to where he should or should not distribute the union literature, and
according to Malin, Pasternak replied that he had not been so instructed. Pasternak,
however, contradicts Malin's and Alberts' version of their conversation by testifying
that in fact he had not distributed the newspaper on that morning, and that in
response to Malin's question as to whether he had distributed newspapers Pasternak
answered in the negative. Pasternak further testified that this was the only question
that was asked of him while he was in the personnel office. Richard Dolatowski was
then called to the personnel office. The record is in dispute as to what was said in the
conversation between Dolatowski, Malin, and Alberts. It was first established that
Dolatowski had been unaware that Piekosz had come inside the plant to pass out
papers on that morning. Dolatowski was then asked whether he had instructed
Piekosz to stay off the company premises while distributing the paper. Dolatowski
and Piekosz both testified that Dolatowski answered that he had not so instructed
Piekosz on that morning, but that he had done so on several occasions in the past.
According to Malin and Alberts, Dolatowski told them that he had not given Piekosz
any instructions as to where to stand while distributing the paper. Malin then handed
Dolatowski copies of the 1954 and 1960 grievances and asked him if he knew about
them. Dolatowski answered he was aware of the 1960 grievance but not of the 1954
grievance. The interview was then terminated and Piekosz and Dolatowski were told
they would be informed of the disposition of the matter. Later in the afternoon
Dolatowski was recalled to the personnel office where Malin told him that he was
being suspended for 1 week because he was the officer in charge of the distribution
of the newspaper and that it was his responsibility. Malin gave Dolatowski his
disciplinary notice which stated that Dolatowski was receiving a 1-week suspension
and noted as the cause for discipline:
As union official, was responsible for union literature being distributed on com-
pany property without permission.
Piekosz received no discipline as a result of his distribution of the union newspaper
on Respondent's premises.
On February 18, 1964, the Union filed a grievance protesting Dolatowski's suspen-
sion. This grievance proceeded through the third step of the grievance procedure, at
which step Respondent denied the grievance and the Union withdrew it. The matter
has not been taken by either party to arbitration. Subsequent thereto the charge
of unfair labor practices was filed.
I credit the testimony of Dolatowski and Piekosz that Dolatowski stated to Malin
and Alberts that he had not instructed Piekosz to stay off the company premises while
distributing the newspaper on that morning, but that he had so instructed him on
several occasions in the past. I also credit Pasternak's testimony that he did not
distribute the newspaper at all on February 14, and that he had told Malin when
asked that he had not.
789-730-Z6-vol. 152-55
850 DECISIONS OI' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent's Defense
It is the Respondent's position with respect to the merits of this case that Dola-
towski was disciplined because in good faith it believed that he failed entirely to
instruct Piekosz that he was not to distribute the paper on company premises; that
Piekosz was Dolatowski's agent for whose acts Dolatowski was responsible; and that
when the newspapers were distributed by Piekosz on company premises, Dolatowski
breached the collective-bargaining agreement and in breaching the agreement Dola-
towski engaged in unprotected activity. The Respondent further stated through its
counsel at the hearing that its first and foremost position is that this matter involves
a matter of contract interpretation and should not in fact be before the National
Labor Relations Board as a matter of policy.
CONCLUSIONS
It is clear from the record that Richard Dolatowski was suspended for I week for
the reason stated by the Respondent in its disciplinary notice "As union official, was
responsible for union literature being distributed on company property without
permission."
The Respondent's defense is that it acted in a good-faith belief that Dolatowski
had engaged in unprotected activity in that he was responsible for the distribution
of the newspaper by Piekosz on company property without permission in violation
of the collective-bargaining agreement even though Dolatowski was completely
unaware that Piekosz was distributing the paper on company premises. It is clear
that were not Dolatowski a union official he would not have been disciplined
because Piekosz, who actually made the distribution on company property, was not
disciplined.4
Here, as in the Pontiac case,5 the issue is whether Respondent could lawfully disci-
pline Dolatowski for failure to fulfill what Respondent considered his obligation to
be as a union official . In the Pontiac case , the Board held:
It is conceded that O'Neil [a union committeeman] neither caused nor took part
in the work stoppage of the machine repairmen. Accordingly, we are unable to
conclude that this provision of the contract, interpreted reasonably and in good
faith, provided a lawful basis for the discipline of O'Neil.
Accordingly I find and conclude that Respondent's defense that it suspended Dola-
towski because of a good-faith belief that he engaged in unprotected activity in vio-
lation of the labor agreement is without merit.
In its brief the Respondent states that the primary question is whether a consid-
eration of the merits of the allegation that Dolatowski was discriminatorily suspended
will effectuate the national labor policy favoring arbitration. The Respondent con-
tends that a consideration of the discrimination issue by the Trial Examiner or by
the Board will not effectuate the policies of the Act, and on the contrary would frus-
trate congressional intent in Section 203(d) of the Act that the private resolution of
labor disputes under collective-bargaining agreements be encouraged by courts and
the Board. Both briefs, by the General Counsel and by the Respondent, ably pre-
sent and discuss the leading cases on whether the Board should or should not assert
jurisdiction where arbitration is possible. It will serve no purpose to discuss such
authorities pro and con and thereby prolong unduly this Trial Examiner's Decision
in view of the fact that all parties are fully aware of such authorities. The latest
decision of which I am aware is Aerodex, Inc, 149 NLRB 192 (October 28, 1964),
where the Board held without merit the employer's affirmative defense that the
* At the hearing on August 31 it developed through Dolatowski's testimony that on
February 14 he had met Piekosz at the company plant and had given a bundle of papers
to Piekosz. The Company now contends that the suspension should stand because
Dolatowski also had thereby distributed the newspaper bundle on company premises
Such a contention is without merit Piekosz was not disciplined for distributing the
newspaper on company premises and the whole point of this case is that on February 14
Dolatowski was disciplined because and for no other reason than that he was a union
official who had failed in the opinion of the Respondent in his responsibility to instruct
Piekosz not to distribute on company property In other words, the Respondent seeks
to hold Dolatowski responsible as a union official for the acts of Piekosz, although
Dolatowski was wholly unaware that Piekosz was distributing the paper on company
premises
5 .Pontiac Motors Division, General Motors Corporation, 132 NLRB 413
AETNA BEARING COMPANY, ETC. 851
employee filed the unfair labor practice charge before exhausting the grievance and
arbitration procedures under the contract between the union and the employer.
There, the Board stated [as interpreted and reported at 57 LRRM 1261, 1263]:
Under Section 10(a) of the Act, the power of the Board to remedy and pre-
vent unfair labor practices is not affected by any other means of adjustment
established by agreement, law, or otherwise. Although the Board, under cer-
tain conditions, has respected and given effect to arbitration awards, Spielberg
Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080, 36 LRRM 1152, the Board has never shunned ju-
risdiction merely because a party had the contractual right to go to arbitration
but has never exercised the option. Newspaper Guild of Buffalo, 118 NLRB
1471, 40 LRRM 1405; Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local 546, etc., 133
NLRB 1314, 49 LRRM 1001; International Union, United Automobile, etc.,
130 NLRB 1035, 47 LRRM 1449
Here the Charging Party had the contractual right to go to arbitration but has not
exercised the option. Accordingly, I deny Respondent's motions (1) to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety, and (2) to recommend that this matter be deferred to arbi-
tration-"until and unless the Charging Party exhausts the contractual remedies
which are available to it." On the contrary, I recommend that the Board assert its
jurisdiction.
Finally on the basis of the entire record I find that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act on February 14, 1964, by discriminatorily suspend-
ing Richard Dolatowski for a period of 1 week thereby interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act and discouraging membership in the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection 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 obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom , and that it takes certain affirmative
action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent make Richard Dolatowski whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of
reinstatement , less his net earnings ( Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440, 497-
498) during said period . The payment to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established in N.L.R.B. v. Seven - Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S.
344, with interest thereon computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum . I shall rec-
ommend also that the Respondent preserve and , upon request , make available to
the Board or its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll records , social
security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay and the right to reinstatement
under the terms of these recommendations.
In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act,
I shall recommend further that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in
any manner upon the rights guaranteed in said section . N.L R B. v. Express Publish-
ing Company , 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R B . v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By suspending Richard Dolatowski on February 14, 1964, for a period of 1
week, the Respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment of
employees, thereby discouraging membership in labor organizations, and engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By the foregoing conduct, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Aetna Bearing Company,
a Textron Division, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in a labor organization of its employees, by dis-
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or terms or conditions
of employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employ-
ees in the exeriise of their rights under the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found to be necessary and appro-
priate to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Richard Dolatowski whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him, by payment, to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of the discrimi-
nation against him , to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings
(Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497-498) during said period, the payment to
be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up
Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344, with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and other records necessary and useful to deter-
mine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 13, shall, after being signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 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 such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.?
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution
of the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order"
for the words "a Decision and Order."
7 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity on behalf of Local 151,
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition thereof except to the extent
permitted under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
LOCAL 222, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 853
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form, join, or
assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , or to engage in any concerted activities , for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
WE WILL make Richard Dolatowski whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered as a result of discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
AETNA BEARING COMPANY, A TEXTRON DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street , Chicago, Illi-
nois, Telephone No. 828-7572, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Local No . 222, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America [W. S. Hatch
Co., Inc.] and American Oil Company. Case No. 27-CC-149.
May 25,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by American Oil Company, herein called Ameri-
can, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 27, issued a complaint against Local
No. 222, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent, alleg-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Respondent
filed an answer to the complaint denying the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
On January 25, 1965, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer this
proceeding to the Board, agreeing that the entire record in this case
shall consist of the formal papers and the transcript of testimony and
exhibits in Civil No. C-241-64, United States District Court for the
District of Utah. The parties waived a hearing before a Trial Exam-
iner and the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision. They agreed
that findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision and order be
issued directly by the Board. Thereafter, the case was transferred
to the Board. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent.
152 NLRB No. 87.