Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 1814 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

_In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF OFFICE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION No. 23133
Case No. 10-C-117.Decided August 31, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a complaint issued pursuant to charges filed by American Fed-
eeration of Office Employees, Local Union No. 23133, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, against Ford
Motor Company, Jacksonville, Florida, herein called the respondent,
a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner in Jacksonville, Florida,
from' January 26 through February 5, 1944, in which the Board, the
respondent, and the Union participated by their' representatives.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial
error was committeed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 23, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, and on March 31, 1944, he issued an "Erratum to Intermedi-
ate Report," copies of which are attached hereto, in which he found
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices. There-
after, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a brief in support of its exceptions. Oral argument was held before
the Board at Washington, D. C., on May 30, 1944.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record, and hereby adopts, the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar
as they are inconsistent with our findings and,order hereinafter set
,forth.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the respond-
ent, by the statements and conduct of Waters, Greenstreet,l and Stew-
art, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, engaged in unfair labor
I Chief Clerk waters is in charge of the office at the respondent ' s Jacksonville Branch.
Cashier R G. Greenstreet , who formerly held the position of assistant chief clerk , and who,
after his title was changed to that of cashier , continued to perform the functions of assistant
chief clerk , assumes charge of the office in waters ' absence. Both Waters and Greenstreet
assign work to the office employees and direct their operations . Upon the entire record,
we find that waters and Greenstieet exercise supervisory functions and are identified by
the employees with management. -
57 N. L. R. B., No. 306.
1814 '
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1815
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.2 It is clear,
and we find, that the aforesaid statements and acts of the respondent's
supervisory employees, as well as the discharges of Meek and Coles,
as found below, were integral parts of a course of conduct by the
respondent which was designed to frustrate the attempts of its office
employees -to organize. We further find that such conduct, which
included threats of, as well as actual, economic reprisals for union
membership and concerted activities, was plainly coercive and viola-
tive of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the respond-
ent discriminatorily discharged J. V. Meek on September 18, 1943, in
violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.3
The respondent's explanation for its discharge of Meek, namely,
that work in the office had fallen off and therefore the office force had
to be reduced ,4 is unconvincing. That Meek's discharge was not moti-
vated by the alleged necessity for reducing the office force is evidenced
by the fact that on the very day that Meek was discharged, Waters,
in a memorandum to the respondent's home office at Dearborn, Michi-
gan; stated that he was planning to hire someone to replace Meek,
2In connection with Wateis' interview with Coles on August 20, 1943, wafers testified
that on that occasion he merely advised Coles that he had no "right to organize the office
on [the respondent ' s] time." Upon the entire record, and since Coles impresi ,ed as as the
,more trustworthy witness , we credit Coles' version of what was said
with respect to the remarks attributed by Meek to Stock Superintendent Stewart, on the
occasion when the employees signed the revised anti -union petition, that if the Jacksonville
office were ever organized "it would come from the office in Dearborn ," and that the em-
ployees "might as well forget trying to organize through [the Jacksonville] office" as they
were "too small to do so " Stewart, as well as employee Nevin, who was present on the
occasion in question, denied that Stewart had made these remarks However, Stewart
admitted that lie had made such statements to an employee on another occasion Also,
Meek impressed us as a straightforward and credible witness Upon the entire record, we
find that Stewart made the statements in question, as described by Meek.
2 We find , as did the Trial Examiner , that although the complaint contained no specific
allegation of discrimination against Meek, the issues with respect to such discrimination
were fully litigated at the hearing Not only did the respondent make no objection to the
attempt by counsel for the Board to prove that Meek had been disciimmatorily dischaiged,
but the respondent ' itselt adduced testimony designed to refute the, contention that Meek's
discharge was violative of the Act. Nor has the respondent at-any time claimed surprise or
prejudice by reason of the attempt by counsel for the Board to prove that Meek's discharge
was discriminatory. In the foregoing circumstances, and though the complaint was not
amended so as specifically to allege the discrimination with respect to Meek, we may
pioperly make a finding regarding the validity of Meek's discharge. Matter of Fort Wayne
Corrugated Paper Co, 14 N. L R B 1. enf'd Ill F. (2d) 869, 872-873 (C C A 7); Matter
of Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co., 16 N. L R B. 727, enf'd, 119 F. (2d) 903, 910
(C C A 8).
4A different explanation for the discharge seems to be implicit in Meek ' s "termination of
service iecord ," on which it is recommended that he not be reemployed in the future because
he "was not satisfactory from a standpoint of cooperation, due to being discontented with
his job " There is no showing that Meek had ever been criticized, by the respondent for
lack of cooperation in the performance of his work. As for his being discontented with the
demotion of August 2, 1943, referred to below, there is no showing that his work in his new
position suffered as a result of such discontent . While there may be circumstances where
it would be entirely permissible for an employer to discharge an, employee because he is
unjustly disgruntled, no such circumstances are shown here . As found below, Meek's dis-
charge was discriminatory because it was pi . ompted by the respondent's belief that he was
actively interested in the Union and that , because he expressed his discontent over his afoie-
mentioned demotion, he was responsible for the other employees ' interest in having the
office unionized , to which the respondent was plainly opposed.
1816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and approximately 3 months later, a new employee was hired to fill
Meek's position as mail clerk.' More the record discloses that
a few weeks following the discharge of Meek, who had had experience
with the respondent both as a comptometer operator and as a clerk,
the respondent advertised for a comptometer operator, offering-Jo
employ a "good fast typist or billing clerk" whom it would train for
work on the comptometer, and did not offer to reinstate Meek.
We are convinced, and we find, that the real reason for the discharge
of Meek was the respondent's belief that he was actively interested in
the Union and that, because he expressed dissatisfaction with his demo-
tion, which occurred a few weeks prior to his discharge, he was re-
sponsible for the desire of the other employees to have the office
niiionized.s This is evidenced not only by the inadequacy of the rea-
son assigned by the respondent for the discharge, as demonstrated
above, but also by the following : (a) the respondent was very much
opposed to any attempt on the part of the office employees to organize,
as is shown by the afore-mentioned statements and conduct of its,
supervisors, which included, threats of economic reprisal for union
membership and concerted activity; (b) Meek was one of the first
among the office employees to be questioned by Waters concerning his
union activities; (c) Waters' statement to Meek that he understood
that Meek had been attending union meetings; (d) Meek's refusal to
tell Waters who had approached him concerning the Union; (e) Meek's
demotion had aroused much discussion and unrest among the office
employees; (f) Coles, whom the respondent knew to be the principal
union protagonist in the office, told Waters that Meek's demotion had
created a feeling of insecurity among the employees, and that that was
one reason they desired a union; (g) Meek's complaint to Waters
about his demotion; (h) on Meek's "termination of service record," it
is recommended that he not be reemployed because "lie was not satis-
factory from a standpoint of cooperation, due to being discontented
5It appears that the reason Meek was not replaced sooner was that Waters was planning
to replace him with a former employee who was then engaged in essential war work, and
some time was requiied to obtain his release from such work. Waters was finally unable to
secure this person, whereupon he hired a new employee to replace Meek as mail clerk
While Wateis, in his afore-mentioned memorandum to the home office, stated that he
did not plan to assign the person he would hire to replace Meek, to the latter's position as
mail clerk, Wateis later in fact filled that position with a new employee, instead of
reinstating- Meek
The record discloses, and we find, that when the respondent hired Meek on May 26,
1943, as a comptometer operator, the respondent assured him rthat, notwithstanding his
inexperience as such operator, his position in that capacity would be permanent; that despite
this assurance, the respondent, on or about August 2, 1943, transferred Meek to the posi-
tion of mail clerk, and replaced him as comptometer operator with another employee, whom
it hired at that tune; that though Meek's pay remained the same, Meek considered the
transfer a demotion, since the maximum salary for a mail cleik was lower than for a
comptometer operator; that Meek's transfer aioused'much discussion and unrest among the
office employees, who, in view of the respondent's treatment of Meek, as well as the lack
of a seniority system in the respondent's office, consideied their positions insecure, and that,
immediately following Meek's transfer, the office emplo} ees actively engaged in discussions
concerning the formation of a union.
'FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1817
with his job" [underlineation supplied ] ; and ( i) the record discloses
that Meek's work was regarded by the respondent as satisfactory.,
3. We concur in the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Coles was
discharged on September °9, 1943, because of his efforts to organize a
union among the respondent 's office employees . However, we do not
agree with the Trial Examiner that the record warrants a finding that
Coles ' demotion in August 1943 from the position of general clerk to
that of parts biller, was discriminatory.
The record discloses that about the middle of July 1943 , an auditor
from the respondent 's home office conducted a survey of operations at
the Jacksonville Branch. Waters testified , without contradiction, that
this survey disclosed that Coles , who occupied a position as general
clerk, was devoting more than 50 percent of his time to billing work,
and that the auditor issued instructions that if this continued, Coles
was to be reclassified to a, position as parts biller. Waters further testi-
fied that, pursuant to these instructions , he filled out , on August 16,
a transfer slip, formally effecting this transfer ., This slip, dated
August 16 , was adduced by the respondent at the hearing . The evi-
dence indicating that thS transfer was actually effected on the re-
spondent 's records on August 16 stands uncontraclicted . There is no
clear showing that prior to the time that this transfer slip n - as exe-
cuted, the respondent had knowledge of Coles ' union activities. In
view of the foregoing , and though the circumstances surrounding
a Thus, the afare-mentioned "termination 'of service record" rates Meek as satisfactory,
both as comptometei operator and as mail clerk, with respect to workmanship, conduct,
application, attendance, and safety Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence that
Meek's work, either as comptometet operator or as mail clerk, was ever criticized On the
contrary, Waters' own testimony-is to the effect that on August 20, when Meek complained
to him about his demotion, he assuied Meek that his transfer from comptometer operator
to mail clerk had not been motivated by any dissatisfaction with his work
"The respondent contends that since Meek had signed the anti-union petition described
in the Intermediate Report, and since Meek, when questioned by Wateis on the day that
Waters interrogated the employees about their union affiliation, told Watcis that he was
not interested in a union, the respondent had no discriminatory motive in discharging him
However, for the seasons summarized above, and on the basis of the entire record, it is
clear that the respondent nevertheless considered Meek to be Coles' principal supporter in the
attempt to organize the office employees and regarded Meek as a focal point of unrest among
these employees, and that the respondent discharged Meek in order to iestrain and coerce its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization.
It appears that Waters, sometime between August 19 and 26, filled out and sent to the
respondent's home office at Deaboui, a Oiange of ,ale slip (referred to in the record
as respondent's Form 1177), recommending that, because of the transfer, Coles' base salary
be decreased from $260 to $220 per month This change of rate slap, winch later was
returned to the Jacksonville Branch from the Dearborn office, shows an obvious alteration
in the date, which appears thereon as August 16 The Tiial Examiner found that this
alteration was made by the respondent in order to make it appear that that slip was
executed before the respondent learned of Coles' union activities However, Waters'
uncontiadicted testimony is that that alteration was made at Dearborn, and there are
other alterations on that slip which were obviously made at Dearborn. It is possible that,
the home office changed the date on the slip in of der to make the date of the change in salary
conform to the date (August 16) on which the demotion became effective, as shown on the
transfer slip, a copy of which had been sent to the Dearborn office.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coles' demotion are highly suspicious,10 we believe that' the record falls
short of establishing that the demotion was discriminatory.
The record does, however, clearly establish a discriminatory motive
for Coles' discharge on September 29, 1943. The principal reason
advanced by the respondent for Coles' discharge is that, as Waters
testified, for approximately 4 weeks prior to his discharge, Coles had
not.been sufficiently productive in his work. The record as a whole,
however, discloses, and we find, that Coles was no less productive dur-
ing that period than he was prior thereto. Thus, Capp, who handled
the orders in the stockroom, testified that he had noticed no diminu-
tion in the volume of Coles' billing during August and September, as
compared with 'the preceding period."' Moreover,,after Coles' union
activities, became known, Coles, realizing that he was being 'closely
watched by his superiors, Waters and Greenstreet, would ask these men
for additional' assignments whenever he completed work already as-
signed to him. Waters himself admitted that Coles had followed that
practice. If, during the latter part of 'September, Coles' production
was not adequate because of his inability 'on occasions to bill enough
orders to keep the stockroom busy, we are convinced that this was due
to the fact that the respondent had purposely placed him in that posi-
tion so as to create a pretext for his discharge. Thus, on September
15, though there is no showing that there was any diminution in the
volume of work at,that time, employee Thomas, who had been working
with Coles on the billing of stock orders, was taken off that work and
Coles was thereafter left to bill stock orders without assistance. After
Coles' discharge, at least two employees were regularly assigned to
that work.
In support of its "ontention that for a few weeks prior to his dis-
charge, Coles produced an inadequate amount of work, the respondent
attempted to establish that during that period Coles spent too 'much
time on matter's extraneous to his work. Thus, Waters testified, that
on the morning of his. discharge, Coles had wasted some 15 minutes
in conversation with employee Daniel; that after being ordered by
Waters to return to his desk, Coles, instead of carrying on his billing
operations, engaged in activities extraneous to, his work; and that,
as a result of the foregoing, Coles had failed to bill a sufficient number
of orders that morning, causing complaints from the stockroom.
However, Coles' testimony concerning that event; which we credit,12
10 Thus, there is the fact that for approximately 2 weeks prior to the,transfer, Coles
discussed the matter of organizing a union with some of the employees , and that the
transfer took place on the same day (August 16) that Coles joined the union , as well as
the 'fact that Coles was not notified of the actual transfer until August 25, and the cir-
cumstance that Coles , shortly after his demotion , was discriminatorily discharged
"Each order is marked with the initials of the particular biller who works on it, so
that the volume of orders turned out by each biller is readily ascertainable.
12 As already noted, we find Coles to be a more trustworthy witness than Waters.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1819
was to the effect that he had asked Daniel, who was in charge of the
respondent's office supplies, which were kept under lock and key, for
some paper clips; that while he was waiting, for a few moments, for
the clips, Waters walked in and summarily ordered Coles to return to
his desk; and that thereupon Coles, upon obtaining the clips, promptly
returned to his desk and resumed his regular work. Nor are we im-
pressed with Waters' testimony that for a few weeks prior to his dis-
charge, Coles spent too much time away from his desk smoking and
talking to other employees.13 'The testimony of Coles, as well as that
of Meek, which we credit, is that Coles spent no more time, smoking
than did the other employees. Also, it is significant that Waters, who'
testified that Coles spent twice as much time smoking as did the'other
employees, admitted that he timed only Coles' smoking periods and
did not take the trouble to check on other employees for purposes of
comparison. Coles' testimony, which we credit, is that after he, became
active on'behalf of the Union, he made a special effort to perform his
work properly because he was aware of the fact that Waters and
Greenstreet were keeping him under surveillance and were' eager to
find cause for his discharge because of his union activities, and, as
noted above, Waters himself admitted that Coles made a practice of
asking him or Greenstreet for additional work whenever Coles com-
pleted the work already assigned to him. Upon the entire record, we
are convinced, and we find, that Coles was not derelict in the per-
formance of his duties and did not spend an excessive amount of time
in activities extraneous to his work '14 and that the criticisms in con-
nection with his work which were directed at him by Waters and
Greenstreet following the commencement of his union activities were
motivated by the respondent's opposition to the Union .15
13 The respondent permitted employees to leave the office occasionally for the purpose of
going outdoors to smoke, and also permitted them to engage in conversations unrelated to
their work , during working hours , when .they were not busy.
11 Eveii if Coles could be said to have on occasions spent more time than (lid other
employees in discussions or in other activities unrelated to their work , we are convinced,
from the entire record, that this did not adversely affect the quality or volume of Coles'
work, and that the respondent's objection to such activities by Coles was based, not upon
the effect, if any, which such activities inight have had on his production, but rather on the
fact that they were carried on in behalf of the Union , to which the , respondent was intensely
opposed.
15 In its effort to demonstrate that Coles was not a satisfactory employee, the respondent
relied not only upon events following the commencement of Coles' union activities, but on
prior incidents as well. Thus, waters testified that about July 20, 1943, he instructed Coles
to learn the "back order" work then being performed by employee Nevin, so that Coles
would be able to replace Nevin when the latter left for his vacation on. August 2 ; that
about July 29 he (Waters) discovered that "Coles hadn't made any effort to learn [this]
job,' and that he thereupon reprimanded Coles for disregarding his instructions, told him
that it was too late for him to learri the back order work , and warned ' him, among other
things,' that "if [Coles '] work [didn 't] improve , [ lie was ] going to let him go " Coles
testified that , pursuant to waters ' instructions , he learned the back older work, and that
he did not recall being reprimanded or warned as was testified to by waters . Nevin, a
reluctant Board witness , corroborated Coles' testimony that Coles had come to him for
instruction in the back order work and that Nevin had in fact given Coles such instruction.
While Nevin, at one point , testified that that took place 2 or 3 days before he ( Nevin)
1820 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That Coles' discharge was prompted by his union membership and
activities is clearly, evidenced by the combination of the following
circumstances : (a) the inadequacy of the reasons assigned by the
respondent for the discharge, as demonstrated above; (b) the respond-
ent's opposition to the unionization of its office employees, and its
threats of economic reprisal for union membership and activity; (c) the
fact that Coles was known to the respondent as the initiator of the or-
ganizational campaign among the office employees, and as the Union's
leading protagonist; (d) Coles' boldness in. informing both Waters
and the respondent's home office that he was trying to organize a union,
and in protesting Waters' anti-union conduct to the home office;'(e)
the fact that even after Waters had succeeded, through his intimi-
datory practices, in discouraging all the other office employees from
maintaining their interest in the Union, Coles persisted in his ad-
vocacy of the Union; (f) Waters' remarks to Coles, while interrogating
him concerning his union activities, that Waters knew that Coles was
"behind" the union movement, and that he -should have fired him a
year,before; (g) the fact that, following that conversation, Waters, as
well as Greenstreet, subjected Coles to surveillance in an effort to
compile a record of derelictions against him; and (h) the fact that
Coles had been in the respondent's employ for over 18 years, had done
satisfactory work, and had been steadily promoted.
TFIE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner does not recommend reinstatement or back pay
for Meek because the complaint contained no allegation that Meek
left on his vacation (on August 2), Nevin, at another point, admitted that he did not
remember the exact date and indicated that Coles came to him for instuictiun in the
back order work a number of times Moreover, Nevin's testimony that he instructed
Coles in the back order work 2 or 3 days before August 2 is somewhat inconsistent with
Waters'-teitirnony that lie had told Coles, around July 29, that it was then too late to
learn that work As,already noted above, Waters did not impress us as being a It ustwortliy
witness, while Coles did. On the basis of the entire record, we credit Coles' testimony
that he had carried out Waters' instructions to learn the back oider work, and we discredit
Waters' testimony that he reprimanded Coles for not learning that work and that he
warned Coles that he would be discharged if his work did not impiove In any event, we
are convinced, for reasons indicated below, and upon the record as a whole, that even if
Waters' testimony were to be credited, Coles' discharge was motivated by his union
activities and not by the incident in question.
The respondent also introduced evidence to, the effect that about June 1942, Coles had
used a company car without permission , and that during March 1943, he had neglected
his work by spending too much time in selling certain radios purchased by him from the
respondent As pointed out by the Tiial Examiner, the respondent and Coles had entered
into a transaction under which Coles puichased from the respondent, and converted to
home use, certain automobile radios which the respondent was having difficulty in selling.
This transaction was thus not only of benefit to the respondent, but the record also discloses
that the respondent granted Coles some time off in connection therewith -Moreover, both
of the afore-mentioned incidents had occurred sometime pi for to-Coles' discharge and appear
to be nothing more than isolated events, during Coles' 18 years of employment with the
respondent, which did not materially affect Coles' status as a reliable and satisfactory
employee We are convinced, from the entire record, that neither incident played any part
in the decision to discharge Coles, and that they are now resurrected as an afterthought to
bolster the respondent's justification for Coles' dischaige.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1821
was discriminatorily discharged. We do not agree with the Trial'
Examiner that that circumstance warrants the withholding of our,
conventional remedy, since, as previously indicated, it is plain that
the issues concerning the discriminatory nature of that discharge
were fully litigated at the hearing. However, since none of the par-
ties has taken exception to the position taken by the Trial Examiner
in this regard, we do not feel called upon to reject the Trial Examiner's
recommendation that the normal remedy be withheld herein.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Ford Motor Company,
Jacksonville, Florida, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Office
Employees, Local Union No. 23133, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, or in any other labor organization of its employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist American Federation of Office
Employees, Local Union No. 23133, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to J. B. Coles immediate and full reinstatement to his
former, or to a substantially equivalent, position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole J. B. Coles for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a stun of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the respond-
ent's discrimination against him to the date of the respond-
ent's offer o_f reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Jacksonville
Branch in Jacksonville, Florida, and maintain for a period of at least
sixty. (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its
1822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees stating; (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain
members of American Federation of Office Employees, Local Union
No. 23133, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and
that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee be-
cause of membership or activity in that organization;
' (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated
in regard to the hire, tenure, or terms or, conditions of employment
of J. B. Coles by demoting him from the position of general clerk to
that of parts biller in August 1943.
CHAIRMAN MILIas took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Mortimer H. Freeman, for the Board.
Mr. Malcolm L. Denise, of Detroit, Mich ., for the respondent.
Mrs. Lorraine Seegar Rhodes , of Jacksonville , Fla., for the Union.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE
Upon an amended charge dated December 22, 1943, duly filed by American Fed-
eration of Office Employees Local Union No. 23133, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint dated January 6, 1944, against Ford Motor Com-
pany, Jacksonville, Florida, herein called the respondent,, alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and, (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice
of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that the respondent on or about August 15, 1943, demoted J. B Coles and on
or about September 29, 1943, discharged him and thereafter refused to reinstate
him, for the reason that he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or 'pro-
tection; and (2) that the respondent on August 1, 1943, to the date of the com-
plaint herein, by F. F. Davidson, assistant branch manager, Griner S. Waters,
chief clerk, R. G. Greenstreet, cashier and assistant chief clerk and L I. Stewart,'
stockroom superintendent, has urged, persuaded, threatened, and warned its,em=
ployces to refrain from assisting, becoming member's of, or remaining members of,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1823
the Union ; has kept its employees under surveillance and interrogated them con-
cerning their concerted activities and concerning the activities of other' employees;
has threatened to close its Jacksonville Branch if the employees did not refrain
from assisting the Union ; and has threatened, obstructed and impeded union or-
ganization and collective bargaining among its employees; and (3) that by the
acts above described the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On or about January 15, 1944, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. d
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Jacksonville, Florida, from January
26 through February 5, 1944, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by its,president. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing counsel
for the Board made a motion to conform the pleadings, with the proof. The
motion was granted. During the hearing the undersigned reserved ruling on
a motion of counsel for the respondent to strike certain testimony of J. B. Coles
having to do with a statement alleged to have been made by Griner S Waters,
chief clerk of the respondent, to employee J V. Meek,, and now rules that the
motion to strike be and the same is hereby denied.
The parties were advised that they might make oral argument before and
file briefs with the undersigned. Counsel for the Board availed himself of the
opportunity to present oral argument but filed no brief. Counsel for the respond-
ent waived oral argument but subsequently filed a brief with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses
the undersigned makes in addition to the above the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Delaware corporation with an authorized capital of
$100,000,000, having its principal executive office at Dearborn, ' Michigan. It
owns and operates manufacturing plants, service and parts warehouses located
in many cities and States of the United States and in foreign countries. Prior
to the present war it 'was engaged in the manufacture, assembly, sale, and dis-
tribution of automobiles, trucks, tractors, parts, accessories„and related products.
Since February 1942, the respondent, has been and is now engaged primarily
in the manufacture and/or assembly- of ordnance and other materials for the
Armed Forces of the United States. The respondent maintains branch offices
and warehouses in various cities throughout the United States and foreign coun-
tries The only operations of the respondent herein involved are located at
Jacksonville, Florida, known as the Jacksonville Branch. During the year 1943,
the respondent received at its Jacksonville Branch automobile parts and acces-
sories from points outside of the State of Florida valued in excess of $1,000,000.
During the same period the respondent sold and delivered through its Jackson-
ville Branch, automobile parts and accessories to various customers located in
Florida and Georgia, valued in excess of $1,500,000 The respondent admits that
it is engaged in commerce within the, meaning of the Act.'
' The facts found in this section are based upon a stipulation of the parties entered into
at the hearing.
1824 ` DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If THE ORGANIZATION INVOL1 ED
American Federation of Office Employees Local Union No. 23133, affiliated
with the American Federation of Laboi, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interfeience, restraint and coelown
In or about 1941,' the respondent and the UAW-CIO entered into a contract
whereby the respondent recognized the UAW-CIO as the exclusive bargain-
ing agency for all of the employees of the respondent in all its production and
s ssembly plants and units in the United States. Office employees were ex-
cluded from the terms of such contract and the UAW-CIO expressly agreed
not to attempt to organize employees in the excluded categories The UAW-
CIO has i' local at the Jacksonville Branch composed of the hourly paid pro-
duction and assembly' employees. There is no organization of the office em-
ployees and prior to on or about August 1, 1943, there had been no 'sustained
effort to organize them.'
On May 20, 1943, J. V Meek, then employed as a bookkeeper in a local bank,
was hired by the respondent as a comptometer operator. Meek had worked
for the respondent on two previous occasions for a total of 30 months between
January 1939 and November 1941 He was hired on May 20, 1943, having been
expressly informed by management that the comptometer job would be perma-
nents -
On or about August 2, 1943, the respondent rehiied one Matthews, a foimer
employee, assigned him to the comptometer job and transferred Meek to a job
as mail clerk.4 As comptometer operator Meek was paid $150 per month base
rate Meek continued to receive $150 per month on the mail clerk job, the top
pay of,which was $160. The top pay for comptometer opeiators was $220 per
month. While Meek considered his transfer as a demotion, he expressed
himself as satisfied when assured by Chief Clerk Waters that he would not
be discharged.
The respondent recognizes no policy of seniority among its office employees.
This fact, Meek's transfer, together with Maittllew's reemployment and assign-
ment to Meek's former job resulted in discussion and disturbance among the
office employees.
21'rior to August 1943 office employees, Shuman, Phillips, Davis, Nevins, and Coles had
discussed the idea of a union for the office employees with Hemy J Capp, chairman of the
UAW-CIO grievance committee Shuman and Coles had urged Capp to contact the head
officials of the UAW-CIO and encourage them to take some action toisard organizing the
office employees at the Jacksonville Branch Capp took no action in the matter, and no
results were obtained
I This finding is based upon Meek's credible and uncontradicted testimony Meek had
applied for a position with the respondent. Subsequently H 0 Harris, a general clerk,
was delegated to offer Meek the comptometer job, which he did by telephone When.Meek
asked if the job would be permanent, Harris. after taking time for consultations, assured
Meek that it was Harris, although shown to have been available, was-not called as a
witness.
4 Meek fixed this date as on or about July 7, 1943 Since it is undisputed that Matthews
wus employed on August 2 and took over Meek ' s job on the clay he was employed, the-
undersigned finds August 2, 1943, to be the correct date.
FORD -MOTOR .", COMPANY 1825
J. B Coles, an employee for more than 1S years, whose discriminatory dis-
charge is described below, began to discuss union organization among other
office employees immediately following Meek's transfer Among others he talked
to D B. Nevins and H. 0 Harris, general clerks, H. R Shuman, a stenographer,
and J. A Phillips, a switchboard operator
On August 14, Coles contacted Mrs. J. L Rhodes, president of the Union, and
discussed organizational matters with her. On August 16, he joined the Union.
Coles then told Nevins, Meek, Shuman, Phillips, Harris, and R B. Thomas, a
billing clerk, of his having joined the Union He also discussed union organiza-
tion with Henry J Capp, a stockroom employee who was chairman of the
UAW-CIO grievance committee. Harold B. Jenkins, a foreman in the stool:
department, questioned Capp concerning the purpose of Coles' visits to the latter
Capp told Jenkins: "Oh, its about union organization." Jenkins then called
Chief Clerk Waters and informed him that "Coles was spending quite a bit of
time down there (stock department) ".°
On August 20, Waters called five of the office employees into a private office
and questioned them separately concerning the Union and their connection, if
any, with it Nevins was the first to be interviewed Waters asked him if
Coles had approached hun concerning the Union and Nevins replied in the
affirmative, and added, that he had advised Cdles that he was not interested
in a union and that:
I was perfectly satisfied with my relations with the•Ford Motor Company,
but if lie could show me that themajolity of the employees were being
mistreated, I would be willing to cast my vote.
Meek was among, the first of the employees to be questioned by Waters.
Waters advised Meek that he understood that the latter had been attending union
meetings, and "You might as well own up to it because I am going to get to the
bottom of it before I get through " Meek denied having attended any union
meetings He admitted that he had been "approached" and stated that lie would
not tell who had approached him. Duiing this interview Waters stated that
if the Union came into the office "the Dearborn Branch would close this office up "
Meek discussed his transfer from the comptometer job to mail clerk and inquired
as to the "security" of the job lie then held. Waters assured him that his
"chances were good"'
Cole was called in about 11: 00 a in Waters asked him:
1
Why don't you keep your nose out of other people's business. I know
what you are doing; you are trying to get the men to join the union I have
talked to some of them, and they have told me you were behind all of it.
6 Jenkins testified that Coles showed him his union membership cold He fixed the date
of the conversation concerning the card as "around the latter part of August " In view
of the events of August 20, related heidin, the undersigned is of the opinion that Jenkins
saw Coles' union card prior to August 20, since Coles' union membership became common
knowledge in the branch on that day, and so finds
° These findings are based upon Meek's credible testimony Meek impressed the under-
signed as one who wished to and did answer all questions put to him honestly and truthfully
His testuuony was consistent. a nd'remiuned so even at the times when he became somewhat
confused as a result of adroit and extensne cross-examination As found below, Waters,
who admitted having questioned Meek but denied having threatened that the office would
be closed, was not a credible witness
60124S-45-voh 57 116
1826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coles replied that although he had worked 18 and one-half years he had no
feeling of security in his job . He mentioned Meek's demotion and informed
Waters how the other employees felt concerning it, and of their desire for a
"union for security ." Waters became angry and declared , "Coles, I ought to have
fired you last year ." Coles countered with a challenge that all the office
employees be permitted to meet in a room without the presence of any super-*
visors and there, determine ' whether they, desired 'the union or not, whereupon
Waters in a loud voice stated : -"Coles, I will be damned if I will talk to you
another minute," and rushed from the office leaving Coles behind.'
Waters also called Harris and Shuman in during the day and discussed the union
activity with them.'
Following the interviews Coles questioned Meeks " concerning the latter's talk
with Waters . Meeks told him that Waters had said ". ,.. that if we had an
office union that the Dearborn office wouldn ' t stand for it, and that they would
close the Jacksonville Branch " Meeks suggested to Coles that they discontinue
any activity because "Waters won't stand for us working on it any longer. It
looks as though we will have to drop it all." Coles next talked to Shuman con-
cerning his interview with Waters and told him what Meeks had reported. He
asked Shuman if Waters had made similar statements to him. Shuman replied
in the affirmative . Coles then ' asked Phillips what Waters had said to him.
Phillips refused to discuss his conversation with Waters and stated : "You know,
Joe, I am 54 years of age, and I have been with the company 19 years, and if I
should lose my job, I couldn ' t get another one." -
On the night of August 20, Coles called at the homes of Shuman and Harris
in an effort to get them to attend the meeting with the president of the Union.
Both declined , Shuman explaining that he was afraid of being fired . Coles then
prepared and sent a telegram to the respondent 's home office auditing depart-
ment at Dearborn , .Michigan.
",
' These findings are based upon Coles ' credible testimony . Waters' version of this talk
is in substantial accord with that of Coles in many respects `Waters testified , however,
that Coles said he wanted to protect himself fimn retuining servicemen only, and that he
had told Coles that the latter did not have "the right to organize the office on our time."
The record discloses that Coles did refer-to returning servicemen as one of the items he
considered , among others The undersigned does not credit Waters' testimony with refer-
ence to organizing on the respondent's time for the reason that the respondent did not
advise the office employees of any rule against such activity until September 3, 1943.
l8 Neither Harris or Shuman , although shown to have been available , were called as
witnesses.
° GERMAIN AUDITING DEPARTMENT AUGUST 20, 1943.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Dearborn, Mich
WRITER IS MEMBER AF OF L UNION , AM NOW EMPLOYED AT JACKSONVILLE
FORD BRANCH AND HAVE BEEN FOR PAST 18 YEARS BELIEVE IT ADVISABLE
YOU CONTACT WATERS HERE IMMEDIATELY RELATIVE TO STEPS HE HAS
TAKEN , APPARENTLY WITH INTENTION PREVENTING UNION ORGANIZATION
IN LOCAL BRANCH OFFICE. HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE WATERS HAS
COERCED AND INTIMIDATED NUMBER SALARY ROLL EMPLOYES TODAY IN,
RESPECT TO UNION ACTIVITY FOR WHICH THE WRITER TAKES FULL RESPON-
SIBILITY SUCH COERCING AND INTIMIDATING AS YOU KNOW IS GROSS VIO-,
LATION FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IIIIGHTS OF
EMPLOYES FURTHER SUGGEST WATERS BE INFORMED FROM YOUR OFFICE
TO PUBLICLY INFORM ALL MEMBERS IN OFFICE HERE OTHER THAN THOSE
IN SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OF THEIR RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE , HOLD ELECTIONS,
MEETINGS , ETC, AS , PROVIDED IN THE WAGNER LABOR LAWS.
(sgd.) J . B. COLES.
FORD NIOTOR COMPANY 1827
I The next day; August 21, Waters caused all the desks in the main office to be
rearranged in a manner that would place the employees further apart than they
had been before.
Also on August 21, Waters in a telephone conversation with one Briggs,
employed in the auditing department,at the respondent's Dearborn office, advised
him of Coles attempt to organize the office employees. Briggs in turn informed
Waters of the receipt of Coles telegram, above referred to. Waters testified : "I
more or less led Mr. Briggs to believe that everything would be alright." Ac-
cording to" Waters he further advised Briggs that he had transferred Coles' to
a biller.
Waters interviewed other employees on Saturday, August 21, and on 1\Ionday,
August 23. Following the events of August 20, 21, and 23 the employees, with
the exception of Coles, discontinued discussion of organ i zation 10
On August 25, as is discussed more fully below, Coles was demoted from gen-
eral clerk to billing clerk. On or about August 28, Harris and T. B Gissendaner,
traffic clerk, presented Coles with an anti-union declaration in writing and re-
quested him to sign it. Coles refused."
During the afternoon of August 28, R. G. Greenstreet, who had the title of
cashier and was in charge of the office during Waters' absence, called the em-
ployees into an office and advised them in substance that the declaration (some-
times referred to in the record as the "petition") had met with the disapproval
of the UAW-CIO members in the stock department and that he had changed its
form to their satisfaction. He requested the office employees to sign the new
declaration and all except Coles did so. Coles had refused to sign the first form,
and was not invited to the meeting at which the second form was signed. The
10 O. C Davis , an employee subpoenaed as a witness by the Board , was a reluctant witness
and sought to assume responsibility for Waters' having discussed the Union with him.
With reference to the conditions in the office immediately following the events of August
20, 21, Davis testified,
Q. Did you have that same freedom of speech after -August 20th , after Mr. Waters
interrogated the employees?
A. Yes, sir ; we had that same freedom of speech
Q Did you utilize it?
A. Well , perhaps we didn't, because we might have-it might have had a restrain-
ing effect , just on general principles , but there was not-I don 't think there was any
fear that they had, but , you know , just always something comes up.
Q Yes?
A You know, that sounds like, well, it might be all spread some way or the other,
and everybody just naturally closes up that day. They do it in the church work,
too
Q. They closed up down there very much after August 20th , didn't they, Mr.
Davis
A. Well, I would say there was some restraining . On the other hand, there was
some discussion here and there.
Q But it was a guarded discussion wasn't it?
A Well, natuially , because there was distrust among the different ones of the
employees That is right, certainly
"The declaration or statement referred to was in the same language as appears in a
second declaration set forth in the footnote next below , except that in the statement pre-
sented to Coles the woids "any union " appeared instead of "A. F. of L." shown in the sub-
sequent statement . Waters testified that he saw this "paper " on the morning of August
28. It was then in the possession of Harris and T B Gissendaner in a lunch room some
75 to 100 yards from the plant gate. Waters was leaving the plant by car when the
watchman informed him that I -Iariis wished to see hun at the lunch room . Waters testi-
fied that he read . the "paper" and told Harris and Gissendaner that he would see them on
his return to the plant later that day Waters did not return until after business hours
on that day There is no evidence that Waters reprimanded Harris and Gissendaner for
circulating the "paper " or for being absent from the office at this time.
1828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
second form was written on the respondent's stationery and dated August 27,
1.943.12 -
L I Stewart, superintendent of the stockroom was present when the second
"petition" was signed. He told the employees that if the office was ever organized,
"it would come from the office in Dearborn," and that the employees "might as
well forget trying to organize through this office" as they were "too small to,
do so." 13
On September 18, Waters discharged Meek, advising him that he had made a
mistake and "over-staffed" and had to do away with someone Before discharg-
ing him, Waters called the local bank at which. Meek, was employed at the time
he was hired by the respondent on May 26, and either requested or recommended
that lie be given reemployment Meek was reemployed by the bank and at the time
of the hearing was acting as a teller.
The respondent contends that Meek was discharged because of slack business.
Waters admitted and the record shows that Meek was in fact a satisfactory
employee, both as comptometer and 'as mail clerk However, Meek's termination
of service record recommends that Meek does not merit employment in the
future 14 for the reason as stated: "This employee was not satisfactory from a
standpoint of cooperation, due to being discontented with his job." (Emphasis
added } Meek's termination notice was transmitted with a letter which read in
part as follows • "We attach Forin 8d8 Termination, on Joseph V. Meek, mail-clerk,
effective today. While we plan eventually to hire a man to replace Meek, at pres-
ent it is our intention to shift our daily routine work around sufficiently to ab-
sorb this man's work on other desks, temporarily." While the letter also re-
ferred to a former employee as the expected replacement, the record shows that
'Meek's position as snail-clerk was filled by an employee who had not theretofore
been employed by the respondent In view of the contradictory reasons given by
the respondent for the discharge the undersigned concludes and finds that Meek
was really dischaigedl because he engaged in concerted activities and assisted
12 TO THE MANAGEMENT JACKSONVILLE, FLA,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY August $7, 1943.
JACKSONVILLE BRANCH
GENrLEJIEN There has been considerable confusion in the general office during the past
several days due toisonie members of our office foce having been solicited, either directly
or indiiectly, to associate themselves with the A F of L
We. the undersigned, wish-to state that we ate not parties to any of this procedure: we
do not wish-to become affiliated with the A F. of L. and we desire very much that the
distui bed condition incident to such solicitation be terminated
This is a purely voluntary stat.:nient on our part and is not the sesult [sic] of any
solicitation, coercion, nor knowledge of the J[anagenient of the Jacksonville Branch of
the Ford Motor Co
[S] R G Gieenstreet D B Nei in
J G Matthews W J. Brown
H It Shuman 1d O Hariis
J V Meek 0 C Davis
C R McCotter J A Phillips
T B Gissendaner W W. Daniel
R B Thomas
13'1'lus finding is based upon Meek's testimony Stewart when asked several times if he
had made the above statement , testified: "I don't know as I made any ' Statements' I-' 'I
don't believe I made a statement"-" I am pretty sure I did not." Stewart further testa-
fled in substance that if the office was organized that he assumed it would be handed down
from Deai born in the same manner that the UAW-CIO contract had been Under ally the
ciicumstdnces the undersigned credits Meek s testimony above and finds that Stewart made
the statements substantially as testified to by Meek. I
14 Matthews left the comptonietei fob on or about October,1943 and the respondent adver-
tised for a comptonretei operator in a local paper Meeks was not offered reinstatement
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1829
Coles both before and after August 20, in the latter's efforts to organize the office
employees.15
CONCLUSIONS
The undersigned finds that by the acts and conduct of Winters in interviewing
the office employees about their union activities as set forth above; by the acts
of Greenstreet in causing to be prepared and circulated an ant.-Union pledge
and inducing the office employees to sign it, by Stewart stating to the office em-
ployees, on August 28, that if the office were ever organized. such organization
would come from the Dearborn office, and that the employees might as well forget
trying to organize through the Jacksonville Branch of&ce ; by Waters' stating to
Meek that if the Union came into the office, "the Dearborn Branch would close
this office up ;" and by discharging Meek on September 18, 19=,43, the respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B The disorintlnatory demotion and subsequent dischaige of J B Coles
(a) Events leading up to'the demotion and discharge
Coles was first employed by the respondent on April 30, 1925, as a stenographer
at a monthly salary of $125 His salary was increased at the end of 60 days to
$150. Between 1925 and the first part of 1934, Coles worked as a stenographer,
service clerk and sales clerk Eaily in 1934, Coles was, promoted to cashier, a
position which he held until April 1942, when due to ceitain conversions oc-
casioned by the war, the position of assistant chief clerk held by Ross G. Green-
street was abolished and Greenstreet was given the title of cashier. Coles' title
was changed to that of a general clerk As cashier he was paid a base rate
salary of $260 per month, which he continued to draw as general clerk-
While both Greenstreet's and Coles' titles were changed, each continued to
perform his former duties for a considerable time until Greenstreet gradually
assumed some of the duties of cashier, but did not relinquish the duties of assistant
chief clerk The woik in the office diminished and as it did so Coles was assigned
to and performed duties in addition to those of cashier. On occasion he did
stenographic work, teletype operating and billing During all of his service Coles
was under band; had access to the vault and the safe; until early summer of
1943, made up salary rolls and the pay roll for the hourly paid employees in the
stockroom ; and performed other duties of like nature.
As detailed and found above, in August Coles became the active and aggressive
leader in an attempt to organize the office employees. It has been found that the
respondent succeeded in discouraging all of the office employees, except Coles,
from continuing any efforts at organization Coles' action on August 20, in
wiring the respondent's home office protesting Waters' conduct has been described.
On August 25, Coles was advised by Waters that lie was being demoted ig
15 Tl,e complaint alleged no specific discrimination against Meek. However, the parties
litigated the issues concerning his discharge See Wilson, it Co v N. L. R B (Faribault,
,Minnesota, plant), 123 F (2d) 411 (C C A 8). enforcing as modified on matters other
than procedural -In the Matter of Wilson if Co lite, and United Cannery, Agricultural,
1'acl,ing if Allied lVorlers of tinenea, Local No 216, 26 N L It B 273.
16 Waters' testimony as to the date of Coles' demotion is inconsistent and conflicting
Ile testified in substance that an auditor from the home office advised him during July
that inasmuch as Coles was not spending 51 percent of his time on work as a general clerk,
it would be necessaiy to either change his work or reclassify him to another job. Waters
then took the matter up with Assistant Manager Davidson Rho instructed him "to work it
out the best he could " According to waters lie then determined to transfer Coles to a
position of back order clerk, ( a position for which no base pay rate had as yet been
1830 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from a general clerk-to that of a biller at a lower salary , and that his bond
would be canceled . Waters did not advise Coles what his new pay rate would
be. Coles attempted to learn such rate from Greenstreet ,but was advised that
the rate could not be fixed at that time and that his former rate would continue
until further notice. On August 3f, Coles was paid for the pay period from
August 16 to August 31 , at the new and lower rate of $230. This was the first
occasion on which he was advised or learned what his rate as a biller would be.
During the week of August 23 Waters and Greenstreet did 'not speak to Coles
but kept him under constant surveillance . Thereafter Coles, being aware that
he was being watched , would request further assignments from Greenstreet or
Waters whenever he was out of work . As a result of the constant surveillance
Coles made it a practice on and after August 28 to pimch out promptly at quitting'
time. On one occasion he was advised by Waters in the presence of other
employees that working hours were from 8: 30 in the morning until 5: 30 ,in
the evening . Between September 10 and September 20, Waters and 'Green-
street irequent]y found fault with and criticised the amount of Coles' work.
On September 14 Waters , called Coles to the office and told him that he would
have to do more work ; that he was away from his desk too frequently ; and
,that he had timed him and found that he took an hour and a half to 2 hours
on 2 successive days for smoking periods Coles denied taking more time for
smoking than other employees" and told Waters that he resented his accusa-
tion ; and stated that he was performing all the work that he could.
During the latter part of September , Waters told Capp, chairman of the UAW-
CIO grievance committee that he was not going to permit Coles to disrupt his
organization regardless of what steps were necessary , to stop it.
The stockroom employees fill orders from invoices prepared by bilkers. Such
invoices are made up from stock orders sent in by the respondent ' s dealers. These
stock orders fluctuate with the result there are times when the number on hand
established) ; instructed Coles to learn the back order job within 2 weeks ; that on July
29 he learned that Coles had failed to learn the job; and that he then informed Coles
that lie was reducing,him to a biller and if his work did not improve he would discharge
him Coles testified that he could not recall that Waters had made such a statement and
that he did spend several days on the back order job with Nevins, a fact corroborated by
the latter. Waters testified on direct examination that the "Recommendation of Change
in Rate" slip, known as Form 1177 issued in Coles' case was made out on August 16th;
and that such form was made out before lie heard any rumors that Coles was organizing
or attempting to organize the office employees The form was dated August'16, 1943,
but bore evidence that such date had been inserted following an erasure. On cross-exami-
nation Waters admitted that Form 1177 had not been made out on August 16 ; that it had
not been mailed to the Home Office on August 21, when Waters talked with Briggs, and
that it may have been made out and mailed at any time between August 19 to 26. Waters
also stated that the 'erasure and insertion of the August 16 date were made at the re-
spondent's Dearborn office Waters gave no reason for the erasure and changed date
Water s' testimony in other connections was evasive and inconsistent The undersigned
does not, credit his uncorroborated testimony, and finds that Coles was demoted to a biller
on August 25, 1943 The undersigned makes no finding as to when or where the erasure
and insertion of the date of "Aug. 16 on Coles Form 1177 were made, but does conclude and
find the,cliange was made to make it appear that Form 1177 was actually typed before
the respondent knew of Coles' attempt to organize the office employees
17 The record discloses that employees were permitted to smoke at will at a certain
designated place in the yard. Waters testified, however, that Coles went out to smoke
twice as much as other employees; that he timed him on two successive days and found
that he spent over an hour and a half on one day and over an hour and three quarters
on the second day ; and that lie had inadvertently destroyed the record of such time.
Waters' testimony was not corroborated by that of any other witness. Coles testified that
he did not spend more time in smoking than did the other employees He was corroborated
by Meek On the record the undersigned credits the testimony of Coles and Meek, and
finds that Coles spent no more time away from his desk smoking than did the average
employee
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1831
is insufficient to keep the stockroom employees busy. At such times the stockroom
employees perform other but less important duties. It is undisputed that when
sufficient stock orders are available more than one biller is required to keep the
stockroom employees engaged at order filling. On occasions when there are more
-stock ,orders "up front" than there are invoices "in the back" as many as four or
five employees may be assigned to billing.
On September 15, Thomas was taken off his regular job as one of the stock
billers, and all stock orders were thereafter assigned to Coles. There were times
when Coles was unable, without assistance, to bill the orders as rapidly as the.
stockroom force could handle them , This condition continued'untll September
29 On that day Stewart, superintendent of the stockroom complained to Waters
that he had insufficient invoices to keep his force going. Waters then discharged
Coles alleging that he was not getting his invoices out fast enough, and that his
work was not satisfactory. Following. Coles' discharge at least two employees
were immediately assigned to billing invoices.
(b) Contentions and testimony of the respondent as to the demotion and discharge
The respondent contended in effect that it demoted Coles because it had no work
for him other than billing; and that he was discharged because his work was
unsatisfactory.
In support of its defense it introduced testimony to the effect that on or about
June 1942, Coles used a company car without permission and drove it to the nearby
town of St. Augustine; that in March 1943, he neglected his work by spending
too much time in connection with the sale of certain radios purchased from the
respondent.18 The respondent further 'contended that during September 1943
Coles spent more time than other employees away from his desk and in smoking;
that during September 1943 he was responsible for the delays in getting invoices
to the stock department ; and that since his work proved unsatisfactory, he was
discharged on September 29.
CONCLUSIONS
The record discloses that Coles had been employed by the respondent in respon-
sible positions for more than 18 years. The record contains no credible evidence
that before Coles undertook to organize the Union of the office employees his work
was considered unsatisfactory. On the contrary, the fact that he had held the
responsible position of cashier for upwards of 8 years, and received compensa-
tion next to that of Greenstreet, leads to the reasonable conclusion that his work
was satisfactory. As found above, there was no determination to reduce Coles to
the status of a biller until after he undertook to organize the office employees.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that but for his union activities Coles
would not have been reclassified to any position paying less than the amount
which he received as a cashier and as general clerk. The respondent's contention
that Coles' work following his demotion was unsatisfactory is unsupported by
credible evidence. Following his union activities Coles, being aware that he was
being watched, made every effort not to have his work subject to criticism but,
notwithstanding his efforts, the respondent was determined to find an excuse for
his discharge. This is evidenced by the fact that Coles was kept under constant
is The record shows conclusively that during the spring of 1943, the respondent and
Coles entered into an agreement whereby Coles purchased certain car radios and converted
them for use in homes ; that the transaction was beneficial to both the respondent and
Coles ; and that the time he took off was charged against his vacation.
1832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,BOARD
surveillance ; publicly berated for punching out on time ; and was finally assigned
to and required to do all the stock order billing, (a job which normally required
two billers) 'and upon his failing to do such work, the respondent utilized such
"failure" as a pretext for his discharge
The evidence adduced by the respondent's witnesses does not support its
contention that Coles was discliafged'•because of unsatisfactory work 0:1 the
'contrary, the credible evidence fully supports the allegations of the complaint.
The undersigned concludes and finds that Coles was demoted on August 25, 1943,
and was discharged on September 29, 1943, because of his activities on behalf of
the Union and because lie engaged in concerted activity with other employees to
the same end
IV. THE EFFEOF' OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE'
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found ' that the respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of J B Coles thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union . In order to effectuate the policies of the Act it is recom-
mended that the respondent offer Coles immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and that it make him whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practices against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equivalent to that which he normally would
have earned as salary from August 16, 1943 , the date of his demotion , to the date
of offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings 10 during said period.20
While the evidence discloses , as found in Section III A above , that J. V.
Meek was discrinnnatorily discharged , the un(lei s i gned' makes no recommenda-
tions as to him for the reason that such discrim i nation was not specifically
alleged in the complaint , although as found above , the issues connected with
such discrimination were fully litigated by the parties.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record the under-
signed makes the following:
10 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection, with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Biotherliood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill 117orl,ers Union Local 2590, 8 N. L R. B 440. Monies received for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall
be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R. B , 311 U. S. 7
20 The record discloses that Coles registered with the United States Employment Service"
on or about October 7, 1943 , made other efforts to procure employment : and but for the
fact that the, Board may order his reinstatement herein would have received substantially
equivalent employment with the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, whose officials decided'
not to go to the expense of giving Coles special training pending the Board's Decision
herein i
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
0
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1833
1 American Federation of Office Employees, Local Union No. 23133, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of J. B.
Coles, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section S (3) of the Act. '
3 By interfering with, restraining: and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has, engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Ford Motor Company, its agents, succes-
sors and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Office Employees,
Local Union No 23133, athlialed with the American Federation of Labor, or
any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating with regard
to their hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
plo.^ ees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization through representatives
of their own choosing or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to j B Coles inunediate and fall reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position as general clerk without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the said J B Coles for any loss of pay'he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of
a sum of money equivalent to that which lie normally would have earned as a
general clerk with a base salary of $260 per month from August716, 1943, to the
date of offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 2' during said period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about its Jacksonville,
Florida Branch plant and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecu-
tive clays from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2)
that it take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (c)
of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free
to become or remain members of the American Federation of Office Employees,
Local Union No. ' 23133, affiliated with the American_ Federation of Labor ; and
(4) that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because
of membership or activity on behalf of this or any other labor organization
See footnote 19, supra
1834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region within ten (10) days
from the receipt of this Intermediate Report'what steps the respondent has taken
to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in.writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
Any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
hereof, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original
anff four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to this
Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing
of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board'
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and
shall file. a copy with the Regional Director Should any party desire permis-
sion to argue orally before the Board, reques' therefor must be'made in writing-
within ten (10) days from the date hereof.
,
PAR F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 31st day of March 1944.