Fruehauf Trailer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1935

1 N.L.R.B. 68 (N.L.R.B. 1935)

In the Matter of FRUEHAUF TRAILER COMPANY and UNITED AUTOMO-
BILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION No. 19375
Case No. C-2.-Decided December 12, 1935
Automobile Industry-Interference . Restraront or Coercion : espionage; ex-
pressed opposition to labor organization , threats of retaliatory action ; persua-
sion of employees to resign from union-Discrimination : discharge-Reinstate-
ment Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. G. L. Patterson for the Board.
Stevenson, Butzel, Eamen & Long, by Mr. Victor V. Klein, of
Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
Mr. Charlton Ogburn, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Hal H. Smith, of Detroit, Mich., for the Michigan Manufac-
turers Association, intervenor.
Mr. Daniel M. Lyons, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
The National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board,
upon charges duly filed by United Automobile Workers Federal
Labor Union No. 19375, issued and caused to be served upon the
Fruehauf Trailer Company, hereinafter called the respondent, two
complaints, dated respectively October 23, and October 29, 1935.
charging the respondent with unfair labor practices as defined in Sec-
tion 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter called the Act, in that re-
spondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of certain
employees so as to discourage membership in a labor organization
known as the United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No.
19375. The respondent duly appeared and filed a motion to dismiss
and an answer in each case.
The Board ordered the cases consolidated , and on November 6,
7 and 8, 1935, the matter came up for hearing before the Board upon
the complaints, the motions to dismiss and the answers, and upon
the evidence offered by the parties. The Michigan Manufacturers
Association asked for the right to intervene to the extent of filing a
68
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 69
brief and was granted the right to intervene to that extent and did
file a brief.
At the hearing the respondent offered evidence in support of its
contention in its motion to dismiss that the Board was without juris-
diction because the unfair labor practices charged in the complaint
did not occur in or affect interstate commerce. It was stipulated that
the evidence so offered should be received as part of the respondent's
defense in the event that the motions to dismiss were overruled.
After oral argument by Counsel for the respondent, the motions to
dismiss were overruled.
The case was fully heard upon the complaint, the answer, the
evidence, and briefs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
1. The respondent, Fruehauf Trailer Company, is and has been
since February 21, 1918, a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Michigan, and is engaged in the manufac-
ture, assembly, sale and distribution of commercial trailers and of
trailer parts and accessories, including chassis. The trailers manu-
factured by the respondent are vehicles which are designed for the
transportation of merchandise and are extensively used as instru-
mentalities of commerce between the states.
2. The respondent, whose plant and principal office is located in
Detroit, Michigan, is the largest concern of its kind in the United
States. The respondent maintains 31 branch sales offices in 12
different states and has distributors and dealers in the principal
cities of the United States. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the re-
spondent operates in Toronto, Canada where sales are made, and
where considerable assembly work is done with materials obtained
from the Detroit plant and in Canada.
3. More than 50% by value of the materials used by the respond-
ent in manufacture, assembly, and shipping during 1934 were trans-
ported to its Detroit plant from Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and other
states. Most of the lumber was transported from southern states
and most of the finished parts were also transported from states
other than Michigan.
4. In 1934, sales made by the respondent amounted to $3,318,000.
During the same year, its nearest competitor sold only 37% of that
amount. In 1935, the respondent's sales will probably exceed this
figure and its position in the trade will be approximately the same
as in 1934. More than 8017o of the sales are of products shipped
outside the State of Michigan through and to other states and to
foreign countries. In 1932, 1300 trailers built by the respondent
70 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were in use in 16 different states. Between January 1 and Novem-
ber 1, 1935 , 112 carloads of the respondent's products were shipped
to points outside the State of Michigan by railroad , and 400 to 500
trailers with accessories were hauled over the highways by motor
trucks or tractors to points outside the State. During the first ten
months of 1935, 200 trailers were shipped to one customer in Chicago,
Illinois, upon an order to the customer 's specification , for use in a
transportation business which extends beyond the State of Illinois.
5. About 30 chassis a day are finished at the Detroit plant and
80 % of them are started on their way to destinations outside the
State of Michigan.
6. In connection with its interstate sales, the respondent furnishes
service in the determination of customers ' needs and also assists in
the laying out of special construction requirements . Through me-
chanics employed at its branch sales offices , the respondent furnishes
regular service , and also provides for service through its distributors
and dealers.
7. The respondent 's sales of trailers in Canada are accomplished
through its Canadian subsidiary , and its sales in states other than
Michigan are accomplished through its branch sales offices and
through its distributors and dealers . Except when sales are made
from branch sales office stocks, for cash at list prices, sales contracts
are approved by the Detroit office of the respondent . Where sales
are made for installment payments, the credit of the distributor or
dealer is subject to the approval of the Detroit office , and chattel
mortgages or conditional sales contracts are given to secure the pay-
ment. All notes and mortgages are payable to the respondent, and
such paper is negotiated exclusively with the Fruehauf Trailer Sales
Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the respondent.
8. It is a practice of the respondent to "consign " trailers and parts
to distributors and dealers in various states with title retained in
the respondent until payment is made. For example, considerable
merchandise is sent to a distributor in Richmond , Virginia, on such
terms.
9. It is also a practice of the respondent to take title to other
vehicles and to merchandise of various kinds, as part payment for
trailers sold in places outside of the State of Michigan. Articles
so taken by the respondent are shipped to its Detroit plant to be
reconditioned , sold or otherwise disposed of.
10. On some of the materials purchased by the respondent and
shipped to its Detroit plant from outside the State of Michigan, as
found in paragraph 3 hereof, further manufacturing operations are
performed as, for example , the dressing of some lumber, the cutting
of sheet steel , and the turning down of axle forgings . A substantial
part of such materials, however , are received in finished form and
DECISIONS AND ORDERS. 71
no work is done on them in the Detroit plant before they are re-
shipped. For example, tools, brakes, tires, wheels, rims, bearings,
spacer bands, and accessories which the respondent receives from
states other than Michigan are shipped from its factory in Detroit
to its branch sales offices to be used by the respondent's mechanics in
the servicing of customers' needs. In the latter part of 1934 and
the beginning of 1935, fourteen of such shipments were made to
places outside of Michigan on the respondent's own orders.
11. Certain parts, completely manufactured outside of Michigan
and shipped to the respondent's Detroit plant on its order, are there
assembled with other parts, some of which are partially manufactured
by the respondent after having been shipped to it from outside the
state, to make the products then shipped as trailers.
12. After being assembled in the Detroit plant, many of the
trailers shipped by the respondent to foreign destinations, and many
of those shipped to other states, are " knocked down " or disas-
sembled by the shipping department at the Detroit plant before
shipment. Such trailers are then assembled again at or near the-
points of destination.
13. In addition to the mechanics regularly employed at its branch
sales offices for service, the respondent employs traveling mechanics.
who supervise the work of the local service agencies. A substantial
part of the mechanical services rendered by the branches outside the
State of Michigan consists' of changes in construction, weight, or
design. Practically all trailers made for the respondent's stock re-
quire such changes, and when sales are made from the stock of branch
sales offices, the desired changes are made by mechanics employed
by the respondent.
14. One of the chief and very essential operations which are per-
formed on the respondent's product outside the State of Michigan
is the installation of the device known as the "fifth wheel." It is a
device for coupling a trailer to a tractor and is specially designed
by the respondent in four or five different types. The respondent
manufactures about as many "fifth wheels" as it does trailers, and
in any cases the installation is part of the sale. Before most of the,
respondent's trailers can be used, this "fifth wheel" must be at-
tached to the customer's truck or tractor. The installation of the
simplest form of this device requires half a day's work on the part
of the respondent's mechanics.
15. The desire and intention of the respondent, as expressed by
Earl L. Vosler, its vice-president and only witness, is to keep a steady
flow of business from the sources of the raw materials and partially
or wholly manufactured parts used by it, through the Detroit plant
to the various destinations of its finished products, and of the parts.
97571-36-vol 1-6
72 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and mechanical devices which it ships out . The management of the
respondent and all of its operations are designed to accomplish that
intention.
16. To accomplish this objective , the respondent has a planning
department , employing twenty or thirty men , which lays out schedules
for purchase , manufacture , assembly, shipment and sales.
17. All purchases are made on schedules based on a schedule of
work in the factory , and the work schedule in turn is determined by
and based on the sales volume. All of the respondent 's vendors ship
,on the schedule so designed . So closely are purchase , work , and ship-
ment synchronized that on occasion , work or shipment is delayed
until required parts arrive to complete the assembly . Every day
articles of commerce come into the Detroit plant from outside the
State of Michigan, and every day things produced or forwarded by
the respondent move out to various parts of the country.
18. In the operations at the Detroit plant the respondent does not
give a particular group of employees the job of doing work on
trailers , parts, or accessories sold in the State of Michigan and
another group the job of doing work on trailers , parts, or accessories
sold beyond the State of Michigan. They all work together.
19. In trade -mark applications filed in 1924, 1925 , and 1931, the
respondent declared that it uses its trade-mark " in commerce among
the several states" or " in interstate commerce." There is no evidence
that the nature of the respondent 's business is different now than
when such applications were filed.
20. The manufacturing and assembly operations of the respondent
at its Detroit plant are essentially connected with and dependent upon
its purchase , sales, and distribution operations without the State of
Michigan , and these connections and interdependencies are accom-
plished through and make use of commerce between the states and
with foreign countries, and the instrumentalities of such commerce.
II. UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION NO. 19375 AND
RESPONDENT 'S CONDUCT WITH RESPECT THERETO
21. The United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No.
19375, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The Union had been
-organized among the production and maintenance employees of the
respondent 's Detroit plant, and at the time iof the occurrences here-
inafter described included 177 active members and about 100 members
-who at one time or another paid dues and did not usually attend meet-
ings. The production and maintenance men at the respondent's fac-
tory at that time numbered about 400.
22. The respondent had met with representatives of the Union
as long as it was under a legal obligation; to do so under the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 73
National Industrial Recovery Act, and when the legal obligation
under that Act was removed, the respondent no longer felt under
any obligation to meet with such representatives.
23. Early in 1934, the respondent, through a detective agency,
hired a detective, Martin. Mr. Vosler, the respondent's vice-presi-
dent, testified that Martin was " a personnel man as we considered
him." However, there is no doubt that it was Martin's duty, as
Mr. Vosler himself admitted, "to ferret out the union activities
of the men ", and to keep the respondent "informed of what was
going on ". The respondent wanted this information because, as
stated in the testimony of Mr. Vosler : "We do not want trouble
of any kind started in the plant. We wanted to keep a steady flow
of business."
24. For purposes of deception, and in order to make him eligible
for membership in the Union, the respondent gave Martin employ-
ment in the plant. He thereafter joined the Union and eventually
became its treasurer. He was thus able to procure a list of all
the members of the Union. He made reports more than once a
week to the respondent, and the lists of members which he furnished
were given to the respondent's superintendent, Halpin. With these
lists in his hand, Halpin went about the factory from time to time
and warned various employees against union activities. This result
of Martin's activities caused suspicion, unrest, and confusion among
the employees.
25. A sub-foreman named Peterson, who was later discharged,
was urged by Halpin to resign his office in the Union, and work
with Halpin to see that the Union did not gain strength in the
plant. Peterson, who interviewed applicants for work, was also
instructed by his foreman, Rivenbank, to learn from them whether
they belonged to a union or believed in unionism, and was told that
if they did, they would be objectionable.
26. Completely armed by Martin with the necessary information,
the respondent determined to put a stop to all attempts on the part
of its factory workers to form an efficient independent bargaining
agency and in furtherance of that purpose, summarily discharged
nine men, and threatened three others with discharge. Stephen
Sprytzer and Arthur Hillman were discharged before the Act became
effective.
27. As to the remaining seven men who were discharged, the
evidence is found principally in the testimony of the discharged
men and other employees. There was no credible or substantial
contradiction of this testimony. Our conclusions as to the unfair
labor practices charged are reached after a consideration of such
evidence and argument _as were offered by the respondent, who
failed to produce witnesses in its own employ obviously having
74 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knowledge of the facts surrounding these discharges, and who in
its brief does not argue that its conduct did not constitute unfair
labor practices. In every instance the discharge was summary,
taking place during the day and after the men had commenced work.
As to the discharges, we find :
28. Nicholas Trusch was employed as a carpenter in the body
shop of the respondent for five and a half years and had a good
record, no fault ever having been found with his work or conduct.
His foreman, Rosenbusch, asked him on July 15, 1935, " Do you
want your job or your union?" When Trusch replied that he would
not give up the Union, he was discharged between 9 and 10 in the
morning of the same day. The employment manager, Larson,
took him to Superintendent Halpin, who said, " You see you must
stick with the company and not with the union ". When Trusch
said that he would not change his mind, Halpin discharged him.
The only attempt by the respondent to meet Trusch's testimony
was through Mr. Vosler, its vice-president, who, however, testified
that he knew none of the facts surrounding this or any of the dis-
charges, of his own knowledge. The failure of the respondent to
produce the foreman, Rosenbusch, or the superintendent, Halpin,
who were in a position to contradict Trusch's statement, if it could
be contradicted, is significant.
We find that Trusch was discharged for the reason that he joined
and assisted the Union.
29. William Weinmann was hired in May, 1933, and worked as a
carpenter and body builder. On July 13, 1935, his foreman, Rosen-
busch, said to him, "I see you are a union man. Will you consider
dropping out of the Union?" Weinmann's answer was, "No". He
was discharged at noon on that day but was paid off five days later.
There was no credible evidence showing any reason for Weinmann's
discharge other than his activities in the Union. Here again the
failure of the respondent to produce the foreman and superintendent
,it the hearing is significant.
We find that Weinmann was discharged for the reason that he
joined and assisted the Union.
30. Arthur Beck was employed in November, 1934, and worked in
the shipping department. He was shop steward of the Union. On
July 3, 1935, outside of working hours, his foreman, Rosenbusch, saw
Beck receive an application for union membership. Beck was dis-
charged at noon on July 6.
While Beck had had three or four accidents, the last was in Feb-
ruary, 1935, and those on account of -which he lost any substantial
time occurred in 1934. He was not told he was being discharged
because of the accidents, and we are satisfied he was not discharged
for that reason. The failure of the respondent to produce the fore-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 75
span and the superintendent, who knew all about Beck's discharge,
-must again operate against the respondent. Upon all the evidence.
.circumstantial and direct, we find that Beck was discharged for the
-reason that he joined and assisted the Union.
31. Leonard Chaloux was employed June 8, 1933 in the frame
cepartment. He was a member of the Union and was discharged
on July 15, 1935.
The character of Chaloux's work was never criticized. In fact,
.at the time of his discharge, his foreman, Goodell, said that his work
was all right but that he would have to let him go.
Chaloux applied for work five weeks after his discharge, and at
a time when 15 or 20 more nien were working in the department than
at the time of his discharge, Goodell told him that the superintendent
would not have anything to do with him and that the sub-foreman
Schwartz had been told to tell the men not to attend Union meetings.
There is no evidence entitled to any weight that Chaloux was
discharged for any reason other than his union activities and we find
that the respondent discharged and has since refused to reinstate
Leonard Chaloux for the reason that he joined and assisted the
Union.
32. Will'iamz Milne was originally hired in June, 1933, and worked
in the frame department. In April, 1934, he joined the Union. A
short time later, his foreman, Goodell, said to him, "You should leave
that union alone. I am just warning you." In October, 1934, he was
discharged but, with others, was reinstated as the result of a confer-
ence with the old National Labor Relations Board.
On July 8, 1935, at about 9: 30 A. M., Milne was discharged by his
foreman who said to him, "You know what it is all about", and told
him that the order came from "upstairs". A few days later he went
back for his tools and the foreman said, "Bill, I warned you a year
ago about this union business." A week later a man with much less
-experience was employed in his place.
We find that Milne was discharged for the reason that he joined
and assisted the Union.
33. Wollery Coonrod went to work for the company on March 28,
1927, as a fitter, and at one time before his discharge had been a fore-
man on the night shift. He was discharged at 2: 30 in the afternoon
of July 5, 1935, when his foreman, Goodell, told him that he was -being
discharged for "fooling around the danin union." He immediately
interviewed the superintendent who affirmed the statement of the
foreman.
The respondent admits that it has continued to refuse to employ
,Coonrod, and it is so found. The attempt on the part of the respond-
ent to attribute Coonrod's discharge to a reason other than his affilia-
.tion with the Union does not carry weight. We. find that Coonrod
76 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was discharged and has since been refused reinstatement by the re-
spondent for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union.
.34. J. L. Peterson went to work for the respondent May 7, 1927.
He was employed in the assembly division of the service department
and before his discharge had risen to the position of sub-foreman.
At one time he had been a travelling mechanic for the respondent.
In October, 1934, Halpin, the superintendent, sent for Peterson.
After complimenting Peterson on his record, Halpin attempted to,
persuade him to give up his membership in the Union and promised
Peterson that the company would take care of him if he would see
to it that the Union did not gain strength in the plant. In Novem-
ber of the same year, Halpin again offered Peterson a better job
upon the same conditions, and on this occasion also stated that the
company would not tolerate the Union.
On July 8, 1935, afer a meeting of the Union, Peterson announced
in the presence of the detective, Martin, that he was resigning his,
office of recording secretary in the Union. The next morning Hal-
pin, superintendent, told him that the company's vice-president
approved of his stand the previous evening.
On September 27, 1935, Peterson was at the Detroit office of the
National Labor Relations Board for an interview with the Regional
Attorney of that office. Martin was at the Board's office at the time
and met Peterson as he was leaving the office. The detective agency
through which Martin was employed reported this incident to the-
respondent's vice-president, who in turn reported it to Halpin. On
October 10, at about 9: 30 in the morning, Peterson was discharged.
There was an attempt on the part of the respondent to explain
Peterson's discharge because of a mistake he had made in his work..
However, in view of Peterson's obvious efficiency and excellent record,
we cannot find that he was discharged for this reason. The dis-
charge of Peterson was made because of his union activities, the
crowning offense in the eyes of his employer being that he conferred-
with an attorney of the National Labor Relations Board. We find
that the respondent discharged Peterson for the reason that he joined-
and assisted the Union.
35. On or about July 8, 1935, Halpin, holding in his hand a list
of badge numbers of the employees of the factory, which list was
one of those furnished by Martin, threatened Richard McClure, John
Beethway, and one other unidentified employee with discharge if
they did not give up their union activities. We find on this evidence-
that the respondent on that date threatened to discharge the men.
so named and described, for the reason that said employees had=
joined and assisted the Union.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 77
36. Stephen Sprytzer and Arthur Hillman, president and vice-
president of the Union , respectively , were discharged by the re-
spondent on July 2, 1935 , for the reason that they joined and assisted
the Union . Since these discharges took place before the Act became,
effective , the Board has no jurisdiction , and we so find.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE DISCHARGES
37. The result of the discharges of the above -named employees
was resentment on the part of the members of the Union who believed
the discharges to be due to the union activities of the discharged
men. After five of the men had been discharged , a special meeting
of the Union was held on July 8th, at which about 100 men were
present. A strike was discussed and a vote was taken in which 67
votes were cast, 35 being in favor of a strike. Because of the rule,
of the Union requiring a two-thirds vote, a strike was not ordered.
Martin, who was now treasurer of the Union , was one of those speak-
ing against a strike. The influence which he exerted on behalf of
the respondent affected the result of the strike vote.
38. Before the meeting of July 8th , the officers of the Union sent
a telegram to the respondent requesting a. conference . The telegram
was received but not answered . The reason advanced by the re-
spondent for ignoring the telegram is that it stated that the Union,
represented all the employees and that this was an " exaggeration."
We do not feel this convincing , particularly in view of the fact that
after the meeting of July 8th a group of Union officers called on the
respondent 's vice-president , and, after being kept waiting, were told
he was not in but that he would call them. He did not do so. This
was regarded by the men as a refusal to meet the representatives of
the Union.
39. A further result of the discharges was that the members of
the Union were coerced and restrained from any attempt to organize
for collective bargaining. As the president of the Union put it,
"After I get fired they would pick one out here and there, and we
could not get a bargaining agency to go and see them."
40. The respondent admits that industrial strife in its plant would
substantially affect its operations , and any lack of harmony among
the employees would cause a slowing up of the work , as a result of
which goods would stop coming into the factory from other states,
and products would stop going out.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
41. By each and all of the discharges and threats so found to have
been made, and by the employment of the detective , Martin, for
78 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the purpose of espionage within the Union in the manner aforesaid,
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
42. By each and all of the discharges so found to have been made,
the respondent did discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of
employment, and has thereby discouraged membership in a labor
organization known as the United Automobile Workers Federal
Labor Union Local No. 19375.
43. The aforesaid acts of the respondent occurred in commerce
between the State of Michigan and several other states, and between
the State of Michigan and the Dominion of Canada. The employer
and employee relationship which is subject of these complaints arose
in connection with an enterprise conducted by the respondent which
is a continuous and carefully synchronized combination of purchase,
assembly, manufacture, distribution, and sale constituting a great
interstate movement, from which local incidents, intrastate if taken
alone, cannot be separated. Many articles received at the Detroit
plant are merely forwarded, many others merely assembled with
articles partially manufactured there and forwarded unchanged and
unattached. Further manufacture and assembly at points of destina-
tion outside of the State of Michigan is common. The enterprise in
which the relationship arose between the respondent and the em-
ployees concerned in these charges is, taken as a whole, an interstate
commercial enterprise, in forwarding the movement of which these
employees were engaged.
44. Any cessation or obstruction of operations at the respondent's
Detroit factory necessarily has a direct, material and substantial
effect in burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce between the State of Michigan and foreign countries, be-
tween the State of Michigan and the 12 other states in which the
respondent maintains branch sales offices, and other states in which
it sells and to which it ships for sale trailers, trailer parts, and
accessories, and in which it performs manufacturing and assembly
operations necessary to the completion of its manufactured product,
and commerce and the free flow, of commerce in manufactured prod-
ucts and accessories between the respondent's Detroit plant and
Toronto, Canada.
45. The aforesaid acts of the respondent caused unrest and con-
fusion among the employees in the respondent's Detroit plant, which
had the effect of burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce between the State of Michigan and foreign coun-
tries, between the State of Michigan and the 12 other states in which
the respondent maintains branch sales offices, and other states in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 79
which it sells and to which it ships for sale trailers , trailer parts,
and accessories , and in which it performs manufacturing and assem-
bly operations necessary to the completion of its manufactured prod-
uct, and commerce and the free flow of commerce in manufactured
products and accessories between the respondent 's Detroit plant'and
Toronto, Canada.
46. The aforesaid acts of the respondent led to confusion , resent-
ment, and bitterness among the respondent 's employees , and tended
to lead to a labor dispute burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce between the State of Michigan and foreign
countries , between the State of Michigan and the 12 other states
in which the respondent maintains branch sales offices , and other
states in which it sells and to which it ships for sale trailers,
trailer parts and accessories , and in which it performs manufac-
turing and assembly operations necessary to the completion of its
manufactured product, and commerce and the free flow of commerce
in manufactured products and accessories between the respondent's
Detroit plant and Toronto , Canada.
47. Interference by employers with the activities of employees
in forming or joining labor organizations results and tends to result
in labor disputes and other forms of industrial unrest which burden
and obstruct commerce and the free flow of commerce.
48. Upon the basis of the foregoing , the Board finds and concludes,
as a matter of law :
(a) The respondent , by discharging Nicholas Trusch, William.
Weinmann , Arthur Beck, Leonard Chaloux , William Milne , Woolery
Coonrod, and J. L. Peterson , and each of them, by threatening to dis-
charge Richard McClure, John Beethway , and one other unidentified
employee with discharge if they did not give up their union activities,
and by the employment of a detective for the purpose of espionage
within United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No. 19375,
as set forth above, interfered with, restrained , and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, and engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 , subdivision ( 1) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act;
(b) the respondent , by discouraging membership in the labor or-
ganization known as United Automobile Workers Federal Labor
Union No. 19375 by discharging Nicholas Trusch , William Wein-
mann, Arthur Beck, Leonard Chaloux , William Milne, Woolery
Coonrod, and J. L. Peterson, and each of them, said discharges con-
stituting discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment,
as set forth above, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
SO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
division (3) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Fruehauf Trailer Company, and their officers and
agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist (a) from discharging or threatening to dis-
charge any of its employees for the reason that such employees have
joined and assisted United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union
No. 19375, and have engaged in concerted activities for their, mutual
aid and protection; (b) from employing detectives, or any other per-
sons, for the purpose of espionage within the United Automobile
Workers Federal Labor Union No. 19375; and (c) from in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in United Auto-
mobile Workers Federal Labor Union No. 19375, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Nicholas Trusch, William Weinmann, Arthur Beck,
Leonard Chaloux, William Milne, Woolery Coonrod, and John L.
Peterson immediate and full reinstatement, respectively, to their for-
mer positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
.and privileges previously enjoyed ;
(b) Make whole said Nicholas Trusch, William Weinmann, Arthur
Beck, Leonard Chaloux, William Milne, Woolery Coonrod, and John
L. Peterson for any losses of pay they have suffered by reason of
their discharge, by payment of a sum of money equal to that which
each, respectively, would normally have earned as wages during the
period from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of
reinstatement, computed at the wage rate each was paid at the time
of discharge;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 81
(c) Post notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout
its Detroit plant, stating that the respondent has ceased and desisted
as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order, and stating that
such notices will remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30)
consecutive days from the date of posting.
And it is further ordered that-
4. The complaint be, and hereby is, dismissed with respect to the
,discharges of Stephen Sprytzer and Arthur Hillman.