Illinois Tool Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1181 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
& MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., LOCAL 1114
Case No. 13-C-2373.-Decided February 19,194
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 12, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report, briefs, or
requests for oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
were thereafter filed with the Board. The Board has reviewed
'the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the entire
record in the case. As previously noted, the respondent has filed
no exceptions to the Intermediate, Report. The Board, accordingly,
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
THE REMEDY
In a prior prceeding 2 the Board has found that the respondent
by varying methods has engaged in unfair labor practices. The re-
spondent's persistent attempts to defeat self-organization among its
employees culminated in the instant case in the discriminatory dis-
charge of employee Louis Friedman, conduct which "goes to the very
heart of the Act." 3 The respondent's anti-union background and the
entire record in the instant case convinces us, and we find, that the
'By a document styled "Erratum In Intermediate Report, " dated November 29, 1945,
the Trial Examiner corrected an inadvertent error in the Intermediate Report
platter of Illinois Tool Works and Amalgamated Machine, Tool & Die Local 1114-
United Elects ical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. 1. 0 61 N L . It. B 1129
^N L R B v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F (2d) 532, 536 (C C A. 4) , see
also N L R B . v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co , 116 F ( 2d) 350, 353 (C C A
7), where the Court observed , " No more effective form of intimidation , nor one more
violative of the N. L. R Act can be conceived than discharge of an employee because he
joined a umpn. . .
65 N. L. R. B., No. 202. 1181
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent has displayed an attitude of opposition to the purposes
of the Act. 4 Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct, and the
underlying purpose manifested thereby, we are convinced that the un-
fair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair
labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that danger of their com-
mission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's con-
duct in the past.' The preventive purposes of the Act will be
thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. Like the
Trial Examiner, we shall therefore order the respondent to cease
and desist not only from the unfair labor practices herein found, but
also from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. In addition, we shall order the respondent to
take the affirmative action recommended by the Trial Examiner.
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, Illinois Tool Works, Chicago,
Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 1114, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in re-
gard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition
of employment;
(b) Discriminating against any employee because he has given testi-
mony under the Act;
(c) 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 United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 1114, or any other labor
organization, 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Louis Friedman immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges;
4 N. L. R. B. v. Bradley Lumber Company of Arkansas, 128 F. (2d) 768 (C. C. A. 8).
1 See May Department Stores Company v. N. L. R. B., 66 S . Ct. 203. 1
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1183
(b) Make whole Louis Friedman for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings during said period;
(c) Post at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representa-
tive, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
ERRATUM IN INTERMEDIATE REPORT
A paragraph having inadvertently been omitted from the Recom-
mendations contained in the Intermediate Report issued in the above
entitled matter by the undersigned on October 12, 1945, Part 2 of
such Recommendations is now corrected to read as follows :
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Louis Friedman immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Louis Friedman 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 equal to the amount which he
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimina-
tion against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during said period;
(c) Post at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A". Copies of-said notice, to be
6 Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER" and
substituting in lieu theerof the a ords "A DECISION AND ORDER "
679100-46-vol. 65-76
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this amended Inter-
mediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply.
therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days
from the date of the receipt of this amended Intermediate Report,
the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will
comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor
Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
In view of the amendment of the Intermediate Report, any party
or counsel for the Board may within fifteen days from the date of the
receipt hereof file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washing-
ton 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the amended Intermediate Report or
to any part of the record or proceedings (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 upon each of the par-
ties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Should any
party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days
from the date of the receipt of this amended Intermediate Report.
FREDERIC B. PARKES, 2ND,
Trial Examiner.
Dated November 29, 1945.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert T. Drake, for the Board.
Mr. Erwin W. Roemer, of Chicago, Ill , for the respondent.
Miss Florence L. Atkinson and Mr. Thomas M. 31eKenna, of Chicago, Ill., for
the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge duly filed by United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, C I. 0., Local 1114, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Acting Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated June
30, 1945, against Illinois Tool Works, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent,
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1185
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4)
and Section -2 (6) and (7) of the' National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) on or about March 31, 1944, discharged Louis Friedman
and has thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him for the reason that. he
joined and assisted the Union, engaged in concerted activities with other of the
respondent's employees, and appeared and gave testimony before a Trial Exam-
iner of the Board on March 8, 1944, in Case No. 13-C-2147, in which the respondent
was concerned; 1 and (2) by the foregoing conduct engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on July 24, 1945,
before Frederic B Parkes, 2nd, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel and the Union by official representatives. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the close of the hearing the undersigned granted a motion by counsel for
the Board to conform the pleacjings to the proof as to dates and minor variances.
On August 6 and 8, 1945. the respondent and the Union filed briefs, respectively.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Illinois Tool Works, an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business
in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
cutting tools, saws, bits, gears, measuring machines, and other machine tools.
The Company also operates plants at Elgin, Illinois, and Toronto, Canada.'
During the year 1944, it purchased for use at its Chicago plant, metals and
materials valued in excess of $100,000, of which more than 25 percent in value
was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Illinois. During the
same period, the respondent sold finished products valued in excess of $200,000,
of which more than 25 percent in,value was transported to points outside the
State of Illinois. The respondent concedes that it is subject to the Board's
jurisdiction.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1114, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
The hearing in Case No. 13-C-2147, referred to in the complaint, was held
before a Trial Examiner on March 6 to 10, 1944, Louis Friedman, employed by
1 Matter of Illinois Tool Works and Amalgamated Machine, Tool d Die Local 1114-
United Electrical, Radio d Machine Workers of Ameioa, C. I. 0., Case No. 13-C-2147,
61 N L R B 1129
2 The instant proceeding is concerned only with the respondent's Chicago plant, as was
Case No 13-C-2147.
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent from 1921 to 1926 and from 1933 to March 31, 1944, testified as
a witness for the Board at that hearing and was present during the first three-
days thereof. The Board in its Decision and Order in that case, dated May 12,
1945, found that the respondent, by discriminatorily discharging Victor Marsich,
had violated Section 8 (3) of the Act and that the discriminatory discharge of
Marsich, the discriminatory lay-off of Thomas McKenna, certain anti-union
statements and conduct, and the promulgation of rules prohibiting the collection
of union dues and solicitation of members on the respondent's premises during
non-working hours were integral parts of a course of conduct pursued by the
respondent which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 3 According to the
Board's official records at the date of this report in the instant proceeding, the
respondent has not complied with the Board's Decision and Order
B The discramenatory discharge of Friedman
Friedman, who had been in the respondent's employ for two periods totalling
16 years, was employed at the time of his discharge as a-turret lathe operator
in the cutter department on the day shift from 7 a. in. to 4: 30 p. in. According
to Friedman's undenied and credible testimony, he was the highest paid employee
in the department.' On August 5, 1942, he joined the Union, and, as a member
of its organizing committee, became one of the Union's most active adherents in
the solicitation of members and the preparation and distribution of leaflets
In Case No. 13-C-2147, the Board found that in November 1942, after the
distribution of the first leaflet by the Union naming the members of its organiz-
ing committee, employees Friedman and Marsich were summoned to the office of
Raymond G. Mulder, general foreman of the cutter department, who told them
that there was to be no union solicitation at any time on the respondent's prem-
ises, that they had been soliciting, and that if they were caught again, they would
be discharged The Board further found that the respondent, in its letter to
employees of April 23, 1943, and in its booklet to employees of May 14, 1943, inau-
gurated a rule againstrsolicitation of members which was unduly restrictive of
legitimate union activities conducted during non-working hours and ordered that
the rule be rescinded.
However, Friedman testified without contradiction and the undersigned finds
that since the hearing in Case No. 13-C-2147, there had been no further inter-
pretation or clarification by the respondent of'the no-solicitation rule; but Fried-
man admitted that from his 3-day attendance at the earlier hearing, he was
aware that the respondent's rules forbade union solicitation during working
hours on company property. He denied having sought to enlist the membership
of any employee during working hours subsequent to the earlier hearing, although
he admitted in his testimony given therein that he had prior to that time solicited
memberships during working hours "on the q. t."
With respect to the events subsequent to the earlier hearing and leading to
his discharge on March 31. 1944, Friedman testified as follows: He continued
his union activities in his free time by distributing pamphlets and union applica-
tion cards and by soliciting memberships. During the last week of his employ-
ment by the respondent, Friedman in this manner enlisted'the memberships of
33 employees in the Union. A day or two after the conclusion of the earlier hear-
ing, Friedman talked in the plant cafeteria to employee George Roschman about
joining the union. During this conversation, Friedman gave Roschman a leaflet
3 See footnote 1, supra.
4 From January 1 to March 31, 1944, Frlendman earned $1,014.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1187
-then being distributed by the Union and some application cards. In Friedman's
opinion Roschman was influential with a group of employees in his section of the
shop and Friedman hoped that by enlisting Roschman's membership, he might
succeed in persuading the entire group to join the Union. According to Friedman,
his next discussion with Roschnian concerning the Union occurred during work-
ing hours on the morning of March 26 or 27, 1944, when Roschman voluntarily
-came over to Friedman's machine' and asked, "How is the union?" Friedman
replied, "It is fine", and a conversation ensued lasting 10 or 15 minutes, during
which they talked of "the good old times" when they "made four dollars a week "
In the course of the conversation, Friedman gave his "union talk" to Roschman.
Friedman explained that his "union talk" consisted of a theory expounded to
the effect that had the employees been organized in "the good old days," they
would have been assured at least a half day's pay on the occasions when they
checked in, but found no work to be done Friedman also indicated that he would
like for a union organizer to meet with Roschman and his group in order to
answer their questions accurately. According to Friedman, he never again spoke
with Roschman other than a greeting of "hello" or "what do you say" in passing.
Without prior warning at 3: 55 in the afternoon of March 31, 1944, Foreman
Mulder ordered Friedman to report to the personnel office Friedman complied
and in the office was told by Mulder in the presence of one Larson, "Louie, of all
the people, you should know the rules of the company." When Friedman in-
quired, "What was the matter?" Mulder replied that Fiiedman was "fired for
soliciting union members" during working hours Friedman denied that he had
engaged in such activities and inquired who had so informed Mulder and
the time the alleged solicitation had occurred. Mulder refused to give any
information. Friedman was requested to sign a discharge slip giving as the
reason for discharge, "Discharged because of soliciting membership in the union
during working hours, contrary to the published rule of the company " Friedman
signed but beneath his signature wrote a denial of the alleged reason given for
discharge.
In regard to the conversations in question, Roschman testified that during
working hours on the morning of March 26 or 27, 1944, as Roschman was walking
vp an aisle in the vicinity of Fi iedman's machine en route to the washroom,
Friedman beckoned for Roschman to come to Friedman's machine and the fol-
lowing conversation ensued :
I just asked him how the union was coming along. He said it was good, and
we talked about what our pays were back a few years . . . And we talked
about the union, and . . . he asked me if I was going to sign up with him, and
it was he who decided that I was a little leader of a small group back at the
other end of the shop-it wasn't myself that made that decision. He thought
that I had pretty fair control over the boys at the other end of the shop, and
I didn't disagree or agree with him ... I told him there was quite a few
questions that I couldn't understand, as to how the union ran and operated,
and he said he couldn't answer all of them, but if I got the boys together,
that Louis Friedman would get an organizer and he would be more than glad
to answer all the questions so we would be satisfied.
According to Roschman, he was given 4 or 5 application cards by Friedman during
this conversation. Roschman denied that he ever told any management repre-
sentative about the colloquy above set forth.
Roschman testified that he had a second conversation with Friedman on March
31, 1944, about 8 :15 or 8 :30 a. in, during working hours, when Friedman came
6 Friedman and Roschman worked on machines about 140 feet apart.
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the tool crib in the vicinity of Roschman's machine. According to Roschman,
Friedman inquired, "Are you ready to sign ?," referring to the union application
card, and a discussion ensued for 8 or 10 minutes in which Friedman "talked for
the union" and Roschman repeated as he had before that he "couldn't see it, and'
unless things got a little cleared up" he would not be interested in joining. They
also talked about general plant affairs.
Roschman testified that upon ruining 3 pieces of equipment shortly after the
above conversation, he told his immediate supervisor, Jerry Quirk, "This looks
like my bad day . . . I spoiled three jobs, and I am going home." A few minutes
later Assistant General Foreman Edward Fabisch came over and Roschman,
according to his testimony, told Fabisch of the work spoilage and his decision to,
go home for the day. Roschman testified that Fabisch stated that he had "seen
me talking to Lou Friedman" and "wanted to know what the discussion was
about ;" that Roschman replied that Friedman had asked him "to sign up ;" and
that they had a discussion about the Union.
From the testimony summarized above, it is thus clear that Roschman and
Friedman are in substantial agreement as to the colloquy occurring on March
26 or 27, 1944. Friedman, however, insisted that he gave application cards to
Roschman in the plant cafeteria several days before this conversation ; but
Roschman testified on cross-examination by Board's counsel that he received
them during the course of the March 26 conversation. Friedman denied that the
March 31 conversation with Roschman occurred as testified to by the latter.
Roschman impressed the undersigned as an intelligent forthright witness whose
testimony is entitled to credence. Friedman, on the other hand, was particularly
vague in recalling the lay-out of that portion of the plant in which he had worked
and the undersigned was not impressed as to the accuracy of his testimony as a
whole. As to the date the application cards were given Roschman, it is reason-
able to assume that they would have been given Roschman during the conversa-
tion of March 26 or 27 when they were talking of the group of employees to whom
Roschman was allegedly a counselor. The undersigned finds that they were
distributed during that conversation. The undersigned cannot accept Friedman's
testimony that nothing occurred on March 31 to motivate his discharge Cer-
tainly, Roschman did not appear to the undersigned to be the type of person
who would have fabricated the incident in order to precipitate Friedman's dis-
charge. The undersigned credits Roschman's testimony and finds the conversa-
tions between Roschman and Friedman occurred as testified to by Roschman.
C. Conclusions
The incidence and, circumstances surrounding Friedman's discharge are iden-
tical in pattern to those involved in the discharge of Victor Marsich, who the
Board found in Case No. 13-C-2147 was discriminatorily discharged on April 30,
1943, for allegedly soliciting union memberships during working hours. As noted
above, only once, in the fall of 1942, were Marsich and- Friedman R arned by
Foreman Mulder that they would be discharged if they solicited union member-
ships on the respondent's premises. Like Marsich, Friedman was discharged upon
information given as to only one incident of alleged solicitation, namely, the
conversation with Roschman on March 31, 1944 e In both cases, the respondent
had not been informed at the time of the respective discharges of earlier incidents
possibly violative of the no-solicitation rule.
6 As previously noted , Friedman had testified at the earlier hearing that prior to that
time he had solicited memberships in the Union during working hours , and the respondent,
of course, had knowledge of such testimony. However, the reason given for Friedman s-
dischaige was confined to the single alleged solicitation of Roschman on March 31.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1189
As in the case of Marsich, the respondent's investigation of the incident was
plainly unfair and incomplete. In both cases, the respondent refused to listen
to the dischargee's version of what had occurred. Had the respondent made an
impartial investigation, it might have concluded that there was no real violation
of the rule; or that it would impose a lesser penalty or none at all. In any event,
the respondent's failure to conduct a fair investigation, viewed in the light of
the Board's earlier finding of the respondent's antipathy to the Union, its at-
tempt to prohibit all solicitation for the Union at the plant, its discriminatory
discharge of Marsich, and its discriminatory lay-off of McKenna, evidences the
respondent's eagerness to rid itself of still another outstanding union adherent
and indicates that the real motive for the discharge of Friedman ivas the
respondent's anti-union animus. That Friedman was an outspoken and active
participant in union affairs was well known to the respondent ; he had been
present during three days of the hearing in Case No. 13-C-2147 and had testified
therein as a witness for the Board, clearly demonstrating that he was one of the
most active union adherents. That the respondent was searching for an excuse
to discharge him is revealed by the fact that Assistant General Foreman Fabisch
took the initiative in seeking to determine the subject matter of the discussion
between Friedman and Roschman on March 31. Furthermore, the record estab-
lishes that Friedman had been in the respondent's employ for 16 years, that he
had never had any complaints about his work, that he was one of the most
skillful employees in his department, and that he earned more than any of the
other employees in his department. It thus appears that his production and
efficiency records gave the respondent no ground for his discharge.
Also noteworthy is the disparity of treatment accorded employee Adam
Kamysz, who, according to the Board's finding in Case No. 13-C-2147, was merely
laid off for a few days for admittedly violating the no-solicitation rule, in con-
trast to the extreme penalty of immediate discharge meted out to Marsich and
Friedman. The Board's finding of real disparity of treatment between Marsich
and Kamysz is equally applicable to Friedman. Only one warning against solici-
tation was given either Friedman or Marsich, as compared with two or three
such warnings accorded Kamysz ; the warning to Friedman was given almost
a year and a half before his discharge, whereas all warnings to Kamysz were
given within 1 month prior to his lay-off ; and as previously noted, Kamysz
clearly admitted to the respondent his violation of the no-solicitation rule,
immediately prior to his lay-off, while there was no, such admission by Friedman
at the time of his discharge.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, the undersigned finds
that the respondent discharged Friedman because of his union membership and
union activities. The undersigned infers and finds that an additional reason
for Friedman's discharge was that he had given testimony before a Trial Exam-
iner of the Board on March 8, 1944, in Case No. 13-C-2147. By thus discrimi-
nating against Friedman, the respondent has violated Section 8 (3) and (4) of
the Act and has discouraged membership in the Union and interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act .7
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
7 Matter of Shell Oil Co, 34 N. L. R B. 866, enf'd 128 F (2d) 206 (C C. A. 5) ; Matter
of American Smelting & Refining Co., 34 N. L. R. B 968, enf'd 128 F. (2d) 345 (C. C. A. 5)
Matter of May Department Stores Co, d/b/a Famous-Barr Co., 59 N. L. R. B. 976.
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 ana
take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent has discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Louis Friedman. The undersigned will
therefore recommend that the respondent offer Friedman immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or, substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. He will further
recommend that the respondent make whole Louis Friedman for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him,
by the payment to Friedman of a sum of money equal to the amount which. he
would normally have earned as wages from March 31, 1943, the date of such
discrimination, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings,'
during such period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C I 0., Local 1114,
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 Louis
Friedman, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act; and by discriminating against Louis Friedman for
the reason that he testified at a hearing conducted under the provisions of the
Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (4) 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 affecting
commerce, 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, Illinois Tool Works, Chicago, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from':
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America, C. I. 0., Local 1114, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other man-
s By""net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his un-
lawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R B. 440 Monies received for work per-
formed 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.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 1191
ner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment;
(b) Discriminating against any employee because he has given testimony under
the Act ;
(c) 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 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0,
Local 1114, or any other labor organization 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 guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Louis Friedman 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 equal to the amount which. he would normally have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings a during said period ;
(b) Post at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respond-
ent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within
ten (10 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respond-
ent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respond-
ent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32
of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report`or to any other
part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief
in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy
upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring, the case to the
Board.
9
FREDEmc B PARKEs, 2ND,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 12, 1945-
" See footnote 8, supra.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in' any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor or-
ganizations , to join or assist United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of
America, C. I O., Local 1114 or any other labor organization, 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.
We will offer to the *employees named below immediate and -full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Louis Friedman
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization, and will not discriminate against any employee because of his
appearance as a witness in any proceeding of the National Labor Relations Board.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By------------------------------------------
(Repiesentative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.