The Triplett Electrical Instrument Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 835 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of THE TRIPLETT ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENT COMPANY,
THE DILLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF READRITE METER WORKS and UNITED ELEC-
TRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 714
Cases Nos. C-211 and R-175.-Decided March 7, 1938
Electrical Instrument and Radio Testing Equipment Industry-Interference,
Restraint, and Coercion : closing plant and threatening to move it; issuing
handbills to that effect-Domination of and Interference with Compang/ Union:
suggesting organization of ; organization by supervisory and clerical employees ;
reinstating only company-union members after lock-out-Discrimination: lock-
out ; refusals to reinstate ; discharges-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay:
awarded to all employees from date of lock-out until reinstatement ; to discharged
employees-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees except
foremen, subforemen, office, clerical, and supervisory employees in two plants
of employer-Representatives : applications for membership in union-Collective
Bargaining : refusal to recognize union as exclusive representative ; recognizing
company union as exclusive representative-Petition for Certification : dismissed
because of order to respondents to bargain.
Mr. Christopher W. Hoey and Mr. Jerome Macht, for the Board.
Mr. H. O. Bentley, of Lima, Ohio, for the respondents.
Mr. F. W. Durbin, of Lima, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. James B. Pascoe, of Cleveland, Ohio, for United Electrical and
Radio Workers of America.
Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed on March 19, 1937, and amended on May fi
and June 9, 1937, by United Electrical and Radio Workers of Amer-
ica, Local No. 714, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by Ralph A. Lind, Regional
Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its com-
plaint dated May 25, 1937, against The Triplett Electrical Instrument
Company, Bluffton, Ohio, herein called the Triplett Company, and,
on June 14 1937, issued -and duly served an amended complaint against
the Triplett Company and The Diller Manufacturing Company, doing
business under the firm name and style of Readrite Meter Works,,
835
X36 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bluffton, Ohio, herein called the Readrite Company, alleging that
the Triplett Company and the Readrite Company, herein collectively
called the respondents, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On May 6, 1937, the Union filed with the Regional Director for
the Eighth Region a petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the
Triplett Company and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On May 11,
1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and au-
thorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing. On June 9, 1937, the Union filed an amended
petition alleging that a question concerning the representation of
employees of both respondents had arisen. On June 11, the Board
issued an order consolidating the complaint and representation cases
for purposes of hearing.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended,
alleged in substance that all of the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the respondent, exclusive of clerical and supervisory em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining; that a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit
had, on March 16, 1937, and at all times subsequent thereto, designated
the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that the respondents did then refuse and have at all
-times since refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the appropriate unit; that the respond-
ents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization by publishing statements
'threatening to close their plants and by closing their plants on March
15, 1937, for the purpose of intimidating, coercing, and restraining
their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;
that the respondents discharged Louis Allman, Mark Garmatter, Har-
ley Kohler, and Russell Amstutz, on April 23, 1937, Raymond Holden
on'May 18, 1937, and Charles McGinnis on May 19, 1937, because they
joined and assisted the Union; that the respondents refused to rein-
state approximately 75 employees on April 1,. 1937, unless and until
they joined the Committee of 17, thereby encouraging membership in
the Committee of 17; that the respondents suspended the following
persons for varying lengths of time because they joined and assisted
the Union : Gale Scoles for two weeks on May 15, 1937; Earl Hilty,
Charles Steiner, and Ross Irwin for three days on May 20, 1937; Glenn
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 837
Slusser for one week on May 20, 1937; Ralph Diller for one week on
May 22, 1937; and Lester Hahn for two days on June 7, 1937; that the
respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of labor organizations of their employees known as the
TR Club, the Committee of 17, and The Bluffton Electrical Associa-
tion, Inc., herein called the Association, and contributed financial
and other support to them; that the respondents by the acts above-
enumerated have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
No answer to the complaint was filed by the respondents.
Pursuant to notices of hearing duly served upon the respondents,
the Union, and upon Richard Schumacher, the representative of the
TR Club and the Committee of 17, a hearing was held at Lima, Ohio,
on June 17 to 23, 1937, before James C. Batten, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Union, and the
respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. During the hearing counsel for the respondents moved for a
continuance to enable him to have a subpena issued to secure the tes-
timony of Ralph A. Lind, the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region, in regard to an agreement entered into between R. L. Triplett,
president of the respondents, and Lind for the reinstatement of the
Union members on April 22, 1937. This motion was renewed at the
close of the hearing and was denied by the Trial Examiner. The
Trial Examiner granted the parties permission to file briefs, but no
briefs were filed.
On August 3, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, which was duly served on the respondents, the Association, and
the Union. The Intermediate Report found that the respondents
had engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and
recommended that the respondents cease and desist from such unfair
labor practices, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of their employees, and offer reinstatement to the discharged
employees.with back pay. Exceptions to the findings of the Interme-
diate Report were subsequently filed by the respondents.
On November 10, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 10 (b)
of the Act and Article II, Section 7, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, issued and duly
served on the parties an amendment to the amended complaint for the
purpose of conforming the allegations to the proof as adduced at the
hearing. No answer to the complaint as amended was filed and no
additional hearing thereon was requested for the purpose of present-
ing evidence thereon.
Pursuant to notices duly served upon the parties a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument on the respondents' exceptions was held
838 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before the Board in Washington, D. C., on November 30, 1937. The
respondents were represented and participated in the argument.
' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
objections to the introduction of evidence and on the motion men-
tioned above and finds no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the respond-
ents' exceptions to the findings of the Intermediate Report, and,
except to the extent that the findings below depart from those of the
Trial Examiner, finds the exceptions without merit.
Upon the entire record in both cases, the Board makes the fol-
lowing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Triplett Electrical Instrument Company, an Ohio corpora-
tion, and The Diller Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation,
doing business under the trade name and style of Readrite Meter
Works, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical measur-
ing instruments and radio-testing equipment. Their principal office
and place of business is in Bluffton, Ohio. The respondents have
interlocking directorates and are run as one concern with common
management and a common general office. R. L. Triplett is the pres-
ident of both respondents.
The respondents employ approximately 300 persons. For the year
ending April 30, 1936, the Triplett Company did a gross business of
$553,444.73 and the Readrite Company did a gross business of
$205,047.39.
The materials used by the respondents are brass, steel, aluminum,
celluloid, copper wire, and duraluminum, 65 per cent of which are
imported from outside of Ohio. The respondents ship 90 per cent
of their finished products out of Ohio. Branch sales offices are main-
tained in 30 foreign countries and in 17 principal cities of the United
States.
II. THE UNION
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 714,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
respondents . It is a local of a national union affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Bluffton, Ohio, is a city of approximately 2,500 persons, located
about 20 miles from Lima, Ohio. The respondents are the chief
employers there, aside from the usual retail establishments and a.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 83911
glove factory employing about 60 persons. No union had ever been,
organized in Bluffton before March 1937.
At that time Louis Allman, a subforeman in the respondents'
plating room, started to organize the Union. The first meetings were-
merely informal gatherings at Allman's home. This beginning of
union activity in Bluffton attracted a great deal of attention among-
its citizens. The movement eventually came to the notice of R. L.
Triplett, president of the respondents. As a result, he called a meet-
ing of the male employees to discuss the situation.
The meeting was held in the laboratory of the plant at 131 a. m. on,
March 11. Triplett commented upon the falling off in, the quality
and quantity of production in the factory and the unprecedented;
fact that a so-called "outside" union was being organized in the plant.
He pointed out that in his opinion an "inside" union would- be more
to their interest. He then requested Louis Allman to give them some
information about the "outside" union. Allman refused to say more
than that anyone who wanted any information could contact him at.
his home. Triplett then asked for a viva voce vote on the question.
of an "inside" or an "outside" union. When no one ventured to vote
against the idea of an "inside" union, Triplett appointed a committee
to carry out the organization of such a group. This committee con-
sisted of Richard Schumacher, an employee described by Triplett,
as one who, though he attended foremen's meetings, had no super-
visory duties, but who, the Union claims, is a clerical employee;
Harry Triplehorn, an employee in the plant; and George Klay, the.
superintendent of the machine shop. After making these appoint-
ments, Triplett left, and the supervisory employees, at his suggestion,
left with him.
A new vote on the previous question was then taken by secret
ballot. Of the 95 employees remaining 73 voted for an "outside"
union, 11 for an "inside" union, while 11 refrained from voting.
That afternoon, Allman, meeting Triplett in the hall and again in,
the latter's office, told Triplett that he was proceeding with the or-
ganization of the Union, but that he would personally guarantee
there would be no trouble.
After the laboratory meeting, the plant and city of Bluffton hum-
med with discussion of the Union and its probable method of action.
Rumors of every sort were prevalent, but one concerning a sit-down,
strike seems to have been most persistent. Several witnesses testi-_
fled that two or three members of the Union had told them on March
11 and 12 to be ready for a sit-down strike the next week and that
they had reported this to their foreman or subforeman. The men
making these statements were not officers of the Union, however, and'
the statements were in fact made before the Union had any officers
or any organization whatsoever.
80535-38-54
:840 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the evening of March 12, the Union held an organization meet-
ing in the Roland Stratton Building in Bluffton. New members
were signed up, and officers elected. At that time the Union had 63
-members. Allman was elected president, Earl Hilty, vice president,
William McGinnis, corresponding secretary, and Robert Balmer,
-financial secretary and treasurer.
The next morning, Saturday, March 13, N. A. Triplett, sales man-
ager of the respondents, called Jesse Manges, a member of the Union,
and asked him to come to his office. Manges took Hilty and McGinnis
-with him. N. A. Triplett asked them what the Union's demands were.
They told him that since the Union was newly organized, neither the
Union's demands nor a committee to present them were ready at that
-time. N. A. Triplett asked when the demands and the committee
would be ready and they told him that the demands and the com-
mittee would be ready by the end of the next week. N. A. Triplett
-then informed them that the management was willing to negotiate
and that the Union should present its demands when it had formu-
lated them. The men left after assuring Triplett that there would be
-no trouble in the plants.
On Sunday, March 14, the directors of the respondents had a meet-
ing to discuss the problems raised by the organization of the Union.
The foremen in the plants were called in to discuss the situation.
'They testified at the hearing that they believed a sit-down strike
was then imminent and so informed the boards of directors on
March 14. The testimony of those directors who were called at the
-hearing was that they then decided to close the plants because they
-feared a sit-down strike. They issued a handbill announcing this
decision, which was distributed to the employees upon reporting for
work Monday morning, March 15. This statement is significant, and
'we quote from it :
A crisis has arisen in the management and operation of these,
plants which makes it seem advisable and necessary to close down
all operations indefinitely.
The management feels that our employees will understand
the state of affairs which has made this drastic action
necessary; ...
These Companies now face a labor disturbance among their
employees fostered by outside organizers and sympathizers, but
to which, very much to our surprise, a number of our employees
are subscribing. These Companies will always do the very best
they are able to satisfy reasonable demands of any employee,
but they cannot and will not permit the operations to be taken
over and thereafter dictated and dominated by any alien and
outside influence or authority. If the matter in dispute can be
adjusted satisfactorily by our employees and ourselves, and to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 841
our mutual satisfaction, we shall always be found willing and
reasonable in making such adjustment; until we can have some
assurance and settlement of all differences between us, the plants
will remain closed. If such disposition of the matter cannot be
made, after a fair and free effort to settle all questions between
us, then we shall have finally to decide as a matter of policy
whether the Companies will liquidate their business or remove
their operations to other fields ...1
About this time, March 16, the Committee of 17 began to organize.
Of the original members of the Committee of 17, respondents' Ex-
hibit No. 17 lists Eugene Basinger, Lendon Basinger, and Lloyd
Brauen as subforemen; and Wade Marshall and Arden Baker as
clerical employees, Arden Baker and Richard Schumaker, who was
appointed by Triplett to organize the "inside" union, appear to have
been especially active in the work of this committee. This is dis-
cussed further below.
On March 16 the Union wrote to R. L. Triplett, who had gone to
Chicago on March 15, asking him to meet with it to determine what
could be done to get the plants open. On March 20 Triplett replied
to this letter, stating that until he had completed the research which
he was doing with employers, workmen, customers, and others, affect-
ing future operations of the respondents, he would not be in Bluffton,
but that he could be reached through the respondents' office there.
On March 22, the Union again wrote to Triplett, stating that it had
filed a charge with the Board's Cleveland office and threatening un-
favorable publicity and boycott of goods unless the respondents
bargained with it.
On the same day the Committee of 17 wrote to Triplett, enclosing
petitions signed by a majority of the respondents' employees and
asking Triplett to meet with the Committee and bargain. The letter
stated in part:
The union group has scheduled a meeting for Friday night.
If we can establish contact with you before that time, and an-
nounce that you are willing to bargain with these loyal employees,
we can completely break the other organization.2
This letter was handed to George Klay, the superintendent of the
respondents' machine shop and one of the men appointed by Triplett
to organize the "inside" union at the March 11 meeting. Klay took
the letter and the petition to Chicago and gave them to Triplett.
Triplett replied to the Committee of 17 under date*of March 23,
1937, recognizing the committee as the exclusive representative of the
respondents' employees on the ground that they had obtained the
1 Board Exhibit No. 34.
2 Board Exhibit No. 50-A.
842 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signatures of a majority on their petition. This letter was published
in full in a box on the first page of the Bluffton News for Thursdays
March 25, 1937.3 Triplett never replied directly to the Union's letter-
of March 22, evidently believing that his letter to the Committee of 17-
and the publicity given it in the Bluffton News constituted a sufficient
answer.'
On March 29, the Committee of 17 held an open meeting in the-
American Legion hall in Bluffton. Arden Baker testified that at the
meeting the Committee of 17 demanded an agreement from Triplett
that no one would be taken back upon the reopening of the plants.
unless he signed with the Committee of 17. Triplett at once acceded
to this demand and announced that the plants would open on April 1.
Before the plants opened the Committee of 17, through Arden
Baker and Wade Marshall, had printed and circulated among the.
respondents' employees a handbill entitled, "IF YOU REALLY
WANT TO GO BACK TO WORK SUPPORT `THE COMMIT-
TEE OF SEVENTEEN'."4 One statement in that handbill throws,
light on the so-called "demands" which the Committee of 17 made on
Triplett and to which he "agreed" in order to get its members to come.
back to work :
The committee of 17 assures an immediate re-opening of both
plants, inasmuch as that is the primary purpose of the group
of 157. No other object will stand in the way of resuming work..
[Italics supplied.]
On March 30 a conference was held in the office of the mayor
of Bluffton, attended by James Pascoe, organizer for United Elec-
trical and Radio Workers of America, the Union's executive com-
mittee, Harold Wenger, representing the Committee of 17, Triplett
and Burt Heuvelman, the respondents' sales representative in Chi-
cago, both representing the respondents. At this conference Pascoe
tried to arrange a consent election to be conducted by the Regional
Director of the Board, but Triplett refused to sign the necessary-
stipulation or to give any reasons for his refusal. Triplett tried to
get the Union representatives to agree to an election to be conducted
by the mayor of Bluffton. They declined this proposal, and Triplett
left the conference taking with him Heuvelman and Wenger, the
representative of the Committee of 17.
On March 31 the Union committee met with Triplett to discuss
the terms on which Union members could return to work when the
plant opened on April 1. Triplett told them that they would have to
sign application cards for employment and would also have to
sign with the Committee of 17. When the Union committee reported
8 Triplett is listed on the masthead of the Bluffton News as one of its owners.
4 Board Exhibit No. 39-B.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 843
Triplett's terms to the Union members later in the day they were
at once rejected. The members refused to sign either the application
-card for employment or that for membership in the Committee of
17. They felt that by signing the application card for employment
they would be giving up their seniority rights. At five o'clock
the Union committee again met with Triplett and told him that
the Union would not agree to his conditions. In reply Triplett
stated that Mark Garmatter, one of the committeemen, would not
return to work in any case, although no reason was given for this
decision. Triplett then left, and Wenger and Baker of the Com-
mittee of 17 appeared to announce that Triplett also refused to per-
mit McGinnis, another member of the Union committee to return
sunder any conditions.
On April 1 the plants opened, and Triplett's conditions were
enforced. Approximately 75 Union members failed to return.
A series of conferences with Ralph A. Lind, the Board's Regional
-Director in Cleveland, followed. As a result, on April 15, Triplett
:agreed with Lind to reinstate all of the Union members by April 22
and in return the Union agreed to withdraw the charge against the
-respondents, thereby giving up the claims to back pay for the period
-of the lock-out. This is the agreement on which the respondents'
counsel wished to secure Lind's testimony. Since Lind did not deny
the respondents' statement of its terms, we shall accept their version,
which is that stated above.
On April 16 the respondents' plants closed at four o'clock although
at that time they ordinarily remained open until six o'clock. The
foremen and assistant foremen informed the employees that there
was a meeting in the American Legion hall which they should attend.
All of the supervisory employees attended the meeting. Arden Baker
called it to order, and the mayor of Bluffton and R. L. Triplett spoke
before Baker took over the meeting. Baker announced that the
Committee of 17 was disbanding and that its functions were to be
taken over by The Bluffton Electrical Association, Inc., herein called
the Association. Applications for membership in the Association
were passed out, signed, and returned. Triplett was present through-
out the meeting.
On April 19 the articles of incorporation for the Association were
signed by Eugene Basinger, Arden Baker, and Richard Schumacher,
and on April 26 they were filed and recorded in 'the office of the
Secretary of State of Ohio.
By April 22 all of the Union members had been put back into the
-plant in performance of the agreement between the respondents and
Lind. On April 23 four of the Union men were discharged, under
circumstances discussed below, in violation of this agreement.
844 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At this time the respondents posted new shop rules throughout
the plant. The rules, among other things, forbade talking during
working hours and moving around the plant even on business. They
were to be enforced by the shop discipline committee of the Associa-
tion or by the foremen or other supervisory officials. Members of
the Union claim the rules were enforced only against them and not
against the members of the Association.
The above facts show that the respondents adopted an antiunion
policy when the news of the organization of a labor union among
their employees came to their attention. Triplett's remarks at the
meeting which he called in the laboratory left no doubt in anyone's
mind that he and the respondents were opposed to outside labor
unions. Such a statement of policy by an employer is sufficient to
intimidate persons who are dependent upon him fof their livelihood
and who have little or no chance of securing employment elsewhere
in the community if they lose their jobs with that employer. There
need be no out-and-out threat of termination of employment.
The handbill issued by the boards of directors of the respondents
on March 15 finally dispelled whatever doubt may still have existed
in anyone's mind as to where the respondents stood in regard to their
employees' membership in the Union. The policy indicated by that
handbill was to refuse to deal with any representative of the em-
ployees who was not himself an employee of the respondents, and
to discourage membership in the Union by closing the plants and
threatening to keep them closed and to move them to another city.
There can be no doubt of what the respondents intended to accom-
plish by the issuance of that handbill and the simultaneous closing
of the plants.
Triplett's prompt answer to the Association's letter of March 22'
and its publication in the Bluffton News gave the Committee of 17 an
advantage over the Union.
We find that by all these acts the respondents have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The lock-out
The circumstances leading to the lock-out on March 15, 1937, have,
been described above. An analysis of the actions of the respond-
ents leaves no doubt that the plants were closed in order to dis-
courage membership in the Union. It is true that four of the-
respondents' witnesses testified- that two Union members told them,
on Thursday or Friday, March 11 or 12, to be ready for a sit-down
the next week and that those Union members were not called to
-deny those statements. But those persons were not leaders of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 8455, ,
the Union. When the statements and rumors then circulating inn
Bluffton are weighted against the assurances which R. L. Triplett
received on March 11 directly from Louis Allman, the person he
knew to be most active in forming the Union, and those which-
N. A. Triplett received on March 13 from two of the men who had-
been elected officers of the Union the night before, it does not seem
possible that the boards of directors believed that there was to be a
sit-down strike and closed the plants for that reason. If we are to.
credit the respondents' witnesses, we must assume that the directors-
disregarded these assurances and listened only to rumor. But we
have a statement from the directors themselves as to their reasons for-
closing the plants, contained in the handbill written at the time the
plants were closed. The statement shows the antagonistic attitude-
of the respondents toward "outside" unions and indicates that the
directors of the respondents decided to close their plants to dis-
courage membership in the Union.
We therefore find that by closing their plants on March 15, 1937,.
the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of`
employment of their employees, and thereby discouraged- membership
in the Union.
C. Domination of and interference with the Committee of 17, the
Association, and the TR Club
The Committee of 17 was a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership all employees of the respondents. Its membership was lim-
ited to employees of the respondents.
The Association is a labor organization admitting to membership-
the employees of the respondents. It was organized as the successor
to the Committee of 17.
The'hostility of the respondents to the Union as expressed in the
meeting in the laboratory on March 11 and in the closing ' of the
plants and the simultaneous issuance of the handbill explaining the
reasons therefor on March 15, gave rise to the formation of the
Committee of 17. Triplett initiated the idea of a plant union and
appointed a committee to organize it. His idea was then adopted
and put into effect by those of the respondents' employees who were
most closely connected with the management. An examination of-
the original Committee of 17 shows that it was largely made up of
employees whose positions made them naturally receptive to Triplett's
suggestions for the formation of an "inside" union and who were in
fact part of the managerial force.
Eugene Basinger and Lendon Basinger are both listed as sub-
foremen on the pay-roll list submitted by the respondents, and'
846 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
both were members of the original Committee of 17 and active in
-solicitations for it.
Richard Schumacher, who next to Arden Baker was most active
in the formation of the Committee of 17 and the Association, does
-not appear on the respondents' list of clerical, supervisory, and
'salaried employees. Triplett testified, however, that Schumacher
was called to foremen's meeting and that the only reason he was not
a supervisory employee was that there was no one else' employed in
the stockroom. The evidence showed that Schumacher did much
the same type of work as William McGinnis, whom the respondents
listed as clerical. Schumacher was in charge of receiving materials
=and writing orders for them. He was one of the committee ap-
pointed by R. L. Triplett on March 11 to form the "inside" union, and
he took this appointment seriously.
Wade Marshall is listed on the pay-roll list submitted by the
respondents as a clerical employee in the factory. The Union claims
that he also has supervisory duties. The record shows that after the
-plants opened on April 1, Marshall interviewed persons applying
for reinstatement. That Marshall considered himself a supervisory
-employee is shown by the fact that when Triplett asked the super-
visory employees to leave the meeting in the laboratory on March 11,
Marshall left. Triplett also testified that Marshall was called to
foremen's meetings. It seems clear that Marshall was employed,
to some extent at least, in a supervisory capacity. Marshall was
active in the formation of the Committee of 17 and in the Association.
Harry Triplehorn, who was on the original Committee of 17 was
-one of the persons appointed by Triplett at the March 11 meeting
to go ahead with the formation of the "inside" union.
Lloyd Brauen is listed by the respondents as a subforeman. He
was one of the original members of the Committee of 17 and was
active in soliciting members for it.
The respondents contend that the participation of subforemen
and clerical employees in the formation of the Committee of 17 and
the Association had no more significance than the participation of
those employees in the formation of the Union. But such partici-
pation is significant and does implicate the employer unless the
employer makes clear that it has no connection with such activities.
In the case of the Union, the respondents so clearly indicated their hos-
tility to it that no employee would be intimidated into joining it to
save his job merely because a clerical employee or a subforeman was
soliciting for the Union. The respondents repudiated the actions
,of those employees on March 11 and again on March 15 and many
times thereafter by making no secret of their attitude toward the
Union. This same attitude was not displayed in the case of the
Committee of 17 and the Association.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 847 .
The Association is the successor to the Committee of 17. It was
organized by the same employees who organized, the Committee of
17 at a meeting attended by all of the respondents' supervisory em-
ployees and by Triplett. The incorporators of the Association were
Richard Schumacher, Eugene Basinger, and Arden Baker whose-
positions with the respondents are discussed above. Actually, it is-
the same organization as the Committee of 17 and has the same
infirmities.
The benevolent attitude of the respondents toward the Committee
of 17 and the Association when contrasted with the belligerent and_
hostile attitude of the respondents toward the Union entirely belies.
the respondents' claims to have been neutral in the dispute and to-
have given aid to neither side. Triplett answered the communica--
tions of the Committee of 17 immediately while he delayed answer-
ing those of the Union. The superintendent of the machine shop,
took the letter of the Committee of 17 to Chicago personally instead
of sending it in the usual course by mail. The plants closed two
hours early on April 16 for the organization meeting of the Associa--
tion. The fact that the idea of the Committee of 17 and the Associa-
tion originated with Triplett, and the part played by the committee,,
appointed by him, by subforemen and clerical employees enjoying
the confidence of the management, in forming the Committee of 1T
and the Association make it clear that both organizations were crea-
tures of the respondents, established at the behest of their president
and maintained through his benevolent attitude.
In the light of the above findings, we conclude that the respondents
have dominated and interfered with the formation and administra-
tion of the Committee of 17 and the Association and contributed
financial and other support to them.
The TR Club is not a labor organization and took no part in any
of the negotiations discussed herein. It is purely a social club to,
which all employees of the respondents, their wives, and children,,
belong and to which no dues are paid. Since the TR Club is not a.
labor organization we need not discuss the respondents' relation
with it.
D. The discharges and lay-offs after the lock-out
Louis Allman started work for the respondents in April 1936 as a.
subforeman in the plating room. Prior to that time ha had been
operating a plating establishment of his own in Bluffton and had'
done plating for the respondents. Before April 1936, the respond-
ents had done no plating, but they then decided to put in a plating,
room and spent approximately $2,800 doing so. Allman was hired'
to run it, and no complaints were ever registered about his work.
In March 1937, he started to organize the Union and was elected:
-848 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
president of it. He was locked out with the rest of the employees on
March 15 and was refused reinstatement on April 1 because of his
refusal to join the Committee of 17.
On April 22 Allman was put back to work in accordance with the
:agreement with Lind, the Regional Director. On April 23 Allman
was informed that the plating room was being discontinued and that
the respondents had no job for him. He testified that George Klay,
-superintendent of the machine shop, said, "You have done all the
dirt that you can do here" and told Allman to take his tools and get
out or he would throw him out. Although Klay denies the statements
There attributed to him, the circumstances surrounding Allman's
discharge lend credence to Allman's story.
Fred Wenger, the respondents' personnel manager until March 15,
radio engineer, and one of the Triplett Company's directors, testi-
fied that the policy of the respondents had always been to shift a
man from one job to another until they found something, he could
do, instead of discharging him. This policy was adopted because
.of the limited supply of labor in Bluffton. This statement was cor-
roborated by Klay. When the plating room was discontinued, one
Reigle, who worked in the plating room and who was not a member
,of the Union, was transferred to another job in the plant. Nothing
was done for Allman, however.
From the above facts, it is apparent that the respondents discrimi-
nated against Allman because of his membership in the Union. The
discontinuance of plating was merely a subterfuge adopted by the
-respondents to rid themselves of employees who were active members
of the Union.
We therefore find that by discharging Allman on April 23, the
respondents discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employ-
ment and thereby discouraged membership in the Union. At the
-time of the hearing, Allman had not obtained employment elsewhere.
Russell Amstutz started work for the respondents on December
1, 1936, in the plating and polishing department. At the time the
plants closed he was employed in the respondents' plating room where
Allman was employed. Amstutz joined the Union on March 15 when
the lock-out occurred, and refused to sign with the Committee of 17
-on April 1.
On April 22 he was returned to work, and on April 23, he was dis-
-charged, ostensibly because the plating room was being discontinued.
The respondents knew that Amstutz was a member of the Union be-
cause he had not returned to work on April 1. As pointed out above,
when the lay-offs in the plating room occurred, the one employee
there who was not affiliated with the Union was transferred to an-
-other job, while the other two were discharged. The personnel policy
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 849
of the respondents, as stated above, was not applied to Amstutz, al-
though he had previously worked for the respondents at other jobs.
The respondents contend that since they tried to obtain another
job for Amstutz in the Star Plating Works in Lima, Ohio, and he
did not apply for it until after it was filled, they did not discrimi-
nate against him. Amstutz testified that he did not hear of the
job in Lima until after he had been away from the respondents for
two weeks and had a job shearing sheep, and that after he finished
shearing sheep he did go to Lima, but the job was filled. Moreover
the job in Lima was a substantial distance away from Amstutz's
home.
In view of the above findings, we conclude that the respondents
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Russell Amstutz, and thereby discouraged membership in the Union.
Amstutz had not at the time of the hearing obtained substantially
equivalent employment elsewhere. After his discharge, Amstutz
earned $122.
Mark Garmatter first worked for the respondents from September
to December 1936. In March 1937, George Klay, who was looking
for employees, called in Garmatter. When Garmatter appeared on
March 11, Klay said, "Why, Mark, I have a nice job for you. I
want you to do the right thing when the right thing comes along
and I don't want you to forget that. If you do that we will get
along swell."
Garmatter started work on March 12 and was locked out with
the other employees on March 15 after working one and one-half
days. He joined the Union on March 15 and was active in it there-
after. Garmatter refused to comply with the respondents' condi-
tions for reemployment on April 1 and was not reemployed until
noon April 22.
When Garmatter came to work that day he met Klay in the lobby
of the plant. Garmatter testified that Klay told him that he might
as well go home because it would only be a few days until he was
fired anyway. Garmatter testified further that Klay said that the
respondents did not want him and that he (Klay) wished Garmatter
would quit and.save all the difficulty. When Garmatter went to his
department in the plant he asked Klay what he should do. Klay
,replied, "God damn it, nothing." The next day, on being asked,
Klay told Garmatter to do what he had done the day before. Con-
sequently, Garmatter had no work to do either day and was dis-
charged on April 23.
Klay denies all of the statements attributed to him by Garmatter,
but in view of the tense situation in the plant, the attitude of the
respondents toward the Union as shown by other uncontradicted
testimony, and the fact that, R. L. Triplett informed the Union com-
850 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittee on March 31 that Garmatter would not be reemployed in any
event, Garmatter's story is more persuasive.
Klay testified that he hired Garmatter in order to teach him a
trade. The facts show that Garmatter worked one and one-half
days before the lock-out and was in the plant for one and one-half
days after he was reemployed, but did little or no work. Klay's
contention that Garmatter was discharged because Klay found out
he could not learn the trade is not logical. It is difficult to see how
Klay could have determined in that time whether Garmatter could
learn the trade. What he did find out was that Garmatter had
joined the Union and did not adopt the precepts laid down by Klay
when he hired him on March 11.
In the light of the above findings, we conclude that the respondents
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Garmatter, and thereby discouraged membership in the Union. At
the time of the hearing, Garmatter had not obtained employment,
elsewhere.
Harley Kohler started work for the respondents in September 193
and was laid off on January 15, 1937. On January 18, 1937, he was
reemployed by the respondents and worked until March 15, 1937,
when he was locked out with the other employees. On March 12',
1937, Kohler joined the Union. When he returned to work on April:
22 there were eight new employees in his department. He was dis-
charged on April 23, 1937.
Klay testified that Kohler was hired to take one Triplehorn's place
when the latter broke his arm and that Kohler was kept only until
Triplehorn returned and was ready to work. Klay admitted, how-
ever, that some one was doing Triplehorn's work when Kohler was
hired and that Kohler did not spend all of his time at Triplehorn's
job. The respondents claim that Kohler was discharged because
there was no more work for him to do. At the time Kohler was dis-
charged there were eight men in his department who had not been
there before the lock-out and who were not members of the Union.
Those men had less- seniority than Kohler.
In view of the conditions existing at the time of the so-called re-
instatement of Kohler and the apparent policy of the respondents
at that time, as shown above, of discharging any Union member they
could find an excuse to discharge, we find that the respondents dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Harley
Kohler and thereby discouraged membership in the Union. At the
time of the hearing, Kohler had not obtained substantially equivalent
employment elsewhere. After his discharge, Kohler earned $25.
Gale Scales was suspended by the respondents on May 15, 1937
for talking about the Union during working hours in defiance of
one of the respondents' rules which had been posted on the bulletin
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 851
board. 'Stoles testified that Bixel, the man working next to him,
risked him about the Union and that lie was only answering Bixel's
questions. Scoles was reported to the subforeman, Brauen, by three
Association members, Mrs. Gratz, Bixel, and Lugibill, and was laid
off on the basis of their report. He was given no opportunity to
:explain. Mrs. Gratz testified that she heard neither the beginning
nor the end of the conversation, but that Scoles seemed to be doing
most of the talking. There was a rule against talking about any-
thing but work on company time, which Scoles admits he violated,
but which also was violated by Bixel, who was not disciplined.
&coles, however, was a Union member, while Bixel was violently
opposed to the Union.
Scoles was reinstated on May 29 after being off for two weeks. It
is clear that Scoles was laid off because of his Union membership.
The treatment Bixel received shows that had Scoles been a member
of the Association the lay-off would never have occurred.
We therefore find that the respondents discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Gale Scoles, and thereby
discouraged membership in the Union.
Raymond Holden started work for the respondents in August 1935.
On March 5, 1937, he joined the Union. He was locked out on
March 15 with the other employees and was not reinstated until
April 21. On May 18, 1937, he was discharged for insubordination.
Though he ordinarily operated a punch press, he was engaged that
day in calibrating meters, when one Gerald Berry ordered him to
return to his press. Holden paid no attention but continued cali-
brating. When C. A. Triplett, foreman of the department, gave
him the same order, however, Holden obeyed. Berry then told
Holden that thereafter, when he ran out of work on the punch press,
he should call him (Berry). Holden asked who had given Berry
those orders, and Berry's reply was, "If you refuse to do it, I'll
have you suspended." After some altercation Holden finally said
that he would not take orders from a "snake" and a "scab" like Berry.
The reference apparently was to the fact that Berry had originally
been a member of the Union and had then joined the Committee of
17 and the Association. Holden continued working on the punch
press until approximately 3: 30 and, then returned to calibrating.
He was discharged at the close of work that day. Although Holden
and several other Union members testified that Berry was a stock-
chaser and not a foreman, Holden admitted on cross-examination,
that Berry did work in C. A. Triplett's office and that he was sup-
posed to be a subforeman over some part of the assembly line.
There seems to be no doubt that Holden was guilty of insubordi-
nation and of refusal to take orders from a subforeman in the
plant. We find that Holden was discharged for this reason and
852 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not because of his Union membership. The complaint, in so far
as it involves his discharge, will be dismissed.
William McGinnis started work for the respondents in the stock-
room and the pay-roll department in May 1935. He joined the
Union in the beginning of March 1937 and was locked out with
the other employees on March 15. McGinnis was very active in the
Union, being its corresponding secretary and a member of its execu-
tive or bargaining committee. He was reinstated on April 22 pur-
suant to the agreement of the respondents to reinstate the Union
members.
On May 5 and 6, McGinnis had missed a half day without giving
notice or receiving permission beforehand, and he was duly warned
that thereafter he should give notice or he would be disciplined by
being laid off. This seems to have made no great impression on
McGinnis, for on May 19 he again missed work without receiving
permission, and he was laid off on May 20, 1937.
On May 18, McGinnis had gone with the Union committee to R. L.
Triplett to protest the lay-off of Scoles and the discharge of Holden.
Triplett told them he would not do anything about them since he
believed those measures were justifiable. When the committee
threatened to file a charge with the Regional Director he told them
to go ahead. On May 19, the committee saw the Regional Director
in Cleveland. Although Mrs. Ross Irwin testified that she notified
C. A. Triplett at seven o'clock on the morning of May 19 that
McGinnis would not be at work that day, that notice did not con-
form with the notice the respondents requested in their warning to
McGinnis after May 6.
In view of the above facts we cannot find that the respondents
discriminated against McGinnis in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment to discourage membership in the Union. The complaint,
in so far as it involves his discharge, will be dismissed.
Earl Hilty, Glenn Sbusser, Charles Steiner, and Ross Irwin were
suspended by the respondents on May 20, 1937, for missing work on
May 19 without permission. They had gone to Cleveland with Mc-
Ginnis on May 19 to file charges with the Regional Director. `Hilty,
Steiner, and Irwin notified the respondents on the morning of May
19 that they would not be at work that day and they were therefore
suspended for only two days. Slusser made no effort to give any
notice and was suspended for one week. There is no evidence that
the suspensions were other than the respondents claimed. These
men were reinstated after their suspension was completed. We,
therefore find that the respondents did not discriminate in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Hilty, Slusser, Steiner, and
Irwin to discourage membership in the Union. The complaint, in
so far as it involves them, will be dismissed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 853.
Ralph Diller was suspended for one week on May 22, 1937. He
did not testify at the hearing but Russell Triplehorn was called by-
the Board and testified that Diller was suspended for going to an-
other department in the plant without the permission of his foreman.
This would constitute a clear violation of a rule posted on the bulletin-
board. There is no evidence of Diller's membership or activity in
the Union . We find the evidence insufficient to substantiate the-
charge that the respondents suspended Diller because of his member-
ship or activities in the Union. The complaint in so far as it con-
cerns Ralph Diller will be dismissed without prejudice.
Lester Hahn was suspended for two days on June 7, 1937 . There-
is no evidence in the record as to the reasons for this suspension..
We therefore can make no finding as to whether the respondents.
discriminated against Hahn to discourage membership in the Union..
The complaint , in so far as it concerns Lester Hahn will be dismissed-
without prejudice.
E. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The Triplett Company and the Readrite Company are operated as
one employer with interlocking directorates and a common general
office. R. L. Triplett is president of both and determines the labor
policies for them. Neither the Association nor the Union asked that
any distinction be made on the basis of which respondent the em=
ployees worked for. The respondents raised no objection at any
time to being considered as one unit . We therefore conclude that,
no distinction should be made in determining the unit because of
the fact that some employees work for the Triplett Company and-
some for the Readrite Company.
The Union contended at the hearing that all of the employees of
the respondents , except office , clerical, and supervisory employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The contention of the Association was that all employees,
of the respondents constitute such a unit.
The office employees are a separate class of employees distinct
from the other employees. They work in a different part of the.,
plant and under different conditions . Their duties are entirely dif-
ferent from those of the employees working in the factory itself..
They are therefore to be excluded from the unit of the other-
employees.
The clerical employees , although they may work in the factory,
do an entirely different type of work from that done by the other,
employees . Their work often involves checking the work of the pro-
duction employees . They are therefore excluded from the unit.
854 NATIONAI, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The supervisory employees, including subforemen, have the power
to hire and discharge or to recommend hiring and discharging.
-Although the respondents claim that subforemen have no such
powers, the record shows that subforemen tell the men under them
what work to do and report insubordination to their foremen, and
that men are discharged on the basis of their recommendations.
For that reason the subforemen, together with the other supervisory
employees, are excluded from the unit.
The remainder of the employees all do substantially the same type
of work under the same conditions. Their problems in bargaining
with the respondents are the same. Although they are paid by
checks signed with the respondents' individual company names, they
must deal with the same persons in collective bargaining, and the
-same hours, working conditions, and rates of pay apply irrespective
of which respondent the individual works for.
We find that the employees of the respondents, excluding foremen,
.subforemen, office, clerical, and supervisory employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that
such a unit insures to employees of the respondents the full benefit
-of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and
otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. The representation by the Union of a majority in the unit
The pay rolls of the respondents for March 15, 1937,5 list 272 em-
ployees exclusive of the foremen and supervisory employees. They
include 26 subforemen, office and clerical employees who are excluded
from the unit as defined above. After such deductions, 246 employ-
ees are left'in the unit defined above.
At the hearing the Union claimed that it had 132 members on
March 16, when it wrote its first letter to R. L. Triplett asking him
for an opportunity to bargain. The 132 cards which the Union
claimed were signed by applicants for membership were brought to
the hearing, and the-names of the persons signing them were read
into the record, together with the dates on which they had been filled
out and the initiation fees paid. Three of these cards were signed by
persons not within the appropriate unit as defined above. Three
others bore the names of persons who testified at the hearing that
they had not signed any application card for the Union. One of
these three testified that she told the solicitor, Geraldine Stauffer,
that since everyone else was joining she would join too. Another's
husband had signed her card and paid her initiation fee. Those
5 Board Exhibit Nos. 26 and 27.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 855
two employees testified that they had never authorized anyone to sign
the application cards for them and that they did not wish to join
the Union . The third testified that she had never signed a card or
authorized anyone to sign it for her.
Although Geraldine Stauffer admitted that she did not require all
applicants to sign application cards she testified that she did not sign
their names to applications unless they indicated that they wanted to
join the Union.
As to the dates upon which the applications were made, the record
indicates that 121 cards were signed on or before March 16, 1937.
On March 17 , five more persons joined the Union and on March 18,
four additional memberships were obtained . If we deduct from this
total of 130, the three outside of the unit , and the three who appar-
ently repudiated Union membership at the hearing , the Union had
124 members in the appropriate unit of 246 on March 18 , 1937, which
is a majority of that unit. We therefore find that on March 18, 1937,
and at all times thereafter , a majority of the respondents ' employees
within the appropriate unit had designated the Union as their repre-
sentative for the pux''poses of collective bargaining.
3. The failure to bargain
On March 16 the Union wrote Triplett asking him to bargain with
them in regard to the opening of the plants. Triplett replied that
he was making investigations with employers, workmen, customers,
and others, and would not be in Bluffton until that was completed,
but that the Union could get in touch with him through the respond-
ents' office in Bluffton. On March 22 the Union wrote again citing
specific provisions of the Act and asking Triplett to bargain with it.
No reply to that letter was ever received. On March 23 Triplett rec-
ognized the Committee of 17 as exclusive representative of the em-
ployees. Thereafter the Union was unable to obtain recognition as
exclusive representative although Triplett did meet with their repre-
sentatives in regard to reinstatement of the members of the Union.
Since we have found that the Union represented a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit on March 18 and at all times there-
after, the respondents' refusal to recognize it as exclusive representa-
tive of those employees and the respondents' recognition of the Com-
mittee of 17 as the exclusive representative, constitute a refusal to
bargain collectively. We therefore find that the respondents, on
March 23 and at all times thereafter, have refused to bargain collec-
tively with the representatives of their employees within the appro-
priate unit as defined above.
856 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
When the respondents opened their plants on April 1, they required
as a condition of reemployment that the employees sign up with the
Committee of 17. This is not denied ; according to the respondents'
testimony, it was one of the terms which the Committee of 17 "forced"
R. L. Triplett to agree to in order to get its members back to work
on April 1. The character of the Committee of 17, as discussed above,
makes it apparent that it would not insist on the granting of any
demands if that would delay returning to work. , The handbill issued
by the Committee of 17, quoted in Section III A above, confirms this
conclusion. The Committee of 17 was dominated by supervisory and
clerical employees ready to do the bidding of R. L. Triplett. It is
apparent from this relationship that the requirement of membership
in the Committee of 17 was a requirement of the respondents. This
is further substantiated by the fact that when R. L. Triplett wished
to waive this requirement in order to make the agreement of April 15
for reinstatement of the Union members, he experienced no difficulty
from the Committee of 17. That the respondents laid down this con-
dition in order to discourage membership in the Union and encourage
membership in the Committee of 17 is too clear to require further
discussion. Approximately 71 employees did not return to work on
April 1 because of the conditions imposed by the respondents.
Through the intervention of Ralph Lind, the Board's Regional Direc-
tor for the Eighth Region, those employees were reinstated before
April 22, 1937, without being required to join the Committee of 17 or
the Association.
We will therefore order the respondents to make whole all em-
ployees locked out on March 15, 1937, for losses of pay incurred by
reason of that lock-out, by paying to them and each of them, respec-
tively, the amount equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages during the period from the date of such lock-out to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less any amount he may have earned
during said period.
The respondents contend that their April 15, 1937, agreement with
the Regional Director to reinstate all employees bars an award to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 857
those reinstated of back pay for the period of the lock-out. But the
respondents paid only lip-service to this agreement by reinstating
all of the employees on or before April 22, for they discharged four
of them on April 23, as stated above. The respondents thus broke
the agreement , and they therefore cannot rely on the agreement to
bar an award of back pay to any of the employees otherwise entitled
to it.
We will also order the respondents to disestablish the Association
and the Committee of 17 as the representative of any of their em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining . Those organiza-
tions were created and maintained through employer interference,
and in order to restore the situation as it existed before the unfair
labor practices occurred , they must be eliminated entirely as agencies
for bargaining on behalf of employees.
We will also order the respondents to recognize the Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees except foremen, sub-
foremen , office, clerical , and supervisory employees , and to bargain
with it as such representative . As discussed above, the Union had
been designated by a majority of the respondents' employees within
the appropriate unit on March 18 as their exclusive representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondents ' actions
may have induced persons to indicate that they preferred the Com-.
mittee of 17 or the Association , but we cannot allow the respondents
to enjoy the fruits of their unfair labor practices by not bargaining
with the Union.
THE PETITION
In view of the Board 's findings in Section III-E above, as to the
appropriate bargaining unit and the designation of the Union by
a majority of the respondents' employees-within that unit as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining , it is not
necessary to consider the petition of the Union for certification of
representatives . Consequently the petition for certification will be
dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in both cases, the Board makes the following conclusions of
law :
1. United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 714,
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , the Com-
mittee of 17, and The Bluffton Electrical Association , Inc., are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondents , by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of all of their employees by locking them out
858 NATIONAL LABOR RDA LATIONS BOARD
on March 15, 1937, and thereby discouraging membership in United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 714, have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondents, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Louis Allman, Russell Amstutz, Mark Gar-
matter, and Harley Kohler, by discharging them on April 23, 1937,
and of Gale Scoles by suspending him for two weeks on May 15, 1937,
and thereby discouraging membership in United Electrical and Radio
Workers of America, Local No. 714, have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
4. The respondents, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of the Committee of 17 and The Bluffton
Electrical, Association, Inc., and contributing financial and other
support to them, have engaged and are engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
5. All employees of the respondents, except foremen, subforemen,
office, clerical, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
,of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
0. Local No. 714, United Electrical and Radio Workers of America
was on March 18, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the exclusive
representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
7. The respondents, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
representatives of its employees on March 23, 1937, has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
8. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their 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 con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection have engaged and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
10. The TR Club is not a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 859
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, The Triplett Electrical Instrument Company, and The
Diller Manufacturing Company, doing business under the firm name
and style of Readrite Meter Works, their officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical and Radio
Workers of America, Local No. 714, or any other labor organi-
zation of their employees, or encouraging membership in the Com-
mittee of 17, The Bluffton Electrical Association, Inc., or any other
labor organization of their employees, by discharging, refusing to
reinstate, or locking out any of their employees, or in any other man-
ner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of their employment because of membership
or activity in connection with any such labor organization;
(b) Urging, persuading, warning, or coercing their employees to
join the Committee of 17 or The Bluffton Electrical Association, Inc.,
or any other labor organization of their employees, or threatening
them with discharge if they fail to join any such organization;
(c) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Committee of 17 or The Bluffton Electrical Association, Inc., or
with the formation and administration of any other labor organiza-
tion of their employees, and contributing financial or other support
to the Committee of 17, The Bluffton Electrical Association, Inc., or
any other labor organization of their employees;
(d) Recognizing the Committee of 17 or The Bluffton Electrical
Association, Inc., as the exclusive representative of their employees;
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local No. 714, United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all their employees, except foremen, subforemen, office, clerical,
and supervisory employees;
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole the employees on the pay roll for the week ending
March 13, 1937 for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of
being locked out by the respondents on March 15, 1937, by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would nor-
mally have earned as wages during the period from March 15, 1937,
860 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the, date on which he was offered reinstatement, less the amount
earned by him during such period;
(b) Offer to Louis Allman, Russell Amstutz, Mark Garmatter, and
Harley Kohler immediate and full reinstatement to their former posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges ;
(c) Make whole Louis Allman, Russell Amstutz, Mark Garmatter,
and Harley Kohler for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason
of their respective discharges, by payment to each of them of a sum
equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during
the period from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer of
reinstatement, less the amount earned by him during such period ;
(d) Make whole Gale Scoles for any loss of pay he suffered by
reason of his suspension on May 15, 1937, by payment to him of a
sum equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages
from May 15, 1937, until his reinstatement on May 29, 1937, less
the amount earned by him during that period;
(e) Withdraw all recognition from The Bluffton Electrical Asso-
ciation, Inc., and from the Committee of 17, as the representative of
any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ents concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or conditions of employment, and completely dises-
tablish The Bluffton Electrical Association, Inc., and the Committee
of 17 as such representative;
(f) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local No. 714, United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all their employees, except foremen, subforemen, office,
clerical, and supervisory employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(g) Post notices to their employees in conspicuous places in their
plants stating (1) that the respondents will cease and desist in the
manner aforesaid; and (2) that the Committee of 17 and The Bluffton
Electrical Association, Inc. are disestablished as the representative
of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with them with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and conditions of work, and that they will refrain from
any recognition of them;
(h) Maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty (30) con-
secutive days from the date of posting;
(i) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
- And it is further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges (1) that the respondents have domi-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 861
nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
TR Club; and (2) that respondents discriminatorily discharged Ray-
mond Holden and William McGinnis and suspended Earl Hilty,
Charles Steiner, Ross Irwin, Glenn Slusser, Ralph Diller, and Lester
Hahn. In the cases of Ralph Diller and Lester Hahn the complaint
is dismissed without prejudice.
And it is further ordered that the petition for certification of
representatives, filed by Local No. 714, United Electrical and Radio
Workers of America, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Mr. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.