Wyman-Gordon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 561 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY (INGALLS SIIEPARD DIvi-
SION) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter of WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY (INGALLS SHEPARD DIVI-
SION) and CHICAGO DIE SINKERS' LODGE No. 100 OF THE INTERNA-
TIONAL DIE SINKERS' CONFERENCE
Cases Wos. 13-C-2176 and 13-C-2210, respectively.-
Decided June 20, 1945
Mr. Gustaf B. Erickson , for the Board.
Winston, Strawn and Shaw, by Messrs. G. B . Christensen and Frank
B. Gilmer, of Chicago, Ill ., for the respondent.
Mr. S. E. Perish , of Harvey , Ill., and Mr. Phillip AT. Curran, of Pitts-
burg, Pa. , for the Steelworkers.
Messrs. Walter T. Lynch and I. G. Miner, of Cleveland , Ohio, for the
Die Sinkers.
Miss Kate Wallach, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, and Chicago Die Sinkers' Lodge
No. 100 of the International Die Sinkers' Conference, herein called the
Die Sinkers, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois),
issued its complaint, dated May 13, 1944, against Wyman-Gordon Com-
pany (Ingalls Shepard Division), Harvey, Illinois, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
62 N. L. R. B., No. 80.
561
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR])
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.' Copies of, the com-
plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served-upon
the respondent, the Steelworkers, the Die Sinkers, and The Employees'
Council, herein called the Council, alleged in the complaint to be a com-
pany-dominated labor organization
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance : (1) that, since about 1936 and thereafter, the respondent ini-
tiated, sponsored, interfered with, and dominated the formation of the
Council, dominated and interfered with its administration, contributed
financial and other support to it, and otherwise fostered, promoted, and
encouraged the continuation of the Council, thereby violating Section 8
(2) of the Act; (2) that, on or about June 19, 1943, the respondent dis-
charged F M. Baker and has since failed and refused to reinstate him
for the reason that he joined and assisted the Steelworkers and engaged
in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for, the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, thereby
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage
membership in the Steelworkers in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act,
(3) that, on or about August 9, 1943, the respondent discharged William
Coale and Peter Crince and has since failed and refused to reinstate them
for the reason that they joined and assisted the Die Sinkers' and engaged
in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage
membership in the Die Sinkers in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act;
(4) that, on or about June 1, 1943, and thereafter, the respondent (a)
warned and discouraged its employees to refrain from assisting and affili-
ating with the Steelworkers and the Die Sinkers. (b) made statements
disparaging and expressing disapproval of employees who assisted the Die
Sinkers, (c) asked employees how it felt to be paying union dues, (d)
advised employees that it would be fruitless for them to organize into a
union, (e) inquired into the union affiliation of its employees, (f) dis-
charged and threatened to discharge employees because of their concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, (g) inaugurated wage increases to its employees to persuade
them from joining or assisting the Die Sinkers, and (h) by'devious other
acts and statements, indicated to its employees disapproval of and opposi-
tion to the self-organization of its employees, and (5) that. by the fore-
going acts and statements, the respondent interfered with. restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7
i By order entered on May 12, 1944, the Board had consolidated the cases aiising out of the
charges referred to above.
2 The complaint referred to the Die Sinkers as the Conference
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 563
of the Act. The respondent filed an answer at the time of the hearing in
which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint as to the nature of
its business but denied that it had committed any unfair labor practice
and affirmatively alleged in substance that Baker , Coale , and Crince were
discharged "for soliciting union membership during working hours" and
for interfering with the respondent ' s production of vital war material.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago , Illinois , between
May 25 and June 2 , 1944, before R. J. Denham , the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board , the respondent, the
Steelworkers , and the Die Sinkers were represented and participated in
the hearing . The Council did not appear Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues was afforded all parties
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made during the course of
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed The rtil-
mgs are hereby affirmed.
On September 26, 1944, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent , the Steel-
workers , the Die Sinkers , and the Council , finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices with respect to the
Council within the meaning of Section 8 (2) and Section 8 (1) of the ,
Act, and recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. The Trial Examiner further found that , by discharging F. M
Baker, William Coale , and Peter Crince , or by any other act alleged in
the complaint , the respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of the Act and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the respondent had violated Section
8 (3) and, apart from company domination of the Council , Section 8 (1)
of the Act Thereafter , the respondent , the Board ' s attorney , the Die Sink-
ers, and the Steelworkers filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
the attorney for the Board and counsel for the respondent filed briefs to
support their exceptions Pursuant to notice and at the request of the
respondent , a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before
the Board at Washington. D C . on March 6. 1945 The respondent,
the Steelworkers , and the Die Sinkers appeared and participated in the
argument . The Council did not appear
After the oral argument the respondent filed with the Board a petition
to reopen the record for the reception of additional evidence with respect
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the 8 ( 2) allegations of the complaint. For the reasons hereinafter dis-
cussed , the petition is hereby denied.'
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs filed by the parties, and the entire record in the case, and finds that
the exceptions, insofar as they are consistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order set forth below, have merit, and insofar as the exceptions
are inconsistent therewith, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Wyman-Gordon Company (Ingalls-Shepard Divi-
sion), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts with its general offices at Worcester, Massachusetts.
operates a manufacturing plant and has offices at Harvey, Illinois, where
it manufactures drop forgings for aircraft. In the course and conduct of
its business, and in the operation of its Harvey plant, the respondent
causes and has continuously caused large quantities of raw materials,
consisting of steel, to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce
from and through States of the United States other than the State of
Illinois, to its Harvey plant and causes and has continuously caused large
quantities of its products manufactured at its Harvey plant to be sold and
transported in interstate commerce from the Harvey plant into and through
States of the United States other than the State of Illinois. During the
fiscal year last preceding the hearang, the respondent purchased for use at
its Harvey plant, steel valued in excess of $500,000, of which approxi-
mately 50 percent was obtained from points outside the State of Illinois.
During the same period, the total sales of the respondent's products manu-
factured at its Harvey plant were in excess of $500,000, of ' which the
respondent shipped approximately 50 percent outside the State of Illinois.
The respondent is engaged exclusively in production of articles of war.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent at its Harvey, Illinois, plant.
Chicago Die Sinkers' Lodge No 100 of the International Die Sinkers'
Conference is a labor organization admitting to membership die shop
employees of the respondent at its Harvey, Illinois, plant.
The Employees' Council, Ingalls Shepard Division, Wyman-Gordon
Company, is,a labor organization having no membership as such but in
31n addition to the reasons hereinafter set forth in Section III, A , we deny the iequet to re-
open the record inasmuch as the respondent failed to show why the alleged new evidence was not
available at the hearing before the Trial Examiner
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 565
which all plant employees of the respondent at Harvey, Illinois, auto-
matically are entitled to vote for the election of departmental represen-
tatives.
111. THE UNFAIR LA13OR PRACTICES
A. The Employees' Council
The Council was organized in 1934 by several of the respondent's em-
ployees for the purpose of establishing an "orderly and effective procedure
for employees and management to settle in a satisfactory manner prob-
lems relating to shop rules, working conditions, rates of pay, hours of
labor, safety, health, plant sanitation, and other matters of mutual inter-
est."` Its constitution was drafted with the advice and assistance of the
respondent's plant manager, Harold F Wood
The Council has no membership as such and is made tip of councilmen
elected each year by the employees in the respective departments of the
plant. All employees, except managerial and other supervisory employees,
who have been on the respondent's pay roll for a period of at least 60 days
are entitled to vote in the annual election for councilmen The office of
councilman is restricted to employees who have been employed by the
respondent for at least 1 year.
Pursuant to provision in its constitution, monthly meetings of the Coun-
cil are held for the purpose of discussing grievances presented to the
Council by employees after prior presentation to the foreman of the de-
partment affected. The Council decides which grievances, if any, shall he
taken up with higher management. Following discussion and disposition
of employee grievances during the first portion of the monthly meetings, a
representative of the respondent, generally the plant manager, upon
standing invitation of the Council, attends the second portion of the meet-
ings. While minutes of the first portion of the meetings are taken, no such
minutes are taken with respect to the second portion when, as previously
stated, a representative of the respondent is present. The grievances which
the Council has selected are then presented by it to the representative of
the respondent who either disposes of them immediately, or after investi-
gation and -consultation with other management representatives, reports
his decision to the Council at the next monthly meeting.' Although the
Council's constitution provides that such decisions of the respondent's
representative may be appealed to the president of the respondent, the
record does not disclose that any such appeal has been taken. The pro-
ceedings of the second part of the meetings referred to above are pub-
lished in bulletins prepared by the representative of the respondent who
4 The quotation is from the Council's constitution, Article I
8 While the Council discusses grievances and working conditions, wage adjustments are handled
with the employees as a group, but not through the Council as their representative despite the fact
that under its constitution such wage adjustments are part of the Council's functions No provision
is made in the constitution for general meetings of employees.
566 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attended the meeting and posted by the respondent on its bulletin boards
in the plant. The bulletins do not contain any reference to the disposition
of individual grievances. Although bulletins carry the signature of the
Council members, they have no part in either their composition or dis-
semination, except that copies of such bulletins are submitted to the
Council before they are posted. The record does not disclose that the
Council ever has disapproved of the contents of the bulletins as prepared
by the respondent's representative. The respondent and the Council have
not had any contractual relation as such.
No provision is made for the payment of dues on the part of the ein-
ployees' and the Council itself has no independent financial resources. The
respondent permits the annual elections for, councilmen to be held on
company property during working hours and provides company property
for use as a Council office, together with other office facilities The respond-
ent permits the Council to hold its meetings on company premises and
pays the councilmen their regular rate of pay while attending Council
meetings and while otherwise engaged in Council business, regardless of
whether such Council meetings take place during or outside working
hours.' The respondent also furnishes to the Council without charge ballot
boxes, ballots, printed constitutions, and office equipment.
From the date of its inception to the date of the hearing in this proceed-
ing, the Council has continued in existence and its relations with the
respondent have continued as set forth above
The respondent 'contends that the Council is not a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act. This contention ignores the definition of
a labor organization contained in Section 2 (5) of the Act, which reads
as follows :
The term 'labor organization' means any organization of any kind,
or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which
employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or
in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work. (Underscoring supplied.)
The Council is clearly an employee representation plan within the statutory
definition.
The respondent denies that it has dominated and interfered with the
administration of the Council ; it admits, though, that it renders support
to the Council. With respect to such support, the respondent argues that
C Once or twice a year there is deducted from the employees' pay checks the sum of $1. Such
contributions are used for social events, such as Christmas parties and picnics which are sponsored
by a separate organization called the Association, which is exclusively engaged in conducting social
functions and has no connection with the Council. There is no contention that the Association exer-
cises any of the functions of a labor organization and it is not involved in this proceeding.
7 Except as may hereinafter appear, the record does not disclose the amounts paid to councilmen
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 567
it is insignificant and offers, in its petition to reopen the record, to prove
by additional- evidence the exact amounts paid to Council members while
attending monthly meetings during and outside working hours.' We do
not consider the precise amounts so paid by the respondent essential to
the determination of the issue whether the respondent has rendered illegal
support to the Council. The respondent, furthermore, argues that such
payments made by it to Council members are in, accordance with estab-
lished trade union practices, recognized as such by the National War Labor
Board, and are legitimate under the Act. In its petition to reopen the
record, the respondent cites extracts from collective bargaining contracts
between other employers and nationally affiliated unions and decisions of
the National War Labor Board purporting to support the respondent's
position. The respondent's argument is not sound. The proviso to Section
8 (2) of the Act provides that an employer shall not be prohibited from
permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without
loss of time or pay. The proviso does not afford the respondent the claimed
justification for financial support of Council members since, as the record
shows, management does not participate in the first portion of the monthly
'Council meetings and some Council members, depending upon their shift
assignments, attend the second portion of the meeting, which is devoted
to employer-employee conference, on their own time for which they are
paid at regular working rates by the respondent, and the proviso, by its
terms, restricts allowable payments to instances in which conferences are
held with management during working hours of the employee conferees
Also we fail to see the materiality of the War Labor Board decisions relied
upon by the respondent in support of its petition to reopen the record.
Even if they were in point, which we find unnecessary to determine, we
would not be bound by them in the interpretation of the Act.
That the Council was not a free representative of the employees appears
not only from the direct support given by the respondent to the Council
but also from the lack of any provision for self-organization of employees,
including assemblage or discussion by them. Their sole participation in
I In an affidavit filed in support of the petition to reopen the record , Harold F. Wood, described
therein as the respondent 's vice president and general manager, states that the respondent paid
members of the Council a total of $386 98 during the last half of 1944, of which the sum of $266 36
represents payments to councilmen for time spent attending Council meetings outside their regular
working hours Even if established , the offer of proof thus made, does not, in our opinion, place
the amounts so spent within the doctrine of de minimis. Furthermore , as herein indicated, the
respondent has supported and dominated the Council in other respects.
ll As stated in Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp v. N L. R. B , 121 F (2d) 165 (C. C A. 10)
at page 174 _
Employees ' representatives are paid by petitioner [the employer] for lost time while engaged
in their duties as representatives of the Employees ' Organization at the monthly and quarterly
conferences held with petitioner 's representatives . We think the employees ' representatives
should be paid by the Employees ' Organization rather than by petitioner when they are en-
gaged in the performance of their duties as employees ' representatives , and thus to be freed
from any possible influence of favor from petitioner
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Council is confined to the annual exercise of the privilege of nomi-
nating and electing representatives. Service of such a representative is
subject to the respondent's control in that holding of the office is contingent
upon continued employment with the respondent. As the respondent re-
served to itself the power to determine the continuance of employee repre-
sentatives m office, so it predetermines, to a certain extent, who such
representatives might be in that eligibility of a nominee depends upon
continuous service of such nominee with the respondent of at least 1 year
prior to nomination 10 The Council thus established before the effective
date of the Act continued to function thereafter without any substantial
change in its structure."
Under all the circumstances, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that,
by the above-described course of conduct, the respondent dominated and
interfered with the administration of the Council and contributed financial
and other support thereto, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.12
B. The discriminatory discharges
1. F. M. Baker
F. M. Baker was employed by the respondent from May 8, 1941, until
June 19, 1943, as a loader in its heat treat department at the Harvey plant.
He joined the Steelworkers in January 1943, and, in May 1943, began to
solicit employees in his department to join the Steelworkers and to dis-
tribute membership application cards to them. He continued such activity
until his discharge." On June 19, 1943, he was discharged by Plant
Manager Wood, who informed Baker, among other things, according to
credible testimony of Assistant Superintendent August B. Muir, that
Baker was being discharged because he had solicited union memberships
on company property during working hours "
10 While we do not find that Plant Manager Wood suggested incorporation of the provisions in
the Council 's constitution which give the respondent the control referred to in the text above, Wood's
participation in the drafting of the constitution , however slight , when viewed in the light of the
respondent 's continued support of the Council may reasonably be said to have allowed the employees
to regard the organic structure of the Council as the creature of the respondent , and we so find
11 The complaint alleged that the respondent had interfered with the formation of the Council.
However , acts occurring before the effective date of the Act do not in and of themselves constitute
unfair labor practices We do not therefore find that the respondent interfered with the formation
of the Council in violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act However , the respondent violated the Act,
as herein set forth, by allowing the Council to continue without change after the effective date of
the Act, and by supporting it after July 5, 1935
17 Cf , for example, N L. R B v Burry Biscuit Corporation, 123 F (2d) 540 (C C A 7)
13 So far as appears , Baker was the only employee on his shift who distributed cards in the plant
on behalf of the Steelworkers
"Wood testified - "I told him [Bakery that in view of his attitude and the trouble that he had
caused in that department , that we did not wish his services any longer, and he was through "
Baker's discharge slip bears the following notation as the reason for the respondent ' s disciplinary
action - "Soliciting union memberships during working hours which interfered with proper control
of the quality of the Heat Treatment of vital aircraft forgings."
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 569
The following events immediately preceded Baker's discharge On June
18, 1943, Assistant Superintendent Muir found application cards for mem-
bership in the Steelworkers in the plant locker room The following morn-
ing he advised Supervisor Ingolf A. Nelson and Foreman David Edwards
of his discovery and told them that he, Muir, "would like to know for [his]
own information if Mr. Baker is doing that among all the other things
he is doing." Muir then instructed the two supervisors as follows : "If
you find any of these cards that he [Baker] is supposed to have handed
out or that he has got any connection with . . . bring them in to me.""
About noon, on June 19, 1943, the day of Baker's discharge, a fellow
employee, Raymond J. Sossong, gave Foreman Edwards a union card, and
stated that he, Sossong, had received the card from employee Hank Dorn-
hecker 10 Foreman Edwards reported this at once to Assistant Superin-
tendent Muir, who relayed the information to Plant Manager Wood.
Immediately upon receipt of Muir's report, Plant Manager Wood sum-
moned Assistant Superintendent Muir, Baker, employee Elsey,17 and Gen-
eral Superintendent Millard to Wood's office.
At the meeting Plant Manager Wood accused Elsey and Baker of hav-
ing interfered with "the quality of production" by carrying on union
activities on company time. In reply, Elsey denied that he had solicited
on company time but, according to Wood's uncontradicted testimony,
which we credit, Elsey "admitted that he had been doing plenty of
talking." Muir informed Wood that the respondent had no evidence that
Elsey had "handed out any union cards." Elsey was reprimanded by
Wood and was directed to remain at the meeting while Wood talked to
Baker. Turning to Baker, Wood characterized Baker as in effect having-a
reputation of being the most troublesome individual in his department
and charged that production was "definitely down" on Baker's shift.
Wood stated : "There is unrest on your shift", and accused Baker of solicit-
ing employees to join the Steelworkers on company time. Both Wood and
Baker testified that Baker had admitted that he had solicited on company
property but that he had denied that he had done so on company time.
While Wood, corroborated by Muir, also testified that Baker answered
15 Muir so testified His testimony is corroborated by Nelson and Edwards, and is credited
10 Edwards so testified Dornhecker was not called as a witness.
17 Elsey, whose first name is not stated , is variously referred to in the record as "Elsey" or
"Elsine " Elsey , who was present at the time of Baker's discharge, was not called as a witness al-
though he was employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing Assistant Superintendent'
Muir testified without contradiction that , after Baker's discharge had taken place , Phint -Manager
Wood asked Elsey "If you were called to testify in this case , would you5" and that Elsey re ,
plied- "Yes, absolutely . . I would just tell the truth just the way it happened " That the respond-
ent suspected Elsey of having engaged in union solicitation appears hereinafter and from testi.
mony of Walter P. Gougar, employed by the respondent as a trainer or instructor , who stated that
he "always thought Elsine was a pretty good worker, up until towards the last, before Mr Baker
was fired. He , [Elsine] seemed to get the same habit that Baker had, of running around the shop "
Gougar denied , however, that he had heard Elsey or any other employee talk about the Union, and
the record does not disclose whether Elsey was a union adherent
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this accusation with "you can't prove it," at the hearing Baker denied
having made such a statement. We credit Wood's and Muir's testimony
in this respect. In discharging Baker, Wood advised Baker that the dis-
charge was based upon his "attitude, and the trouble that he had caused
in that department."
The respondent contends that Baker's discharge was due to repeated
violations of company rules and procedure, his adverse influence upon
production, and "excessive scrap" coupled with a tremendous amount of
reprocessing due to defective heat treatment.
A careful weighing of the evidence discloses that Baker at times has
been lax in his conduct and inattentive to his duties. We refer to testimony
of Foreman Edwards, Trainer Gougar, and employee Joseph Samulowitz,
about Baker's "running around the shop" during working hours, and
Foreman Edward's testimony concerning Baker's participation in card
games and horseplay. On the other hand, there is credible testimony to the
effect that Baker was not the only employee in his- deparmtent who en-
gaged in such conduct. For example, it was customary in the plant for
employees, including Baker, to play cards during the lunch period and
to continue playing, after blowing of the whistle signalling time to resume
work, to the extent necessary to "play out the hand." Foreman Edwards
testified without contradiction that employees, including Baker, engaged
in horseplay by throwing water on other employees while they were en-
gaged in operations at their furnaces. However, such misconduct and
inattentiveness, in our opinion, would not ordinarily result in infliction
of the severe penalty of,.discharge, and was not the motivating cause for
Baker's discharge.
The respondent bases Baker's discharge, in part, upon alleged violation
of company rules. Although witnesses called by the respondent testified
that Baker talked to other employees while they were at work, the respond-
ent has not promulgated any rule forbidding such conduct. Furthermore,
other employees, who likewise engaged in such conduct were not shown
to have been reprimanded or otherwise disciplined for that reason. The
respondent admits that it has no definite policy with respect to permitting
employees to solicit others to join labor organizations in the plant during
working hours. Plant Manager Wood testified without contradiction that
the respondent has no written rule; that he has never issued a memoran-
dum to supervisory employees on the subject; that the respondent is not
concerned with the matter "if it does not interfere with production" ; and,
that "a man has a right to do anything during the noon hour, rest period,
and when he is not actually engaged in working." The record discloses,
and Baker admitted, that he solicited on behalf of the Steelworkers on
company property. Baker denied that he had done so on company time,
which we interpret to mean that he did not engage in such solicitation at
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 571
times when he should have been applying himself to his duties. There is
no evidence to the contrary. However, Baker solicited other employees
while they were working. A witness for the respondent, employee Victor
Calgaro, testified that, about the time of Baker's discharge, Baker asked
Calgaro; while he was working : "What about signing up ?" This conver-
sation lasted about 1 minute or 2, during which period Calgaro stopped
loading his furnace. Calgaro admitted in his testimony, however, that
other employees had talked to him while he was engaged in loading his
furnace. While employee David L. Grant testified that on June 18, 1943,
he saw Baker hand a card to employee Sylvester Wallinski at a time when
he was working, Wallinski's machine continued in operation without inter-
ruption 38 Employee Sossong testified that on June 19, 1943, the day of
Baker's discharge, Baker handed a union card to Sossong while he was
enjoying a legitimate rest period. Baker denied having distributed any
cards on the day of his discharge. We do not deem it necessary to resolve
the conflict in the testimony in view of the fact that Sossong, according
to his own testimony, was not working at that time and there is no evi-
dence that Baker was neglecting his. own work at the time.
The respondent further contends that Baker caused difficulty in connec-
tion with the respondent's administration of its established procedure with
respect to making job assignments. Under that procedure, employees are
permitted, by signing preference cards, to designate their choice of avail-
able assignments. Gougar, who performed ministerial duties in connection
with the assignments , testified, without contradiction, that Baker was never
satisfied with assignments given him; that he expressed dissatisfaction on
such occasions, thereby causing delay" ranging from 10 to 15 minutes at
the time of shift changes, and, that Gougar reported Baker from one to
three times a week to Baker's foreman before May 1, 1943, and thereafter
almost daily 1B However, Fred Cornish, Baker's foreman for a substantial
period immediately prior to June 1, 1943, was not called as a witness, and
there is no specific evidence that any supervisory employee ever com-
plained to Baker about his conduct relating to job assignments.' More-
over, while at one point, Gougar testified that Baker became a "problem"
1s Grant so testified Wallmski was not called .is .i witnese Since the operations in the heat
treatment are automatically controlled, there are short periods during which an employee has no
work to perform In addition, the employees have regular rest periods which aie not uniform in
that the employees in the department rotate in taking them so that at a given time a portion of
the force is at work while other employees rest. in view theieof, we do not credit Giant 's testimony
to the effect that Baker should have been working when lie approached Wallinski with the card
"'Trainer Gougar does not have supervisory status He trains new and retia ins old employees
and assigns jobs at the beginning of shifts in accordance with established seniority rights and
preferences
20 Sometime in May or the first part of June 1943, Supeivisor Nelson directed Foreman Edwards
to "find out what was amiss with" Baker On this occasion Bakei told Edwards according to Ed-
ward 's undenied testimony , "I don't give a- damn if you file me \Vhen I think I am right I am
going to stick up for my rights "
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
beginning about January 1, 1943, Gougar admitted in his testimony at
another point, that he had very little trouble with Baker at the first of
the year.
The respondent also contends that Baker "cheated" by hastening the
passage of forgings through the heat-treatment furnace, causing undue
spoilage. However, the respondent concedes that this is a common practice
engaged in by employees, and is a normal hazard of its production process.
Although Plant Manager Wood and Assistant Superintendent Muir tes-
tified that Baker was responsible for the scrapping of a substantial number
of pieces, Wood's testimony is based upon an alleged conversation between
himself and one of the straightener helpers in the plant who was not called
as a witness, and Muir's testimony rests, not upon his own knowledge,
but upon alleged reports from unnamed supervisors. This testimony of
Wood and Muir was not otherwise corroborated We find that their testi-
mony does not support the respondent's assertion that Baker was respon-
sible for spoilage."
Although the respondent's records as to production in the heat-treat
department were maintained upon a departmental basis and not on a shift
basis until May 15, 1943, approximately 1 month before Baker's dis-
charge, and notwithstanding the fact that approximately 80 to 108 men
were employed on Baker's shift in the heat-treat department, the respond-
ent contends that a production decrease which occurred during April,
May, and June 1943, is attributable solely to misconduct on the part of
Baker. As indicated above, the testimony in the record does not persuade
us that this is true. Rather we are convinced that the respondent's pro-
duction difficulties were largely attributable to lack of proper supervision.
Indicative of this is Assistant Superintendent Muir's testimony that, after
Baker's discharge, "supervision had more time to put on the problems of
quality and production which before was taken up with personnel prob-
lems, and quality and production were going to seed." In spite of the fact
that Baker engaged i n conduct,which called for a measure of disciplinary
21 We have also considered in this connection Wood' s direct testimony to the effect that Baku
instigated the practice of "pulling" blades prematurely in the light of Wood's explanation given
upon questioning by the Trial Examiner , that he did not mean that Baker was the first employee
to engage in this practice We have also considered Muir's testimony about all alleged warning
given to Baker by an unnamed foreman for shutting off his furnace In addition , Superintendent
Nelson testified that , about May 20, 1943, he observed Baker's furnace shut off for about 10 minutes.
Nelson further stated, however, that he did not reprimand Baker but that he instructed an un-
named foreman to do so There is no testimony that the alleged offense was called to Baker's atten
tion The respondent also failed to communicate to Baker an alleged decision reached at a meet
ing conducted by Plant Manager Wood with the heat -treat department supervisors early in June
1943, to the effect that Baker be given another chance to improve himself in accordance with the
respondent ' s established policy that "anybody can fire a man, " but that good supervision should
"salvage" men and "make men " In view of the relatively insubstantial character of Baker's mis-
conduct, and the existence of the respondent ' s personnel policy , characterized by its counsel at oral
argument as one of "eternal salvation ," we do not believe that the respondent decided to give
Baker "a last chance" to reform himself , particularly since it did not notify him of any such deci-
sion It may be noted, however, that the respondents handling of Baker, including his ultimate
discharge , does not appear to be consistent with the respondent's avowed policy referred to above
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 573
action, we are convinced upon the record as a whole that he would not
have been discharged, without prior warning, after 2 years of service, at a
time of great scarcity of manpower and need for increased production,
had he not engaged in union activities. Although the respondent had sum-
moned both Baker and Elsey to Wood's office for disciplinary action and
Elsey had been interfering with production by "running around the shop,"
Elsey was not discharged since it appeared that he had not distributed
union membership cards. On the other hand, Wood promptly discharged
Baker after informing hum that the respondent had proof that he had
-distributed union cards to employees "on company time," and documen-
tary evidence in the record, together with the record as a whole, persuades
us that the respondent strongly objected to Baker's union activities in the
plant without regard to their consumption of company tine.`' We are
mindful of the necessity of maintaining full production in wartime, but we
find the testimony adduced by the respondent insufficient in character or
extent to establish the respondent's claim that Baker's union activities
caused a serious interruption of production. We find that the real reason
for his discharge was his union activity and that the added reasons ad-
vanced by the respondent serve only as pretexts to justify the respondent's
illegal action. °
We find that, by discharging Baker and by failing thereafter to rein-
state him, the respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Steelworkers and
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2. William Coale and Peter Crince
'Coale and Crince were employed by the respondent for 18 and 21 years,
respectively, and at the time of their discharge, in August 1943, were
classified as superior he sinkers." They had been interested in the Die
22 The documentary evidence referred to above consists of thi ee memoi anda, pi epai ed by PI-tnt
Manager Wood, of conversations between Wood, on the one hand, and Coale, Ciince, and Benjamin
Olsen, respectively, on the other, which are discussed more fully, infra Wood there stated that each
employee was "warned that any further activities on his part in regard to the (lie sinkers' confer-
ence carried on on company ' s property , regardless of whether it was doting woiking hours or not.
would result in his instant discharge from the employ of the Company " The treatment Biker was
subjected to by the respondent is in striking contrast with the treatment that the iespoudent affoided
members of the Council in that the councilmen were permitted to utilize company time .uid premises
for their activities on behalf of the Council , which we have found to be a conip .iis -dominated labor
organization
23 At the time of their discharge both men received an hourly wage of $2 10 . Ci nice had been a
superior die sinker for a substantial period, at any rate , before Coale The recur d does not disclose
exactly when Coale was transferred to the superior group We find, based upon exhibits introduced
by the respondent, that such transfer was made sometime after March 21, 1942, but not l.ttei
than May 3, 1942 Coale is the son of Chief Inspector Coale, the oldest employee in term of service
on the respondent ' s pay roll Crince is a brother - in-law of Geoige Cole, general foreman of the
die shop A brother of Foreman Geoige Cole, William A Cole, heieutaftei refeired to as Bill Cole,
is one of the two most efficient superior die sinkers There is no relationship between the Coles and
the dischargee , William Coale , hereinafter referred to as Bud Coale
574 DECISIONS ON NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sinkers since 1942; they attended an organizational meeting of the Die
Sinkers on June 25, 1943, and became members thereof on June 27, 1943.
On July 10, 1943, Plant Manager Wood called Coale, Crince, and die
sinker Benjamin Olsen,' separately, to Wood's office and warned each of
them not to engage in union activities on company property under threat
The threat thus made was consummated shortly thereafter by the dis-
charges of Coale and Crince on August 9, 1943. Substantially identical
discharge slips were given to both employees which, insofar as material,
state the following as reasons for each discharge :
of immediate discharge.'
Urging slow down on work to apprentice which interferes seriously
with war effort;
Influencing apprentice not to sign apprentice contract;
Urging die shop employees to sign union contract on company prop-
erty.
In notifying Coale of his discharge, Foreman George Cole stated that
Coale was being discharged for "talking union in the shop on company
hours."" °
The discharges occurred against the following background of events.
Union activities first began in the respondent's plant in the spring of 1942,
when the Die Sinkers began an organizational campaign among the re-
spondent's employees. On April 17, 1942, the Die Sinkers filed with the
Board a petition for investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to which the Board conducted an election on May 21, 1942
The Die Sinkers lost the election Coale and Crince acted as watchers for
the Die Sinkers at the election, but were not then, as far as appears, other-
wise active on behalf of the Die Sinkers.
On April 5, 1942, the respondent had granted a general wage increase
of 10 cents per hour to all its die sinking employees. The evidence does
not establish that the respondent was aware of the existence of the organi-
24 Benny Olsen quit the respondent's employ on July 30, 1943
25 As stated above, the respondent preserved a record of these three conversations in three separ•
ate memoranda signed by Plant Manager Wood and witnessed by General Superintendent Forrest
G. Millard, Forge Division Superintendent John W. Ford, General Foreman George B Cole, and
Assistant General Foreman Edward Drolet More fully, the three men were warned by Wood "that
any further activities on [their] part in regard to the die sinkers' conference carried on, on com-
pany property, regardless of whether it was during working hours or not, would result in [their]
instant discharge ...." Wood offered to erect in the street near the plant a platform or rostrum
from which they could deliver unibn speeches. Wood made it clear to Crince and Coale that "this
was the final warning on this subject and [that] it would not-be discussed with [them] at any future
time."
2e Foreman Cole so testified However, we note that this asserted reason is at variance with the
reasons set forth in Coale's discharge slip in that the discharge slip refers specifically to company
property while Foreman Cole's statement refers to company time
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 575
zational efforts of the Die Sinkers at the time of the granting of the wage
increase . But, while the organizational drive was in progress, the respond-
ent speedily acted upon a request of die shop employees that the respond-
ent's bonus system then in operation be abolished.
To understand the respondent's asserted defense that Crince and Coale
were discharged for urging employees to slow down in their work, it is
necessary to explain the operation of the respondent's bonus system. The
bonus system operated in the following manner : A die job was assigned
to a good die sinker in order to ascertain how long it would take such a
worker, working at his normal speed, to sink the die. After arriving at
this figure, the respondent set such figure as the estimated "working time."
Any worker thereafter producing that particular die in the same period
of time received for his work a "bonus time" of 50 percent. Assuming that
a good die sinker could sink a die in 20 hours, any die sinker who there-
after sank the die in 20 hours or less received 30 hours' pay for such work
at the regular hourly rate established for the group to which he belonged 2t
Any worker who was unable to produce a die in the estimated time was
paid at his regular hourly rate for the total amount of hours spent on such
die. While all die sinkers strove to earn "50 percent bonus time," they
were often not able to achieve such goal 28 Of all the die sinkers, only those
in the superior group and one die sinker in the lower groups, excluding
overtime, earned more than 50 percent of their wages in bonus time during
the period from December 28, 1941, to March 21, 1942.29 The bonus
=' Under the bonus system the die sinkers were classified as Classes A, B, C, and Keller oper-
ators; Class A was called superior die sinkers , seven of whom received an hourly rate of $ 1 20, and
two of whom , among them Coale , an hourly rate of $1 15, the hourly rate of Class B was $1 10
and $1 05; that of Class C, $1 05 and $0 95, the hourly rate of the Keller operators varied from
$085 to $ 112% In addition to such hourly rate, the die sinkers ieceived overtime and a bonus
After the bonus system was discontinued , as hereinafter related , the die shop employees were classi-
fied as die sinkers, Keller operatois , and apprenticLs , the die sinkers were classed as superior
and Classes A-D, receiving an hourly rate of $2 10, $1 95, $1 80 , $ 1 65, and $ 1 50, respectively,
and the Keller operators were classed as superior and Classes A and B , receiving an hourly rate
of $1 80 , $ 1.65, and $1 50, respectivelj
28 This was partly due to the fact that the estimated working time was based upon "test run"
of a superior die sinker and not of an average worker To earn the bonus, workers less skilled
than a superior die sinker , were often forced to speed up their production to a point which, as the
record discloses , was beyond their normal capacity In addition , as supervisory employees admitted
at the hearing, certain jobs were underestimated , but no adjustment was made for the alleged
reason that other jobs were overestimated as to the time required for earning the bonus . Such obvi-
ous inadequacies in the estimate of working time caused the practice common] engaged in by
the die sinkers of "overriding" easier jobs, that is, withholding report as to early completion of
a simple job and devoting the balance of the time to a difficult job, which could not be completed
in the established working time , in order to earn bonus money on both jobs' Although the respond-
ent considers work performed within the estimated working time as a fair day's work , the record
shows that , except as to the superior die sinker group, such standard was actually the maximum
production the respondent could reasonably expect from the lower groups of die sinkers
29 Thus, excluding overtime , of their total earnings during this period , superior die sinkers Frank
Petronaitis , Bill Cole, Benjamin Olsen, Crince, E. Schaller, C Spindler, and R Heckler, earned
66 3, 63 4, 61 7, 59 9, 54 1, 60 9, and 60 3 percent , respectively, and Coale, who was in this period
not a superior die sinker , made 48 7 percent by way of bonus pay These percentages were also
used by the respondent to show the relative efficiency of the (lie sinkers involved
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
system which had been in effect over a long period of time was abolished
and a straight rate was put into effect on May 3, 1942 30
In June 1942, Coale was elected to the Council as one of the represen-
tatives of the die shop employees. Sometime after the bonus system had
been abolished, Coale, who was then a councilman, and Crince, who had
attended the above-mentioned conference of April 27, 1942, at which Plant
Manager Wood had discussed with the superior die sinkers, among other
things, the standard. of production expected by the respondent under the
new wage system, advised the die sinkers that Wood would be satisfied
if the die sinkers, under the new wage system, continued to- work at the
same 50-percent bonus time standard-that they had attempted to achieve
under the bonus system.'
While there is no showing that any of the die sinkers in the lower clas-
sifications decreased their- production after the discontinuance of the bonus
plan, it is undisputed that the whole group of superior die sinkers, includ-
ing Crince but excluding Coale, dropped in their production and worked
at 50 percent efficiency during the period from May 1942 to the time of
the discharge of Coale and Crince." In the same period, Coale increased
his own production by 2.3 percent, thus reaching an efficiency standard
of slightly more than 50 percent." The respondent was aware of this gen-
30 Plant Manager Wood first discussed the proposed change from the bonus system to straight
pay with Coale and, thereafter , with a committee of employees At a final conference at
which the whole superior die sinker group was present, on April 27 , 1942, the employees sug-
gested various straight rates, all of which were lower than the one finally set by the respond-
ent at $2.10 per hour for the superior group This figure represents the average holurly day
rate plus earned bonus time of all the superior die gmkers and Coale, during the period fiom
December 28, 1941, to March 21, 1942 The straight rates for the lower groups were arrived at by
the same method of averaging the earnings of all members of each group While the rate thus
established amounted to a decrease in wages for superior die sinkers Frank Petronaitis and Bill
Cole, it meant a substantial increase for Coale, and to a lesser extent, for Crmce By elimination
of the bonus system and establishment of straight pay on an hourly rate basis, the die sinkers in the
lower groups received an increase in pay, as the respondent admits This general wage increase
was achieved without intervention of the company-dominated Council and, as previously stated,
during a period when the Die Sinkers was engaged in its organizational drive.
31 The testimony is conflicting as to whether Wood had made a statement such as that set forth
above, at the April 27 conference , or whether Wood had stated that he expected the die smkeis to
work "at their best ability " However, it is not disputed that Coale advised the die sinkers as set
forth above. The respondent contends that by giving such advice Coale and Crince advocated a
slow-down and urged the die sinkers to work "at a time ," and that this factor contributed to their
eventual discharge Since, as is hereinafter shown , Coale's and Crince ' s statements in this respect
were not a real reason for their discharge , the conflict in the testimony indicated above does not
materially affect the issues in this case and therefore need not be resolved Besides, under the bonus
system a production rate at the working time established by the respondent admittedly constitutes
a fair day's work, so that Coale's and Crince's interpretation of Wood's statement did not amount
to advocacy of a slow - down , even if Wood had never indicated that he would be satisfied with mainte-
nance of the 50-percent bonus time standard of production With respect to "working at such a
time," we note that such 50 - percent bonus time standard of production represented in fact maxi-
mum production , a standard set by the respondent itself, which , tinder the bonus system, was
difficult to reach by rank and file die sinkers
32 As used above, "50 percent" efficiency rate refers to the percentage of total earnings of each
employee, excluding overtime, represented by bonus pay See footnote 28, srcpaa, page 13
33 Coale had the lowest production record in his group at the time of the change fiom the bonus
system to the straight rate sage system
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 577
eral production decrease. On several occasions during the last half of
1942, Plant Manager Wood called Coale to the respondent's office and
asked Coale, as a member of the Council, to urge the die shop employees
to increase their production. Coale refused to do so, asserting on each
occasion that such an attempted speed-up in production was a matter to
be taken up with the employees directly by management. Notwithstanding
the respondent's knowledge of Coale's and Crince's interpretation of the
respondent's views as to production requirements, and despite the pro-
duction lag within the top group of superior die sinkers, the respondent
refrained from taking any effective measure to cope with either situation
until the spring of 1943, when the Die Sinkers renewed organizational
activity in which Coale and Crince took a leading part.
The renewal of such union activity was occasioned in part by the re-
spondent's hiring of specialists for jobs theretofore performed by appren-
tices in the plant." In his capacity as councilman, Coale had expressed
concern in conversations with Plant Manager Wood about the employment
of such specialists. On May 10, 1943, Wood called a meeting of the
superior die sinkers at which they discussed the problem of production
in the die shop and reached an agreement with Wood on the employment
of specialists."
Shortly after Coale renewed his union activities," about the fourth week
in May, Wood called Coale into the respondent's office, complained about
his "attitude," accused him of delaying production in the plant, character-
ized his conduct as bordering on sabotage, and warned him that he, Wood,
had "a good notion to turn" Coale "over to the F.B.I." Coale stated to
Wood that he, Coale, knew "what he was doing" and that, if Wood so
desired, he could report Coale to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Upon questioning by the Trial Examiner, Coale testified that he had felt
that, he had clone nothing to warrant investigation by that Government
agency.
On July 3, 1943, Plant Manager Wood called a meeting of the respond-
ent's apprentices at which a proposed contract covering them' was com-
pared with similar union contracts and otherwise discussed. Following
the discussion, the respondent submitted copies of the proposed contract
to the apprentices for their examination, consideration, and signature.
After the meeting, according to apprentice Elmer DeRuntz's testimony.
at The so-called specialists were unskilled employees engaged to perform "finishing die uupression
work on Cincinnati b3drotel machines "
as At the meeting Wood reproached the superior die sinkers, stating that they were working "to
a time on their jobs instead of doing as we agreed on April 27, 1942. . . " In response , superior
die sinker William Cole told Wood that he was responsible for a slow-down on Cole's part because
Cole had suffeied a curt in wages
R0 On May 15 and 16, 1943, foul of the respondent's employees, including Coale, Crume, and
Benjamin Olsen , mentioned above, attended a meeting of the Die Sinkers held in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coale asked DeRuntz what the respondent had offered, and upon being
informed, Coale stated : "Don't be a fool and sign anything like that with
the company." Coale denied-that he had urged apprentices not to sign
the proposed contract. We credit Coale's denial that he had urged appren-
tices not to sign the proposed contract, but we find that Coale discussed
the terms of the contract with apprentices."
As previously stated, on July 10, 1943, Coale and Crince were warned
by Wood not to engage in union activities on company property.
On August 7, 1943, according to the testimony of apprentice David
Roy, he complained to Assistant Foreman Roy Harmer that Coale and
Crince had solicited Roy to join the Die Sinkers on occasions in June,
July, and August 1943; that such repeated attempts interfered with his
work ; and that they had also urged Roy not to work "so fast" and not to
sign the apprentice contract. On the same day, Foreman Harmer reported
his conversation with Roy to Foreman Cole, who did not take any action
until the following Monday, August 9, as set forth below. According to
Roy's testimony, which we credit, on Sunday, August 8, 1943, a petition,
calling for employee designation of the Die Sinkers as bargaining repre-
sentative, was circulated for signatures in the die shop by employee
Horning.' Roy returned the petition unsigned to Horning on the same
clay. On Monday, August 9, 1943, according to Roy, Crince asked Roy
why he had not signed the petition, informed Roy that Coale had the
petition, and suggested that Roy see Coale and sign it. Crince denied that
he ever told any apprentice to sign the petition or that he had said that
Coale had the paper in his possession.
Before the lunch hour, on August 9, 1943, Foreman George Cole re-
ported his conversation of the previous Saturday with apprentice Roy to
Assistant Superintendent Millard and Millard informed Plant Manager
Wood of it. Wood immediately called Foreman Cole and Roy into Super-
intendent Ford's office. While Roy testified that Wood started the con-
versation by asking Roy about the petition, Wood testified that he knew
nothing about the petition until Roy mentioned it in the course of the
conversation.' Thereafter Wood instructed Foreman George Cole to dis-
charge Coale and Crince Both employees were discharged on the afternoon
37 There is no testimony that Crince advised any apprentice not to sign the apprentice contract
except as appears from David Roy's testimony hereinafter discussed
se The Die Sinkers then contemplated filing with the Board another petition for investigation
and certification of representatives , and desired to use the so-called petition which was being circu-
lated in the plant to support a request fm another election
dN When the Trial Examiner called Wood 's attention to this conflict in the testimony , Wood stated
that Roy was not telling the truth when he testified that Wood had asked Roy about the petition,
as set forth above
\VVMAN-GOLtDON CO)dI'ANV 579
of August 9, 1943, Coale receiving his discharge slip from Foreman Cole,
as set forth above, and Crince, from Assistant Foreman Drolet.'° '
The respondent claims, among other things, that it discharged the two
employees because they urged apprentices not to sign the apprentice con-
tract, discussed above.'1 Such contracts were proposed by the respondent
as individual contracts with the apprentices. Coale merely pointed out to
them that they would gain by banding together for collective bargaining.
We find that a discharge based upon the ground that Coale had urged the
establishment of collective bargaining among the apprentices constitutes
in and of itself an illegal interference with the rights of employees to self-
organization.
The respondent also contends that it discharged Coale and Crince
because they interfered with production by urging a slow-down among
employees. While apprentices Roy, DeRuntz, and Walter M. Black's tes-
tified that, on many occasions, they were told by Coale and Crince "not
to kill the job," to "take it easy," to "slow down," and that they were
"working too fast for the money they made," both Coale and Crince denied
that they had urged any apprentices to slacken production. Such denial
is strengthened by testimony of apprentices Michael Krygowski and Rob-
ert Rogness, to the effect that neither Coale nor Crince urged them to slow
down, indicating, at least, there was no general advocacy of a slow-down.
40 According to Crince's undenied testimony, in discharging Crince, Drolet stated that Crince
was fired "over some kind of a form " that had been brought into the plant . We credit Crince's
testimony in this respect. Coale also credibly testified that, when he received his discharge slip from
Foreman Cole , Cole mentioned a "form," -among other things, in assigning reasons for the discharge
At the hearing , Foreman Cole made no mention of the word "form" in testifying concerning the
circumstances of Cole's discharge . However, in Foreman Cole ' s testimony , he asserted that the
statement in the discharge slip, "urging men to sign union conti act ," referred to solicitation for
union members and not to solicitation in connection with the circulation of the. petition seeking em-
ployee designations of the Die Sinkers as bargaining representative . Coale and Crince signed the
petition during the lunch hour on the day of their discharge prior to the conference in Wood's
office. The discharges promptly followed circulation of the petition in the plant. Under the cir-
cumstances , we do not credit Cole's testimony that the petition was not referred to in the discharge
slip We hereinafter find that Coale 's and Crince 's participation in the movement for a new elec-
tion was a substantial factor leading to their discharge.
41 The respondent also relies upon testimony of chipper Anthony C . Affinito to the effect that
Coale had advised Affinito that chippers , who regularly worked in a part of the plant other than
the hammier shop, would not have to work in the hammer shop, as they did in the past, under the
proposed Die Sinker 's contract There is no indication that Affinito reported this to the respondent
prior to Coale 's discharge.
42 Black, who was subpoenaed by the respondent, was in the U S Navy at the time of the heal -
ing; be was an apprentice while working for the respondent
.580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO NS BOARD
We do not credit DeRuntz.4'' Neither do we credit Roy's testimony. Plant
Manager Wood stated that Roy was not telling the truth with regard to
the petition, as set forth above. Also, Roy was inconsistent in his testimony
with respect to the time that he was solicited by Coale and Crince to join
the Die Sinkers."
Black's testimony, when weighed against the credible testimony of
Krygowski and Rogness, in the light of the denials of Coale and Crince,
is in our opinion insufficient to establish that Coale or Crince engaged in
a movement to slow down the production of the apprentices, particularly
statements at the time they were made, or prior to their discharge, to
management.
While Keller operator Edward J Koster. die sinker Ralph Ford Wil-
kins, and bench worker John J. Lewandowski testified that Crince and
Coale had stated to them that they "should not kill the job" and that they
"should take it easy," die sinker Everett Elbers and Keller operators
Ferdinand Schrank and Fred Bennett denied that the dischargees had
urged them to slow down in their work. Coale and Crince denied that they
had urged any employee to slow down in his work Their denial is further
corroborated by die sinkers Bill Cole and Fred Rickhoff, both of whom
testified that the dischargees had not, within their hearing, advocated a
slow-down among the die sinkers. We find it significant that, in stating
its reasons for the discharge of Coale and Crince in the discharge slips,
the pertinent contents of which are set forth above, the respondent did not
accuse them of urging a slow-down among employees other than appren-
tices. Regardless whether Coale or Crmce urged employees other than
apprentices to slow down, the respondent did not discharge them for urging
die sinkers fo slow down in their work.
The respondent also attributes sole responsibility to Coale and Crince
for reduced production among the superior die sinkers. After the change
47 On October 6, 1943, at the instance of a field representative of the Board, DeRuntz made an
affidavit in which he stated that he had never been asked by Crmce or Coale to slow down in pro-
duction DeRuntz also stated in the affidavit that he had been solicited for membership in the Die
Sinkers by Crince and Coale during July and the early part of August 1943 On February 4, 1944,
DeRuntze made another affidavit in which he changed the time of the solicitation referred to in
his first affidavit to the early part of July In addressing a meeting of employees assembled in the
plant, about the middle of May 1944 , Plant Manager Wood in substance warned the employees
that they might be called as witnesses in this proceeding , he gave them the respondent ' s version of
the events leading to the discharge of Coale , Ciince, and Baker , and the respondent ' s reasons
therefor , and admonished them to tell "the truth " Subsequent thereto, employees made affidavits
which contained statements inconsistent with , and materially different from, those contained in
prior affidavits made by them prior to Wood ' s address At the hearing, DeRuntz testified in effect
that he had not told the truth in either affidavit made by him and that lie had decided to repudiate
those statements in his affidavits unfavorable to the respondent because his "job meant more to him "
44 At one point , Roy testified that Coale and Crince solicited his membership In the Die Sinkers
on several occasions during June , July, and August 1943 At another point , Roy testified that he
applied for membership in the Die Sinkers on July 21, and that , shortly thereafter , he joined
When advised of the inconsistency in his statements with respect to the time element , Roy revised
his statement by reducing the period of such solicitation from sometime in August to July 21
\VYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 581
from the bonus system to straight rate pay, Coale and Crince informed
the other die sinkers that the respondent expected them to work at the
production rate previously in existence under the bonus system. As above
stated, the respondent contends that by such statements Coale and Crince
advocated a slow-down in production among the die sinkers. We do not
agree. After elimination of the bonus system, every superior die sinker's
production, except that of Coale, dropped to approximately "50 percent.""
We regard this as the inevitable result of the elimination of the bonus
system of pay without substitution of any comparable incentive to increase
or stabilize production." We do not attribute responsibility for the drop in
production among the die sinkers to Coale or Crince; and, particularly, in
view of the absence of any such statement in the discharge slips, we find
that the respondent neither regarded them as responsible therefor, nor that
the respondent discharged them for that reason.
Nor is there any merit in the respondent's contention that Coale did not
work to his full capacity." Coale testified that, on certain jobs, he might
have been'able to work faster but that, on an average, he could not have
achieved higher production. Although, under the bonus system, his effi-
ciency was 48 percent, the respondent transferred him from a lower to the
highest die sinker classification; and, while working as a superior die
sinker, Coale increased his production to 50 percent.
The respondent also sought to show that Coale and Crince had violated
a rule banning solicitation on company property. The alleged rule was
admittedly never officially promulgated, posted in the plant, or otherwise
brought to the attention of the employees at large. The rule as announced
45 As used here , "50 percent" refers to the portion of total earnings represented by bonus pay
See footnotes 28 at 31, supra, pp . 13 and 14
+a The respondent argues 'that , since the straight rate represented an increase in hourly wages,
it expected the men to increase their production As previously indicated , however, the bonus test
was so high that the rank and file die sinkers had had difficulty in maintaining a production rate
sufficient to earn the bonus The respondent could not, therefore , reasonably expect an increase in
production , even through payment of higher wages The respondent also mti oduced production
records to show that , after the discharge of Coale and Crince, production in the die shop increased
For a number of reasons , we do not regard such evidence as having controlling significance The
same employees do not work on the same type of die. The constituency of the die sinking groups
varies, and the various employees work at different speeds, thereby influencing the time spent on
production of a particular job by a specific employee Furthermore , the longer an employee works on
the same type of job , the faster he tends to produce it Also, the respondent had been faced with a
sudden increase in demand to which its production process had to be adjusted, and once such ad-
justment had been completed , which occurred at or about the time of the discharges , operations
as a whole functioned more smoothly thereafter we do not therefore attribute the increase in
production , which the records show, to the discharges of Coale and Crince
41 There is no like contention made as to Crince , except as what may be inferred from individual
production figures disclosed in the record Although Crince 's production dropped after elimination
of the bonus system, the production of all other superior die sinkers, except Coale, also dropped
and the production drop of other superior die sinkers exceeded that of Crince
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Coale, Croce, and Olsen was a special one " The respondent thus sin-
gled out these three employees for their leadership in the organizational
campaign of the Die Sinkers but did nothing about other employees who,
as the record shows, were likewise engaged in activities in the plant on
behalf of the Council, which we have found to be a company-dominated
labor organization. The discriminatory purpose and application of the
special rule announced to Coale and Crince is thus evident Since 1934,
the respondent, by its own admission, actively supported and maintained
the Council and permitted its members to utilize company time and prem-
ises for their activities. Upon the record as a whole, we find that the
respondent's invocation of the rule as to solicitation was a weapon devised
by it to support its action in disposing of Coale and Crince who were the
most active proponents of self-organization among the respondent's die
sinking employees.
We find that, by discharging Coale and Crince and by failing thereafter
to reinstate them, the respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Die Sinkers and
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
C. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
As we have found in Section III, B, above, the respondent granted a
general wage increase to its die shop employees on April 5, 1942, and a
second wage increase in connection with the elimination of the bonus
48 Olsen left the respondent 's employ on July 30, 1942 He gave his foreman , George Cole , notice
a week in advance On that occasion , according to Olsen ' s testimony , which we credit , Olsen told
Cole that he , Olsen, was no longer satisfied , that he felt that lie had a right to join a union and
that he did not care to work for a company that objected so strongly to a union On July 30, 1942,
Foreman Cole called Olsen into his office and told him that he, Cole, was satisfied with Olsen ,
work; that Cole would help Olsen "to come back " provided he would. forget about the union and
"come" under the respondent 's terns While Cole admitted that he stated to Olsen on that occasion
that he, Cole , was satisfied with Olsen 's work and would be glad to help him cone back , Cole denied
that he said "provided he, Olsen , would forget about the union " We credit the testimony of Olsen,
who was no longer employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing, and not Cole's denial
49 In reaching this result we have not overlooked a credibility finding made by the Trial Ex-
aminer with respect to Coale and Crmce The Trial Exammei found in his Intermediate Repot
that Coale and Crince falsified their testimony with respect to application by them for employment
elsewhere after their discharge Coale and Ciince testified that, a few days after then discharge,
they procured statements of availability from the United States hniployment Service it Harvey,
Illinois, and on that occasion received from a United States Employment Seivice agent a negative
answer when they asked whether lie knew of any jobs in Haivey Both men testified that they did
not formally register for employment at that time, a fact which was corroborated by the testimony
of Max C Weber, the official in charge of the office of the Untied States Employment Service at
Harvey, Illinois Coale and Crince were occupied with the preparation of their case before the
Board, as they admitted, and for that reason, we find that they did not make as serous an effort
to procure other employment as it was their duty in wartime, a factor which we have hereinafter
taken into consideration in fashioning our remedy Although occasionally answers given by Cruice
and Coale in their testimony were unresponsive , or appeared to be evasive, we do not find that
their statements with regard to the piocuienient of employment elsewhere were deliberately falsi
fled We, therefore, disagree with the Trial Examiner as to the credibility of Coale and Gina.
and find that their testimony as a whole is truthful
WYUAN-CORDON CONIPANY 583
system, on May 2„ 1942. Prior to and during said period the die shop
employees had been dissatisfied with their earnings under the bonus
system as operated by the respondent. The Die Sinkers filed its petition
for investigation and certification of representatives with the Board on
April 17, 1942. While the record does not disclose whether, prior to this
time, the respondent had actual knowledge of the organizational drive of
the Die Sinkers, the respondent had such knowledge on and after April
18, 1942. The record does not show when the respondent first obtained
information that the die shop employees were dissatisfied with the bonus
system. Although the respondent may have begun an investigation of such
complaints prior to April 18, 1942, the negotiations with the employees
directly were carried on with full knowledge of the organizational drive
of the Die Sinkers. It may well be that the respondent granted its first
wage increase on April 5, 1942, hoping that the die shop employees would
lose their interest in concerted action thereafter. In any event, when the
respondent became aware of the fact that such hope was not likely to
materialize in view of persisting dissatisfaction with the bonus system, it
selected one of the employees most interested in the Die Sinkers, Coale,
as a member of the committee with whom the respondent sought to adjust
the bonus grievance. The first conference for that purpose was held on
April 17, 1942, and within 10 days, on April 27, 1942, the respondent
completed the adjustment. It abolished the bonus system under which it
had operated for years and adopted a wige rate even higher than that
suggested by its superior die sinkers during the negotiations 60 This speedy
action tended to influence the die shop employees in the election since the
employees obtained what they immediately wanted and consequently they
lost interest in concerted action. We find that, by hastily making its de-
cision to abolish the bonus system and at the same time granting the
second wage increase, the respondent interfered with the exercise by its
employees of a free choice 'in selecting a bargaining representative.
As set forth above, the respondent's general manager, Wood, interro-
gated employees Baker, Elsey, Olsen, Crince, and Coale about their
union activities. Foreman Drolet admitted in his testimony that he asked
employee Robert •Rogness the day after Rogness had joined the Die
Sinkers, at the end of September 1942, why he had joined the Die
Sinkers and what Rogness expected to gain from such membership. Em-
ployee Fred Bennett testified that at an unstated time he was asked by
Foreman Drolet : "How does it feel to be paying union dues?" Drolet
did not deny Bennett's testimony, which we credit. As stated above, when
former employee Olsen quit his job, he was told by Foreman Cole that
Cole would help Olsen to return to the respondent's employ if he would
"forget about the union and come back under the Company's terms." On
51 The new rate became effective on May 2, 1942
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the day of Baker's discharge, Foreman Edwards questioned employee
Sossong as to the identity of the person from whom Sossong had ob-
tained the union card which Sossong had handed to Edwards on that day.
We find that, by the various acts and statements set forth above in this
subsection, the respondent further interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. I
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I, above , have a close , intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to labor ' disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action which we find will effectuate ,the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
administration of the Council and contributed financial and other support
thereto. The respondent's acts render the Council incapable of serving
the respondent's employees as a genuine bargaining representative and
render its continued recognition by the respondent an obstacle to col-
lective bargaining through freely chosen representatives. We shall, ac-
cordingly, order that the respondent withdraw all recognition from the
Council and disestablish it as a representative of its employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of F. M. Baker, William Coale, and Peter
Crince, because of their union membership and activities. In accordance
with our usual practice, and iii order to effectuate the purposes and poli-
cies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to offer full and immediate
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions to these
employees. The respondent shall pay Baker a sum equal to the amount
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the
respondent's discrimination against him to the date of the offer of re-
instatement, less his net earnings during said period." Inasmuch as the
51 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 re-
spondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent
necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union,
Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county,
municipal or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Cor-
poiation v N L R B, 311 U S 7.
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 585
Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint be 'dismissed as to
Baker, in accordance with our usual rule," we will not require the re-
spondent to pay him back pay for the period from the date of the respond-
ent's receipt of the Intermediate Report to the date of our order herein.
Although Coale and Crince made some efforts after their discharge to
obtain other employment, according to their own testimony, which we
credit, they were more interested in the preparation of this case for hear-
ing and awaiting the outcome of this proceeding than in procuring other
employment. We find that they did not make a reasonable effort to obtain
other work. For that reason we find that any loss in wages that they
incurred during the period from the date of their discharge to the time
when they accepted other employment was a loss wilfully incurred 63 Ac-
cordingly, we shall not require the respondent to reimburse them for
such loss. However, in accordance with our usual practice in such cases,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the re-
spondent to make Crince, and Coale whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of their respective discriminatory discharges by
payment to each of them of a suui equal to the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his employment elsewhere
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period, except, as in the case of Baker, the respondent shall
not be required to pay them any back pay for the period' intervening be-
tween the Intermediate Report and our order herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LA\V
1. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Chicago.Die Sinkers' Lodge
No. 100 of the International Die Sinkers' Conference, and The Employ-
ees' Council, Ingalls Shepard Division, Wyman-Gordon Company, are
labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
-2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of, and con-
tributing support to, The Employees' Council, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of F.
M. Baker, William Coale, and Peter Crince, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or Chicago Die Sinkers'
Lodge No. 100 of the International Die Sinkers' Conference, as the case
62 Matter of E R ilaffelfinaei Company, Inc and Matted Wall Papci Crafts of No'th Ameiua
Local No 6, 1 N L R R 760, and many cases theteaftei
63 Coale and Crince found other employment on October 12 and 16, 1943, respectively
:586 DF_CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
may be, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. 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 mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and '(7) 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 Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Wyman-Gordon Company (Ingalls Shepard Division), Harvey, Illinois,
and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing support to, The Employees' Council, or dominating or inter-
fering with the formation or administration of, or contributing support
to, any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing The Employees' Council as the representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
(c) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, Chicago Die Sinkers' Lodge No. 100 of the International Die Sink-
ers' Conference, or any other organization of its employees by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating' with respect to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist United Steelworkers of America, CIO, or Chicago Die
Sinkers' Lodge No. 100 of the International Die Sinkers' Conference, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives 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) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish The
Employees' Council as the representative of any of its employees for the
WYMAN-CORDON COMPANY 587
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of,pay, hours of employment, or other terms or con-
ditions of employment;
(b) Offer to F. M. Baker, William Coale, and Peter Crince immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
(c) Make whole F. M. Baker, William Coale, and Peter Crince for
any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to an amount determined in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion entitled "The remedy" above ;
(d) Post at its plant at Harvey, Illinois, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintaind by it for sixty (60) con-
secutive 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, de-
faced, or covered by any other material ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, -
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respond-
end has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D.' REILLY, concurring in part and dissenting in part :
I agree with the Board's decision upholding the Trial Examiner's find-
ing of domination and violation of Section 8 (2) with respect to the Em-
ployees' Council, but disagree with that portion of the order reversing the
Trial Examiner's disposition of the cases relating to the employees, Baker,
Coale, and Crince.
The central question in each of these cases is whether or not the
employee was discharged for misconduct or for union activity. It is clear
from the record that each of'the complainants involved were guilty of acts
which tended to retard production of important war materials. It is also
clear that the complainants were conspicuous union adherents Under
such circumstances, the ascertainment of motive is at best elusive. This
is particularly true of the instant cases where the Trial Examiner's final
conclusion that the discharges were proper was based upon the resolution
of conflicting testimony. In reaching his result, the Trial Examiner had
the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and appraising their credibility.
Yet the majority of the Board, without having this opportunity, are now
choosing to discredit certain-witnesses whom he believed and crediting
the complainants, even though it is admitted that not all their statements
or conduct can command respect This seems to me dangerous procedure,
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RRLATIONS'BOARD
particularly when we are dealing with findings which rest upon substan-
tial direct testnn6ny rather than upon inference.
I therefore would adopt the following findings of the Trial Examiner:
3. The alleged discriminatory discharges
(a) The discharge of F. M. Baker
F. M. Baker was employed by Respondent on May 8, 1941, as a straight-
ener helper in the heat treating plant. His duties consisted primarily of
unloading the heat treating furnaces and assisting the straightener in
pressing out the heat treated pieces to conform to their original designs
and patterns. The principal pieces handled by Baker in the furnaces at-
tended by him were crank shaft forging for airplanes, tanks or other
motors used in war equipment, and airplane propeller blades which are
manufactured in two sections and, after appropriate heat treating, are
joined together to form a hollow blade with walls about 1/16 of an inch
thick at the centers.
The heat treating processes vary for the different materials put through
the furnaces. Respondent's engineering department determines the degree
of heat and the length of time each article is to remain in the furnace.
Automatic clocks and thermostats maintain the heat at its required tenn-
perature and regulate the speed at which the articles travel through the
furnace so as to give them exactly the correct amount of time in the heat
treat. The forgings are fed into the front end of the furnace in a continu-
ous process at intervals of a few minutes each. They rest on rails run-
ning the length of the furnace, and by a mechanical process, all the forg-
ings in the furnace are simultaneously pushed toward the rear every four,
five, or six minutes, depending on the time schedule As they reach the
end of the furnace, the rear door automatically opens with each "push",
and the unloader removes the piece immediately at the end of the rail
and sets it aside where it is available for the straightener. The door is
then closed and the unloader is not again required at the furnace "for the
purpose of removing further forgings until the next "push" several min-
utes later. Usually, the unloader is the straightener's helper and assists
in holding and turning the pieces in the straightening process when not
tending the furnace. This is a continuous process in which furnace tender
is only regularly interrupted during the work day by a fifteen-minute
lunch period and by further rest periods of 15 minutes each during the
mornings and afternoons. The periods are not at fixed times but depend
on the arrival of the relief operator. In the event of breakdowns or change-
overs of jobs, the furnace attendants occasionally have further short peri-
ods of free time. For precision work, the heat treat process is carried on
according to ah exact formula. Substantial departures from such formulae
\VYMAN-GORDON COMPANY - 589
are reflected in the quality of the material produced. Notwithstanding this,
many of the unloading attendants at the furnaces indulge in the practice
of "cheating", by reaching into furnaces and pulling out not only the
forging that is ready to be discharged, but several of those nearest the
end, so as to produce a "lag" of several times the period usually expiring
between the orderly and regular discharge of the pieces. In this manner
an unloader, if his furnace is charged with slow moving pieces, can obtain
15 or 20 minutes of additional idle time but at the expense of the quality
of the articles being treated. This practice is common among heat treat
workers throughout the industry, and is one of the "tricks" of the trade,
but the name of the practice. i.e., "cheating", is indicative of its propriety
It is not condoned by Respondent and every effort is made to keep it under
control, but, as Wood stated in his testimony, management, under present
manpower conditions, has to be "broad-minded" at times Flagrant viola-
tions, however, are not ignored.
The plant of Respondent is operated on a seniority basis After an em-
ployee has been in the plant for a year, he acquires a seniority which
permits him to pre-empt the jobs, which he is competent to fill, of other
employees with less seniority. Each employee with seniority makes out
a "preference card" on which he states, in the order of his preference, the
jobs he desires, and as such jobs become available even though for only
a day or a week, the employee who has the seniority preference to any
given job is assigned to it. Baker, like the others with seniority, had such
a preference card which was on file in the plant office. An incident of the
preference is found in what is termed the "2-hour rule" ; that is to say,
if a nnan, according to his preference card, would normally be scheduled
to operate on a given furnace and that furnace was scheduled to start up
,ally time within the first two hours of the day's work, he would be allo-
cated to it and would be allowed to remain idle until the furnace started,
although paid for the idle time. But if the scheduled time of starting was
more than two hours from the beginning of the clay's work, he would then
be allocated to his second preference and would not be changed over to
his first preference furnace until the middle of the day when it finally
started up.
Baker definitely was a malcontent in the plant, constantly complaining
about his assignments or other matters, and almost daily calling attention
to his dissatisfaction or his disregard for his job by his complaints or
by other conduct which brought him to the attention of his supervisors.
It was Baker's testimony that lie never had been criticized or warned
about any of his conduct This statement is discredited by the testimony
of numerous credible witnesses among his supervisors and co-workers
It was the testimony of Walter P. Gougar, a trainer, whose duty it is to
allocate the various men to their preferential assignments each dav, and
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDW
generally t6 observe the conduct of the men in their work, that beginning
about. the first of 1943 he was obliged to report Baker almost daily to his
foreman for being away froin his job, talking to the other men while they
were working and generally interfering with production in that manner,
and for arguing with Gougar about his preferential allocations to the ex-
tent that it would become necessary to take him into the office at frequent
intervals and analyze his preference card for him before Baker would
start work in his proper location. This procedure would result in the loss
of ten or fifteen minutes in getting the entire department started every
morning; the question was raised by Baker which, according to Gougar,
would be several times a week. Gougar made these almost daily reports
on Baker's conduct to Baker's foreman but did not attempt to proceed
further with them, since his responsibility ended at that point This con-
tinued up to the time of Baker's discharge 'on June 19, 1943.
Respondent has no published rule against soliciting either for union
membership or for any other, purposes in the plant. It is recognized how-
ever and admitted by Baker, that solicitation during working hours and
interfering with production is contrary to ordinary shop rules and would
not be tolerated in this plant. In view of the conditions under which-the
furnace tenders work, however, there are intermittent periods during the
day, especially the rest period in the middle of the morning and in the
middle of the afternoon when the furnace tender is relieved by a relief
operator, when his time is pretty much his own and he is allowed to do
whatever he desires so long as it does not interfere with production. It
was the testimony of at least two of the other employees, however, that
Baker made it a practice to walk about the plant and converse with other
employees while they were at their work, not only in the immediate vicinity
of his own furnace but at some considerable distance from it. There is
also credible testimony that while other furnace unloaders may have
created to some extent'on the furnaces, Baker was an outstanding offender
in this regard, and not only expended the time which he gained in this
manner by talking to other men who were on productive operations, but
also caused a substantial number of the pieces going through his furnace
to be scrapped because of inadequate heat treating 3
David Edwards, who was Baker's immediate foreman, testified to
Gougar's complaints concerning Baker, and also to the fact that he had
tried to talk to Baker about his attitude but was met with the assertions
that whenever he felt he had a kick coming he was going to let it be
known, and that when he was right he was going to say so. During this
3 The testimony on the subject of the scrapping of the airplane propeller braces, to which the
above statement refers, does not point directly to Baker alone, but was brought out by the factory
superintendent as applicable to the heat treatment of the propeller blades in general, and the fact
was developed that, at the time the condition became acute, Baker's furnace w.u engaged in the
treatment of pi opelier blades
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 591
conversation and in connection with the foregoing statement, Baker also
made the statement that he didn't care whether they fired him or not.
Edwards' comment was that it was his privilege to complain, but that he
should make sure he was right before he did so. Edwards also testified to
a reprimand he had given Baker concerning a practice which had grown
up among the men of playing cards during the lunch period. There was
no criticism of the playing during lunch period which was on their own
time, but Edwards' objection was that the men would quit their work
a little ahead of their lunch period by cheating on the furnaces, and then,
if the whistle blew while they were in the middle of a hand, they would
insist on playing it out before returning to work, all of which caused a
certain amount of lost'time at each end of the luncheon period. He ad-
monished each of the men who were guilty of this practice and reported
it to the superintendent. It was his belief that he had reported all the men
by name, but he particularly remembered reporting Baker because, as he
said in answer to a question by Board's counsel, "Baker was the sort of
a guy who was always and everlastingly doing something wrong." In ad-
dition to interfering with the work of the other men in the department
during his own rest periods or periods of idleness, Baker also indulged
in horse-play which not only disturbed but endangered others working in
the plant and on one occasion, he with another man, attempted to interfere
with the men working overtime because he disagreed'with Respondent's
pay allocation practice.
There appears to be no question but that, in the opinion of practically
all the supervisors who came in contact with Baker's work, and in the
minds of numerous of his co-workers, he was a disturbing influence and,
by interfering with the other men when he himself was not busy, had a
deterring effect upon getting maximum production from the operations
There is no serious contention that when he actually worked, Baker was
not a good workman and performed his immediate duties with average
skill and ability. The complaint was that when he was not actively work-
ing, he was interfering with others. There likewise is no evidence, except
as to "cheating" on the furnace, that he was not at his post to take the
forgings from the furnace when it was time for them to come out. On
the other hand it was the testimony of August W Muir, assistant super-
intendent of the heat treating department, whose testimony is credited,
that Baker, in his general line of conduct, was a topic of conversation in
the meetings of management when the general manager was criticizing -
shift foremen for deficiencies in their volume of production. Baker's shift
was the lowest in its percentage of production. In commenting on this
fact in the meeting of foremen, his foreman referred to the general unrest
of the shift and the discontented attitude of the men, and of Baker in
particular. This brought up the subject of Baker by other representatives
O
5 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of management, in which they dwelt upon the fact that several of them
had talked to him about his attitude and conduct and had called him to
task for shutting off the furnaces when they should have been kept in
operation; talking to the men about not working overtime, and "raising
hell in particular on every job that Mr. Gougar lined him for." These
comments brought forth the remark from the general manager, Wood,
"All right, why the hell don't you fire him." Louis J. Binette, the division
superintendent of the heat treating department, which also includes several
other minor departments, testified that he had warned Baker in regard
to his general conduct and, at the meeting which called forth the sug-
gestion by Wood that Baker be discharged, reminded Wood that it is
the policy of Respondent to lean over backward in trying to make the
right kind of men out of their employees and to discharge them, only as
the last resort. This statement of policy was reiterated by several other
of the higher officials of management and appears to be an ingrained part
of the policy of Respondent in its treatment of its employees. In any
event, as a result of the meeting above referred to, all of management
were in accord that Baker should be discharged but that they should and
would give him one more chance. There is no evidence that this was com-
municated to Baker nor is it found that under the circumstances such a
warning was necessary. Baker was merely one of many minor employees
and in no respect held a key position.
Apparently Baker did not improve. By the latter part of May and the
early part of June, in addition to his general wandering about the plant,
he began to distribute union application cards among the employees dur-
ing their working hours, although at the time he was on his own rest peri-
ods or otherwise not engaged at his furnace. This obviously interfered
with the, productive operations of the men whom he approached.
On June 19, 1943, Baker was discharged under the following circum-
stances :-Except as may be inferred from the circumstances surround-
ing Baker's discharge and the discharges of the two other men herein-
after considered, there is no evidence of open antipathy by Respondent to
membership by any of its employees in any labor organization. During
all of -1943, Respondent was being urged by the representatives of the
Armed Forces, to whose requirements it was devoting its entire output,
to keep its production at the highest possible peak. That production was
not being maintained and the situation was becoming critical. The follow-
ing excerpts from the testimony of August E. Muir, assistant superintend-
ent of the heat treatment department, are fully credited and afford a
description of the circumstances which led up to Baker's discharge
A. Well, in the morning of June 19th, Saturday, I believe it was,
a
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 593
I talked to both Mr. Nelson and Mr. Edwards' in regard to pulling
propeller blades ahead, which was interfering with the quality ;
that we were having a lot of difficulty losing hard blades because
either they weren't getting enough heat or they weren't getting
enough time in the furnace, and we were finding out that the
boys had been pulling them ahead, and I spoke to Mr. Nelson
and Mr. Edwards and told them to put some control on that,
explain to these fellows why we can't pull them ahead.
Q. Will you explain just at that point just what sort of a forging
this is and what the mechanical importance of the heat treat is and
of accurate heat treat on the prepeller blades is ?
A. Well, this propeller blade is a forged part of a propeller blade
that is made by Aero Products, that goes into our combat planes,
and part of the treatment that we give them relieves the forging
strains and the stresses that are put in it in the forging operation,
which if not properly relieved will cause crackage and distortion
that they may never discover until the part is in service, even
with all our metallurgical control.
Q. When that blade is finally machined out it is a hollow blade,
isn't it?
A. No, sir. We forge the hub and the truss side. There is another
piece cambered on it.
Q. When it is finally done it is hollow?
A. That is correct.
Q. Not when you get through with it, but when it is all done. And
how thick are the walls of the blade when it is a finished blade
ready to go on an airplane.
A. Well, that I could not state definitely, but I think it is about a
sixteenth of an inch at the center section.
Q. Now, you went on and you said you were having trouble and you
spoke to Nelson and Edwards about the necessity of accurate
heat treating of these parts on June 19th. Can you pick your
story up from that point?
A. All right. As soon as I got discussing blades, that was the job that
Mr. Baker was working on, and I immediately said, "How is
your friend Baker doing ?" And then I said also that last night
I found some union membership cards in the locker room, and
I would like to know. for my own information if Mr. Baker is
doing that among all the other things he is doing. I said, "If you
find any of those cards that he is supposed to have handed out,
or that he has got any connection with them, bring them into me."
Q. Was a card brought to you?
' Nelson and Edwards were foremen.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Yes, sir . About one o'clock in the afternoon Mr. Edwards brought
a card to me that was handed to him by Mr . Sossong,5 he said. I
think he told me that Mr . Sossong got that card from Mr. Dorn-
hecker.
Q. What did you do after you got that card and that report?
A. Why, I walked in toward the office and I met Mr . Nelson and I
twitted Mr. Nelson with the fact, and I immediately went into
the office , and in Mr. Binette 's absence I called Mr. Wood and
I told - - Mr. Wood had been giving me hell about the goldarned
production and quality out there , and I said, "Mr. Wood, if I
am going to be held responsible for the production and the quality
on this heat treat department, I have got to have some action
on some of these discontented guys like Baker . I said, "I would
like to bring a couple of those boys over in your office ," and Mr.
Wood said , "Well, what is Baker doing now?" I said, "Well, he
is passing out union cards." Wood said, "O.K., bring him over "
Q. Was that done?
A. Yes, sir, that was done.
Q. Was he taken over there alone, or was somebody else taken with
him?
A. Well, the other discontented worker that we were having a little
trouble with at that time was Mr. Elsey.
Q. Mr. . Elsey?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he taken over too?
A. Yes, sir , I took those two gentlemen over at the same time.
Q. All right.
Now, you and Baker and Elsey. Who else, if anybody went along?
A. We three went over together.
Q. Was anybody else there besides Wood?
A. When we got there in the office?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, Mr. Millard was there.
Q. What is Mr . Millard 's position?
A. Mr. Millard is general superintendent of the whole plant.
Q. Now, what took place after , you had assembled there in Wood's
office ?
A. Well, after we got in Mr . Wood's office, the first thing Mr. Wood
told these two fellows , he says, "I have evidence that you fellows
b Sossong testified that he received a card from Baker during working hours , but did not turn
it over to Edwards Instead, he gave Edwards the one he got from Dornhecker. There is no evi-
dence that Dornhecker was soliciting . The record indicates that Dornhecker also received his card
from Baker during working hours.
"7YMAN-GORDON COMPANY 595
.were interfering with the quality of production out there in
the heat treat." He says, "One of the things I have is that you
have beets passing out membership cards," and he turned to Mr
Elsey and asked him, "Is that correct? Did you do that?" And
Mr. Elsey said, "No, I did not." Mr. Wood turned over to me,
and said, "Augie, is that right?" And I said, "Mr. Wood, we have
no evidence that Mr. Elsey has handed out any union cards."'
Then he turned to Mr. Baker, and he told Mr. Baker that, "We
have evidence that you were off your job talking to men who
were working on the job and passing out union cards." Mr
Baker says, "You can't prove." Mr. Wood said, "Well, what if
I told you that any number of men could come over here and
testify that you had handed them a card ?" And then Mr. Baker
said, "Yes, I did it, but you can't prove it," and Mr. Wood said,
"On your past record-from your belligerent attitude"-he was
really tough about telling Mr. Wood that he can't prove it-he
says, "passing out these cards on company time and on company
property, which is interfering with production and quality, you
are discharged.'
Q. Was that the end of the conversation so far as Baker was con-
cerned ?
A. Well, Baker immediately got into a wrangle about being paid
right now It being Saturday, our payroll department had gone
home, and, oh, we had a little discussion as to whether he had
to be paid at that time, but it so happened Mr. Millard found our
paymaster down in the basement and we took care of the whole
matter.
Immediately following Baker's discharge by Wood, Muir called Ingolf
A. Nelson, who by that time had become Baker's immediate foreman.
and told Nelson that he had been compelled to discharge Baker. Nelson's
testimony concerning this conversation with Muir was that he gathered
from Muir that the passing out of the union cards was a "last straw"
and he accordingly made out Baker's quit slip, in which he gave as the
reason for the discharge the following : "Soliciting union membership dur-
ing working hours which interfered with proper control of the quality of
the heat treatment of vital aircraft forging." This slip, which is the requi-
sition for pay-off, is signed by Nelson and Muir and initialed by Wood,
and reflects payment of Baker through June 19, 1943
The record of Baker's recalcitrance and non-cooperative attitude in the
plant and his habit of interfering with the work of other men when he
himself was not employed, is so voluminous as to automatically give rise to
O Elsey was not discliaigod but was ieturned to his woik with a reprimand from Wood.
7 Baker's testimony cot robe,ated this, in substance
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the question, "Why was the man tolerated as long as he was?" The evi-
dence of his misconduct is too consistent and too fully corroborated not
to be given full credence. At the close of the meeting with Wood, when
the representatives of management reached the conclusion that Baker was
no longer entitled to employment but would be given one more chance,
there was no question which involved any union activity. When Muir dis-
covered the application cards in the locker room on the evening of June
18 and made inquiry about them of Edwards and Nelson on June 19, he
did not know that Baker was involved, although apparently he suspected
it. The investigation which he set in motion at that time developed the
fact not only that Baker had been distributing union cards, but that he had
been distributing them on company time and property and, in line with
his usual course of conduct, had been interfering with production while
so doing. It was this latter fact which provided the capstone of the cir-
cumstances leading to his discharge; and while the immediate factor was
solicitation of union membership on company property and time to the
detriment of production, the evidence is overwhelming that this was only
one of a large number of factors He had not mended his ways and was still
a deterrent to production. Had he not been discharged when he was, it
was inevitable, in view of the "last chance" status in which he had been
placed by management, that he would have been discharged shortly there-
after for some other offense in line with his usual course of conduct.
It is found that Baker was discharged on June 19, 1943, not for the sole
or primary reason that he had solicited union memberships on company
property, but because he had done so during working hours, with a his-
tory of many other things for which he had been reprimanded or warned,
all of which were direct violations of the known rules against interfering
with production, and were done at a time when it was known that the
maximum use of every element of production was essential to the war
effort. Baker's discharge was for proper cause.
(B) The discharges of William Coale and Peter Crince
In the spring of 1942, the Die Sinkers began active organization activi-
ties among the employees in the die shop, and on April 17, 1942, filed a
petition with the Board for investigation and certification of representa-
tives. On the basis of this petition a consent election agreement was entered
into between the Die Sinkers and Respondent with the result that an
election was held under the auspices of the Board in May 1942, in which
the Die Sinkers was unsuccessful
At about the same time as the activities of the Die Sinkers above-
mentioned, dissatisfaction developed generally among the superior die
sinkers of Respondent, as a result of which, Harold F. Wood, general
manager, held a separate meeting with each shift in the die shop in an
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 597
effort to discover the cause. There is nothing in the record that connects
these meetings or the wage change,, that followed, with the Die Sinkers'
"organizational activities." Following the shift meetings, Wood called
William R. Coale, one of the superior' die sinkers, Nrho had been in the
employ of the Company since 1925 and who is the son of the Chief In-
spector, the oldest employee in term of service on the Company's pay
roll, to his office to discuss this matter generally. In this conference, Wood
suggested to Coale that they designate a committee of the die sinkers to
meet with Wood in an effort to iron out whatever problems they might
have. Benjamin Olsen, Peter Crince, Raymond Heckler, Ralph Wilkins,
and Coale were selected and held their first meeting with representatives
of management on April 17, 1942. That meeting was attended by Wood,
S. M. Havens, vice president, F. G Millard, plant superintendent, and
George Cole, general foreman of the die shop, on behalf of management.
It developed that while there were some minor complaints, the major
cause of dissatisfaction was the bonus system which had been in existence
in the Company for many years, as a device for measuring the pay of
the die sinkers .s
Following the April 17 meeting several others were held at intervals
of two or three days, in which the possibility of arriving at an acceptable
flat hourly rate of pay was canvassed. Suggestions by members of the
committee covered hourly rates from $1.80 to $2.05. On April 27, 1942;
the last meeting was held with all the superior die sinkers present. Wood
announced that, following investigations of other die shops, and desiring
to keep the 'pay rates of this shop in the top brackets, they had decided
to fix the hourly rate at $2.10 for superior die sinkers and graduate it
down through the ranges to $1.50 for the class D die sinkers, with other
approprite rates for the Keller machine operator and apprentices.'° He
read a prepared memorandum dealing with these rates, together with
8 The term applied to the top classification The lower grades are , Class A, Class R, Class C and
Class D; Keller Operators ( operators of automatic die making machines ) are classed as, Superior
Class A, and Class B, Apprentices are the lowest rated die shop employees
9 The system referred to is one of incentive pay when a new type of die is to be sunk, the
engineers , in conjunction with the general foreman , estimate the number of man -hours the sinking
of such die normally would require at the hands of a skilled die sinker Experience shows that the
estimates ordinarily are substantially accurate and usually conform to the man -hour peifoimance
of the workers who sink the die For purposes of pay however , the number of hours to be allotted
to the completion of the die in question is determined by adding 50 percent to the estimated man-
hour requirement ; thereafter the sinking of such die is paid for on the basis of 150 peicent of the
estimated number of required man-hours , regardless of whether the die sinker who makes the die
consumes the total number of hours allocated to it for pay purposes or does the job in less time
As an example , if the estimated number of hours on a given die is 40 hours , the pay for sinking
that die will be the pay for 60 hours , except that if the worker consumes more than 60 hours, he
is paid for the actual time spent. Through this process , some die sinkers who were not quite as
fast workers as others , found themselves with smallei weekly pay checks than did the fast ones
In the April 17, 1942 meeting , this complaint was raised and plans were made by the representatives
of management to explore the possibility of abandoning the bonus system and setting a flat hourly
rate which would have no immediate relation to volume of production
1° The $2 10 rate apparently was the highest regular rate paid in the Chicago area
598 DECIS10_,N_', OF NATIONAL LABOR RLLAT10NS BOARD
seniority and its application, overtime, and several general provisions ap-
plicable to the die sinkers. This memorandum had been prepared to cover
the various matters previously discussed with the committee and was ac-
cepted by the superior die sinkers as a correct statement of the new
arrangement, to become effective as of the beginning of the next following
pay period, May 3, 1942.
Throughout the years while the bonus system was in effect, it had
become customary for the die sinkers to time their work at that number
of hours which would produce the 150 percent pay, as a production norm.
Some failed to reach this figure and took more than the estimated time
to complete the work. Others increased their productivity and consequent-
13, their income by performing the work in less than the estimated number
of hours, but, for all general purposes, 150 was the base. It was conceded
by Coale that the 150 basis did not represent his full production capacity
and it was evident throughout the hearing, both from the testimony of
the die sinkers who appeared and from the records that are in evidence,
that the same applies to substantially all the other superior die sinkers.
Actually, when the new rates went into effect, all the superior die sinkers
except Coale and one of the assistant foremen were producing at a sub-
stantially higher rate, with an average of 159.1. The lower classes, how-
ever, were consistently under 150.
The $2.10 rate was not intended as a pay raise but only as a flat rate
adjusted to the average production and income of the superior die sink-
ers under the bonus system. It was equivalent to a 161.6 production rate
on the old bonus scale. Four of the superior die sinkers, including Coale
and Crince, were below this figure. For them the new rate was an increase
in pay. Of the other four, two were then producing at about the $2.10 rate,
but the remaining two' were producing at several cents per hour more.
For them, the new rate represented a cut in pay.
At the April 27 meeting, Wood recognized these adjustments and told
the two men who were taking pay cuts that he hoped they would maintain
their production records although he could hardly criticize them if they
dropped back to let their production conform to the new rate. As to the
others, lie told them that the old bonus basis was a thing of the past, that
production was so badly needed for parts that nobody else in the country
could supply, he would expect them, as master craftsmen, to turn in a
ftill day's work every day.'
WVith the introduction of the new flat rate, the man-hour cost of the
11 William Cole, brother of George Cole, the die shop foreman, and Frank Petronatis
11 This is not a quotation , but reflects , in substance , the ideas Wood sought to convey There is
a strong conflict on this point, however The two high producing men discussed their production
and pay rate at the meeting According to Coale and Crince, Wood agreed with the die sinkers, as
a group, that if they produced on a 150 basis lie would be satisfied Wood denied making such
a commitment and his denial is credited although there is a probability that production at the 150
rate would conform to 'Wood's call on them for a full day's work
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 599
dies began to incraese . Coale raised his production rate from 148.8 to 150
and held it there. He testified that he did so deliberately and could have
done better, but that he was under the impression Wood had agreed to
accept the 150 production rate. W. M. Coale and Petronatis dropped their
production from 163 and 166, respectively, not to 161.6, but to 150. On
this, Cole stated that since the other men, getting the same rate, were
working on the 150 production basis, he could see no reason for doing
more . Crince, too, dropped from 156.9 to 150''
In June, 1942, Coale was elected representative to the Council from
the die shop and held that office through June 1943. By September, 1942,
the man-hour cost in the die shop had risen to a point where Wood called
Coale to his office and complained that the men were working to the 150
time basis instead of giving the job their best effort and that this was
not in line with the agreement. Coale explained that he thought Wood had
agreed to the 150 basis. Wood told him he had done nothing of the sort
and asked Coale, as Councilman, to see that the condition was remedied.
Coale returned, but took no steps to have the work stepped up, nor did
he change his own tempo. He took the position that if Wood wanted pro-
duction increased, he should reach the men through the foreman.
In December, there having been no improvement, Wood again called
on Coale to get the men to do better. He accused Coale of being the one
who advised the men to hold to the 150 basis and appealed to him, for
the sake of his family connections, as well as patriotic reasons, to have
the situation corrected. Shortly after that, Wood became ill, and did not
return until April 1943.
On his return, Wood found the superior die sinkers still working to
the 150 percent basis and at the request of Foreman Cole, called them
together in another meeting on May 10, 1943, when he appealed to them,
as master craftsmen, to really do a full day's work. This meeting developed
a number of discussions among which was the subject of the introduction
of the so-called "specialists" into the die shop r' Wood explained that the
shortage of experienced die sinkers had made it necessary to bring in
a number of such specialists but assured the superior die sinkers that the
presence of those men in the shop would never cost the die sinkers either
time or money because, when the war is over, seniority would automatic-
ally eliminate them. During this meeting William Cole made the statement
that Wood had caused the slow-down, insofar as his (Cole's) work was
concerned, by cutting his wages, as a result of which he had cut his pro-
duction down to that of the worst man. Wood's reply to this was a severe
reprimand to Cole and his attitude toward the job when he formerly had
11 Crince is a brother -in-law of Geo Cole, foreman
11 Specialists are not particularly trained as die sinkers, but are men who operate automatic
die making machines and are trained to one particular operation
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had no trouble in exceeding the 161 6 basis that the new rate represented.
Wood called attention to rumors that Coale had told the men that the
150 basis was satisfactory and that Coale had also made other statements
concerning wage rates to other classifications in other parts of the shop.
He emphasized that such statements were untrue and that the only pro-
duction basis he would be satisfied with was a full clay's production by
men who applied themselves as true craftsmen.
In the spring of 1943, organizational activity by the Die Sinkers was
renewed, coincident with the introduction of the specialists, who, the die
sinkers thought, would jeopardize their trade. There is no showing that
any memberships were obtained, however, until in late June. By the time
the May 10 meeting was held, Coale, Crince, Olson and one other of the
die sinkers had become interested in the Die Sinkers in a general way,
although they had not become members. On May 15 and 16, 1943, these
four men attended the Die Sinkers convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
as the guests of Local 100. On returning from Milwaukee, all of them
advocated the Die Sinkers and generally discussed that organization in
the plant, both during and out of working hours. A small group meeting
of Coale, Crince and Olson with representatives of Die Sinkers was held
at the house of the union representative on June 20. On the following
Sunday, June 27, a general meeting was held and was attended by about
75 of the die shop employees, who were addressed by Walter T. Lynch,
Business Representative, and by Miner,_ the International President of the
Die Sinkers Conference. At its close, some of the employees signed ap-
plication cards. Others signed at the next meeting which was held on
July 4, 1943. All these applicants were initiated on July 11. Between the
Milwaukee convention in May and the initiation on July 11, discussion of
the Die Sinkers went on generally in the shop at all times, and was di-
rected not only to the established die sinkers but also very largely to the
apprentices and specialists.16 As might be expected, the conversations per-
taining to the Die Sinkers dwelt on that union's regulations with regard
to die sinkers, their rates of pay, required speed of production, conditions
of employment, apprenticeship requirements, and other matters applicable
to this particular craft. Apparently, limitations on production volume
played a substantial part in the union arguments.
During this period, Coale particularly, and Crince to some extent,
coached the apprentices and junior die sinkers and specialists, against
working at full production, telling them they were getting paid to work
15 At about this time , Respondent was a participant in the Apprentice Training program that
was sponsored by the Department of Labor' s Apprentice Training Committee A form of apprentice-
ship contract was then being worked out in conjunction with the Apprentice Training Committee
and later was submitted to the apprentices for their approval This contract differed fionl the Die
Sinkers' apprentice contract in some respects and was severely criticized by the Wren who wcic
committed to the Die Sinkers The allowed ratio of apprentices to journeymen .ippaienty was one
of the features most objectionable Neither contract was offered in evidence.
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 601
on the 150 percent basis., and urging them not to extend themselves in
their work. They also urged the apprentices not to sign the apprenticeship
agreement submitted to them by Respondent, on the ground that the
Union's agreement was more advantageous.'°
By the end of May 1943, matters had still not improved and complaints
were made to Wood by George Cole, foreman, and Ed Drolet, assistant
foreman, that Coale had not changed his ways, that he was still advo-
cating the 150 percent basis of production and interfering with the ap-
prentices, and that something be done about him. Wood telephoned the
office of the general superintendent to have Coale come to his office. A few
minutes later Wood was advised that Coale refused to come. Wood
thereupon gave Coale 5 minutes to get to his office and within that
time he appeared. Testifying concerning this visit, Coale stated that as he
entered the office, Wood greeted him with the statement that he didn't
like the way he had been handling himself and had a good notion to turn
him over to the F.B.I. to which Coale replied that he could go ahead and
do so but that he, Coale, knew what he was doing ; that beyond this, Wood
made no explanation as to what he was talking about, and that he, Coale,
never did learn what occasioned the outburst. Coale was questioned in
detail by the Trial Examiner concerning this interview, but he persisted
that nothing further took place, that he had no idea as to what Wood
was talking about, and still does not know. On the other hand, the testi-
mony of several officials of Respondent who were present is corroborative
of Wood, which is here credited, to the effect that production in the plant
was on the downgrade while demands were becoming progressively great-
er, and that when Cole and Drolet told him Coale was still interfering with
production, he immediately sent for him. As to his conversation with
Coale, Wood testified :
I told him we had reached the point now that I had pleaded with him
along every line of approach to try to get him straightened out and
that it was having- absolutely no results and now I was telling him
that he was going to straighten himself out. I told him that I was all
through listening to anymore of this 50 percent business and rumor
business being laid at his door and that he would get the hell out of
that office and get over there and do his job the way he was sup-
16 Both Coale and Crince denied having done any of the things that are recited above except
that Coale admitted he had advised one of the apprentices that if they would insert a provision con-
tain ing a certain limitation on the number of apprentices , it would be a better contract. For rea-
sons which will be set out subsequently , the uncorroborated testimony of either Coale or Crince
on vital controversial subjects cannot be and is not accepted as a credible statement of the true facts.
In replay to a number of questions on various subjects put to them by the Trial Examiner , bearing
on vital controversial subjects cannot and is not accepted as a credible statement of the true facts
by other credible testimony to have been deliberately falsified . For these reasons little if any weight
is given to any of the testimony of either Coale or Crince when there is credible testimony\to the
contrary.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posed to do it or it would be necessary for me to take drastic measures
and by "drastic measures" I meant fire him. I said "The work that
you are doing and the attitude that you are taking is so delaying
the production in that plant that its order lines are sabotaged and I
have a damn good notion to turn you right over to the F.B.I.
Coale's answer to this statement was, "You can't prove it". Coale then
left the office and returned to the die shop, but the records do not indicate
that his attitude or conduct underwent any change from that point for-
ward.
During June and the early part of July the discussions concerning the
Union continued in the die shop on both company time and property and
were led primarily by Coale, Crince, and Olson. Up to this time the Com-
pany had promulgated no particular rule prohibiting the discussion of
union matters during working hours. The chief concern of management
was the prompt and maximum production of dies and the forgings made
from them. There were, however, well known but unwritten prohibitions
which applied, not to solicitation of union interest on company time or
property, but to any conduct which would tend to cut down or interfere
with the much needed production that was well known to be devoted ex-
clusively to the war effort 17 By July 10, not only had the situation in the
die shop not improved but had been aggravated by the persistent activi-
ties of Coale, Crince, and Olson On that day, Wood called each of these
men separately to his office, and in turn directed them to stop the things
which, he said, were slowing down production. Again, the testimony of
Wood as to what he told these men on July 10 is adopted as a true recital
of the facts :
I told each of them separately that they must cease at once the activi-
ties that they had been carrying on which was (sic) slowing down
our war production. I told them that they must cease at once the influ-
ence that they were having on our apprentices to try to keep our ap-
prentices from using their own judgment in going ahead with our
apprenticeship training program. I told them that they must cease
activities pertaining to the Die Sinkers' Conference union on company
property and during working hours and told them that their mem-
bership or non-membership in the union was no affair of mine, that
they realized that themselves.
I told them if they want to carry out these activities outside of work-
ing hours that is their own affair. I even volunteered to build them
a speakers' platform out on the corner so that they could go to it if
37 At that time the primary forgings being produced by Respondent were certain crank shafts
and related parts for aircraft motors, which were available from no other source and were neces-
sary to' maintain the aircraft production program that had been geared to the European invasion
plans
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 603
they wanted to. I told them that this situation is now final, that there
would be no further conversation on the subject and if any one of
these three items were violated it meant their automatic discharge.
The only manner in which these three separate admonitions differed was
with respect to Olson? In talking to him, Wood stated that they had no
evidence that he was carrying on agitation among the employees to slow
down their production but that he had slowed down his own production
and he was expected to straighten it out. Otherwise his warning was identi-
cal with that given to Coale and Crince.
The July 10 warning reduced, but did not eliminate, the union activities
of Coale and Crince and their interference with the apprentices on com-
pany time. On Saturday, August 7, the secretary of the Die Sinkers pre-
pared and gave to Coale for circulation, six copies of a petition in which
the signers designated the Die Sinkers their bargaining 'representative.
Coale testified that on the same day, he left one copy of the petition at
the house of "Chuck" Flynt,' one of the die sinkers, to be given him when
he came in, and that he left no instructions at the time because Flynt knew
all about it and what to do with it. Coale also testified that he did nothing
with the other five copies, but put them away at his house and left them
there. He specifically denied that he again saw the petition until the follow-
ing Monday, during the luncheon period, when some unidentified person
brought it to a group with whom Coale and Crince were eating lunch, at
which time both of them signed the document, returned it to the person
who was circulating it and never again saw it. Crince's testimony was to
the effect that the only time he ever saw the petition was when lie signed
it at the noon period above referred to.
Both Coale and Crince denied that, after July 10, either of them ever
discussed the Die Sinkers at work, or that they ever suggested that the
apprentices slow down on their work or otherwise interfered with them
On the other hand, several of the apprentices, specialists and automatic
machine operators testified that the activities of Coale and Crince contin-
' In one of the talks which Wood made to the die sinkers, he told them that if anyone was not
satisfied with the conditions in the plant , he would be given his release upon request and also be
furnished with a certificate of availability for employment elsewhere On July 30, 1943 , Olson was
given his release at his own request and pursuant to it, obtained a certificate of availability from
the United States Employment Service He is now employed elsewhere Ile testified that at the
time he quit , he had a conversation with George Cole, the die shop foreman ; in which the latter told
him that if he wanted to come back to work at any time he would help him get back provided Olson
would "forget about the Union and come under the company 's terms, according to their teams"
He also quoted Cole as telling him that there were "a couple of fellows out in the plant who are
attempting to upset the apple cart ( and) they are not going to do it ." These statements were de-
nied by Cole and his denial is credited as to the specific statements attributed to him Olson also
quoted wood as having said to him during the course of the warning on July 10, that the reason
the Company did not want to allow the die makers in the plant was that that would open the
doors to the C I 0 This statement was denied by Wood Ind Wood's denial is credited
is Thee is no "Flint on the pay-roll data in evidence The iefeience apparently is to "G
Flynn", a Keller machine opeiator.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ued without substantial change up to the clay of their discharge on August
9. These activities, according to the witnesses referred to, consisted of dis-
cussions concerning the advantages of the Union, comparisons of Work time
allowances on dies in union shops with the allowance in Respondent's shop,
criticisms of the new apprenticeship contract and admonitions not to "kill
the job" by producing too fast. Except by the general over-all denials of
Coale and Crince, this line of testimony was not controverted and, in view
of the unsatisfactory character of the testimony of Coale and Crince, is
here credited without going into details It is found, therefore, that neither
Coale nor Crince observed the warning of July 10 and that thereafter, dur-
ing working hours, they discussed union ),natters with other employees,
discouraged apprentices from executing the proposed apprenticeship train-
ing contracts, and advised them against giving their respective jobs the
benefit of their full production efforts.'
The record indicates that following the July 10 warning there was no
material improvement in production. There is nothing to show that knowl-
edge of the continued activities of Coale and Crince was brought to the
attention of Wood until August 9, 1943, the day of their discharge. On
that day, these activities were brought to the surface as the result of a
conversation which Ray Harmer, an assistant foreman, had had with David
Roy, an apprentice die sinker who had been in the employ of Respondent
for approximately four years. On August 7, Harmer, while standing by
Roy's bench, began talking about shop matters in general. During the
conversation, Roy complained that he was upset over the constant discus-
sions in the shop about the desirability of having a union shop and that it
was losing production and creating dissatisfaction in which lie shared. The
names of Coale and Crince came into the conversation and Roy told of
their interference with him, their advice against signing the contract, and
their reports on the money advantages of a union shop. A little later In
the clay, George Cole, the foreman, approached Roy and asked hint what
was troubling him, Roy told him he had been comparing rates in that shop
with rates in union shops and that it seemed to hint the union shop rates
were higher. He also told him about the contentions, pro and con, relative
to the Union that were going on in the shop, that the situation had him
upset to the point where he could not do his work properly, and that this
condition was creating unrest and dissatisfaction which resulted in a de-
20 Several of the apprentices and other junior employees in the die shop, when approached by the
Board's field examiner , gave him written statements generally to the effect that they had neither
experienced nor observed such activities by Coale or Crince On the witness stand , they repudiated
their statements with the explanation that when they gave them , they thought that by so doing,
they would not become embroiled in the controversy , but that shortly before the hearing Wood had
addressed all the employees, warned them that they might he questioned or called as witnesses and
that if so, they should all tell the truth if they knew anything It is found that this was not an
attempt by Wood to coeice them, and that where their testimony is in conflict with their written
statements, the testimony given is to be accepted unless otherwise controvcited by credible evidence
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 605
crease in production in general. Cole left Roy without making a reply.
On Sunday, one of the men brought Roy the petition referred to by Coale
and asked him to sign it. At that time there were only a few signatures
and Roy returned the petition unsigned, telling the person who handed
it to him that he did not want to have his name too near the top of the
list. During the following morning, August 9, Crince approached Roy and
asked him why he had not signed the petition. Roy repeated the reason
above given, whereupon it was suggested by Crince that he sign it at that
time. When Roy asked where the petition was, Crince told him that Coale
had it; but before Roy could find it convenient to get Coale, he had to leave
and did not again see the petition. It was, also Roy's testimony that during
the latter part of July and the early part of August, Coale, Crince, and
several others identified with Die Sinkers frequently importuned the ap-
prentices not to work so fast and not to "kill the job."`' With the exception
of Crince's insistence on Roy signing the petition on the morning of August
9, all the foregoing facts were dwelt upon by Roy in his August 7 con-
versations with Harmer and George Cole. On the morning of August 9,
Cole reported the conversation to Millard, the general superintendent,
who, in turn, advised Wood. Wood called in George Cole for confirma-
tion and shortly after the lunch period, had Roy sent to him. After some
questioning, Roy told him about the current activities of Coale and Crince,
their reproaches to him concerning his production, the circulation of the
petition and Crince's insistence, that morning, that he go to Coale and sign
it. The fact of Roy's membership in the Union was also developed in this
conversation, as well as his dissatisfaction over the consistent circulation
of union propaganda which he found was interfering with his work. Wood
then told Roy about the July 10 warning to Coale and Crince concern-
ing union activities during working hours and explained that while
such activity was prohibited under those circumstances, there was no ob-
jection to union discussions at the lunch period, or while they were wash-
ing up or at any other time or place except during working hours, or
under circumstances which interfered with the Company's operations. He ,
followed this by explaining the seriousness of Roy's charges and that it
would mean the discharge of Coale and Crince, not because they, were ac-
tive on behalf of the Union but for the good of the shop and because of the
effect their activities were having upon production. After the talk with
Roy, Wood made further checks on the facts reported and after having
satisfied himself that what Roy had reported was substantially true, in-
-^ Roy joined the Union in July 1943, and was initiated on July 27 He attended no meetings
after the initiation and, according to his testimony , almost immediately lost interest in the Union
and decided not to support it , although at about the time Coale and Crince were discharged,
he visited Coale's house and paid 3 months' dues
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
structed George Cole to discharge Coale and Crince because of their viola-
tion of the July 10 warnings.'
Both men were discharged that afternoon , the "quit slips ," which were
identical , showing as the reasons for the discharge , " Urging slow down
on work to apprentices which interferes seriously with war efforts. Influ-
encing apprentices not to sign apprentice contract . Urging various shop
employees to sign union contract on company property."
Following their discharges , neither Coale nor Crince made any effort
to find other employment for some time ." On August 16, they appeared
at the office of the United States Employment Service in Harvey, Illinois,
and demanded certificates of availability for employment elsewhere. At
that time , Harvey, Illinois , had not been designated by the War Manpower
Commission as a critical area within which the employees were restricted,
consequently they were entitled , on demand , to general , nation-wide cer-
tificates of availability , provided their circumstances fell within one of
the five conditions set up as bases for the issuance of such certificates.
Discharge is one of these elements and on verifying the discharges, the
U S E. S at Harvey issued them certificates They were not required to
and did not register for employment at that office , but took their certificates
and have not returned . In September , Crince registered for-unemployment
compensation at one of the United States Employment Service offices in
Chicago and upon being offered employment there, stated that he did not
desire to be referred to any job but preferred to await the outcome of the
N L. R 13 proceedings because, if the case should be decided in his favor,
his job and seniority rights would be restored '
za As in the case of the discharge of Baker, the question arises as to why Respondent should
have tolerated the men during the long period of unsatisfactory conduct before discharging them
Wood's explanation of this was that he had been away from the shop ill for a long time prior
to the discharge , and that, "The second reason was that both of these men were old employees
of our Company and we wanted to exhaust the last effort to try to get the situation straightened out "
23 Coale did not go to work again until October 16 , 1943, when he was employed as a die sinker
at the Dodge plant in the Chicago area . He frankly admitted that during this time he knew of
places where employment was available but he was "shopping" for a job that would be wholly
satisfactory to him in the job "freeze " that would not permit him to change Crince's testimony
concerning reemployment paralleled that of Coale. They apparently conducted most of their activi-
ties concerning reemployment together . Crince was employed as a die sinker at the Dodge plant
on October 12. Both men are now working at $2 00 per hour and stated that they desire to be
reinstated in their original employment with Respondent.
24 The testimony of both Coale and Crince on the subject of their registrations with the United
States Employment Service, and its complete uncredibility in the light of the testimony given by
the managers of the offices of United States Employment Service that were involved , forms the
principal basis for discrediting not only their testimony on that subject but much of the other testi-
mony given by them, concerning which there is contrary evidence of a credible character. Both
Coale and Crince testified that on August 16, 1943, they reported at the office of the United States
Employment Seivice in Harvey, Illinois, and applied for employment as die-sinkers ; that they
were advised by that office there were no jobs as die-sinkers available in he area served by
the office , whereupon , they were given their certificates of availability and did not again return to
the office seeking employment . On this subject, however, Max C. Weber, managsr of the United
States Employment Service office at Harvey Illinois, testified that these men, at the time they
were given their certificates of availability, made no request for employment but demanded state-
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 607
As previously stated, Respondent has never had a formal or fixed rule
forbidding the discussion of unions or any other matter on company prop-
erty or company time, so long as it did not interfere with the production
operations. In his reprimands and warnings addressed to Coale and Crince,
Wood extended this prohibition concerning union activity to include not
only company time but company property and particularly emphasized
this in the warnings of July 10, 1943. He testified that this represented an
aggravated situation and one which he wanted to make as firm and drastic
as he could in order to bring about a correction of the existing unsatis;
factory conditions which in his opinion, Coale, Crince - and Olson were
creating. The fact that the prohibition extended to company property with-
out reference to hours is not material here, however, since it appears on
the credible testimony of many of the witnesses, that both before and after
the warning of July 10, neither Coale nor Crince differentiated between
working hours and free time in their conduct of union activities, their
admonitions to the junior employees to slow down on their work, and their
general discussions concerning the desirability of a union as against an
open shop. It was for such activity and the resultant interference with
ments of availability , and that they could not have made an application for employment without
a record of such application having been made in his office . The fixed procedure of the office under
WMC regulations was explained by Meyer, showing that a registration record is made in every
instance where the discharged employee is seeking other employment, that if there is no employment
of that character within the area , then the surrounding areas are canvassed by the office, and if
there still are no available jobs for which the applicant is qualified , a registration is taken, since
such a job might come into the office shortly thereafter and without such record of registration,
the man could not be located In other words , in every instance where the applicant comes into
the office seeking employment , the office either refers him to a job , or in the event of its inability
to immediately refer him , makes a registration card for future reference In this instance , there are
no registration cards in the Harvey, Illinois, office, applicable to either Coale or Crince, notwith-
standing their positive and repeated statements made to the Trial Examiner as well as to counsel,
that they did in fact apply for jobs at the time they obtained their certificates of availability and
were advised that no jobs as die sinkers were available . The situation with reference to Crince
is even more aggravated . He testified that he had also registered for employment at the office
of the United States Employment Service for District 11 in Chicago, Illinois, on September 27,
1943, and produced a card showing that he had been in the office on that date and on 2 subse-
quent days . His testimony, however, was that as a result of this registration, he received unem-
ployment compensation for one week , after which the unemployment compensation was terminated
for a reason not known to him He further stated that when he registered at the office of District 11,
he applied for employment as a die sinker and was told that there were no available jobs of that
description . On the other hand, Robert F Harrison , manager of the United States Employment
Service for District 11 in Chicago , Illinois, testifying from the records of that office , stated that
Crince registered on September 27, 1943; that when he was referred to the desk interviewer who
makes the final clearance of referrals of applicants to jobs, he made the statement that he was not
interested in a job at that time ; that he had been released from his last employment after 23 years
of service because of union activities ; that his case was due to come up before the War Labor
Board (sic), and that he preferred to wait results because if the case should be decided in his favor.
his job and seniority rights would be restored . As a result of this statement , no referral was made
and his application was closed . In both of these instances , the testimony given by Coale and Crince
was emphasized by them in response to inquiries put by the Trial Examiner so that there can
be no question but that each of these men appreciated the importance of the testimony and the
nature of the information being sought. It is obvious that under such circumstances, these nien
having deliberately falsified their testimony on this subject , aie not entitled to be credited on
uncorroborated or controverted testimony appearing- elsewhere in the record
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production in violation of the July 10 warning that they were discharged.`5
Accordingly, it is found that both Coale and Crince were discharged on
August 9, 1943, for interfering with production by advising the other
workers to maintain a slower rate of production than that of which they
were reasonably capable, and by soliciting union interest in the die shop
during working hours, thereby further interfering with production, and
that such discharges were for proper cause and were not in violation of any
of the provisions of the Act.
The complaint contains several general allegations that Respondent
warned and discouraged employees to refrain from assisting or affiliating
with either the Steelworkers or Die Sinkers; made disparaging statements
concerning and expressed disapproval of employees who assisted the Die
Sinkers; asked employees how it felt to be paying union dues ; advised
employees that it would be fruitless for them to organize into a union;
inquired into the union affiliations of employees ; discharged and threat-
ened to discharge employees because of their concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; and
inaugurated wage increases to its employees to dissuade them from joining
or assisting the Die Sinkers. There is no substantial evidence in support
of any of these allegations. While it is true that the wage adjustment of
April 1942 was negotiated at a time when the Die Sinkers was seeking
an election, there is nothing to indicate that the action taken by Respondent
was not in accordance with its custom in handling such matters or that it
had any direct relation to the activities of Die Sinkers or was designed to
discourage such activities. It is specially noted that at that time, the Die
Sinkers apparently had no membership among the employees here involved.
Admittedly, there was a state of dissatisfaction in the die shop which
was interfering with production and which was called to Wood's attention
by Cole in April of 1942. No complaints had been presented through the
medium of the Council and, following custom which had become common
practice, Wood went directly to the employees involved to find out where
the seat of the trouble lay. He then called in Coale who seemed to be the
leader, and with him, set up the committee which finally negotiated the new
flat rate basis of pay. Coale was not then a member of the Die Sinkers but
admittedly was actively interested in it and was seeking to build up an
zi Respondent introduced certain statistical data, purpoi tong to demonsti ate the man-hour cost
of certain dies, ( 1) under the bonus system , ( 2) under the flat rate up to the time of the Coale
and Crince discharges and, (3 ) after the discharges On their face, these compilations indicate a
substantial increase of man-hour cost after the flat rate was introduced, and a very substantial
reduction in such cost after the Coale and Crince discharges For the purposes of this repoit,
such compilations have been regarded only as indications of the trends, since the work done during
the three periods was not, in each instance, done by the same employees However, by following
the records of individuals who worked in each of the periods , the facts are reflected that, in the
main, the men slowed down appreciably after the bonus system was abandoned and then, after
the discharges , resumed approximately the rate of production they had followed under the bonus
system To this extent, the records substantiate the position taken by Respondent.
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY 609
interest among the die shop employees before committing himself. How-
ever, there is no evidence that this interest came to the attention of man-
agement until the day of the election . Meanwhile Coale not only made no
protest about the negotiations for a new flat rate, but actively participated
in them, nor did anyone else indicate the thought that it was interfering
with the Union. Since the procedure followed was in line with common
practice for handling such matters , it is found that there was no relation
between the wage adjustment under which the bonus system was aban-
doned , and the activities of Die Sinkers in early 1942.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We hereby disestablish The Employees' Council, Ingalls Shepard
Division, Wyman-Gordon Company as the representative of any of
our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment , and we will not recognize it or any
successor thereto for any of the the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or adminis-
tration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other
support to it.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination.
F. M. Baker
William Coale
Peter Crince
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our erni-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, CIO,
and Chicago Die Sinkers' Lodge No. 100 of the International Die Sinkers'
Conference 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.
All our employees are free to become or remam members of this union,
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY (INGALLS SHEPARD DIVISION
(Employer)
By
Dated
(Representative) (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 accordance
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.
0