Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-199. Decided December L2, 1937
Automobile Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion: intimidating, as-
saulting, and beating union members and sympathizers distributing literature
in vicinity of plants ; distributing anti-union literature to employees ; organizing
vigilante groups to crush organization by employees; employing hired thugs
and members of employer's service department to terrorize and beat union
members and sympathizers ; dominating and interfering with a company-domi-
nated labor organization for the purpose of defeating self-organization by em-
ployees ; systematically discharging employees who join or assist the union-
Company-Dominated Union: supporting and assisting formation; interfering
with internal organization ; discriminating between labor organizations-Dis-
crimination: Discharge; charges of, not sustained as to certain employees-
Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Laurence A. Knapp, Mr. John T. McTernan, and Mr. Chris-
topher W. Hoey, for the Board.
Mr. Louis J. Colombo, Sr., Mr. Louis J. Colombo, Jr., and Mr.
Anthony Vermeulen, of Detroit, Mich., for the Respondent.
Mr. Maurice Sugar, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Julius Schlezinger and Miss Anne E. Freeling, of counsel to
the Board.
DECISION
and
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile Workers of America, herein called the U. A. W., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Frank H. Bowen,
Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), is-
sued its complaint, dated June 26, 1937, against the Ford Motor
Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein called the respondent, 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
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in
substance:
621
622 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) That the respondent had for several months distributed and
circulated among its employees and the public generally statements
and propaganda disparaging and criticizing labor organizations and
discouraging membership therein.
(2) That on or about May 26, 1937, when representatives of the
U. A. W. attempted peaceably to distribute union literature at or in
the vicinity of the respondent's plant in Dearborn, Michigan, the
respondent caused a number of such representatives to be brutally
assaulted and beaten.
(3) That the respondent at various other times had, by enumer-
ated acts and threats, intimidated its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
(4) That membership in a labor organization known as the Ford
Brotherhood of America, Inc., herein called the Brotherhood, was
solicited within the respondent's River Rouge plant during working
hours with the sanction and aid of the respondent's officials, and
that the respondent thereafter caused to be published an announce-
ment in the public press that the Brotherhood had been disbanded
at the request of the respondent, these several acts constituting domi-
nation and interference with the formation and administration of a
labor organization.
(5) That the respondent caused the discharge, demotion, transfer,
lay-off, or resignation because of membership in, affiliation, with,
activity in behalf of, or sympathy or suspected sympathy toward,
the U. A. W., of certain named employees,' thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served upon the parties. On July 3, 1937, the respondent filed an
answer to the complaint in which it denied that it had engaged in
unfair labor practices. In its answer the respondent also moved
to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Act does not pro-
hibit freedom of speech or freedom of the press, that the Board
has no jurisdiction to hear and determine assault and battery and
felonious assault cases, and finally, that the Board has no jurisdiction
over the respondent.
' Valeiiu Popa, Alphonso Kuzulis, Percy Llewellyn, Jack Leis, John Pirosko, James
Pirosko, Fred Nygard, John Schipper , Emil Tomkow, Jacob Winsiewski , Joseph Nierotko,
Geoige Onnela, Martin Jensen , Clarence A . Fleming , Richard Weyhing , Elmer Mackie,
Thaddeus Radke , Ray Onnela , Alfred Onnela , Joseph Sable , Birtus C Hall , Hector F.
Manseau , Herbert C . Mehl, Gabriel Bobaila ( erroneously spelled Babaila ), John Barron,
Leo J Krugh , Joseph V. Bailey , John Cwikiel , Fred Gulliksen , George B Zubick, Joseph
Gutierrez , Joseph Galusky , Guiseppe Gregario , Clifford Sheldon , John J. Dovey , Daniel
E. Devor , Raymond Jewell , and Joe Sazynski During the hearing the complaint was
amended several times to conform to the proof adduced , to which amendments the
respondent filed answers . These amendments , among other things, added Homer King
and George Smick to the names of those discharged, and dismissed the complaint as
to Jack Leis , John Pirosko , Valeriu Popa , James Pirosko and Heibert C Mehl.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 623
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan,
from July 6 to July 30, 1937, before John T. Lindsay, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent,
and the U. A. W. were represented by counsel and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded to all parties. At the commencement of the hearing,
the conclusion of the Board's case, the conclusion of the respondent's
case, and again at the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent re-
newed its motion to dismiss. The motions were denied by the Trial
Examiner and exceptions taken.
During the hearing a so-called motion to intervene was filed in
behalf of the Brotherhood. Such motion requested certification of
the Brotherhood as the representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining of all the employees of the respondent engaged in pro-
duction in the State of Michigan. The motion was denied.by the
Trial. Examiner. The Brotherhood thereupon filed a caveat with
the Board in Washington, and thereafter, in accordance with per-
mission granted by the Board, filed a brief. The motion of the
Brotherhood is in actual fact a petition for certification of repre-
sentatives and bears no relationship to the charges of unfair labor
practices involved in this proceeding. It could properly have been
filed with the Regional Director in accordance with Article III, Sec-
tion 1, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended. The ruling of the Trial Examiner is hereby
affirmed.
During the course of the hearing exceptions were taken by the
parties to various rulings of the Trial Examiner. The Board has
reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. All rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed.
By order of the Board, dated August 3, 1937, the proceeding was
transferred to and continued before the Board in accordance with
Article II, Section 37, of the Rules and Regulations.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ford Motor Company is a Delaware 2 corporation having its prin-
cipal executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. It is engaged in the
manufacture, assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles and
automobile trucks and various types of automobile parts and acces-
2 Ford Motor Company was incorporated in 1919 with an authorized capital stock of
$100,000,000 . Moody 's Manual of Investments for 1930 states that this stock is entirely
owned by Henry Ford. his wife , Mrs. Henry Ford, and his son, Edsel B Ford
624 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sories.3 The respondent owns, operates, or maintains manufacturing
or assembly plants in many states throughout the country. Ford
sales and service branches are located in practically every major
city in the United States. Foreign subsidiaries of the respondent
operate in a similar fashion throughout the world .4
The respondent operates iron ore mines and lumber properties
in Michigan, coal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia, a silica
quarry in Pennsylvania, and other raw material properties in the
various States. A subsidiary of the respondent has a concession for
approximately 2,500,000 acres of land in Brazil for rubber develop-
ment. Although by owning sources of essential raw materials the
respondent has made its operations largely self-sufficient, its manu-
facturing operations are so extensive that it must still purchase great
quantities of raw materials.
The respondent owns and operates a fleet of ships, including seven
ocean-going vessels, the two largest motorships on the Great Lakes,
13 barges, four towing tugs, a harbor tug, and two twin-screw canal
-boats. For the care of these vessels, it has purchased a ship-building
plant at Chester, Pennsylvania. The activities of the respondent are
closely coordinated as a result of its control of transportation facil-
ities.
The respondent, up to June 1936, had built and sold more than
24,000,000 Ford cars. Of a total of 3,404,497 new car registrations in
the United States in 1936, there were 764,121 registrations of Ford
cars, or 22 .44% of the total. It is the third largest manufacturer in
the automobile industry.
The only plants of the respondent involved in this proceeding are
the ones located in Highland Park, Michigan, herein called the High-
' In addition , the respondent is in the following lines of business , all connected with
or growing out of the making of motors : aeroplanes , coal mining , coke manufacture,
by-products manufacture , lead mining , iron mining , foundry , steel manufacture, tool
making, machinery manufacture , car truck and tractor manufacture , glass manufacture,
artificial leather, copper wire, Fordite , textiles, batteries and generators , paper, cement.
automobile bodies , Johanssen gages, electric power, filtered water, flour , motion pictures,
hospital , farming and stock raising , radio, printing , photography , forging , flax growing,
steam turbine , electric locomotives , logging , saw mills, body parts , dry kilns, wood
distillation , products of hydro-electric power, grocery stores , shoe stores , clothing stores,
butcher shops , railroads , education , and ocean and lake transportation
° The respondent owns a majority of stock in , or is affiliated through stock ownership
with , the following companies : Ford Motor Company of Canada , Ford Motor Company
Ltd of England, Ford Motor Company A. G (Germany), Ford Motor Co. (Belgium)
S. A, Ford Motor Co A/s ( Denmark ), Ford Motor Co . of Finland , 0 Y, Ford Societe
Anonyme Francaise and Matford Company ( France), N V Nederlandsche Ford Auto-
mobiel Fabrick ( Holland ), Ford Italiana S A (Italy) , Ford Motor Iberica ( Spain), Ford
Motor Co. A/B (Sweden), Ford Motor Company , Australia, Proprietary Ltd., Ford
Manufacturing Company, Proprietary Ltd. (Australia ), Ford Motor Company, South
Africa, Ltd.
The respondent 's chief manufacturing plants abroad are in Ireland, England (the
factory at Dagenham, England , is the largest automobile factory in the world outside
the United States ), Germany, and France It also has assembly plants , and sales and
service branches in Argentina , Canal Zone , Cuba, Mexico, Uruguay , Brazil, Chile , China,
Japan, Egypt , Belgium, France , Spain, Italy, Rumania, Denmark , Ireland, Finland,
Turkey, Portugal , Holland, Sweden , Greece, and Germany.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 625
land Park plant, and in Dearborn, Michigan, herein called the River
Rouge plant. Fender enamel, frame paint, anti-rust solution, dryers,
polishers, resins, automobile paints, and artificial leather are manu-
factured in the Highland Park plant.5 These products are shipped to
the various branches of the respondent located in this country and
abroad.
The heart of the giant Ford organization is the River Rouge plant,
which is the largest industrial unit in the world, employing more
than 80,000 men. The plant grounds cover 1,096 acres and the build-
ings have a floor area of over 7,250,000 square feet. The respondent
operates at the River Rouge plant its own blast furnaces, locomotive
repair shop, the largest foundry and the largest industrial steam gen-
erating plant in the world, motor assembly plant, coke ovens, open
hearth furnaces, steel plant and rolling mill, paper mill, sintering
plant, glass factory, laboratories, and a cement plant. The plant has
14 miles of roadways and 92 miles of railroad tracks. Twenty-four
locomotives,' one road roller, 14 locomotive cranes, and 11 steam
shovels operate there. The docks at the River Rouge plant are a
mile and a third long and can accommodate ocean-going vessels.
Almost all of the products manufactured at the River Rouge plant
are shipped to assembly plants in various parts of the country. The
only cars which are completely assembled there are the ones intended
for local sale. The average shipping time between the factory and
the branches is 6.16 days. The respondent maintains an elaborate
system of inventory control by means of thousands of miles of leased
telephone wires.
The automobile industry ranks first in the United States in the
value of products and twelfth in the number of wage earners. It
is the largest consumer of steel and also ranks first in the use of
various other commodities, including gasoline, lubricating oil, rubber,
plate glass, nickel, lead and mohair.
The industry involves the constant movement of enormous quan-
tities of materials and products in interstate commerce. Michigan,
which produces 52 per cent of all the automobiles manufactured in
the United States, accounts for the sale of less than six per cent.
Only slightly more than two per cent of the steel produced in the
country is manufactured in Michigan, and only trifling quantities
^of most of the other commodities which have been named above.
IT. THE UNION
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America is a
labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization.
15 Until 1929 automobiles and automobile parts were also manufactured at this plant.
626 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The riot of May 26, 1937
In connection with its drive to organize the respondent 's employees,
the General Executive Board of the U. A. W. set up a committee,
known as the Ford Organizing Committee. This committee, at a
meeting held sometime about the middle of May 1937, decided to
distribute union leaflets on May 26 to the workers at the River Rouge
plant. In accordance with this decision a permit for the distribution
of handbills was obtained from the City of Dearborn .6 Also, the
committee issued a call for volunteers to assist it in the distribution.
In response to this call about 300 persons attended a meeting of
the committee held at 12: 30 P. M. on May 26 , 1937, at the office of
Local No. 174 of the U. A. W. At this meeting final plans for the
distribution of-leaflets at the River Rouge plant that afternoon were
made. Groups were assigned to the various gates of the plant and it
was decided that only women would actually pass out the handbills.
A total of from 50 to 70 persons , at least two -thirds of whom were
women, were selected to take part in the distribution . All persons
were carefully instructed to refrain from violence.
At the conclusion of the meeting four of the union leaders, Walter
P. Reuther , president of Local No. 174 and a member of the General
Executive Board of the U . A. W., Richard T. Frankensteen , Organi-
zational Director of the Ford Organizing Committee and also a
member of the General Executive Board, Jack Kennedy, the Assist-
ant Organizational Director , and Robert Kanter , a U. A. W. or-
ganizer, together with Reverend Raymond P. Sanford , a Chicago
minister assigned to observe the distribution by the Conference for
the Protection of Civil Rights , proceeded - to Gate 4, the main entrance
of the Rouge plant , in automobiles . The women assigned to dis-
tribute leaflets at that gate were instructed to follow by street car.
In order to understand the events which took place after their
arrival, a brief descripion of the locality surrounding Gate 4 is neces-
sary. Gate 4 is located on the west side of Miller Road, a 120 foot
public highway, only 40 feet of which is paved . Thirteen feet of
the unpaved portion of the highway lie west of the pavement and
the other 67 feet east of it. The eastern part is covered with cinders
upon which cars are permitted to park. Although the property on
both sides of Miller Road is owned by the respondent , buildings have
been constructed only on the western side. Street car tracks run
within the plant grounds just east of the roadway and on the other
side of the tracks an open parking space for employees ' cars is lo-
0 Board Exhibit 70.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 627
cated. The tracks are separated from both the parking space and
the street by iron fences. The fence to the west of the tracks is lo-
cated on Ford property and about seven feet of the unpaved portion
cf Miller Road belongs to the respondent.
A large overpass has been constructed by the respondent across
Miller Road at Gate 4 to enable its employees to enter the plant
without crossing the street. Steps facing both toward the north and
the south lead to the overpass from the eastern edge of Miller Road.
Within the fence there are also steps, leading to the overpass from
the 'street car" loading and unloading platforms.
The union group arrived at Gate 4 at approximately 1: 45 and
proceeded immediately to the top of the overpass. The proposed dis-
tribution had received considerable advance publicity and they found
a large number of newspapermen awaiting their arrival. In re-
sponse to requests from the photographers the group posed for pic-
tures in the center of the bridge, Almost immediately, however,
they were approached by three men, one of whom announced, "This
is Ford property. Get the hell off of here." At the same time a
number of other men who had been loitering along the railings began
closing in on them from all directions.7 The uncontradicted testi-
mony of several witnesses indicates clearly that as soon as these
words,were spoken the union group, without making any response or
objection whatsoever, turned quietly around and began walking
toward the stairway. They had taken only a few steps, however,
when they were surrounded and attacked by the men who had been
closing in on them. '
The story of the attack is almost unbelievably brutal. Reuther and
Frankensteen were singled out for particular attention and given a
terrific beating. Each of them was knocked down and viciously
pounded and kicked in all parts of the body. They were then raised
in the air several times and thrown upon their backs on the concrete.
Reuther was then kicked down the north stairway and beaten and
chased down Miller Road. Frankensteen, who was beaten into in-
sensibility for a few moments, was also kicked down the north
stairway, after which he was driven for several hundred yards along
the street car tracks within the fence 8
7 The main afternoon change of shifts at the River Rouge plant does not take place
until 3:30 All witnesses agreed that the number of men standing on the overpass
,was unusually large for this early in the afternoon . Another peculiar feature was the
fact that very few of them appeared to be carrying lunch pails or wearing the badges
required of all Ford employees at the plant.
8 The notes taken by Dr . I. W. Ruskin , one of the physicians who attended Frankensteen
after the riot, read with respect to him as follows :
"Richard Frankensteen . Bruise on the back of the neck. Injuries to face, nose
and chin . Bleeding from internal injuries of the nose . Bruised in the groins.
Bruised ribs , right side."
628 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reverend Sanford's description of the events which took place on
the bridge was as follows :
"A. Well, there was a continuous clicking of cameras which
seemed to last for some time for two or three minutes, and al-
most instantly after that,-in fact, during the latter part of
that I observed a number of men approaching toward me from
the south side of the overpass near the top of the steps, with
other people coming up behind them.
Q. Now, as they approached toward the Union group, what
occurred?
A. Well, when they got near the Union group, some man with
a rather deep voice said, `This is Ford property; get the hell
off of here,' whereupon we all immediately turned towards the,
north and took three or four steps toward the north stairway.
I was rather following the lead of these men. I followed along
by their side to the right of them, with Mr. Kennedy, and
Frankensteen, and Reuther and Kanter on my left, in approxi-
mately that order.
Q. You proceeded toward the stairway, is that it, the stairs?
A. We proceeded toward the north stairway.
Q. Well, what did you notice first as you were proceeding
towards the stairs? After that did you go down the stairs or
what happened?
A. Well, after we got within a few feet from the top of the
stairs, there were two things that happened, I should say, almost
simultaneously, immediately following the-almost immediately
following the demand to get off the property, and that was-
although I couldn't see what was happening in back of me, there
was a scuffling and I caught scraps of conversation which in-
formed me unmistakably that the cameramen were in trouble and
their cameras were being attacked, and then I was sort of nudged
or pushed over to the east, and two men grabbed or hit at, I
couldn't say which, because I just got a glance over my left shoul-
der,-grabbed or hit at Mr. Frankensteen. Then I turned toward
the west and saw him surrounded by four or five men who were
slugging at him, kicking at him and trying to grab his hands.
Q. Now, had there been any remarks addressed to this group
advancing on those with whom you were prior to this command
to get off the property, or get the hell off; do you recall?
A. Will you repeat that question?
Q. Had there been any conversation prior to the command to
get off the property between the Union group with whom you
were and the group who were advancing behind them?
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 629
A. No, I had heard no conversation whatsoever.
Q. Now, after that command, did anyone in the Union group
reply orally?
A. I heard no oral reply whatsoever.
Q. And did any of the Union group offer any physical re
sistance to that command, after it was issued?
A. No, just the contrary. They seemed to be complying with
it immediately.
Q. Was Mr. Frankensteen attacked from the front or from the
rear, from what you saw?
A. From the rear.
Q. In the course of his progress toward the north stairs?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, can you describe the sort of beating that he received
there?
A. Well, first near the northeast corner of the overpass Mr.
Frankensteen was attacked by four or five men who kicked him in
the general region of his stomach and plugged him from the rear
and were endeavoring to pull his coat over his head and then an
increasing number of men fell upon him of a heavier type, and
he was finally forced to the cement over to my left just north
of the passageway which leads over to the ticket windows going
down to the street car tracks, and there a man who was engaged
in the attack, an individual who was engaged in attacking him,
a separate individual grabbed him by each foot and by each
hand and his legs were spread apart and his body was twisted
over towards the east, over to my left, and then other men pro-
ceeded to kick him in the crotch and groin, and left kidneys and
around the head and also to gore him with their heels in the
abdomen, or the general range of his solar plexus.
Q. Now, was he knocked clown at the time?
A. He was flat on his back on the concrete.
Q. What happened to you, then?
A. Well, at that time he was so completely surrounded by inen
on all sides, including the east side, who didn't seem to be en-
gaged in the attack. There were men to the east of him who
seemed to be observing. The attack came mostly from those on
the east and west and northwest of him.
Q. Anyway, your vision was cut off ?
A. My vision was so completely cut off that I turned my atten-
tion towards the west, and then for the first time since we had
630 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
started to walk toward the north stairway I saw Mr. Walter
Reuther again, and he was I should say three or four feet di-
rectly south of the west aisle of the stairs, going down the north
stairs and facing north and he was standing up and crouched
over towards the north, and he had his fists crossed over his fore-
arms and looking under out his hands with a look of terror
written upon his face, with his face blanched white around his
upper lip and nose and mouth, with the exception of a trickle of
blood coming from his nose, and then there seemed a pause of I
suppose, a second or so there, it seemed like a long time, when no
one attacked him, he just stood there sort of in a crouched posi-
tion, and then he moved forward unmolested and grabbed hold
of the iron rail on either side of this west lane, but no sooner
had he grabbed hold of this iron pipe on either side of him than
a very husky individual from the rear wrenched him loose and
endeavored to hurl him down the first flight of steps, which I
should say, were about nine or ten in number.
Q. How many flights of those steps are there on that bridge?
A. Three or two landings before the ground, and he caught
himself, I should say, about the sixth or seventh step, and at
that time I observed men coming up from the ground below at
both the last and next to the last aisle, to the west, on the north
stairway, and other men following him down all the way down,
sometimes being hurled right into men coming up the stairway,
and I lost track of what was happening to Mr. Frankensteen,
and gradually followed down the easternmost aisle of the north
stairway till I came to the bottom of the north stairway."
In the meantime while the assaults on the bridge were taking place,
a street car carrying the women who had been assigned to distribute
handbills at Gate 4 arrived. It stopped at the unloading platform
within the fence just north of the overpass and the girls began get-
ting off. A number of men immediately attacked them and, calling
them vile names, twisted their arms in an effort to get the bundles of
leaflets which they were carrying away from them. All of the
women were first pushed about and then violently shoved back into
the street car. A girl named Catherine Gelles and another one named
Stella were knocked to the ground and kicked. Reverend Sanford,
who had walked down the north stairway of the overpass just as the
union women started getting off of the street car, gave this vivid
description of the events that followed :
"Q. Describe whatever happened to the girls there, what was
the situation?
A. Well, they were pushed around and called all manner of
vile names that are generally, attributed to women of the street,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 631
and one question which was directed to them two or three times,
in substance, and which I couldn't understand, was, `Why don't
you get your citizenship papers before you come sucking around
here for a job', and as they tried- to distribute this-I suppose
they were trying to distribute the literature, there was an effort
made and sometimes successful to grab the literature out of their
hands, and they were hit and pushed around, and especially one
very well dressed gentlemen in a brown suit by
Q. What was the purpose of that, trying to get them back on
the street cars or just a general mauling, or what was it?
A. First it seemed to be a general mauling, because they were
first told to get over on the east side of the fence and then they
got over on the fence, they were commanded to get back on the
west side of the fence, and the girls were at a loss to know ap-
parently what to do, and then one girl near me was kicked in
the stomach, and vomited at my feet, right at the end of the
steps there and I finally shot an imploring glance at one of the
mounted policemen, to whom I had previously spoken and he
dashed over on horseback to the west side of the fence and in a
rather pleading tone, sort of `For God's sake' tone in his voice,
seemed to direct his remarks to this well-dressed gentlemen in
brown, and said, `You mustn't hurt those women : you mustn't
hurt those women;' and I was attracted to the manner in which
he spoke, because he seemed to speak as one not having authority
in the situation and seemed to be pleading rather not to injure
the women.
Q. In any event, there was no physical effort on his part
to prevent that, is that correct?
A. No, there was no show of authority whatsoever.9
Q. Now, how long did you stay there along the street car
tracks?
A. I stayed there until practically all the literature had been
gathered from the ground and until the girls had been pushed
back on the trolley and the trolley had gone and it became very
quiet around there and relatively still.
Q. Did the girls get back on the street car voluntarily?
A. They were, for the most part, pushed back on the street
car ; some of them went according to instruction, but some were
pushed back on them."
In addition to the union leaders on the overpass and the women
carrying the leaflets all other members of the U. A. W. who were
in the vicinity of Gate 4 were subjected to savage assaults. William
9 Several witnesses testified to the presence of mounted policemen at Gate 4 during
the riot. All of these witnesses agreed that they made no attempt to intervene and
prevent violence
67573-38-vol. iv-41
632 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Merriweather, one of the volunteers, had driven out to the plant in
his automobile and parked it just north of Gate 4 on the unpaved
eastern portion of Miller Road. When the street car carrying the
union women arrived he got dut of his automobile and attempted to
go through an opening in the fence to join them. He was stopped,
however, by a large group of men who forced him to move on. A
little later when he again tried to go through the opening, he was
grasped from behind in such a manner that his jacket flew open
disclosing a union button on his shirt. Then someone hollered, "Get
that Union son of a B." and several men pounced on him and gave
him a severe beating. He was knocked to the ground and violently
kicked while one of his assailants shouted, "Kill him," "Kick his
brains out," "Stomp his face in." Merriweather's back was broken
during this assault and it was still in a cast at the time of the hear-
ing in this case.'°
Robert Sentmen, a U. A: W. member who went out to the plant
with the women on the street car, was attacked by six or eight men
when he asked them to stop molesting the girls. He was knocked
down several times and then driven along the car tracks.
Alvin Stickle, another U. A. W. member who went out to the plant
on the street car, had a somewhat different type of experience. He
was throwing bundles of leaflets which had been knocked out of the
arms of the women over the fence when he was attacked by three
men who knocked him to the ground. One of them, later identified
as Wilfred Comment, then took hold of him, saying, "You are the
one we have been looking for," and dragged him through the open-
ing in the fence and across Miller Road into the office of the Service
Department at Gate 4.11 He was left in the office for a few moments
until Everett Moore, head of the Ford Service Department, carne
into the room. Moore turned him back over to Comment with the
statement, "Okay, boys," and then stood in the doorway watching
while Comment and another man gave Stickle a severe beating in
front of the office.12
The picture of the events that occurred at Gate 4 is not complete
without some reference to the fate of the photographers who were
present. When the attack on the bridge started several men turned
to the photographers and began blocking off their view. Others
tried to stop them from taking pictures and to take their films away
"Dr . E M Shafarman , the physician who attended Merriweather , testified that,
although the full extent of Merriweather's injuries could not as yet be definitely deter-
mined , there is a possibility that they may prove to be permanent and that his future
earning capacity may be seriously impaired
ii The duties of the Service Department and its anti -union activities are described in
Section III B, infra
12 Dr Ruskin's notes with iespoct to Stickle read as follows
"Alvin Stickle 18881 Henry Street, Melvindale Riaht face lacerated ands
swollen Lelt eye swol ' en Blecdine from nose General beating"
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 633
from them. The photographers were all shoved about and then
chased clown the south stairway. On the street below they were
again attacked by men who took their films and holders away from
them and tried to prevent them from taking pictures of the fighting
that was going on along the street car traces. Bede Irvin of the
Associated Press, James Kilpatrick of the Detroit News, and Albert
Haut of the New York Times Wide World Photos, all had films
taken away from them while standing-on Miller Road.
In the meantime, while the beatings at Gate 4 were being admin-
istered the union people assigned to the other gates of the River
Rouge plant were being subjected to like treatment. Gate 5 is located
on Miller Road just north of Eagle Avenue. A tunnel opening on
Eagle Avenue east of Miller Road runs under that street into the
plant. Another tunnel having entrances on the eastern side of Miller
Road both north and south of Eagle Avenue intersects the first
tunnel. At Gate 5 itself there is a large overpass across Miller
Road similar to the one located at Gate 4.
The union group assigned to Gate 5, consisting of about eight
girls and ten men, assembled under the leadership of William McKie,
a U. A. W. organizer, at the intersection of Eagle and Wyoming
Avenues, one block east of Miller Road, at about two o'clock on the
afternoon of May 26. They then proceeded down the center of Eagle
Avenue toward the plant. When they arrived at the corner of Eagle
Avenue and Miller Road they heard a voice shout, "Here the
bastards come, go get them," and about 30 men came running toward
them from the north entrance to the tunnel on Miller Road. Others
joined them from the overpass at Gate 5, while two automobiles
also drove up and discharged several more men. The story of what
then transpired was thus related by George Onnela, one of the
union group : .
"A. Well, they took a pass at McKie, and he says, `What have
you got there?'
Q. Who was this? Who do you mean by `he'?
A. Well, the service man.
Q. Well, that is one of these men that drove up in the car?
A. That is right. Well, he started slugging him, and one of
the union men said, `For God's sake, leave an old man alone;
pick on somebody of your own size.' So they let him go; they
didn't hurt him any more. They kicked him-I didn't see them
kick him, but I heard about, it afterwards. So, this Mary had a
bundle of these leaflets they were to pass out that day?
Q. Were those leaflets wrapped in packages?
A. They were wrapped in packages; yes.
634 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Paper around them?
A. Paper around them.
Q. Did this Marie have any union button on that you know of ?
A. I can't say. Then they says: `What have you got there?'
I says, `These are'leaflets we are going to pass.' Well, he says,
`You can't pass them,' he said, `around here.' So I says, `Who
can't V McKie stepped up and says, `We have, a license from
the City of Dearborn.' He said, `That don't mean a damn here.'
So they started for this Mary, and he said, `Give me those leaf-
lets.' Nothing doing. She says, `I am out here to do that and
I am going to pass them,' and he started to hit her on the arm-
pits, and naturally the leaflets fell on the ground, and one of
the service men picked these leaflets up and threw them over
the fence. So, by that time there seemed to be one of these men
that was the head of this attack here giving orders.
Q. Did this man have taped hands?
A. Yes ; he did.
Q. Both hands?
A. No, just one; the right hand.
Q. Will you describe the nature of that tape on the hands e
A. It was white tape; taped around the knuckles.
Q. Will you continue your description of what he was doing?
A. So, this guy noticed Tony and he says-well, he says, `Get
that bastard with that union cap and go to town with him.' So,
five or six guys started after Tony and they knocked him down.
They stepped on him and they kicked him, and this guy that was
head of this group that was giving orders, he said, `Hit him in
the stomach; hit him in the stomach,' he says, `that is the most
effective place,' he said. `Give it to him; let him have it.'
Q. Now, Mr. Onnela, on Union Exhibit 2, would you pick out
the spot that this man Tony was at when he was hit as you have
described?
A. Yes. He was right here. [Indicating.]
Q. That is, on the paved .part of Eagle Avenue, on the street
car tracks?
A. That is right, on the paved part.
Q. Continue, please. Go right along.
A. So, they kept on beating him, picking him up and throwing
him down on the pavement, and then come one of these colored
boys, and I don't know, it seems to me he was walking towards
them, and his attention was drawn to this colored boy. .They
says, `Why, you black bastard, what are you doing here?'
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 635
Q. Was this colored boy one of your group?
A. He was one of our group; he was.
Q. Was he carrying leaflets?
A. Not that I know of, no; I wouldn't say.
Q. Go ahead.
A. And so the same guy that I was referring to a little while
ago giving these orders, he says, `Give it to him.'
Q. Who was he referring to then?
A. To this other man, this service man, I presume.
Q. I mean, when he said, `Give it to him,' to whom was he
referring?
A. The group that left Tony, they were beating Tony, they left
Tony laying there and then started to beat this one.
Q. The colored boy?
A. That is right.
The colored boy, that is right, so they knocked hire down and
kept on hitting him over the head and over the shoulders and
they picked him up and threw him on the pavement and they
kicked him, and this guy, this here service man, he kept on
repeating, `Hit him in the stomach,' `hit him in the stomach;'
`Hell, you can't hurt a nigger when you hit him over the head.'
And, they kept that up, there was four of them picked him up
and they threw him like they would throw a sack against the
retaining wall.
Q. Where is that retaining wall?
A. That runs along Eagle there.
Q. Right under the fence?
A. That is right. So, as they kept-they kept beating this
colored boy down east toward the overhead, and in the meantime
someone attacked me, a big burly guy was going to strike me.
Well, I had my Ford badge under the lapel of my coat, and the
collar turned, and it became visible, it was underneath, see, so
one of the service men came up and grabbed this here other
service man by the throat and looked at me, and I just ducked
under, I said, `If you want to hit him, go ahead,' and he hit him
and blood just squirted out of his mouth, and he thought I was
a Ford man, so after I seen that I thought, `Well, I will use
this to advantage,' so I put the badge on the outside so I could
walk anywhere, they would look at me, and I said `Right here,
boys' (indicating), `No.' So, they let me go. So, as they kept
on hitting I followed up the colored boy down to the overhead
and they were still kicking him and beating him, and I walked
up to the guys over there and grabbed them by the neck, I said,
636 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`That is enough ,' I said, `for Christ's sake , don't you know when
a guy has had enough.' They looked at me and saw the badge
and walked out. He said , `You black bastard , don't come back
here again ; let that be a lesson. ' So, I started back
Q. Now, Mr. Onnela, what happened to the girls that were in
this group?
A. Well, the girls run.
Q. Which way did they run?
A. They ran east, down Eagle.
Q. When did they start to run?
A. Well, as soon as they seen the attack."
Even with Onnela's description it is difficult to conceive the full
savagery of the assault at Gate 5. The testimony of Dr. Shafarman,
the physician who attended Tony Marinovich after the riot, is illumi-
nating. Dr. Shafarman testified as follows :
"Q. Did you treat Tony Marinovich?
A. I did.
Q. Please describe to the Trial Examiner the injuries suffered
by Mr. Marinovich?
A. Mr. Marinovich was probably the most severely injured of
the entire group. He sustained a fracture of the skull, a severe
concussion of the brain and developed later a post traumatic
encephalitis, that is, inflammation of the brain, due to injury.
He also had numerous contusions, bruises and lacerations about
the body.
Q. What was your diagnosis of the case of Mr. Marinovich?
A. Fracture of the skull, concussion of the brain and post trau-
matic encephalitis; that was the diagnosis, the other injuries were
less significant.
Q. Your use of the words `Post traumatic', Doctor, indicate that
the encephalitis came after and as the result of an injury or
trauma, is that so?
A. That is correct.
Q. In your opinion, Doctor, are the injuries from which Mr.
Marinovich is suffering, of a permanent nature?
A. That is a very difficult question to answer because of the
frequency with which individuals so injured do develop perma-
nent impairment of the psychic functions and permanent deterio-
ration of their intellect. Mr. Marinovich may suffer from head-
aches and dizziness for an indefinite period to come, as he is now
suffering. It is possible that in the course of a couple of years.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 637
he may develop an epilepsy, due to the head injury. It is impos-
sible now to predict just what the ultimate outcome will be, but
the prognosis must be guarded because of the frequency with
which, as I said before, these individuals do develop permanent
disability.
Q. From your observation, diagnosis and treatment of Mr.
Marinovich, Doctor, can you tell the Trial Examiner to what
extent Mr. Marinovich's future earning capacity will be affected?
A. His earning capacity may be reduced to zero before a year
is out. It is impossible to predict now just what will happen to
him. He is still under observation."
Newspapermen were no freer to take pictures at Gate 5 than at
Gate 4. Frederick Arnold, a Detroit Times staff photographer, was
cruising along Miller Road when he saw the union group approaching
on Eagle Avenue. He immediately got out of his car and began set-
ting up his camera. Before he had a chance to take any pictures,
however, the leader of the assailants, a man known as Tubby, saw
him and shouted, "There is a camera man. Get that son-of-a-bitch.
Break that camera." Three men rushed toward him but before they
could catch him his driver, Omar Shull, picked him up. Not in the
least daunted, his pursuers got into another car and started out after
him. There followed a wild chase of four or five miles through
crowded city streets. Numerous red lights were passed and both
cars traveled at a speed of close to 80 miles an hour. Shull finally
drove to the Melvindale police station and Arnold escaped into the
station one step ahead of the men who were after him. At the police
station the pursuers identified themselves as Michael Devlin, Charles
Grundish, and Stanley Terry of the Ford Service Department.13
Most employees going into the River Rouge plant from the Schaef.
fer Road side enter by street car. Because of this fact, the U. A. W.
had made plans for the distribution of leaflets on the street cars and
at about two o'clock on the afternoon of May 26 a group of approxi-
mately 14 union women met at the corner of Michigan Avenue and
Schaeffer Road, close to the plant. At that point two girls entered
each street car for the purpose of passing out handbills to the men
inside. The girls in the first car were not noticed at the gate and
remained in the car while it went through the plant. However, those
in the succeeding street cars were not as fortunate and were pulled out
of the cars by Ford service men as they entered the plant at Gate 9.
Several union members who were standing across Schaeffer Road
from Gate 9 were chased away by a group of men.
Four of the union women who were evicted from the street cars by
Ford service men were forced into the car of Nick Demchuk, a
' Board Exhibit 88 is a copy of the Melvindale police department record of the above
incident.
T
638 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
U. A. W. member, which was parked nearby. Demchuk already had
one companion with him at the time. An automobile containing sev-
eral service men, two of whom stood on the running board, then fol-
lowed Demchuk as he drove along Schaeffer Road. Despite his
protest that his car was already overloaded, they forced him to pick
up three other U. A. W. members who were walking along the side-
walk. One of these men was pushed into the front seat, making a
total of seven persons inside the car, while the other two stood on
the running board.
Demchuk then proceeded slowly down Schaeffer Road until he was
stopped by a motorcycle patrolman who had been hailed by the pur-
suing service men. The policeman, after a conversation with the
service min, gave Demchuk a ticket for reckless driving. Yale
Bradlyn, one of the occupants of his car, who attempted to explain
the affair, was told by the officer, "This was Dearborn and not
Detroit." Boyd Simmons, a reporter on the Detroit News, who wit-
nessed the incident and was making notes thereof, had his notebook
taken away from him by the officer.
Demchuk was then ordered to drive to the Dearborn police station.
At the station all of the occupants of his car and Emil Mazey, a
U. A. W. organizer, who had seen the affair on Schaeffer Road and
had come along to the station, were held for more than half an hour
without any charges being placed against them. During this time,
Mazey was prevented by Ford service men from using the telephone.,
Demchuk, after pleading not guilty to the charge of reckless driv-
ing, was finally released on bail. Before he or any of the others were
permitted to leave the police station, however, they were carefully
searched for any papers bearing the license number of the automo-
bile in which the service men had been following them ; the women
being searched by a police matron and the men by the motorcycle
patrolman and the Ford service men.14
In front of Gate 10 on Schaeffer Road a union group of two men
and four or five women began passing out handbills to persons enter-
ing the River Rouge plant shortly before 2: 00 P. M. on May 26.
Within a few minutes several men came out of the Service Office at
that gate and started taking the girls' leaflets away from them.
When Frank Hartung, a U. A. W. organizer, objected he was hit in
the mouth. Asher Lauren, a Detroit News reporter, who was present
at the scene had his notes taken away from him by some men who had
driven up, one of whom said, "You won't need these."
Numerous other acts of violence were committed against members
of the U. A. W. that day. However, in order to keep the discussion
14 When Demchuk 's case came up for trial a week later , the charge against him was
dismissed despite the objection of the U. A. W. attorney who requested a hearing on the
charge
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 639
of the riot as brief as,possible, only two of these will be mentioned.
Percy Llewellyn, a union member who attempted to distribute leaflets
on Dix Avenue near Gate 1, was attacked by several men and given
a severe beating. Another union member, Ralph Dunham who
passed out handbills at the intersection of Wyoming and Eagle Ave-
nues was assaulted by four men who pounced on him from a Ford
car which had pulled up alongside. The beating administered to
Dunham was one of the most vicious of the afternoon and he received
serious internal injuries which necessitated his going to a hospital for
14 days and from which he had not yet recovered at the time of the
hearing.
We come to the question of whether the respondent is responsible
for the brutal and malicious assaults upon U. A. W. members and
sympathizers which have been described above. A careful examina-
tion of the evidence permits of only one possible answer to this
question. We think it plain from the record that the respondent
deliberately planned and carried out the assaults in an effort to
crush union organization among its employees.
In the first place the evidence shows that the respondent had been
preparing for weeks in advance to prevent any distribution of union
literature in the vicinity of its River Rouge plant. Joseph Barnick,
a former employee of the respondent, testified that sometime about the
first of April, 1937 he had been transferred from his job as an inspec-
tor of connecting rods within the River Rouge plant to the Ford
Service Department. His new duties consisted of sitting in a car
at Gate 5 and reporting anything "that didn't look right." During
the first week in May he was instructed that if he caught anyone
passing out handbills he should give him a beating and bring him
into the service office at Gate 4.
This testimony of Barnick substantiated that of Fred Collins, a
reporter on the Detroit Times. Collins had had an assignment at
the River Rouge plant about two weeks before the riot. While there
he noticed that cars, each of which contained several men, were
parked at the various entrances to the plant. There were five such
cars at Gate 4 and two or three at each of the other gates. His
attention was attracted to these automobiles by the fact that there
were so many of them and also because the men in them were doing
nothing except sitting in the cars, even eating their lunches in them.
Arnold Freeman, a Detroit Times photographer, testified that sev-
eral Ford employees wearing badges starting with the serial letters
"A" and "F" had attempted to prevent him from taking pictures
at Gate 4 on Miller Road on May 24. Freeman's testimony concern-
ing the incident was in part as follows:
"A. . . . Then I recognized a boy that I had photographed
sometime ago at police headquarters in connection with a, holdup,
640 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I believe, I think it was in the Holdup Squad, and I said, `I
see you are back to your old tricks again.' He said, `What do
you mean?'
A. `What are you, a muscle man out here, or do you work in
the foundry?
A. He says, `We are hired, as far as I know, temporary to take
care of these union men that are to distribute these pamphlets.'
I said, `What do you mean by taking care of them? Are you
going to use your fist on them or what?' He said, `Well, they,
figure about four to a man.' He said, `We had a check, and we
got four to every union man that is coming out here.' So I says,
`Have they got the down-river gang on this thing?' And he
said, `Yes'. He said, `There is the chief over there. Go on over
and take his picture.' He said, `You have got mine.'
Q. Mr. Freeman, I show you Board's Exhibit 33-A in evidence
and ask you if you can point out by number the man identified
as the chief on the occasion to which you refer? 15
A. Number 3. V
Q. Do you know his name?
A. Yes, Angelo Caruso.
Q. Did you see any of these men at the Ford River Rouge
plant on May 24th?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were any of them wearing Ford badges?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. What type of badges did they wear? In other words,
what letter preceded the numbers on the badge?
A. Most of the new faces out there had `A' badges. There
are some that have `F' badges.
Q. Do you know what the designation `F' badge, or `A'
badge is ?
A. Well, my understanding is that the `F' are permanent
service men.
Q. What is your understanding of the `A' badge?
A. The `A's' were hired temporary for this 18 union invasion."
Victor Beresford, a Detroit News reporter, and Herb Bauer, an
Acme News Pictures photographer, also had occasion to experience
15 Board Exhibit 33-A is a copy of a photograph taken by James Kilpatrick of the
Detroit News showing Fiankensteen being assaulted on the overpass
ie This testimony is substantiated by the experience of Joseph Barnick As a produc-
tion worker , his badge number had been H-2850 . This number was changed to A-5429
early in May , 1937, after his transfer to the service department On May 26, it was
changed again , this time to C-5429.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 641
the determined desire on the part of Ford service men not to have
their pictures taken. At about 11 A. M. on the morning of May
26, they visited the River Rouge plant for the purpose of making
arrangements for telephone facilities during the distribution of
union literature that afternoon and of taking some advance pictures
of the scene where such distribution was scheduled to take place.
Under the overpass at Gate 4, Beresford noticed about 25 cars con-
taining men, several of whom jumped out and pointing at Bauer,
shouted, "He is taking pictures ; taking pictures ; get that camera."
He and Bauer were then surrounded and taken within the plant.
Beresford's version of what then happened follows :
"As I walked up, Bauer was standing there explaining who
he was; that he was with me, and that he was just taking a
few pictures. And one or more of the men were complaining
that they did not want their pictures in the paper, or their
pictures taken, the individuals. As I walked up, this man in
charge,-he had dark, curly hair-seemed to recognize me, and
he said, `Yes,'-I started to tell him who I was, and he said
'Yes, I know you,' and he said, `That will be all right.' I ex-
plained to him that we merely wanted a picture of the scene,
of the place, we were not interested in the pictures of individuals,
and he said that would `be all right, `snap a picture.' But, he
said before coming back in the afternoon we better go to Ben-
nett's office and get permission. Several of them said,-this
particular Italian said, `You know how it is. The boys don't
want their pictures taken. You know how it is.'
Q. Now, did you go back over under the bridge while you
were there that morning?
A. Yes. I went back over to my car.
Q. Did you have any conversation there with any of the men
that approached you?
A. Well, I am pretty sure it was the same fellow that talked
to me in the first place and walked over to the gate with me.
He went back over, and I think there was one other, and we
stood there at the steps going up to the under-pass or near there,
and we got in conversation, and I said, `What are you going to
do when these boys come out here?' He said, `What do you
mean?' I said, `I suppose you know that Frankensteen and
Reuther are coming out there and the rest of the union?' And
he said, `Yes, we have been looking for them a couple of weeks.'
Well, I said, `What is the ruling of the Ford Motor Company on
this over-pass here? Is this Ford property? Do you consider
642 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it Ford property?' And he said, `Yes, it is.' I says, `Then if
anybody got on this over-pass, that would be trespassing?' And
he said, `Yes.' And I said, `Well, what would you do if Frank-
ensteen and Reuther come out here and the rest of them and start
passing that literature?' And he said, `We would throw them
the hell out of there."'
Fred Collins and Albert Anderman, a Detroit Times staff pho-
tographer, tivere assigned by their paper to cover the River Rouge
plant on the morning of May 26 in connection with the proposed
'distribution of union literature that afternoon. They visited the
office of Harry Bennett, the respondent's Personnel Director, where
they saw numerous Ford officials including Bennett and Everett
Moore. Collins testified as follows with respect to this visit :
"Q. Did you talk to any one about the distribution of pam-
phlets or leaflets by the organizers of the Union?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were you told about that?
A. I asked the gentleman whether or not the Ford Motor Com-
pany was going to do anything to prevent the distribution of the
handbills, and I was told that the Ford Motor Company would
not have anything to do with them. The service department
would not have anything take any action to prevent the dis-
tribution, and the gentleman who answered the questions said,
`However, maybe some loyal employees might resent it.'
[Laughter.]
Q. And who was the gentleman who made the statement?
Who was the gentleman that made the statement to you?
A. I have forgotten who the man was.
Q. Did that occur in the office there?
A. Yes, sir."
Following his morning visit to Bennett's office, Collins communi-
cated with his paper and asked that additional men be assigned to
the River Rouge plant that afternoon. When questioned concerning
the reason for this request, Collins stated that as a result of his con-
versation in Bennett's office he had assumed that there would be
trouble at the plant that afternoon.
It takes no reading between the lines to conclude that the "loyal
employees" to whom the official in Bennett's office had reference were
employees expressly assigned by the respondent with the task of pre-
venting the distribution of union literature and of assaulting the
persons participating in such distribution. However, if the prepara-
tions of the respondent to take care of union visitors were not suffi-
cient in themselves to fix responsibility, the identification of the lead-
ing participants in the riot would do so.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 643
The three original assailants of Reuther and Frankensteen on the
overpass at Gate 4 were two foremen in the River Rouge plant, Sam
Taylor and Wilfred Comment,17 and Ted Greis, a member of the Ford
Service Department.
Also identified at the hearing as having taken prominent parts
in the savage attacks committed at Gate 4 were Angelo Caruso,"'
'Lynn Squires, Christian Frey, Oscar Jones,19 Charles Goodman '20
17 Comment , although he is ostensibly the general foreman of the drive -away garage
at the end of the final assembly line , is in fact directly connected with the Service
Department
u A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Caruso in connection with the grand
jury investigation of the riot but the police have been unable to locate him . Charles
Spare, an investigator attached to the office of the Wayne County prosecutor , testified
that Caruso has been reported to be in hiding in Canada.
79 Jones fights professionally under the name of Jackie Young.
20 Bernard Middleton , a Detroit police officer , attached to the Bureau of Records, gave
the following interesting information with respect to Goodman ' s police record :
"A. Our records show on April 27, 1918, that Charles Goodman was picked up
for simple larceny and fined $10 or 30 days.
Q Now, what is the next item of information you have about this Charles
Goodman?
A. Well, on May 26, 1918, he was arrested for speeding and he was fined $12 or
10 days.
Q. What is the next item about this man?
A On August 14, 1919, he was arrested for grand larceny. He was discharged
by Superintendent Rutledge.
Q What is the next one , just read them off?
A. September 15, 1919, be was arrested for disorderly person, discharged by the
Commissioner . December 31, 1919 , simply larceny, arrested for simple larceny.
Discharged for lack of evidence February 18, 1920 , aiding prisoner to escape.
Q Was he discharged or convicted of that?
A. He was sentenced to 90 days in the Detroit House of Correction.
Q. What is the next item?
A. March 17 , 1920, arrested for disorderly person, investigation , discharged by
the Commissioner May 3, 1920, investigation, disorderly person, discharged by
Rutledge.
Q Who Is Rutledge?
A. Superintendent
Q. Of police?
A. Of police , yes, sir.
Q Go ahead.
A On February 4, 1925, he was airested as fugitive . Discharged at the request
of Lieutenant Rick. On April 14 , 1925, he was arrested for robbery armed. He
was turned over to the U S authorities. October 19 , 1925, he was arrested for
robbery armed . Discharged at request of Sergeant Rickman of the Detroit police
July 23 , 1926 arrested for removing contract property . Nolle grossed , Van Zile-
Judge Van Zile. March 23 , 1927, arrested for robbery armed Turned over to
Deputy U. S . Marshal George F. Lercheuner . On March 22 , 1928, robbery armed
Q Arrested for that?
A Yes , sir, discharged by Superintendent James Sproat , police. On February 15,
1928 , arrested for robbery armed Discharged by the Superintendent of police
On April 26 , 1929, arrested for frequenting a gambling place, was fined $5 or 10
days by Judge Bartlett.
Q Do you have any other records of arrests or convictions?
A Yes, I have four or five other ones.
Q. Of this man Would you mind reciting those?
A. On 10-9-21, arrested for disorderly person, investigation , discharged by the
Superintendent . On 1-11-22 disorderly person , arrested , disorderly person , for in-
vestigation, discharged by the Superintendent . On 2-5-22, arrested for disorderly
person, investigation , discharged by Superintendent. On 2-7-22, arrested , disorderly
person , investigation , discharged by ' the Superintendent . 4-27-25, there is no
charge."
644 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Warshon Sarkisian, all Ford employees, the first three of whom
were members of the Service Department. Comment, Taylor, and
Oscar Jones were pointed out by several witnesses as having been
particularly vicious in their assaults. A group of four or five men
who arrived at Gate 4 shortly after Frankensteen and, after request-
ing information concerning his whereabouts, rushed up the steps of
the overpass after him, drove up in a car belonging to the respondent.
A leader in the attack at Gate 5 was a member of the Ford Service
Department known as Tubby. Michael Devlin, Charles Grundish,
-and Stanley Terry, the three men who chased Frederick Arnold and
Omar Shull from Gate 5 into the Melvindale police station, identified
themselves as Ford service men.
Archie Kindell, a Ford employee, was the driver of the car in
which the service men who participated in the events at Gate 9 and
caused the arrest of Nick Demchuk, followed Demchuk to the Dear-
born police station. Kindell denied at the hearing that he was a
member of the Service Department but admitted that his foreman,
was connected with that department.
The persons who assaulted Frank Hartung and stopped the union
group from passing out leaflets in front of Gate 10 on Schaeffer Road
came out of the Service Department office at that gate. Alex Saide,
identified by several witnesses as the leader,of the attack on Percy
Llewellyn near Gate 1, was a member of the Ford Service Depart-
ment, while Ralph Dunham, who was so seriously injured at the cor-
ner of Wyoming and Eagle Avenues, recognized Comment and Taylor
as two of his chief assailants.
The time cards for May 26, 1937, of practically all of the above
named persons were introduced into evidence at the hearing.21 In
each case the individual was paid by the respondent for his time
during the beatings.
More important, perhaps, than any other single factor in connect-
ing the respondent with the events of May 26, was the presence of
Everett Moore, head of the Ford Service Department, at the scene of
the rioting and his acquiescence in the acts that were being commit-
ted. The testimony of Alvin Stickle that it was Everett Moore
who turned him over to Comment with the remark, "Okay, boys,"
and then stood by viewing the beating which was given him, was
uncontradicted at the hearing.
The careful preparations made for weeks in advance by the re-
spondent to prevent any attempt of the U. A. W. to distribute litera-
ture at the plant ; the great increase m size of its service department ;
the presence at the scene of professional fighters acid of individuals
with known criminal records employed by the respondent; the ex-
21 Board Exhibits 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 84, 8.5, 86 , and 108.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS, 645
perienced professional manner in which the attacks were carried out
and the brutality with which they were marked; the playing of the
most prominent parts in the riot by members of the Service Depart-
ment and not by production workers; the payment by the respondent
of the men who conducted the attacks; and the direct participation
of Everett Moore, head of the Service Department,-all lead ines-
capably to the conclusion that the assaults upon union men and
women that occurred on May 26, were part of a carefully designed
plan on the part of the respondent to prevent the distribution of
union literature by the U. A. W. in the vicinity of the River Rouge
plant.
The respondent contends that even if the acts ascribed to it are true,
they were committed upon its own property and in defense of that
property. In support of this contention it offered evidence tending
to show that the street car tracks where the assaults upon the union
women, Frankensteen, and others in the union group were commit-
ted are within the River Rouge plant and that the overpass at Gate 4
where the first attack took place is the property of the Ford Motor
Company.
This defense of the respondent is clearly untenable in the light
of the events which have been described above. Technical trespass
has never been recognized in law as a justification for extreme brutal-
ity. The record in this proceeding leaves no doubt that when
Frankensteen and Reuther were informed on the overpass that they
were trespassing on Ford property, they immediately about faced
and, without making any response or objection whatsoever, began
walking toward the stairway. It was clearly unnecessary for the
respondent, in protecting its property, to blackjack and otherwise
maltreat defenseless men and women, to break William Merri-
weather's back, to take Alvin Stickle into the plant proper and there
give him a delayed but nevertheless severe beating.
Furthermore, a careful examination of the evidence indicates that
there is considerable doubt as to whether any trespass upon the
respondent's property was committed by the U. A. W. members and
sympathizers. The street cars running within the River Rouge plant
are operated by the Detroit Department of Street Railways upon
tracks leased by that Department from the respondent.22 The lease
covers "The street railway tracks and roadbeds therefor, the loading
and unloading platforms, dividing fences, prepayment stations, over-
head walkways and the supporting structures therefor . . ." The
respondent denies that the overpass at Gate 4 is one of the overhead
walkways included within the terms of the lease. Such denial is not
convincing, however, in view of the fact that persons wishing to board
11 Union Exhibit 7.
646 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a street car in the vicinity of Gate 4 must cross over the overpass
to do so, and that prepayment booths, heated and lighted by the
Department of Street Railways, are located on the overpass.
The interest of the Department of Street Railways in the street
car tracks and the overpass is not the only reason to believe that
such property is public in character. Numerous witnesses testified
that the public has always had free access to the overpass and that
members of the public had never, before May 26, been prevented from
using it. Vendors of different types of merchandise regularly peddle
their wares on the bridge. The overpass bears no sign describing it
as private property.23
It ig unnecessary for the determination of this case that the Board
decide whether a trespass was being committed when the attacks
at Gate 4 were commenced. However, it is clear that there were
reasonable grounds for the union group to believe they had the legal
right to go upon the overpass and to travel on street cars within the
River Rouge plant.
Even if it were possible to find some justification for the respond-
ent's position that a property owner may commit the brutal acts
which have been described above upon persons who are trespassing
on his property, the respondent's defense would still be ineffective.
The beating of Reuther which was commenced on the overpass at
Gate 4 was continued on Miller Road, admittedly a public highway,
and the assaults upon union members and sympathizers at points
other than Gate 4 were committed almost entirely on public property.
The attack upon Tony Marinovich and the other union people at
Gate 5 was launched on the center of Eagle Avenue at the point
where it intersects with Miller Road. The respondent contended
at the hearing that Eagle Avenue is the private property of the
Ford Motor Company. Eagle Avenue, however, has not only been
openly used as a public highway for a number of years but the re-
spondent itself in another proceeding has recognized its public
character .21
28 A sign stating "Private property , no literature to be passed out of any kind" and
signed "Ford Motor Company " was erected on the overpass on July 5, 1937 , the day
before the commencement of the hearing in this case This sign was removed on the
following day.
24 McClintic-Marshall Co V Ford Motor Co, 254 Mich 305 (1931 ). In this case,
an action involving the question of whether a mechanic's lien could be enforced against
the Eagle Avenue railroad viaduct, the respondent filed a brief with the Supreme Court
of Michigan in which it contended that, inasmuch as the viaduct was constructed across
public land (Eagle Avenue ), it was public in character and hence not subject to a
mechanic 's lien In support of this contention the brief states :
" It is inherently public. . . . Scores of thousands of the general public reap more
benefit than . . . Ford. . . . No one can imagine any use to which it can be
applied except for public travel."
In its decision the Supreme Court of Michigan upheld the respondent's contention and
ruled that the Eagle Avenue railroad viaduct was not subject to a mechanic's lien.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 647
The attack upon Frank Hartung and his group at Gate 10 was
committed on Schaeffer Road and that upon Percy Llewellyn near
Gate .1 took place on Dix Road. There was no contention at the hear-
ing that either Schaeffer Road or Dix Road is other than a public
highway.
Further, even if the respondent believes that it has a legal or
moral right to assault union members on the streets bordering the
River Rouge plant, it could still find no excuse for the attack upon
Ralph Dunham which took place at the intersection of Eagle and
Wyoming Avenues, a full block from the plant.
It is thus clear that there is no justification for the acts committed
by the respondent on May 26.
B. Other Acts of Intimiidation and Coercion
The respondent's conduct on May 26, 1937, is merely one manifes-
tation of its open and active hostility to labor organizations and to
the U. A. W. Indicative of the respondent's attitude are a number
of statements made by Henry Ford at the time the U. A. W. organ-
izing campaign was getting under way.
' On April 8, 1937, the St. Louis, Missouri Globe Democrat carried
the story of an interview with Henry Ford in which he was quoted
as saying, "We'll never recognize the United Automobile Workers'
Union or any other union." 25
On April 10, 1937, in an interview at his winter home in Georgia,
Ford delivered an attack against labor organizations in which he
stated :
"Labor union organizations are the worst thing that ever struck
the earth, because they take away a man's independence. Finan-
ciers are behind the unions and their object is to kill competition
so as to reduce the income of workers, and eventually bring on
war." 26
On April 29, 1937, in an interview with A. M. Smith of the North
American Newspaper Alliance, Ford issued another bitter attack upon
labor organizations during the course of which he said :
"But, now along comes another group 27 that says : `There are
100,000 jobs out at Ford's. If you want one of them, pay us a.
registration fee, and so much every month, and we will pass you in,.
and you can work as long as you pay us.' This group is asking-
us to sit still while it sells our men the jobs that have always
25Board Exhibit 112. This statement was also quoted in the Chicago Times of Aprib
9, 1937 , and in other newspapers.
28 Board Exhibit 115.
27 Ford was here referring to the U. A. IV. A.
67573-38=vol iv-42
648 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been free. If we agreed to this, they would have complete control
of American labor , a control no one has ever before had."
"If union leaders think that they can manage an automobile
factory better than we can, and pay better wages under better
working conditions than we can , why don't they build a factory
of their own and show us up? They have the capital-they have
all the money they need and a lot more . The country is big;
they have the men; and think of all the union customers they
would have !
"If the union leaders are sincere, they should go into business
themselves . If they have thought out a better way to manage
business, let them demonstrate what it is . If they can 't do that,
why do they pretend they can?
"Of course , the financial interests that use strikes as a way to
build up unions , would not permit them to build new factories-
big progressive factories with everything in them that union
leaders now demand. They don't want that . They want con-
trol. I have always made a better bargain for our men than
an outsider could. We have never had to bargain against our
men. and we don't expect to begin now.
"There is no mystery about the connection between corporation
control and labor control . They are simply the two ends of the
same rope. To have one, you have got to have the other. You
may say as emphatically as you like , that all this does not disturb
me in the least . I know the scheme is wrong, and it will not
work." 28
The foregoing statements were neither denied nor contradicted at
the time of the hearing . Coming from the respondent 's dominant
figure, they serve as a significant background to the relentless cam-
paign of intimidation and coercion carried on against the U. A. W.
in the respondent 's plants.
Late in February or early in March, 1937 , Clifford Sheldon, a
foreman in the body department of the River Rouge plant , was in-
structed by the department superintendent to organize a vigilante
group to handle any "union trouble " which might arise. In the
event of such trouble the members of the group were to pick up
union members and throw them out of the plant.
About the first of April, 1937, copies of the Ford Almanac for
July 1937, a publication issued by the respondent, were placed in
boxes at the gates of the River Rouge plant where they could be
obtained by workers going to and from work. The Almanac con-
^ Board Exhibit 111.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 649
tained many uncomplimentary references to labor organizations, in-
cluding the following paragraphs which appeared under the title
of "Musings of Smoke-Stack Joe" :
"SHILLBERG-HA HA ! I'll bet when he hears Ma's gone
he'll be over to the house tryin' to join me up to this labor
racket. None of THAT FOR ME, either. Why should I pay
money to a gang FOR NOTHING? They can't give me a
single thing MORE'N I ALREADY GOT.
Never had to pay to work before-why start NOW.
'Specially when they won't show me the books and let me see
what they do with MY MONEY.
IF I PAY money for groceries, I GET GROCERIES in re-
turn. If I pay money for a suit, I GET A SUIT in return.
Why should I pay money to this crowd for NOTHING?
And look who's asking-all these fellows who got their labor
movement education in RUSSIA . . . It all looks and smells
like COMMUNISM to me ... They say they've got 200,000
members, each payin' them $1 a month right here in Detroit.
- Golly, that's 24 hundred thousand-2 million, 4 hundred thous
sand dollars a year. Ha-that's where all the big cars, air-
planes, swell offices, big salaries and all the rest of it comes from.
They don't DARE give the members a financial accounting.
If you ask for one you get BEATEN.
Darned if I join a RACKET LIKE THAT.
Heighho-there's the whistle. Goin' home now. B'bye !" 29
During May 1937, the respondent reprinted in pamphlet form
under the heading "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor", and distrib-
uted to its employees, the article by,A. W. Smith, referred to above.30
During the same month the respondent passed out to its employees
cards termed "Fordisnis", containing excerpts from various state-
ments of Henry Ford attacking labor organizations. These cards
read as follows :
FORDISMS
"A Monopoly of JOBS in this country is just as bad as a
monopoly of BREAD !"
"Our men ought to consider whether it is necessary for them
to PAY SOME OUTSIDER every month FOR THE PRIVI-
LEGE OF WORKING at Ford's."
"What was the result of these strikes-merely that numbers
of men put their necks into an IRON COLLAR. I'm only
TRYING to SHOW WHO OWNS THE COLLAR"
29 Board 'Exhibit 102.
30 Board Exhibit 72.
650 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Figure it out for yourself. If you go into a union they have
GOT YOU-but what have YOU got?"
"We have always made a better bargain for our men than an
outsider COULD. We have never had to bargain against our
men and we don't expect, to begin now."
"There is no mystery about the connection between CORPO-
RATION CONTROL and LABOR CONTROL. They are the
TWO ENDS OF THE SAME ROPE. A little group of those
who CONTROL BOTH CAPITAL AND LABOR will sit down
in New York and settle PRICES, DIVIDENDS-AND
WAGES." 31
The respondent's anti-union drive reached its climax but not its end
in the riot of May 26. The very next day two union employees of the
Chrysler Motor Company, Albert Mooradian and James Kelly, were
attacked and severely beaten while driving along Miller Road by a
group of men who had been sitting in two cars, one of which had been
parked within the entrance to Gate 4. Mooradian, who was openly
wearing his union pin, was assaulted first. However, one of the at-
tacking group soon noticed that Kelly was wearing a pin beneath his
jacket and with the remark, "There is another Union pin", commenced
beating him also. Mooradian received serious injuries which required
him to enter a hospital and from which he had not yet recovered at
the time of the hearing. One of the assailants was identified as
Albert Rasmussen, a member of the Ford Service Department.
About June 1 there was circulated throughout the River Rouge
plant a "Vote of Confidence" in the policies of Henry Ford.32 The
circulation took place in the presence of the respondent's foremen
and, in many cases employees were asked by their foremen to sign.
those refusing to do so had their badge numbers taken. As a result
most of the employees signed. The respondent then publicized the
vote as an indorsement of its labor policies and as a rejection of the
U. A. W.
Early in June 1937, George Smick, an employee in the glass plant at
the River Rouge plant, was requested by a foreman in his department
to sign a petition pledging its signators to fight the U. A. W. The
foreman told Smick that he was asking him to sign the paper because
he was a "great fighter".
Also in June 1937, Mack Cinzari, a shear operator in the River
Rouge plant, was requested by his foreman to join a vigilante group
which was being organized to fight the Union. He was told that in
the event that any trouble arose he was to pick up a lead pipe or
anything else that might be handy-and begin swinging it at the union
dl Board Exhibit 93.
12Board Exhibit 95.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 651
members present. This group held a practice drill shortly after their
formation.
No resume of the measures taken by the respondent to fight the
organization drive of the U. A. W. is complete without some further
reference to the part played by the Ford Service Department.33 The
duties of that department supposedly consist of guarding the respond-
ent's plants and protecting Ford property. Since the start of 1937,
however, it has been vastly enlarged and service men now patrol the
aisles during all working hours watching for any signs of union ac-
tivity. Employees seen talking together are taken off the assembly
lines by service men and discharged, irrespective of the wishes of their
foremen. With service men present and interfering with the normal
operation of the assembly lines in every department, the River Rouge
plant has taken on many of the aspects of a community in which mar-
tial law has been declared and in which a huge military organization,
whose voice is final, has been superimposed upon the regular civil
authorities.
The use of the Service Department to intimidate employees and
make them fearful of joining the U. A. W. has quite evidently been
successful. Union buttons are never worn within the River Rouge
plant. Discussion of the U. A. W., even during the lunch period, is
carried on in hushed tones and then only between men who feel certain
that their conversation will not be reported to the Service Department.
C. Ford Brotherhood of America, Inc.
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the respondent
has dominated and interfered with the formation of the Ford
Brotherhood of America, Inc. and contributed support to it. The
Brotherhood, a labor organization in which membership is limited to
hourly employees of the respondent, was organized in June 1937.34
89 The part played by the Service Department in the riot of May 26 has already been
described in Section III-A, supra
$i Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Secretary of State on June 3, 1937.
They include the following provisions :
"The purpose or purposes of this corporation are as follows • The dealing with
the Common Employer of the members hereof concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and conditions of woik , and forming
a unit in plant or plants for the purpose of collective bargaining in accordance
with Wagner Labor Act, and any other similar legislation national or state that
may be enacted in regard thereto and the furtherance of principles of true Ameri-
canism by means of education as to proper conduct as to enforcement of rights of
employees and the extent of the same as a class, and inducing legal and reasonable
acts upon the part of its members
Its membership shall be limited to the hourly employees of the Ford Motor Com-
pany, its subsidiary or affiliated corporations , and it may have a branch or unit
in each of the plants , -respectively, if advisable in the judgment of its trustees,
but they shall never demand a closed shop nor shall they or any committee or
officer declare a strike, walk out, or sit -down except same is duly authorized at a
652 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 3, application cards for membership in the Brotherhood
were circulated throughout the River Rouge plant and membership
fees collected.
The record in this case leaves no doubt that the Brotherhood's mem-
bership drive in the River Rouge plant was conducted with the active
support and assistance of the respondent's foremen. The solicitation
of members took place within the plant and during work hours.
In many cases where workmen had no money with which to pay the
50 cent membership fee, the sum was advanced to them by their fore-
men. The badge numbers of the employees refusing to join the
Brotherhood were taken down by the'men distributing the cards.
Homer King, an electrician assigned to the gear department, testi-
fied that the men who circulated the Brotherhood cards in the gear
department were followed around by approving foremen. He stated
that the reluctance of the workmen to joir>, was overcome by the
presence of these foremen. One foreman told King, "You better
sign if you know what is good for you." Another informed him
that he had given out $6.00 to workers for their membership fees.
The activities of the Brotherhood in the gear department lasted for
several hours.
The Brotherhood's application cards were circulated in the motor
assembly department by the same men who had taken around the
"Vote of Confidence" two or three days before. Roy Davis, an em-
ployee of that department, testified that only nine of the 23 workmen
on his assembly line signed the application cards when they were
first brought around. However, after the general foreman refused
to deny a rumor which was being circulated to the effect that a
Brotherhood card would be necessary for the retention of a job with
the respondent, the others quickly joined.
proper meeting by three fourths vote of the members employed in the, particular
unit or plant which such action shall directly affect and only after at least ten days
notice in writing to the manager of said particular plant
There shall be the General Worker's Council composed of persons who have been
employed at least one year by the common employer and not less than three months
in the particular unit and division which he represents. The number of members
of said Council shall be determined by the Board of Trustees and said Worker's
Council shall have exclusive authority to offer, enter into and make, subject to the
approval of members in the units directly affected thereby, any and all agreements
governing rates of pay, hours, working conditions and grievances and shall be the
exclusive bargaining agency for every member of the association while in the service
of the common employer in accordance with the provisions of the Wagner Labor
Act and such other national or state legislation as may be enacted.
Only such persons who have signed the Co-Employees Agreement of June 3rd,
1937, or a copy thereof may become members of this Brotherhood and entitled.
to its benefits and privileges as provided by law and said constitution, as adopted,
or such modification of said agreement as the Tiustees therein named shall ap-
prove in writing ; however said Trustees may reject any person whom they may
deem unworthy of membership and only those who have been approved by written
resolution shall become active members of this Brotherhood and may be deemed
same as charter members."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 653
Raymond Jewell, an inspector in the motor assembly department,
testified that in his section also there was considerable reluctance on
the part of the employees to join the Brotherhood. After the lunch
hour, however, all of the men suddenly commenced signing applica-
tion cards. Jewell stated that the man distributing the cards had told
him that he had been directed to do so by the superintendent of the
department. The Brotherhood's activities in the motor assembly de-
partment continued for five or six hours.
The formation of the Brotherhood received immediate publicity.
On June 4, Harry Bennett, the respondent's Personnel Director, was
called by Paul Conrad, a Detroit News reporter, for information
concerning the Brotherhood. Bennett informed Conrad that he had
just learned of it and was conducting an investigation. On June 15,
John Carlisle, another News reporter, was advised by Bennett that.
the Brotherhood, in response to a request from him, had agreed to
disband. Bennett also told Carlisle that the respondent had not
known of the formation of the Brotherhood and did not approve of
the organization of its employees by anyone.
Nothing more was heard of the Brotherhood for several weeks
following Bennett's announcement. However, early in July, after
the hearing in this proceeding had commenced, Brotherhood activity
was suddenly revived. Handbills were distributed at the foot of the
Gate 4 overpass on July 7 and many employees, including foremen,
commenced wearing F. B. A. (Brotherhood) badges in the River
Rouge plant.35 In marked contrast to their action of May 26, service
85 The handbills were entitled "F B. A. BULLETIN." A sentence reading "OUR
ORGANIZATION HAS THE GREATEST PROTECTION AGAINST STRIKES, AS
PERMITTED BY LAW, SAVING YOU `WORKERS' FROM LOSS OF TIME AND
WAGES RESULTING FROM TOO QUICK AND ILL CONSIDERED ACTION FO-
MENTED BY RADICALS" appeared in large letters at the top of the Bulletin, while
at the bottom the question "Can We Employees Afford a Strike9" was asked. In
the center column under the heading "Who We Are." the following ten points were
listed
An Association of, by and for hourly workers only, who have Joined Ourselves to-
gether by mutual written covenants in order that :
1. We May Collective Bargain with Our Common Employer-Ford Motor Co
2. We May Protect Our Jobs and Livelihood against Riots and Depredations by Labor
Racketeers and Professional Agitators
3. We May Prevent Sit-downs and other Bandit Like Efforts to Stop Production in
which We Are Employed
4 We May Stop OUTSIDERS from Interfering with, or Dictating to Us, as to Wages
and Working Conditions.
5. That We May Not Be Compelled to Pay Tribute in the Form of Excessive Dues to
Support the Lords of Labor.
6 That We Shall Not Lose Time and Wages to Satisfy the Whims of the Drones Who
Talk, But Who Do Not Work
7 That We and Our Families Shall Not Be Sacrificed and Go Hungry, to Provide a
Feast or Save the Face of Irresponsible Labor Leaders
8. That We May Obtain the Benefits which the Wagner Labor Act Was Intended to
Provide.
0 That We May I-Iave a Reliable Source from which to Get Information as to Our
Jobs and Future Prospects, in order not to be mislead by foolish promises of others
intended to lead the workers into hash Acts
10 That We may Have an Organization of Our Own so That We May Continue to
Receive from Time to time the Things We Should Receive for Our Labor.
654 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men viewing the distribution made no attempt to molest the persons
passing out Brotherhood handbills.
There can be no doubt from the above facts that the Brotherhood
owes its existence to the activities of the respondent in its behalf.
The respondent , by permitting the Brotherhood to solicit members on
company time within the River Rouge plant , discriminated between
the Brotherhood and other labor organizations. By permitting its
foremen to assist in such solicitation it gave active support to the
Brotherhood and by causing the Brotherhood to agree to disband the
respondent interfered with its internal organization . These acts
constitute domination and interference with the formation and ad-
ministration of the Brotherhood on the part of the respondent and
are illegal , therefore , under the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the
Act.
D. The discharges
The complaint, as amended, alleges the discriminatory discharge of
a number of named individuals. The respondent denies that the dis-
charges were because of union activities. We will take up in order
the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of each individual.
Homer King. Homer King commenced working for the respondent
in 1919 and continued until his discharge on June 14, 1937. King
was an electrician and at the time of his discharge he was engaged in
electrical maintenance work in the gear department at the River
Rouge plant. He was earning $7.20 a day.
King is not a member of the U. A. W. However, on June 3, the
day that the Brotherhood drive was staged in the plant, he handed
out some union application cards to 'some workmen in the gear de-
partment. One of the men to whom he passed out an application
card said to him, "Hello Mr. Frankensteen." A few minutes later
King noticed this man talking to the assistant foreman and nodding
at him.
On June 14, King was called away from his job by Fred Eagle, the
general foreman in charge of electrical work in the motor building,38
and told to report to the employment office. When King inquired
whether there was anything the matter with his work, Eagle replied
that there was not but that he was one of a group being transferred
to another department. Eagle added that Miller, the employment
manager, knew all about the matter and would explain it to King.
King saw Brown at the employment office the next day. Brown,
who was a personal friend of his, told him that he had been turned
in for union activities. King denied membership in the U. A. W., and
Brown, after making him return on the following day, sent him back
to the gear department. After he had been on the job only a half
80 The building in which the gear department is located
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 655
an hour, however, he was again called to the employment office,
where Brown told him that he had received information that King
had been doing organization work for the U. A. W. Brown was
quite angry and accused King of lying to him. Brown finally agreed
to put him back on the job if he would turn in the names of the per-
sons to whom he had distributed application cards. King stated that
he was unable to do this, however.,
Eagle denied any knowledge of King's union activities and testified
that he had discharged him for constantly leaving his work and neg-
lecting the machines for which he was responsible. He said that
King had been given several warnings.
In view of the fact that the respondent made no effort to rebut
King's testimony concerning his conversations with Brown, such tes-
timony is entitled to considerable weight. Also, his 18 years of con-
tinuous employment with the respondent casts doubt upon Eagle's
statement that King's work was unsatisfactory. We find that Homer
King was discharged because of his activities in behalf of the U. A. W.
King earned about $103.00 between the date of his discharge and
the hearing.
George Smic1c. George Smick was employed by the respondent
more or less regularly from 1920 until, his discharge on June 29,
1937. At the time of his discharge he was working as a millwright
in the glass plant at the River Rouge plant and was earning $6.80
a day. He testified that his work had never been criticized.
Smick joined the U. A. W. on March 5, 1937. Early in June
1937 he refused to sign the "Vote of Confidence" and another paper
pledging its signers to fight the U. A. W.
Smick worked on the night shift. When he reported for work
on June 28, he found a note attached to his time card requesting him
to see the timekeeper before he went home the following morning.
The timekeeper told him to clear out his tools and report to the,
employment office.37 At the employment office he was called a union
man and an agitator by Brown, and he was refused reinstatement.
The respondent did not offer any evidence contradicting Smick's
testimony.
The record in this case leaves no doubt that Smick was discharged
because of his membership in the U. A. W., and we so find.
Smick did not earn any money between the date of his discharge
and the hearing.
Alph,onso Kuzulis. With the exception' of a layoff during the
depression, Alphonse Kuzulis had been working for the respondent
for 18 years at the time of his discharge on February 4, 1937. He
"'r The expression "clear out" as used at the River Rouge plant signifies the turning
in of his tools by a workman . This must be done by any workman whose employment
is terminated.
656 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had had the same foreman for the last 12 years of this period. At
the time of his discharge he was earning $6.40 a day.
Kuzulis joined the U. A. W. on February 1, 1937. He had at-
tended three union meetings before then. When he reported for
work on February 4, his foreman told him to clear out his tools and
go to the employment office. After making him return to the em-
ployment office several times, Brown told him that he was being fired
because he had been seen at a union meeting.
Kuzulis' foreman did not testify at the hearing and his testimony
was not contradicted. We find that Alphonso Kuzulis was dis-
charged because of his membership in the U. A. W.
Kuzulis has not earned any money since his discharge.
Birtus C. Hall. Birtus C. Hall worked for the respondent from
April 20, 1934 until his discharge on June 4, 1937. For the last
few months of this period he was employed as a grinder in the
glass plant at the River Rouge plant. At the time of his discharge
he was earning $6.40 a day.
Hall became a member of the U. A. W. on May 28, 1937. As he
was leaving the plant on June 1, he was attacked by several men,
one of whom said, Well, I am going to knock hell out of you."
Hall was still on Ford property when the attack occurred. On
June 3, he signed the "Vote of Confidence" but not until he had
told the person circulating it that he was doing so to protect his job,
At the conclusion of work on the following day, June 4, Hall was
directed to report to the employment office. Before doing so, he,
asked his general foreman if anything was the matter with his work.
The latter replied that it was entirely satisfactory. However, Hall
discovered at the employment office that he had been discharged.
While discussing the matter with Brown, in an attempt to find out
the reason for his dismissal, he was asked by the latter, "Wasn't you
trying to give a fellow an application card to join the Union out in
the parking lot and got socked in the nose?"
Hall's foreman, Michael Savados, testified that he had discharged
Hall for constantly leaving his job during working hours. He said
that he had given him several warnings before discharging him.
Savados admitted, however, that Hall's job at times required him
to leave his ordinary position and work in other parts of the
department.
Hall denied that he had received any warnings from Savados be-
fore his discharge.
In view of Brown's familiarity with the attack on Hall and his
union activities, it is clear that Hall's membership in the U. A. W.
was the reason for his discharge, and we so find.
George B. Zubick and Joseph Gutierrez. George B. Zubick and
Joseph Gutierrez were both employed as metal finishers in the body
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 657
t
department at the River Rouge plant . Zubick had been employed by
the respondent since 1930 and Gutierrez since 1928 . They were
receiving $7.60 a day at the time of their discharge.
When the "Vote of Confidence " was circulated in their department
early in June 1937, Zubick and Gutierrez were the only workers who
refused to sign - it. A few days later, on June 8, Zubick was dis-
charged, and on the following day Gutierrez also was discharged.
Both were members of the U. A. W. at the time. Zubick who had
joined the U. A. W. on May 18, 1937 , was particularly active and
had succeeded in getting five or six other workers in the department
to join.
Zubick returned to the employment office the day after his dis-
charge in an effort to obtain reinstatement . While there he was inter-
viewed by Brown, who asked him why he wasn't satisfied with his
job. When Zubick replied that he was satisfied , Brown told him
that he was a valuable man but the respondent could not use him
since they did not want any trouble at the plant.
Gutierrez was discharged without explanation on June 9. At
the employment office, Brown informed him that it was because they
were laying off men in the department . Two new metal finishers
had commenced working that very morning, however.
John Nazradi , the foreman in charge of Zubick and Gutierrez, tes-
tified that they were discharged because of inefficient work. How-
ever, he admitted that he had had Gutierrez break in Clayton Davis,
the third metal finisher in his shift , as well as Zubick 's successor.
On cross-examination he changed his testimony and indicated that
the chief reason for Zubick's dismissal was that he talked too much.
The record leaves no doubt that the reason for the discharge of
George B. Zubick and Joseph Gutierrez was-their membership.in the
U. A. W., and we so find.
Joseph Sable . Joseph Sable had been an employee of the respond-
ent for between three and a half and four years at the time of his
discharge on June 4, 1937 . He was employed in the tool cribs and
was earning $6.80 a day.
Sable, although not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his
discharge , played on the ball team of one of its locals.38 On May 31,
and June 1 , 1937 , he noticed three Ford service men in the stands
looking over the players who were taking part in, the games. Two
days later he was shifted from the midnight to the morning shift
at the River Rouge plant and placed in a different tool crib with a
man whom he had never seen before . Sable testified that the other
man started a fight with him almost immediately . Sable started
running away , but was grasped by four service men who were stand-
38 Local No. 174.
i 658 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing outside of the crib. They took him to the employment office
in a waiting automobile. He was then discharged for fighting.
When Sable returned to the employment office on the following day
in an attempt to get back his job, he was asked by Brown how many
hand bills he had been passing around in the plant. He was refused
reinstatement despite his very efficient record.
George Peterson, Sable's foreman, testified that Sable had been
discharged for fighting. He stated that he did not doubt Sable's
story that the other man had started the fight, but said since both of
them had been found fighting by service men they had both been
discharged. Peterson said that Russo, the other man involved in the
fight, had also been discharged.
The changing of Sable's shift almost immediately after he had been
discovered playing on a union ball team, the commencement of a fight
with him by a man whom he had never seen before on his first day
in his new shift, the presence of four service men and an automobile
to take him away as soon as the fight started, and Brown's remark
to him in the employment office all lead us to believe that Russo was
placed in Sable's crib by the respondent for the purpose of getting
him into a fight. We find that Joseph Sable was discharged because
of his activities in behalf of the U. A. W.
Sable has earned only about twelve dollars since his discharge.
George Onnela, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Clarence Fleming,
Richard Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, and Thaddeus Radke. George
Onnela, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnella, Clarence Fleming, Richard
Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, and Thaddeus Radke were, until their dis-
charge in May, 1937, employed in the body department of the River
Rouge plant. The seven were engaged in the section making seat
cushions and backs, and had as their immediate foreman Rudolph
Prokop. All of them were members of the U. A. W. and active
union workers. They rode together to and from work and acquired
a reputation in the section as the union gang.
George Onnela, the oldest of the group, was first employed by the
respondent on February 27, 1922 and, with the exception of the period
from 1931 to 1934 during which the respondent discontinued mak-
ing its own bodies, has worked for it continuously since that time.
He was the lead-off man on the assembly line in which he worked
and had been commended on numerous occasions for his satisfactory
work. At the time of his discharge he was earning $7.60 a day.
When George Onnela reported for work on May 25, 1937, he was
called to the desk of the general foreman of the department and in-
formed by the latter's clerk that he was discharged. Although he
inquired, no reason was given him for his dismissal. However, he
noticed that on the slip which had been filled out by the clerk, the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 659
words "Work unsatisfactory, not being on the job on time" were
written. Inasmuch as Prokop rode to work in his car with him
Onnela had never been late.
Before leaving the department Onnela approached Prokop and
asked the reason for his discharge. Prokop's reply was, "Well,
George, God damn it, I warned you and warned you to keep your
mouth shut, but you didn't.... This hurts me more than it hurts
you fellows but I got to do it.... Orders are orders."
Richard Weyhing, the unofficial chairman of the union gang, com-
menced working for the respondent on November 5, 1936. Before
that time he had been employed in a similar type of work by the
Briggs Manufacturing Company for 15 years.' Weyhing had always
done his work in a satisfactory manner and had received three raises
in the period from November 1936 until his discharge on May 25,
1937. The last of these occurred only two months before his dis-
charge. At that time he was earning $7.60 a day.
Weyhing was discharged together with George Onnella when they
reported for work on May 25, 1937. No reason was given him for
this action. He noticed that the words "work unsatisfactory & late"
had been written on the slip which was handed to the service man who
took him out of the department.
Clarence Fleming, Weyhing's brother-in-law, had had 12 years
experience in automobile cushion work at the Briggs Manufacturing
Company before beginning work for the respondent on November 5,
1936. He was discharged without explanation on May 24, 1937.
While employed by the respondent he had received three increases in
pay and at the time of his discharge was earning $7.60 a day. His
work had never been criticized.
Elmer Mackie commenced working for the respondent in 1925 and,
with the exception of a two-year period from 1932 to 1934 during
which the respondent discontinued making tudor bodies, he had
worked for it continuously until his discharge on May 25, 1937.
Mackie was a very efficient workman, and when he had sprained his
hand during March he had been given lighter work during the period
of his injury instead of being laid off. He was earning $7.60 a day
at the time of his discharge.
About a half hour after the commencement of work on May 25,
Mackie was called to the desk'by Prokop and discharged. He noticed
that Prokop had written on his slip, "Work not satisfactory." When
Mackie asked Prokop if that was the reason why he was being fired,
the latter replied, "No, you know what you are fired for." Visibly
agitated, Prokop continued, "Elmer, I can't help it. . . . I can't
help it. Those are my orders." On the way out of the department
he ran into Richard Elberth, the foreman in charge of the cushion
`section, who said, "I am sorry you had to go." At,the employment
660 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office, where all employees leaving the respondent's employ must go
before they can draw their pay, Mackie was told by Al Brown, the
assistant employment manager, "Maybe I can fix you up with a job
if you behave yourself."
Thaddeus Radke commenced working for the respondent on De-
cember 1, 1936. On May 25, 1937, he was discharged without ex-
planation. He was earning $7.20 a day at the time of his discharge
and had received an increase in pay only two weeks before. He
testified that his work had never been criticized.
Alfred Onnela, George Onnela's brother, was employed by the
respondent from December 1934 until his discharge on May 27, 1937.
No explanation was given him for his discharge, but the service man
who took him out of the department remarked that his brother had
been seen distributing union literature the previous day. Alfred
Onnela had always performed his work in a satisfactory manner and
had received an increase in pay which raised it to $7.60 a day only
two days before his discharge.
Ray Onnela, a brother of George and Alfred, began working for
the respondent in December 1934. For several years before that time
he had been employed in the same type of work by the Briggs Manu-
facturing Company. Ray Onnela testified that he had always per-
formed his work in an efficient manner. He was earning $7.60 a day
at the time of his discharge.
When Ray Onnela reported for work on May 26, 1937, his time
card was missing from the timerack. At the desk he was informed
by the clerk, "Your brother is out. You are as good as gone." When
Onnela asked if he would be blacklisted in the shops, the clerk told
him that he would not be if he quit. He then asked to be cleared
out and the clerk filled out a slip which Onnela did not see.
George Onnela testified that subsequent to the commencement of
the hearing he had heard Prokop state that all of the seven men
whose discharges are now being considered were efficient workmen
and that the reason for their discharge was their union activities.39
Richard Elberth, the foreman in charge of the cushion section,
stated that for several weeks before the discharge of the seven men
the work in Prokop's shift had been very poor; that it had become
necessary to make some changes; and that Weyhing, Fleming, Mackie,
Radke, and the Onnelas had all been doing bad work and for that
reason they had been the ones selected for dismissal. Elberth also
contended that Ray Onnela had quit voluntarily and had not been
discharged. Inconsistent with the foregoing was a statement by
39A signed statement to this effect by Prokop was excluded at the hearing by the
Trial Examiner Such ruling of the Trial Examiner was erroneous . In view of the
other evidence introduced in these cases , however, there has been no need to consider
the statement. Inasmuch as it has not been prejudicial , therefore, the ruling of the
Trial Examiner has not been reversed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 661
Elberth that one of the reasons for the dismissal of George and Ray
Onnela was that they were "stool pigeons" and that he didn't care
to have any "stool pigeons" in his section. Elberth's testimony is
full of inconsistencies and the record leaves no doubt that the dis-
charges in Prokop's section resulted from the union activities of the
men involved.
We find that George Onnela, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Clar-
ence Fleming, Richard Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, and Thaddeus Radke
were discharged because of their membership in the U. A. W.
Neither Mackie, Radke nor the Onnelas had secured any employ-
ment ih the period between their discharge and the hearing in this
case. Weyhing had earned about $78 and Fleming $8.30.
Martin Jensen. Martin Jensen, an employee in the body depart-
ment at the River Rouge plant, commenced working for the respond-
ent in December 1934. He had had 13 years of experience in the
same type of work before then in various -automobile body building
plants in Detroit and at one time had operated a custom shop of his
own. Jensen was employed in the cushion making section under
Elberth but had as his immediate foreman William Martin, shift
foreman of the shift opposite Prokop's.40 He was considered the
most efficient workman in his shift and was assigned the special
custom work for display purposes. When his hand had been infected
in January, 1937, he had been given the job of checking the assembly
line. At the time of his discharge he was earning $7.60 a day.
Jensen, although he did not belong to the U. A. W., associated with
the union gang and was generally considered a member of it. Ha
played on a shop baseball team which was managed by Weyhing and
often discussed the union at the ball games. On May 26, 1937, he
was discharged without explanation. However, he noticed on the
slip which had been made out concerning him the words, "work
unsatisfactory".
Elberth made no claim that Jensen was a poor worker and inti-
mated that he was discharged because he was always prowling around.
Martin stated that Jensen was dismissed for talking too much but
admitted that he had been forced to talk to all of the men while
checking the assembly line.
We find that Martin Jensen was discharged because of his activity
in behalf of the U. A. W.
Clifford E. Sheldon. Clifford E. Sheldon commenced working for
the respondent in 1926 and continued until his discharge on March
15, 1937. During that period he had been promoted to the position
of a minor foreman in the trimming section of the body department
at the River Rouge plant, a post which he held at the time of his
0 Prokop ' s and Martin ' s shifts alternated every two weeks on mornings and afternoons
!662 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dismissal. He testified that he had often been commended for his
work and was on very satisfactory terms with his superiors. He had
been given an increase in pay in January 1937, and at the time of his
discharge was earning $8.80 a day.
Early in March 1937, Ray De Clerque, the superintendent of the
body department, assigned Sheldon the task of organizing a vigilante
group to handle any union trouble which might arise in the depart-
ment. Sheldon objected vigorously to this assignment and made it
quite evident that he was carrying it out- only under protest.
Shortly after reporting for work on March 15, Sheldon was ordered
to call out his men and have them patrol the aisles. Later• in the
same day he was called to De Clerque's desk and, after being ques-
tioned at length concerning his views on the U. A. W., discharged.
In discharging him, De Clerque said, "Well, Cliff, I have got to fire
you. I have to fire you for not being on the job." De Clerque then
added, "Keep your chin up. This will be all right. We will get
this straightened out." De Clerque evaded telling him the real
reason for his discharge. However, Everett Gwynn, his immediate
foreman, told Sheldon that he believed someone had told a union
story concerning him.
Sheldon was not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his
discharge. However, he had often expressed the opinion to other
foremen that it was a good thing for the average workman.
The respondent did not offer any evidence at the hearing contra-
dicting Sheldon's testimony.
We find that the respondent discharged Clifford E. Sheldon be-
cause of his sympathy for the U. A. W.
Sheldon obtained employment at the Gar Wood Industries on
April 8, and had earned about $287 at the time of the hearing in
this case.
John J. Dovey. John J. Dovey was first employed by the re-
spondent in January 1929 and, with the exception of a few brief
layoffs during the depression, he continued working for the respond-
ent until his discharge on March 11, 1937. At that time he was
engaged as a pipe fitter in the cement plant at the River Rouge plant
and was earning $7.20 a day.
Dovey, although not a member of the U. A. W., praised it highly
in several conversations with his foreman during the early part of
193-7. He testified that after these conversations his foreman began
discriminating against him in the assignment of work. The dirt-
iest and most disagreeable job which could be assigned to a pipe
fitter was one to put steam blowers in a boiler. Such jobs are usually
rotated among the different pipe fitters. Dovey, however, was
given two boiler jobs in succession. Also, contrary to an arrange-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 663
ment between the pipe fitters, Dovey was forced to work on most of
the week ends in 1937.
As a result of this discrimination, Dovey requested a transfer to
another department. However, instead of being given a transfer slip
he was given a quit slip by the department superintendent. He had
had no intention of quitting.
Dovey made several unsuccessful attempts to get back to work at
the River Rouge plant. A foreman in another department told him
that he had a job for him but an official in the employment office,
after calling up the superintendent of the cement plant, refused to
permit him to return to work.
Dovey's wife testified that Pat Salancy, an official in the Service
Department, had told her that the superintendent of the cement
plant, a man named Lockhart, had stated that Dovey was an A-1
worker but that he was a dangerous man to have around because he
talked so much about the union. She had then gone to Lockhart in
an attempt to get her husband's job back and Lockhart had promised
her that he would put him back to work after the union agitation
died down.
Dovey's foreman, Harold V. Peterson, conceded that he was an
efficient workman. Peterson contended that Dovey had not been
discharged but had quit voluntarily rather than work over a week
end. He denied that he was distributing the week ends unfairly.
Upon all the evidence in this case, we find that John J. Dovey
was discharged because of his sympathy toward the U. A. W.
Dovey had earned about $85 between the date of his discharge and
the hearing.
Anthony J. Schipper.41 With the exception of a period of four
months in 1935, Anthony J. Schipper, a glass setter in the body de-
partment of the River Rouge plant, worked for the respondent
from December 1934 until April 15, 1937. On the latter date he was
earning $6.80 a day.
Schipper became a member of the U. A. W. in March, 1937. On
April 15, 1937, he asked his foreman, Roy Meyers, to read an article
in the Detroit Free Press in which Henry Ford was quoted as saying
that his employees were free to join labor organizations. A few
minutes later he was called to the superintendent's desk and dis-
charged without explanation.
Schipper returned to the plant for his ,pay a few days later and
stopped to see Pat Salancy in an attempt to find out the reason for
his discharge. During his conversation with Salancy he was , asked
whether he still belonged to the union and replied in the affirmative.
Salancy then told him to get his money and go home.
41 Referred to as john Schipper in the complaint.
67573-38-vol iv-43
664 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William Sewell, Meyers' superior, testified that Schipper had for-
merly been a good workman but that he had commenced loafing on
the job about April 1, following his failure to receive a requested
increase in pay. Sewell was a very evasive witness, however, and it
is difficult to believe his testimony that Schipper, after several years
of efficient workmanship, had suddenly commenced loafing on the job.
We find that Anthony J. Schipper was discharged because of his
membership in the U. A. W.
Schipper has earned $224.07 since the time of his discharge.
Fred Nygard. Fred Nygard was first employed at the River
Rouge plant in October 1933 and worked there continuously from
that date until his discharge on April 26, 1937. For the last year
before his discharge he operated 'a stripper crane in the soaking
pits in the rolling mill. He testified that his work had never been
criticized. Nygard was earning $7.20 a day at the time of his
discharge.
Nygard joined the U. A. W. on April 19, 1937, along with five
other employees in the soaking pits. Two days later some U. A. W.
application cards which he was carrying fell to the ground. Be-
fore Nygard could leave his crane and retrieve them they were
picked up by the recorder 42 and read. About an hour later Nygard
was-informed by a shift foreman in the soaking pits that the re-
corder had reported the incident to his foreman. On his next work-
ing day another workman was placed in the crane with him for the
purpose of learning how to operate it. Then on April 26, Nygard
was discharged.
Nygard's foreman, William Klingbeil, testified that he had dis-
charged Nygard for loafing. He stated that a few days previous to
April 26, he had warned Nygard not to stand by the rail of his
crane but to clean the equipment during the times when there were
no molds for him to lift. When, on April 26, he had noticed Nygard
standing by the rail again, he had dismissed him.
It is difficult to believe Klingbeil's testimony that a crane operator
who works a straight eight-hour shift without any time off for lunch
is expected to keep busy at all times and never stand around in his
crane during the times that he has nothing to lift. Furthermore,
we cannot believe that an efficient employee of almost four years'
service would have been discharged for loafing after only one warn-
ing. We find that Fred Nygard was discharged because of his
membership in the U. A. W.
Nygard has earned $233.40 since the time of his discharge.
Johri Barron. John Barron had been an employee of the respond-
ent for 13 years at the time of his discharge on June 16, 1937. He
was a member of the machine repair department and was responsible
42 A clerical worker in the department.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 665,
for keeping the punch press machines in the pressed steel building
at the River Rouge plant in good condition. At the time of his dis-
charge he was earning $7.20 a day.
Barron was a charter member of the U. A. W., having joined in
December, 1934. Early in 1937 he became very active and addressed
several public meetings. He also did considerable organization work
among the respondent's employees and succeeded in obtaining 46 mem-
bers in the pressed steel building.
On June 16, while he was repairing one of his machines, he got
into a fight with a sweeper who was sweeping the floor beside him
and was taken cif the job by a service man and discharged. The;
service man who took him out of the department accused him of
making a speech for the union and of advocating anarchy.
The evidence as to the cause of the fight is conflicting. Barron
testified that the sweeper had first swept some dirt into his face and
then had called him vile names without obtaining any response.
Finally the sweeper had tripped him and then attacked him. On
the other hand, George Smoot, the sweeper, testified that he wa&
peacefully sweeping the aisle when Barron turned over a can of paint.
and his bucket of water. Smoot said that when he objected, Barron
called him a vile name which caused him to hit Barron. Smoot had-
also been taken out of the department by service men but he had been,
immediately reinstated in another department.
It is clear from the record that the respondent has a settled policy
of discharging all persons engaging in fights within its plants. In-
view of this policy the reinstatement of George Smoot is peculiar-
and substantiates Barron's contention that Smoot was planted in the
aisle next to him for the purpose of starting a fight. Upon all the
evidence, we find that Barron was discharged because of his mem-
bership in the U. A. W.
Barron had not been able to earn any money between the time of"
his discharge and the hearing.
Percy Llewellyn. Percy Llewellyn has been employed at the River-
Rouge plant since June, 1932, and at the time of his discharge on
May 19, 1937, was engaged in inspecting crankshafts in the finalf
assembly department. He was earning $6.80 a day at the time..
Llewellyn had been a member of the United Mine Workers of America:
several years before, and he often advocated labor unions in discus-
sions with other Ford workers. He joined the U. A. W. on May-
15,1937.
Shortly after Llewellyn started working on May 19, he was in-
formed by one of the foremen in the department that there was a.
report concerning his union activities on the desk. Llewellyn then,
noticed that the general foreman and two service men .were watching
666 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him closely. Several hours later while he was showing a defective
bearing to another inspector, the general foreman discharged him
for talking. When he went to the timerack to get his time card he
noticed that it was the only card in the rack.43 Llewellyn testified
that his job required him to talk to other inspectors. He had received
a raise in pay shortly before his discharge.
Albert Norris, the general foreman of the inspection department,
testified that he had discharged Llewellyn for constant loafing and
inefficient work. He stated that Llewellyn had formerly been a good
workman but had become dissatisfied about two months before May
19, upon being refused a transfer. Norris contended that after such
refusal, Llewellyn had commenced loafing and that he had twice
warned him before discharging him. Norris admitted that Llewel-
lyn's job required him to leave his work at times and point out various
defects to the production inspectors.
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that Percy Llewellyn
was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W.
Llewellyn earned about $150.00 between the date of his discharge
and the hearing.
Joseph, Nierotko. Joseph Nierotko commenced working for the
respondent in August, 1925 and, with the exception of a layoff during
the depression, continued until his discharge on February 2, 1937.
He had been a polisher in the radiator shell and hub cap department
at the River Rouge plant for the last five years of this period. Nie-
rotko testified that he had always performed his work in an efficient
manner. At the time of his discharge, he was earning $6.80 a day.
Nierotko became a member of the U. A. W. on August 6, 1936, and
attended all of its meetings thereafter. Early in 1937, he began to
discuss the union with other workers in his department.
On February 2, Nierotko was taken off his assembly line by the
-checker and told to clear out his tools. At the employment office no
explanation was given him for his discharge but Miller, the employ-
ment manager, accused him of trying "to fight Ford".
John Reilly, the general foreman of the radiator shell and hub cap
-department, testified that Nierotko did poor work for several weeks
prior to February 2. As a result, he had directed Nierotko's imme-
diate foreman to transfer him from hub caps to radiator shells. Reilly
stated that Nierotko had quit rather than accept the transfer.
In view of Nierotko's long service for the respondent, it is difficult
for us to believe Reilly's testimony that he had suddenly become so
inefficient that he either had to be transferred to another job or let go.
Upon all the evidence we find that Nierotko was discharged because
of his membership in the U. A. W.
"The other cards had been pulled out by the timekeeper for the purpose of posting
.time on them.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 667
Nierotko did not earn any money between the date of his discharge-
and the hearing.
Jacob Winsiewski. With the exception of a three-year layoff dur-
ing the depression, Jacob Winsiewski worked for the respondent con-
tinuously from,1916 until his discharge on April 8, 1937. He had_
been employed in the production department at the River Rouge plant
for the last three years of that period and had the task of tinning
corners on oil pans. Winsiewski was earning $6.40 a day at the time-
of his discharge.
The clerk to the superintendent of his department took Winsiewski
off the assembly line on April 8, and told him to clear out his tools..
Winsiewski then asked the superintendent why he was being dis-
charged and the latter replied that he did not know. Winsiewski was,
never given any explanation of his discharge and whenever he in-
quired at the employment office, he was invariably told to return the
next day. Winsiewski testified that during a conversation with
Brown shortly after his discharge, the latter made a remark to him
about his son being a union man at the Chevrolet plant and partici-
pating in the strike at that plant.
Winsiewski's foreman, Harry Dalameter, testified that he had dis-
charged Winsiewski for inefficient work. He stated that he had
warned him several times and when, on April 8, he noticed him doing
poor work again, he decided to dismiss him.
Winsiewski had been in the employ of the respondent for approxi-
mately 17 years and had been tinning corners on oil pans for three
years at the time of his discharge. It is difficult to believe that it
took his foreman that length of time to discover his inefficiency. The
failure of the respondent to place Brown on the witness stand lends
credence to Winsiewski's statement that Brown spoke to him about
his son's membership in the union. Upon the entire record in the
case, we find that Jacob Winsiewski was discharged because of his
son's membership in the U. A. W.
Winsiewski has not earned any money since the date of his dis-
charge by the respondent.
Joseph Galusky. Galusky commenced working for the respondent
in May 1928 and continued more or less regularly until his discharge
on June 4, 1937. - On the latter date, while working at his job of
pumping oil out of the sewers in the River Rouge plant, he was called
off the job by his foreman and discharged. Galusky was earning
$6.80 a day at the time of his discharge.
Galusky was not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his dis-
charge. However, he had often discussed the union with other work-
ers in the plant and when the "Vote of Confidence" had been circu-
lated in his department on June 2, he had refused to sign it despite
a warning by the foreman circulating it that he might be discharged
668 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as a result. The discharge took place two days later. Galusky tes-
tified that he had always performed his work in a satisfactory
manner.
Galusky's . foreman, Peter Montagne, testified that he had dis-
charged him because of constant loafing on the job.. He stated that
he had given him several warnings, and when he again found him
.away from his pump on June 4, he had dismissed him. Galusky
denied that he had ever been warned for loafing on the job.
Montague's testimony contained many inconsistent statements and
his assertion that Galusky had been loafing and doing poor work for
a period of six months without being discharged is difficult to be-
lieve. Upon all the evidence in the case, we find that Joseph Galusky
was discharged because of his activity in behalf of and sympathy
toward the U. A. W.
Galusky has not earned any money since the date of his discharge.
Hector F. Manseau. With the exception of two periods of two
years each, Hector Manseau was employed by the respondent con-
tinuously from September, 1920 until his discharge on May 26, 1937.
Manseau was engaged as a tool and die grinder at the River Rouge
plant and at the time of his discharge was earning $8.40 a day. He
had received a raise about two months before and testified that he
had always performed his work in a satisfactory manner.
Manseau became a member of Local No. 8 of the Mechanics Edu-
cational Society of America in 1934. In July 1936 Local No. 8
affiliated with U. A. W. as Local No. 157 of that organization.
About two weeks before his discharge, Manseau had a conversation
with another Ford employee named Debor in which he disclosed the
fact that he was a member of the U. A. W. A few days later Debor
was transferred to the Service Department. Manseau was subse-
quently warned that Debor had remarked that he was doing a lot
of organizing.
Manseau was stopped at the gate and questioned by service men
when he reported for work on the afternoon of May 26. They finally
permitted him to enter the plant after taking his badge number.
Shortly after he started to work that afternoon, Manseau was as-
signed to a rush job by his immediate foreman. While working on
this assignment, he was discharged by his general foreman for talk-
ing despite the objection of his immediate foreman. The talking
.consisted of answering two or three questions asked him by another
workman. The other workman was also laid off, but only for one
day.
Clyde M. Snyder, Manseau's general foreman, testified that he had
discharged Manseau for talking. He stated that he had seen him
.talking several times before that but admitted that he had not given
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 669
him any warning. Snyder also admitted that Manseau may have
been on a job which requires talking with other workmen.
In view of Manseau's long service for the respondent, the reason
given by Snyder for his discharge is unpersuasive. We find that
-Hector Manseau was discharged because of his membership in tha
U. A. W.
Manseau obtained another position on June 4, at a wage of 90
cents an hour and subsequently received a raise to $1.00 an hour.
He estimated that his earnings between the date of his discharge and
the hearing were about $95 less than they would have been had he
-continued working for the respondent.
Emil Tomkow. Emil Tomkow, an employee in the final assembly
line at the River Rouge plant, commenced working for the respondent
in December, 1936. It was his duty to put brake shoes on the emer-
gency cables. On April 13, 1937, he was discharged without explana-
tion. He was earning $6.40 a day at the time.
Tomkow had obtained his job at the River Rouge plant through
Inspector Slamer of the Dearborn police department who communi-
cated in Tomkow's presence over the telephone with Miller, the re-
spondent's employment manager. Tomkow knew that Slamer had
in similar fashion obtained employment for others. After his dis-
charge on April 13, Tomkow went to see Slamer in an attempt to
get the job back. Slamer, after investigating the matter, informed
Tomkow on one occasion that Brown had said that he had been
"talking too damned much union" and on a subsequent occasion that
he had been advised by Brown that Tomkow was on "the black-list"
and would never be taken back by the respondent.
Tomkow's testimony concerning the direct connection between the
-respondent and the Dearborn police department was substantiated
by that of Harry L. Mason, an employee of the Packard Motor Com-
pany. Mason stated that on several occasions during the past year
he had attempted to obtain a job at the River Rouge plant and that
each time he had been told that it would first be necessary for him
to secure a letter from the Dearborn police department. At the
Dearborn City Hall, he saw a man named Schultz who had an office
in the basement of the City Hall where he interviewed applicants for
jobs with the respondent and questioned them concerning their affilia-
tion with the union.
Tomkow was not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his dis-
-charge. However, he had often discussed it with other employees and
had stated that he intended joining.
Tomkow's foreman, Elmer Fischer, testified that he had discharged
Tomkow because the - latter's constant loafing and talking. He said
-that as a result of a car.having come through the line with the wiring
-cut, he and the general foreman had watched Tomkow's section of
670 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the line with particular attention . Fischer stated that while doing
so they had noticed that he was constantly leaving his job to talk
with other employees and they had therefore discharged him. Tom-
kow denied these charges and stated that his work had never been
criticized.
Upon all the evidence in the record we find that Emil Tomkow
was discharged because of his activities in behalf of the U. A. W.
Tomkow has earned only $45.95 since his discharge.
John Cwikiel , Fred 'Gullicksen, and Joseph Bailey. Cwikiel,
Gullicksen, and Bailey were, prior to their dismissal in May 1937,
employed in the paint and varnish department at the Highland
Park plant . At the time of their discharge , Cwikiel had been an
employee of the respondent for between 2.5 and 26 years , Gullicksen
for about 23 years, and Bailey for approximately two and one-half
years. Cwikiel and Gullicksen were each receiving $6.80 and Bailey
$6.40 a day.
Cwikiel and Gullicksen became members of the U. A. W. on March
11, 1937. Subsequent to that date they often discussed it with other
employees in the department.
Late in the day on Friday, May 7, Dennis McKinney , the general
foreman of the department , informed Cwikiel that he could not use
him in the department any longer. McKinney was very excited at
the time, and Cwikiel believed that he would change his mind over
the week end. However, on the way home that evening , Carl Brand-
enberg, one of the foremen in the department , told him that Gullick-
sen and he were to be discharged on the following Monday. That
evening Cwikiel and Gullicksen were visited in their homes by their
immediate foreman, Stanley Ziek, who in a very excited manner told
them that they were going to be discharged because of their union
activities.
The two men were discharged when they reported for work on
Monday, May 10. Then, upon the advice of the Board 's Regional
Director for the Seventh Region, with whom they had spoken over
the week end , they visited the employment office at the River Rouge
plant in an effort to retain their positions . Brown at first told them
that there was nothing he could do for them but after they men-
tioned the Board to him , he agreed to put them back to work. Brown
gave them a letter of instructions to the superintendent of the High-
land Park plant.
Upon their return to the Highland Park plant , Cwikiel and Gul-
licksen were transferred to the receiving department . Their new jobs
would have required them to do considerable heavy and dirty work
out of doors and both Cwikiel, who was 49 years of age, and Gul-
licksen, who was 60 years of age , believed that it would be too diffi-
cult for them. They therefore refused to accept the new positions.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 671
On May 14, Cwikiel was visited by McKinney's assistant, a man
named Hutto. Hutto told Cwikiel that he had been discharged
because of his union activities. When Cwikiel asked to be put back
on the job, Hutto replied, "I can't do that. You have got to be
punished. They are punishing you for joining the union."
Joseph Bailey joined the U. A. W. on April 14, 1937. He also
discussed it with other employees in the department and attempted
to get them to join. On May 7, while Bailey was doing some work
which had been assigned to him by Ziek he noticed that he was
being closely watched by McKinney. A few minutes later he was
discharged by Ziek. When he attempted to find out the reason for
his discharge, Ziek told him that he was doing it on McKinney's
orders.
McKinney testified that he had discharged Cwikiel, Gullicksen and
Bailey for inefficient work. He said that early in 1937 a time study
had been made of the varnish room, the room in which all three of
the men were employed, which showed that production in such room
was far below the required standard. As a result he had watched it
very closely and had discovered that these men were slowing up
production. McKinney's testimony is very confused, and he qualified
the reason he had given for the discharges by saying that he had been
.of the opinion that there was a conspiracy afoot to slow down pro-
duction and had concluded that Cwikiel, Gullicksen, and Bailey
were responsible for the conspiracy because they generally associated
with each other.
Ziek testified that Cwikiel, Gullicksen, and Bailey were all good
men and that the reason for their discharge was their membership
in the U. A. W. Ziek also stated that on the day Cwikiel and
Gullicksen had returned to the Highland Park plant with the letter
from Brown, McKinney had told him that they were to be assigned
to jobs which would "break their God-damn backs for them."
Upon all the evidence in these cases, we find that the respondent
discharged Joseph Bailey and caused the resignation of John Cwikiel
and Fred Gullicksen because of their membership in the U. A. W.
Cwikiel had earned about $36.00, Gullicksen about $40.00, and
Bailey about $88.00 between the times of their discharges and the
hearing.
George Sazynski. George Sazynski worked for the respondent
from December 12, 1936 until his discharge on June 8, 1937. On the
latter date he was working as a millwright helper in the foundry
machine shop at the River Rouge plant when his foreman transferred
him to a different job which he refused to take. His foreman
then discharged him. Sazynski testified that the reason for his
refusal to take the new job was that the work was very dirty.
672 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sazynski had joined the U. A. W. on February 20, 1937, and had'
refused to sign the "Vote of Confidence" when it was circulated in
his department during the first week in June 1937. He believed
these acts were responsible for his transfer to less desirable work
on June 8.
The evidence indicates that Sazynski had been transferred from
one job to another on several occasions during his employment by
the respondent. His foreman testified that one of the reasons for
the transfers was that he was an inefficient workman. Sazynski's,
own testimony shows that he had been dissatisfied with most of his.
jobs at the River Rouge plant.
The record affords insufficient basis upon which to sustain the
charge that Sazynski was discharged because of his membership in
the U. A. W.
Gabriel Bobaila. Gabriel Bobaila worked for the respondent on,
and off from 1912 until November 20, 1936. For some 13 months.
prior to the latter date he was engaged in loading automobile parts-
into freight cars at the River Rouge plant.
Upon reporting for work on November 20, 1936, Bobaila was
directed to go to the employment office. After being forced to wait
until the following day, he was transferred to the pressed steel build-
ing as a spot welder. However, after he had worked on his new job,
less than a week, he was discharged without explanation. The per-
son at the employment office who dismissed him said, "The ,reason
for you is to get out of here and from now on to keep away from
Ford Motor Company."
Bobaila had joined the U. A. W. in the autumn of 1935. He had
attended most of its meetings subsequent to that date.
Upon the evidence in this case, we cannot find that the respondent,
discharged Gabriel Bobaila because of his membership in the U. A. W.
Guiseppe Gregario. Guiseppe Gregario was employed by the-
respondent more or less regularly from 1923 until his discharge on
June 9, 1937. During the last few months of this period he was-
working in a construction gang in the River Rouge plant and was.
earning $6.00 a day.
Gregario did not belong to the U. A. W. at the time of his dis-
charge. However, on June 2, he had refused to sign the "Vote of-
Confidence".
On June 9, 1937, Gregario was helping dig a foundation outside
the Foundry Building, when it commenced raining. While putting
on his boots and raincoat, he became involved in an argument. The-
evidence is conflicting as to the identity of the person with whom the-
argument took place and as to the events that followed in its wake.
Gregorio testified that, although he had taken only two or three
minutes to put on his boots and raincoat, a service man whom he had_
never seen before accused him of loafing, and that his general fore-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 6733,
man then discharged him. Hairy Reynolds, the general foreman, on
the other hand, testified that Gregario's argument had been with his,
immediate foreman and had been started by the latter's attempt to,
reprimand him for taking too much time in putting on his boots and
raincoat. Reynolds stated that Oregano was a good workman and
that he had tried very hard to calm him but that Gregario, who was
very quick-tempered, had become more and more angry and had
finally quit with the remark, "Oh, the hell with the job."
Reynolds' statement that Oregano had left his employment volun-
tarily is substantiated by the fact that the latter made no attempt to
visit the employment office and instead sent his wife after his pay.
Upon the record in this case, we are unable to find that Guiseppe,
Gregario was discharged because of union activities or suspected
sympathy with the U. A. W.
Leo J. Krugh. With the exception of a three-year period during
the depression, Leo J. Krugh was employed by the respondent from
October, 1928 until his discharge on May 19, 1937. At the latter date
he was engaged as a double end lathe operator in the rear axle hous-
ing department at the River Rouge plant and was receiving a wage
of $6.80 a day. He testified that he had always performed his work
in a satisfactory manner.
Krugh became a member of the U. A. W. on January 27, 1937. On
May 19 he was discharged without explanation. He stated that sub-
sequent to his discharge he had been informed by S. J. Feeney, an
individual who often associated with Ford service men and was
commonly known around the River Rouge plant as a "stool pigeon",
that he had been dismissed because of his membership in the U. A. W.
Charles Barberree, Krugh's foreman, testified that for several weeks
before Krugh's discharge the production in his section had been below
standard. He stated that he had warned all of the workers on the
assembly line that he was going to discharge the person responsible
for the poor work. He had then conducted an investigation and,
upon discovering that Krugh was the man who was impeding
production, he had dismissed him.
Upon the evidence in this case, we cannot find that Leo J. Krugh
was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W.
Raymond Jewell. Raymond Jewell, a U. A. W. member, has
worked for the respondent more or less regularly since 1922. Prior
to June 14, 1937, he was employed as a final inspector in the motor
assembly department at the River Rouge plant. On that date he was
discharged by his foreman for talking on the job. Jewell testified
that it was necessary for an inspector to speak to other employees.
Jewell was interviewed by Brown the day after his discharge.
According to Jewell's testimony, Brown spoke to him at length con-
cerning the U. A. W. and stated that he had heard that Jewell had
4674 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been engaging in union activities. Jewell was laid off for four days
and then returned to his job by Brown. His foreman refused to take
him back, however, and Jewell was transferred to another job which
he termed the "doghouse". Since returning to work, Jewell has had
an increase in pay from $6.80 to $7.20 a day.
In view of the fact that Jewell's layoff lasted only four days and
,that he has since received an increase in pay, it is difficult to believe
-that the reason for such layoff was his union activities. Upon the
evidence, we cannot find that Raymond Jewell was laid off because of
his membership in the U. A. W.
Daniel E. Devon. Daniel E. Devor has been employed by the
respondent since 1923. On April 19, 1937, he became a member of the
U. A. W. and on June 9, 1937, he was transferred against 'his wishes
from the job of operating a crane in the soaking pits at the River
Rouge plant to one at common labor in the foundry. However, since
June 14, he has had the task of operating an electric furnace in the
foundry. He enjoys his present work and has received an increase in
pay from $7.60 a day to $8.00 a day.
Upon the evidence in this case, we are unable to sustain the charge
that Daniel Devor's transfer was due to his membership in the
U. A. W.
E. Conclusion
From the mass of testimony in this proceeding two facts stand
out : the unconcealed hostility with which the Ford Motor Company
views bona fide labor organizations and the utter ruthlessness with
which it has fought the organization of its employees by the U. A. W.
The respondent, not only through public interviews and statements,
but through the direct circulation of anti-union literature within
its plants, has made its antagonism to labor organizations so evident
that no employee whose economic life is at its mercy can fail to
comprehend it. The full significance of this antagonism has been
brought home to its employees through the constant hostility of fore-
men and supervisory officials, through the systematic discharge of
union advocates, through the employment of hired thugs to terrorize
and beat union members and sympathizers, and through numerous
other acts of intimidation and coercion recited above.
The chief weapon of the respondent in this fight to prevent self-
organization among its employees has been the Ford Service De-
partment. This Department played the principal role in the savage
beatings of May 26, and in the other assaults upon union members
which have been described above. The record leaves no doubt that
the Service Department has been vested with the responsibility of
maintaining surveillance over Ford employees, not only during their
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 675
work but even when they are outside the plant, and of crushing at its
inception, by force if necessary, any sign of union activity. Thus
within the respondent's vast River Rouge plant at Dearborn the
freedom of self-organization guaranteed by the Act has been re-
placed by a rule of terror and repression.
We find that these activities of the respondent constitute inter-
ference, restraint and coercion with the rights of self-organization
and collective bargaining set forth in Section 7 of the Act.
Evidently fearful that the foregoing measures might not suffice to
restrain the growth of the U. A. W., the respondent fostered a
"dummy" labor organization of its own choice,-the Ford Brother-
hood of America, Inc. We find that the respondent has dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of this or-
ganization and has contributed support to it.
We further find that the respondent has discharged Homer King,
George Smick, Alphonso Kuzulis, Birtus C. Hall, George B. Zubick,
Joseph Gutierrez, Joseph Sable, George Onnela, Richard Weyhing,,
Clarence Fleming, Elmer Mackie, Thaddeus Radke, Alfred Onnela,,
Ray Onnela, Martin Jensen, Clifford Sheldon, John J. Dovey, An-
thony J. Schipper, Fred Nygard, John Barron, Percy Llewellyn,.
Joseph Nierotko, Joseph Galusky, Hector F. Manseau, Emil Tomkow,
and Joseph Bailey, because of their membership in, activity in behalf-
of, or sympathy toward the U. A. W.; has caused the resignation of-
John Cwikiel and Fred Gullicksen because of their membership in
the U. A. W.; has discharged Jacob Winsiewski because of his son's.
membership in the U. A. W.; and has by these acts discriminated in
regard to hire and tenure of employment and thereby discouraged
membership in the U. A. W. None of the foregoing employees has-
obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment.
The respondent, by means of all of the activities described above,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In the cases of George Sazynski, Gabriel Bobaila, Guiseppe-
Gregario, Leo J. Krugh, Raymond Jewell, and Daniel Devor the_
respondent has not discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of em--
ployment for the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor-
organization.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial,
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
'676 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONOLusIONs OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. Homer King, George Smick, Alphonso Kuzulis, Birtus C. Hall,
George B. Zubick, Joseph Gutierrez, Joseph Sable, George Onnela,
Richard Weyhing, Clarence Fleming, Elmer Mackie, Thaddeus
Radke, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Martin Jensen, Clifford Sheldon,
John J. Dovey, Anthony J. Schipper, Fred Nygard, John Barron,
Percy Llewellyn, Joseph Nierotko, Joseph Galusky, Hector F. Man-
seau, Emil Tomkow, Joseph Bailey, John Cwikiel, Fred Gullicksen,
and Jacob Winsiewski, were at the times their work ceased, and
have been at all times thereafter, employees of the respondent,
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the persons named in paragraph 2 above,
thereby discouraging membership in the U. A. W., has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. Ford Brotherhood of America, Inc. is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the for-
mation and administration of the Brotherhood, has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act..
6. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its,employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
8. The respondent, in the discharge of George Sazynski, Gabriel
Bobaila, Guiseppe Gregario, and Leo J. Krugh and in the transfer
of Raymond Jewell and Daniel Devor, has not engaged in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) 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
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 677
respondent, Ford Motor Company, its officers, agents, successors and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in international Union, United
Automobile Workers of America or any other labor organization
of its employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their
employment because of their membership in, activity in behalf of,
or sympathy toward any such labor organization;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the formation or adminis-
tration of Ford Brotherhood of America, Inc., or any other labor
organization of its employees, or contributing financial or other
support to any such labor organizations;
(c) Organizing, maintaining, supporting or assisting vigilante or
similar groups, or employing or using such groups, the members of
its Service Department, or any other persons, directly or indirectly,
for the purpose of intimidating or coercing its employees from join-
ing International Union, United Automobile Workers of America or
any other labor organization of its employees;
(d) Threatening, assaulting, beating, or in any other manner in-
terfering with, restraining, or intimidating, directly or indirectly,
members of International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America or any other labor organization of its employees distributing
or otherwise disseminating union literature in the vicinity of its
River Rouge plant;
(e) Circulating, distributing or otherwise disseminating among its
employees statements or propaganda disparaging or criticizing labor
organizations or advising its employees not to join such organiza-
tions;
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to George Onnela, Richard Weyhing, Clarence Fleming,
Elmer Mackie, Thaddeus Radke, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Martin
Jensen, Clifford Sheldon, John J. Dovey, Anthony J. Schipper, Fred
Nygard, George B. Zubick, Joseph Gutierrez, John Barron, Joseph
Sable, Alphonso Kuzulis, Homer King, Percy Llewellyn, Joseph Nier-
otko, George Smick, Joseph Galusky, Hector F. Manseau, Birtus C.
678 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO NS BOARD
Hall, Emil Tomkow, Joseph Bailey, John Cwikiel, Fred Gullicksen,
and Jacob Winsiewski immediate and full reinstatement to their for-
mer positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights,
and privileges;
(b) Make whole the persons named in paragraph 2 (a) above for
any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis-
crimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment, by payment
to them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of such
discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement,,
less any amount each has earned during that period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout all depart-
ments of its, plants in Dearborn and Highland Park, Michigan, notices-
to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
the manner aforesaid;
(d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writing-
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the,
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the allegations of the complaint be,
and they hereby are, dismissed with respect to Raymond Jewell,,
George Sazynski, Guiseppe Gregario, Gabriel Bobaila, Leo J. Krugh,,
and Daniel Devor. -