Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 534 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and 'UNITED PROTECTIVE
Woni uRs OF AMERICA
L
Case Yo. C-2564.-Decided Jv,ne 16, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 27, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
pdrt in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter,' the respondent and the. Union filed excep
tions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in'support of the exceptions.
Pursuant to notice duly served on all parties,-a hearing for the pilr-
pose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D: C.,:
on May 20, 1943. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire rec-
ord' in the case, and hereby adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner
to the extent that they are consistent with the conclusions hereinafter
set forth.
1. The Trial Examiner found that respondent's policy was not to
discharge an employee found to be intoxicated for his first offense, but
to send him home to sober up; that under this policy even if Jonnard
had been intoxicated on April 14, 1942, he would not have been dis-
charged for this offense. In our opinion drinking by plant-protection
employees is a serious infraction and might properly be punishable by
discharge for the first offense. Respondent's policy with respect to
drinking among plant-protection employees, however, was plainly lax.
Not only did Jonnard testify without contradiction that four named
employees,'at least three of whom were plant-protection men, were sent
home for being drunk at their posts without being discharged, but
Fredericks, chief clerk of the plant-protection department, admitted
that a good many men hied been sent home to sober up without being
50 N. L R. B, No 83.
534
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 535
discharged, and that it was customary, to warn the 'men before' dis,.
charging them. It is not for us to determine what respondent's policy
with respect to intoxicatiton should be. Since respondent chose to fol-_
low a lax policy in that respect, it is bound by it. Although union activ-
ity is not an excuse for drunkenness, respondent cannot apply a stricter
penalty for drunkenness as a means of discriminating against an em-
ployee for union activity. We agree with the Trial Examiner that
since this was Jonnard's first offense," he would not have been dis-
charged under the prevailing policy, but for his union activity. It is,
therefore, unnecssary to determine whether in fact Jonnard was drink-
ing, and if so, to what extent he was under the influence of liquor.
2. The Trial Examiner found that in selecting for transfer William
Bailey, Charles Bailey, and Robert Brown, the respondent was not
influenced by their union membership and activities but was motivated
by reasons set forth in the ,testimony of Superintendent Theisen of
respondent's plant-protection force, and recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges the discriminatory discharge
of these employees. We are unable to agree with this finding., Upon
consideration of all the evidence, we are satisfied and find : that the,.
respondent knew of the union membership and activities of these
employees, who «ere union stewards and openly wore their buttons
at work; that even if a proportionate reduction of plant-protection per-
sonnel might have become necessary in view of an overall reduction
in personnel, a continuous drain upon the plant-protection: force caused-
by draft and voluntary transfers made discharges or compulsory trans-
fers of plant-protection men unnecessary; that at the time of the trans-
fer there was already a shortage in the plant-protection personnel
and that new men were continuously. hired during that period; that
no evidence of a compulsory transfer or discharge of plant-,protection,
men, other than those included in the first group, to carry out the pro-,
gram of reduction was offered by the respondent; that the compulsory
transfer was offered to three union stewards whose work was satisfac-
tory and who had been on the plant-protection force for 7 or 8 years,
despite the fact that a large number of men on the' force with less
seniority were retained; that at the time of the offer of the transfer
these employees were told by Theisen that the new jobs would: be on
production, which would take them out of the U. P. W. A.; and that
the respondent's explanation for the selection of these employees for-
the transfer is not logical or credible. On the basis of the foregoing
findings and the entire record, we find, that William Bailey, Charles
Bailey, and Robert Brown, were discharged because of their union
1 we agree with the Trial Examiner that Dabney 's testimony as to a prior offense is
not to be credited , but assuming, arguendo ,' that his testimony were true , Dabney 's warning
was not that Jonnard would be discharged for the next offense, but only that he would be -
sent home.
536, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAiRD
membership and activities, and that by discriminating in regard to.
the hire and tenure of their employment and thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in -unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8,(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we will order that they be rein-
stated to their former or substantially equivalent positions and made
whole for any loss of -pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them. In accordance with our
usual practice, the period from the date of the Intermediate Report to
the date of the Order herein will be excluded in computing the amount
of whatever back pay each of the employees discriminated against
is.entitled to have since the Trial Examiner did not recommend their
reinstatement with back pay.
ORDER
'Upon the findings of the Board and the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Ford Motor Company, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist' from : 9
(a) Discouraging membership in United Protective Workers of
America, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or•any'term or conditibn of emliloyinent;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds -will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
'(a) Offer to George R. ,Jonnard, William Harry Bitiley, Cha°i•les
Eugene Bailey, Robert Elroy Brown, John S. Binder, Edward, it.
Komorowski , Robert' Earl Errair, Ecy Elian Maida, George Kouri,
Nick Strok, Philip Keck and Henry S. Peterson immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent employment,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Offer Azad Sarafian immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to'his
seniority or other rights and privileges, or if the said employee had
been inducted into the military, service of the United States, upon
application by Sarafian within forty (40) days after his discharge
from the armed forces of the United Stafes, offer him reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
FORD MOTOR COMPANY '5,37
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, or if there is not sufficient
'employment immediately available, then placement upon a prefer-
ential list;
(c) Make whole George R. Jonnard for any loss of pay-he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
him : (1) by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
lie normally would have earned as wages from November 17, 1941,
the date of his discriminatory lay-off, to December 11, 1941, the date
on which he was reinstated to his former or equivalent employment,
less his iiet earnings during the said period; and (2) by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages from April 14, 1942, the date of his discriminatory ,
discharge, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during the said period and less the amount of wages
he normally would have earned from the date of his voluntary leave
of absence from employment obtained subsequent to his discriminatory
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement;
(d) ' Make whole William Harry Bailey, Charles Eugene Bailey,
acid Robert Elroy Brown for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of the, respondent' s discrimination , against them by pay-
ment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount which they would
have earned as wages during the period from the date of the re-
spondent's discrimination against them to the date of the Intermediate
Report herein and during the period from the date of this Order to
the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net earn-
ings during said period. - -
(e) Make John S. Binder, Edward R. Komorowski, Robert Earl
Errair, Ecy Elian Maida, George Kouri, Nick Strok, and, Henry S.
Peterson whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason'
of the discrimination,against them by payment to them of a sum of
money equal to that amount which they would normally have earned
as wages from December 16, 1942, to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less their net earnings during said period; -
(f) Make Philip Keck whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages from December 17, 1942, to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period;
(g) Make Azad Sarafian whole for any loss of earnings lie may
suffer by reason of respondent's refusal to reinstate him or place
him on a preferential list as herein ordered by payment to him of a
sum equal to that which he would have earned between a date five (5)
days after a timely application for reinstatement and the date of offer
of reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list, less his net
earnings during this period; ,
5 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
(h) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its River Rouge and
in its Dearborn plants, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
-stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which;it is ordered that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and
(b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)
of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees, in those
classifications expressly excluded under such contracts as are now
in existence between the respondent and other labor organizations,
are free to become or remain members of United Protective Workers
of America, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any
of its said employees because of membership in or activities on behalf
of that organization;
(i) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of his Order, what
steps the respondent has taken to' comply herewith.
AND-IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of the employment of Howard Leaver.
MR. -GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order. ,
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. C. Thomas Downs, for the Board.
Mr. I. A. Capizzi and Mr. Malcolm,L. Denise„of Detroit, Mich., for the Ford
Motor Company.
Mr. Daniel R. Foley, of Detroit, Mich., for United Protective Workers of
America.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge, duly filed on January 9,1943, by United Protective
Workers of America, herein called the U. P. W. A., the National Labor Relations'
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region'
(Detroit, Michigan), issued its amended complaint' dated January 9, 1943, against
Ford Motor Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the amended complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and
the U. P. W. A.
'The original complaint was issued on'December 9, 1942, upon a charge duly filed by
the U. P. W. A. on July 10, 1942. Copies of the original complaint, accompanied by notice
of hearing, were duly served upon the parties. On January 9, 1943, a notice was duly
served upon all the parties postponing the hearing from January 14, 1943 to January 25,
1943. , I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 539
The amended complaint as further amended during the hearing 2 alleged in sub-
stance that the respondent: (1) made disparaging statements to its employees
regarding the U. P. W. A., questioned its employees concerning their affiliation
with the U. P. W. A., and threatened certain of its employees with discharge if
they persisted in their organizational efforts in behalf of the U. P. W: A.; (2)
terminated the employment of and thereafter refused to reinstate 14 named em-
ployees because of their membership in and activities in behalf of the U. P. W. A.;'
(3) by the aforesaid and other acts and conduct interfered with, coerced, and
restrained its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
In its duly filed answers to the original and amended complaint, the respondent
denied that it had engaged in any of the alleged unfair'labor practices. As af-
firmative defenses, respondent alleged that the U. P. W. A. was not authorized
to represent those employees engaged in drafting work, and that the plant pro-
tection employees were not within the purview of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 1943, at
Detroit, Michigan, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunty to be lieaid, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties.
In its answer to the Board's complaint, the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the said motion, not having been acted upon, was
pending before the undersigned during the course of the hearing. During the
hearing the respondent further moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as it
alleged the discriminatory discharge of Philip Keck, a foreman; and in the alter-
nate, if the said motion was denied, to strike that testimony relating to those
employees having the same supervisory status as Keck, on the ground that the
statements and conduct of such employees were not attributable to the respondent.
Ruling on the above motions was reserved by the undersigned and they are hereby
denied except as they are otherwise disposed of under the recommendations of
this Intermediate Report. Near the close of the hearing the undersigned granted
without objection, a motion by the attorney for the Board to conform the plead-
ings to the proof.
At the close of the hearing, the parties were afforded an opportunity for, but
waived, oral argument before the undersigned. The, parties were also extended
the privilege of filing briefs with the undersigned. The respondent thereafter filed
a brief with the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses
the, undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation having its principal executive
offices at Dearborn, Michigan, owns, operates, and maintains, manufacturing and
assembly plants in many States throughout the country. The plants principally
2 During the bearing the undersigned granted the Board's motion to amend the com-
plaint by striking therefrom the name of Clarence R. Jones, alleged to have been discrim•
inatorily discharged. Towards the close of the hearing, the undersigned granted the
Board's motion to further amend the complaint by adding the name of Robert Earl Errair
to the list of employees alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged on December 16,
1942. Errair was named in the third amended charge filed by the U. P. W. A. Respondent
consented to the granting of the above motions.
540 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved in this proceeding , are the River Rouge Plant (Detroit, Michigan) and
the Dearborn ( Michigan ) plant.
Prior to February 1942, the respondent was principally engaged in the manu-
facture, assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles, automobile trucks and
various types of automobile parts and accessories. Since February 1942, the
respondent has been and is now engaged at all of its plants _in Detroit,,High-
land Park, and Dearborn, Michigan, and at its new plant, known as Willow
Run Bomber plant situated near the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan, principally in
the manufacture and/or assembly of ordinance and other materials for the
armed services of the United States. Not less than 10 percent, and varying as
high as 80 "percent, in value of the productive materials, including fabricated
and partially fabricated articles used in the manufacturing or assembly opera-
tions conducted in the above-mentioned plants, the total value of which ex-
ceeds $1,000,000 monthly, is shipped to the said plants from points outside the
State of Michigan.
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.-
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Protective Workers of America is an unaffiliated labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.4 ,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Plant protection employees 8
1. Organizational background
On June 20 , 1941, the respondent - executed a contract with the United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, which organization thereafter changed its name
to International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW-CIO). By the terms of this contract, plant
protection employees were excluded , along with employees of certain other job
classifications , from the bargaining unit represented by the U. A. W.
The U. P. W. A. was organized on or about July 21, 1941 . The, membership
clause of Its constitution provides :
The membership of the Union shall be drawn on from any and all classi-
fications of employees doing work as guardsmen , watchmen and in general
8 These findings are based on a stipulation of the parties and prior -Board decisions
involving the respondent See Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, 14 N. L. R. B. 346, and Matter of Ford Motor
Company and United Protective Workers , Local 1, 45 N L R B , 70. -
4 The respondent contended that the U. P. W. A. was not a bona fide organization but
'eas a "sham" organization , created by the International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Woikers of America , (UAW-CIO) herein called the
U. A. W., to circumvent a contract in which . the U. A. W. is recognized as 'the statutory
representative of the production and maintenance eRiployees at the respondent 's plants;
excluding inter alga the plant-protection employees . The undersigned finds no merit in
the respondent 's contention . The respondent made the.saine assertion regarding Local- 1
of the U. P. W A, in a representation proceeding before the Board, and the Board slated
in that case ( 45 N L R. B 70 ) : " Even ' were it shown that the Union is directly affiliated
with , or 'contemplates immediate affiliation with the UAW=CIO, the Company's argument
would be rejected. The Act confers upon employees the right to self-organization and
to collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing." See also Matter
of Ford Motor Company , Highland Park Plant ( Dearborn, Michigan ) and United Pro-
tective Workers of America, Local No . 1, 47 N . L R. B 946.
I Referred to at times as "service" employees , the terms being used inter-changeably.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY- 541
any and all of those whose whole or principal employment is the protec-
tion of property.
Originally, membership in the U. P. W. A. was open to all plant protection
employees of the Detroit area. However, when the U. A. W., in the Spring of
1942,, expanded its jurisdiction to include this category of employees, excepting
those employed by the respondent , those members of the U. P. W. A. eligible for
membership in the U. A. W. transferred their union affiliation to the latter or-
ganization . At that time , all officers of the U. P. W . A. being non-employees
of the respondent , new officers were elected and membership in the U.,P. W. A.
was thereafter composed of only employees of the respondent.
It appears that the sponsors of the U. P. W. A. had hoped to merge its mem-
bership with that of the U. A. W. George R. Jonnard, who was active in
organizing the U. P. W. A. and who was elected its president in June 1942,
testified that employees , solicited for membership in the U. P. W. A., were
advised of the plan to merge with the U . A. W. However , the contract exe-
cuted on November 4, 1942, by the U. A. W. and the respondent again excluded
plant protection employees from the unit represented by the U. A. W., and the
merger of the two labor organizations never occurred.
2 The discriminatory discharge of George R. Jonnard ; interference, restraint,
and coercion
Jonnard was employed by the respondent for some 12 years prior to his dis-
charge on April 14, 1942. From a starting wage of $6 a day, he received suc-
cessive wage increases, and-in November 1941, he was receiving a wage of $960
a day. On December 11, he was placed on a monthly wage basis at $200 a
month, and continued on this basis until his discharge . He was employed-as a
gate keeper in the plant protection department at the respondent's River Rouge
plant.
Jonnard joined the U. P. W. A. on November 4, 1941, attended its meetings,
and was active in the solicitation of membership in that union among the re-
spondent 's plant protection employees.
On or about November 7, 1941, near the end of the work shift, Berney C.
Dabney, a supervisor, asked Jonnard if he might ride home with Jonnard in the
latter's car. When Jonnard replied that he was not going straight home, Dabney
said : "You are one of those union members ; you are going over to the meet-
ing, are you ?" A day or two later, while Jonnard was on duty, Dabney asked
him, "How was the union meeting?" and further said to Jonnard , "Don't you
know they are controlled by the Jews. The first thing you know if you, keep
on fooling with that union you are going to be thrown out on Miller road.' You
never will succeed with the union around here."
Jonnard testified that on another occasion Dabney said that he had just
brought Wood and Bernard [both supervisory employees] back from the main
office, where they had been talking to Harry Bennett [the respondent's personnel
director] "about organizing the union." According to Jonnard, Dabney then
said, "Bernard told me and Woods that we will have to treat the service men
every bit as good as we treat the Negroes and the hunkies in the foundries."'
This was a local term used when an employee ii as discharged
These findings are based on Jonnard ' s testimony which is credited . Dabney made a
categorical denial that he had knowledge that Jonnaid belonged to the U. P. W. A. or
that he had ever heard of any U P. W. A. activity whatsoever at the plant. In view of
Jonnard's ' activity on behalf of the U. P. W . A., which appears to have been open and
generally known to the respondent ' s supervisors , and in view of the respondent 's opposi-
tion to organization of its plant protection employees as disclosed by the entire record, his
denial is not credited.
542 DECISIONS 0'F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about November 13, 1941, according to Jonnard , August Fredericks, chief
clerk of the plant protection department , came out of the office with a handful
of cards. - Fredericks handed some of the cards to Reggie Davis, a plant protec,
tion employee Jonnard testified that lie stuck his hand out for some of the cards
and, when Fredericks did not give him any , he "grabbed" six cards out of
Fredericks ' hand. One of the cards thus seized by Jonnard was received in
evidence and bore the following text :
I HEREBY WISH TO NOTIFY THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY THAT I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE
SERVICE DEPARTMENT BEING ORGANIZED BUT PREFER TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REMAIN
AS IT IS AT PRESENT.
BADGE NAME
0
Fredericks denied all knowledge of the cards, and made a categorical denial that
he had any knowledge of U. P ' W. A activity. Davis did not testify - In clew
of the total situation of the respondent's interference with U. P. W. A. Organ-
izational activity, as disclosed by the record, Fredericks' denial is not credited.
There is no further evidence of circulation of these cards by the respondent,
however, than is contained in the testimony of Jonnard set forth above.
On November 17, when Jonnard reported to work, his work card was missing
from the rack. Jonnard and several other' employees,' whose work cards also
had been removed, were instructed by a clerk in Fredericks' office that they
would have to report to the employment office. They were thereafter escorted'
to the employment office one at a time. When Jonnard entered the office, Harold
Miller, the respondent's River Rouge employment manager, said "Have the hot
seat." In the office besides Jonnard and Miller, were Burl Wood, foreman of
Jonnard's work shift, Joseph C Bernard, superintendent of the service depart-
ment , and James Brady and Elmer Howan, who were employed in the office of
H. H. Bennett, the respondent's personnel director B Hogan asked Jonnard if he
was "mixed up in this union." When Jonnard replied that he was, Hogan said,
"Well, don't you know Mr. Bennett don't want you fellows to organize, why did-
you do it?" Jonnaid answered, "We want jobs, security and seniority." Hogan
said, "We can't use you in service." Brady remarked that "Mr. Bennett wouldn't
stand for two unions to come in there." Miller advised Jonnard, "I am going to
give you a transfer where you can work with union men and be a union man."
At the employment office on the following day, Miller hadi transfe`rl slips made
out, and advised Jonnard that they were for "good jobs in Highland Park," where
the transferees could "become union members ."'0 Jonnard reported to the High,
land Park plant but was unable to obtain employment there. 'He thereafter was
8 It appears from Jonnard 's testimony that a total of nine employees was involved, but
none of the other eight testified and no allegation is made regarding them in the Board's
complaint.
0 Neither Brady nor Hogan testified and there is no evidence as to the exact nature of
their duties . However , it is apparent from Jonnard 's undisputed testimony of statements
made by each of them in the presence of persons who admittedly were supervisors, that
they represented management, and the undersigned so finds
10 Miller obviously had reference to the U. A. W. It was the respondent's position that,
with knowledge that plant protection employees were excluded from membership by the
U. A W, the respondent's supervisors were justified in urging plant protection employees,
who wished to affiliate with a union , to transfer to such job classifications as.would bring
them within the unit represented by the U. A W, and that in so doing, they were not
motivated by hostility to the U. P. W. A. Employees are entitled to self-organization
without interference by the employer, and the respondent, who clearly had knowledge
that the U. P. W. A. was attempting to organize plant protection employees, had no right
to interfere with this, activity by the method of'transfers or otherwise.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 543
directed to Brady, who told him that he had a proposition to make to Jonnard
and another employee, O'Rourke, whose employment at the River Rouge plant
was terminated at the same time as Jonnard's Jonnard testified: "[Brady]
told us that he would put us two back to work if we would forget about tbfe
union . . ." The following day Brady told Jonnard that he was sorry he
(Brady) "couldn't keep his word," that Bennett was "very upset" about an
article which had appeared in local newspapers, concerning the discharge of
union members. Brady then advised Jonnard that Bennett had said, "You
fellows will never work in the Service Department 'because you went in and
tried to organize a union."
On December 1, counsel for the U. P. W. A., and counsel for the' respondent
reached an agreement, whereby Jonnard was returned to work, but was advised
by U. P. W. A. counsel that he had to be "punished for joining the union." As
"punishment" he was required to spend a week in the respondent's stock room,
after which he returned to big old job. Jonnard was out of work for 13 working
days, and received pay for only 5 of the 13 days thus lost.
Jonnard's version of the November 17 lay-off, including the conversations
with representatives of management, was virtually undisputed by the respond-
ent. Bennett , Brady, Hogan and Miller did not testify. Bernard, though a
witness, did not testify concerning the November 17 incident. Wood, who made
a categorical denial that he had ever discussed the U. P. W. A. with Jonnard
or any other employees, was extremely evasive in his testimony concerning the
November 17 lay-off. While admitting that he was Jonnard's immediate super-
visor, he stated that he knew nothing about the circumstances of the lay-off,
did not sign Jonnard's transfer, although normally he would have signed the
transfer for an employee under his supervision , did not know to what plant
Jonnard was transferred, and th4 the matter of Jonnard' s transfer and rein-
statement was not discussed with him. He testified : "All I know is that I was
told to send those men to the employment office." He further testified that he
received the instructions from Brady. The following is an excerpt from his
testimony on recross-examination :
Q. And what was the reason for sending him [Jonnard ] to the employment
office?
A. I don't recall.
Q.; Nothing was ever said to you?
A. No, sir. '
Q. Do you know when he went to work at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know when he came back?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you tell me anything about that?
A. No, sir.
It is not credible that Wood could have been so utterly lacking in knowledge of
circumstances of the lay-off and subsequent reinstatement of an employee working
under his direct supervision. The undersigned rejects his denial of knowledge of
the incident, and finds that he was present at the conference at the employment'
office on November 17, as testified to by Jonnard. The undersigned also finds that
Miller, Brady and Hogan made the statements and engaged in the conduct
attributed to them by Jonnard.
In February 1942 Jonnard had some difficulty'in securing the full amount of
his'wages, and told Wood, "If you don't want to, take care of it, ,I will have to
go over to see, Brady." Wood replied, "You had better lay off Brady ; he is still
544 DECISIONS O'F NATIO'\'AL,LABO'R RELATIONS BOARD,
sore at you for fooling with the union." The matter of Jonnard's pay was
satisfactorily'adjusted by Wood on the following day. ,
On February 11, when Jonnard reported for work, he found his work card was
missing, and was directed by Fredericks to see Wood. Wood advised him, "I
have a better job for you in war work. In that job you can be in the union and
be a union, man." Jonnard refused the offer Wood sent. him to Miller, who
accused him of having been absent from work for 3 days and asked, "Where have
you been, a union convention?" Jonnard answered in the negative, and Miller-
adminished him, `:Keep your nose clean." Jonnard received his work card and
returned to his post. That night Wood accused him of having been absent from
work for 3 days,11 of distributing union literature, and of "causing trouble around
here about the union."
On April 14 Jonnard was working on the 4 p. in. to 12 midnight shift. At or
about 10 p. in. that night while Jonnard was at his post at gate 11, Wood drove
up in his car and engaged Jonnard in conversation. According to Jonnard, Wood
questioned him concerning the U. P. W. A. and told him, "Don't you know Mr.
Bennett and Mr. Ford has no use for the Jews ; you know they control all the
unions." \Jonnard replied, "We are doing pretty good on this shift. We have
106 members." Wood retorted, "I don't believe you." According to Jonnard, "one
'word brought on another," and he and Wood engaged in a "hot argument," for
about 15 minutes, at the end of which Wood drove away saying, "You are not going
to get away, with it " Shortly thereafter, Dabney and Jerome B. Smolar, a plant
protection employee, brought a third employee to Jonnard's post for the purpose
of relieving him from duty. Dabney advised 'Jonnard that Wood had given
instructions for him to ring his card out, that he was "through." Jonnard went
to the office, where he saw Fredericks, rang out and left the plant. He testified
that he returned the next day, but that his Work card was missing , and that he
saw Fredericks, who told him, "You are through."
Wood testified he saw Jomiard at gate 11 on April 14 at about 10: 20 p. in,
and talked to him about 3 or 4 minutes "mostly about baseball." 1' He then told
Jonnard, "Bob, you have had a few drinks." According to Wood, Jonnard replied,
"Yes, I have." Wood left Jonnard's post and called Fredericks to send a relief
employee to Jonnard's gate and to have Jonnard ring out because he had been
drinking. Wood testified that he smelled whiskey on Jonnard's breath, that
Jonnard talked incoherently, that his gait-was unsteady, and that he "was in no
condition to take care of his job." He denied that he discussed the U. P. W. A.
with Jonnard or made the statements concerning Jews, attributed to him by
Jonnard.
Several witnesses for the respondent testified in corroboration of Wood's testi-
mony that Jonnard was in an intoxicated condition on the night of April 14.
James M Connell testified that when Jonnard relieved him at gate 11 at about
4 p. in, Jonnard took an unopened bottle of whiskey from his pocket and said,
" I understand you like to tell on people. I am going to see if you do"
Connell testified that he saw Jonnard again at about 6 o'clock, at which time he
smelled whiskey on Jonnard's breath. He was unable to recall anything- that,
was said on this latter occasion. Connell did not report Jonnard's/condition to
the respondent. Michael Savage , a plant production employee, testified that'
he saw Jonnard at gate 4 between 10 and 11 p. in. and that Jonnard addressed
him in abusive language but that he "forgot the whole incident" because he
smelled liquor on Jonnard's breath.
"The respondent made no claim that Jonnard 's alleged absence from duty was a con-
tributing cause to his subsequent discharge.
12 Jonnard was at one time a professional baseball player.
FOR'D' MOTOR 'COMPANY 545
Fredericks testified that Jonnard staggered into the office and that he "smelled
as though he had been drinking." R. C. Blackburn, a clerk in the office, described
.Jonnard as "drooling at the mouth; sort of frothing .'..' Dabney and Smolar
testified they drove Jonnard to Fredericks' office. According to Dabney, Jonnard's
breath smelled of -whiskey and his gait was uncertain. Smolar testified Jonnard
"spoke in kind of a hesitating manner," and that his voice was loud whereas he
was usually "quiet mannered." These two men testified that they drove Jonnard
back to his car which was parked at gate 11, and, that as Jonnard got out of
their car he displayed a large roll of bills. They left Jonnard at gate 11, where
the latter had his car parked. Smolar testified that he "wouldn' t pass" an opin-
ion on whether Jonnard "was fit to drive ..." According to the norm of human
behavior they would not, however, have left Jonnard alone to drive his own car
and with a considerable amount of money on his person, had they not regarded
him as reasonably sober. In addition to the foregoing, Frank E. Creelman, a
service department employee, testified that he saw Jonnard in,an intoxicated
.condition at about 11 p. in. at a lunch stand which was situated adjacent to the
respondent's property. Wood also testified that he saw Jonnard at this place,
and that Jonnard asked him why he was being sent home. According to Wood,
he replied, "you have been drinking, and you are in no condition now for me to
talk to you. You better go home now and see me tomorrow."
Wood testified that he made out a quit, slip for Jonnard, on which he reported
the condition he had found Jonnard in, and sent it to the employment manager.
He testified that he had no authority to discharge, but that he recommended
Jonnard's discharge and that the sole reason for his recommendation was
Jonnard's intoxication while on duty.
Jonnard denied that he was intoxicated on April 14 while on duty, or that he
had been drinking at all on this occasion. William Steel, a truck driver for the
respondent, testified that he drove his truck up to gate 11 about 9: 30 p. in. and
spoke with Jonnard for about 15 minutes. He stated that Jonnard's gait was
steady and he smelled no whiskey on Jonnard's breath. John H. Dickshott, a
plant protection employee, testified that he talked to Jonnard, at gate 4 about
11 p. in. as Jonnard was leaving the plant; that he smelled no liquor on Jonnard's
breath, and that Jonnard appeared to be sober. Patrick Michael Gallagher
testified that he met Jonnard at about midnight at a restaurant and that Jonnard
was sober. Arthur A. Schoenrath, police officer at Dearborn , testified that he saw
Jonnard at about the same address as that given by Gallagher, at 'about 11: 30
p in. and asked him if it was his off night, and that Jonnard replied that he was
fired. According to Schoenrath, Jonnard was sober."
It is seen from the above, that there is a great deal of conflict in the testimony
concerning Jonnard's condition on the night of April 14. The undersigned is
convinced, however, that, had Jonnard been intoxicated to the degree testified by
the respondent's witnesses, he would not have been able to go from place to place
alone and to drive his car unaided. The most disinterested of the witnesses was
the police officer, who, by virtue of his profession, might be termed an expert in
determining whether a man was drunk or sober. According to Schoenrath's
testimony, which the undersigned credits, Jonnard was, at the time they met,
sober. The undersigned has found that Wood was an evasive and unconvincing
witness. His version of the April 14-incident is not credited . The undersigned
finds that Wood made the statements attributed to him by Jonnard, and that it
33 Schoenrath was unable to recall the precise date on which he met Jonnard, but it i,
clear from his conversation with Jonnard and Jonnard's testimony that he saw Schoenral h
on the same night that he was discharged, that he encountered Jonnaid on the evening
of April 14 and the undersigned so finds.
546
i
DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was following argument between him and Jonnard about the U. P. W. A. that he
gave instructions for Jonnard to be sent home.
Assuming, however, that Jonnard had been drinking, it appears that normally,
while he would have been relieved of his post and sent home, he would not have
been discharged for his first offense in this respect. Bernard, who does- not
appear to have been directly involved in Jonnard's discharge, testified that it was
the respondent's policy to discharge anyone who "comes in drunk or becomes
'drunk during the course of the 8-hour period." Jonnard testified, however, with-
out contradiction, that four named employees, at least three of whom were
employed in the plant protection department, were sent home for being drunk at
their respective posts, but none was discharged. Fredericks admitted on cross-
examination that he knew of plant protection employees, other than •Jonnard,
who (had been sent home -for being drunk but were not discharged, and testified
that it was customary to warn the men before discharging them. The following
is an excerpt from Fredericks' cross-examination.
Q.... there have been a good many men who have been sent home for
drinking too much?
A. That's true. -
Q' And after they sobered up, were they given their jobs back, after the
warning?
A. They were.
There is no evidence that Jonnard was, at any time prior to April 14, in an
intoxicated condition while on duty, except the testimony of Dabney that, on an
occasioi • two or three months prior to April 14, Jonnard came to work and "was
drinking a little." Dabney testified that lie assigned Jonnard a job on this occa-
sion due to shortage of personnel, that when he saw Jonnard later, the latter was
"quite under the-influence of liquor,", and he warned Jonnard. "Bob, I don't care
-how much you drink any othei•'tiiae;,when I ani in chdrgc, the next time I will
send you Lome." It does not appear reasonable that a supervisor would assign
a man whom he knew to be drinking to a plant protection job, and allow him to
remain on the job, when it appeared that lie was "quite under the influence
,of liquor." The undersigned does not credit Dabney's testimony.
On the basis of the foregoing testimony and the entire record, the undersigned
is convinced and finds that the respondent:
(1) Opposed organization of its plant protection employees by the U. P. W. A.
and, by statements and conduct of its supervisors and agents set forth above,
discouraged membership in the U. P. W. A.;
(2) On November 17, 1941, terminated the employment of Jonnardlbecause
of his activity in behalf of the U. P. W. A and, while reinstating-him on Decem-
ber 1, 1941, continued to discriminate against him in the manner set forth above,
because of his union activity ; .
(3) On April 14, 1342, discharged Jonnard because of his continued membership
in, and activity in behalf of the U P. W. A. ; " and
(4) By the aforesaid statements and conduct of its agents and supervisors, has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.'
I
14 Jonnard secured employment after having been discharged by the respondent, and
about three weeks prior to the hearing, took a voluntary leave of absence for the purpose
of engaging in organizational activity for the IT. P.'W. A He was receiving $180 a month
at the time he began work in connection with the U. P. W. A.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 547
3. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Howard W. Leaver
Leaver was _employed by the respondent in the. plant protection department
of its River Rouge plant from October 3 to December 7, 1942, when he Was
discharged. Leaver joined the U. P. W. A. about, a week after he was employed
and was active in soliciting employees for membership in that organization.
At the'time' of his discharge Leaver was employed as a watchman at the FF
Building where coal was conveyed to an elevator and thence to the 'respondent's
,powerhouse. He had been on this assignment only 2 days when he wag dis-
charged. It was his duty to patrol the area and to guard against trespassers.
His working hours were from 8 a. in to 4 p. in.
On Sunday, December 6, Leaver left his post unattended at 3,:20 p . m. and,
walked to gate 1, a distance of some 500 yards from his post, to ask the tgate
keeper, John H. Dickschott, if he might ride with Dickschott in the latter's car
to gate 4, where the employees checked out on leaving the plant." When Leaver
reached gate 1 he saw Dickschott sitting in a car with James W. Wilson, a
foreman whom Leaver did not know at that time.18 Leaver went to the car,
asked Dickschott what time'he intended to drive,to gate 4, and when Dickschott
replied that he would be going in 10 or 15 minutes, Leaver said that he would
wait at gate 1. . . '
A few minutes later Wilson motioned Leaver to come to the car and offered
to drive him to gate 4. Leaver accepted the offer. Wilson asked Leaver how
long he had been employed by the respondent and what work he had. been en
-gaged in previously. According to Leaver, Wilson then told him "If you are com-
ing in here with the union . . . and dictate to these boys in here, and expect
seniority, you have got another thought coming" On cross-examination, Leaver
testified,that Wilson told him that he should put in 8 hours at his post "regard-
less of union` activities . . When they had reached gate 4, Wilson instructed
Leaver to "punch" ,his.card since the latter wanted to go home. After he had
punched his card, Leaver walked back to gate 1 and told Dickschott that he
thought he was fired. Dickschott replied : "I understand that Mr. Wilson thinks
you are Jewish." Leaver testified that he "got burned up about that" and that
seeing Wilson driving by about that time, he stopped Wilson and told him "I
am no more Jewish than you are."
Dickschott, who was chairman of the U. P. W. A. Board of Directors, testified
concerning the above incident that Wilson drove up to gate 1 and asked him to
get in the car. In the conversation that ensued Wilson asked "How about the
union, and how does this Leaver fit in the picture?" and wanted to know if Leaver
was a Jew. ,
Wilson, who worked directly under Joseph Charles Bernard, superintendent
of plant protection at the River Rouge plant, admitted that he asked Dickschott
how,the U. P. W. A. was "coming along," and that he knew that Dickschott
was on the U. P. W. A "committee." He testified that there had been a Board
election which resulted in only one vote being cast against the U. P. W. A., and
that he therefore assumed that all plant protection employees were members of
the U. P. W. A.'' Wilson admitted that he had knowledge that Leaver was a
iG On cross-examination, Leaver gave as a further reason for his absence from his post,
that he had lost his work badge at gate 1 Assuming that this was true, it affords no
justification for his having left his post unattended
16 Leaver testified that he had not met Wilson but had been advised "to be on the,]ook
out for him " ,
11 The Board election referred to by Wilson involved plant protection employees of the
respondent's Dearborn plant solely. This election was held on November 20, 1942, with
the result that 140 votes were cast for the U 1' W A and 1 vote aeamst that organiza-
tion See 44 N L R B 70.
548 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD"
member of the U. P. W. A. and'that he first learned of Leaver's union affiliation
on the day he talked with Dickschott . Wilson also admitted having once made
a remark to the effect that "unionism was in the air", but denied that he had
discussed the U. P. W. A with Bernard or other-supervisors of the respondent.
Testifying concerning his conversations with Leaver, Wilson stated " that while
he was driving Leaver from gate 1 to gate 4 he told Leaver ". . . I have been
getting bad reports about you. You don 't take your work seriously . You sire
going to put the blame on me . . . Regardless of the union question , that thing
[Leaver's absence from his post ] is going -to stand or fall'on its merits. What I
have to say to you is, you have to put in 8 hours , and 8 good hours`. That
means you can't be off the job." ' Wilson denied that he made the' statements
about ' the union attributed to him by Leaver. Wilson admitted that he had seen
Leaver leave his post on prior occasions , but hail not reprimanded or warned
him. Wilson had no authority to discharge but reported Leaver 's absence from
his post to Bernard. I -
On the day following his conversation with Wilson, Leaver reported for
work as usual 'but found his work card missing from the rack. He was there-
after directed to see Bernard,\admitted to Bernard that he-had left his post
early on the prior day , and gave , as an excuse , "I never have been told at what
particular time I was to leave, or any particular time." ' Bernard replied that
Leaver was well recommended ,18 that the FF Building was an important assign-
ment, and he had thought that Leaver was the man for the job. He then told
Leaver that he should not have left his post unattended , and discharged him.
Bernard tesified that the respondent 's entire operations depended on the power-
house, ' and coal for the powerhouse was drawn from the property which Bernard
was assigned to guard. It was Bernard's uncontradictedritestimony that prior to
Leaver's assignment to this post , a fire had occurred, at this ' building `during
which a conveyor belt for coal was burned. That coal dust is highly inflammable
is a matter of common knowledge . Bernard also testified , and Leaver admitted,
that prior to Leaver 's discharge , plant protection employees were sworn in as
auxiliary military police and a part of the oath administered them by a
government officer was that they would not leave their post while on duty
without being relieved. If a plant protection employee wished to be relieved he
was required to call the office and , according to Bernard , if there was a legitimate
reason for the man leaving his post an employee would be sent to relieve him.
Bernard further testified : "We try to see the men are relieved around about
5 and 10 minutes before 4 o'clock, so that they can get back and ring out . . "
As to Leaver 's union affiliation Bernard testified : "I have no knowledge of his
union status at all I have had no occasion to know. I had no contact with
him, except that I called him in my office , because he left his post."
'Leaver testified that he understood that he was to check out at,-'gate 4'at the
end of 'his work shift , and that he normally would have left his post at 3:30 or
3:40 p m. He admitted , however, that it was only 10 or 15 minutes walking
distance from his post to gate 4. He further testified that he was never told to
wait at his post until a relief man had arrived . While it is reasonable to'believe
that, in the absence of instructions to the contrary , he may have understood that
it was permissable to leave his post in time to check out at 4 'p. in., the end of his
work shift , this would afford no justification for his having left his post on
December 6 some 40 minutes prior to the end of his work shift . Furthermore,
since he admitted that 'he and other plant protection employees were sworn in
as auxiliary military police of the United States Armed Forces , and 'a part of
the oath administered was that he employee would remain at his post until
18 Leaver was recommended for employment by Stan Fay , an assistant to Harry Bennett,
the respondent 's personnel director
' I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 549'
relieved, it is clear that he had full knowledge of the requirement that he should
remain at his post until the end of his work shift or until relieved.
Dicksehott testified that it had been customary on some jobs to leave early,
'but further testified, "I don't know whether it is today or not." Bernard testi-
fied on this same topic , "In the past, we have been more or less flexible about
'that. Before the war started, there were times when we wouldn' t be as exactipg
as we have been recently. But since the war started, and since we have had to.
take on increased responsibility, at least, when that came up [Leaver's absence,
from his post], I discharged him." According to Dickschott, a short time prior to,
the hearing in this proceeding, he left his own post 2 minutes before the end of
his work shift, when he thought an employee was approaching to relieve him, and'
on the following day he was called to account by his supervisor and while he
was-permitted to resume his post, he suffered a $15 pay reduction. The Board
does not allege that this penalty was discriminatory, although Dickschott's
U. P. W. A. activity was well known to the respondent. The foregoing incident
bespeaks the gravity with which the respondent regarded a plant protection
employee's leaving his post unattended.
In view of the total situation of war industry, the nature of Leaver' s duties
as a plant protection employee and member of the auxiliary military police,-
and Leaver's undoubted knowledge of the requirement that he should remain
at his post until 'the end of his work shift unless relieved , the undersigned is
convinced that there was justifiable cause' for his discharge. Some doubts of
the actual cause of his discharge are raised by Wilson's testimony but Wilson
had no authority to discharge and while he was an assistant to Bernard, there is
no evidence that he reported to Bernard concerning Leaver's U. P. W. A. affilia-
tion. Bernard's testimony was unequivocal and persuasive and he testified that
The discharged Leaver after being informed by Wilson: that Leaver had left his
post unattended. In view of the foregoing and upon consideration of'the entire
record, the undersigned finds that the respondent discharged Leaver because he
left his post unattended and will recommend dismissal of the allegation of the
Board's' complaint that Leaver was discharged because of his union activities.
4 The alleged discriminatory' discharge of William Harry Bailey, , Charles
Eugene Bailey, and Robert Elroy Brown,
Brown, and William and Charles Bailey were service department employees
of the respondent's Dearborn plant at the time of their alleged discriminatory
discharge on May 25, 1942. Each had been employed at the Dearborn plant for
several years and had worked in various job capacities William Bailey had been.
successively employed at River Rouge, the Ford. farms, and Dearborn, and in
various job capacities as a washer, a sweeper, a driver, and gate watchman
At the time of his discharge he was a gate watchman at the Dearborn airport 1°
Charles Bailey was at the time of his discharge a watchman and, on occasion,
washed cars and drove trucks at the Dearborn laboratory. Brown during the
period of his employment drove a service car, washed cars, and served as a gate
watchman ; at the time of his discharge he was "supervising" the gasing of trucks
and cars and the washing of tanks and trucks at the airport.
The three emloyees joined the U. P. W. A. in January' or February 1942,
attended meetings of the Union, and engaged in other organizational activity
William Bailey was a U. P. A. W. steward for the day shift at the airport,
Charles Bailey a steward for the day shift at the Dearborn engineering
laboratory, and Brown, chief steward for the Dearborn' unit of operations.
19 The airport was a part of the Dearborn unit of operations which includes also an
engineering laboratory; the latter was housed in a separate building.
536105-44-vol. 50--36
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAIRD
Each of these employees testified that he wore a steward's button during working
hours.20 - , -
They each testified concerning conversations they had had with, Austin Kyle
Moore, a supervisor. In these conversations, Moore made reference to the
steward-buttons the men wore and asked,if he could obtain one. Moore did
not deny the statements thus attributed to him, and testified that he knew who
the Union members were and that "The majority' might have had (Union)
buttons on at that time. They wore buttons almost all the time."
Moore, a Board witness, who was transferred to River Rouge and demoted
to a non-supervisory position on January 14, 1943, with a reduction in pay, testi-
fied that at-a time prior to the discharge of Brown and Charles and William
,Bailey, Raymond Dahlinger. superintendent of the Henry Ford Farms told' him,
"`Get rid of all those guys with the buttons on them" Moore replied that he -
could, not do that since "they all got buttons on there" Dahlinger inquired "Who -
has organized this bunch'?" and when Moore replied that he did not know,
Dahlinger said, "All right, forget about it . . . I will get a fellow that will find
out." Moore had no authority to hire or fire and testified, "He [Dahlinger] knew'
I couldn't get rid of those men." 'Dahlinger denied that he made the statements
attributed to him by Moore. It is not plausible that Dahlinger would instruct
a foreman who had no authority to hire or discharge to "get rid of" union
members and the undersigned does not credit that portion of Moore's testimony
,On May 25 , 1942, Brown'and William and Charles Bailey were each directed
to report to William J. Theisen, who was at that time superintendent of plant
protection employees of the Dearborn plant. Theisen advised these employees,
individually, that it was necessary to reduce plant protection personnel at the
Dearborn plant and that he had transfers made out for them. - He directed
them to take their respective transfers to the employment office. Each.refused
to take-the proffered transfer and was then directed by Theisen to leave-the
plant. When on the following day they attempted to return to their old. jobs
they were denied access to the plant .by the gate keeper who showed them a
typewritten notice which stated that they were not to be admitted. The notice
also bore the name of, John Frlizzina who had been offered and had accepted
a transfer to the River Rouge plant on the prior day.2' Brown and Charles and
William Bailey later visited the River Rouge employment office where an
employment clerk advised them that he lead. no information concerning a
transfer for their: s
Theisen, in explanation of the transfers, testified that upon receiving a Gov-
ernment contract for the construction of the B-24 Bomber in 1941, the personnel
at' the Dearborn airport was increased by some 2800 employees and that it
therefore became necessary to build up the plant protection force at that time.
In March 1942, some 2500 employees were transferred from the Dearborn to the
newly constructed Willow Run plant where the B-24 Bomber was to be built.
According to Theisen, it thereupon became "compulsory" to reduce the Dearborn
"There were five U. P. W. A stewards in all and presumably the other two , w'h'ose
navies were not divulged in the testimony, wore their steward buttons also. The Board
does not allege that they were disciimnnated against.
u Frazzina did not testify , and the record does not disclose whether he was a member
of the U. P. W. A. Moore testified that lie had not observed Frazzina wearing a U. P.
W. A button.
2 Since the employees had definitely refused the transfers when they were offered by
Theisen they could hardly have expected the said transfers to have been awaiting them at
the employment office.
i FORD MOTOR COMPAJ Y 551
plant protection force and this force was reduced from 319 to 285 or 286 em-'
ployees within a period of 90 days.' A proportionate reduction in plant
protection personnel would be entirely logical under the circumstances of a
drastic overall reduction in personnel and the undersigned credits Theisen's
testimony.
Testifying concerning the transfer of the three employees named in the
complaint, Theisen stated that William Bailey was a chronic complainer and had
been shifted from job to job due to dissatisfaction with every job given him.14
According to Theisen, "after a -certain length of time, any foreman he worked
for was glad to pass him on to somebody else." In January 1942 Bailey asked
to be taken off the gate where lie had been stationed as watchman and put back
on driving, but Theisen told him "When you were on driving, you were com-
plainingabout, the other people getting the best trips, that is the reason I put
you on the gate, now you are not satisfied there. I have been, ever since you
have been on the gate, trying to get you the gate, you prefer to have, and you
are still dissatisfied. And I am not going to put you back on driving." Bailey
then asked for a transfer to the River Rouge plant, and Theisen replied that
as soon as he was in a position to release Bailey, he would be glad to give him
a transfer. The above testimony was not contradicted by Bailey who admitted
that he had asked to be taken off the gate and put on driving. When on May
25 Theisen offered Bailey the transfer and directed him to take it to the
employment manager at River Rouge he told Bailey, "I know there are plenty
of openings, because they are asking for men. They said they would take any
men we could release from this plant and place them on defense production."
Concerning Charles Bailey, Theisen 'testified that he was a "peaceful worker"
and that he offered him a transfer at the same time with his brother, William,
because they drove back and forth from work in the same car: "Due to the rub-
her situation, which was getting acute, and more as a favor than anything else,
was the reason the' transfer was offered to' Charles Bailey." He admitted that
Charles Bailey had not asked for a transfer and that he was denied further
employment at the Dearborn plant when lie refused to take it.
Brown, according to Theisen, had requested a transfer on four different occa-
sions because he wanted to get into "welding" but was refused since the requests
came at a' time when it was necessary to increase plant protection personnel at
the Dearborn plant. Theisen testified, "I told him to continue'his school work
on welding and just as soon as I could see my way, clear to give him a transfer,
I would do it." Brown admitted that lie was taking courses in welding and
33'Severah • Board witnesses testified that new employees were hired (luring this period.
Olaf S. Rose ,.an officer of the U . P..W'. A., who was office clerk din ing this period, testified
that new men came in continuously during the spring of 1942 and that these was alwajs
a shortage of plant protection employees . Ile also testified that Tennis , a supervisor,
told him in tine spring of 1942, " If they don 't quit giving these transfers I am going to
tell Mr. Theisen to stop it or I won't have enough men to run the shift ." He admitted,
however, that although employment records were available to him while he was clerk,
he did not ' refer to these records to determine whether there was an overall reduction of,
plant protection personnel . Moore testified that plant protection personnel was reduced
by a6 more than two-or three employees dining this period , but this appears to have
been a mere guess and the Board offered no documentary evidence in substantiation of
this claim. Walter Kaschmerovsky testified that he was rehired on May 25 , 1942, after
a considerable period during which lie had been employed elseiihere He was employed
to wash tractors Theisen admitted that new men may have been hired during this
period but further testified that during the same period numerous employees were leaving
the respondents employ upon being inducted into the armed forces . Board witnesses
testified similarly
a Bailey,'s own testimony reveals that he was transferred from job to job on numerous
occasions prior to May 24, 1942. ' ' . -
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,-that he asked for a transfer during the latter part of 1941 to a welding school at
the Dearborn airport. He testified on cross-examination that he asked for &
transfer only once, but on direct examination he testified that on May 25 when
offered a transfer by Theisen, he stated to Theisen : "I asked you for a transfer
_ about, three or four times before and you didn't give it to me." According to
Brown, Theisen replied that he did not have men to release on the prior occa-
sions. Brown admitted that Theisen told him on May 25 that the job to which
he would be transferred would "probably" be welding and offered him a choice
of going to the River Rouge or Highland Park Plant. Theisen testified concern-
ing Brown's transfer "If he would have taken that transfer and asked me to
recommend him to some welding job, I would have willingly done it," and
further testified that at that time there was a demand for welders at the River
Rouge, Highland Park and Willow Run plants. According to Brown, when
offered a transfer, he asked Theisen "if he was afraid of a little organization
coming in here," and Theisen replied that he "didn't know anything about that."
Concerning the notices barring access to the Dearborn plant to the four em-
ployees who had been offered transfers on May 25,'Theisen testified without
contradiction that it was a regular practice that if a man left a job he was there-
after restricted from coming into the plant at random, and since the men had
not turned in their badges, it was necessary to notify the gate keepers to refuse
them admittance. They were not, however, refused admittance through the
plant office where they could request permission to see whom they wished to see
None of the three employees named in the complaint made any effort to see
Theisen after May 25 when they refused the transfers offered them.
Theisen, who was injured in 1941, and was thereafter irregular in his attendance
at the plant, denied that he had any knowledge of U P. W. A. activities among
plant protection employees at the time of'the transfers or that he had observed'
'any _of `the employees „wearing U. P: W. A. buttons. He further testified' that
Moore had nothing to do with the matter of the transfers. Moore testified that
due to Theisen's injury he was instructed not to tell Theisen "anything," and
there is no evidence that he advised Theisen of the U. P. W. A. activity of the
three employees involved in the May 25 transfers. Had there been such dis-
cussions, Moore, whose testimony generally was adverse to the respondent, would
undoubtedly have alluded to them in his testimony After 11 years as superin-
tendent of the Dearborn plant protection department Theisen was himself
transferred to the respondent's sociological department on November 23, 1942,
where he was employed in a non-supervisory capacity.
It is clear from all the testimony that during their years of employment with
the respondent each of the three employees named in the complaint had been
transferred from one job to another on numerous occasions 25 When they were
offered transfers on May 25 they refused the transfers without making any
inquiry whatever as to the type of jobs to which they might be transferred. There
is no showing that the offer of the transfers was not made in good faith
or that the jobs to which they may have been transferred would not have
been equivalent in all respects to the positions they then held. Theisen's
explanation of the reduction of the plant protection personnel following the trans-
fers in the spring of 1942 of some 2800 employees from Dearborn to the Willow
Run plant, was logical' and convincing. The undersigned believes and finds that
in his selection of Brown, Charles and William Bailey foe transfer on May 25,
1942, Theisen was not influenced by knowledge of their union activities but was
motivated by the reasons given in his testimony. The undersigned accordingly
finds that the respondent did not discharge Brown and Charles and William
13 Brown admitted that he had been transferred frequently 'dui ing the period of his
employment and testified : "That was done all the time 11
I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 553 ,
Bailey because of their union activities and will recommend that the Board's
complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges the discriminatory discharge of these
three employees.
B. Draftsmen
It is alleged, in the Board's complaint as amended that the respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged nine employees engaged in tool and die designing at the`
respondent's Airframe, a part of the Dearborn unit of operations 2d
The following background facts concerning which there is no conflict in the
testimony, tend to narrow the scope of the issue, and to facilitate understanding
of the total situation in which the alleged discriminatory discharges occurred.
1. Background of respondent operations
%
Prior to May, 1941, the respondent employed approximately 200 tool and die
designers, herein called draftsmen. In June or July, 1941, the respondent com-
menced work on certain defense contracts and the number of draftmen in its
employ was increased to about 1,000 men. 'Since there was room for only about
200 draftsmen at the River Rouge plant, a group of draftsmen working on, a
bomber project for the United States armed forces was transferred to the Air-'
frame building at the Dearborn Unit which was, at the time, nearly vacant.
Most of the draftsmen alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged on De-
cember 16, 1942, were transferred from the River Rouge plant to the Airframe
on this occasion. In the spring of 1942 the bomber project was moved to' the
respondent's newly constructed Willow Run plant, and a number of the employ-
ees who had been engaged on the project followed the job to Willow Run. A
few months later, some of the group so transferred were returned to the Airframe
where drafting operations were continuing uninterruptedly on successive govern-
went contracts.
Towards the end of 1942 work at the Airframe began to dwindle, as drafting
work on government contracts neared completion. Work on a tank destroyer;
the last remaining job at the Airframe, was scheduled for completion on
December 15, 1942. Cliff C. Crysler, who was in charge of draftsmen opera-
tions at the Airframe, testified that he made several efforts to obtain add!-,
tional work to keep the 'Airframe in operation. When these efforts were
unsuccessful, he made plans to discontinue the unit. On December 15, near
the closing time, Crysler gave a group of draftsmen transfer slips and directed
them to report to the River Rouge employment office. Of the 10 employees
receiving transfer slips on or about that date, the following 8 are alleged to have
been discriminatorily discharged :
John S. Binder George Kouri
Edward R. Komorowski Nick Strok
Robert Earl Erriar Henry S. Peterson
Ecy Elian Maida 2T Azad Sarafian
The remaining two employees who received transfers on that date but who
are not alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged are :
Russell P. Cramer William W. Smith
Phillip Keck, a starman or foreman,' also alleged to ,have been discrimi-
28 Eight employees were alleged to have been discharged on December 16, 1942. The
ninth employee, Edward Iiomoronski was alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged
on December 15, 1942, rehired on December 16, 1942 and then again discriminatorily dis-
charged on December 17, 1942.
27 Maida was first given a "quit" slip. However, lie was thereafter returned to his job
on the some day and was, toward the close of his work shift, given a transfer slip similar
to that given the other transferees.
starinan had no authority to hire or to discharge, but exercised other supervisory
functions normally vested in a foieman.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
natorily discharged , received a transfer slip on December 17 and was directed
to report to the employment office.
All remaining draftsmen of the Airframe were transferredton or-about Jan-
uary 1, 1943, the entire Airframe unit being closed on or about that date.
Approximately 69 draftsmen were employed by the respondent at the Airframe
in,December 1942, prior to the transfers.
2. Organizational background
The first organizational activity among the, draftsmen of which there is sub-
stantial evidence, occurred in the spring of 1941, during a U. A. W strike.
At that time, several employees named in the complaint joined a union affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor. , There is some evidence that
certain supervisory employees participated in this union's campaign for mem-
hers. However, it appears that membership of draftsmen in this union was
merely nominal and of brief duration. Shortly thereafter a large number of
Airframe draftsmen, including those alleged to have,been discriminatorily dis-
charged, with the possible exception of Nick Strok and Azad Saraflan, 'Joined
the Society of Designing Engineers, a labor union affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, and herein called the S. D. E. S. D. E. activities
were carried on openly and with the respondent's knowledge. It appears that
the S. D., E. requested and was refused the respondent's recognition as bargain-
ing representative of the Airframe draftsmen In 'the summer of 1942, the
draftsmen transferred their membership from the S. D. E. to the U. A. W., upon
representations of officials of the latter organization than an effort would be
made to include draftsmen in the U. A. W. contract with the respondent. When
the contract of November 4, 1942 again excluded draftsmen from the bar-
gaining unit, membership of draftsmen in the U. A. W. lapsed. There was no
further organizational activity among the draftsmen. until December, 1942. -
As heretofore appears, the U. P. W. A. was primarily engaged in organizing
plant protection employees. In November, 1942, it won a Board election and on
December 3, 1942, was certified by the Board as the bargaining representative of
,plant protection employees of the Dearborn plant- of which the Airframe was
a unit 2' On or about November 25, 1942,,and early December, the U. P. W. A:
filed petitions for certification as bargaining representatives of plant protection
employees at the Highland Park and River Rouge plants, respectively.
Shortly after the U. P. W. A. won-the election at the Dearborn, plant, John S.
Binder, a draftsman, discussed with Jonnard, U. P. W. A. president, the matter
of having the U. P. W. A. represent the draftsmen. Jonnard advised Binder
-that if he was successful in getting enough U. P. W. A. membership cards signed
by Airframe draftsmen, he would communicate with the respondent requesting
recogntion of the U. P. W. A. as bargaining representatives of the Airframe
draftsmen, and if this request met with refusal, would petition the Board for
an election. Binder thereafter personally obtained about 25 draftsmen signa-
tures on U. P. W. A. membership cards, and of a total of some 69 draftsmen
employed at the Airframe in December, 48 signed U. P. W. A. cards. These
cards were signed on December 8 and 9, 1942. On December 11, Jonnard ad-
dressed a letter to H. H. Bennett, the respondent's personnel director, request-
ing recognition of the U. P. W. A. as bargaining representative of Airframe
draftsmen. The respondent made no reply to this letter. Jonnard testified
that the U. P. W. A. had made no effort to organize draftsmen except at the
respondent's Airframe.
Binder testified that a majority of the men signing U. P. W. A. cards signed'
them in the respondent's plant during working hours, while others signed dur-
`t
29 See 45 N. L. R B. 70.
I
FORD 1\IOTOR COMPANY 555
mg the lunch periods. When asked if this activity was carried on openly,
Binder testified that he "couldn't flash" the card's around, that he gave theist
out and the men returned them, and "that was all there was to it." Employees
signing U. P. W. A. cards wore no insignia of membership, there were no
U. P. W. A. meetings of,draftsmen, and the U.-P. W. A letter of December 11
made no mention of names of employees who,had affiliated with that union.
3. The discriminatory transfers of Binder, Koinorowski, Errair, Maida, Kouri,
Strok, Peterson, Sarafian, and Keck $°
On Decembed 15, 1942, Maida was given a "quit" slip at the direction of
Crysler, who was in charge of Airframe draftsmen Maida considered that he
had been discharged 93 and spoke to Binder, U. P. W. A. steward, and was
30 The following is the employment record, in brief, of draftsmen alleged to have been
discriminatorily discharged:
Binder attended the respondent's apprentice school in 1996, and in May of that year
was employed' at the River Rouge plant. In 1939 he was transferred 'to the drafting room
in that plant,, and in August 1941, to the Airframe. In April 1942, he was promoted from
it position as Number 2 designer to Number 1 designer, and occupied the latter position
until his employment was terminated in December 1942. From a starting wage of 55
cents an hour, he received successive wage increases, and was receiving $1.45 an hour at
the time his employment was terminated
Komorowski attended the respondent's trade school from 1935 to 1939, when he began
work at the River Rouge plant as a tool maker's apprentice at 75 cents an hour There-
after he was transferred to various departments and received several wage increases. He
was first transferred to the Airframe in July 1941. At the time his employment was
terminated, lie was a Number 1 designer receiving a wage of $1.55 an hour.
Errair attended the respondent's apprentice school from March to June, 1941, when he
was transferred to the River Rouge drafting room at 75 cents an hour, In August 1941
he was transferred to the Airframe. He received successive wage increases and, in May
1942, was raised to $1.35 an hour. On December 7, 1942, he received another wage, in-
crease.
Maida started in the respondent's apprentice school in February 1941, and on September
15 was transferred to the drafting room of Airframe. On April 16, 1942, his wages were
raised from $1.00 to $1.15 an hour. He received a further wage increase in September
1942. i
Kouri was employed by the respondent on October 5, 1941, as a Number 1 detailer at,
the Airframe, at a starting wage of $1.00 an hour, and thereafter received three wage
increases.
Strok was employed by the respondent in production from 1935 to 1937. He was there-
after employed as a truck driver, and still later was transferred to tool and die designing.
From February 1942 to the termination of his employment in December, except for a brief
period- at Willow Run, in 1942,' he was employed at the Airframe. He received several
wage increases and in September 1942 was promoted from a position as Number 2
detailer to a Number 1 detailer, with a wage increase of 10 cents an hour.
Peterson attended the respondent's apprentice school in 1936 and in 1937 was trans-
ferred to the River Rouge plant, where he served a 2-year apprenticeship. In January
1941, he was transferred to the drafting room at River Rouge and was granted a wage
increase in'Februar•y In the spring of 1941, he was transferred to the Airframe. From
a starting wage of 55 cents an hour, he received, successive wage increases and was em-
ployed as a Number 2 designer at $1.30 an hour at the time his employment was
terminated.
Sarafian attended the respondent's trade school from 1937 to 1941, when he was trans.
ferred to the engineering department at the Airframe, at a starting wage of 80 cents an
hour. He was transferred to Willow Run in February 1942, and back to the Airframe in
May 1942, where he worked under Crysler until his employment was terminated. His
wages were raised from 80 cents to $1 05 an hour.
Kock, after attending the respondent's trade school from 1932 to 1937, was employed
by the respondent as a clerk on March 31, 1937, at 75 cents an hour, and remained in
that capacity until June 1, 1937 when he was first employed as a draftsman at 80 cents
an hour Prior to December 1942, Keck, was made a "star man" or foreman at $1 85 an
hour, and served in that capacity until his employment was terminated As a foreman,
he exercised general supervision over a group of men and was vested with authority to
recommend wage increases or to recommend for a discharge
81 A quit slip was commonly used to designate termination of employment.
I
:556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directed by Binder to see Mr. Garcia, an official of the U. A. W 3: Maida saw
Garcia at the latter's office and Garcia telephoned Crysler Garcia told Maida
that Crysler had informed him that the Airframe • was running out of work.
Maida and Garcia then saw Temple, a representative of management who appears
to have handled grievance matters for the respondent at its Airframe. Pursuant
to this meeting and after having conferred with Crysler, Temple advised Maida
.that Crysler would reinstate him but that "the work was cut short and they
would be breaking up in about two weeks." Maida then returned to his job and
worked the rest of that day. Near closing time lie was given a transfer slip
-and directed to report to the River Rouge employment office 33
Starman Keck testified that he spoke to Temple that same day about Maida's
"discharge" and that Temple advised him that there was no reason to lay off the
man for lack of work since "there was plenty of work in the company over at
Rouge and the Highland Park." Keck testified concerning Temple that he was
"in charge of the Dearborn Airframe and also took care of the grievances for
the company." Temple did not testify. The undersigned credits the undisputed
testimony of Keck and Maida and finds that Temple was a representative of
management and that he made the statements attributed to him by the Board's'
witnesses.
Near the close of the work shift, on the same day, Binder, Komorowski, Kouri,
Strok, Peterson and Sarafian,' were also given transfer slips by Crysler who
directed them to report to the employment office at the River Rouge plant. Errair
was given a transfer slip on the following day with identical instructions. All
of these employees had received inter-departmental transfers prior to this date,
but these prior transfers had normally designated the department to which the
employee was being transferred 34 The transfer slips given the employees by ,
-Crysler on this occasion bore no such designation. The following is an excerpt
from Komorowski's testimony on this topic :
Q What is the custom as far as you have knowledge with reference to these
transfers?
A. Generally, the transfer is given, is an inter-department transfer from
one drafting room to another, regardless of what branch.
Q. In that case are you sent to an' employment office at all?
A. No, sir. ' We are given a transfer.
Q. Is it at all unusual to be sent to the employment office?
A. Yes, sir. For a general transfer. When you are sent to the employ-
ment office, that really means there is something wrong and you will probably
be offered production or asked to quit. -
Komorowski's testimony was substantially corroborated by that of other Board
witnesses, was not contradicted by the respondent, and is credited.
Binder and other employees who received transfer slips on this occasion
asked Crysler if it would not be fair to first lay off men who had been em-
ployed only a few months, and Crysler's^ only answer was that all of the
ri Binder testified that Garcia was at one time interested in organizing the draftsmen.
He also testified that he sent Maida to Garcia since Jonnard, U. P. W. A. president, was
working at the time Maida was given a quit slip and was therefore not available to assist
Maida In obtaining reinstatement at that time.
33 Crysler admitted that lie gave Maida a quit slip but stated that it was a mistake since
he did not know how to go about closing down the department He did not explain why
he reinstated the employee only to transfer him the same day, and he made no mention in
his testimony of conversations with Garcia or Temple concerning Maida's reinstatement.
34 There were blank spaces on the transfer slip which when filled in by the department
head would indicate from which department the employee was being transferred and also
the department to which the transferee was being assigned. '
FORT) MOTOR COMPANY 557
Airframe'draftsmen would soon be out of work. To those who inquired, Crysler
stated that their work had been satisfactory. The respondent made no con-
tention that the employees receiving transfer slips' on this, occasion were not -
efficient and satisfactory employees.
Binder and several others of the transferees testified, without contradiction,
'that shortly prior,to the time they received their, transfers, they had been given
job assignments which would have required two or more weeks for comple-
tion. It further appears, from the testimony of the Board's witnesses and
from the fact of greatly increased personnel following the beginning of work
at the Airframe, that the transferees had seniority over numerous other em-
ployees who were retained on the Airframe payroll until January 1, 1943 and
who were then given interdepartmental transfers.
On December 16, Errair, Maida. Kouri, Peterson, Sarafian and Binder re-
ported to the River Rouge employment office as directed by Crysler and were
there advised that the only jobs available were in production Maida gave
his transfer slip to an employment clerk, Sylvester, who turned to an assistant,
Sullivan, and asked "What are you doing with these two men from N-519-D?"
Sullivan replied "All we can offer them is production or finger-printing. The
top rate is $1.05 an hour." Kouri was asked by Sylvester, "Are you one of
the boys from the bunch?" and when he answered, "I guess we are," Sylvester
said "All I have to offer you is fingerprint operating or production." Peterson
was advised that if he could have his transfer slip filled' in to show a transfer
to a definite department, something could be done for him, but "outside of
that" there was nothing for him except production. Binder told Sylvester that
-there probably were openings for men in the drafting rooms at the Highland
Park and the Willow Run plants and Sylvester replied, "Well, that is not up to
me" and added "the only thing I can, offer you is 'a production job." Sarafian
was asked, "Are you one of the bunch, too?" and was then offered a job in
production at 85 cents to 95 cents an hour. When Strok reported to the em-
ployment office on December 22, he was asked by Sylvester, "You are one of
the boys that got laid off, too, aren't you?" When/Strok replied in the affirma-
tive, Sylvester looked at a card in his desk which bore a list of names; Syl-
vester then advised Strok that he could offer the latter nothing except a job in
production. " .
Notwithstanding advice of the River Rouge employment office that only pro-
duction jobs we're, available, several of the transferees made,efforts to,obtain
draftsman work at others of the respondent's plants. Komorowski called Morti-
mer, head of the drafting room at Highland Park, and Mortimer advised him that
he thought he could use him, but that Komorowski should see Crysler about the
transfer. Crysler, though he had suggested to some of the transferees that
they should try to find positions in other plants for themselves, told Komorowski
that he would have to go to the employment office' At the employment office,
Komorowski obtained a transfer to Highland Park, and reported for work in
Mortimer's department on October 16. He worked a part of that day and until
nearly noon on the following day. Mortimer then advised him that although
his work was satisfactory, he had orders to transfer him, and further stated :
"I was reprimanded for hiring you because I had my orders not to hire in any
more fellows, into the drafting room . . . Mr. Pioch [William Pioch, Sr., respond-'
ent's chief engineer] called me and reprimanded me for hiring you " At the
Highland Park employment office, Komorowski was advised by the employment
85 By "Production" Is meant non-professional work.
Komorowski testified that Crysler's refusal was "a little out of the ordinary because
generally an inter-department transfer would take care of that ; from drafting room to
drafting room."
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)i
clerk, Baxter, "I have my orders to transfer you, and that's all there is' to i:t."
He refused to tell Komorowski who had given him such orders. Mortimer and
Baxter did not testify and Pioch, Sr., though testifying, did not contradict
Komorowski's testimony. Komorowski's testimony is credited. As directed by
Baxter he reported back to the River Rouge employment office, where he was
offered a job in production at 85 cents an hour, which he refused. Following
the termination of his employment, Komorowski obtained from Crysler a letter
of recommendation which stated, inter alia, "On the basis of his work here, I
can recommend him highly."
Errair, Peterson, Sarafian and William Smith,' went to Willow Run in an effort
.to obtain employment at that plant. Peterson testified that he was advised by
Don Pickles, bead of the drafting department of that plant, that there were
no vacancies. The employees then made an effort to see Ed Scott, head of the
Willow Run engineering division. Errair testified that while they were waiting
to see Scott, two starmen employed at that plant advised them that Scott "could
use some men." They were unable to secure an interview with Scott, who after
looking at the list of their names which had been handed to him by a,secretary,
made a telephone call, and, then left the office without speaking to them. A
few minutes later a plant protection employee directed them to the Willow
Run employment office where they were unable to secure employment. Peterson
testified that at the Willow Run employment office they were advised that Miller,
head of the River Rouge employment office, was looking for them. They immedi-
ately went to the River Rouge employment office where they were advised that
Miller was not in. Binder sought employment at the River Rouge drafting
department and, was advised by Popeck, assistant superintendent at River Rouge,
that there were no vacancies but that some were expected later. Binder was
told that if such a vacancy occurred, it would probably be a "detailer" job at a
much lower rate of pay than Binder had been receiving. He was also advised
of a position in the engineering department which was then open, but Binder
.admitted that he was not qualified for this position.
Philip Keck testified that on December 15, Crysler approached him and in-
quired, "What's griping yoti," to which Keck replied that Robert Backoff and
William Pioch, Jr., starmen of the same status as Keck, had been trying to do
him "dirty" ever since they met. According to Keck, Crysler then inquired,
"how come these fellows want to join the union? Did they ever refuse to give
them a raise when I asked fora raise for some of the boys?" Keck made no
response and Crysler then stated that lie had been asked by the River Rouge
plant "couldn't he handle his men over at the Air Frame." Crysler though testi-
fying, did not deny the statements thus attributed to him by Keck, and the
undersigned credits Keck's testimony.
On the following day, having learned of the transfers, Keck asked Backoff
and, Pioch, Jr., why all his "buddies" had been "picked" for the lay-off.' They
replied that Crysler had designated the men. Later this same day, Crysler
told Keck, "You claim I picked all your buddies," and when Keck replied, "Well,
I
17 Keck's association of Rackoff and Pioch , Jr , with the transfer of men from the Air-
frame appears to have derived from an incident which occurred on Thanksgiving, 1942,
when Backoff and Pioch , Jr. were absent from their jobs during a period of their work
shifts. On the following day Keck had refused to countersign their time sheets for the
time they were thus absent from their jobs . Errair testified in this connection that after
he had received his transfer slip from Crysler , Overly, a starman , asked him what he was
doing, and when he replied , "nothing," Overly said : " Vow, don ' t' go blaming me. It was
because of a few star men in here that had it in for Mr. Philip Keck." Pioch , Jr. was the
son of the chief engineer of the respondent ' s tool engineering division, and Backoff was
related to one of the respondent 's officials . The respondent made no contention that the
'Thanksgiving incident had any bearing on the matter 'of transfers.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 559
,that is just the way it looks," Crysler said, "Well , it doesn't look good for a
foremen to have buddies around here, anyhow ." He then asked Keck if he
wanted to choose the next 10 men to be laid off , and added , "Before the week
is over they will all be transferred, anyhow . . ." Crysler indicated to Keck
at this time that there were no draftsman jobs available at the Willow Run,
Highland Park and River Rouge plants. Crysler 's version of the above con-
versation was substantially the same as Keck's. When questioned if the trans-
ferees were all men from his "crew", Keck testified that they were "the fellows
I used to hang around with , mostly."
On December 16, Keck, learning that Crysler proposed to close down Air-
frame operations , took a company car and during work hours went to the
Willow Run plant where he saw Wagner, supervisor of a ll nonproduction work
at that plant. Keck testified that Wagner said he could use him (Keck) at
once, although he did not have a supervisor 's job open ; that he would keep
Keck in mind and as soon as an opening for a supervisor developed he would
employ Keck . Wagner asked if there were any men leaving the Airframe and
Keck replied that Crysler was transferring the draftsmen from that plant be-
cause of lack of work . Wagner thereupon tried to telephone Crysler and unable
to reach him, then called William Pioch , Sr. During the conversation which
ensued , Keck overheard Wagner say, "Yes, they have their grievances," and
"they try to - take over .", Keck testified that after Wagner had concluded his
conversation with Pioch , Sr., his attitude was "altogether different " ; that Wag-
ner then told him it would be up to Pioch, Sr ., whether he obtained •a place at
Willow Run . On the following day Pioch reprimanded Keck for leaving his
job during working hours , and for using a'company car. Wagner did not testify.
Pioch , Sr., denied that he had a telephone conversation with Wagner as testi-
fied to by Keck. Keck was a credible witness and his entire testimony is
credited.
On December 17, Crysler gave Keck a transfer slip similar to those given prior
transferees . Keck reported to the River Rouge employment office where he was
advised by the employement clerk that the only jobs available were in produc-
tion . On December 23, Keck telephoned William Taylor , assistant to Scott at
Willow Run , and asked if Taylor could use him. Taylor replied, "Use you,
heck , .yes ; come over , I will put you to work right away ." When Keck arrived
at Willow - Run, he sent his transfer slip in to- Scott. According to Keck, the
following then occurred : I
All of a sudden I seen Mr. Scott's clerk get pp from the desk. They drawed
a 3 x 5 card over there and pointed on there. They had a talk.
Taylor then advised Keck , "you have to , go to the employment office to thresh
this out.' ; At the Willow Run employment office, Keck handed a clerk his trans-
fer slip. According to Keck, the clerk left • the office and then came back in
and inquired of another person in ' the office , "Where is that sheet?" After
leafing through several sheets of paper, the clerk advised Keck, "I can't help
you, it is up to the Rouge employment office to transfer you up here."
Before reporting back to the River Rouge office, Keck stopped at Pioch, Sr.'s
office and told Pioch, Sr., that he had an opportunity to obtain a job at Willow
Run. Pioch said , "Why don't you take it, I am not stopping you." Keck replied,
"Yes, you are ," and "You have me blackballed ." Pioch said, "What do you
mean black-balled ?" and Keck rejoined , "I got down there; they bring out a
list, and they refuse me there ; Igo in the employment office and they do the
same thing over there." Pioch laughed and told Keck he knew nothing about
that, and that Keck should take a job in, production . Keck's testimony was
not contradicted and is credited.
560 DECISIONS OF N'ATIONAL' LABOR' RELATIONS BOAIRD
Several of the nine draftsmen named in the complaint, having failed to secure
satisfactory transfers, applied for releases" and were given quit slips which
before the notation, "Release, lack of work ; would not accept job offered by
employment office." Sarafian admitted that subsequent to receiving his transfer
he made no effort to obtain employment elsewhere than with the respondent,
since he expected to be inducted into the armed forces within a short- period.
On or about January 1, all operations were discontinued at the Airframe. As
hereinafter appears, Pioch, Sr, admitted that satisfactory interdepartmental
transfers were given all draftsmen employees who were transferred on or about
January 1.
Neither Smith nor Cramer, who received transfer slips on December,15, but who
are not alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged, testified, and the
record does not disclose whether or not they were members of the U. P. W. A.
All draftsmen alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged, signed mem-
'bership cards in the U P. W. A. on December 8 or 9.
4 The respondent's position
As hereinbefore set forth, operations were started at the Airframe when the
respondent began work on a bomber project for the armed forces, in the summer
of 1941, and continued until January 1, 1943, when the entire unit was shut
down.
Crysler testified that having failed to obtain new contracts for the Airframe
he asked Pioch, Sr., if the Airframe might take over work from other plants
a'nd was advised by Pioch that there was, at that tune, a surplus of personnel
and that the drafting department was "top heavy." It was explained that as
various jobs went into production, there was less demand for Tool and die
designing, since at the production stage the designing of tools and dies was
complete. According to Crysler, on or about December 1, he concluded that it
would be necessary to discontinue Airframe operations, but waited until De-
cember 15 before he actually started to transfer personnel, in the hope that new
jobs might be obtained for his department.
Crysler testified that he personally designated the 10 employees who were
to receive the first transfers, and that he planned to take the employees in
groups of 10 for successive transfers until the entire department had been closed.
He did not deny the testimony of several Board witnesses that they had been
,given job assignments just prior to receiving transfers, but stated that the work
of the transferees was split up among the remaining men in order to provide
employment for as many as could be retained on the payroll at that time. Ques-
tioned why he did not give the men interdepartmental transfers instead of
sending the transferees to the employment office, he answered that be under-
stood that the other drafting departments were over-crowded at the time,
and further testified : "I really couldn't cone out and tell the employment office
of the Ford Motor Company, `You take a man and put him here or there."'
Crysler admitted, however, that he assisted William Smith, one of the
December 15 transfeees, not named in the complaint, in obtaining a satisfactory
transfer. He testified that Smith, on receiving his transfer slip, asked for his
assistance in obtaining a satisfactory transfer, and that he told Smith, "If
I can find anything for you, I will." Subsequently on January 15, 1943, on
learning that the Willow Run plant needed a man who understood blue-prints,
Crysler called the employment office and asked them to transfer Smith to that
job. Smith was thereupon given the job. According to Crysler, Smith was
the only one of the December 15 transferees who sought his assistance in obtain-
i
as By order of the War Manpower Commission an employee was required to obtain a
release from one employer before taking a job elsewhere..
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 561,
ing a satisfactory transfer • This, however, is in conflict with the otherwise
undisputed testimony of Komorowski that after he had obtained satisfactory
employment at the Highland Park plant, he was directed back to Crysler who
then refused to give him an inter-departmental transfer and sent him back to
the employment office. -
Crysler denied that in his designation of the first 10 transferees he had any
thought of their organizational activity, and stated that he thought all the
draftsmen belonged 'to the S. D. E. He denied all knowledge of U. P. W. A.
activity among the draftsmen. As previously stated in this report, he did not,
however, deny Keck's testimony that on the day of the first transfer, he in-
quired,of Keck why the men wanted a union and told Keck that he had been
censured, by, the, River Rouge office for not being able to handle the men at the
Airframe. Since all activity of the draftsmen in the S. D. E. had lapsed
several months prior to the December 15 transfers, it is entirely improbable
that Crysler's reference on this occasion was to the S. D. E. In view of this
circumstance and the fact that on December 11, Jonnard had addressed a letter
to the respondent's personnel director advising hint that the U. P. W. A. had
a majority membership among Airframe draftsmen, the undersigned does not
credit Crysler's denial of knowledge of U. P. W. A. activity among Airframe
draftsmen at the time of the December 15 transfers.
There was received in evidence a list of the transfers that were made
from the Airframe in December 1942 and January 1943 From this list, it
appears that all the draftsmen who were given transfers subsequent to Decem-
her 17, and who did'not quit, obtained non-production positions38
In explanation of this list, Pioch, Sr, chief engineer of all the respondent's
tool engineering departments, testified on direct examination :
; I think;-L can, clear that up. After we laid' off those first,Aen men, it
wasn't long after that-7'd s"iy just a few days-that's'the first time I' heard'
about union activities. Well, then, when it came along to the end of the
month and we had to cut down some niore, I said to Mr. Crysler, "We will
not handle these fellows like we did the first ten. , We will squeeze them in
wherever we can-Highland Park, Rouge and Willow Run-until the work
cuts down even more, and then we will have to lay just that many more
off the next time," but before we took any of these men into the Rouge
plant, in lily own department there at the Rouge, I thinned ten of the men
out of the Rouge plant, because they were not very good;, they were not as
good as some of the men who were coming in. In other words, there was
a layoff at'the` Rouge plant, instead of the airframe plant, because the
ability' enters ' into it. - '
Q. You say, after a couple of days after the layoff of these first ten, you
heard about union activities and you decided to change. Will you enlarge
on that? Just what did you bear and what was the reason for your change?
A. Well, this is hearsay : I heard that they were organizing a union.
Now, I thought that some of the boys - belonged to the union. I didn't see
where the union had anything to do with it , and I didn ' t want to have any
more trouble with anybody , or make trouble for the Ford Motor Company,
so that is why I changed my decision on the next transfer-the next group.
Personally , myself, I am not against unions. I have been a union than,
myself, for thirty-six years. - -
The record does not disclose whethei•'all nhose names on'the list bear the notation
"quit," were offer ed and i efused inter-departmental transfers -
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pioch subsequently - testified on the same topic, "After I heard about these
fellows squawking about the union-we are changing our policy when we elim-,
inate our draftsmen ." When questioned , "Who squawked and what union?'1 /
Pioch testified, that he could not say what union it was, and that he had reference
to "the ten men that are complaining." The following is, an excerpt from his
testimony :
Q. *Do you recall when and how you learned of this union activity?
A. It was, I would say, two or three days after we laid these people off
that I heard about it.
Q Do you know how it came through?
A. Well, I don't recall. -
Q. Did anybody say anything to you about it?
A. I'm just trying to think who it was. I believe it was my clerk ; I'm not
Sure.
Q Do you have a clear recollection of what the clerk said and just how it
came about?
A. No, I don't. -
Pioch testified concerning Keck," that having been advised on or about
December 15 that there was an engineering job available at the respondent's
Highland Park plant, he talked to Keck on the following day and advised him
of the opening . According to Pioch, Keck replied that he,did not want the job
Pioch suggested, "Why don't you go and try it." According to Pioch the engi-
neering position was a much more responsible job than the one that Keck then
held at Airframe. Pioch further testified that Keck did not thereafter see him
with reference to obtaining a satisfactory transfer. This, however, is incon-'
sistant with Keck's testimony that on December 22, after having been refused
a transfer to Wilow Run, he accused Pioch of having him blacklisted, at which
time Pioch advised him to take a job in production. Pioch made no specific
denial of this testimony. Furthermore, since it is clear that on December 15
Keck was'fully advised that all operations at the Airframe would be discontinued
within a few weeks, it is entirely unlikely' that he would have refused an offer
of a position which according to Pioch was a much more "responsible" job
than, the one Keck then held. The undersigned. found Pioch, Sr., to be an
evasive and unconvincing witness and is unable to credit his testimony.
With reference to the testimony- of numerous Board witnesses,' that when
applying for transfers at the various employment offices, employment clerks
would refer to certain lists of names and would then advise them that the
only jobs available were in production, the 'respondent offered no testimony.
5. Conclusions
The respondent's explanation of discontinuance of operations at its Airframe
unit in December 1942 and January 1943 was logical and 'convincing, and is
credited. The only issue is whether the 9 employees named in the complaint, who
were given' transfer slips on or about December 15, were discriminatorily dis-
charged.
The testimony of William Pioch, Sr., who appears to have directed the transfer
of employees from the Airframe as operations were discontinued at that 'unit,
is in the nature of an admission that the later transferees were givens inter-
49 The respondent contends that because Keck was a foreman. he was "not subject to the
protection of the Wagner Act". This defense has heretofore been rejected as lacking
merit. See N.- LR B v. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667,
(C C. A. 8) enf'g Matter of Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company and St. Louis Print-
ing Pressmen's Union No 6, Inc, et al, 13 N L R B 1186
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 563 ,
departmental transfers to equivalent positions whereas those draftsmen who-
received transfers on or prior to December 17, were denied equivalent employ-
ment, and were in fact laid off. It further appears from all the testimony, and'
the undersigned finds, that normally, transfers of draftsmen were made from
department to department without requiring the transferred employee to report
to the employment office. The respondent made no denial of the testimony of'
Board witnesses, that the transferees named in the complaint were, at the time
they were given transfer slips,.senior in tenure of employment to numerous other
employees who were transferred later and who were given preferential treatment.
In fact, most of the employees named in the complaint were employed prior to.
the summer of 1941 when the total number of draftsmen in the employ of the
respondent was approximately 200, whereas at the time of the December trans-
fers, the total number of draftsmen had increased to approximately 1,000. At
the time of the hearing, according to Pioch, there were employed by the respondent
approximately 750 draftsmen. While it may well be that the respondent had no
strict seniority policy with respect to draftsmen, as a matter of ordinary business
practice normally these old employees, whose efficiency is attested by numerous-
wage increases and promotions over a period of years, would not have been laid
off prior to the several hundred new employees who had been employed after
the respondent began work on defense contracts. Pinch admitted that in order'
to arrange inter-departmental transfers for draftsmen subsequently transferred,
other draftsman were laid off at the River Rouge plant, "because they were not
very good;" "because the ability enters into it." Be gave no explanation of
why, though ability entered into it on January 1, 1943, ability apparently did
not enter into-it on December 15, 1942. While all of the employees named in the-
complaint were offered jobs in production, to have' accepted such work would'
have meant that they would not only have had to accept greatly reduced wages,
but would have lost the professional status they achieved after years of training.,
Under the circumstances, the transfers were tantamount to a discharge and
recognition of this fact is contained in Pioch's consistent reference throughout
his testimony to the transferees as employees who were "laid off."
Further than generalized statements of Crysler and Pioch to the, effect that
the respondent's drafting departments were overcrowded at the time of the Decem-'
her 15 transfers, the respondent offered no evidence which would tend to show
that there were no draftsmen jobs available for the Airframe transferees in
others of the respondent's plant. There is evidence to the contrary, however,
since Pioch admitted that the some fifty odd draftsmen who were transferred
from the Airframe 'on or about January 1, were given equivalent employment in
other plants and it appears that in order to provide for these fifty odd inter-
departmental transfers it was necessary to lay off only 10,men at the River Rouge
plant. There is further evidence in the undisputed testimony of Board witnesses
that they were advised-of positions available in other plants, only to be denied
inter-departmental transfers.
Crysler and Pioch, the only two witnesses testifying for the respondent rela-
tive to the Airframe situation, each denied knowledge of U. P. W. A. activity
among the draftsmen at or prior to the time of the December 15 transfers
In view of Crysler's failure to explain or to deny that on the day of the first
transfers he inquired of Keck concerning union activities of draftsmen and ad-
vised Keck that he had been asked at the River Rouge plant why "couldn't he
handle his men over at the Airframe," (Pioch Sr.'s office was at the River
Rouge plant) the undersigned has not credited his denial of knowledge of
U P. W. A. activities among Airframe draftsm^;n, and finds that he had-such
knowledge at the time he gave out the first transfer slips. Pioch admitted, that,
he heard of union activities among the draftsmen shortly after the December
0
564 i DECISIONS ,OF A°ATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
15 transfers, but when questioned as to the source of his knowledge and the
circumstances under which lie obtained it, he was exceedingly vague and finally
attributed the source of his knowledge to a clerk in his office whom he did
not name. Since Jounard, U. P. W. A. president, on December 11 addressed a
letter to the respondent's personnel director in which lie requested recognition
of the U. P. W. A. as bargaining representative of Airframe draftsmen, it is a.
ieasonable inference in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary,
that this information was promptly relayed from, the personnel office to Pioch',
who directed Airframe operations. - In view of these circumstances and the un-,
satisfactory character of finch's testimony, the undersigned is convinced and
finds that at and prior to the time of the December 15 transfers, Pioch had
knowledge that the U. P. W. A was . claiming representation of Airframe
draftsmen.
As has been found in a prior section of this report, the iespondent vigorously
opposed organization' of its plant protection employees by the U. P. W. A., and
discharged one of its leaders because of his U. P W. A. activities. After an
election among plant protection- employees of the Dearborn plant, of which the
Airframe was a unit, the U. P. W. A. was on December 2 certified as bargaining
representative of Dearborn plant protection employees. At or about the same
time, the U. P. W. A. filed with the Board petitions for certification as rep-
resentative of plant protection employees at two others of the respondent's'
plants. . It is clear therefrom that during this period the U P W A. was con-
ducting an aggressive organizational drive among certain classifications of the
respondent's employees. That the respondent opposed organization of its drafts-.
men by the U. P. W. A. is seen in its contention that the U P. W. A. had no
jurisdiction over draftsmen. Against this background of respondent's opposi-;
Lion to the U. P. W. A. its action in denying the December li transferees equiv-
alent employment' as draftsmen, otherwise perplexing in tlie' extrme, ectiines
coherent and logical. If the Airframe draftsmen could be persuaded to take
jobs in production, they would thereupon he removed from the jurisdiction of
the U. P. W A. and would corne,under the contract which the respondent then
had with the U. A. W." In that manner, organization of the draftsmen would
be defeated.
The respondent's contention that the U P W. A was not authorized under its
constitution to accept draftsmen as members, if true, is obviously not germane
to the issue, since regardless of the jurisdiction of the U P W. A., if the respond-
ent in denying the December 15 transferees equivalent emplo, ment, was motivated
by its opposition to affiliation of the draftsmen with the U P. W A, the said denial
wit s discriminatory within, the meaning of the Act 44 That-the, respondent later,
as stated by Pioch, changed its policy and provided equivalent employment- for
later transferees many of whom were members of the U P W A, does not
absolve it from a primary intent, in the earlier transfers, to defeat organization,
of the draftsmen by the U P. W A It is clear that those employees who initiated.
43 It is interesting to note that the respondent asserted its opposition to organization of
plant protection employees on the giound that such ennplo.Nees were properly considered a
part of management and therefore did not constitute an appropriate unit. As stated in a
prior section of this report, after Jonnard became acme in the U P IV A the respondent
repeatedly suggested that he should transfei to production where lie could affiliate with
the U A W.
42 The defense is further without merit for "the authority of the bat gaining agency to
represent the emplocees must he sought in the consent of the employees and not in the
constitution of a national labor organization. " Pueblo Gas ^f Friel Conipany v
N L R B , 118 F. (2d)'^04, 307 (C C. A 10) enf'g Matter of Pueblo Gag C Fuel Company
. iud International B7otherhood of Elect, real ll'oriers Local Union No 667-B , 23 N L R B.
1028.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 565
U. P. W., A organizational activities among the Airframe draftsmen were
included in the earlier group, as were those l employees who were most active
in securing signatures of Airframe draftsmen on U. P. W. A. membership cards.
Since this activity Was carried on during working hours and. at lunch periods
inside the plant, it is probable that the respondent had knowledge through its
supervisors of the leaders in this organizational movement. If, however, it had,
no such knowledge, this does not change the total situation, since its primary
intent seems to have been to lay off all draftsmen then employed at the Airframe
or to force them to take jobs in production where they would be removed from
the jurisdiction of the U 'P. W. A. There is no plausibe reason why, had the
respondent in its "change of policy" been motivated by newly acquired knowledge
of organizational activity of Airframe draftsmen and a desire to avoid involve-
ment therein , it could not, as would have been consistent with a change of policy
thus arrived at, then have arranged satisfactory transfers for draftsmen pre-
viously denied ;employment except in production, all of whom admittedly had
excellent employment records According to Pioch, the change in policy occurred
only a few days after the December 15 lay-offs and yet as late as December 22
Keck was denied an inter-departmental transfer.
The respondent alludes to the fact that for a period of time draftsmen were
openly affiliated with the S D. E. and that during the said period they received
various wage increases and job promotions. It further appears, however, that
the S D E was entirely ineffectual as a bargaining representative of draftsmen.
Not only was it refused recognition by the respondent as a bargaining representa-
tive, but its representation was so ineffectual that the draftsmen transferred
their membership from it to the U. A W. in the hope that they might be included
in the unit represented by the U A. W As previously stated, this aim was not
realized.
In view of the failure of the respondent to offer a reasonable or satisfactory
explanation for its refusal to provide equivalent employment for the nine drafts-
men named in the complaint, and upon consideration of the entire testimony and
record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent discharged
John S. Binder, Edward R Komorowski, Robert Earl Errair, Ecy Elian Maida,
George Kouri; Nick Strok, Henry S Peterson, Azad Sarafian, and Philip Keck
because of their membership in and activity in behalf of the U P W. A. and
because of the respondent's avowed opposition to organization of its draftsmen
by the U. P. W. A. The respondent by the aforesaid discriminatory conduct,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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 set forth 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having. found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of George R Jounard, Phillip Keck, John S
Binder, Edward R. Komorowski, Robert Earl Errair, Ecy Elian Maida, George
536105-44-vol 50-37 -
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -REILATIONS BOARD
Kouri, Nick Strok, Henry S Peterson, and Azad Sarafian. The undersigned will
therefore recommend that the respondent offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to George R. Jonnard, Phillip Keck, John S. Binder, Edward R. Komorow-
ski, Robert Earl Errair, Ecy, Elian Maida, George Kouri, Nick Strok, and Henry
S. Peterson, to their former or substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the respondent
make George R Jonnard whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him (1) by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from No-
vember 17, 1941, when he suffered a discriminatory lay-off, to December 11, 1941,
when he was reinstated to the position he held prior to his discriminatory lay-
off, less his net earnings 43 during the said period ; and (2) by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from April 14, 1942, when he was discriminatorily discharged,'to the (late of the
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings" during the said period and less the
amount of wages he normally would have earned from the date of his voluntary
leave of absence from employment obtained subsequent to his discriminatory dis-
charge, to the date of the offer of reinstatement ; 46 and that the respondent make
John S Binder, Edward R. Komorowski, Robert Earl Errair, Ecy Elian Maida,
George Kouri, Nick Strok, and Henry S. Peterson whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to
them'of a sum of money equal to that amount which they would normally have
earned as wages from December 16, 1942, to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less their net earnings 40 during said period; that the respondent make Phillip
Keck whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages from December 17, 1942, to the date of
the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings97 during said period; and that
the respondent offer Azad Saraflan immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, or if the said employee has been inducted into the
military service of the United States, the undersigned recommends that the
respondent upon application by Sarafian within forty (40) days after his dis-
charge from the armed forces of the United States, offer him reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent 'position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, or if there is not sufficient employment immediately
available, then placement upon a preferential list, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings he may suffer by reason of respondent's refusal to reinstate
him or place him on a preferential list as herein recommended by payment to
him of a sum equal to that which he would have earned between a date five (5)
days after a timely application for reinstatement and the date of offer. of rein-
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where-than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, etc, 8 N L. R. B. 440 Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R. B, 311 U. S! 7.
44 See footnote 43, supra.
43 The undersigned has found that approximately 3 weeks prior to the hearing in this
proceeding, Jonnard took a voluntary leave of absence from a position which paid him
$180 a month, to engage in organizational work for the U. P. W..A., without compensation.
The respondent is entitled to a deduction in the amount he ordinarily would have earned
had he had not taken a voluntary leave of absence.
46 See footnote 43, supra.
.41 See footnote 43, supra.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 567
statement or placement upon a preferential list, less his net earnings during this
period.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAw
1. United Protective Workers of America is a labor organization , within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard - to the hire and tenure of employment of
George R., Jonnard, John S. Binder, Edward R. Komorowski, Robert Earl Errair,
.Ecy Elian -Maida, George Kouri, Nick Strok, Henry S. Peterson, Philip Keck
and Azad Sarafian and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights, guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discriminating
in regard to the hire and tenure of William H. Bailey, Charles E. Bailey,
Robert E. Brown, Jr, and Howard Leaver.
-RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned hereby recommends that the respondent, Ford Motor Company, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging -membership in United Protective Workers of America, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to George R. Jonnard, John S. Binder, Edward R. Komorowski,
Robert Earl Errair, Ecy Elian Maida, George Kouri, Nick Strok, Philip Keck and
Henry S. Peterson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Offer Azad Sarafian immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, or if the said employee has been inducted into the military
service of the United States, the undersigned 'recommends that fhe respondent
upon application by Sarafian within forty (40) days after his discharge from
19 Since Sarafian testified that he did not bother to look for another job, the undersigned
will not recommend that respondent make him whole for his entire loss of earnings.
568 DECISIONS OF N'ATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the armed forces of the United States offer him reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, or if there is not sufficient employment, immediately
available, then placement upon a preferential list-;
(c) Make whole George R. Jonnard for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him: (1) by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from November 17, 1941, the date of his_ discriminatory lay-off, to
December 11, 1941, the date on which he was reinstated to his former or
equivalent employment, less his net earnings" during the said period ; and
(2) by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages from April 14, 1942, the date of his discriminatory
discharge, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less, his net
earnings fi0 during, the said period and less the amount of wages he normally
would have earned from the date of his voluntary leave of absence from em-
ployment obtained subsequent to his discriminatory dicharge to the date of the
offer of reinstatement ; 01
(d) Make John S. Binder, Edward R. Komorowski, Robert Earl Errair, Ecy
Elian Maida, George Kouri, Nick Strok, and Herny S. ePterson whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that amount which they would
normally have earned as wages from December 16, 1942, to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less their net earnings "'during said period ;
(e) Make Philip Keck whole, for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from December
IT, 1942, to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings" during
said period ;
(f) Make Azad Sarafian whole for any loss of earnings he may suffer by
reason of respondent's refusal to reinstate him or place him on a preferential
list as herein recommended by payment to him of a sum equal to that which he
would have earned between a date five (5) days after a timely application for
reinstatement and the date of offer or reinstatement or placement upon a pref-
erential list, less his net earnings" during this period;
(g) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its River Rouge and in its
Dearborn plants, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date' of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and'desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations;
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph
2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of these recommendations; and (3) that the
respondent's employees, in those classifications expressely excluded under such
contracts as are now in existence between the respondent and other labor
organizations, are free to become or remain members of United Protective Work-
ers of America, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any of
its said employees because of membership in or activities on behalf of that
organization ; - C
I
See footnote 43, supra.
" See footnote 43, supra.
si See footnote 45, supra.
as See footnote 43, supra.
" See footnote 43, supra.
54 See footnote 43, supra.
FORD MOTOR 'COMPANY 569
(h) File with the Regional Director for, the Seventh Region on or before ten
(10) days from the,date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in;
writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent
has complied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with_ the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the
respondent to take the action aforesaid.
The undersigned further recommends that the complaint be dismissed insofar
as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of the following: William H. Bailey, Charles E. Bailey, Robert E. Brown, Jr.,
Howard Leaver.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
-1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington D C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the,
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
WULTAN E. SPENCEB,
Trial Eraminer.
Dated March 27, 1943.
11