Grieder Machine Tool & Die Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1325 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GRIEDER MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. and INTERNATIONAL'
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT,
WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. C495,50.-Decided May ^?9, 19.1.3
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 12, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had. engaged, in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and that it had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor prac-
tices found and take certain affirmative action, as set out in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto, and that the complaint
be dismissed as to the remaining allegations. Thereafter the respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support
of the exceptions. Oral argument, in which only the respondent
participated, was had before the Board on May 4, 1943. The Board
has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner, at the hearing and'
finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the respondent's brief and exceptions, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,_ and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions and qualifications
.noted below :
1. The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that on several
occasions the respondent sent for the police plainly in an effort to
prevent Clabaugh, Rudolph, and others from engaging in efforts to
organize the respondent's employees, from distributing union leaflets
and publications, from soliciting employees to become union mem-
bers, and from making inquiries concerning other discharges of em-
ployees. The record reveals that on one such occasion, Clabaugl
agreed- to refrain from. distributing union literature after Chief of
Police Spitler had explained to him the provisions of the local hand-
bill ordinance. Although the .respondent urges in its brief that the
49 N. L. R B, No. 190.
1325
1326 DEC'ISION'S OF N'ATI'ONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
police summoned by it were acting merely to advise the union or-
ganizers that they were passing out the literature in violation of the
ordinance, it is abundantly clear from the record, and we find, that
the motive of the respondent in calling the police was not the altruistic
one of enforcing the city ordinance but that of preventing. the- or-•
ganizers from reaching its employees whom they sought to organize.
Thus, Emmett V. Spitler, counsel for the respondent, when asked
whether the respondent was simply trying to enforce a handbill ordi-
nance on behalf of the city, replied in'the negative; he testified fur-
ther that when he advised the respondent concerning the ordinance,
he had neither read nor seen its text. Moreover, although Emmett
V. Spitler knew that the ordinance, provided that "there were certain
permits you had to 'get," the record is barren of any evidence that the
respondent inquired, before calling the police, whether or not the.
union organizers had obtained the necessary' license or permit.
2. The Trial Examiner has found without merit the respondent's
contention that the union representatives were on the responde'nt's
private property, and that the police were called for that reason. We
agree with the Trial Examiner, and find, in addition, that, even assum-
ing, as testified to by the respondent's witnesses, the presence of union
representatives on the respondent's property, the respondent's motive
in calling the police was solely to prevent its employees from engaging
in the self-organization activities protected by the Act. Thus the
respondent had never before summoned •the police to the plant to dis-
perse others who were on its property without permission. In addi-
tion, it is sufficiently clear that Superintendent Strothers did not
regard the presence of the union organizers on,conipany property as
being of .any consequence; he stated, in that connection, that he "had
other things to take care of other than bother with [people,who were
inside the sidewalk 2 or'3 feet]."
3. The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that at all times
*on' and after August 18, 1942, the Union was, and still is, the duly,
designated exclusive bargaining representative of the respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit. However, in describing the unit,
certified by the Board on the afore-mentioned date, he inadvertently
failed specifically to exclude Frank Strothers; plant superintendent,
therefrom. Accordingly, we find that the appropriatie unit consists
of all the respondent's employees at its Bowling Green, Ohio, plant,
except supervisory or clerical employees, specifically excluding Frank
Strothers, plant superintendent, Ray Taylor, William Beck, and Ernest
Warner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Griecler Machine Tool & Die_
GRIEDER MACHINE TOOL & DIE. co. 1327
Co., Bowling Green, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors,, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from: -
(a) Discouraging membership in International , Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of its employees, or by discriminating in, any other manner
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & -Agricultural Implement Workers 'of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as
the exclusive representative.of all the respondent's employees at its
Bowling Green, Ohio, plant, except supervisory and clerical employees,
specifically excluding Frank St},others, plant superintendent, Ray
Taylor, William Beck, and Ernest Warner;
(c) 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
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board, finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Henry Clabaugh immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Henry Clabaugh for any loss of pay he'may have
suffered, by reason of the, res' ondent's discrimination against him, by
,payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of his
discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during such period,` '
(c) Upon request bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as
the exclusive representative of all the respondent's employees at its
Bowling Green, Ohio, plant, except supervisory and clerical workers,
specifically excluding Frank Strothers, plant superintendent, Ray
Taylor, William Beck, and Ernest Warner, in respect to rates of pay,'
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about its plant
at Bowling Green, Ohio, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
1328 DEOISION'S.OF NA'TPONAL LABOR RELATTO\^Sl BOARD
(60) consecutive days from the 'date of posting, notices to its em-
ployees stating : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct
from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a),- (b),
and (c) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirma-
tive action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order;
and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain-
members of International Union,- United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent will not
discriminate against any employee because of his membership or
activity in any such organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what
.steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that,the respondent discriminated against William Rudolph within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D . REILLY, concurring:
I concur in the Decision and Order, except tiiat I find it unnecessary
to decide whether the respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with
the Union on November 16, 1942. Since on that date the respondent
refused to grant exclusive recognition to the Union allegedly because
of the pendency of the Association's petition for an investigation and
certification of representatives, which refusal was instrumental in dis-
rupting the bargaining negotiations, the respondent was duty bound
to take the initiative in resuming negotiations after the alleged reason
for its refusal had been eliminated. On Februray 5, 1943, the Board
dismissed the Association's petition. and on February 8 the Regional
Director notified the respondent to that effect. It is apparent from
the position taken by the respondent in its brief and oral argument
before the Board that the respondent has not resumed negotiations,
with the Union at any time subsequent to February 8, 1943. I con-
clude, therefore, that the respondent, on and after the date of its
receipt of notification by the Board through its Regional Director
of the dismissal of the Association's petition, failed and refused to,
bargain collectively with the Union, within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John W. Coddaire, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. Charles W. Ractine, of Toledo, Ohio, and Mr. Emmett V. Spitler of Bowling
Green, Ohio, for the respondent. - -
Mr. Lowell Goeilich, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on November 24, 1942, by the Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile , Aircraft I& Agricultuial Implement Workers
GRSEDER MACHINE TOOL & DIE 00. 1329
of America (CIO), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleve-
land, Ohio), issued its complaint dated January 8, 1943; against Grieder Ma-
chine Tool & Die Co, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly- served upon
the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in sub-
stance, that the respondent: (a) during 1942 questioned employees concerning
union activities at the plant; sought to prevent organizational activities in the
vicinity of the plant ; and, on July 27, 1942, in various ways interfered with the
peaceful progress of an election conducted by the Board among the respond-
cut's employees; (b) on or about April 24, 25 and 27, 1942, discharged, respec-
tively, George L. Steimla, Henry Clabaugh' and William R. Rudolph, because
of their union membership and activities, and has at all times since failed and
refused to reinstate them to its employ; (c) on and after August 31, 1942, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly designated collective
bargaining agent of the respondent's employees in an appiopriate unit; and
(d) by such acts and conduct, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On January 15, 1943, the respondent filed its answer in which it, in substance;
adimtted the allegations of the complaint dealing with its business operations
and the interstate character of such operations ; admitted the discharges and
failure to reemploy Steimla, Clabaugh and Rudolph, but denied that it was
motivated by proscribed considerations therein ; admitted that the Union was
certified by the Board on August 18, 1942, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in an appropriate unit, but denied knowledge as to
the Union's continuing status in that respect, and averred affirmatively that it
did bargain collectively in good faith with the Union; and denied the rest of
the unfair labor practices charged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Bowling Green, Ohio, on January
28, 29, and 30, 1943, before William Strong, the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent and
the Union were represented by counsel; all participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to intro-
duce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the
course of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint
to include an added incident alleged to constitute an' unfair labor practice by
the respondent The motion was granted by the undersigned over the respond-
ent's objection'
r
i The name is incorrectly spelled in the complaint and the answer as "Claybough "
2 Counsel for the respondent objected to this amendment , on the ground of surprise The
undersigned requested counsel for the respondent to investigate the incident under consid-
eration and to determine whether he would require any additional time beyond the probable
closing date of the hearing to prepare his case on this point The undersigned subsequently
granted the request by counsel for the respondent to withhold his cross -examination on this
point until counsel had had an opportunity to confer with officials of the respondent con-
cerning the new matter . The witness thereafter was recalled for cross -examination , and was
cross-examined by the respondent No request for additional time was made by counsel for
the respondent Toward the close of the hearing , the undersigned inquired whether such
additional time was needed Counsel for the respondent replied in the negative , stating also
• that he was satisfied to stand on the record as made
1330 DECISION'S OF NATPOICAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the close of the hearing the parties were afforded an opportunity to argue
-orally before, and thereafter to file briefs•with the undersigned. No oral argu-
ments were made; a brief has been filed by the respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE'BUSINESS OF !HE RESPONDENT
Grieder Machine Too] & Die Co, an Ohio corporation, has a plant and an
office in Bowling Green, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of pre-
cision parts, pilot gears, gun slides, and various other gun and machine tool'
parts for the armed forces of the United States During the year preceding the
hearing herein, more than 50 'percent of the raw, materials used in the above
manufacture, totally valued at more than $35,000, were received from sources
outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, more than 70 percent of
the respondent's finished products, totally valued at about $100,000, were ship-
ped to points outside the State. The respondent concedes the jurisdiction of
the Board.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement'
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent.'
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The respondent first opened its plant in October 1941, and in the early part of
1942 its employees began discussing their wages, hours and other conditions of
employment. Formal union organizational activity did not, however, com-
mence until about April 17, 1942, at which time employees Henry Clabaugh
and William Rudolph visited the-Congress of Industrial Organizations (herein
called the C I 0 ) headquarters at Toledo, Ohio, and were appointed its organ-
izers and temporary Union officers at the respondent's plant. Organizational
efforts among the respondent's employees, proceeded thereafter at an accelerated
pace, with the distribution of Union membership applications, solicitation and
enrollment of members , the holding of membership, meetings, and other such
activity.
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In April 1942, Plant Superintendent Frank Strothers questioned employee
Markley several tines as to whether he was going ,to attend Union meetings,
whether he had been to such meetings, and whether many other employees
were present.' Markley declined to reveal any of these facts. During the week
df April 17, subsequent to Clabaugh's Initiation of his above-described union
activities, according to Clabaugh, whom the undersigned credits, Superintendent
Strothers asked Clabaugh "how the union was coming" and whether lie "had
joined," and, on a later occasion during this some period, inquired again about
3 The above finding is based on the testimony of employee Orval Markley, whom the under-
signed credits, and of Superintendent Strothers, Irho admitted at the hearing that he
"jokingly" made an inquiry of Markley as to whether he was going to attend ' a Union
meeting Stiothers added that he "never said anything critically of the CIO."
aRIEDE'R MACHSNE TOOL & DIE CO. 1331
the lUnion's progress and asked "when we were going to have meetings"'
Clabaugh "pleaded ignorance." Upon the entire course of events in this case,
the undersigned concludes that Strothers' question did not constitute mere
casual conversation, but were directed toward ascertaining the Union's organi-
zational progress and the part played therein by Clabaugh and Markley.
On April 25, 1942, the respondent clisci iminatoi ily discharged Clabaugh ;
thereafter it also discharged Rudolph and other employees. Subsequent to
their discharges, Clabaugh, Rudolph and others continued their efforts to
unionize the employees, distributing Union leaflets and publications on occasion,
soliciting employees to become Union members and making inquiries concerning
the other discharges. All this occurred outside the plant. On several such
occasions the respondent sent for the police, plainly in an effort, and the under-
signed so finds, to prevent Clabaugh, Rudolph and the others from engaging
in the above described activities, which are protected by the Act. Although
various of the respondent's representatives testified that the Union people were
on the respondent's private property, and that the police were called for that
reason," the undersigned finds that the Union representatives were not on the
respondent's property.
In May 1942 the Union filed with the Board's Regional Director for the Eighth
Region a petition under Section 9 (c) of the Act, and on July 15, 1942, a hearing
4 Clabaugh added that Strothers "said he was a union man himself at one time and he
thon.;ht it would be a good thing, too, because he was in the middle and couldn't stick his
neck out. He had to be with the company and the men, too " According to Strothers,
one day "there was something said And he [Clabaugh] said, `You belong to the union?
You worked at the trade a long time You belonged to the union, didn t you Frauk"And
I said, `Yes, when I worked on the bench, I belonged to the union.' That is all I remember
saying anything to him about the union " The undersigned crechts Clabaugh,
5 See Section I11-B, info a
° The testimony , in brief, upon which the above findings are made is as follows :
President I'ned Grieder testified that lie called the police because of "a bunch of people
running all over our property, handing out handbills and yelling at our men . . calling
their names" "on our sidewalk there, right on our street " Grieder testified that he saw
handbills d,stiibuted "a couple of times' ; liter he changed this to but once Grieder
called,the police once, because persons were on his property "passing out handbills out
there," and Attorney Spitler had said, "Let's get the city oidinance." The ordinance, in
evidence , does not bar distribution of handbills , it requires a license obtainable for
$5 a day
rlttorne/ Enimet Spitler, who represented the respondent at that time, testified that
lie was present when the police were called, when Mr. and Mrs Clabaugh were in a car
acioss'tlhe street from the plant Grieder said to the policemen, according to Spitler:
"Well, I have a condition out here where there is two or three follows and a woman
out here in the stieet . . . and . . . when the men come at work and at noon, and
at night, when they leave, they get out of the cars and get%over here on the company
property and yell at the men, and pass out handbills , and attempt to throw handbills
in their cars . . .
Grieder declined, however, to prefer charges
Another incident was thus described by Spitler
"You could see them [the Union representatives] talking and gesticulating to the men
as they drove in and drove out, and see them have their pamphlets and hand them to
the m'en, and some took them, and some refused, and some laughed and joked, and
some others-well, I can't tell what they said; as far as that goes Grieder turned
to me and said `Well, what about those handbills?' And I said, `Well then e is a handbill
ordinance, if you want to call the police on it. There is a handbill ordinance that they
shouldn ' t pass handbills'"
Spitler related other incidents , when the Union's representatives were clearly on
public pi open ty.
Dunlop, secretary to*tlie respondent, testified that lie called the police once to prevent
the distribution of handbills on the Street The police declined to act Dunlop again
called the police when employee Snyder hit one of the Union ' s representatives , thereafter
reporting the incident to Dunlop The aggressor was Snyder and the incident had
occurred in the public stieet . Dunlop nevertheless called the police
Ira Lance , former policeman, testified that the respondent once complained of "loiter-
ing by the factory." When the police annved, they found "nothing" Clabaugh and
531647-43-vol 49-85
1332 DECISION'S OF NATI'0'11A;L, LABOR RE'LATIO \1SS BOARD
was held upon that petition, at Bowling Green, Ohio. Employee Robert Nye
attended the hearing as "one of the few men that came down . . . to decide
about the time of the election and the date . . ." Several days before the hear-
ing, Nye had asked his supervisor, Beck, for permission to attend but Beck
had refused to grant such permission, stating, according to Nye, that Nye's
attendance at the hearing "would probably cost" him his job ° On the day of
the hearing, Nye persuaded Plant Superintendent Strothers to allow him to
attend. Nye attended the hearing. Later that day, Nye returned to work,
obtaining admission to the, plant through the assistance of another employee.
A few minutes later Superintendent Strothers directed Nye to check out for
the balance of that day. Almost immediately thereafter President Grieder
appeared and, according to Nye, whom the undersigned credits, the following
incident occurred:
Air. Grieder said, "Did you have permission to.leave the plant to go to
that hearing?" I said, "Yes" He said, "Who gave you permission?," I
said, "The superintendent did". He said, "Come in the office." On the
way in the office, he said, "I am still running this place." So I went in the
office and he said, "Let's see your subpoena to the hearing." And I said,
"You don't need a subpoena to go to a hearing " He hollered so loud that
I couldn't understand what it was all about, but he said, "The CIO called
you to that election [hearing] didn't they?" And I said, "Yes". And he
said, "They 'are a bunch of drunken bums." He said, "Go home and I will
'see how I feel tomorrow."
Grieder denier that during this discussion, which was admittedly held, he said
anything about"-'the CIO'' or referredto it as a "bunch of drunken bums"
The undersigned was not impressed with the testimony of Grieder e and finds
that the incidents occurred substantially as related by Nye.'
another were sitting quietly in a car on the opposite side of the street Grieder asked
the police to keep Clabaugh "away fiom the plant," to "kick these boys out. or take them
down and put them in jail" for "ioiteung around the plant and the plant property"
and "talking to the men " • Grieder (lid not specify where all these activities'had occurred,
merely stating that the Union men "were contacting these men as they_ came out " No
leaflets were being distributed, none weie mentioned, none were on the street
Police Chief Guy Spitler testified that Grieder called him once, saying that he antici-
pated "labor trouble" When the Chief aiiived at the plant, some cars weie parked
across the street from the plant, on Maple Street Grieder wanted them removed He
stated that "men coning in and out of the plant had been spoken to " The Chief found
nothing wrong and took no action A few days later, Gueder telephoned to Chief Spitler,
and inquired whether "there wasn't an ordinance on passing handbills in Bowling
Gi een . he said lie understood there was going to be some handbills passed out "
[Italics added I Chief Spitler drove to the plant and explained to Clabaugh the pro-
visions of the handbill ordinance. Clabaugh agreed not to distribute any bills.
Clabaugh, and Rudolph denied that they had been on the respondent's property on
any of the occasions in question
7 Beck did not testify at the instant hearing.
Grieder ' s demeanor on the witness stand and his entire testimony lead the under-
signed to the conclusion that Giieder is not a credible witness.
9 Respecting the propriety of Nye's departure from the plant, the respondent' s witnesses
gave much confusing and evasive testimony The most direct statement as to the nature
of the respondents contentions as to Nye's attendance at the hearing of July 15, came
from its counsel, who asserted that had Nye sought permission to leave the plant to
attend the hearing, the per mission would have been granted "whether he had been
subpoenaed or not The only objection the company has is that he gave no notice and
walked out in the middle of the morning " The record does not sustain the latter asser-
tion While'Giieder, Spitler and Dunlop testified in general support of the contention
that Nye left without notice, Nye's testimony to the contrary was corroborated by Super-
intendent Strothers, to whom Nye spoke before leaving the plant that day Moreover,'
Nye s testimony that lie sought, unsuccessfully, Beck 's permission , several days before
the hearing, is entirely uncontradicted The undersigned finds that Nye was given prior
permission by Superintendent Strothers to attend the July 15 hearing
'GIRJED'E'R MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1333
The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the activities, of Grieder;
Strothers, Dunlop, and Beck, including Strothers' questioning of employees con-
cerning their union membership and activities and the Union's organizational
affairs, the incidents involving the police,10 and the incidents involving Nye,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 11
-
B. The discharges 12
1. The discriminatory discharge of Henry Clabaugh
The complaint alleges that on April 25, 1942 , the respondent discharged and at
all times thereafter failed and refused to reinstate Henry Clabaugh , in violation'
of the Act . At the hearing, the respondent 's counsel stated that Clabaugh had been
discharged because " lie was not a competent worker . : . loafing on the job, exces-
sive smoking and all those things, which, however , are tied in with his com-
petency."
Clabaugh first appeared at the respondent 's plant in February 1942, as a mem-
ber of a \V. Y. A.-sponsored training group learning to operate machines used
in war production . In the early part of March 1942, his training period finished,
to The rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act include full freedom to receive aid,
advice , and information from otheis concerning the enjoyment of those lights Matteis
of Harlan Fuel Company and ' Uvited Mine Woikers of America , District 19, 8 N L R B.?
25 See also Matter of Paragon Die Casting Company , a Coi poration and National Asso-
ciation of Die Casting Workers , affiliated with Congress of Industrial 0iganizations, 27
N. L. R B 878; and Matter of Fedeibush Co, Inc ., and United Paper 1Vorkers, Local
Industrial Union No 292, affiliated with the C 1 0 , 24 N L R B , 829, ent'd in
N. L R. B v . The Federbush Co , Inc .,, 121 F (2d) 954 (C. C. A 2)
.-'n Two incidents which' occurred at the July 27 election are alleged to be violative-
of the Act In the first , Secietary Dunlop called the Board ' s agent conducting the elec-
tion into the office , to,ask why certain employees had been challenged as supeivisors by
the Union Dunlop used the phrase "What in the hell kind of monkey business is going
on here'?" or, as he admitted , "What the hell is going on here ')" Since the supervisors
were expressly named , in the election agreement , Dunlop's inquiry was not improper, nor
was his, choice of language under these circumstances ' violative of the Act. The second
incident occurred after the election , when Grieder objected to the presence of Clabaugh
and another Union officer , who came in with the Boards agent and the election observers
to attend the ballot count Apparently Clabaugh and his companion wandered about the
office, in which, the respondent ' s witnesses testified without contradiction, confidential
papers and plans were laying on various desks Grieder threatened to evict all peisons
unless Clabaugh and the other Union officer left ' Grieder used unpleasant and threaten-
ing language The ballots were counted in the vestibule to the plant . While Grieder by
his manner and language once again openly showed his dislike for unions and the
employees ' efforts to organize , under all the circumstances surrounding this incident,
the undersigned does not regard it as being in violation of the Act. -
It should be noted , however, that these incidents also gave rise at the hearing to
contradictionsiin the testimony of the respondent 's own witnesses, theieby affecting then,
credibility in general . Thus, although Dunlop admitted stating , "What the hell is going
on here ." Attoriiey Spitler, who testified that he was present throughout the incident
and heard everything , denied that Dunlop made such a statement Spitler testified
prior to Dunlop Also, while Grieder testified with great positiveness that he did not
learn until after the incident that Dunlop had approved the use of the office, Drinlop, on
the other hand , as did other witnesses , testified that he so informed Grieder as soon
as the latter made his first objection , at the outset of the second incident
In addit .on to the discharges discussed in this section , the complaint alleged , and the
answer denied , that the respondent had discriminatorily discharged George L. Steimla on
about April 24, 1942 No eN idence was, introduced into the record in support of this 'allega-
tion and , at the close of the Board ' s case, counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent
joined in a motion to dismiss the complaint as to Steimla . while counsel for the -Union stated
that he stood "mute ." The undersigned granted the motion
1334 DECISION'S OF'NATPO1MAL LABOR RE,LATIO'N'S BOARD
Clabaugh was hired by the respondent. On about April 17, Clabaugh visited
C. I. O. headquarters at Toledo, Ohio, where he was appointed chairman of a
,C I. O. "organizing committee" at the respondent's plant. Thereafter Clabaugh
pursued his functions as chairman by ditsributing Union membership applica-
tions and urging, employees to join the Union. As stated above, during the week
of April 17, subsequent to Clabaugh's initiation of these activities, Superintendent
Strothers asked him "how the union was coming" and whether he "had joined,"
and on a later occasion during this same period, again inquired about the Union's
progress and asked "when we were going to have meetings."
In addition, while Strothers denied having direct knowledge of Clabaugh's
"talking about the C. I. 0.," he admitted that "it was rumored around that
Clabaugh was talking it . . ." and, when asked whether be knew that Clabaugh
was a member of the Union, Strothers replied evasively "I don't know, I would
say no, I don't. I couldn't positively say he was a member." '$ The record
establishes that Clabaugh was the leader of the respondent's employees' self-
organizational efforts; it likewise establishes and the undersigned finds that the
respondent was well aware of Clabaugh's activities in that respect.
• Clabaugh was discharged in the afternoon of April 25, 1942. At that time
Clabaugh was operating a small milling machine having an electrically powered
cutter, used to cut pieces of metal utilized in the production of gun slides.
At the hearing the respondent offered various reasons for its discharge of
Clabaugh, including spoilage of materials (referred to as "scrap"), excessive
smoking , excessive conversation with other employees, delay in starting to work,
and other incidental matters. While the respondent's witnesses testified that
all these matters had been called to Clabaugh's attention prior to his discharge,
Clabaugh denied this. Clabaugh likewise denied that he had been guilty of the
derelictions charged to him.
' In support 'of its' contentions; the respondent called to the stand various of
its officials, including President Grieder, Superintendent Strothers, and Secretary
Dunlop. It also relied upon the testimony of employee Frye, president of the "Shop
Workers Association, Non Affiliated" herein called the Association, who, however,
had no supervision over Clabaugh's work and admitted that he never discussed
such matters with anyone representing the respondent ; it did not call Clabaugh's
immediate supervisor, Foreman Beck. The testimony of the respondent's wit-
nesses concerning Clabaugh, discussed in part below, is, on the whole, vague,
inconclusive, and unconvincing.
Smoking.-There is no rule against employees smoking in the plant while at
work. According to the respondent, Clabaugh,• however, engaged in "excessive"
smoking which was called to his attention. Superintendent Strothers testified,
for the men's own benefit, we try to have them not smoke so much."
Asked whether this was done entirely for their benefit, Strothers replied, "Well,
no, not entirely for the men's benefit. It is for'the benefit of the Company and
the men also, because a great many of us-I smoke myself. There are times„
possibly, when I smoke too mtich." Strothers testified that he "would say" smoking
interfered with Clabaugh's work because of "the fact that sometimes he would
leave his machine and go to somebody and get a cigarette from them." Asked
whether smoking interfered with 61abaugh's work in any other respect, Strothers
replied, "Well, I wouldn't say that it made him, that it numbed him, or any-
thing like that, just the time that he lost taking from one cigarette to another
and lighting them and all that, and laying them down." Although Strothers
13 Despite these admissions Strothers nevertheless claimed that the first time he ever knew
that Clabaugh was connected with the C. I 0. was after Clabaugh had been discharged.
Strothers was an evasive witness.
G!RIEDE'R MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1335
considers the smoking of more than one package of cigarettes a day as "excessive,"
he only observed Clabaugh on the average of "possibly five times a day." " Ac-
cording to Grieder, Clabaugh was constantly "smoking to the extent that he
couldn't see what he was doing" and had ,a cloud of smoke in front of him ; that
Clabaugh, "instead of laying the cigarette to one side, held it in his mouth and let
the smoke go up in his eyes and then he would smoke with one hand and try to work
with another." Clabaugh testified that he smoked about one package of cigarettes
a day, that he did not smoke continuously or "bum" cigarettes from others,
and that he was never warned about his smoking. Frye, president of the Asso-
ciation, whose testimony indicates that he kept Clabaugh and,his activities, under
fairly close surveillance, testified that he never heard anyone warn Clabaugh
concerning smoking.
"Visiting and talking." There appears to be more or less constant "visiting"
and "talking" by employees among themselves during working hours 1° Again,
the respondent charges that Clabaugh's participation in these activities was
"excessive." Frye did not hear anyone warn Clabaugh about his visiting or
"loafing" at any time. Clabaugh denied receiving any warning or that he abused
the privilege by indulging in it to an excess. Strothers, who observed Clabaugh
about five times daily, testified in part'that he "would call hini [Clabaugh] on
visiting around among theOrother employees . . . he was doing too much
visiting, away from his work too much";, that while others also. "visited," Cla-
baugh was the worst offender. Strothers did not know what Clabaugh may
have been talking about with others, and admitted that the subject may have
been his work'. Strothers testified also "I never particularly bothers what he
was talking about, as long as he did his work all right, that was all I cared:"
Grieder testified that he observed Clabaugh "running around visiting, and bother-
ing other employees . . Asked whether Clabaugh might not have been
discussing his work, Grieder replied in the negative Grieder "never saw him
talking to supervisors very much, very seldom." Grieder,was certain that Cla-
baugh could not have been discussing his work with the other employees because
"they don't know much , about each other's operation. He had no business to
talk to any other employee because that particular fellow wouldn't have known
much more about it than he did." (emphasis added.) Further, Grieder testi-
fied, " . . . I am not saying he couldn't go over and talk, because it might be
on the work or something he wanted to borrow, but when it is done constantly-
I can't say it is constantly, but at least 75 percent of the time when I came in
the plant I wouldn't find him at his machine . . . ' He also stated that other
employees visited, "but most of them stick to their jobs. We didn't have trouble
unless somebody else went over to talk to them " At the time of the hearing such
conversations were still in vogue, despite Grieder's assertion that "You tell
them and they cooperate with us and discontinue it." But, according to Grieder
also, employees converse at present "if they have things to talk about their work."
Asked how he knew this to be so, Grieder replied, "Well, I don't know, but a lot
of cases I know it is about their work, and you see them coming back with a
tool the other employees had, in some cases. Understand, there isn't much of it
done. There is during changing shifts . . .' Although Secretary Dunlop also
testified that he observed Clabaugh "around the various machines when he should
have been on his own . . . he was over talking to men on shapers . . ,
14 It is common knowledge that the average package of cigarettes contains 20 cigarettes.
16 Since many operations performed at the plant do not require constant attendance of
the machines by the employees, there is much legitimate opportunity for such visiting and
talking while the machines grind or bore or polish the parts being produced.
1
D
1336 DECTSLONIS- OF NATIONAL (LABOR REILATIONS BOARD
other employees also visited, Dunlop testified, but not -so much as Clabaugh 1°
According to Grieder and Dunlop, they never overheard the subject matter of
Clabaugh's conversations and never discussed this with Strothers. Strothers
testified that Grieder brought Clabaugh's visiting to his, Strothers', attention, that
they never discussed what Clabaugh was visiting about, Grieder merely directing'
Strothers "to break it up." Strothers admits that Clabaugh might have been
discussing his work. Clabaugh testified that he discussed his work.
Scrap. Grieder testified that "Clabaugh had a lot of scrap" ; that he observed
Clabaugh's work "at night"; that he spoke to Clabaugh about making scrap;
that upon the latter's' statement that "he wasn't making any more scrap than
-.anybody, else," Grieder replied that, "it still didn't make any difference, we all
have to try to do better" ; and that Strothers and Levalley, foreman under
'Strothers, reported to him that Clabaugh had scrap. According to Grieder, also,
everybody "has some scrap."` Grieder admitted that he checked Clabaugh's scrap,
but not that'of all other employees Dunlop. testified that there was much scrap
and I was trying to find out where it came from on that particular job." He
'did not check Clabaugh's work. When asked point-blank by the respondent's
counsel to state whether Clabaugh had any scrap., Dunlop replied that he "wouldn't
want to say."' Strothers testified at first that he "found considerable work that
Clabaugh had spoiled." Asked to compare the amount of scrap produced by
Clabaugh with' that produced, by, other employees, Strothers testified that Cla-
baugh "possibly had a little bit niore for the simple operation that he had. It
was a-little more in comparison with somebody that was doing,somethmg of im-
portance." " Clabaugh testified that he received no complaints about his work.
The respondent keeps no written record of scrap.
Delay in starting: Strothers testified that Clabaugh "was a little late getting
started" in the morning and after lunch, possibly "five or eight minutes" late.
Grieder testified that Clabaugh "wasn't always there at starting time when I
came in at seven-thirty: in the morning.. I never saw him working," and that
Strothers would complain that "it took him [Clabaugh] half an hour or more
before he started to work every morning and noon . . ." Dunlop's testimony
was that Clabaugh was from,l0 to,15,minutes-late in starting, after lunch He
.also testified, however, that for a time Clabaugh had been given permission to
'report at 7: 30 rather than 7 a. in., the starting hour, "because lie couldn't get
any other transportation," and that later Clabaugh began arriving at 7 a. in.,
except- for.several occasions when he did not arrive until 7: 30 a. ni
The incident purportedly precipitating the discharge was.as follows: On the
'morning of his discharge, Clabaugh was somewhat delayed in, starting to work
because "the night man had torn the job down and it had to be reset." Clabaugh
wastuncertain as to whether the respondent wanted him to continue on the same
• operation or start another one, so -he went to his immediate superior, Beck, for
advice." Beck was occupied with someone else, and after Clabaugh had-had the
opportunity to consult him, Clabaugh reset the machine. This consumed' about
45 minutes., -As he finished this operation, and was starting on production-work,
Strothers, appeared ,and stated, "'You are a little'.late getting started, aren't
tyou?" Clabaugh related what had happened, and Strothers appeared to be sat-
Dunlopae did not say how often this occurred His precise testimony as to the work the
employees whom Clabaugh visited were doing leads the undersigned'to conclude that Dunlop
was probably referring to one incident -
_
' -
17'Althougfi'Strothers claimed that Clabaugh "could only do simple operations, and it was
quite difficult for him to do them and do them right," 'Strothers' hhd observed Clabaugh's
'work for about a month prior to his employment by the:respondent, and nevertheless had
not objected to the employ of Clabaugh. Grieder testified that Clabaugh' "looked to'me like
be was a bright sort of a fellow . . .
GIRIED'E'R MACFIIPvE TOOL & DIE Co. 1337
isfied with the explanation. That afternoon, at about 3 p in, Strothers dis-
charged Clabaugh, stating that the discharge resulted from Clabaugh's delay in,
starting that morning Clabaugh inquired, "Is that the only reason, or is it the
Union?" Strothers replied, "What do you think?" '8 Strothers and Clabaugh then
proceeded to the plant office, where Strothers made out Clabaugh's separation
slip. According to Clabaugh, Strothers wrote on it "Discha'rged. Late getting
started to work." When Clabaugh received the slip through the mails thereafter,
it had other reasons added to it 10 -
While Strothers testified that at various times Grieder "told me to have Cla-
baugh cut out too much smoking and visiting, or let him go . .", Grieder, on the
other hand, testified that Strothers and LeValley had sought Clabaugh's discharge
on several occasions, but that he, Grieder, wanted to "give him a chance."
The entire testimony of the respondent's witnesses, its various conflicts, and
inconsistencies, their obviously strained' and plainly unsuccessful efforts to pic-
ture Clabaugh's activities as being somewhat in excess of permissive conduct in
the premises-when considered in the light of the respondent's palpable antipathy
toward the Union and concerted activities by its employees, and Clabaugh's open
leadership in the unionization efforts convince the undersigned that Clabaugh's
discharge resulted from his union membership and activities rather than the
reasons advanced by the respondent's officials.
The undersigned finds that the respondent discharged Henry Clabaugh be-
cause of his union membership and activity, and thereby discriminated in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment,
discouraged membership in the Union and interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2 The alleged discriminatory discharge of William Rudolph
Rudolph was in the respondent's employ from March 18 to- April 27, 1942.
He was an experienced worker on a number of machines, and was utilized by the
respondent` as a general machine operator throughout the plant.
Between March 18 and April 17, 1942, Rudolph participated in conversations
during the lunch hour among the employees, both inside and outside the plant,
respecting unions, working conditions, wages, and other related matters. At
times the conversations were in the presence of supervisors. Rudolph's par-
ticipation was no greater than that of other employees, and he did nothing to
-distinguish himself from them in the espousal of these causes In fact, he
testified, "I tried to keep my mouth shut as much as I could." 20
As heretofore stated (supra, p 1330), on about April 17, 1942, Rudolph and
Clabaugh became C I-O organizers for the plant, and thereafter engaged in
,various oiganizational activities. At the hearing, Rudolph was unable to state
whether his activities in this respect came to the attention of the respondent.
Apparently the earliest definite date when the respondent became aware of
I8 Strothers did not deny Clabaugh ' s testimony in this respect Strothers could not recall
what precipitated Clabaugh s dischaige He testified that it was decided to dischaige
Clabaugh atter "Grieder told me, spoke to me, again about something whether it was talking,
or whatever it was that particular time , I think it iaas vishttivig . ." (emphasis added) The
undersigned does not accept Strotheis' testimony.
19 The respondent introduced in evidence its record bearing Clabaugh's name, on' the back
of which Dunlop had written the reasons for Clabaugh s dischaige as they purportedly
appeared on his separation slip This card reads : "Late starting work Excessive smoking
on job. To (sic) much talking and visiting at other machines Do not - rehire . Dunlop."
20 On most days Rudolph drove home for lunch. '
11
1338 DEICISI'ONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rudolph's Union membership, was April 27, when 'he, as well, as 35^ or 40 other
employees, wore Union badges for the first time
The chain of events which led up to Rudolph's dismissal had its inception
about aweek prior to the discharge, at which time the respondent began prepara-
tions for the production of "herringbone" gears. Rudolph was selected for that
job and, since he as unacquainted with it, was placed under the tutelage of one
Johnson, who was sent to the plant by the, manufacturer of the machine used in
the operation to explain its use in cutting herringbone gears. Rudolph was
informed by Grieder that he would be given a raise after he "started on this
machine "
Johnson remained at the plant for about a week, and left on Saturday, Apr4l,25.
During that period, Rudolph did not get along with Johnson. Apparently
Rudolph showered Johnson with questions, which the latter declined to answer
on the ground that they did not pertain to the operation in which Johnson was
instructing Rudolph. Rudolph considered Johnson as having "a personality out
of this world," and on several occasions during the week of instruction, Rudolph
informed Grieder and Dunlop that he "didn't care to work with him [Johnson]
any longer, because I wasn't getting this thing." They prevailed upon Rudolph
to continue.
During that same week, the respondent hired one Bowden to supervise and
assist the machine operators. According to Rudolph, Bowden spent much of
his time "standing around" watching others, "and Mr. Grieder didn't seem to
care for that. And he got into m3'-hair and into Bowden's hair about the work
we was doing, and I told Grieder that I didn't care much for having him jump
on me all the time, and I would just like awfully well to check out and quit right
on the spot. . . . I just thought that maybe I hadn't ought to stand for-that
any more . . . I told Mr. Grieder at that time that if he would promise me that
he would leave me alone down there on that machine . . . that I would go back
down there and go to work, otherwise, I wanted to get out of there." Shortly
thereafter that day, Grieder once again placated Rudolph and prevailed upon
him not to resign.Y1
When Johnson left on April 27, Rudolph admittedly "wasn't competent to run"
the machine cutting herringbone gears " Rudolph, however, operated the ma-
chine for the balance of April 27, after Johnson had departed On April 28, a
Sunday, Rudolph sought to start the machine, but was unable to do so.' The
respondent requested the manufacturer of the machine to send someone to the
plant and, in view of Rudolph's prior complaints, asked that it be someone other
than Johnson. The manufacturer, however, insisted that Johnson return. John-
son arrived on April 29. According to Rudolph,
. . . when Mr. Johnson came back on Monday morning, why, I don't know,
but I think that he and Mr. Grieder, and perhaps Mr. Dunlap kind of got into
it over the whole thing, and Grieder came down and asked me if I had told
him that Johnson wouldn't tell me a doggone thing in regards to running the
machine, and I told him no, because I didn't. I told him that I had told Mr.
Grieder that Johnson wouldn't tell me a doggone thing about that machine
21 Grieder testified that he "needed the work," that "there was pressure" on him "every
hour "
22 Rudolph testified in part :
Herringbone gears , incidentally , are tough gears to cut . Men with years of experience
are careful with herringbone gears , and I was a new man to go on to that machine
with as little experience as I had on it, and with the training I had on it. It was go-
ing to be a tough row for me to hoe.
22 Rudolph described this experience in these words • ". . . the machine wouldn't start,
wouldn 't run properly , or rather , I didn 't know what was wrong with it, frankly."
GIRIED'ER MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1339
other than a few things pertaining to that particular job, or that job of,
cutting herringbone gears. Mr Grieder told me that I was a liar and that
that wasn't what I told him, and asked ale to check out, or he fired me 24 . . .
at the time that Grieder fired me, I had been-I had grabbed Johnson and
I told him just exactly what I had' told Grieder, that he was not the sort of a
person to be on that job, that he didn't have the patience and that it took
a little more time than a week, that he was in too doggone, big a hurry. I
don't remember any more just exactly what I told him, but I know I didn't
tell Johnson anything different than what I told Grieder.
President Grieder testified that following Johnson's departure on April 27,
Rudolph was unable to operate the machine in question; that he asked Rudolph
what was wrong, to which Rudolph replied that Johnson was "bull-headed" and
had not shown him "anything;" that he Grieder, sought to persuade Rudolph to
use an attachment which would have assured pioper operation of the machine,
but that Rudolph had refused saying that the attachment was "no damned good"
and that Grieder did not "know how to make gears, didn't know anything about
the job " Grieder further testified that Johnson, upon returning to the plant,
"blew up" upon Grieder's statement to him of Rudolph's charges, whereupon
Rudolph denied having made them, changed his story "and made me out a liar,"
and that an argument ensued during which Rudolph stated that Grieder "didn't
know what it was all about" and insulted him "in front of the rest of the men."
Grieder added, "I couldn't talk to him." 25 There is also testimony that Rudolph
was "hotheaded" and excitable ; that "You really couldn't talk to him very much."
To the date of his discharge, nothing was said to Rudolph at any time by any
official or supervisory employee of the respondent, concerning his union activities.
Although at the hearing the respondent offered several other reasons in justi-
fication of its discharge of Rudolph, those reasons were secondary to the above.
In view of the finding below, they need not be discussed herein.
Upon the entire evidence, Rudolph's manner on the witness stand and his
own testimony, the undersigned is of the opinion that Rudolph is a skilled, self-
sufficient worker, who is acutely conscious of his own capabilities and is impa-
tient-with the short-comings, real or imagined, of others; and that he is clearly
capable of, and undoubtedly (lid paiticipate in the events described above in a
manner which would have resulted in, his discharge regardless of his union
membership and activities. Upon his own admission, Rudolph did not participate
in organizational activities so openly as to bring himself to the notice of the
respondent; the evidence as.to such activities on his Mart is, in fact, very meagre
and it is significant that nothing was ever said to him about any such activities.
On two occasions shortly preceding his discharge, Rudolph's threat to leave the
respondent's employ produced requests by Grieder that he remain. Although
Grieder harbored an anti-union bias, as other events clearly indicate, upon the
entire testimony the undersigned is not convinced that in the discharge of
Rudolph, Grieder was motivated by illegal considerations. The undersigned
therefore finds that in discharging Rudolph, the respondent did not violate the
Act.
24 According to Rudolph , Policeman Lance was present at the discharge . The respondent's
witnesses denied this It is not necessary 'to resolve that conflict in evidence , since the
Board did not show any illegality in Lance's presence , assuming that he was present.
Rudolph's testimony, constituting the most dnect attempt to explain the matter, was as
follows :
My opinion was that Mr Lance was brought in there, yes, was brought in there at the
time I was to be discharged-I don 't know , but it was my opinion that Mr Grieder
brought him in there for some reason , for some purpose , and I can ' t imagine what it was.
25 Rudolph did not resume the witness stand to rebut this testimony by Grieder.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,C. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority
On August 18, 1942, following a consent election held at the respondent's plant
pursuant to a stipulation signed by the respondent, the Union and the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, the Board issued its "Decision and Certification of
Representatives," in which it certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
agent in a unit consisting of all of the respondent's employees at the Bowling
Green plant, except supervisory' and clerical employees, and, specifically, Ray
Taylor, William Beck and Ernest Warne V.21
No question has been raised as to the continuing-appropriateness of the unit
which was stipulated by the parties and found by the Board to be appropriate
The undersigned therefore finds that the unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining consists of all the employees of the respondent at its
Bowling Green, Ohio, plant, except supervisory and clerical employees, specifically
encluding Ray Taylor, William Beck and Ernest Warner.
At the time of the hearing herein, the Board's certification dated August 18,
1942, was still in effect, and had been in effect since its issuance. Although in
November 1942 the Association, an organization of employees at the respondent's
plant, filed with the Regional Director for the Eighth Region a petition for an
investigation and certification of representatives under Section 9 (c) of the Act,
the Regional Director, after investigation and consideration; found that further
proceedings were not warranted and so notified all the parties, including the
respondent, on November 17, 1942 No claim was made and no evidence intro-
duced which might challenge the continuing effectiveness of the Board's certifica-
tion of the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit. The undersigned therefore finds that at all times on and after
August 18, 1942, the Union was, and still is, the duly designated exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
2 The refusal to bargain
On August 31, 1942 , shortly after the Board had certified the Union ,' James
Crowley, representing the Union , called upon President Grieder and sought to
arrange a collective bargaining conference with him According to Crowley,
°'Matter of (rieder Machine Tool of Die Company and International Union United Auto-
mobile Aircraft if Agricultural Implement Workers of America , C I. 0, 43,N L R B 331
The stipulation providing for the election and for the certification was consummated at a
hearing held on July 15, 1942 , upon a petition under Section 9 (c) filed by the Union
27 The question concerning representation in the representation proceeding had arisen in
this manner: On May 1, 1942 , the Union sent a registered letter addressed to "Mr. Win.
Grerder, President, Greider Machine & Tool Co , Bowling Green, Ohio " The respondent
refused to accept this letter because the true name of its president is "Fred 0rieder" (em,
pliasis supplied ). On May 6 , 1942 , the Union sent a telegram to the respondent . It received
no reply.
s
G'RIEDER MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1341
whom the undersigned credits, Grieder refused to negotiate with the Union,
stating that although the Union had,won the election and had been certified,.
"it didn't count any more, because all the C. I O. people were gone," and refused
to accept from Crowley a copy of the Union's proposed contract. Crowley sought
to dissuade Grieder from his refusals but Grieder remained adamant. During
this discussion Crowley told Grieder that "we [the Union] were certified" and
that "Uncle Sam said we have bargaining rights." Grieder replied, "It is my plant.
You haven't got a man working here any more . . . I won't negotiate with you." 28
Grieder finally informed Crowley that he would consult his attorney on the matter
Thereafter an agent of the Board called upon the respondent, and the respondent
agreed to, and did meet with the Union on several occasions in October and
November 194228 At these conferences the respondent was represented by Secre-
tary Dunlop and Attorney Spitler, while the Union was represented by Crowley
and Orville Beemer.3o
At the first conference, the respondent informed the Union That "whatever they
agreed on in negotiations, whatever clause we agreed on was tentatively pending
completion of the whole contract." The conference lasted about three hours.
The respondent accorded exclusive recognition to the Union, and discussion was
had concerning a substantial number of the clauses in the Union's proposed con-
tract, many of which the respondent "accepted," while others were put aside for
further consideration in the future 33 A second and third conference produced
similar results with respect to other of the Union's demands. Throughout the
conference, however, the Union found itself unable to overcome the respondent's
refusal to grant cerrtain wage increases, bonuses and vacations From the testi-
mony of the Union's representatives, which was adopted by the respondent's
representatives at'the hearing, it is evident that the parties discussed the
considerations which prompted the respondent to refuse the Union's demands in
these respects.
Meanwhile, in November, 1942, subsequent to the Board's certification of the
Union, the Association, which had been organized by several employees of the
respondent who had concluded that there was no need for a labor organization
at the plant, filed with the Board's Eighth Regional Office a petition under
28 Grieder testified that Crowley "wanted to negotiate , iron out some grievances, and I
told him he had to talk to my attorney . . . he [Crowley] asked me to agree to nego-
tiate . . ." ; that he, Grieder , "said a lot of the men have quit'here," but did not mention
'CIO' men." Wien asked, "What occasion was there to be talking about men quitting?' '
Grieder replied "Well , I 'don 't know We just talked for a few minutes and gradually I
said all ,the men left" Asked how this matter came into the conversation Grieder said
"I-don ' t know how it came . I can ' t remember those things ", Between 8 and 15 employees
were discharged during the period from April 1942 to January 1943 The Union had
received 78 out 85 votes cast in the July election Deducting the 15, it still had a majority.
29 Sometime in November or December 1942, Grieder admittedly advised at least one new
employee that there was no "CIO union" in the plant. -
30 On one occasion Clabaugh also represented the Union
81 According to Beemer, at no time did the respondent's representatives,' however, say
directly to the Union representatives that any given clause was "0 K " or give them
"a direct answer on it " "It was always between AIr Dunlop and Mr Spitler. They
would say to each other, 'That looks all right to nee, does it look all right to you 9' Then
the other one would answer back, 'Yes, it looks all right to me.' But there was never what
you would call a definite 0 K on it "
1342 D'E'CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'Section 9 (c) of the Act.92 On November 13, 1942, the Regional Director for the
Eighth Region sent to the respondent the f®1lowing letter :
GRIEDER MACHINF. TOOL & DIE Co, INC,
South Maple Street, Bowhng Green, Ohio
In the Matter-of Grieder,Machine'Tool & Die Co, Inc., and Shop Workers
Association Non-Affiliated Case No. VIII-R-977
GENTLEMEN:
This is to advise you that a petition has been filed in the above-entitled case,
alleging that a question concerning representation exists as to certain
`employees of the company.
This petition has been .assigned to Louis Plost, Field Examiner in our
office. He will communicate with you in the course of his investigation.
Please address any inquiries or communications to him.
Yours very truly, ,
(S) WALTER E. TAAG,
Walter E.-Taag,
Regional Director.
The respondent received this letter on about November 15 or 16; the fourth
bargaining conference with the Union was scheduled for the latter date.33
When Dunlop arrived affthe meeting on November 16, he testified"lie brought
the letter with him and showed-it to Spitler. Spitler testified that the letter
created a doubt in his mind as to the Union's continuing status as the majority
representative, although lie knew that the Union had been certified, and "as far as
I knew, they were still certified ...." According to Crowley, Spitler and Dunlop
stated that "they felt they couldn't legally deal with us, due to this matter
pending before the Board." After some discussion, during which the Union
insisted ,upon its right to continued recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent,
the meeting recessed for about 20 minutes. When it recommenced, Spitler stated
that "they were ready to negotiate." The Union inquired about the recognition
clause again ; Spitler replied that "due to the petition being filed, or this letter
being sent to them from the Board, that they couldn't legally recognize anyone
until it was settled."
Attorney Spitler admitted at the hearing that nothing in'the letter of November
13 states that the Board's certification had been set aside . He added, " . . . but I
took from the reading of the letter that there might be some other organization
coming in-that I didn't-know anything about, and I didn't know whether to-pro-
ceed or not, because of this letter from the National Labor' Relations Board."
Asked whether he sought to find out as to what to do, Spitler replied in the
32 Apparently the Association did not intend to act as a collective bargaining agent of the
employees ; it nevertheless sought to prevent any other labor organization from acting fin
that capacity. Frye, president of the Association also testified in part as follows :
Q. By the way, prior to the time that you petitioned to the Board, isn't it true that some
three of you of so organized an oiganization and tried to get bargaining lights?
A You mean?
Q Have you petitioned the Board more than once?
A. That is right, but bargaining rights, I don 't get that question . Bargaining rights is
asking the company for bargaining rights , or something like that. Is that what you mean?
Q Did you petition the Board twice for bargaining rights?
A No, we petitioned the Board for an investigation or election.
13 Spitler ' s testimony on this point, in conflict with that of Dunlop, was that the letter was
received by him a da,9 or so prior to November 16; Dunlop testified that it was received on
November 16.
G'RSEDFR MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1343
negative, "because I assumed this, that there would be a conciliation commis-
sioner come in
On November 16, further discussion was -had concerning the Union's >_ou-
tractual demands, frequently interrupted by inquiries by the Union as to its
recognition status. The respondent persisted in its original position, and the
meeting finally terminated with the Union's statement that it intended to file
charges with the Board against the respondent, and with the respondent's answer,
"You go ahead and file charges with the Board, and we will let the Government
settle it."
At the hearing Spitler testified that he told the Union representatives on
November 16 that the question of recognition "was a matter that would have to
be taken up with Mr Grieder. I didn't know what he had decided about that."
Grieder, however, had made no decision when he saw the letter of November 13,
but had left the matter in the hands of Dunlop and Spitler. Grieder admitted
that lie never discussed the letter with them, and that insofar as he is concerned,
it had no effect upon the negotiations Moreover, Grieder replied in the negative
when asked at the hearing whether he, ever advised Dunlop or Spitler "that they
were to negotiate no further with the C. I 0 because of another union," and testi-
fied that he was never advised that they had so informed the Union, or that he
knew anything about it. He stated that Spitler and Dunlop had told hun that the
Union had "refused to negotiate any further" without reason. Grieder added
that lie had turned the matter of bargaining "entirely over to them," and that
he was intormed by his representatives that "they would. meet with the Union,
but you [the Union] didn't want to."
On November 17, 1942, the Regional Director sent the following letter, with
copies to the respondent and 'the Union :
NOVEMBER R 17, 1942.
Mr. CHARLES FAYE,'
Chairman, Board of Trustee, Shop Workers Association (Employees of
Grieder Machine Tool and Die Co, Inc,) Non-Affiliated, c/o Grieder
Machine Tool and Die Co, Inc., South Maple Street, Bowling Green, Ohio.
Re : Grieder Machine Tool & Die Co., Inc.
Case No VIII-R-977
DE-\R Sin: .
The above captioned case, petitioning for an investigation and certification
of representatives under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
has been carefully investigated and considered.
Further proceedings do not seem warranted; and I am, therefore,, refusing
to issue Notice of Hearing in this matter. '
Pursuant to the National Labor- Relations Board.:Rules and Regulations,
Series 2, as amended, Article III, Section 4, you may obtain a review of this
action by filing a request therefore with the National Labor Relations Board
in Washington, D C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. This
request shall contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons
upon which the request is based.
Very truly yours,
WALTER E. TAAG,
Regional Director.
Upon receipt of this letter Attorney Spitler, according to his testimony, cony
municated with the Independent's attorney, Lane, and asked, "Do I understand
now that you'are all through with that shop union proposition i" Lane 'replied
i
"Grieder testified that Spitler infoimed him that a representative of the "Labor Board"
would be in.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
,"No, it is being appealed to Washington." Spitler thereafter did nothing toward
securing resumption of-negotiations with the Union "because I consulted Mr. Lane
and he said the appeal was deemed, or was going to be-perfected in Washington,"
and because after the receipt of the November 17 letter, he, Spitler, "wished, to
determine whether or not that was going to end the matter, or whether there
would be an appeal taken, and in order to do that I contacted Mr. Lane, and he
stated that an appeal would be taken."
Spitler conceded at the hearing that while on November 16 his doubt as to the
Union's continuing right to the status of exclusive bargaining representative
was based on the Regional Director's letter of November 13, his, Spitler's, reluc-
tance to recognize the Union subsequent to his receipt of the Regional Director's
letter of November 17, was based upon the Association's intent to appeal the
dismissal of its petition. -
Neither the respondent nor the Union have communicated with each other
since November 16, 1942. -
CONCLUSIONS
The Board having certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent at the
respondent's plant, the respondent was under the affirmative duty to recognize the
Union as such and bargain collectively in good faith with it so long as the certifi-
cation remains in effect. That duty is absolute. -
As stated by the Board in Matter of Appalachian Electric Power Company and
Local Union B-1182 of the International Biotheihood of Electrical Workers,
47 N. L. R. B. No. 102:
The Congress has conferred on the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine
disputes as to representation affecting commerce and gave it machinery by
way of secret ballot election for making such determination The Board
alone may certify the representative designated by the employees as their
bargaining agent. So long as the certification remains in full force and
effect, the representative certified by the Board must be recognized. Gener-
ally, the employer must accord to a certified representative recognition as
the proper bargaining agent for a reasonable period of time after issuance
of the certification, or until the certification is set aside or replaced by appro-
priate action of the Board. The fruition of collective bargaining in an agree-
ment often requires negotiations lasting several months. It is therefore
essential to the effectuation of the policies of the Act that the representative
status, once established, be vested with a substantial degree of stability.
Here, pursuant to a secret ballot of the employees, the Union's authority as
exclusive bargaining representative was established in an election conducted
under the supervision and direction of the Board. , The fairness of the elec-
tion is not questioned. Not more than 21/2 months had elapsed after the
issuance of the' certification when the respondent, challenged the Union's
authority .to,act as the exclusive representative of the employees. Clearly the
certicatien was, then in full force and, effect. The signing of a petition,
under the circumstances disclosed here, cannot operate to alter the Union's
status established in a secret election conducted by the Board. To hold
otherwise would upset orderly procedure, destroy the value of the Board's
election machinery, and seriously impair the stability of collective bargaining
negotiations.' .
-35 See also N L. R. B. V. Botany Worsted Hills, decided January 18, 1943, 133 F (2d)
876,(C C-A 3) , and Valley Mould and Iron Corporation v. N. L. R. B, 116 F.
(C. C. A 7) cert. denied 313 U. S. 590. --
(2d) 760
1
G'RIED'E'R MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1345
It is admitted that on and after November 19, 1942, the respondent failed and
refused to accord exclusive recognition to the Union. The Board's certification of
the Union was issued only three months before November 10. Clearly a reason-
able time during which the Union had the unqualified right to recognition as the
exclusive bargaining agent had not elapsed. When the respondent "refused to
bargain with the [Union] as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees as
had been certified by the Board, by its own admission, it became guilty of refusal
to bargain." iG
The respondent seeks to excuse its failure to comply with the certification's
directive by pointing to the Regional Director's letters as the cause of its confusion
in dealing with the Union. The respondent's testimony fails to convince the under-
signed that its negotiators were in fact misled or confused by these letters. It is
highly significant that the Association had made no demand for recognition upon
the respondent. The Association, regardless of its motives or purposes, had called
upon the orderly procedure provided by the Act for adjudication of its claims.
The respondent, on the other hand, brushed aside that orderly procedure, and the
clear mandate of the Board's decision and certification of representatives, and
simply rejected the Union's demands for its legally adjudicated and protected
right to exclusive recognition.
Nothing in the, November 13 letter authorizes, directly or by implication, dis-
regard of the Board's certification. The language of that letter cannot reasonably
create the impression that its purpose was to bring to a standstill pending nego-
tiations with the Union or to create a hiatus in the Union's recognition status.
Spitler clearly realized this fact. As an attorney, Spitler cannot successfully
contend in good faith that he was confused by this letter, which merely advises
that a question concerning representation is alleged to exist and is to be investi-
gated. Nor can there by any doubt as to the force of the impact of this letter
upon the formal and mandatory requirements of the Board's certification; the
certification obviously stands.
Had the respondent in fact been misled as to its responsibility by the Novem-
ber 13 letter, it was afforded an official method of clarification, for the letter ex-
pressly invites inquiries to the Regional Director's agent, Plost. The respondent
preferred to bypass that mode of clarification of the situation ; instead the re-
spondent adopted the unreasonable and patently improper course of substituting
its judgment for that of the Board and its-agents. By doing so the respondent
assumed full responsibility in the event that its unilateral action, in conflict with
the requirements of the certification, was legally wrong.
The inconclusive and evasive nature of the respondent's witnesses' testimony;
the various inconsistencies and discrepancies in the respondent's witnesses' ver-
sions of various events; Grieder's flat refusal to deal with the Union within only
two weeks after it had been certified and-his false and misleading reasons for his
refusal at that tune; Grieder's false advice to at least one employee that there
was no "CIO union" at the plant in November or December, 1942; the respondent's
clear hostility toward the Union and its open attempts to rid itself of the Union
and its leaders ; and the shifting nature of the respondent's testimony as to respon-
sibility for the decision respecting recognition of the Union-all lead the under-
signed to conclude that the respondent deliberately seized upon the opportunity
afforded it by the Regional Director's letter of November 13 to bring an end to
negotiations in which it was plainly an unwilling participant.
86 Valley Mould case , supra.
1346 DEICISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
' -Moreover, even if the undersigned were to accept the respondent's assertions his
to the effect upon it of the November 13 letter, no such explanation could be
advanced for the continued refusal to accord exclusive recognition to the Union
following receipt, of the November 17 letter. Obviously, any doubt-cieated by the
first letter should have been dispelled by the second ' Tile Regional Director spe-
ci ically stated that the Association's claims were rejected. No longer could the
,respondent have doubted the continuing efficacy of the Board's certification. The
Association still made no demands upon the respondent. Thereupon the respond-
ent took the initiative in providing itself with a further ground for rejecting the
Union's preferred status as a bargaining agent Spitler sought out the Associa-
tion to inquire as to its position, and thereafter the respondent continued in its
position of refusing to accord exclusive recognition to the Union. Thus, subse-
quent to its receipt of the November 17 letter, the respondent no longer predicated
its refusal to recognize the Union upon any asserted doubt allegedly generated by
the Regional Director, but upon the Association's intention to appeal to the Board,
that is, upon the Association's membership claims
The respondent here is not in the position of an employer met with conflicting
recognition demands. The Board had definitively resolved that issue by its
election and certification. The Association in fact had made no demands upon
the respondent. The respondent cannot hide behind the cloak of its self-generated
confusion To allow such assertions as were advanced here to nullify even
-temporarily the effect of a certification, would defeat the very purposes behind
the issuance of that document, and would permit a state of constant turmoil and
indecision defeating the stability of collective bargaining negotiations and of
rights under the Act.
The undersigned finds that on November 16, 1942. and at all times thereafter,
the respondent failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and conditions of
employment, and by such refusal 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 described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening. and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in hind is engaging in unfair
labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist there-
friim and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act and to restore as nearly as-possible the status quo existing prior to the
commission of the unfair labor practices.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
Henry Clabaugh In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned
will recommend that the respondent offer reinstatement to Henry'Clabaugh to
his former or substantially equivalent position and make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally
ti
GRIEDER MACHINE TOOL & DIE CO. 1347
have earned as wages from April 25, 1942, to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net eai nings u during said such period
The undersigned has also found that the respondent has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the representative of the majority of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit The undersigned will recommend that the
respondent bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
in that unit.
Since in the opinion of the undersigned the evidence fails to sustain the
allegation in the complaint that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
William Rudolph, the undersigned will recommend that the complaint in that
respect be dismissed.
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. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America. affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
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 and
terms and conditions of employment of Henry Clabaugh, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
is it labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3 All the employees of the respondent at its Bowling Green, Ohio, plant,
excluding supervisory and clerical employees and Ray Taylor, William Beck
and Ernest Warner, constitute and at all times material herein have consti
tuted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
was on August 18, 1942, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5 By refusing on November 16, 1942, and at all times thereafter to bargain
collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, as the exclusive representative of. its employees in the ap-
propriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within-the meaning of Section S (5) of the Act.
6 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.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The respondent has not discriminated against William Rudolph because
of his union membership or activity within the meaning of Section 8 (3)i of
the Act.
37 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 ;lvorizing elsewhere
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 II B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Fedei a 1,
State , county , municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn ings. See
Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
531647-43-vol. 49-86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the un-
dersigned recommends that the respondent, Grieder Machine Tool & Die Co.,
Bowling Green, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organizations of its
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regaid,to their hire and tenure of em-_
ployinent or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of the
employees at the respondent's Bowling Green, Ohio, plant, excluding super-
visory and clerical employees and, Ray Taylor, William Beck and Ernest Warner;
(c) 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 purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate, the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Henry Clabaugh immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Henry Clabaugh 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 the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during such period;
(c). Upon request bargain collectively with International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative
of all the respondent's employees at the Bowling Green, Ohio, plant, excluding
supervisory and clerical workers and Ray Taylor, Wiliam Beck and Ernest
Warner, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of- employment ; I ,
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in and about,the plant'at Bowling
.Green, Ohio, 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 respond-
ent will not engage in-the conduct from which it is-recommended that it cease
and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of these recommendations; (2)
that the'respondent will take the affirmative action set'forth in paragraphs 2
.(a),, (b), and (c) of these recommendations; and, (3) that the respondent's
employees are free to become or remain members of International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent, will
not discriminate against, any, employee because of his membership or activity
in that organization ; ,
1
as See footnote 37, supra.
t
G'RIEDE'R MACHINE TOOL & DIE C'IO. 1349
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the respondent discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of William Rudolph.
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,
Washington, 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
WILLIAM STRONG,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 12, 1943.