Nemec Combustion Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1118 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Forest Houck, Ernestine Little, Howard Little, Marie Zimmerman,
Tack Sproull, Roy Taubitz, and Hollis Cowgill, and shall thereafter
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supplemental tally
of ballots.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and PETERSON took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction.
ELWOOD C. MARTIN, FRED A. NEMEC , AND ROBERT W. NEMEC, A
CO-PARTNERSHIP D/B/A NEMEC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION , UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. $1-CA-1022. - September 11, 1952
Decision and Order
On February 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, and recommending that the
Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had
not engaged in an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act and consequently dismissed that portion of the complaint.,
Thereafter, both the Respondents and the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications:
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents dis-
criminated against Clarence Leeper by discharging him for engaging
in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. Such a
discharge independently violated Section 8 (a) (1) as well as Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act .3 Whether the discharge be regarded as a viola,-
' No exception was taken to the dismissal of the independent 8 (a) (1) charge.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b), of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson)
3 See Smith Victory Corporation , 90 NLRB 2089 , enforced 190 F . 2d 56 (C. A. 2).
100 NLRB No. 162.
NEMEC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS 1119
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) or of Section 8 (a) (3), we find that the
same remedy is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act'
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged Thomas Frederick on December
28, 1950, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The
fact that Frederick was discharged on the same day as Leeper lends
further support to the correctness of the Trial Examiner's finding.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Elwood C.
Martin, Fred A. Nemec, and Robert W. Nemec, a co-partnership
d/b/a Nemec Combustion Engineers, Whittier, California, and their
agents, officers, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging concerted activities among their employees or
discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, AFL, by discriminatorily discharging any of
their employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, AFL, or any other labor organiza-
tion of their employees, 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, or
to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Thomas Frederick immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Thomas Frederick and the estate of Clarence
Leeper in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Re-
* The General Counsel's request that the back pay due Clarence Leeper be paid to his
widow instead of to his personal representative is denied There is no requirement, nor is
it desirable , to litigate the claims of possible heirs to Leeper 's estate. Further, the Board
is of the opinion that the policies of the Act can best be effectuated by payment to the
estate for distribution in accordance with the laws of the State having jurisdiction See
N, L. R B. v. Hearst, 102 F. 2d 658 (C. A. 9).
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
port entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of the Respondents' discrimination against them.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessary to analyze the amount of back pay and the right of rein-
statement.
(d) Post at their place of business in Whittier, California, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A.",5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondents or their representative, be posted by the Respondents im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees customarily are - posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and
Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.
5 This notice, however, shall be , and it hereby is, amended by striking from line 3
thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu
thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a
decree of the United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America , AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called, respectively , the General Counsel and the
Board, issued a complaint dated November 14, 1951, against the three copartners
named in the caption , herein called the Respondents , alleging that the Respond-
ents had, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act , discharged
Thomas Frederick and Clarence Leeper because they engaged in concerted activ-
ities for purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection,
and, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, attempted to influence employees
against the Union by promising and granting benefits in the event employees
would forsake the Union. Copies of the charge, the complaint, and a notice
of hearing were duly served upon all parties.
Respondents ' answer admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint,
denies the commission of unfair labor practices , asserts that Thomas Frederick
was discharged because his work was not satisfactory, and that Clarence Leeper
voluntarily quit his employment . The answer further asserts that because of
the intervening death of Clarence Leeper, the complaint as to him should be
dismissed.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Los Angeles , California , on January
21 and 22, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. All parties were repre-
NEMEC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS 1121
sented, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be
-heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, I granted a motion
by Respondents' counsel to dismiss that portion of the complaint which alleged
an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and denied such a motion with
respect to Thomas Frederick and Clarence Leeper. All parties were granted to
February 6, 1952, for the purpose of submitting briefs to the Trial Examiner.
None has been received.
Upon the entire record in the case and upon my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, a copartnership, are engaged in the manufacture of com-
bustion equipment and in job and contract machine work in Los,Angeles, Cali-
fornia. During the 12-month period ending September 30, 1950, Respondents
produced and sold products having a value of approximately $295,000, of which
about 25 percent in value was transported from Respondents' place of business
in Los Angeles to, into, and through States of the United States other than the
State of California.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In the fall of 1950, the Union manifested an interest in organizing Respond-
ents' employees who, at that time, were not represented. On December 27,
1950, William Smith, a representative of the Union, met with Thomas Frederick
and gave Frederick 100 authorization cards to distribute. The next day, Fred-
erick returned- 55 of the cards with signatures upon'them. At the close of his
shift on that date, Frederick was discharged.
On the evening of December 27, the welders working the night shift approached
the night superintendent and spoke to him about securing a bonus for night
work and payment for their lunch hour. Clarence Leeper acted as spokesman
for the employees. The superintendent explained to them that these were
matters that must be taken up with one of the partners and, at the suggestion
of someone, Fred Nemec, a partner, active in the management of Respondents'
business, came to the shop and met with the welders. Nemec testified that he
learned from the superintendent that the welders were in an "uproar" so he
went over to investigate the difficulty. Leeper told him on this occasion, Nemec
testified, that he wanted a showdown on lunch hour pay and that if it was not
granted, the men would walk out. At this point, according to Nemec, one of
the welders told Leeper that he was speaking for himself. Leeper went on to
say that he had attempted to secure an arrangement for lunch hour pay and
night bonus with Foreman Gilly and,.Elwood Martin, without success, and that
if, such retroactive payment was not arranged for, he would quit. Another em-
ployee at this point, according to Nemec, announced that he was quitting im-
mediately and was given his check and left the plant. Still another said that
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would not "string along" with Leeper. Finally, Leeper said that he would
give the Company 24 hours to reach a decision. Leeper finished his shift and
left the plant.
On the following day, December 28, about an hour before shift time, Nemec
appeared at Leeper's house and asked to speak to him. Discovering that Leeper
had already left for the plant, he offered a check, in payment of Leeper's services
to date, to Mrs. Leeper, explaining that Leeper had quit. When Mrs. Leeper
expressed some puzzlement about that development, Nemec explained, as he
candidly testified, that Leeper had given Respondents an ultimatum which they
could not meet and had the welding shop in an uproar. Nemec said that Leeper
was one of his best welders and he disliked very much to see him go, but in con-
sideration of the trouble he had caused, he could not be put back to work.
Leeper appeared at the plant on that afternoon, but did not go to work. On
December 29, Leeper telephoned to inquire why he was not permitted to return to
work, and on January 2 had a conversation with Nemec about it. On the latter
occasion, Leeper waived any demand for retroactive back pay if he were returned
to his job. Nemec refused to rehire him.
Frederick began work for the Respondents in 1946 and except for one or two
short periods, during which he was laid off for economic reasons, remained at
his employment until his discharge on December 28, 1950. In February 1950,
Frederick entered a school and thereafter, by arrangement with the Respondents,
worked an average of 30 hours a week.
According to Frederick, he became interested in the Union in October 1950,
and spoke to other employees about it. On December 27 and 28, he handed out
union designation cards in the plant which 55 employees signed. Frederick
testified that Foreman Gilly saw him do this and that he jokingly asked Gilly to
sign one. At the end of his shift on December 28, Frederick was told by Gilly
that Nemec had complained about Frederick's laxity in keeping his machine
clean, and that Frederick was, for this reason, discharged. Frederick pro-
tested that it was not his job to clean machines and suggested that his activity in
behalf of the Union may have been the reason for the discharge. According
to Frederick, Gilly said that he knew nothing of it, except that he had received
instruction from Nemec to let Frederick go.
Gilly testified that he had supervised Frederick's work since the latter first
was employed by the Respondents. For the first year, according to Gilly, Fred-
erick machined axles and for the ensuing 2 years worked intermittently on
machining inserts from a carbon bar. Machining carbon, according to Gilly, is
a dirty job and in early December, he testified, Frederick said that if he had to
work longer on carbon, he would quit. Gilly.explained, he testified, that there
was nothing else for Frederick to do, and consulted one of the copartners, Elwood
Martin, about the situation. Martin told him, Gilly testified, not to discharge
Frederick until after the holidays. According to Gilly, Frederick persistently
failed to clean the machines on which he worked and he often complained to
Frederick about it without achieving any beneficial result. On a date which
Gilly placed as December 27, but which other evidence rather clearly shows to
have been about a week before that, Frederick was helping to reassemble an
automatic machine and with another employee was using a sledge hammer to
force a drum onto an axle. Gilly spoke to Frederick and to one Betker, with
whom Frederick was working, telling them not to use the sledge hammer. A
few minutes later, according to Gilly, he discovered that they were still using the
sledge and on this occasion, Gilly told them to use a wooden block to take the
impact of the blows.
On December 28, according to Gilly, he directed Frederick to drill holes in a
toolholder and to insert a screw there to keep the toolholder firmly in place.
NEMEC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS 1123
Instead, Gilly testified, Frederick tightened a collar to such an extent that the
casting on the toolholder was broken . Gilly gave Frederick a "slight bawling
out," he testified, and reported the matter to Martin, asking for permission to
discharge Frederick . Martin told him to use his own judgment. Gilly then
had Frederick's check prepared and gave it to him at quitting time, telling
Frederick that his discharge was due to his failure to keep machines clean. Gilly
admitted that Frederick may have offered him a union designation card for
signature, but denied being aware that Frederick was engaged in any sort of
union activity, or that anything of that nature affected his decision to discharge
him.
On cross-examination, Gilly admitted that it was either in 1948 or before that
he spoke to Frederick about keeping machines clean. Elwood Martin testified
that Gilly reported to him concerning Frederick on more than one occasion and
that Gilly said Frederick was not working out satisfactorily, that he lacked a
spirit of cooperation and appeared to be uninterested in his job. According to
Martin, when Gilly complained that Frederick refused to work on carbon and said
that Frederick was not qualified to put on another job, Martin answered that it
would be bad policy to lay him off just before Christmas and instructed Gilly
to keep him busy until after the holidays. Still, according to Martin, about
December 21, Gilly complained that Frederick had used a sledge hammer on a
machine and on December 28 that he had disregarded instructions in repair
work and had thereby broken a toolholder. Martin then gave Gilly the permis-
sion he requested, to discharge Frederick. Martin denied that union activity
was a consideration and asserted that he had no knowledge that Frederick was
active in that respect.
I think that it may not be doubted under the evidence that Leeper was dis-
charged. True enough, he had issued what might be termed an ultimatum to the
Respondents, and had stated that he would quit if they did not meet his con-
ditions. He seems, however, to have thought better of this strategy after leaving
work on the morning of December 28; at least, his return to the plant on that
afternoon would seem to indicate so. Rather clearly, Leeper was seeking by
means of concerted action of the welders to secure more wages for himself and
for them. The account given by Nemec of his meeting with the welders on the
evening of December 27 establishes that they were seeking to act concertedly in
a matter affecting their wages, and that Leeper was their spokesman. No doubt
it is true, as Nemec testified, that certain individuals in the group refused to go
as far as Leeper seems to have desired to lead them. Nonetheless, this was
concerted activity and, as such, was protected. Nemec said that Leeper was
one of his best welders, that he disliked the circumstances which made it im-
possible for him longer to retain Leeper as an employee. But what were these
circumstances? The record shows only that Leeper made a firm demand for
more money and appeared to have the support of some, at least, of the welders in
this purpose. Now, perhaps it is accurate to describe the situation which arose
from this action as getting the welders in an "uproar." But, if so, it is such an
uproar as an employer must endure so long as the activity which is so described
is of a protected nature and kept within lawful bounds. Accepting Nemec's
testimony that the welders quit working for a short time on December 27, they
had a protected right to do so. It does not appear that anything in the nature
of a "sit-down" strike occurred It does appear, rather, that after voicing a
protest by quitting work, they sought to gain concessions from the superintendent
and then from Nemec. After a discussion of the matter, the men returned to work
without further incident.
Now, Nemec may certainly be pardoned for being disturbed by the conduct
of Leeper and may well have wished that the welders would seek to deal with
227260-53-vol. 100--72
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him individually rather than as a group, but when he refused longer to employ
Leeper because of his leadership in the action, he was violating a right secured
to Leeper by the Act. I conclude that Leeper's appearance at the plant on or
about the usual starting time for his shift, his failure to take his helmet and
other tools home with him after he finished work on the morning of the 28th,
and his two subsequent attempts on December 29 and January 2 to get back
to work for the Respondents, establishes that he did not quit his job. This
conclusion is buttressed, to some extent, by the fact that Leeper was paid 4
hours as call-in pay for December 28. According to Nemec, this payment was
made because Leeper contended he was inconvenienced by being forced to come
to the plant on that day to get his check. Although I regard Nemec generally
as a credible witness, I cannot give any substantial weight to this bit of testimony.
I find that by discharging Leeper on December 28, 1950, the Respondents
discouraged concerted activity among their employees and thereby violated
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. '
The case of Frederick is more complex. Nemec, although testifying that be
had fault to find with Frederick, due to his failure to clean machines on which
he worked, nonetheless was not concerned in the discharge. Gilly, who was,
did not impress me as a witness upon whose testimony much reliance could be
placed. Only on cross-examination did it develop that the occasions on which
he criticized Frederick for failure to clean machines occurred at least 2 and
perhaps 3 years before the discharge. Furthermore, his testimony that he was
not aware of Frederick's activity in soliciting employees to sign union authoriza-
tion cards was, to say the least, disingenuous. He admitted that Frederick may
have offered him such a card for signature I believe the record fairly estab-
lishes that Frederick was remiss in some of the qualities that an employer
would seek in a good workman. It may well have been that he was lax with
respect to cleaning machines at one time and it is undenied that he protested
a continuation of his assignment cutting carbon. If Gilly, as he testified, was
then disposed to let him go, and if Martin, as he testified, had long been dis-
satisfied with Frederick as an employee, it seems exceedingly strange that this
would not have been the occasion to dispense with Frederick's services. Ac-
cording to Gilly, there was little other work that Frederick was capable of doing
and his chief value to the Respondents in the late fall of 1950 was as an operator
on the carbon cutting machine. I do not believe that an employee who had
proved to be as unsatisfactory as Martin and Gilly said Frederick was, would
have been pampered to the extent of permitting him to refuse an assignment if
he was not fully capable of working on another
The incident about the sledge hammer has a ring of unreality about it. It may
have been that Frederick and another employee were seeking to drive the drum
onto the shaft with blows from a sledge hammer, and that this was not good
practice. However, Gilly's testimony about it is difficult to evaluate. He said
that he forbade the use of the sledge hammer and then when lie found his order
was disregarded, asked Frederick and the other employee at least to use a
wooden block to lessen the probability of damage to the machine. I believe
that if Gilly had issued a flat instruction not to use the sledge, he would have
been sufficiently exercised by the disregard of that instruction to have taken some
disciplinary action at the time, rather than weakly asking the employees to use
the wood block. Whether Frederick actually was at fault in breaking the tool-
holder, I consider immaterial. Although the incident of the sledge and the
breaking of the toolhoider, against a background of generally unsatisfactory
work performance, is relied upon by the Respondents to establish the cause
of the discharge, this leaves unexplained why Gilly, when he let Frederick go,
made reference only to the rather ancient complaint of failing to clean machines.
NEMEC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS 1125
My conclusion is that when Frederick was discharged, Gilly was hard put
to find a plausible reason for it, and that he seized upon the stale complaint
of failure to clean machines as a pretext to be offered to Frederick. The
evidence as a whole fairly convinces that whatever the incident about the sledge
and_ broken toolholder may have been, it played no part in Frederick's dis-
charge. In these days of full employment and serious wor.:er shortage, em-
ployees, generally speaking, are not lightly discharged In the circumstances
here presented, I find it completely incredible that a laxness on the part of
Frederick, which the Respondents found annoying 2 or 3 years before the
discharge, motivated them in discharging him on December 28. I believe that
the Respondents are intelligent enough to accept the fact that employees have
a right to form labor organizations and to be represented in matters of col-
lective bargaining. However, this does not mean that they would welcome
such a development, and instances happening subsequent to the discharge of
Frederick establish that the Respondents earnestly desired that their employees
not select a bargaining representative. Certain employees were told that the
Company could not pay the union scale of wages and compete successfully
in the market; others, that their earnings depended upon production, that the
more they produced, the better their opportunity to secure wage increases.
That the Respondents would view with disfavor anyone who actively, and
perhaps with the appearance of success, was attempting to organize their
employees, is completely believable. The Respondents employ approximately
125 workers in the shop. Crediting Frederick, as I do, that he distributed
through lieutenants and by his own efforts about 100 cards on December 27
and 28 and received back 55 signed cards, I am convinced that the Respondents
were aware of his activity. I believe that this awareness led to his discharge
at the end of his shift on December 28.
I find that Thomas Frederick was discharged on December 28, 1950, because
of his activity in behalf of the Union, and because he sought to secure the
support of other employees in concerted activities, and that by the discharge
the Respondents discouraged membership in a labor organization, discouraged
concerted activity among their employees, and thereby violated Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations 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 Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Clarence Leeper, and, as it appears, that Leeper
died on June 10, 1951, it will be recommended that the Respondents make
his personal estate' whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination, by payment to it of a sum equal to that which he normally
z Presumably, this will be made to his widow and minor child I do not believe, however,
that the Board may order such payment to be made directly to them but only to restore as
nearly as possible the status quo
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge, December 28,
1950, to the date that he became incapacitated for employment, less his net
earnings during that period.
With respect to Thomas Frederick, it will be recommended that Respondents
offer him full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position
and make him 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 the date of his discharge,
December 28, 1950, to the date of Respondents' offer of reinstatement , less his
net earnings during that period. Loss of pay shall be computed on the basis
of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from
the date of Respondents' discriminatory action to the date, in the case of
Frederick, of the offer of reinstatement, and, in the case of Leeper, to the date
he became incapable of employment. The quarterly periods, herein called
quarters, shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October,
respectively. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal
to that which each employee would normally have earned for each such quarter
or portion thereof, his net earnings, if any, in any other employment during
that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the
back-pay liability for any other quarter.
It will also be recommended that the Respondents, upon reasonable request,
make available to the Board and its agents, all payroll and other records per-
tinent to analysis of the amounts due as back pay.
The unfair labor practices in which the Respondents have been found to have
engaged manifest an attitude of opposition to the basic purposes of the Act and
justify an inference that commission of other unfair labor practices may be
anticipated. In order to effectuate the guarantees of Section 7 of the Act,
it will therefore further be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist
from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, 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
Clarence Leeper and Thomas Frederick, the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination, Respondents have interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and have thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
SONOTONE CORPORATION 1127
WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activities among them, or membership
in INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS of AMERICA, AFL,
or in any other labor organization , by discriminatorily discharging, or
discriminating in any other manner, in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as permitted in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Thomas Frederick immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL make the estate of Clarence Leeper whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
labor organization.
NEMEC COMBUSTION ENGINEERS,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By--------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
SONOTONE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO , PETITIONER . Cage No. 2-RC-
4579. September 11, 1962
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis Moore, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
100 NLRB No. 170.