Ohio Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1366 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

lit the Matter of LESTER E. BUTZMAN, BETTY JANE BUTZMAN, IRVING-
-D. BUTZMAN AS TRUSTEE FOR LESTER E. BUTZMAN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY-
AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D. B. A. OHIO TOOL CO. and INTERNATIONAL-
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINSTS, DISTRICT #54 (A F. OF L.) AND THE
INDEPENDENT TOOL. AND METAL WORKERS ALLIANCE, INC.
In the Matter of LESTER E. BUTZMAN, BETTY JANE BUTZMAN, IRVING
D. BUTZMAN AS TRUSTEE FOR LESTER E. BUTZMAN, Jr., INI)IVIDUALLY-
AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D. B. A. OHIO TOOL, CO. and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) LOCAL 217 AND THE INDEPENDENT
TOOL AND METAL WORKERS ALLIANCE, INC.
In the Matter of LESTER E. BUTZMAN, BETTY JANE BUTZMAN, IRVING
D. BUTZMAN AS TRUSTEE FOR LESTER E. BUTZMAN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D. B. A. -OHIO TOOL CO. and INTERNATIONAL-
UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS (CIO) AND THE INDE--
PENDENT TOOL AND METAL WORKERS ALLIANCE, INC.
In the Matter of LESTER E. BUTZMAN, BETTY JANE BUTZMAN, IRVING
D. BUTZMAN AS TRUSTEE FOR LESTER E. BUTZMAN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D. B. A. OHIO TOOL CO. and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT #54 (A. F. OF L.) and THE
INDEPENDENT TOOL AND METAL WORKERS ALLIANCE, INC.
Cases Nos. C-24-58 thru C-2461 respectively.-Decided March 6, 1913
Jurisdiction : tool and special machinery designing and manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, 1 estraant, and Coeicioan • promising wage increase conditioned upon
defeat of union in consent elections ; threatening loss of work privileges if
union successfully organized employees: interrogating employee concerning
union activity and threatening such employee with loss of job if he became
union member. '
Company-Dontintiated Unions: fist organization: Committee of 17 selected by em-
ployees at meeting in plant with knowledge and' acquiescence of management;
committee of 5 selected by committee of 17 to negotiate with management con-
cerning promised wage increase and to complete organization of inside union;
successor organization: formed by chairman of predecessor committee; forma-
tion encouraged by promise of favorable treatment in collective negotiation;
support by the permitting of oiganization on plant propemty and grant of
exclusive recognition with knowledge that it did not command a majority
Discrimination: discharge of 7 employees because of union activities; complaint,
dismissed as to 4 employees.
Remedial Orders : successor organization disestablished; contract abrogated; no,
order entered with respect to dissolved predecessors of company-dominated
47 N. L R B., No. 177.
1366
OHIO TOOL CO. 1367
union; employees discharged because of union activities reinstated with back
pay
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 14, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate,
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respond-,
eats had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, as set out in'the'copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. He recommended that the re-
spondents cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.. There-
after, the respondents and The Independent Tool and Metal Workers
Alliance, Inc., filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support thereof. The Board has considered 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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
except as hereinafter set forth. -
We find that the Committee of 17, as well as the Committee of 5,
was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and that the
respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of the Committee of 17, and contributed support to it.
However, since the Committee of 5 and the Committee of 17 are no
longer in existence, we make no order with respect to them. We
further find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Fred Hurter was
not a supervisory employee, and that the respondents did not inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by Lester E. Butzman's
direction to employee Sam Provenza that he "steer the young fellows
right. .." Also, the Intermediate Report omits mention of un-
denied testimony of Walter L. Sloan, an employee, that about 2.o--r 3
days after the consent election, conducted March 28, 1941, he was told
by Butzman that " . . . an independent union could get as much
out of [him] as an outside union could . . . [Butzman] was going
on a trip and . . . wanted this labor union business settled one way
or the other before [he] went on this trip and . . . there was a lawyer'
in town who was taking care of that stuff." We credit Sloan's
testimony and find that, by the statements testified to by Sloan, the
respondents interfered with, coerced, and restrained their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1368 DECIiSION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARID
ORDER
Upon the basis of said findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondents,
Lester E. Butzman, Betty Jane Butzman, Irving D. Butzman as
Trustee for Lester E. Butzman, Jr., Individually and As Co-Partners
doing business as Ohio Tool Company, their agents, successors; and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing financial or other support to The Independent Tool and
Metal Workers Alliance,'Inc., or to any other labor organization of
their _ employees ;
(b) Recognizing The Independent Tool and Metal Workers Alli-
ance, Inc., as the representative of any of their employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or -other condi-
tions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to their contract with The Independent Tool and
Metal Workers Alliance, Inc., dated January 22, 1942, or to any
modification, extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or to any
other contract or agreement with said labor organization which may
now be in force;
(d) Discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists, District #54, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor; International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, International Union
of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, and International Union, United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or in any other labor organ-
ization of their employees, by discharging any of their employees or
in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire and *tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their 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 con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and' completely disestablish
The Independent Tool and Metal Workers Alliance, Inc., as a repre-
sentative of any of their employees.for the purpose of dealing with
OHIO TOOL CO. 1369k
the respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates.
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Offer to Edward Krupa, Homer Weddell, Robert Miller, Steve
Mytrysak , Frank W. Lewis, and Stanley Stacey immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Edward Krupa,' Homer Weddell, Robert Miller,.
Steve Mytrysak , Frank W. Lewis , and Stanley Stacey for any losses
of pay they may have suffered by reason of their respective dis-
charges by the payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to
that which each would normally have earned as wages during the
periods from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of
reinstatement , less his net earnings during such period;
(d) Upon application by Albert Krupa within forty ( 40) days.
after his discharge from the armed forces of the United States, offer
him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(e) Make whole Albert Krupa for any loss of pay he may have-
suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge , by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned as wages during the periods : ( 1) between the date of his dis-
charge, on December 15, 1941, and the date of his induction into the
armed forces; and ( 2) betweei a date five ( 5) days after Albert
Krupa's timely application for reinstatement and the date of the offer
of reinstatement , less his net earnings during those periods;
(f) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their Plant Num-
ber 1 , Plant Number 2, and Plant Number 3, and maintain for a period
of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of posting,
notices to their employees stating: ( 1) that the respondents will not
engage in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease and desist
in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c ), (d), and ( e) of this Order; (2) that
the respondents will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs
2 (a), (b), (c ), ( d), and (e ) - of this Order: and (3) that the re-
spondents ' employees are free to become or remain members of In-
ternational Association of Machinists , District #54, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, International Union , United
Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of Anmerica,
International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, and Interna-
tional Union, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and
that the respondents will not discriminate against any employee
because of membership or activity in any of those organizations;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the respondents discriminated against Thomas Mandy in
violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed, without
prejudice, insofar as it alleges that the respondents discriminated
against Andy Jewett, Milan Slitor, and John Vovach, in violation of
Sections 8 (3) of the Act.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. George H. O'Brien, for the Board.
Mr. Norman C. Schwenk, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondents.
Mr. Nick Charo, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the IADI.
Mr. A. J. Petersen, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the UAW
Mr. Paul Dunman and Mr. Frank Mance, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the ERMW.
Mr. Joseph tires, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the MMSW.
Mr. M. A. Roemisch, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Alliance
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
• Upon an amended charge duly filed on August 11, 1942, by International
Association of Machinists, District 54 (A. F. of L.), herein called the JAM; an
amended charge duly filed on August 11, 1942, by International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO)
Local 217, herein called the UAW ; an amended charge duly filed on August 7,
1942, by International Union of Mine, Mill &'Smelter Workers (CIO), herein called
the MMSW: and a second amended charge duly filed on August 5, 1942, by the
JAM, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint,'
dated August 12, 1942, against Lester E Butzman, Betty Jane Butzman, Irving D.
Butzman as Trustee for Lester E Butzman, Jr, individually and as co-partners
doing business as Ohio Tool Company, herein jointly and severally called the
respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of section 8 (1),
(2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices
of hearing theeron, were duly served upon the respondents, the JAM, the UAW,
the MMSW, The Committee of Seventeen, The Committee of Five, and The
Independent Tool and Metal Workers Alliance, Inc, herein called the Alliance.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondents: (1) dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Committee of Seventeen, the Committee of Five, Ohio Tool
Employees' Association, and the Alliance, and contributed support thereto ; (2)
discharged and thereafter refeused to reinstate 11 named employees because of
their union activity and because of their refusal to become members of the
Alliance; (3) by various acts and conduct of their officers and supervisory em-
ployees encouraged membership in the Alliance and discouraged membership in
other labor organizations; (4) thereby interfered with, coerced and restrained
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
' On July 18, 1942 , the Board issued' Its order consolidating the cases.
OHIO ToOL CO. 1371
On or about, August 26, 1942, the respondents filed their answer to the com-
plaint denying that they had engaged in or were engaging in the alleged unfair
labor practices, but admitting that on or about January 22, 1942, they recognized
the Alliance as exclusive representative of their employees and executed a con-
tract with it. The Alliance also filed an answer, on or about October 29, 1942,
-denying all allegations of the respondents' domination, interference with and
support of the Alliance.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 1, 1942, and from October
-29 to, November 5, 1942, at Cleveland, Ohio, before the undersigned, -the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. No testimony
was taken on September 1, 1942, due to the illness of the respondents' attorney,
and on motion of the respondent, the hearing was recessed and was thereafter
reconvened on October 29, 1942, pursuant to notice by the Trial Examiner. The
Board, the respondents, the MMSW, the IAM, the UAW, and the Alliance were'
represented and participated in the hearing z Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded the parties. At the commencement of the hearing on
-October 29, the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, herein
called ERMW, offered a motion to intervene and this motion was granted without
-objection.
During the course of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to dismiss an
allegation of the complaint that the respondents discriminatorily discharged
Andy Jewett, and to dismiss without prejudice an allegation that the respond-
ents discriminatorily discharged John Kovach ; s the Board's counsel also moved
to dismiss an allegation that the respondents advised their employees that while
they were willing to enter an agreement proposed by the employees themselves,
they would not sign any agreement proposed by "outsiders," and an allegation
that the respondents furnished financial support to an Alliance beer party in the
summer of 1941. These motions by the Board's attorney were granted. During
the course of the hearing, the Board's attorney also moved to amend the com-
plaint by inserting an allegation that the respondents contributed $200 to a picnic
given by the Alliance in May 1942. This motion was also granted, without
-objection. At the close of the Board's case, the undersigned granted without
objection a motion by counsel for the Alliance to strike from the complaint an
allegation that the respondents assisted in the election of the Committee of Five
-and the Committee of Seventeen by affording them the use of time slips for bal-
loting and the use of the respondents' bulletin board for announcing the results
of the election. Other motions by counsel for the Alliance and motions by counsel
for the respondents, to dismiss the complaint in 'its entirety and in the alter-
native, certain allegations of the complaint, were denied at the close of the
Board's case and at the close of the respondents' case. These same motions
were renewed at the close of the hearing and ruling thereon was reserved.' They
are hereby denied except as is otherwise indicated in this Report. At the close
-of the hearing, a motion by the Board's attorney to conform the pleadings to the
proof was granted without objection. ,
At the close of the hearing all parties were afforded an opportunity to argue
orally before the undersigned, and to file briefs with the undersigned. Attorneys
for the Board, the respondents, and the Alliance, engaged in oral argument before
2 The MMSW while entering an appearance at the opening of the bearing on Septem-
ner,1, 1942, did not thereafter participate in the hearing
8 Kovach wii in the armed forces of the United States at the time of the hearing,
and was therefore unable to testify. No evidence was received relative to his alleged
discharge.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the undersigned and the respondents, and the Alliance have filed briefs with the
undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Ohio Tool Company is a partnership consisting of the following respond-
ents: Lester E Butzman, Betty Jane Butzman, and Irving D Butzman, Trustee
for Lester E. Butzman, Jr. The respondents are engaged in designing and
manufacturing dies, jigs , fixtures, gauges, tools, and special machinery, and for
these purposes operate three plants in Cleveland, Ohio, known respectively as
Number 1 Plant, Number 2 Plant, and Nummber" 3 Plant These plants are not
contiguous but are engaged in the same manufacturing processes. The Number
1 Plant has been in operation several years, the Number 2 Plant was first
placed in operation in July 1941, and the Number 3 Plant on October 15, 1942.
This proceeding involves the three plants.
At the end of the fiscal year of 1941, the respondents had on hand approxi-
mately $750,000 in value of raw materials, and their sales for the same period
amounted to approximately $3,500,000 About 85 percent of its raw material
was purchased from outside the State of Ohio, and approximately 9^0 percent
of its finished product was shipped to destinations outside the State.
The respondents employ approximately 1800 to 2000 persons
The respondents admit that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act 4
II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District 54, is a labor organization
affiliated with tile American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondents. _
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultui al Implement
Workers of America, Local 217; International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter
Workers; and Inteinational Union, United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, are labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondents.
The Ohio Tool Employees' Association and the Independent Tool and Metal
Workers Alliance, Inc are unaffiliated labor organizations admitting to mem-
bership employees of the respondents r,
The Committee of Five was an unaffiliated labor organization of employees
of the respondents.
III THE UNF.\IIt LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, rests goat, coercion
Pursuant to a consent election agreement executed on March 14, 1941, by the
respondents and the,IAM, an election was conducted by the Regional Office
of' the Board on March 28, 1941, auioug employees of the respondent, with the
4 These findings are based on a stipulation entered into between the respondents, and
the Board, and on allegations of the Boai d s complaint admitted in the answer filed
thereto by the iespondents
'The Alliance was organized under the name of Ohio Tool Employees ' Association ; the
name was changed to the Alliance on Januaiy 22, 1942 -
OHIO TOOL CO. 1373
result that a large majority of the ballots cast were against the IAM No
objections were filed to the election report.' '
Several witnesses testified concerning rumors which were circulated among
employees prior to the election. Among these rumors was one that the respond-
ent would grant a 10 percent wage increase if the IAM lost the election. Joseph
E Oliveri, a supervisor of the respondents, testified that he was reprimanded
by L E Butzman, one of the partners of the Ohio Tool Company and general
director of the respondents', operations, and by Charles E Quay, the respondent's
lidnt manager, for starting a rumor, but denied that he started a rumor and
was unable to recall what rumor he was accused by Butzman and Quay of
starting Quay testified that he accused Oliveri of starting the rumor that there
would be an increase in wages if the IAM was "kept out" and "raised hell"
with him for starting such a rumor He did not explain the basis for his
accusation of Oliveri but testified that the respondents did not authorize the
circulation of the rumor Lawrence E Gilmore,' one of the-organizers of the
Alliance, discussed in sub-section III B, Nitta, of this Report, testified that Fred
Hurter, an employee in charge of the tool crib, told him that he (Hurter) over-
heard Butzman say "that if the A. F. of L didn't win the election that he would
see to it that the boys got a ten cent an hour raise" According to Gilmore, whose
testimony is credited, Hurter stated that be did not see Butzman at the time
lie made the aforesaid statement since Butzman was on the other side of a
partition from him at the-time Hurter did not testify 8 Butzman also did not
testify though lie was present during a portion of one day of the hearing in this
proceeding. The undersigned accordingly finds that Butzman made the statement
attributed to him by Hurter, and as testified to by Gilmore.
Prior to the election the IA11f issued a mimeographed pamphlet in which it
referred to a 20 cents an hour general wage increase which it hoped to negotiate
in the event it was chosen bargaining representative Gilmore, who testified
that lie was active in behalf of the TAM at the time of the election, stated that he
.distributed this pamphlet inside the respondents' plant, and further testified
that he helped to circulate a rumor about a 20 percent wage increase, "or some-
thing like that-," after Butzman "came out with the other ten cent an hour
increase."
On the basis of the foregoing testimony, the undersigned is convinced and finds
that the respondents caused a rumor to be circulated prior to the election of March
28 that a wage increase would be granted provided the IAM lost the election.
But in any event, whether or not the respondents authored the rumor and gave
-currency to it, it is clear that they had knowledge of its widespread circulation,
and aside from the rebuke which Quay testified he administered to Oliver!, the
respondents did nothing to disavow the rumor or to counteract its effect on
the minds of the employees. • They did, however, just prior to the election, post
a notice which stated in part :
The management of the OHIO TOOL COMPANY has been advised that
the International Association of Machinists District 54, has issued several
'.The only evidence of union activity among the respondents' employees pimr to this
election peiiod is contained in the testimony of Joseph Oliver! who stated that the CIO
-was the recognized bargaining iepresentative at a time when there were only about 100
employees on the respondents ' pay roll The iespondents ' brief states that this was in 1937
' Gilmore, who was called to the witness stand by counsel nor the Board , testified that
he was on leave of absence from his employment with the respondents while serving as
president of the Alliance.
8 Hurter was at the time of the election , and subsequently , in charge of the respondents'
tool ciib and, on occasion, was afforded one or more helpeiV, who were under his super-
vision It would appear theiefrom and the undersigned finds that Hurter was a minor
supervisor
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rash, , indiscreet and erratic statements pertaining to the relations betweeit
the management of the OHIO TOOL COMPANY and the Association e
The management desires all employees to vote freely and without any
interference in order that it might know the desire of its employees.
This notice was obviously designed to counteract IAM election propaganda,
and by avoiding all reference to the respondents ' inducement of a wage increase
in the event the IAM lost the election , was not designed to and did not operate'
to free the minds of the employees from interference by management with their
choice of a bargaining representative
Sam Provenza , a Board witness and a tool maker , testified that prior to the
election , Butzman aproached him while he was at his work bench and told him:
"You steer the young fellows right , you are older , you know better." 10 Provenza
"surmised" that Butzman had reference to the coming election . This testimony,
which was not denied , is credited , and is particularly pertinent in the light of
Gilmore 's testimony that he was the only tool maker active in behalf of the
IAM, and that "When the A. F. of L. was attempting to organize the boys
at the plant , they never contacted any of the tool makers who were the lead-
ers . . . Most of the tool makers were more or less piqued ,at that. The A. F. of L.
contacted a bunch of young punks . . . 19 or 20 year old high school boys and
everything like that, and the first recollection I have was, Mr. Butzman per-
sonally discharging one of the boys for attempting to sign the rest of the boys
with the A. F of L " Frank Provenza testified that Butzman talked to him
at his work table just prior to the election and stated "he felt confident that he
was going to win." Frank Provenza further testified ' that on this occasion
he asked Butzman what the election was about and what he thought the out-
come would be and Butzman replied that "lie wouldn't worry about it, he had
confidence in himself . •" 11 but that Butzman (lid not tell him to vote for
or against the IAM. This testimony was undenied and is credited.
Eugene R. Watters , a Board witness , testified that just prior to the election,
his foreman , Harvey Young , who was a "good friend " of his, told him that it
would be better for the employees if the "A F. of L. stayed out , that they will be
liable to lose some privileges they had " Young denied that he made the state-
ments attributed to him by Watters but admitted that he discussed the election
with employees; he testified that he told them lie was " indifferent" as to its
outcome. Concerning Watters, Young testified that "he was a very efficient and'
diligent workman " The undersigned is persuaded that Young made substan-
tially the statements attributed to him by Watters and finds accordingly.
Don Miller , who was the respondents' personnel director from January 12,
1942 to May 31, 1942 , and who during that period was in charge of the hiring
of employees , testified without contradiction that the respondents did not hire
union "organizers" if they knew it. According to Miller , applicants for employ-
ment were not questioned concerning their union affiliation , but he would com-
municate with the applicant 's prior place of employment , and in a few instances
he was told by the applicant 's prior employer that "lie [the applicant ] is a little
e This obviously had reference to the IAM pamphlet distributed prior to the election
10 Provenza was one of the respondents' oldest employees in seniority.
"See Matter of Sunbeam* Electric Manufacturing Co and United Electrical Radio
B Machine Workers of America (CIO), 41 N. L. R B 469, decided May 29, 1942 in which
the Board stated that an "election is not a contest between a labor organization and the
employer of the employees being polled, and participation by an employer in a pre-election
campaign as if he weie a contestant is an interference with- the employees' i ight to bargain
collectively through representiltives of their own choosing "
OHIO TOOL CO. 1375
too active in union activities to suit us." Miller testified : "And we protected
ourselves by keeping out of the sane category that they were in." Miller further
testified that a few union "organizers" got in while he was there, and though
he had no authority to discharge an employee, he learned through the respond
enfs' foremen who were vested with that authority, that certain employees were
discharged because of their union activities, though the reasons for the discharges
were given as poor production, poor mechanical ability, and the like He testi-
fied that there were perhaps a half-dozen instances of employees who were thus
discharged for union activities, though he could not recall the names of ins
individual employees involved.
Miller himself was discharged by the respondents on May 30 and testified
that he did not know why he was discharged but that Butzman told him on the
occasion of his discharge that the Alliance did not like him. According to Miller,
Gilmore called him on several occasions and asked him to come to Alliance
meetings, and he refused since he was not himself affiliated with the Alliance
The undersigned found Miller to be an impressive and convincing witness and
credits his testimony.
Charles Lane testified that in December 1941, Oliveri came to his work bench
and picked up a C10 card which Lane had there. Oliveri asked him what he
was doing with it and Lane replied that he was going to fill it out and send
it in Oliveri asked "Why?" and Lane answered that he thought he might
"better" himself. Thereupon, Oliveri started to tell Lane about some trouble
that the respondents had with the CIO in 1937, and further advised him, "If you
join the CIO, why, you can't work here." Lane did not sign the CIO card and,
later, voluntarily left the employ of the respondents. Lane's testimony was
not contradicted and is credited.
On the basis of the foregoing testimony , the undersigned is convinced and
finds that the respondents through statements that a wage increase would be
granted if the JAM lost the election, and through other statements and conduct
of L. E. Butzmau and Supervisor Young, interfered with the free choice of their
employees, of a bargaining representative in the election of March 28, 1941,
and thereby, and by other statements and conduct of their supervisory officials,
Don Miller and Joseph E. Oliver!, set forth above, interfered with, coerced and
restrained their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B The respondents ' interference with , support and domination of the Commit-
tee of Seventeen, the Committee of Five, and The Alliance.
1. The Committee of Seventeen
On the day following the election of March 28, there was a meeting of
employees in the respondents' Number 1 plant' near the close of the work
shift This meeting occurred on a Saturday, and at that time the Saturday
work shift ended at 11: 30 a. in.. Ordinarily at 11: 15 a. m. the machines
were shut down and the remaining 15 minutes of the work shift were allowed
the employees for cleaning up their machines and otherwise straightening up
their jobs. They received pay, however, for the time thus allowed them Several
witnesses testified and the undersigned finds that the meeting took place
12
On that date the respondents operated only one plant Plant Number 2 began opera-
tions in July 1941, and Plant Number 3 on October 15, only a few weeks prior to the
bearing
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediately after 11:15 and was therefore at least partially conducted on
.company time"
Walter L Sloan, a Board witness, testified that lie called the meeting for
the purpose of finding out if the employees wanted an "independent" or an
"outside" union. According to Sloan, whose testimony is credited, he got up
on a "soap box" in the center of the shop and "told them what it was all
about."" Following Sloan, Lawrence E Gilmore, who was subsequently elected
president of the Alliance, spoke to the employees Gilmore testified concerning
this meeting, that after the IAM lost the election, it seemed to him "there was
a spontaneous something or other." Fred J Maurer, a Board witness, testified
that the meeting seemed "sort of a spontaneous affair " Maurer further testi-
fied that he understood the meeting was to form a "shop" organization The
result of the meeting was that a committee of seventeen employees was elected
-to represent the various departnnents. Gilmore testified that scrap paper was
used for balloting, that he helped to count the ballots cast, and that the results
,were marked up on a board Among those thus elected to the Committee of
Seventeen were Gilmore, Watters, and Harry A Lake.
Charles E Quay, at that time superintendent of Plant Number 1,'s and Joseph
Oliveri and Charles Witenhafer, supervisors of the respondents at the time this
-meeting occurred, testified that they had no recollection of such a meeting
There was some testimony that super visors were accustomed to leave the plant
early on Saturdays in order to deposit their pay checks before bank closing
time Sloan, however, testified that Oliveri was in the plant at the time of
the meeting though he did not participate in it Maurer testified that Quay
was in his office and walked in and out daring the meeting, ind Quay's office
was "right in front of where the meeting was," and that Witenhafer "was
roaming around" Thomas Mandy, a Board witness, testified that the meeting
was held about 15 feet from Quay's office Mandy further testified that he
was advised of the meeting by Witenhafer, his foreman, and that Witenhafer
was present during the meeting Edward Krupa testified concerning this
meeting, that his foreman "cane up and told us to clean lip earlier because
we were going to have a meeting " Krupa also testified, without contradiction,
that Gilmore told him that lie had the respondents' permission to hold the
meeting and that "as long as Butzman gave permission, it is all right"
The undersigned considers it unlikely that Quay, Oliveri and Witenhafer
were all absent from the plant on the occasion of this meeting which began
before the end of the work shift, and does not credit their denial of knowledge
of the meeting Witenhafer's denial that he advised Mandy of the meeting
also is not-credited The undersigned accordingly finds that the meeting of
March 29, 1941, at which the Committee of Seventeen was elected, occurred
"Gilmore testified that the meeting took place during the lunch hour on a Tuesday
following the election Mandy. Watteis, Fiank Provenza. Pied Yenny. Sam Provenza,
and Edward Krupa all testified that the meeting was held on the day following the election,
and it,is clear from their testimony that the meeting started toward the end of the work
shift between 11 15 and 11'.30n in and this could only have occurred on a Satin day
It was the Board's position that Sloan was a foreman and supervisor, but the under-
signed is convinced and finds that while Sloan assisted some of the new employees in
setting up their jobs and advised them on occasion concerning the operation of their
jobs, he was at no time given autboi ity to discipline or otherwise supervise other em-
ployees This finding is based on Sloan s own testinionv that he did not regard himself
as a foreman, and the testimony of Quay that Sloan had no supervisory authority
iaQuay at the time of this hearing was general manager of all three of the respondents'
plants
- OHIO TOOL CO. 1377
in the respondents' plant during working hours, with the knowledge, "consent
and approval of the respondents."
It further appears from all the testimony, and the undersigned finds, that the
Committee of Seventeen was elected primarily for the purpose of constituting a
representative of the employees for bargaining with management with respect to
a wage increase and conditions of employment. As will appear in subsequent
sections of this report the designation of the Committee of Seventeen marked
the first step toward the formation of the Alliance.
2. The Committee of Five
The Committee of Seventeen chosen by the employees on March 29 to represent
their respective departments, met after working hours on that same day at a
local cafe. Harry Lake presided as temporary chairman of the meeting until
the election of Gilmore as chairman The result of this meeting was that 5 of
the 17 representatives were designated as a Committee of Five. According to
Gilmore the Committee of Five was designated primarily for the purpose of
negotiating for a wage increase and a vacation with pay. Gilmore testified,
"At that time they had no interest in an independent union." Lake, a witness
for the respondents, testified, however, that the Committee of Five was elected
to "make a final arrangement for this Independent union" and that it did in
fact organize the Alliance The Committee of Five was composed of Gilmore,
E. Al. Blair, Dick Adams, Norman Tippett, and Orin Sayers.
A few days after this meeting, on or about April 5, 1941, there were circulated
throughout the respondents' plant during working hours petitions designating
Blair, Adams, Tippett, Gilmore and Sayers as "Exclusive Representative" to
bargain with the respondents in respect to "RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS,
AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT." This petition, or Power of
Attorney as it, was called," was signed by numerous employees at their re-
spective jobs, though the total of those signing is not disclosed by the record.
Mandy testified that he was solicited by a fellow employee during working
hours to sign the petition and was told that the committee was for the purpose
of negotiating a wage increase Edward Krupa testified that he and other
employees in his department signed the petition at his foreman's desk or work
bench, and that he signed it after his foreman had asked him if he had signed it
It is clear, from all the testimony that the petitions were circulated openly
a nd without hindrance from the respondents' supervisors.
Following the circulation of the petitions, the Committee of Five met with
Butzman and Quay in the latter's office in the plant The Committee proposed
A 10 cents ari hour wage increase and a vacation with pay. Quay testified that
the Committee stated that it represented the employees and submitted the peti-
tions to Butzman as evidence of its ' authority. Butzman told the Committee
that he would have to consult an attorney ("before he could give them anything
definite," and that "he would let them know as soon as he found something
out.s1e There was a second meeting of the Committee of Five with representa-
tives of management about 2 weeks later. Quay testified, "There was a meeting
that was the result of the first meeting and ten cents' an hour bonus was intio-
'° Several witnesses testified that after 11 • 15 on Saturdays, employees were accustomed
to talk among themselves and gather in groups, but there is no evidence that an organ-
izational or other meeting of any union occurred in the respondents' plant prior to this
occasion
11 Gilmore testified that he did not know who prepared the petition or bore the expense
of its printing.
'B This finding is based on Quay's testimony.
513024-43-vol. 47-87
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
duced ,by Mr.,Butzman instead of the raise and where he agreed to' give them
a vacation with pay." According to Quay, the Committee stated that it would
take.Butzman's offer "back to the men." Gilmore testified that Butzman "ex=
plained at the time that he would give the boys a 10-cent an hour bonus payable
.every three months and then we let it drop' at that because I didn't want no
part of it ..." -
There is no.evidence of a further meeting between the respondents and the
Committee of Five, but on June 17, 1941, the respondents posted a notice an-
nouncing a vacation with pay and a bonus "equal to ten cents (.10). per hour for
each hour worked during the period starting April 1, 1941, and ending June 30,
1941." This announcement contained no mention of the Committee of Five or
other labor organization. Quay testified that Butzman's offer to the Committee
of Five was "entirely voluntary." It is clear, however, from Quay's own testi-
mony, and the undersigned finds that at the meetings between the respondents
and the Committee of Five proposals were advanced by the Committee and
counterproposals were made by the respondents affecting all the respondents'
employees.
3. The Alliance1D
The first meeting of the Alliance took place in a local restaurant on April 26,
1941. The minutes of this meeting are headed : ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING.
The following is an excerpt from the minutes :
The meeting was called to order by Lawrence Gilmore, who had been tn-
formally designated as Chairman of a Committee to form an Assocciation of
employees of the Ohio Tool Company.20 After a brief statement of the
purposes of the meeting Mr. Gilmore was designated to act as Chairman
of the meeting ...
At this meeting, Gilmore was "unanimously" elected president. Other officers
were chosen, and various organizational matters discussed, such as the eligibility
of employees for membership, and a schedule of dues. It was -decided, that
"as soon as a majority of the employees of the Ohio Tool Company- hall have
become members of the Association, the officers of the Association should take
the necessary steps to have the Ohio Tool Employees' Association 2' recognized
as the sole bargaining agent of the employees of the Ohio Tool Company for
the purpose of negotiating an agreement with that Company . . ." z;
There is no further evidence of the formation of the Alliance than appears
in the minutes of its organizational meeting and testimony heretofore related,
19 The Alliance was organized under the name of Ohio Tool Employees ' Association. It
was stipulated by the parties that on January 22, 1942, the name of the organization was
changed to The Independent Tool and Metal Workers Alliance, Inc. All references to the
Alliance in this Report, unless otherwise specified, relate to the organization at the
time it was functioning under the name of Ohio Tool Employees' Association ` as well as
to the period subsequent to the change in name.
20 Italics supplied by the undersigned
11 While the name of the organization appears in the minutes , there is no explanation
of its origin or record of its adoption
22 Near the close of the April 26 minutes appears this statement : "The Chair then
stated that notice of the next meeting of the Association would be placed on the time
clock of the Company" The minutes of the meeting of the Alliance on June 8, 1941,
state : "In accordance with the instructions of the Executive Committee and notice posted
in the plant a general meeting of the membership . . was held. . June 8, 1941."
The undersigned finds that the Alliance was accorded the privilege of posting notices
of its activities in the respondents' plant That the same privilege was not accorded
other labor organizations, subsequent to the organization of the Alliance , is clear from
the uncontradicted testimony of Edward Krupa, discussed in subsection C, infra, that a
notice of a meeting of the CIO which he had posted in the plant , was removed and was
not thereafter again posted , by Superintendent Quay.
OHIO TOOL CO.
r
1379
but in, view of Harry Lake's testimony that the Committee of Five was elected
"to make final arrangements for an Independent union" • and his 'furthe'r testi-
mony that the Committee of Five did in. fact organize the Alliance, the brief,
time ensuing between the election of the Committee of Five and the first meeting'
of the Alliance, and the reference in the minutes of the Alliance` to Gilmore,
who acted as chairman of the Committee of Seventeen and spokesman of the
Committee of Five, as one "who had been informally designated as chairman'
of a committee to form an Association of employees of the Ohio Tool Company,"
and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the undersigned is convinced'
and finds that the Committee of Five functioned as a temporary expedient for
negotiating a wage increase and a vacation with pay, and constituted a nucleus
for the organization of the Alliance which was organized as and constituted a
successor labor organization to the Committee of Five.
Following the organizational meeting of April 26, membership in the Alliance
was openly solicited in the respondents' Number 1 Plant during working hours,
by Gilmore and others. A few days after the respondents started operations:
at the Number 2 Plant, in the latter part of July, 1941, Gilmore appeared in•_
the plant at change of work shifts and made a speech to the employees inviting:
them to affiliate with the Alliance. Leo J. Murray testified that Gilmore made=
this speech "on the floor right in the machine shop" and that when he toldl
Gilmore that his action was "in direct violation of the Labor Act," "Gilmore
advised him that "Butzman allowed them to do that." Murray further testified
that the night superintendent and "day boss" of the Number 2 Plant were on
the floor,at the time, "standing in the background." J. L Covey, who at the time
of the hearing was a supervisor of the respondents,2' testified that Gilmore spoke
at the rear of the building to men going off and coming on their respective
work shifts and extended them an "official invitation" to join the Alliance-
Gilmore did not testify concerning the meeting at Plant Number 2. Oscar
Welshans, plant manager of the Number 2 Plant, testified that he never observed
Gilmore conduct a meeting in the plant. The undersigned credits the testimony
of Murray which was substantially corroborated by Covey, and finds that Gilmore
made an organizational speech for the Alliance at the rear of the respondents'
Number 2 Plant, with the respondents' knowledge and consent.
Following his speech Gilmore approached Murray during working hours and
appointed him a committeeman of the Alliance. Murray, who testified that he
was a member of the CIO at the time he came to work for the respondents,
admitted that he was never active in behalf of the Alliance, and that subse-
quent to his appointment as a committeeman of the Alliance, he accompanied
a group of Number 2 Plant employees to the office of-a representative of the
CIO for the purpose of seeking the assistance of the CIO in organizing the plant.
A meeting of employees of the Number 2 Plant' was subsequently conducted by
the CIO on or about November 4, 1941.
During or about the first week in November 1941, there was a meeting among
committeemen and stewards of the Alliance at the Number 2 Plant, and Butz-
man, which took place in one of the front offices of the plant during working
hours. This meeting was called by Covey, Alliance committeeman for the day
shift, and the Alliance was represented by Covey, Murray, and three sub-com-
mitteemen or stewards. Covey testified that he called the meeting with Butz-
11 The Alliance though represented throughout the proceeding by counsel, presented
only one witness , Herman Kaserman\, President of Local 2 of the Alliance , who was first
employed by the respondent at its Number 2 Plant in October 1941.
24 Covey was made a foreman on February 6, 1942, and prior to that date worked in a
non-supervisory capacity.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man because the men "didn't know whether to become members of the local
organization or join with the rival organizations." 21 Covey further testified
concerning this meeting, "... there were questions asked me what I thought
of this union or the local union or any union, and I didn't know any more
about it. I didn't have any particular thought, and so inasmuch as the fellow-
workers have chosen me and looked up to me for service, I thought that pos-
sibly the best thing would be to do would be to call the boss down some evening
and let's ask him these questions that are floating around." According to
Covey, he stated' in the meeting with Butzman : "There is some rumors around
here that if we organize a union or if a rival organization comes in ... is it
true that we are going on shorter hours?" and that Butzman replied : "It doesn't
make any difference what union is here." Murray, however, testified that Butz-
man told the committee, "Of course you know the CIO is trying to organize,"
and further said that if the CIO "comes in" it would be necessary to "put the
men on eight-hour shifts, cut their hours down, and they won't make so much
money." 29 According to Murray, Butzman also told the committee that they
"had a perfect right to go and organize an independent union" of their own.
It was the testimony of both Murray and Covey that after a brief discussion,
Butzman was asked to leave the meeting and that they thereupon set up-.a
tentative organization for employees of 'the Number 2 plant.
Upon the basis of this entire testimony, the undersigned finds that Murray
and certain other employees were urging the organization of the plant by the
CIO, and that it was talked among the employees that if the CIO succeeded,
the work shift which was at that time 10 hours would be' cut to S hours, with
• a corresponding reduction in wages Covey thereupon called the meeting with
•Butzman because in his own words, the nien "didn't know whether to join a
local'or outside"organization" and he hoped to obtain from Butzman some state-
ment 'on the rumor of a- reduction in the hours of the work shift if the CIO
was successful. Since immediately following a brief conference with Butzman,
the committeemen set about the organization of an "inside" or shop union, the
undersigned is convinced and finds that. Murray's version of the conference
with Butzman is substantially correct and finds that Butzman by his statements
to the committeemen discouraged their affiliation with the CIO and encouraged'
them to organize a local or shop union.
The meeting of the committeemen continued for approximately 2 hours after'
Butzman left. Temporary - officers were chosen with Murray designated, chair-
man, and dues assessed. When the meeting broke up, the committeemen left
the' plant, though it was during' the working hours of at least some of them,
and visited a cafe where they had drinks. Murray later returned to the plant
but did not work at all that night. There is no evidence of a reduction of pay
in the wages of any of the committeemen for the time thus spent in organizational'
activity.
On the following Sunday, November 9, 1041, a meeting was held in a public
hall. Although Murray presided at this meeting as chairman, he testified that
his "main motive was to find out how independent organizations were organ-
ized." Herman Kaserman who was later elected president of Local 2 of the
Alliance, testified that at this meeting the employees debated whether to form
25 At that time the employees of the Number 2 Plant who had affiliated with the Alliance
did not function as a separate local, and Murray testified that there was dissatisfaction
with Gilmore's leadership It appears therefrom and the undersigned finds that some of
the employees were considering the organization of their own shop union for the Number 2
1'.lant which would function independently of the Alliance as it was then established at
the Number 1 Plant.
28Tbe plant was then operating on the basis of two 10-hour shifts.
OHIO TOOL CO. •1381
a separate independent union or to "consolidate" with the Alliance, and that
a majority voted' for the latter action. Thereupon, most of these employees
left the hall in a body and went to another public hall where the Alliance was
holding a meeting.'
The minutes of the November 9, 1941, meeting of the Alliance state that "the
question of organizing a separate local in Plant No. 2 was raised. It' was the
informal opinion that employees of Plant. No. 2 who are members of the Asso-
ciation should be represented among the officers of the Association and should
have their separate stewards, who should be consulted on all matters relating
to employment in said plant." The minutes of this meeting also state: "Mr.
Butzman then appeared at 3: 10 P. M. and answered various questions addressed
to him from the floor regarding the method of computing compensation and
bonuses paid various types of employees"
Following the meeting of November 9, a separate local of the Alriance was
organized for employees of the Number 2 Plant. This local collects its own
dues of which it retains 75 percent and contributes the remaining 25 percent"to
the Alliance of the Number 1 Plant. It also has its own officers and stewards
but is subject to the contract which was executed by the Alliance and the
respondents in January 1942.
Reference has been made to organizational activities of the Alliance inside
the respondents' plant during working hours, and it has been found that this
activity was carried on openly with the knowledge and consent of the respond-
ents. Quay, however, testified that some time subsequent to the March 28
election, he issued instructions that there was to be no union discussion or
activity during working hours, and that be issued these instructions "when
we noticed quite a few CIO cards around the shop laying around on the
benches." He further testified, "I assumed that there may have been some
fellows talking about it during working hours and I told them that they were
not to discuss-about anything like that during working hours." Since there
is no evidence of CIO activity among the respondents' employees subsequent
to the election of March 28, until after the Alliance had been formed, the
undersigned finds that the respondents while permitting the Alliance to carry
on its organizational activity during working hours, when apprised of the
existence of organizational activity by the CIO in the plant, immediately issued
a rule against union activity during working hours. It further appears, and
the undersigned finds, that this rule was never at any time enforced against
the Alliance
On November 4, 1941, the Alliance filed with the Board's Regional Director
a petition for certification in the usual form No action was taken on this
petition and it was withdrawn pursuant to request of counsel for the
Alliance on January 26, 1942, following the respondents' recognition on January
13, 1942, of the Alliance as sole bargaining representative of their employees.
The respondents' recognition of the Alliance was based on a check of Alliance
authorization cards against the respondents' pay roll which was conducted
by a certified public accountant suggested by the Alliance and approved by
the respondents, without participation or approval of agents of the Board.
A statement by the certified public accountant of the results of the aforesaid
card check gas rendered January 12, 1942.'' It appears from this statement,
27 A card check conducted without the participation or approval of the Board obviously
has no binding effect on the Board And in any event, since no testimony was adduced
or records offered in corroboration of data set forth in an unsigned copy of a letter pur-
porting to he it certification by the certified public accountant of the Alliance's majority, this
document has little if any probative weight in establishing the fact of an Alliance
majority. -
1382 `DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR i RELATIONS BOARD
an unsigned copy of which was received in evidence, that the December 18,
1941, and January 1, 1942, pay rolls afforded the basis of the card check, and
that of a total of 572 employees eligible for membership in the Alliance whose
names appeared on the pay roll as of December 18, the names of 301 em-
ployees were the same as names appearing as signatures on Alliance authoriza-
tion cards. The statement further shows that 18 additional Alliance
authorization cards were checked against the January 1, 1942, pay roll, but,
significantly , the statement does not show the total number of employees
eligible for membership in the Alliance on this latter date. According to a
stipulation on commerce entered Into by counsel for the Board and counsel
for the respondents, at the opening of the hearing, a total of approximately
825 employees appeared on the respondents' pay roll as of January 1, 1942;
near the close of the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation that on
January 1, 1942, approximately 1,500 employees were employed by the re-
spondents . Using the lesser number as a basis for comparison with Alliance
authorization cards, it is apparent and the undersigned finds, that the Alliance
was authorized by far less than a majority of the employees to act as bargain-
ing representative on January 1, 1942, which was one of the pay roll dates
affording the basis for the card check :e Nevertheless, on January 13, 1942, the
respondents, who must be held to have had knowledge of the Alliance's lack
of a majority, formally recognized the Alliance and on January 17 began
negotiations with it on a contract which was subsequently executed.
C. The discriminatory discharge of Edward Krupa, Albert Krupa, Homer Weddell,
Robert Miller, Steve Mytrysak, Frank W. Leivis, and Stanley Stacey; the
alleged discriminatory discharge of Thomas Mandy and Milan Slitor
Thomas Mandy. Mandy was employed by the respondents in 1939 and worked
for about 4i/> months when he was laid .off due to lack of work. He was re-
employed in November 1940 and worked continuously from that date until on
,or about October 8, 1941, when his employment was terminated. He was em-
ployed as a lathe operator at the respondents' Number 1 Plant.
Mandy voted in the March 28 election but, though a member, does not appear
to have participated in pre-election activities of the IAM. On the day following
the election, he was notified of the meeting of employees in the plant by his
'foreman, Witenhafer, but be did not participate in this meeting which resulted
in the election of the Committee of Seventeen He signed the petition authoriz-
ing the Committee of Five to function as a bargaining representative but did
not thereafter affiliate with the Alliance.
In September 1941, Gilmore approached Mandy during working hours and
asked him _to sign a membership card in the Alliance but Mandy refused. Gilmore
then crossed to where Butzman was talking to another employee and Gilmore
and Butzman engaged in conversation, glancing toward Mandy as they talked.
About 4 days after this occurrence, Butzman came to Mandy at the latter's
lathe, during working hours, and asked him why be didn't want to be a member
of the Alliance, and told him, "you ought to join up with the boys."" Mandy
testified that in September 1941 he asked his foreman, Witenhafer, for a wage
increase, and Witenhafer advised him to "Go and see Gilmore " Witenhafer,
admitted that he told Mandy to see Gilmore about a wage increase and "said
it on a number of occasions " According to Witenhafer a general wage increase
25 Approximately 1,800 to 2,000 persons were employed by the respondents at the time
of the hearing.
se The finding is based on the undisputed testimony of Mandy which is credited.
OHIO TOOL, Co. 1383
was scheduled at that time. Mandy also testified that at the time he asked Witen-
hafer for a wage increase, there was talk that a general wage increase would
be granted.
In the first week of October 1941, Mandy was assigned to work on a cast iron
pulley. He "scratched" the first piece which was then junked, and Witenhafer
gave him another piece of casting and told him to "hurry up a little bit and
make up for lost time." After he had worked on the second job for about 11/z
days, Witenhafer was dissatisfied with his progress and told him that he could
get a boy to do the job more quickly than Mandy was doing it. According
to -Mandy, he replied to Witenhafer, "go ahead and put the kid on there.".
Witenhafer then said, "you want to get your money?" and Mandy told him
"to go ahead and get it." Witenhafer's version of the incident was substantially
the same as Mandy's. According to Witenhafer, a worker should be able to
make a second job in half the time required for the first, since on the second
job the tools are all "set." He admitted that he was "kind of rough" when
he spoke. to Mandy about the second job, and further testified that when he'
told Mandy he could get a boy who could do the job more quickly, Mandy cursed.
Mandy accepted his pay check from Witenhafer and did not thereafter make
any effort to return to work His separation slip bore the notation, "not
satisfactory for our line of work."
.. Mandy testified that he considered that he was discharged and Witenhafer
also testified that he discharged Mandy. According to Witenhafer he did not
discharge Mandy for spoiling the first job since "everybody will spoil a job"
on occasion, but for "getting too mouthy about it" when Witenhafer criticized
him for being too slow. He further testified that he had no knowledge of whether
Mandy was a member of a union or not.
Mandy testified that he had been a member of the IAM since 1934 but that
during his employment with the respondents he never told any one that he
belonged to the IAM and never wore a union button. It does not appear that
he was-active in the IAM or any other labor organization during his employment
with the respondents, or that the respondents had knowledge of his IAM mem-
bership. The undersigned thinks it likely that had the respondents been seeking
for a pretext to advance as the cause of Mandy's discharge, such pretext would
have been found when Mandy "spoiled" his first job.
The undersigned finds-that Mandy's employment was terminated because of
a disagreement between him and his foreman, Witenhafer, and that he was not
discharged for union membership or union activity.
Edivard Krupa, Albert Krupa. Edward Krupa, was employed by the re-
spondents from January 1941 to December 15, 1941, when he was discharged.
His brother, Albert Krupa, was discharged at the same time. Edward Krupa
was employed at the respondents' Number 1 Plant as a grinder in•the drill press
department, and Albert Krupa was employed at the respondents' Number 2 Plant.
The latter was serving with the armed forces of the United States at the time
of the hearing and though subpoenaed was unable to testify in this proceeding.
Edward Krupa signed the petition for the Committee of Five at his foreman's
,desk after his foreman had questioned him concerning it and thereafter signed
an application for membership in the Alliance. He testified that he did not con-
sider that he ever joined the Alliance and that he paid no dues through he did
contribute $1 on the occasion of a beer party and dinner of the Alliance in August
1941 which he attended. In October 1941 he was elected a steward of the Alli-
ance at an election which took place in the drill press department during working
hours 30 and thereafter on occasion wore a steward button.
° This finding is based on the undisputed testimony of Edward Krupa.
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
- Although ostensibly aligned with the Alliance at that time, Edward Krupai
attended a CIO meeting about or during the first week in November. This was
an organizational meeting for employees of the Number 2 Plant Edward Krupa
also posted in the plant a notice of the CIO meeting which -had been given to
him by his brother. 'It was Krupa's undenied testimony that following the,
posting of this notice, Butzman approached him and said, "Who do you think I
am, putting that notice up," and asked Krupa why he had posted it. Krupa
replied that he wanted to find out what the fellows "think of it." Butzman then
asked him what he thought of it, and Krupa replied, "I think it is pretty good "
According to Krupa, although several Alliance notices had been posted from time
to time at the same place in the plant where he posted the CIO notice, Superin-
tendent Quay recoved the CIO notice posted by Krupa and it was not again
posted. Butzman did not testify and Quay, though testifying, did not deny
that he removed the CIO notice. Krupa's testimony is credited
Krupa testified that subsequent to attending the CIO meeting he wore a CIO
button and offered Gilmore one, and passed out CIO application cards in the
plant during working hours He further testified that his brother Albert was a
member of the CIO and wore a CIO button in the plant where be worked
Edward Krupa continued, however, to function at least ostensibly as a steward
of the Alliance
On Saturday, December 13, 1941, a party was given for all employees of the
respondents in a public hall. Krupa testified that Gilmore talked to him about
having a Christmas party for the Alliance, but later told him that he had talked it
over with•Butzman who agreed to pay the bill. Gilmore did not deny this testi-
mony and testified that he made "most of the arrangements" for the Christmas
party of December 13" Krupa further testified that on the occasion of this
party, Gilmore told him that it was his duty as an Alliance steward to "keep the
fellows quiet," and that he should "make sure everybody would be quiet so they
don't make too much noise there "
Toward the close of the Christmas party, Edward and Albert Krupa became
involved in a brawl which resulted in their arrest, along with Peter Lehmert,
Jr., an employee of the Number 2 Plant. According to Krupa, the disturbance
started when he found men in the basement of the hall where the party was being
held breaking glass against the wall, and tried to stop them. His brother,
Albert, came in and joined in the fight. Krupa admitted that he and his brother
had been drinking. Police intervened and arrested Edward and Albert Krupa,
and Lehmert, and they were lodged in jail. They were released early Sunday
morning on personal bail, and on Monday morning appeared in municipal court,
where they pleaded guilty on a charge of intoxication, and were given suspended
sentences. Krupa testified that Lehmert's case was heard first, and that it
was noon before his case and his brother's were heard.
31 It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents gave financial support to a
clambake sponsored by the Alliance on or about September 28, 1941, and to the Christmas
party of December 13, also sponsored by the Alliance Gilmore testifying concerning the
September 28 clambake, stated that he told Butzman that the Alliance was going to
organize a clambake for members only and that Butzman suggested that he "forget about
that" and that he (Butzman ) would finance a clambake for the "entire shop ." As in the
case of the Christmas party, all employees regardless of union affiliation were eligible
to 'attend the September 28 clambake , which was advertised as the "Annual Picnic &
Clam Bake of the OHIO TOOL COMPANY," without mention of the Alliance or other
labor organization . The Christmas party was also referred to as a party given by the
respondents for all employees. Gilmore testified that he made most of the "arrangements"
for the clambake as well as the Christmas party . The undersigned finds that the clambake
and Christmas parties resulted from conferences between ` Gilmore and Butzman , and that
the respondents by placing Gilmore and other officers of the Alliance in charge of enter-
tainment , advanced the prestige of the Alliance and contributed support to it.
OHIO TOOL CO. 1385
After leaving the courtroom, Krupa went to the plant and on entering was
told by Gilmore that he was "fired." Gilmore told him that he had been so
advised by Butzman that morning. Quay advised Krupa that he "wasn't
working there any one." Krupa returned to the plant on the following day, or
the day after, and asked Butzman why he had been discharged. Butzman re-
plied that he had been discharged for "disorderly conduct" and that there was
no,place for "guys" like him and his brother 32 Superintendent Quay, however,
testified that Edward Krupa was discharged for being absent from his Job with.
out reporting and that he was not discharged for disorderly conduct
Both Quay and Oscar Welshans, manager of Number 2 Plant, testified concern-
ing the respondents' rule on absences. It was admitted that there were no
printed rules and that no rules were continuously posted in the plant, but Quay
and Welshans testified that on occasion the rule on absences had been posted.
Welshans testified that the rule had "been posted two or three times, because we
get lax on that and some of the men take advantage of it and then we post it
again." Quay testified that employees were advised of the rule at time of
hiring. Concerning the application of the rule, Quay testified that some of the
men had a habit of taking the day off following pay day and "the first few
times it happens we probably don't say anything but if they do it continually
we tell them the next time it happens we are going to have to let them go
because they are not reliable; and we do." Quay also testified that if an
employee was "ill or has a reasonable excuse, we overlook that." He was unable
to name any employee other than the Krupas who had been discharged for
violation of the rule, although he testified that there had been other such dis-
charges. Quay further testified that Edward Krupa had been absent on several
prior occasions without giving notice, and had been warned that if it happened
again he would be discharged. i He admitted, however, that he had not per-
sonally warned Krupa and could not recall a specific occasion when such a warn-
ing had been administered. Krupa admitted that, he had been absent without
giving notice on at least two prior occasions, but denied that be had been repri-
manded or warned. Krupa also testified that on Monday morning following
his arrest he talked to Gilmore and also to a clerk in Quay's office advising
them that he would not be able to report for work on that day. The undersigned
credits Krupa's denial that he had been previously warned, and is further con-
vinced on the basis of Quay's own testimony, that normally he would have been
given an opportunity to explain his absence before lie was discharged. There
is no, evidence that Albert Krupa was absent without notice on any prior
occasion or that he had been warned or advised of a rule on absences.
Peter Lehmert, Jr., who was discharged at or about the same time as Edward
and Albert Krupa, did not testify.
Herman Kaserman, president of Local 2 of the Alliance, testified that the
Alliance sought the reinstatement of both Lehmert and the Krupas. He further-
testified that he witnessed the disturbance at the December 13 party and that
Lehmert was only a bystander, and that he didn't think the Krupas should have
been reinstated due to their involvement in the brawl.33 As a representative
of the Alliance, Kaserman. testified, "it was my position to repiesent au3oue,
32 This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Edward Krupa
33 Kaserman testified that a Field Examiner of, the Boaid who was present at one' or.
more of the conferences between the Alliance and the respondents , "upheld" the dis-
charge of the Krupas . However , no charge involving the discharge of the Krupas had been
filed with the Board ' at that time , and the stipulation between the respondents and the
Alliance reinstating Lehmert was not approved by the Boaid. Obviously , casual remarks
of the Board 's Field Examiner have no binding effect on the Board, and there is no
evidence that the respondents relied on the alleged remarks of the Field Examiner.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no' matter what claim it was." He further stated that while Lehmert was a
member of the Alliance, the Krupas were not, but that it was his position to repre-
sent all employees, whether members of the Alliance or not. According to
Kasermah, when he interceded with Butzman in behalf of Lehinert, Butzman
said, "I fired this man. I have had him fired and he is going to stay fired," and
"Any man that knocks the windows out of the vestibule should be fired."
Kaserman replied to Butzman that he was a "God damned liar," that Lehmert
did not break the window. This occurred in the respondents' Number 2 Plant
in the presence of a group of employees.
The result of the Alliance's intervention in behalf of the discharged'employees
was that Lelimert was reinstated, whereas Edward and Albert Krupa were
denied reinstatement. Pursuant to a stipulation executed by the respondents
and the Alliance, Lehmert, who is referred to in the stipulation as a member
of the Alliance, was reinstated on December 22, 1941, "with full rights restored,
in his same occupation and at the same rate of pay as heretofore granted."
Thiss agreement, which was posted in the respondents' plant, further contained
recognition by the Alliance that "the conduct of Peter Lehmert, Jr, was repre-
hensible and that said aggrieved member has been absent from work without
justifiable cause."
It appears from all the testimony and the undersigned finds that Edward and
Albert Krupa and Peter Lehmert, Jr., were involved in a fight which took
place at the December 13 party, were arrested at or about the same time, were
charged with intoxication, and eachI entered a plea of guilty and was given a
suspended sentence. The undersigned cannot undertake to assess the degree to
which each was involved in the disorder which occasioned their arrest and
considers Kaserman an unreliable witness on this point, since according to
Kaserman's own testimony he was the last to leave the December 13 party and
was "just as good a drinker as all of the rest of them." -In its stipulation with
the respondents the Alliance admitted that Lehmert's conduct was reprehensible.
It is obvious that he also was absent from his work during the time he was
in court and the stipulation further states that Lehmert was absent from work
without justifiable cause. It would appear, therefore, that there is little if
any distinction in the cases of the three men insofar as there was a plausible
reason 'for their respective discharges and, similarly, it would appear and the
undersigned finds that their claims for reinstatement normally would have
merited the respondents' equal consideration. The undersigned is convinced that
whereas the Alliance's intervention in behalf of Lehmert, a member, was vigorous,
its intervention in behalf of the Krupas was no more than formal and lukewarm,
since Kaserman admitted that he did not consider that they should be reinstated
and it further appears that although Edward Krupa functioned ostensibly
as an Alliance steward, he was not in fact a member of the Alliance and was
not regarded as a member. Both Edward and Albert Krupa had worn CIO
buttons while at work. Albert Krupa was a member of the CIO and Edward
Krupa had passed out CIO membership cards in the plant during working
hours. That Butzman was aware of Edward Krupa's activity in behalf of
the CIO is clear in view of Krupa's uncontradicted testimony that Butzman
questioned him concerning his posting of a CIO notice in the plant. The under-
signed is convinced and finds, on the basis of the entire testimony, that the
respondents on or about December 15, 1941, discharged Edward and Albert
Krupa, and thereafter refused to reinstate them, because of their activity in
behalf of the CIO.
1,. OHIO TOOL co. 1387
Robert Miller, Hower Weddell. Steve Mytrysak, Milan Slitor, Frank W. Lewis_
Homer Weddell was employed by the 'respondents on or about February, 4;
Robert Miller on or about January 20, and' Steve Mytrysak on or about February
5, 1942. These three employees worked from the date of their employment until'
February 14 when Miller and Weddell were discharged by their foreman;
Joseph E Oliveri. All three employees signed application cards for membership
in the CIO after coming to work for the respondents, and Miller testified that
he passed out from 50 to 100 CIO application cards to fellow employees prior
to his discharge Weddell, Miller, Mytrysak and Milan Slitor, who was in
the armed forces of the United States at the time of the, hearing and was
therefore unable to testify, were employed on a night shift in the drill press
department of the Number 1 Plant.
Just before the start of the work shift on February 14, Mytrysak gave Miller
and Weddell CIO steward buttons, and these employees agreed among themselves
to display these buttons by wearing them shortly after they had commenced
working. Pursuant to this agreement, Weddell and Miller put on the buttons
after they had gone on their jobs After they had worked a short time, Oliveri
called Miller away from his job and told him: "Miller, you are all washed up."
Miller testified that he was surprised and asked Oliveri, "What is the idea?"
and Oliveri answered, "There is too much horsing around " When Miller said;
"My production has been up hasn't it?" Oliveri stated that his production had
nothing to do with it. At or about the same time, Oliveri called Weddell fiom
the latter's job and told him also that he'was "all through." Weddell asked
Oliveri if they were being discharged because they were wearing CIO buttons,
and Oliveri replied that that wasn't it, that they were discharged for "insubordi=
nation" which Oliveri defined as "talking among yourselves while you were
working" Oliveri handed Weddell and Miller their pay `checks at the same
time that lie advised them that they were discharged.
As Weddell and Miller were preparing to leave the plant, they saw Mytrysak
who asked them what the trouble was. Mytrysak then suggested that they
should go to the superintendent's office and get a "more explicit statement of
the reason" for their discharge. The three employees then sought the assistance
of employees of the drill press department and most of the employees of that
department left their jobs and accompanied them to the superintendent's office
where they were interviewed by Butzman Butzman told them that the discharge-
was up to the foreman and that if they had a grievance they should present
it at the usual time observed for the presentation of grievances. Mytrysak
replied that if Weddell and Miller were not permitted to return to work the
men "would all go ]ionic " Butzman replied, "Well, go home then" Most of
the employees, however, then returned to their jobs, but Mytrysak left the
plant with Weddell and Miller. Slitor also left the plant though it appears
that he did not leave simultaneously with Weddell, Miller and Mytrysak e`
Mytrysak returned to work on the following clay but was not allowed to go,
to work and was directed by one of the guards to see Quay and Butzman.
Mytrysak saw Quay who told him that it was considered that he had quit and
refused to permit him to return to work i5
Oliveri admitted that he,saw that Miller and Weddell were wearing CIO
buttons on the night that they were discharged and that he had not observed
them wearing union buttons prior to this occasion . He testified that Weddell'
14 Oliveri testified that Mytrysak , Weddell , Miller and Slitor walked out on the occasion
of the discharge of Weddell and Miller.
15Quay testified that Mytrysak did not report back to work until 4 or 5 days after
he walked out. 11.
1388 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was slow and talked "around," and that Miller was always talking to- men; work-
ing beside him, and that this slowed up the other men. No further evidence
was offered that Weddell and Miller "slowed up" the production of other men,
or that their own production was below requirements. Oliveri testified that
he had reprimanded both Weddell and Miller about talking while at work and
that having reprimanded Miller a few times, "one day he got under my skin
and I told him he was all through." He further testified that he told Miller
on the occasion of his discharge, when Miller stated, "I am keeping up my
production," that "That doesn't mean anything to me. You are close to these
fellows and they can't get their work out." While Miller and Weddell both
admitted that they had talked to fellow employees while at work, they denied
that they, had been reprimanded prior to their discharge for talking, and
Weddell testified that he had no knowledge of a rule on talking and had not
left his job to talk to other employees.
Oliveri testified that he had reprimanded other employees about talking while
at work and had "sent them home for a weekend." He further testified that the
usual discipline administered for talking was "a couple days off," but that Miller
and Weddell were not there long enough to be laid off, so he "just fired them."
He admitted that he had never discharged any employee other than Miller and
Weddell for talking while at work.'
Miller's and Weddell's separation slips each bore the notation, "Discharged for
insubordination," while Mytrysak's and Slitor's each bore the notation,
"voluntarily quit."
Frank W. Lewis was employed by the respondents on or about January 26, 1942,
and was discharged on or about February 11. The circumstances of his discharge
are somewhat similar to those attending the discharge of Weddell and Miller.
Lewis was asked on February 9, to join the Alliance by one of his fellow-employees
and refused, stating that his wages were so low that he could not afford to pay
union dues. That night Lewis visited the office of the CIO where he secured
a quantity of CIO application cards. On the following day he was engaged in
conversation by Gilmore who told him that he was getting disgusted with the
Alliance and was about ready to turn to the CIO Lewis, who at that time did
not know that Gilmore was an officer of the Alliance, expressed his opposition
to the Alliance, and offered Gilmore a CIO application card. Gilmore replied to
the offer, "No thanks, I am president of the union here." When Gilmore had
left, Lewis told his instructor on the job that he expected lie would get, "canned"
89 The respondents appeared to attach significance to the fact that employees were hired
on a 42-day probationary basis and that Miller, Weddell, Mytrysak, and Frank W. Lewis
were discharged while on probation These employees denied that they had been advised
of; or had knowledge of, such a probationary period, but assuming that they were hired
on this basis , the respondents were not 'privileged thereby to discharge them for union
activities during said probationary period.
37 The following is an excerpt from Oliveri's testimony :
Q Did you ever reprimand anyone else?
A. For talking?
A. Yes, I have. Reminded them to keep quiet and do their work.
Q. Did you ever have to reprimand anyone more than once?
A Yes, I have done it more than once ., I have sent them home for a weekend;
that is, sent them home Saturday and come in Tuesday morning.
Q. That is, that was your usual discipline for talking: a couple days off?
A. That's right. Not that talking is barred, but when you hold production up
of people, I think it should be done that way.
Q Had you ever laid these boys [Miller and Weddell] off for n weekend before?
A. They weren't there long enough to be laid off.
Q. So you lust fired them?
A. Yes
OHIO TOOL CO. 1389
and his instructor replied, "the chances are, you will." Lewis worked on February
10 as usual but on the following day his foreman, Balough, came-to the drill
press department where he worked and asked, "Which one is Frank Lewis?"
and gave Lewis his check, telling himn, "Here is your check and let me have your
badge." Lewis asked, "What is the idea?" and his foreman replied, `-`Well, the
only thing I know . . . is you talk too much." Lewis' separation slip bore
the notation, "Not satisfactory for our type of work." Lewis- testified that his
work had been praised by his instructor and that he had not been reprimanded
at any time prior to his discharge."
Lewis' entire testimony was undisputed. His foreman did not testify, and
Gilmore, though testifying, did not contradict Lewis' testimony. The undersigned
found Lewis to be a credible witness.
In view of Oliveri's confused and unsatisfactory explanation of the discharge
of Miller and Weddell, his admission that he observed Miller and Weddell wearing
CIO buttons for the first time on the occasion of their discharge, and his further-
testimony that the usual disciplinary measure for talking was a 2-day lay-off,
the undersigned is convinced and finds that Miller and Weddell were discharged,
because of their activity in behalf of the CIO. Granting that there was- a rule-
which prohibited employees from talking while at work, it is clear from all the -4
testimony that it was not administered against members of the Alliance, since
the record is replete with evidence of solicitation of Alliance members and other
Alliance activity during working hours. The respondents offered no explanation
of the discharge of Frank W. Lewis' and, since his discharge followed swiftly on
the heels of his expressed opposition to the Alliance and his activity in behalf of
the CIO, it is clear that the reason given him by his foreman for his discharge
was but a pretext; and the real cause of his' discharge was his activity in behalf
of the CIO. The undersigned is further persuaded in the above conclusions by
Personnel Director Don Miller's testimony that employees had been discharged
for union activities whereas the respondents advanced certain pretexts as the
cause of dismissal , and the undisputed testimony of Charles- Lane that Oliveri
advised him in December 1941 that "If you join the CIO, why, you can't work
here."
The undersigned further finds that Mytrysak did not quit his job but left the
respondents' plant in protest of the discriminatory discharge of Miller and
Weddell. Since his action in so doing was caused by the respondents' unfair
labor practices, he was entitled to reinstatement upon application. When, on the
day following the walkout, he attempted to return to work, he was denied access
to his job. The undersigned accordingly finds that the respondents discharged
Mytrysak because of his union activity. Since Milan Slitor' was prevented from
testifying because of his induction in the armed forces of the United States, and
the record contains no further details of his case than the bare fact that he left
the respondents' plant on the occasion of the discharge of Miller and Weddell, the`
undersigned will recommend that the complaint as to him be dismissed without
prejudice.
Stanley Stacey. Stacey was employed by the respondents on December 11, 1941,
as a lathe operator in the small lathe department of the Number 2 Plant, and
worked continuously from that date until on or about June 2, 1942, when he was
discharged. His foreman was William Pepoy.
Lewis admitted that during the course of his employment he was shifted to several
different jobs, but Quay testified that it was not unusual to change a new employee from
one job to another in an effort to find work to which he was best suited , and' no evidence
was offered to show that Lewis was an inefficient worker. ;
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stacey joined the Alliance after he had been working for the respondents about
2 weeks and paid $1.50 in dues at the time he signed a membership application.
He was thereafter made a chief steward in the Alliance and wore his steward's
button while at work. In May 1942 Stacey and other officers or stewards of the
Alliance met with Butzman on grievance matters. At this meeting Gilmore
invited Butzman to a picnic which the Alliance was having on May 24 and
Butzman declined but handed one of the Alli.mce committee $200 with the
comment that it was "to help the picnic along "
On or about May 27 Stacey participated in a movement of Alliance members
tc unseat Gilmore as president According to Stacey, certain stewards of the
Alliance met and elected new officers. While it does not appear that the officers
thus elected ever functioned as officers of the Alliance, it is apparent that at
that time there was some dissatisfaction with Gilmore's leadership of the Alli-
ance and that Stacey was one of a group which attempted to bring about Gil-
more's removal as president On or about June 1 a representative of the'IAM
brought some membership application cards to Stacey's house and Stacey
handed these cards to fellow employees in the respondents' shop on the follow-
ing day. He testified that he went to the plant early and got seven or eight
of the cards signed before his work shift started. ,
On June 2, when Stacey went to his job, lie found his regular lathe job torn
down and was directed by his foreman to operate a drill press' instead. Stacey
refused to go to work on the drill press unless he was permitted first to return
,home and change his clothes. Stacey testified, "I had been to the picture show
with my wife and I went to work with my good clothes and I didn't think I
ought to go on the drill In ess with my good clothes on " He further testified,
"There wasn't any oil used on the job I'was on but on these drill presses they
were using this cutting oil and you were bound 'to get smeared up before morn-
ing " Prior to this,, Stacey had been- on the lathe job for about a month and
a half and had on occasion woi n his good clothes while at woi k. on that job.
His foreman refused his request to return home to change his clothes, and told
him,, "If you don't go, on the, drill press, you are' fired." Stacey persisted in
his request to be allowed to return hone for a change of clothes and' was
discharged. After -discharging hun Stacey's foreman told him, "and you have
been signing up CIO men in here anyway and we don't want that."
The respondents offered no explanation of why Stacey's regular job was torn
down on this occasion. Stacey also testified,, without contradiction, that his
job had not been previously torn down, and that his foreman took two men off
drill presses and put them on lathes though they' were not lathe men, while
assigning him to operate a drill press. Oliveri, supervisor of the drill press de-
rtment, of :the Number 1 Plant, testified that drill presses were oily and that
aprons normally supplied for these jobs were not sufficient to prevent the oil
from getting on clothes "because the oil being a liquid and not a' grease, it
would certainly splash and splash through the cloth apron." He further testi-
fied that tool room lathes were never oily and that bullet dies lathes are " some-,
what" oily.40 Stacey's foreman did not testify, and Welshans, superintendent
30Theie was introduced in evidence a pamphlet or program of the May-24 picnic which
bore advertisements of various firms including the respondents . Stacey, however , 'testi-
fied that nothing was said about the purchase of advertising space at the time Butzman
made his contribution of $200 , and there is no evidence that the $200 was in fact offered
in payment 'of advertising space or of the price obtained by the Alliance for advertising
space in its program The undersigned finds that the payment of $200 , thus made by Butz-
suan to the Alliance committee constituted financial assistance of the Alliance.
40 Quay, however , testified that the drill - press is not as oily as the lathe. They testimony
of Oliveri , foreman of the drill press department , is credited.
OHIO TOOL CO. 1391
,of Number 2 Plant, though testifying, offered no explanation of Stacey's dis-
charge. Russell Walker, the respondent's personnel director from on or about
June 1, 1942, testified that Gilmore protested Stacey's discharge and that he
interviewed Stacey who, according to Walker admitted that he was discharged
for cause Walker also testified that he investigated Stacey's discharge and
found that it was justified. The undersigned considers it unlikely that Gilmore
would intervene in behalf of an employee who had a short time previously
sought to oust him as president of the Alliance.
On the basis of the entire testimony, the undersigned is convinced and finds
that, under the circumstances, Stacey's request for leave to return home to
change his clothes before going on a job to which he had been assigned contrary
to all reasonable expectations, was not an unreasonable request and normally
would have been granted Furthermore, instead of assigning Stacey to one of
the lathe jobs not then in operation, the foreman took two men from the drill
presses and assigned them to lathe jobs while insisting that Stacey operate a
drill press where his clothes would almost certainly have been damaged. In
he absence of any explanation whatever of what appears to have been un-
reasonable and arbitrary treatment, and in view of Stacey's uncontradicted
testimony that his foreman at the time he was discharged accused him of
"signing up CIO men," the undersigned is convinced and finds that Stacey was
discharged because of his efforts to disrupt the Alliance and his activities in
behalf of the IA-M.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The undersigned has found that the respondents interfered with their em-
ployees' freedom of choice of a bargaining representative in the election of
Idarch 28,, 1941.
On, the' day following the election, a meeting of employees to discuss the for-
mation of an inside or "shop" union, was held with the respondents' knowledge;
consent and assistance, in the respondents' plant during working hours. This
meeting in which Lawrence E. Gilmore took a leading part, resulted in the
election of a Committee of Seventeen composed of employee, representatives
from the various departments. The Committee of Seventeen at a later meeting
,on the same day, which took place off the respondents' premises, designated
from among its own number a Committee of Five for the purpose of bargaining
with the respondents for a wage increase and a. vacation,' and for the further
purpose of perfecting the organization of an inside union. ^ Another step toward
completing the organizational structure thus agreed upon, was taken, on or
about April 5, 1941, when petitions in the form of a power of attorney were
^cir%ulated openly and without hindrance from the respondents, in the respond-
ents' plant during working hours These petitions authorized the same five
individuals-who previously had been designated the Committee of Five, to act
as bargaining representative of the employees The respondents immediately
recognized the Committee of Five by meeting with it on at least two occasions
.and by bargaining with it on proposals advanced by the committee for a wage
increase and a vacation with pay. This action following only a few days after
the election of March 28, in contrast to the respondents' opposition, to the IAM,
impressed upon the minds of the employees the respondents' approval of the
organization of the inside union initiated by the Committee of Seventeen and
furthered by the Committee of Five.
The Committee of Five functioned for only a brief period and was succeeded
,on April 17 by Ohio Tool Employees' Association which later changed its name
to The Independent Tool and Metal Workers Alliance. Gilmore who functioned
as chairman of the Committee of Seventeen, was one of the Committee of Five
1392 DEcISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and served as its spokesman in bargaining conferences with the respondents, pre-
sided over the organizational meeting of the Alliance, was elected its first
president, and served continuously in that capacity at least up to the time of
the hearing in this proceeding.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the Committee of Five was a labor
organization and that the Alliance is a successor thereto, but whether the Com-
mittee of Five be regarded as constituting a labor organization or as merely
a preliminary step in the formation of the Alliance, is immaterial. The con-
tinuity from the time the Committee of Seventeen was elected on March 29 to
the formation of the Alliance on April 17, is clear, and that the Alliance,
stemmed directly from the Committee of Five is shown by the testimony of
Harry Lake, who acted as temporary chairman at the meeting of the Committee
of Seventeen when the Committee of Five was designated, that the Committee
of Five was formed to perfect the formation of an inside union and did in
fact organize the Alliance, and the minutes of the first meeting of the Alliance
which refer to Gilmore as having been "informally designated as Chairman of a
Committee to form an Association of employees." It is equally clear and the
undersigned finds that the respondents' support and approval of the Committee
of Seventeeh and the Committee of Five, contributed to the formation of the
Alliance.
While all formal meetings of the Alliance were held in public halls outside of
working hours, membership in the Alliance was openly solicited throughout the
respondents' plants during working hours and without hindrance from the
respondents. Edward Krupa was elected a steward of the -Alliance in-'an election
which was held in the respondents' plant during working hours. Gilmore, as
president of the Alliance, was given free rein to carry on organizational activity
during working hours and was permitted to speak for the Alliance in the
respondents' Number 2 plant only a few days after that plant had been opened for
operations. It can hardly be doubted that the effect on the minds of these new
employees was that Gilmore was thus acting with the consent and approval of the
respondents."
L. E. Butzman, a co-owner of the respondents who had general supervision
over all of the respondents' operations, approached Thomas Mandy where the
latter was at work and, asked him why he did not want to be a member bf the
Alliance and advised him to "join up with the boys." When representatives of
the Alliance at the respondents' Number 2 plant, during a period of organizational
activity by an outside union, sought Butzman's advice, he informed them that
if the outside union was successful in organizing the plant their work shift would
be cut from 10 to 8 hours, and further advised them that it was "perfectly all
right" if they organized their own inside union, and permitted them to continue
the meeting, during working hours, for the purpose of organization. This group
subsequently voted to affiliate with the Alliance and were constituted Local 2 of
the Alliance. In May 1942, Butzman contributed $200 to a picnic sponsored by
the Alliance for its members.
- In marked contrast to their support and plainly manifested approval of the
Alliance, is the respondents' hostility toward outside labor organizations as re-
vealed by the record. It was not until after he had seen CIO cards in the plant,
that Superintendent Quay issued a rule against union activities during working
41 "If the employees would have just cause to believe that solicitors professedly for a
labor organization were acting for and on behalf of the management, the Board would
be justified in concluding that they did not have the complete and unhampered freedom of
choice which the Act contemplates" : N. L. R. B v International Assn of Machinists, 311
U. S. 72; see also, N. L R B. V. Link Belt Co, 311 U 8 584 -
OHIO TOOL CO. 1393
hours," a rule which was never enforced against the Alliance u When Supervisor
Oliver! saw Charles Lane with a CIO application card, he questioned him con-
cerning it and warned him, "If you join the C. I 0., why, you can't work here."
When' Edward Krupa posted a notice in the plant where Alliance and other
notices were customarily posted, he was questioned by Butzman concerning the
notice and the notice was removed by Superintendent Quay." Don Miller, em-
ployed in 1942 as the respondents' personnel director, testified that applicants
for- jobs known to be active union members were refused employment , and that
a number of employees had been discharged for their union activities, though
various pretexts were advanced as the moving cause of the dismissals. This
testimony is particularly significant in view of the discharge cases of Edward
and Albert Krupa, Robert Miller, Homer Weddell, Steve Mytrysak, Frank W.
Lewis, and Stanley Stacey.
In each of the above discharge cases, the dismissal followed immediately or
shortly after the employee had engaged in activity in behalf of an outside labor
organization and had thus, or by other means, manifested opposition to the
Alliance. Edward and Albert Krupa, brothers, attended a meeting of the CIO
in November 1941 and thereafter wore CIO buttons while at work. As has
been stated, Edward Krupa posted a CIO notice in the plant and was questioned
concerning it by Butzman. On ' December 15, 1941, the Krupas were discharged
along with Peter Lehmert, Jr., and the reason advanced for the dismissal of the
three employees was that they , had engaged in disorderly conduct during a
party which was sponsored by the respondents and which was held off of the
respondents ' premises , and had been absent from work without justifiable cause.
On December 22, however , Lehmert, a member of the Alliance , was reinstated
pursuant to an agreement with the Alliance which was posted in the respond-
ents' plant whereas the Krupas who were not members of the Alliance and who
had manifested their support of an outside labor organization , were denied
reinstatement . Homer Weddell and Robert Miller were discharged on February
14, 1942, when they for the first time wore steward buttons of a CIO organiza-
tion in the plant during working hours, and on the pretext that they talked
too much on the job thus lowering the production of other employees , whereas
Gilmore who had openly conducted organizational activity for the Alliance
during working hours, and who must therefore have interfered with the produc-
tivity of other employees , was not discharged or otherwise disciplined . Mytrysak
who also , had worn a CIO button and was otherwise active in behalf of a CIO
organization , was discharged when he left the plant in company with Weddell
and Miller and in protest of their discriminatory discharges . Frank E. Lewis
was discharged only a day or two after he had informed Gilmore of his oppo-
sition to the Alliance and had offered him a CIO membership card, and no further
explanation was advanced for, his discharge than that he "talked too much."
Stanley Stacey was discharged shortly after he had participated in a movement
to unseat Gilmore as president of the Alliance, and on the day following his
distribution of IAM membership cards in the respondents ' plant between work
shifts. While the reason advanced for Stacey's discharge was that he refused
to carry out his work assignment, his foreman accused him , on the occasion
of his discharge of "signing up CIO men." It appears from all the testimony
12 See N L. It. B. v McLain Fire Brick Co, 128 F (2d) (C. C A 3)
43 See Matter of Wells-Lamont -Smith Corporation and Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America ( C. I. C.); and Louisiana Glove Workers Association, 41 N. L It. B. 253,
decided June 30, 1942
94 See N L. R B. v Gallup American Coal Company , C C. A. 10 No 2498 , decided November
5, 1942; 11 LRR 415.
513024-43-vol. 47-88
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the undersigned finds that the discharge of these employees was motivated
by the respondents' determination to prevent an outside labor organization from
gaining adherents among their employees, and constitutes an integral part of
the general pattern of employer domination and support of the Alliance.
While withholding formal recognition of the Alliance until January 1942,
Butzman attended at least one meeting of the Alliance in November 1941, and
it further appears and the undersigned finds, that the respondents did in fact
recognize the Alliance as the representative of all employees for the purpose
of conferring with management on employee grievances. Following a check
of Alliance authorization cards against certain names appearing on the respond-
ents' payroll, conducted by a certified public accountant without the approval
or participation of the Board, the respondents on January 13, 1942, extended
formal recognition to the Alliance as exclusive bargaining representative of
their employees and thereafter executed a contract with it.
The undersigned has found that the card check thus conducted has no bind-
log effect on the Board, and that on January 1, 1942 and at the time the respond-
ents formally recognized the Alliance, the Alliance did not in fact represent
a majority of the respondents' employees. But in any event, the respondents
by their course of interference with and support of the Alliance, had at the time
of the formal recognition, rendered that organization incapable of acting as
bargaining representative of the employees. The contract executed by the
respondents and the Alliance is therefore invalid and the fact of its execution,
under the circumstances, constitutes further support and domination of. that
organization.
,On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the respondents : -
, Interfered with, dominated and contributed financial and, other support to
the Committee of Five and to its successor, the Alliance;
Discharged Edward Krupa, Albert Krupa, Robert Miller, Homer Weddell,
Frank W. Lewis, Steve Mytrysak, and Stanley Stacey because of their activity
in behalf of outside labor organizations and because of their opposition to the
Alliance;
,By these and other acts and conduct as set forth- above, interfered with,
coerced and restrained their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned finds that the respondents did not discharge Thomas Mandy
because of union membership or union activities. -
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 unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act. J
It has been found that the respondents dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Committee of Five, and the Alliance, and
-OHIO TOOL CO. 1395
contributed financial and other support. to them It appears that the, Committee
of Five is no longer active, but since there is no evidence of its formal dissolu-
tion or abandonment, it will be recommended herein that the respondents cease
and desist from dominating or interfering with the administration of the Com-
mittee of Five and hereafter refrain. from recognizing the Committee of Five
should it again begin functioning. The effect and consequence of the respond-
ents' domination, interference with and support of the Alliance, as well as the
continued recognition of the Alliance as the bargaining representative of their
,employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by the employees
-of their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing. Because of the respondents' illegal conduct, the
Alliance is incapable of serving the employees as a genuine collective bargaining
.agency Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the respondents dis-
establish the Alliance and each of the locals thereof, and withdraw all recogni-
tion from the Alliance or any'local thereof as the representative of any- of their
employees, for the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment. ax
Under the facts found, the contract executed by the, respondents and the
Alliance, constitutes a part of the unfair labor practices. The undersigned will
recommend that the respondents cease and desist from giving effect to the con-
tract executed with the Alliance or any local thereof as well as to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof and any superseding contracts which
inay now be in force. Nothing herein shall be taken to require the respondents
to vary those wages, Louis, seniority, and other such substantive features of
their relations' with the employees themselies which the respondents have
-established in the performance of the contract of as the said contract has been
extended. renewed, modified, supplemented or superseded.
Having found that the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure ofeniplo^nient of Edward Krupa, Albert Krupa, Robert Miller, Homer
Weddell, Frank W. Lewis, Steve Mytrysak and Stanley' Stacey by discharging
thew because of•their'union activities, the undersigned will recommend that
the-respondents offer immediate and full•reinstatement to Edward Krupa, Robert
Miller, Homer Weddell, Frank W Lewis, Steve Mytrysak and Stanley Stacey
to their former or substantially equivalent positions; without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights or privileges, and that it make each of them whole
for any loss of-pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
hum, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination
to the'date of the offer of reiiistateinent, less his net -earnings' during said
-period Since Albert Krupa, subsequent to his discriminatory discharge, was
inducted into the armed forces of the United States, the undersigned will recom-
-niend that the respondents, upon applicatiou by Albert Krupa within forty (40)
clays after his discharge from the armed forces of the United States, offer him
i einstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
45 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
-and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
-whele than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlaw-
ful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of Ainetica. Lumber and Sawmill Wori,ers Union, Local 1590, S N. L R B 440. Monies
received for work pertormed upon Federal, State county, municipal or other work-relief
nprojects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L-R, B, 311
,TT S 7
1396 ^DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make whole Albert Krupa
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the respondents'
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 periods (1) between
,the date of his discharge by the respondents, and the date of his induction in the
armed forces of the United States; and (2) between a date five (5) days after
Albert Krupa's timely 46 application for reinstatement, and the date of offer
'of reinstatement by the respondent ; less his net earnings 47
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists, District 54, affiliated with the
American Federation of T abor, International Union, United Automobile; Aircraft
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 217, International Union
of Mine, Mill & Swelter Workers, International Union, United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America,, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations ; and The Ohio Tool Employees' Association and The Independent
Tool and Metal Workers Alliance, Inc., are labor organizations, and the Com-
mittee of Five was a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
the Committee of Five,,the Ohio Tool Employees' Association and The Independ-
ent Tool and Metal Workers, Alliance, Inc., and contributing, support to them,
the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Edward
Krupa, Albert Krupa, Robert Miller, Homer Weddell, Steve Mytrysak, Frank W.
Lewis, and Stanley Stacey, thereby discouraging'membership in labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, the respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,"within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging
Thomas Mandy. -
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondents, Lester. E. Butzman, Betty Jane Butz-
man, Irving D. Butzman as Trustee for, Lester E. Butzman, Jr., Individually
and As Co-Partners doing business as Ohio Tool Company, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Committee of
Five, The Ohio Tool Employees' Association, and The Independent Tool and Metal
46 As provided in the preceding sentence
47 See footnote 45, supra.
OHIO TOOL CO. 1397
Workers Alliance, Inc., or with the formation or administration of any other
labor organization and from contributing financial or other support to said
labor organizations or to any other labor organization;
(b) Recognizing The Committee of Five, The Ohio Tool Employees' Associa-
tion, and The Independent Tool and Metal Workers Alliance, Inc., as the repre-
sentative of any of their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents'
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment ;
(c) Giving effect to their contract with the Independent Tool and Metal
Workers Alliance, Inc., or to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal
.thereof, or to any superseding contract with it ;
(d) Discouraging memberhip in International Association of Machinists, Dis-
trict 54,. affiliated with the American Federation of Labor ; International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, In-
ternational Union of Aline, Mill & Smelter Workers, and International Union,
United Electrical, 'Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations; or any other labor organization of their
employees, by discharging any of their employees or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
,the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish the Committee
of Five, the Ohio Tool Employees' Association, and The Independent Tool and
Metal Workers Alliance, Inc, as the representative of any of their employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondents` concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment ;
(b) Offer to Edward Krupa, Homer Weddell, Robert Miller, Steve Mytrysak,
Frank W. Lewis and Stanley Stacey, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges ;
(c) Make whole Edward Krupa, Homer Weddell, Robert Miller, Steve Mytry-
sak, Frank W. Lewis and Stanley Stacey, for any losses of pay they may have
suffered by reason of their respective discharges by the payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as
wages during the periods from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period ; 48
(d) Upon application by Albert Krupa within forty (40) days after his dis-
,charge from the armed forces of the United States, offer him immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(e) Make whole Albert Krupa for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of his discriminatory discharge, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during the periods:
(1) between the date' of his discharge, on December 15, 1941, and the date of
48 See footnote 45, supra.
1398 t (DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his induction into the armed forces; and ( 2) between a date ' five (5 ) days after
Albert Krupa's timely i° application for reinstatement and the date of the offer
of reinstatement , less his'net earnings 30 during those periods
(f) Post immediately in conspicuous places in Plants Number 1, 2, and 3,
and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, notices to their employees stating: ( 1) that the respondents will not
engage in the conduct from which it has been recommended that they cease and-
desist in Paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c ), ( d), and ( e) of these recommendations;
(2) that the respondents will take the affirmative action set forth in Paragraph,
2 (a), (b), (c ), (d), and ( e) of these recommendations ; and (3 ) that the
respondents ' employees are free to become or remain members of labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , or labor organizations
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , and that the respond-
ents will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity
in any of those organizations.
(g) 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 respondents have taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondents notify the said Regional'
Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations-
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to,
take the action aforesaid.
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
the respondents discharged or otherwise discriminated against Thomas Mandy-
because of union activity , in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice
insofar as it alleges that the respondents discharged or otherwise discriminated"
against Milan Slitor because of his union activities , in violation of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
'As provided in Section 33, of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended , effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and 'Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Wash--
,ington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon , together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in-
writing to the Board within ten ( 10) clays after the date of the order trans--
ferring the case to the Board
WILLIAM E SPENCER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated December 14, 1942.
4° See footnote 46, sups a.
60 See footnote 45, sups a.