Putnam Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1111 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY 1111
to prejudice the assertion by his employees of any rights that they may have there-
under. It will also be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from interfering with , restraining , or coercing his employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by threatening them with discharge
or with the cessation of any of the operations of his business . In view of the nature
of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission by the Respondent of
similar and of other unrelated unfair labor practices may be anticipated . It will
therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed his employees by Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Herbert D. Young, d/b/a Murfreesboro Pure Milk Co., is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union No. 327,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Ind, and Old Hickory Local No. 150, Retail , Wholesale
and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By assisting , dominating , and interfering with the administration of the RWDSU,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Putnam Tool Company and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2247.
June 15, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
I The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including
the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
127 NLRB No. 142.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Putnam Tool
Company, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discriminatorily discharging employees who are engaged in
union or concerted activities, or by discriminating against employees
in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of their employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to David Garrett, Lorenzo Julio, Dominic Viviano,
Richard Masters, David Kendall, Frank Zombo, Saverio Franze,
Ernest Provost, Raymond Templin, Gus Stavropoulus, William
Hanuschock, and Raymond A. Jerzewski immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate
Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
this recommendation.
PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY 1113
'(c) Post in the Respondent's plant at Detroit, Michigan, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." a Copies of said no
tice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf
,Of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees,
by discriminatorily discharging or laying off any of our employees
because of their union membership or activities, or by discriminat-
ing in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
'employment or any term or condition of employment, except to
the extent permitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WVE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
-zation, to form, join, or assist International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
,organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE wmL offer the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their
privileges :
David Garrett
Lorenzo Julio
Dominic Viviano
Richard Masters
David Kendall
William Hanuschock
seniority or other rights and
Saverio Franze
Ernest Provost
Raymond Templin
Gus Stavropoulus
Frank Zombo
Raymond A. Jerzewski
WE WILL make the above-named individuals whole for loss
of pay suffered by them by reason of the discrimination against
them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members, of any labor organiza-
tion. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment against any employee
because of membership in, or activity on behalf of, any such labor
organization.
PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed January 19, 1959 , and amended numerous times thereafter,
by International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board , hereinafter called the General Counsel' and the Board , respectively, by the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region ( Detroit, Michigan ), issued its complaint
dated May 28, 1959, against Putnam Tool Company, hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent. The complaint alleged, in substance , that the Respondent : ( 1) Termi-
nated the employment of 12 employees on various dates between January 9 and
March 4, 1959, because each of said employees became a member of , and engaged
in activities in behalf of , the Union and because each engaged in concerted activities
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; and ( 2) by various and enumerated acts,
including the granting of increased insurance benefits and wage increases , interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act. Copies of the complaint , the charges , and notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the Respondent and the Union.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint
but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 5 and 6, 1959, in Detroit,
Michigan , before the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were represented
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
' This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing.
PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY 1115
examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, to present oral argument at the close of
the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as well as proposed findings of fact and
conclusions at law. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety which was denied. Thereupon, Re-
spondent rested. Oral argument was waived but briefs were received from the
Respondent and the General Counsel on December 18, 1959.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from the Trial Examiner's observation of
the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the Respondent admitted, and the Trial Examiner finds that,
at all times material herein, Putnam Tool Company is now, and at all times material
hereto was, a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of business
at 2981 Charlevoix Street, Detroit, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufactur-
ing of cutting tools and related products. During the calendar year ending December
31, 1958, the Respondent sold and shipped finished products manufactured at its
Detroit, Michigan, plant, to points outside the State of Michigan valued in excess
of $100,000 and during the same calendar year the Respondent purchased and
received at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, from points outside the State of Michigan,
goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $100,000.
The Respondent admits, and the Trial Examiner finds, that at all times material
herein the Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
In 1955 another union attempted to organize Respondent's production and mainte-
nance employees. Three days before the election on that occasion the Respondent
sent its employees a letter stating in small part:
On April 1, 1955, you'll have the opportunity to decide whether you wish to
continue to have the privilege of handling and discussing your own problems,
or whether you wish to be represented by an outside agent and forfeit your
rights which you have enjoyed during your employment at the Putnam Tool
Company.2
Apparently, the Union's effort on this occasion was unsuccessful because in
January 1959 the employees were not represented by any bargaining agent.
On January 5, 1959,3 employee Ernest Provost spoke to Larry Williams, a repre-
sentative of the IUE, about organizing the Respondent's employees. Provost was
told to arrange a meeting of all those employees who were interested in joining the
IUE. After talking to about 25 of Respondent's employees, Provost called a meeting
at IUE headquarters for the night of January 8. The meeting that evening was
attended by Provost, Lorenzo Julio, Dominic Viviano, Richard Masters, Saverio
Franze, and Raymond A. Jerzewski who were formed into an organizing committee
and given buttons and union authorization cards for that purpose.
B. The discharges
1. Lorenzo Julio
Julio was first hired by the Respondent in 1954 as a hand polisher in the grinding
department. After his assignment to Foreman Floyd James, James asked him if
there had been a union in the plant of his previous employer. Upon learning that
there had been, James stated, "Well, over here we don't go for a union and stuff,
and we pay pretty high wages over here, and we work pretty steady all of the
time.. .. It's better you don't talk about the union at all while you are here."
2 This quotation is cited here not as an unfair labor practice, but solely as an indication
of the Respondent's attitude toward the unionization of its employees.
3 All dates herein are in the year 1959 unless otherwise noted.
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On this occasion Julio worked only 3 weeks before leaving Respondent's employ
and returning to his former employer. When his former employer closed its doors,
Julio returned to the Respondent's plant and was rehired in July 1955. He worked
for the Respondent steadily thereafter.
On January 5, 1959, Foreman James temporarily transferred Julio from his hand-
polishing job to the rough-off machine where he worked until he finished that job
about 10:30 a.m. on January 9 when James reassigned him to his regular hand-
polishing job with the admonition "I want you to go back to your lob and catch up
on the job because we are a way behind."
After a short visit to the men's room, Julio went back and worked at his regular
hand-polishing job until after the noon whistle had blown. He then joined his
brother, John Assad, and Sam Franze eating lunch in the plant. The men were
discussing the number of union cards which each had passed out before work that
morning. Foreman James came up and ordered Julio to pick up his tools and go to
the office. As Julio was asking why, Assistant Superintendent Bob Lorentz ap-
proached and told Julio that he was being fired because he had washed his hands
during working hours. Julio denied having done so, and showed his hands which
were still dirty. His brother, Fred Julio, thereupon told Lorentz, "He is not the one
that washed his hands. It is me," and suggested that Lorentz fire him instead of
Lorenzo. To this Lorentz stated, "We don't want you. We want your brother."
Lorentz then ordered Lorenzo Julio with some profanity to the office. There were
hot words between the two during which Julio smashed his thermos bottle on the
floor.
Finally Julio and Lorentz arrived at the office where Julio displayed his union
button to Lorentz.4 Lorentz told Julio, "You stay right in there. I don't want you
inside and I don't want you to move from there. . . . You want trouble, we are
going to give you trouble." After about a 5-minute wait Julio was given his checks
and told "there is the door. Get the hell out of here. Get out of here."
Julio left the plant shouting to the employees to fight for the Union. He has not
been reinstated
2. Dominic Viviano, Richard Masters, and David Garrett
Viviano had been hired as a machine polisher in November 1953 and worked
steadily thereafter. Masters worked as a machine polisher for the Respondent con-
tinuously from April 1955, except for two short occasions when the plant underwent
large layoffs. They were two of the three polishers in the department.
Provost invited Masters to attend the January 8 meeting and Masters, in turn,
invited Viviano and the third machine polisher, Richard Platha. Viviano and
Masters both attended the meeting although Platha did not.
After the meeting of January 8, Viviano visited Garrett at Garrett's home in an
effort to secure Garrett's signature to a union authorization card. Garrett, in fact.
did execute such a card either on the evening of January 8 or on January 9.5
On January 9 both Viviano and Masters were still working on red star or "rush"
jobs when, just before the end of the day, Foreman James ordered them with Garrett
to report to the office.
When Viviano, Masters, and Garrett reported at the office, they were told by
Superintendent Harden that they were being laid off because of ` lack of orders."
Garrett inquired if his layoff was due to the Union and assured Harden that he had
had nothing to do with the Union. Harden's answer was that he knew nothing
about a union.
These three men have not been reinstated since.
3. David Kendall
Kendall had done rough-out work as a cutter-grinder for Respondent since
August 1955 when he was first employed.
,On the morning of January 9, Saverio (Sam) Franze handled Kendall a union
authorization card before work which Kendall signed and gave back to Franze. At
noon that day Kendall and a group of other employees were discussing the Union
while eating lunch a few feet away from where Foreman James was eating.
A little after 3 p.m. on January 13 James assigned Kendall a job on a left-hand
flute job. Setting up his machine for this left-handed flute job occupied Kendall
4 Julio had been carrying this button in his coat pocket.
5 This signed authorization card carries the date of January 9 although Viviano testified
that it was signed on the evening of January 8
PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY 1117
until almost quitting time at 3:30 p.m. that afternoon so that he only ran two or
three pieces prior thereto.
At starting time on January 14 Foreman James criticized Kendall because he
had not already completed the left-handed flute job given Kendall the afternoon
before. Kendall completed that job by about 8 a.m. on the 14th and asked James
for another job.
At this time James assigned Kendall the job of knocking down a small fixture
which is a complicated job to set up on the machine and which James had set up on
the only other occasion that Kendall had ever done such work. When Kendall
requested assistance in setting up this job, James answered, "I haven't got time
to help you set the job up. You have been here long enough, you know the job."
James then went to the next machine where he assisted another operator on an
ordinary run-of-the-mill job.
About 45 minutes later James returned to Kendall's machine where Kendall was
vainly attempting to make the setup. When Kendall answered in the negative to
James' inquiry as to whether he had the job finished, James told Kendall, "Get your
tools and go in the office. You are fired. Harden wants to see you. You are fired."
Kendall reported to Harden in the office stating that James had sent him to
Harden and that "J am fired." Harden stated that he did not know anything about
it. But after talking to James, Harden came back and stated, "He says you couldn't
do the job." Kendall protested that he had never done the job before. Harden then
answered, "All I can say, you can't do the job." Harden had his check prepared
and discharged Kendall.
The undisputed evidence in this record is that Foreman James and two other
long-experienced employees were the only persons in the shop capable of setting up
the machine for this particular job.
Kendall has never been reinstated.
4. Frank Zombo
Frank Zombo was hired by Respondent in September 1956 as an O.D. grinder
under Foreman Frank Buckerfield. He was retained at the time of a large layoff
in 1956 although he had scrapped about $1,000 worth of material. He worked
steadily for the Respondent except for one layoff period from December 1957 to
May 30, 1958.
On January 10 he was given a card by, and signed the same for, Ray Jerzewski
at a gas station a short distance from the plant. Zombo also was given some cards
and distributed them to various employees at their homes. On one such occasion
when Zombo was soliciting an employee to sign a union card, Superintendent
Harden's son and daughter-in-law were in the adjoining room.
A few days before January 20, Foreman Buckerfield had Zombo come to Bucker-
field's home to fix his television set. In the course of conversation the Union was
mentioned and Buckerfield said to Zombo, "You sure got yourself in a mess this
time. I can't do anything for you."
On January 20 the Union distributed a leaflet signed by Kendall, Julio, Masters,
and Viviano to the employees of the Respondent's plant.
About noon that day Sam Franze was wearing an IUE button displayed on his
coat when Zombo stepped up to Franze and asked him a question. Superintendent
Harden was standing a few feet away at the time of this incident.
At quitting time that evening Foreman Buckerfield informed Zombo that he was
wanted in the office. In the office Harden informed Zombo that he was laid off
because of "lack of work."
In August Respondent reemployed Zombo for approximately 3 weeks because of
the sickness at that time of two O.D. grinders. Although the sick men worked on
the day shift, Harden assigned Zombo to the night shift and had him report for
work at 5:30 instead of the usual hour of 4:30. Therefore Zombo worked 8 hours
per night instead of the 9 hours which the rest of the night shift worked. Within a
day or two of the return of the invalids, Zombo was again laid off. He has not
been reinstated since.
5. Saverio (Sam) Franze
-Sam Franze was hired by the Respondent on July 7, 1953, as a bench hand and
worked in that capacity until the day before he was discharged on January 21, 1959.
Provost had asked Franze to attend the organization meeting on January 8 which
Franze did. He signed an IUE authorization card on that occasion.
On January 9 and thereafter Franze passed out similar authorization cards to
other employees. He was known throughout the plant as being one of the leaders in
the organizational drive.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 20 Franze wore a union button openly on his shirt which caused
considerable excitement among the employees in the plant. On the morning of
January 20 Foreman James transferred Franze from his bench to work on a back-off
machine on which Franze had never previously worked. During this transfer James
noted that the union button Franze wore was "a little rusty." Franze accused James
of transferring him to this new job so that he could have a pretext to discharge him.
James set up the machine and Franze attempted to do the work. When trouble
developed, Franze went to James for advice at which time James said, "God damn,
hell, can't you do your work You have been here long enough." When Franze
again accused James of using this transfer as an excuse to fire him, James stated,
"Well, since you put words in my mouth I will fire you when the time comes . . . if
you thought of your three kids, you would never have wore that union button."
Franze finished the job about 1:30 in the afternoon and was complimented by
James and Connelly for having done a good job for his initial attempt.
Then James assigned Franze to a new job on the AP machine which James finally,
and reluctantly, set up when Franze reminded him that he had never worked on the
machine before and was unable to set it up himself.
Franze was still working on this job on the morning of January 21 when he
noted that something was going wrong and called Leader Ben Connelly, who was
replacing James that morning, for advice. Connelly stated, "I will straighten it up
for you. . I am not supposed to because I was told by Bob Lorentz not to."
A few minutes later Connelly returned and informed Franze that Lorentz wanted
to see him. Lorentz picked up one of the pieces which Franze had made on the
20th and which had been finished and said, "What kind of work do you call this?"
Franze reminded Lorentz that both James and Connelly had said that his work had
been good, but Lorentz maintained that the work was "all burned up." 6 Franze
answered that he had tried to do his best to which Lorentz replied, "Well, if that's
your best, you are fired." Franze was then paid off and has never since been
reinstated.
6. Ernest Provost
Provost was hired by Respondent in February 1954 as a sharpener in the cutter-
grinder department under Foreman James. Two years later he was transferred to
the back-off department where he did finishing work.
When in December 1958 the men became somewhat dissatisfied with the conditions
at the Respondent's plant because of the Respondent's failure to give a Christmas
bonus that year and because of other matters, a move to seek union assistance
began. On January 5 Provost spoke to IUE Representative Larry Williams about
organizing the plant. It was Provost who invited and arranged the January 8
meeting at which six employees took part. Like the rest of the six Provost signed
an IUE authorization card that evening.?
Thereafter Provost passed out as many authorization cards to fellow employees
as possible.
On January 20, Provost, like Franze, began wearing an IUE button openly on
his shop coat where it was visible for all to see.
On the morning of January 22 Provost began doing his regular work. About
10 minutes later, after a conference with Harden, James assigned Provost a special
job which Provost had never run before and which was usually given only to two
more experienced operators. After vainly trying to set up the machine for this
particular job for an hour, Provost went to Foreman James and asked for assistance.
James said, "Provost, you have been here long enough to know how to run this
job. . . . You should be able to set it up. . . If you can't set it up now in an
hour, you never will, so punch your card." James thereupon sent Provost to the
office where he was paid off. He has never since been reinstated.
7. Raymond Templin
Templin was hired by Respondent in 1955 as a cutter-grinder. He was in service
from August 3, 1955, to May 29, 1957. He was reemployed a couple of months
after leaving the service. He was laid off about Christmastime of 1957 until August
6, 1958. After reinstatement in 1958 he was transferred to one of the two new
machines with which he, James, Lorentz, and Harden had a great deal of trouble
in making operate properly.
On January 20 at the solicitation of Kendall and Franze, Templin executed an
authorization card for IUE.
6It seems unlikely that the finisher would have worked on the pieces Franze had made
if, as Lorentz maintained, the work was "all burned up."
7 Provost's authorization card in evidence is incorrectly dated as January 8, 1958.
PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY 1119
On February 16 the Union filed an R petition with the Board covering Respond-
ent's production and maintenance employees. In the usual course of events a copy
of this document was received by Respondent in the due course of the mails on
February 18.
On February 25 Templin was operating the smaller of these two new machines
while a fellow employee named "John" was attempting to operate the larger
machine. John was having trouble with the machine, and, in the absence of Fore-
man James, requested Templin to assist him in setting up the machine. The two
employees had considerable trouble in making the correct setup.
On the morning of February 26, Foreman James inquired of Templin about the
trouble the two employees had had on the larger machine the day before, took
him over to the machine, and assisted him in setting it up. Later that day James
came to Templin and stated, "You can't set up a machine when I am not here and
we can't have a guy like that." Although apparently surprised when Templin
reported his discharge, Superintendent Harden concurred therein after consultation
with James. Templin has not been reinstated.
Employee John whose machine had given the trouble was not discharged but
continued in the Respondent's employ even though he could not set up the machine
either.
8. Gus Stavropoulus
According to the Respondent's records, Stavropoulus was originally employed on
October 31, 1955, but was out sick from April 15, 1957, to December 15, 1958.
Stavropoulus worked the night shift under Foreman Eula Hayton.
On January 15, Stavropoulus secured three authorization cards from employee
Jerzewski. He executed one of them himself and distributed the other two to
fellow employees.
Foreman Hayton complimented Stavropoulus for being a very fast and above
average operator. Stavropoulus had frequently completed his work prior to the
end of the shift. But sometime in February Hayton told Stavropoulus to spread
his work throughout the 9 hours of the night shift so that he would not have free
time at the end of the shift. Stavropoulus complied with this request.
Stavropoulus and Hayton were good friends who held many discussions about
unions and religion during the night shift. Stavropoulus argued in favor of unions
while Hayton took the opposite position. These were friendly discussions.
About a week before his discharge Stavropoulus had a conversation with Foreman
Hughie Bright, the day foreman and previously the night superintendent, during
which Stavropoulus told Bright that there was "a lot going on" about the recent
discharges and expressed the hope that he would not be fired or laid off. Bright
answered that as long as Stavropoulus kept "his nose clean" nothing would happen
and that if the Union should get in the union adherents would have nothing to
worry about, but if the Union did not, "they would be in a lot of trouble." Stavro-
poulus also suggested that he would like a wage increase and was told by Bright
that if a person desired a raise he should see Harden "instead of bringing in outside
help." With Foreman Buckerfield's approval Stavropoulus did approach Harden
for a raise but Harden rejected the suggestion at that time but stated that he would
keep Stavropoulus in mind.
At the end of the shift on February 27 Hayton announced to Stavropoulus that
he had previously made the mistake of mentioning to Lorentz that Stavropoulus
spent some time away from his machine, that Lorentz on the 26th had ordered
Hayton to discharge Stavropoulus, but that, thinking that the matter would blow
over, Hayton had not done so and Lorentz had reiterated the order that same day.
When Stavropoulus asked Hayton whether it was because of the lapsed time or
because of the Union that he was being fired, Hayton said, "I am only authorized
to tell you so much." Hayton also told Stavropoulus that he should see Lorentz
in the morning and tell Lorentz that it was all right with Hayton if Stavropoulus
continued to work if it was all right with Lorentz.
The next morning Stavropoulus did see Lorentz and reiterated his conversation
with Hayton. Lorentz stated it would not be all right with him for Stavropoulus
to continue to work and ended the conversation by stating that "the plant was a nice
place to work but some people want to cause trouble there."
Stavropoulus has never been reinstated.
9. William Hanuschock
Hanuschock was employed by Respondent in October 1955 as a cutter-grinder
under Foreman Floyd James. He worked steadily until his discharge on March 2,
1959.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Provost and Jerzewski invited Hanuschock to the meeting of January 8 but
Hanuschock was unable to attend. However he did sign an authorization card for
the IUE on January 9.8
On Friday, February 27, Hanuschock finished one of his regular jobs about
9 a.m. and asked for more work. James inquired if Hanuscock had ever run
fixtures. Hanuschock answered that he had on one or two occasions late in the
day when the machine had been all set up for him. So James gave him a 500-piece
fixture job which Hanuschock set up and which Hanuschock completed about 2
p.m. and then reported to James for more work. James looked at the clock and
said, "That is too slow."
But James gave Hanuschock a very small fixture with a flute to set up and run.
This being a complicated job as well as new work for Hanuschock, he succeeded
only in setting up the machine and running 30 or 40 pieces before the end of the day.
Hanuschock returned to the same work on the morning of Monday, March 2,
but about 7:30 decided that the flute was not coming out correctly. He approached
Foreman James for assistance. James said that the flute was all right and then ran
a couple of more pieces on the machine as it was set up, before turning around
and stating to Hanuschock, "Well, if you can't do the job I have got to let you go,"
and sent him to Lorentz for his final pay.
Hanuschock has not been reinstated.
10. Raymond A. Jerzewski
Jerzewski, the last survivor of the original six employees who attended the union
meeting on January 8, was originally hired by the Respondent on October 14, 1955,
as a cutter-grinder under Foreman Floyd James. He worked continuously except
for one occasion in 1957 when he was laid off.
As noted heretofore, Jerzewski attended the meeting of January 8 and signed an
authorization card for the Union at that time. As also noted before Jerzewski was
active in distributing cards to the other employees.
On March 3, Jerzewski was assigned and completed several small tedious jobs
involving many pieces. That afternoon in talking over production with Ben
Connelly, an ordinary machine operator who substituted for Floyd James in
Foreman James' absence, Connelly told Jerzewski that his production was good.
That evening Jerzewski received a summons from the Government to report for
his preinduction physical examination.
On March 4 Jerzewski reported the receipt of these instructions to Foreman James
as suggested in the instructions themselves. James inquired as to the date of the
scheduled physical examination. After having been told that the examination was
scheduled for March 13, James said, "Oh, I have got to let you go." When
Jerzewski asked why he was being fired, James informed him that it was because
of "not doing enough work." Jerzewski was sent to Lorentz, given his check, and
dismissed.
He has not been reinstated.
C. Conclusions on discharges
By its motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and in its argument in the
brief, the Respondent raises the contention that there is no proof in this record that
the Respondent had any knowledge that any of the employees discharged were
members of, or active in, the Union. If accurate, this would point to a fatal defect
in the proof offered by the General Counsel, especially if the evidence should also
fail to show a union animus on the part of the Respondent.
Certainly until January 19 and 20, when employees began to display their union
buttons openly on the clothing at work, there was little, if any, direct proof of the
Respondent's knowledge of the membership and activities of the employees
involved.
If, for instance, the case of Lorenzo Julio is considered by itself and in vacuo,
the evidence proves only that Julio attended a union organizational meeting on the
evening of January 8 (apparently without any knowledge thereof by the Respondent)
and that at noon the following day, January 9, Julio was discharged on the stated
ground that he had washed his hands on company time.9
8 This card bears the date 9-1-59 but was intended to signify January 9 1959,
o As pointed out in Respondent's brief, each employee discharged was given some stated
reason for his dismissal
PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY 1121
On this evidence alone the Trial Examiner naturally would dismiss the complaint
as to Julio because the Act only protects an employee from being discharged because
of his union membership or activity.
But, even in Julio's case in vacuo, there is indisputable proof that , contrary to the
explanation of Assistant Superintendent Lorentz, the true reason the Respondent
discharged Julio on January 9 was not because he had washed his hands on company
time, because the Respondent completed the discharge of Julio, even after being
confronted with two indisputable items of proof that Julio was not guilty of the
offense charged : ( 1) the dirty hands, and (2) his brother Fred 's confession. But
even in face of that proof, the Respondent acknowledged that, for some unknown
reason , it "wanted" Lorenzo, who had not washed his hands , but did not "want"
brother Fred who admitted having washed his hands . Consequently Lorenzo with
his dirty hands was discharged while brother Fred with his washed hands was not.
Clearly Respondent "wanted" Lorenzo so badly for some reason other than washed
hands that Lorentz was perfectly willing to publicly convict himself of lying in order
to accomplish his purpose of discharging Lorenzo , while retaining the brother admit-
tedly guilty of the offense charged. Obviously there was some more compelling
reason prompting the dismissal of Lorenzo than even the heinous offense of wash-
ing-or not washing-his hands on company time.
But even the fact that the Respondent gave Julio only a provable pretext for
discharging him only creates a suspicion that some way, not disclosed in this record,
Respondent had learned of his union activities and objected thereto . However, on
merely suspicion , the Trial Examiner would still have to dismiss the complaint as
to Julio if that were all the evidence in this record . But fortunately for Julio's
claim, there is more to this record and his case is not being tried in vacuo.
By quitting time that same day, January 9, Respondent had discharged three more
employees (Viviano, Masters, and Garrett ), telling them that they were being
dismissed for "lack of work"-despite the fact that two of them were still working
on uncompleted rush orders.
When Garrett pleaded with Harden that he had nothing to do with the Union,
the answer given him was that the Respondent knew nothing about a union-an
answer which hardly conforms with the fact that only about 31/2 hours before Julio
had displayed his IUE button to Lorentz and had left the plant shouting for the
employees to fight for a union.
By the end of the working day on January 9, it had become painfully apparent that
the Respondent 's supervisors' regard for the truth verged on the negligible. This.
is specially so when it is recalled that the plant worked an 8-hour day until March 1
when the hours were increased to 9 per day and included many Saturdays.
In addition , by the end of January 9, the Respondent had, by chance or design,
dismissed 3, or 50 percent , of the 6 employees who had attended the organizational
meeting of less than 24 hours before and had given each a palpably false explanation
for its precipitate action . The circumstantial evidence points more to design than
to chance in these dismissals , especially as the fourth man, Garrett , appears to have
been one of the first, if not the very first, converted to unionization by the six
participants in the meeting.
By the time of the last discharge on March 4, the circumstantial evidence pointed
quite conclusively to design over chance in Respondent 's dismissals . By that time 6,
or 100 percent , of the participants at the organizational meeting of January 8 and
12, or better than 25 percent, of all 43 employees who had signed IUE authorization
cards had been eliminated . Each man discharged had executed a union authoriza-
tion card prior to his dismissal . Not one employee who had not executed such an
authorization card for the Union was dismissed despite the fact that only about 30
percent (43 out of 141 employees) had executed such cards . Such 100 percent
accuracy is not achieved without design or without adequate sources of informa-
tion . This circumstantial evidence is not only convincing to the Trial Examiner but,
as early as January 19, it had convinced employee Bobbitt that he was jeopardizing
his own job security by continuing to permit employee Provost to drive to work with
him and so he requested Provost for that reason to seek other means of transpor-
tation to work.
Even the timing of the discharges displays a design or pattern. Action by the
Union created reaction from the Respondent . On January 8 the Union held its
organizational meeting. By the end of business on January 9 Respondent had dis-
charged four men, three of whom had attended the meeting the night before. On
January 20 the Union distributed a leaflet regarding the charges filed on January 19
on behalf of those four. Respondent 's reaction was to discharge Zombo, Franze,
and Provost on January 20, 21, and 22, respectively, two of whom had attended the
560940-61-vol. 127-72
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
original organizational meeting of January 8.10 On February 18 Respondent re-
ceived notice of the petition filed by the Union on February 16. Respondent
reacted on February 26 and 27 and March 2 and 4, discharging Templin,
Stavropoulus, Hanuschock, and Jerzewski, respectively, the last of whom was also
the last of the original six.
Respondent's discharge technique also followed a pattern. As pointed out in
Respondent's brief, each man was given the "reason" for his discharge or dis-
missal. The original "reasons" were so palpably false as to indicate undue haste
on the part of the Respondent. Thereafter Foreman James devised a technique of
assigning men to unfamiliar work and then discharging them for their inability to
perform. This, at least, appeared to make the discharge more palatable on the
surface. But, with one exception, the men discharged had been employees of the
Respondent for 5 years or more and, thus, their abilities were well known. The
technique became so well known that Franze accused James of transferring him to
new work in order to fire him. James agreed. It was part of this technique for
the foreman to refuse the customary assistance to the employee selected for dis-
charge. In fact, Acting Foreman Ben Connelly, who was replacing James that day,
admitted having received instructions from Harden not to assist Franze in the new
work he been assigned just prior to his discharge."
Although the circumstantial evidence is quite conclusive as to both the Respond-
ent's animus as well as its knowledge that the men discharged were union adherents,
a trier of fact, like many a jury, hesitates to make a finding exclusively on circum-
stantial evidence. Respondent's astute counsel counted on this natural phenomenon.
Consequently, it is nice to have some direct evidence confirming the conclusions
dictated by the circumstantial evidence. Thus, when Assistant Superintendent
Lorentz discharged Stavropoulus he refused to allow Stavropoulus to continue to
work as requested because "the plant was a nice place to work but some people
want to cause trouble there." Then after making a couple of incautious pseudo-
,enigmatic remarks about employees causing "trouble" in the plant-Foreman James
removal any and all enigma from these remarks when, noting an IUE button on his
clothing, he told Franze: "If you thought of your three kids you would never have
wore than union button."
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner is convinced and, therefore, must find that the
Respondent discharged David Garrett, Lorenzo Julio, Dominic Viviano, and
Richard Masters on January 9; David Kendall on January 14; Franz Zombo on
January 20; Saverio Franze on January 21; Ernest Provost on January 22; Raymond
Templin on February 26; Gus.jStavropoulus on February 27; William Hanuschock on
March 2; and Raymond A. Jerzewski on March 4 because of their membership in,
.and activities on behalf of, the Union in violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
D. Other alleged violations
The complaint alleged other independent 8(a)(1) violations in that (a) Respond-
ent promised and granted medical insurance benefits; (b) threatened discharge of
employees; and (c) granted a wage increase, all in order to discourage union
activities among its employees.
As to the allegation regarding medical insurance benefits, the evidence shows that
-the Respondent posted a notice regarding added medical benefits at or about the same
time that the Union was criticizing the medical benefits provided by the Respondent
in one of its leaflets. However, the evidence tends to show that these added benefits
went into effect as of December 15, 1958, or just prior to the actual commencement
of union activities among the Respondent's employees. Thus, the evidence on this
question is at best ambiguous. The Trial Examiner will, accordingly, recommend
-that this allegation in the complaint be dismissed.
As the testimony regarding the other alleged unfair labor practices is also similarly
ambiguous, the Trial Examiner will also recommend that the complaint be dismissed
as to them.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
to The discharge of Kendall on January 14 appears to be a maverick as this record
indicates no action by the Union which should have cau,cd the Respondent's reaction
"As a supervisor, the statement of Connelly to Franze amounts to an admission by the
Respondent.
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1123
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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the employees named heretofore in section III by discharg-
ing each of them in the year 1959 as set forth above, the Trial Examiner will recom-
mend that the Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and make each of them whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against him by the payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent in the instant case are
such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally.
In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of
the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
and to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discharging David Garrett, Lorenzo Julio, David Kendall, Frank Zombo,
Dominic Viviano, Richard Masters, Saverio Franze, Ernest Provost, Raymond
Templin, Gus Stavropoulus, William Hanuschock, and Raymond A. Jerzewski, thus
discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of each of them be-
cause he engaged in union activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Firedoor Corporation of America and Architectural and Engi-
neering Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Technical
Engineers , AFL-CIO
Firedoor Corporation of America and Architectural and Engi-
neering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical
Engineers , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-CA-6493 and 2-CA-6628.
June 15, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 9, 1960, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
127 NLRB No. 144.