Republic Aircraft Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of REPUBLIC AIRCRAFT- MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and UNITED ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO• - ,
Case No. 16-C-1005.-Decided June 5, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER.
On March 15, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain,
affirmative action, as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent
had not enagged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom-
mended the dismissal of allegations in the complaint with 'respect
thereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. No exceptions were filed by the Union. Oral argu-
ment before the Board was requested by the respondent, but the re-
spondent did not appear and did not ask for postponement 'of a hearing
scheduled for-that purpose for May 23, 1944, and oral argument was
not held. 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions; and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recolilmend-
ations of the Trial Examiner. . .
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10' (c) of
the, National Labor Relations' Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Republic Aircraft Manufac-
turing Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors; and
assigns shall:
' The correct date on or about which Lila Lee Bell was first employed by the respondent
Is September 25, 1943, not September 15, 1943, as stated in the Inteunediate Report.
56 N. L. R B., No. 213. - ,
1190
REPUBLIC AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1191
1. Cease and desist from : ,
(a) Discouraging membership in the United Electrical ," Radio and
Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations , or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging , or refusing to reinstate any of its employees
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any term or,condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to-form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purposes 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) Make whole Lee B. Barnett -for.any loss of pay , he,may have
suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have
earned in his•regular employment with the respondent from October
7, 19431 the date of his discriminatory " discharge , to the date of his rein-
statement on October 11, 1943; less his net earnings ,during said period;
(b),Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
,at Dallas, Texas , and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stat-
ing: (1 ) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which 'it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of
this Order; ( 2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in pa ragraph 2 (a) of this Order ; and (3 ) that the respondent's
employees are free to become or remain members of the •United Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers of America, or of any other labor
organization , and that the respondent will not in any manner dis-
criminate against its employees because'of membership in or activities
on behalf of that organization or any other labor organization;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas ) in writing, within ten ( 10) days from the date of -this
Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.,
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert C. Proctor, for the Board
Mr. J. M., Hoppenstein, of Leake, Henry, Young & Golden,, of Dallas, Texas,
for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on October 20, 1943, by United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor- Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director, for the Sixteenth Region (Fort
Worth, Texas), issued its complaint dated January 18, 1944, against Republic
Aircraft Manufacturing Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the alleged unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance
states that the respondent: (1) on or about October 8, 1943, discharged Lee
Barnett, and on or about October 11, reinstated him, and thereafter on-or about
October 18, again discharged Lee Barnett and thereafter refused to reinstate
him for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union or engaged in other
mutual aid or protection; (2)-on or about October 15, 1943, discharged Lila Lee
Bell and thereafter refused to reinstate her for the reason that she joined and
assisted the Union or engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other *mutual aid or'protection ; (3) since on or about October
7, 1943, has expressed disapproval of the Union, has interrogated its employees
concerning their union affiliations, and has urged, persuaded, threatened and
warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of the Union,
or remaining members of the Union ; and (4) by the foregoing acts has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent in,its answer dated January 26,
1944, admits certain facts concerning commerce, denies that it engaged in any
unfair labor practices and avers that Lee B Barnett and Lila Lee Bell were
discharged for reasons that were predicated upon the inefficiency of these employ-
ees and at the request of the Army Air Force Inspector.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Dallas, Texas, on February 1 and 2,
1944, before the undersigned Trial, Exaniiner, James C. Batten, duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence hearing on the issues. During the hearing the undersigned approved
a stipulation submitted by counsel for the Board and the respondent providing
for the taking of the testimony of Joe Hood on or before February 28, 1944, by
deposition.' At the close of the taking of testimony the undersigned, without
objection, granted the motion of the Board to conform the pleadings to the
proof as to minor details No oral arguments were made at the conclusion of
the hearing and the parties advised the undersigned that they did-not intend
to file briefs.
Upon the entire record thus made, and from the undersigned's observation of
the witnesses, the undersigned makes in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Republic Aircraft Manufacturing Company, a Texas corporation, operates a
plant in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the processing of airplane fittings.
i It was further agreed that if the deposition was not taken on or before February 28,
the parties waived the taking of the deposition. On March 3, 1944, the undersigned was
advised by the regional attorney for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), that Joe
Flood was not available on or before February 28. On the same day, the undersigned issued
an order closing the record.
REPUBLIC AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1193
The principal raw materials consist of aluminum, brass, and steel. Of the raw
materials used by the respondent during the past 6 months, in its operation,
approximately 75 percent were purchased and imported into the State of Texas
from points outside that State. Of, its finished products, part are sold and
delivered to the North American Aviation Company at its plant located near
Grand Prairie, Texas, and a large portion is delivered direct to the United States
Navy. All of the products of the North American Aviation Company are delivered
to the United States Army and Navy. The respondent admits that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act."
II. THE ORGANIZATION 'INVOLVED
I
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, is a labor organ-
ization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The discharges; interference, restraint and coercion
While the complaint alleges in substance a violation of Section 8 (1) of the
Act as an independent issue, there is no evidence in the record of any such
unlawful activities on the part of the respondent. The testimony offered by the
Board concerning interference, restraint, and coercion is directly related to the
issues involved in the discrimination in regard'to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Lee B. Barnett and Lila Lee Bell. In the interest'of brevity these activ-
ities of the respondent will be developed in the discussion of the respondent's
discriminatory treatment of these employees.
Lee Barnett was employed by the respondent on or about July 29, 1943, as
a working foreman in the drill press and bur bench department.' In addition
to Barnett's supervisory duties, he worked as a drill press and turret lathe
operator. On October 7, he was discharged and thereafter on October 11 rein-
stated to his position as a working foreman. Barnett was again discharged on
October 18, 1943. With respect to Barnett two issues are presented ; whether or
not his discharge on October 7 and October 18, were due to his union activities
or for reasons unrelated thereto.
The Union inaugurated its orgadizatlonal campaign at the respondent's plant
on October 7, .1943, when one of its ; representatives passed out leaflets and
application cards to the employees as they reported for work on the night shift.
As Barnett was entering the plant he received a leaflet and an application card.
The employees both before the shift started and after were discussing the advis-
ability of joining the,Union, and Barnett in the course of these discussions talked'
to,several of the employees in his department. Some of the employees knew
that Barnett had been a member of a labor organization while employed at The
North American Aviation plant and they asked Barnett what he thought of the
Union. Barnett advised the employees'that "it was a good thing, if they wanted to
join they could, and if they didn't they didn't have to " Later in the evening
Night Foreman Clark approached Barnett and asked him if he, belonged to the
Union. _ Barnett replied that he did and stated to Clark that "it was a free
country, and a man'could join or a woman could join, but if she didn't want to,
she could tear her,card up and throw it away." Clark, during the conversation,
told Barnett that he disapproved of the C. I. 0. Unions
2 The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation of counsel.
2 Claik'did not deny the facts set forth in these findings.
1194 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
i
About 10 o'clock on the evening of October 7, at Manago^r Williams' request,
Barnett reported to the office.' Williams accused Barnett of soliciting the erin-
ployees to sign application cards and'of agitating in behalf of the Union. Barnett,
denied these accusations, however, he did tell Williams that he had advised some
of the employees that the decision as to whether or not they joined the Union was
one for them to make. After some further discussion Williams told Barnett that
he.wpuld not have a union in the plant and that he could not afford to pay union
wages. Williams then discharged Barnett. Barnett at his own request was
given a release by Williams and on the following, day received his pay, including
full payment for October 7. A day or two later, after Barnett had reported his
discharge to-Hood, a representative of the Union, a conference was arranged with
Williams at the plant. Hood at the conference stated to Williams that it was a
violation of the Wagner Act to discharge any employee, because of his union
activities. At the' close of the conference Williams advised Hood that he would
think the matter over for a day or two and requested Hood to call him later.
On October 11, Hood called Williams„who requested Hood to have Barnett report
to the plant for work on his regular shift on the evening of that day. Barnett
reported for work and was assigned to his former job as a working foreman.'
On the basis of the foregoing and the record in its entirety the undersigned
finds that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
,employment of Barnett by his discharge on October 7 and that by such action
and by the remarks of Foreman Clark, above referred to, the respondent has dis-
couraged membership in the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On several successive days after Barnett's return to his job, on October 11, the
Union handed out leaflets and application cards outside the plant. The evidence
is undisputed that during the week of October 11, the employees, both at lunch
time and during working hours, spent a great deal of-their time discussing the
Union which'resulted in a decrease of production in the plant. The only inci-
dent occurring during that week which involved Barnett was on or about October
.14 when Night Foreman Clark came into the department and noticed that one
of the employees was signing a union card. Clark admonished the employee
for signing a card during working'hours'and inquired of the employee where he
had received the card. Clark, receiving an unsatisfactory reply, asked Barnett,
who was standing near, if he had given the employee the card. Barnett denied
that he had given out the card and, Clark then remarked that he' was going to
make it his business to find' out who had been passing- out cards on the job.
Outside of this incident there is no testimony to indicate that the respondent was
particularly concerned, about the union activities which admittedly, during that
week, had caused some confusion in the plant.",
On Thursday night, October 14, Barnett had in his department one employee
who was reworking bronze "L" fittings. An error had been made in the first
Although Williams at times was at the plant in the evening, on this occasion he was
called' to the Clint by either Foreman Clark or Assistant' Foreman Oliver because there
was some difficulty at the plant ' The undersigned is of the opinion the "difficulty" referred
to was the Union's organizational drive, which started that evening.
6 Williams testified that during the conversation he discussed Barnett's union activities
on that evening, but that Barnett denied soliciting the employees to join the Union or threat-
ening them with loss of their jobs if they did not join The recital of facts in this paragraph
are based upon the testimony of Barnett and Williams and in those instances ' where there
is any conflict in their testimony, the undersigned accepts Barnett's testimony, Because the
activities of Williams and Clark oh the evening of 'October 7 plainly indicate a desire to
thwart the organizational efforts of the Union
" The undersigned is of the ' opinion that ' under the circumstances here set forth this
incident cannot be considered , as interference by the respondent.
I
REPUBLIC AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
4
,1195
instance in cutting threads on one end of the "L" and it was necessary to correct
the error to re-thread that end of the "L" by cutting on it a tapered thread. The
following morning the respondent's chief inspector reported to Williams that 200
or 300 of the fittings would have to.be scrapped because an S. A. E. or straight
-thread had been worked on the fittings instead of a tapered thread.' Williams,
,,when Barnett reported for work on the evening of October 15, requested that he
come back and see him on the following day. Barnett did not report to Williams
on the following day it being his clay off and he "slept- all day." On Monday
evening, October 18, when Barnett reported for work-his time card was missing
from the rack and,the office girl told Barnett that Williams wanted to see him.
Williams discharged Barnett, after telling him that an excessive number of
fittings had been scrapped because of his improper supervision on the night of'
October 14
Snyder, an Army Air Force inspector, testified'that on Friday morning, Octo-
ber 15, he was called to the respondent's plant by one of his resident inspectors
because of an unusually large amount of rejected fittings that had been produced
the night before. Snyder further testified that by visual examination of sev-
eral "L" fittings,-he rejected and condemned 200 or 300 of them that had been
produced the night before in the rework department. Snyder also testified that
he at that time instructed Williams that a change in the personnel should be
made in the department where the scrapped fittings had been produced. Snyder
further testified that he did not have the authority to recommend the discharge
of eniplo^ees but that he did have the authority to insist upon the removal of an
employee who was-responsible for the production'of poor work.
The undersigned is convinced that Barnett because of his own improper super-
vision and inspection permitted an employee under his supervision to produce
200 or 300 fittings by cutting thereon an S. A. E or straight thread instead of
a tapered thread, that this inattention to his job resulted in the scrapping of a
substantial amount of valuable fittings This failure on the part of Barnett
to perform the duties of his job is particularly inexcusable in view of the fact
that inspection of the fitting by visual examination would have disclosed that
an S. A E. or straight thread, rather than a tapered thread was being cut upon
the fittings °
It is clear from the above, and the undersigned finds, that Barnett on Octo-
ber 18, 1043, was discharged both for his failure to report to Williams on Sat-
urdday, October 10, as requested, and also for the reason that he improperly
supervised the employees in his department. The undersigned- further finds that
his membership in or activity on behalf of the Union'had no relation to, or in any
manner affected hi's discharge.10
7 The die which was used for the purpose of reworking the'threads on the fitting was a
nonadjustable die, and when the die was properly placed in the jig with proper side up
would cut a tapered thread To properly perform the operation of cutting a tapered thread
the die should be placed in the jig with the larger opening of the die to the top In order to
put a stianght thread upon the fitting it would be necessary to reverse the die so that the
smaller opening was at the top If threads were cut upon the fitting while the die was in
this position it would make an S A. E or straight thread Fittings with an S A. E or
straight thread could not again be reworked and would have to be scrapped.
Barnett testified that he checked every fifth fitting produced during the night shift of
October 14 This statement of Barnett is incredible, because practically-the entire pro-
duction of the only employee engaged in this particular work: had to be scrapped
"There is evidence in the record to indicate that the respondent had on other occasions
discharged or demoted employees including supervisors , because of their failure to properly
perform the work assigned to them
10 This finding is based,upon the testimony of Williams and Snyder which the undersigned
believes The undersigned is not unmindful of the fact that Barnett testified that Williams
1196 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lila Lee Bell was employed by the respondent on or about September 15, 1943,
as an inspector, and worked regularly at such work until her employment was
terminated on or about October 15, 1943. She was a member of the Union and
from the inception of its organizational campaign on October 7 was an' active
advocate, among the employees, of the advantages of concerted action. The
respondent was aware of her interest in the Union "
The facts leading up to the termination of the employment of Mrs. Bell are not
in dispute and may be briefly summarized as follows : Mrs. Bell worked 'on the
night shift which started at 6 p m and on the evening that her employment was
terminated she was responsible for the inspection of the fittings produced on four
machines.- Under the instructions which Mrs. Bell had received from the respond-
ent she was charged with the responsibility of inspecting every fitting being
produced on these machines. The operator of each machine, as the fittings were
completed, would place them upon a drain net where they would remain until
the inspector came around to inspect the fittings. It was Mrs. Bell's duty to go
from machine to machine, inspect the fittings, and grade them, and after grading,
place them in one of three boxes according to grade-accepted fittings, rejected
fittings, and fittings that could be reworked.
The testimony is in dispute as to whether during the evening Mrs. Bell observed
that the operator of one of the machines was making parts which did not meet
the specifications or whether Night Foreman Clark in making his regular rounds
found the error. It is, however, unnecessary to resolve this conflict, as Mrs. Bell
admitted that there were at least 63 fittings made on that particular' machine
that were imperfect and would have to be scrapped. Further, according to her
testimony, this number of scrapped fittings would indicate that she had for at
least a period of 2 and Y/ hours failed to inspect the fittings coming from the
machine. The defect in the fittings were what is termed a visual defect, that is,
by merely looking at the fitting it could be seen that it was imperfect. The
undersigned is of the opinion that such inattention to her duties as an inspector
was inexcusable 12
After the operator of the machine at the suggestion of Clark had attempted
to rework a few of the fittings and it was found that this could not be done, Clark
requested Mrs. Bell to come to the office. Clark then told Mrs. Bell to punch her
time card and go home and come back the following day and see Manager Wil-
liams. Mrs. Bell then asked Clark if she was fired, and Clark replied, "No, not
exactly" again stating that he wanted her to come back the next day and talk to
Williams. Mrs. Bell replied that she was not going "nowhere" and that if she
was fired she wanted a release and her money. Mrs. Bell's father, Lee Bar-
on the day lie (Barnett) was discharged, stated that "lie rWilliams] wouldn-t tolerate the
Union." The undersigned does not credit this testimony of Barnett.
11 General Manager Williams, on October 21, 1943, in a letter to the Regional Director
regarding the discharge of Mrs Bell stated : "Please be assured that Miss Bell was definitely
not discharged from this Company for Union activities, but if we did discharge employees
from this Company, for such activities she would have been discharged long ago " Williams
testified with respect to this portion of the letter "I knew that she had solicited Union
members on the job and that she was not critized for that to my knowledge The only
thing I had told Mr. Clark, the night foreman, was that I had noticed her being all over
the plant on various occasions when I would go in there at night and I understood that
she had told two of the girls that they had to join the Union or lose their jobs."
12 The respondent offered testimony to show that Mrs Bell spent a substantial portion
of her time roaming about the plant, particularly in the department where her father Lee
Barnett was the working foreman. While the undersigned credits this testimony, the
respondent (lid not offer it as a justification for her discharge but for the purpose of
showing that the incident which occurred on the night her 'employment was terminated
was due to her apparent inability to assume the'responsibilrties connected with the job of
.,an inspector .
REPUBLIC AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1197
nett, the employee-referred' to earlier in this report, also stated to Clark that
Mrs. Bell would 'not go home unless she received her, money. Clark then phoned
Williams' home but was unable to reach him , finally Clark was'able to contact
Williams' secretary who came to .the office and made out a release for Mrs. Bell
and paid her the wages due her. _ Mrs Bell after receiving the release and her
pay went home.1° Although Mis Bell was requested by Night Foreman Clark
to.come back the next day and see Manager Williams she did not do so nor has
she ever returned to the plant for the purpose of seeing Williams.
Under the circumstances set forth above, particularly Mrs. Bell's refusal to
leave the plant and return the next day to talk to Manager Williams, and her
insistence that she'be given a release and paid her wages before she would leave
the plant, the undersigned is of the opinion that Mrs. Bell by these actions ter-
minated her employment with the respondent. Further the undersigned con-
cludes that Mrs. Bell's refusal to return to the plant the following day to see
Manager Williams warranted the respondent in concluding that she had ter-,
minated her employment and had no intention of returning.
The undersigned finds that the allegations of the complaint with respect to Mrs.
Bell are not sustained by substantial evidence and that she was not discharged
because the respondent believed her to be a union member or active in its behalf.
.IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with its operations. described in Section I above have a close, in-
timate, 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Since the undersigned has found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices the undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and
desist therefrom and,take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated as to the hire
and tenure of employment of Lee B Barnett by discharging him on October 7,
1943. The undersigned will make no recommendation with reference to the
reinstatement of Lee B. Barnett who was reinstated on October 11, 1943. In
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned recommends that the
respondent make whole Lee B. Barnett for any loss of pay that he has suffered
by reason of his discharge on October 7, 1943, by payment to him of a sum^of
money equal to the amount he would have earned in his regular employment
with the respondent from the date of his discharge above noted to the date
of his reinstatement on October 11, 1943, less his net earnings during said period.14
' Mrs. Bell testified that Clark did not tell her she was discharged but that "he did
pay me off that night and give me a release " Mrs Bell also testified that she did not
come back the next day because she figured she was fired by the way Clark talked to her
the night before When Mrs. Bell was asked whether there was any other reason for her
discharge in addition to the spoiling of 63 fittings she stated that she thought it was
because she had joined 'the Union , although she' admitted that neither Clark nor Williams
knew that she was a member.
ii 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-
eelieie than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlaiiful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elseivhere. See Matter of
Crossett Lntmber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L R. B . 440. Monies received for
5877S4-45-vol 56-77 .
1198 ' DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned has also found that the respondent has not discriminated,
against Lila Lee Bell on or about October 15 , 1943 and Lee B . Barnett on October
18, 1943 in respect to their hire or tenure ofemployment and''the undersigned
will therefore recommend that the , complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
such discrimination.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF' LAw
1. United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America affiliated' with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act..
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lee B.
Barnett by discharging him on October 7, 1943, the respondent has engaged in,,
and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning , of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act , the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act by the termination of the employment of Lila Lee%Bell
on or about October 15, 1943, and Lee B. Barnett on October 18, 1943.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the undersigned
hereby recommends that the respondent , Republic Aircraft Manufacturing Com-
pany ( Dallas, Texas) its officers, agents, successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the United Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers of - America affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations-or
in any other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment'or any term or condition of- employment;
(b) In any other manner ` interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights of self-organization , to form, join , or assist
labor organization or to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing 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) Make whole'Lee B . Barnett for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the respondent 's discrimination against ,him by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in his regular employ-
ment with the respondent from October 7, 1943, the date of his discriminatory
discharge to the date of his reinstatement on October 11, 1943, less his net earn-
ings during said period ; - '
work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal ,' or other work -relief projects
shall he considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v.*N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
REPUBLIC AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY ` 1199
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Dallas,
Texas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date of posting notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not
engage in the conduct from'which it is recommended that it cease and desist, in
paragraph 1 (a) and (b) in these recommendations; (2) that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) pf these recommenda
tions; (3) that its employees are free to become or remain members of the
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, or of any other labor
organization and that the respondent will not in any manner discriminate against
its employees because of membership in or activities on behalf of that organiza-
tion or any other labor organization.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth,
Texas) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this In-
termediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
It is fin then recommended that the complaint be dismissed so far as it alleges
that the respondent has disci iminated in regard to hire and tenure of,ennploy-
nnent of Lila Lee,,Bell, by discharging her on or about October 15, 194:2 and of
Lee B Barnett by discharging him on October 18, 1943
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Ruses and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November, 26, 1943, any party
or counsel for the Board 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, Rochambeau Building,
Washington, D C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the-
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall file a ,copy with the Regional Director. As
further, provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing within ten
(10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
.TAMES C. BATTEN,
Ti tan Examiner.
Dated March 15, 1944.