Ideal Brass Works

E. In the Matter of WRIGIIT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, AND BERT QUINN,' INDIVIDUALLY AND DOTNG BUSINESS AS IDEAL BRASS WORKS and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL #1142, C. I. O. Ca-se C-223.9.-Decided iVoveinber 11, 194112 Jurisdiction : hardware manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, anal (Joeicion: anti-union state)nents; threats of dis- charge of union employee, interference with choice of representative at consent election Disc) intimation : discharge of two employees for union membership and activ- ities. Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and back pay awarded with special provision for employee in military service. Mr. Harry Brownstein, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Board. Elmquist, Felhaber and Elmquist, by Mr. R. S. Feihaber, of St. Paul, Minn., for the respondent. -Helstein and Hall, by Mr. Douglas Hall, of Minneapolis, Minn., for'the Union. Mr. William F. Scharnikow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE On a third amended charge duly filed by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint dated May 14, 1942, against Wright Products, Incorporated, and Bert Quinn, individ- ually andydoing business as Ideal Brass Works, herein called the respondents,' alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were r Incoriectly named in the original pleadings as "Burt" Quinn Individually refeired to hereinafter as Wright and Quinn, respectively. 45N.L It B. No 75. 509 11 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, 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. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondents and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that since approximately June 1, 1941, the employees of Wright and Quinn have been subject to the joint and separate super- vision, direction, and control of both the respondents; that on or about July 1, 1941, the respondents urged their employees not to join the Union, promised them wage increases if they refrained from joining, and threatened them with discharge or curtailment of op erations with resultant loss of employment if they did join the Union; that on or about July 21, 1941, the respondents told their employees that a wage increase would be granted those employees who did not join the Union and again urged them not to join the Union; that, on the eve of a consent election to determine the bar- gaining representative of the employees, the respondents threatened to discontinue operations or move to a different locality if the Union should win the election, and urged the employees to vote against the Union; and that the respondents discharged or laid off employees John Elwood on July 14, 1941, George Lutz on August 11, 1941, and Donald Hovelsrud on August 18, 1941, and thereafter refused to re- instate them, because of their union membership and activities. The answer of the respondents, ,filed on, May 26, 1942, denied the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 26 and 27, 1942, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Union, and the respondents were represented by counsel, participated in the hear- ing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the conclusion of the' Board's 'case, the' Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleged the discriminatory discharge of John Elwood. Counsel for the Board then moved to conform the pleadings to the proof as to Haines, dates, and other formal matters. This motion was granted without objection from any of the parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The hoard has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for all the parties presented oral argument to the Trial Examiner. None of the parties requested leave to file briefs with the Trial ExamiIicr. WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 511,- On June 23, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in which he found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of See-, tion 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom- mended-that the respondents cease and desist therefrom, and that they take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. None, of the parties, has filed a brief, exceptions,.' or request for -oral argument. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:- FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Wright Products, Incorporated, is a Minnesota corporation with its principal office and place of business at St. Paul Park, Minnesota, wheie`it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of builders' hardware, consisting of door latches, storm window adjusters, door knobs, and other siriiilar items. During 1941, Wright purchased metals of various kinds of a value in excess of $66,000, of which approximately 75 percent by value was purchased and shipped from sources outside the State of Minnesota. During the same year Wright sold products of a value in excess of $100,000, of which 90 percent by value represented sales and shipments to points outside the State of Minnesota. Bert Quinn does business individually under the name of Ideal Brass Works, with his principal office and place of business in the plant of the respondent, Wright, in St. Paul Park, Minnesota. He manufac- tures and sells builders' hardware of the same general character as that made and sold by Wright. During 1941 he bought metals of the ap- proximate value of $40,000, of which 75 percent by value represented metals purchased and shipped from sources outside the State, of Minne- sota. In the same year he sold products of the approximate value of $50,000, approximately 75 percent of which by valise were sold and shipped to points outside the State of Minnesota. Both respondents admit, that they are engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act. If. THE ORGANIZ-\'I'ION INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, is a labor 'organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus- trial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of both' respondents. 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The relation, of the respondents to each other Wright and Quinn were originally competitors with separate plants in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, respectively. Prior to June- 1941 they settled a dispute arising from conflicting patent applica- tions by executing cross-assignments of manufacturing rights under the patents involved. They then decided to move their plants- into. a single building, preserving their separate businesses but permitting Quinn to supervise Wright's production and to use certain equipment of Wright's which Quinn did not have. On April 13, 1941, as a result of the efforts of Quinn in furtherance of this plan, the Village of St. Paul Park, Minnesota, conveyed an unoccupied 3-story tannery building in St. Paul Park to Wright, upon condition that Wright recondition it as •a -factory and pay the taxes and assessments on the property for the following 5 years. Pursuant to an oral understand- ing with Wright, Quinn then reconditioned the factory building using, as far as possible, employees from his St. Paul plant. Five of Quinn's employees thus started to work on the St. Paul Park building prior to June 1, 1941, and when, on approximately that date, Wright moved into the building and began operations, they were transferred to its pay roll. Of the cost of reconditioning, Wright paid approximately $10,000 and Quinn advanced a sum between $2,000 and $3,800. On or about June 1, 1941, Wright moved its equipment from its Minneapolis plant to the St. Paul Park factory and, as soon as the equipment was installed, began production under an arrangement with Quinn whereby the latter superintended all the manufacturing opera- tions, including the hire and discharge of employees. Quinn con- tinued his business in St. Paul until he finally completed the removal of his equipment to St. Paul Park in the middle,of August 1941. Wright occupies the entire building at St. Paul Park, except a por- tion of the second floor in which Quinn's equipment has been installed, and an apartment on the third floor which is occupied by Quinn as his living quarters. The businesses of the respondents are conducted separately. When, as occasionally happens, either of the respondents uses employees of the other to supplement his or its personnel, or Quinn uses Wright's equipment, the user is billed by the other re- spondent for actual cost. F. J. Wellmerling, president of Wright, manages all of Wright's business other than production. Quinn, in addition to managing his own business, acts as Wright's factory superintendent, with complete authority over Wright's employees. For this he receives as compensation the free use of the space occu- pied by his equipment and the apartment on the third floor, and the WRIGHT PRODUCTS, ' INCORPORATEID 513 use at cost of Wright's personnel and equipment when necessary to supplement his own. - We find that Quinn, in his capacity as superintendent for Wright,, is an employer of Wright 's employees, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) ofthe Act. B. Interference, coercion, and restraint The Union began organizing Wright's employees in the second or third week of June 1941 . Earlier in the month , a substantial num- ber of the employees who had been transferred from 'Minneapolis 'to St. Paul Park had made separate written applications for a wage increase of 15 cents per hour, but had individually , accepted a promise from President Wellmerling of increases varying,from 5, cents. per hour to 10 cents per hour. At approximately the same time , Wright hired a number of new employees from St. Paul Park at its minimuu wage rate, with the understanding that the men ,would receive an increase of 10 cents per hour and the women an increase of 5 cents per hour after they had worked two full pay periods .. The wage increase promised to the old employees was made effective on June 15, the next regular semi-monthly pay day. On July 15, when the Union's organizational campaign was in progress and on the eve of a consent election conducted by the Board to determine , the bargain- ing representative of Wright's employees , the new employees were given their agreed raise, although some of them had been on the pay roll a few days less than two pay periods . Since the raises to the old employees were granted and the raises to the new employees were promised prior to the advent of the Union , we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Wright, by gTanting these raises, did not attempt to influence the employees in the selection of their bargaining agent or otherwise interfere with, restrain , or coerce them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. By the middle of 'June 1941, as a result of the Union's campaign for members and of a rumor that, by agreement between Wright and the Village, only residents of St. Paul Park would eventually be employed, 15 of Wright's employees joined the Union to protect their jobs. On or about June 28 or 30, 1941 , the business agent of the Union submitted to Wellmerlirig a form of contract providing for a 15-cent per hour increase . On July 2, 1941, Wright and the Union entered into an agreement that an election be held under the supervision of the Board's Regional Director to determine the bar- gaining representative of Wright's employees and that the Board might certify the Union as such representative if it were successful in the election. In the meantime , however, the International Asso- 433503-43-vol 45-33 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ciation of Machinists , a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and herein called the I . A. M., had also begun organizing the employees. On July 19, therefore, Wright, the Union, and the I. A. M. executed a new agreement for a consent election to be held on July 22, 1941, in which the Union and the I. A. M. would appear on the ballot . In this election, 67 ballots were cast , 1 of which was challenged . Of the remaining 66 ballots , 33 were cast for the Union, 3 for the I. A. M., and 30 for neither union . The Union filed objections to the Regional Director's Election Report, and the I. A. M. withdrew from that proceeding. The election was then set aside. The members of the Union made no secret of their affiliation. They wore their union buttons openly, and designated a chief shop steward and an assistant shop steward who habitually wore their official badges or buttons. On the other hand, neither Wellmerling nor Quinn con- cealed his disapproval of the Union . On or about July 2, 1941, when the first election agreement was signed, Wellmerling and Quinn sum- moned William D. Perkins, foreman of the punch press operators, and his wife, Kathryn Perkins; an assembly worker, to the office. In the course of this meeting, according to the Perkins' testimony , Wellmer- ling and Quinn discussed general conditions in the shop and ascribed a lag in production and a reduction in efficiency to union discussions among the employees during working hours. Referring generally to the union activity in the ,plant, they inquired whether Mr. and Mrs. Perkins would work with them to discourage affiliation with the Union. When the Perkins agreed to do so, Mrs. Perkins was promoted to the position of forelady of a group of women workers and was given It wage increase . William and Kathryn Perkins testified that Wellmer- ling and Quinn then instructed them to talk against the Union to the employees and to tell the employees that, if the Union were successful, the respondents would shut down the plant or eliminate the union men one by one , but that "if everything went right with the Union," the employees would again receive their annual bonus . At one point in his testimony , Wellmerling categorically denied asking the Perkins to talk to the employees about the Union . However, both Wellmerling and Quinn admitted in their testimony that, in requesting Mr. and Mrs. Perkins to increase production , they stressed the fact that the employees' inefficiency was due to their continual discussion during working hours of whether or not they should join the Union; and Quinn also testified that Perkins and his wife were instructed to tell the employees to eliminate conversation during working hours, "espe- cially about union activities ." We credit the testimony of William and Kathryn Perkins as to the substance of their interview with Well- merling and Quinn, as did the Trial Examiner. WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 515 Pursuant to their instructions, both Mr. and Mrs. Perkins told a number of the employees working under them to stay out of the Union. Clarence Westermeyer, a member of the Union who wore the white button of an assistant shop steward, was one of those to whom Perkins spoke. In substance, Perkins told Westermeyer that organization of the employees should be deferred until the business had gotten a good start, and that, if things were not satisfactory, the employees could then bring in the A. F. of L. or some other union. According to the testimony of Robert Cook, a maintenance man who was opposed to the C. I. O. but who later joined the A. F. of L., Quinn told him shortly after the Union began its activities that, if the C. I. O. came into the plant, Quinn would not move his equipment to St. Paul Park. In a later, conversation, Quinn, in the presence of Perkins, told Cook, who had expressed fear for his job because of his opposition to the Union, not to worry, because "we will get rid of those union guys, one by one." Perkins corroborated Cook as to this last conversation. Quinn denied having made any such remark as that attributed to him by Cook and Perkins, but said that Cook might have overheard him tell Perkins of the necessity for "getting rid" of mice which bad overrun the plant. We credit the testimony of Cook and Perkins, as did the Trial Examiner. About a week before the consent election of July 22, 1941, Cook called a meeting of the employees one evening to discuss the question of whether there should be any union in the plant. He arranged to have the mayor of St. Paul Park speak against unions in general, and invited Declan O'Brien, chief steward of the Union, to speak in favor of union organization. Just before the meeting, Cook telephoned Wellmerling and told him that he was hold- ing an "anti-union" meeting and desired the attendance of Perkins and another employee, Nollett O'Boyle, both of whom were on the night shift. Wellmerling told Cook that he was behind him 100 percent,. and released Perkins and O'Boyle to attend the meeting without mak- ing any deduction from their salaries for loss of time. Wellmerling testified that at the request of Cook he released two men to attend a meeting of employees, but denied that he knew the purpose of the meeting. We credit the testimony of Cook, as did the Trial Examiner. Neither Quinn nor Wellmerling attempted to conceal his dis- approval of the union discussions in the shop. Both attributed the alleged lack of efficiency of the employees to these discussions and freely admitted having mentioned it to several employees. According to the testimony of several of the employees, however, Quinn's and Wellmerling's comments clearly indicated general disapproval of the Union and the employeees' activities on its behalf. Thus, Quinn, on one occasion, chided O'Brien, the Union's chief shop steward, in the presence of three or four other employees, about his union affiliation, 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after O'Brien had said that the Union would provide him with job security. Quinn asked O'Brien whether he did not feel that he was man enough to hold a job without the help of a union, and said that, if the Union should get into the plant, Quinn would not move the Ideal Brass Works to St. Paul Park. On another occasion, Glenn Westerheim, one of the assistant shop stewards, was confused by some remarks addressed to him by Welhnerling and asked Welhnerling whether his work was satisfactory. Welimerling replied that West- erheim's work was satisfactory, but that he did not like the way Wester- heim was going around "talking things up" and that something had to be done about it. Wellmerling admitted having spoken to Wester- heim and having known that Westerheim had been talking about the Union, but claimed that he had not mentioned union activities. We credit the testimony of Westerheim, as did the Trial Examiner. We are of the opinion, as 'vas the Trial Examiner, that the re spondents, by the above-described course of conduct, clearly indicated to their employees their antagonism to the Union, and sought to dis- courage affiliation with the Union and to defeat the Union in the consent election of July 22, 1941. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondents thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. -C. The discharges George Lutz was first employed by Wright at its Minneapolis plant in April 1940; his employment continued after the move to St. Paul Park and until his discharge on August 11, 1941. He joined the Union shortly after the establishment of the plant in St. Paul Park, and early in August 1941, he was made one -of the shop stewards, charged with the responsibility of organizing the women employees in the plant. During the period between his appointment as shop steward and his discharge on August 11, he obtained membership applications from several of them. Lutz wore his steward's button at all times and was well known as an active union member . His activities on behalf of the Union just prior to his discharge were admittedly dis- tasteful to Quinn, who had full control over the hiring and discharge of employees. Lutz, although primarily employed in the shipping and receiving department , worked at various times in other departments of the plant when the shipping and receiving department was not busy . On Aug- ust 11, 1941, the day of his discharge , Lutz, while spraying display models, complained to Gosrud, a new and inexperienced employee, that the paint was not spreading as it should. In keeping with his reputation as a prankster, he asked Gosrud to get a "paper stretcher,", i WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 517 to make the paint go further , from the foreman of one of the other departments . Gosrud, being unable to find the foreman to whom he had been sent, told Quinn of the errand Lutz had given him. Quinn thereupon went into Wellmerling 's office, where he and Wellmerling decided to discharge Lutz, and then told Lutz that he was discharged. Lutz immediately went to Wellmerling and asked if he had been dis- charged for the "paper stretcher" incident . Wellmerling admitted at the hearing that he told Lutz at the time that he was being ,discharged for that and other reasons. Lutz testified that Wellmerling also said that he had to start some place, and that there were others who were "going." Lutz received his pay and has not since been employed by the respondent. Prior to the move to St. Paul Park, while Wright was still in Minneapolis , employee discipline was at a low ebb. It was not un- common for employees to engage in water fights during working hours, to throw cloth buffer wheels from one end of the shop to the other, and to engage generally in pranks and horseplay when they should have been working. Their foremen in Minneapolis made no effort to stop such conduct but, on the contrary, permitted it, so that the employees could "get it out of their system." When the plant moved to St. Paul Park, Wellmerling, who has never taken an active part in production , instructed Quinn to take whatever steps were necessary to stop the horseplay . The rumor that employment would be restricted to residents of St. Paul Park, and the fact that most of the old Minne- apolis employees had joined the Union , appear to have had a sobering effect upon many of them , with the result that horseplay diminished, although there is evidence that it did not entirely disappear. In contrast to the decision of the respondents to discharge Lutz for his harmless prank was the attitude taken by Quinn toward a bit of horseplay which came to his attention a short time before. Wester- heim testified that the employees had imprisoned one of their coworkers in a plant dumb-waiter between floors, where the noise of his shouts was muffled . According to Quinn's testimony, he saw two employees get out of the dumb-waiter on that occasion , and merely "went over and told both of them that they couldn 't use the dumb -waiter for a sport like that, because of insurance reasons." When questioned by the Trial Examiner as to his attitude toward pranks generally, and the prank played by Lutz in particular, Quinn said, "I feel there are instances where things of that nature are excusable ; but I didn't feel it was in this [Lutz 's] case." Both Wellmerling and Quinn denied that Lutz's union activities had anything to do ' with his discharge. On cross-examination how- ever, Quinn stated that Lutz wore his union button; that Lutz had been doing a lot of "talking " which Quinn presumed was about the 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union ; and"that, while Lutz was discharged because of the "paper stretcher" incident, his "talking" had some influence in the decision to discharge him. Wellmerling testified that he had instructed Quinn to stop the horseplay and that they had agreed to watch operations in the plant and, as an example to the others , to discharge the first man who engaged in any pranks. They did not, however, say any- thing to the employees about mending their ways , nor did they -post notices warning the employees against horseplay or other objectionable conduct. Wellmerling further testified that he had heard of Lutz's 'horseplay in the plant , but he was unable to give any examples of it except one instance when he had seen Lutz talking and laughing with the man working on either side of him. This was not inter- fering with Lutz's work , however. Wellmerling first testified that he told Lutz on this occasion that he could not be kept on the job unless he attended to business , but on further examination Wellmerling admitted that he merely told Lutz to "attend to business ." We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this , in fact, was the extent of the only admonition given to Lutz on the subject . We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that, although horseplay had been prevalent among Wright's employees while they worked in Minneapolis, neither Lutz nor any of the other employees was ever warned, either in Min- neapolis or in St. Paul Park, tliat the penalty for such conduct would be discharge. We have found , above, that the respondents interfered with the em- ployees in their choice of a representative at the election held on July 22, 1941, that the respondents were openly antagonistic to the Union, and that they threatened the discharge of union members. It also appears that Lutz, shortly before his discharge , had been designated shop steward, with the special assignment of organizing the women employees , several of whom joined at his solicitation ; that Quinn ad- mitted that his knowledge of Lutz's doing a lot of talking, presumably about the Union was a factor in the decision to discharge him; that the respondents had not warned the employees that the horseplay prevalent in the plant must be discontinued ; and that the prank for which Lutz was ostensibly discharged was at best as harmless as other horseplay which Quinn had witnessed a short time before without tak- ing any disciplinary action . We are convinced and we find , as did the Trial Examiner, that Lutz was in fact discharged because of his union activities and membership . By thus ' discharging Lutz, the respond- ents discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WRTGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 519 Donald H1ovelsr^ud,3 was hired in Minneapolis in August 1939, and worked continuously for Wright there and in St. Paul Park until his discharge on August 18, 1941. For the major portion of this time, he was employed in what was known as the "model room," a department in which display models were made by mounting samples of the hard- ware upon sections of windows and doors. In March 1940, Hovelsrud became the chief operator in this department, in which, at that time, two other persons were regularly employed. When Wright moved its plant from Minneapolis to St. Paul Park, the work in the model room was reduced and the two other employees, Knutson and Ander- son, were transferred, at their own requests, to regular employment on the punch presses. . In June 1941, Hovelsrud joined the Union, and thereafter he openly solicited memberships, actively participated in all union matters, and represented the Union as an official observer at the election of July 22, 1941. After the election, he was a member of the group which exam- ined Wright's employment records in an inquiry as to the status of the employee whose vote had been challenged, and he protested vigorously to Wellmerling against Wright's challenge of the disputed ballot. On the following day, June 23, 1941, Wellmerling told Hovelsrud that Wright intended to discontinue the model room and would have to dispense with his services. According to Hovelsrud, he asked Well- merling "What about my seniority?" to which Wellmerling replied, "Well. you know the real reason. We have peculiar laws in this coun- try which my lawyer says do not permit me to tell you what I would like to." Wellmerling added that he was not going to have anyone run his business for him. In answer to an inquiry by Hovelsrud, Wellmer- ling told him that his work had, been satisfactory, but said, "If you had played ball with me, you could have been working here as long as you cared to." This conversation took place shortly before Hovelsrud would nor- mally have begun his vacation. He therefore suggested to Wellmer= ling that he (Hovelsrud) take a 3-week vacation, 1 week with pay and 2 weeks without pay, and that, upon his return, they talk further- about his lay-off. Hovelsrud's version of subsequent events was sub- stantially the following : On Friday, August 15, when he returned from his vacation, Wellmerling again assigned him to the model room, where he found a former employee of Quinn working with Edward LaBathe, a union member who had been regularly employed in the model room for some time. On the following Monday morning, 9 A written statement by Hovelsrud , who was unavailable as a «itness , was read into the record upon The stipulation of all parties that , if called , he would so testify. In the discus- sion which preceded this stipulation, the Trial Examiner reminded counsel for the respond- ents that such a stipulation would necessarily involve a waiver of the right of cross- examination. 520 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD August 18, 1941, Wellinerling told Hovelsrud that he had definitely decided to discontinue the model room and would 'have to let Hovelsrud go immediately . He further remarked, "You are wasting your talents here." Hovelsrud again asked about his seniority and was told that lie had been laid off once and rehired and that the performance was not going to be repeated . In reply to Hovelskud 's request for a letter of recommendation, Wellmerling said that he would give Hovelsrud such a letter if Hovelsrud would hand in his resignation, but not otherwise. Refusing to do this, Hovelsrud left the plant. On the next evening, August 19, Hovelsrud went to Wellmerling's home and repeated his application for reinstatement. During the conversation, he told Wellmerling that he had joined the Union in order to protect his job. Wellmerling's comment was "Between you and me, the real reason is your union affiliation. You have been influencing others to join. You know I don't like the Union, especially the C. I. O. with its Communistic ideas. I prefer the A. F. L. to other unions, but I don't like any unions. I want to run my own business. Thus is still a free country." Hovelsrud then asked whether he might be put 1 o work on a, punch press as had the other nien who had formerly worked in the model room, or whether he might have any other type of work in, the plant. Wellmerling agreed to consult Quinn concerning this possibility and then to give Hovelsrud his answer. Having received no word from Wellmerling, Hovelsrud telephoned Wellmerling on Thursday, August 21, to ascertain what had been decided about his job. Wellmerling said that he had not yet talked with Quinn, and asked whether Hovelsrud would care to undertake to do the model work at home under a contract, and whether lie had the equipment for the purpose. When Hovelsrucl said he had no equipment, Wellmerling suggested that they might be able to sell him their equipment and promised to get in touclri with Hovelsrucl again. On August 25, Hovelsrud took Declan O'Brien, who had been the Union's shop stew- ard, to see Wellmerling and Quinn. O'Brien, who by that time was no longer employed by the respondents, said be was there as a, repre- sentative of the Union to see whether Hovelsrud might have his job again, to which Wellmerling replied, "Oh, in that case, no, he,can't." Hovelsrud referred to the fact that the other employees who head been working in the model room were his juniors in service', and asked Quinn whether these men were also to be laid off. Quinn replied that they would find work for these men elsewhere in the shop. A short time later the respondents mhde an arrangement with a former part- time employee to do the model work under contract and to lend rather than sell him all the equipment necessary for the purpose . On April 20, 1942, Hovelsrud enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, and since that time he has been , and he now is, in the military service of the United States. WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 521 The statements attributed by Hovelsrud to Wellmerling and Quinn were not squarely denied by either of them. Both denied having used. the explicit language ascribed to them, but admitted conversations on the general subjects. However, their explanations were indefinite and, as the Trial Examiner found, not as plausible as the stipulated testimony of Hovelsrud, particularly in view of the open antagonism of both respondents to the Union and of Well merling's testimony that Hovelsrud's work was entirely satisfactory. We credit, as did the Trial Examiner, the stipulated testimony of Hovelsrud concerning the statements made by Wellmerling and Quinn. At the time of Hovelsrud's discharge, LaBathe, the only other regular employee in the model room, was also a member of the Union and openly wore his union button. When the model room was closed on August 18, LaBathe was dismissed along with Hovelsrud, the equipment was disassembled, and no further work was done in that department. No charge has been made that the dismissal of LaBathe was discriminatory, nor is there substantial evidence that the model room was closed for the purpose of dispensing with the services of Hovelsrud and LaBathe because of their union activities. It is not disputed that operation of the model room was discontinued for pur- poses of economy. However, no satisfactory explanation hiss been given for the refusal under the circumstances to transfer Hovelsrud to other work in the plant. When Wellmerling first notified Hovelsrud of his impending lay-off in spite of his satisfactory work, he supplemented the notice with a curt statement that Hovelsrud might have continued to work were it not for his refusal "to play ball"-a clear reference to Hovels- rud's union activities. Again, on August 19, when Hovelsrud visited him at his home, Wellmerling expressed his antagonism to unions, particularly the C. I. 0., and stated bluntly that the real reasons for Hovelsrud's lay-off were his union affiliation and his influencing others to join. Nevertheless, Wellmerling agreed to talk to Quinn about giving Hovelsrud other work in the plant. However, on August 25, when O'Brien, the union representative, pressed Hovelsrud's appli- cation for reinstatement, Wellmerling's and Quinn's adverse reaction was immediate and was obviously based upon the Union's connection with the application. It is apparent and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that, were it not for Hovelsrud's union affiliation and ac- tivities, he would have continued in Wright's employ despite the dis- continuance of the model room, and that the respondents refused to continue his employment elsewhere in the plant as a penalty for, and as a precaution against the renewal of, his activities on behalf of the Union among their employees. The respondents- thereby in effect discharged Hovelsrud on August 18, 1941, and they have since refused 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to employ him, because of his union membership and activities. By 'thus discharging and refusing to employ Hovelsrud, the respondents discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondents, and each of them, set forth in Section III B and C above; occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to "lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. TIIE REMEDY Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist there- from and to take affirmative action which we find necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondents discriminatorily discharged George Lutz and Donald Hovelsrud because of their membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union. We shall order that George Lutz be offered full and immediate reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and that he be made whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during the period from August 11, 1941, the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings 4 during such period. We shall further order that Donald Hovelsrud, upon application within forty (40) days after his discharge from the armed forces of the United States, be offered reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi- leges and that he be made whole for any loss of-pay he may have 4 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- where than for the respondent , Wright, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Worheis Union, Local 2i90, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for wok performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R 'B.. 311 U. S. 7. WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 523 suffered by reason of the 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 and the date of his entry into the armed forces of the United States, April 20, 1942; and (2) between a date 5 days after Hovelsrud's timely application for reinstatement and the date of the offer of reinstatement by the respondent, Wright, less his net earn- ings 5 during those periods .6 Since Lutz and Hovelsrud were on the pay roll of Wright, we shall issue these affirmative orders only against Wright., Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, C.' I. 0., is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, Bert Quinn, is an employer of the persons em- ployed by the respondent, Wright Products, Incorporated, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of George Lutz and Donald Hovelsrud and thereby discour- aging membership in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, C. I. 0., the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 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 prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices hffecting commerce, within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above 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: 5 See footnote 4, above. 6 See Matter of John David Brock, an individual doing business as John D. Brock, et at., and International Jewelry Workers Local No. 9, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 42 N. L. R B 457. The fact that Hovelsrud may, under our Order, become entitled to further back pay following his timely application for reinstatement upon his discharge from the armed forces of the United States shall not be regarded as affecting the obligation to pay him immediately whatever amount is due him for the period from the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of his induction into the armed forces of the United States , 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT 'IONIS BOARD 1. That the respondents, Wright Products, Incorporated, St. Paul Park, Minnesota, and Bert Quinn, individually and doing business as Ideal Brass Works, St. Paul, Park, Minnesota, and their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall cease and desist- from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of their employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any terms or con- ditions thereof; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing 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 concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. That the respondent, Wright Products, Incorporated, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to George Lutz immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole George Lutz 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 normally would have earned as wages from August 11, 1941, the date of the discharge, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period ; (c) Upon application by Donald Hovelsrud 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; (d) Make whole Donald Hovelsrud for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during the periods: (1) between the date of his discharge, August 18, 1941, and the date of his enlistment, April 20, 1942; and (2) between a date five (5) days after Hovelsrud's timely- application for reinstatement and the date of the offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings during those periods. . 3. That the respondents, Wright Products, Incorporated, and Bert Quinn, individually and doing business as Ideal Brass Works, and their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall each : WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 525 (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the plant of the respondents at St. Paul Park, Minnesota, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of post- ing; notices to their employees stating : (1) that the respondents, an'd each of them, will not engage in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent, Wright Products, Incorporated, will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; and (3) that the employees of the respolidehts are free to become or remain members of United Electrical, Radio and Ma- chine Workers of America, Local #1142, C. I. 0., and that the re- spondents, and each of them, will not discriminate against any em- ployee because of membership in or activities on behalf of that organization ; - (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondents and each of them have taken to comply herewith. ' AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the respondents discriminated,in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Elwood, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN M1 LIs -took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.