Central Steel Tube Co.

In- the Matter of CENTRAL STEEL: TUBE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL 1623 Case No. C-2526.-Decided March 26; 1943 Jurisdiction : ordnance manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor , Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogating employees • about union activity ; threatening, to shut down operations if union organization were suc- cessful ; seeking to induce employees to refrain from attending a union meeting ; supervisory anti-union statements and threats of reprisal. Dascrimmation: discharge of three employees followed by settlement after filing of charges considered together with discharge of three other employees, two of them for union membership and activity and one for concerted and collective activity for purpose of mutual aid ; allegation of discriminatory demotion, dismissed. Remedial Orders : reinstatement of three employees with back pay; employer ordered to cease and desist unfair labor practices. - DECISION AND ORDER On February 12, 1943, 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. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the `Intermediate Report and briefs in support of the exceptions. None of the parties requested oral argument before the Board.. The Board has ,considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds ,that no prejudicial error was- committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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, Central Steel Tube- Company, 48 N. L. R B , No. 74. 604 CENTRAL STEEL- TUBE, COMPANY,': .605 Clinton, 'Iowa, and its officers, !agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Iriternational•Association of.Ma- chinists, Local 1623, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of its employees or any term or condition of their employment; (b) 'In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employeesFin the.exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, john, or,assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which-the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : - (a) Offer to Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Ham- mond immediate and full reinstatement to their' former or substanti- ally equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make, whole. Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond for any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, by payment to each-of them of a sum of money equal to the amount, which each normally would have earned as wages dur- ing the period from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period ; (c) Immediately post and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous places throughout the plant at Clinton, Iowa, notices stating (1) that it will not engage in the con- duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to remain or become members of International'- Association of Machinists,' Local 1623, or any • other labor organization of its employees; (d) Notify'the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in 'writing within ten (10) days-from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AN D IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: the complaint, insofar as' it al- leges discrimination. in regard, to the hire and tenure of employment of Lester Schutte, be, and hereby is,dismissed. '606 IYECISIONS'i OF' NATIONAL 1'ABO1 RELATIONS BOARD = INTERMEDIATE REPORT ' Mr. Stephen .M. Reynolds and Mr. Francis X. Hegesen for the Board. Mr. Edward C Halbach , of Clinton , Iowa, and Mr. Wayne G. Cook, 'of Daven- port, -Iowa, for the respondent. Mr. Earl P. Hogan, of Rock Island, Ill., for the Union. STATEMENT OF -CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on December 17: 1942, by International Association of Machinists , Local 1623, a labor organization 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 December 23, 1942, against . Central Steel Tube Company, Clinton, Iowa , herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was 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 and notices of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and, the Union. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent (a) from and after January 1, 1941, interfered with, re- strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the' Act by a variety of acts including they; issuance of warnings against union membership and activity,, questioning employees in regard to such membership and activity, and making derogatory and disparaging statements in regard to unions and union leaders ; ( b) on, February 15, 1941, discharged Henry Oltman' ; on May 7, 1941, discharged Alvin H. Knutsen and Tony C: Thielen ; ' on'May 10, 1942, discharged Milton J Winship ; on - November 17, 1942, discharged 'Evart Carrier and Lloyd - Hammond ; and on November 30, 1942, transferred Lester Schutte to a less desirable and less remunerative position because of the union membership and activity of these employees; and (c) by the foregoing conduct violated Section 8 , ( 1) and (3) of the Act. On ' January ' 4, 1943, the respondent `filed an answer in which it denied engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. . Pursuant to notice, a hearing -was held from January 11 through 14, 1943, at Clinton , Iowa,. before the undersigned , Samuel Edes, the Trial Examiner, duly designated by the ,Chief Trial Examiner' The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel , and the Union by a representative . All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to examine ' and cross-examine withesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the - issues. At the close - of the Board's case, the undersigned, without objection , granted a motion by counsel for the Board -, to conform the complaint to the -proof adduced at -the. hearing in minor particulars. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral argument was had on the record before the undersigned. On February 8, 1943, the respondent filed a - brief 'with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes 'the following: 'On January 6, 1943, the respondent filed a motion with the Regional Director for a continuance of the hearing for 30 days from January 11,•1943. The motion was denied. It was not renewed at the hearing. ;,CENTRAL" STEEL; TUBE COMPANY „' - r 607 ' I - FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, an Iowa corporation having its principal office and place' of business in Clinton, Iowa, is engaged in the manufacture of gun mounts and other war materials for the armed forces of the United States. During the year 1942, all of the principal raw materials used by the respondent, valued at approximately $1,000,000, were purchased and shipped to its Clinton plant from points outside the State of Iowa. In the same period, approximately' 95 percent of the finished products of the respondent, having a total value of approximately $2,500,000, were sold, and shipped by the respondent to points' outside the State of Iowa. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce" within the meaning of the Act. ' H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, Local 1623, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Discrimination 1. Henry Oltman . Henry Oilman 'was employed by the respondent in February 1939 as a grinding machine helper. Thereafter he became an operator of that machine, a position which he occupied until February 15, 1941, when he was'discharged Prior to -his discharge, in December 1940, Oltman became interested in the formation ' of -a labor organization among the employees at the respondent's plant.' In the latter part of that month, Oltman visited the regional head- quarters of the Union at Rock Island, Illinois, to obtain information regarding' the establishment of a local union at the plant. Thereafter, he corresponded With, Earl Hogan, a regional representative of the Union, and discussed the' proposed organization with various of the employees including Alvin' H. Knutsen and Tony C. Thielen. A number of the remployees indicated their interest in the proposal. Accordingly, Oltman made arrangements' to hold a meeting on the night of February 15, 1941. Oltman and Knutsen took leading parts in soliciting employees to attend ; they discussed the meeting at the plant during lunch periods and spoke to employees after working hours at their homes. On February 14, the night before the scheduled meeting, Oltman and Knutsen, in the course of visiting employees at their homes, stopped off at a local tavern. While there, Gene Holmes, foreman of the department in which` Oltman worked, came in and, as Holmes-admitted at the hearing, addressed the two as "union organizers" 2 Oltman, and Knutsen asked Holmes what he -thought of union organization. Holmes replied that he was ,'definitely against it". When he was told of the union meeting arranged for the following night, Holmes, in' Z IIolnies-first' testified that lie knew the two were ehgagiiig in organizational activity because they had told him so at"the tavern; immediately thereafter he admitted that lie obtained his information prior 'thereto fiom "rumors" and'"small talk" among the em- ployees at'the plant. ' ' : 608 DECISIONS- 'OF - NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD addition, as he testified, offered 'to. bet the' two men $10 that they would be discharged immediately if he advised Depue 3 of their activity. The following day Clark A. 'Depue III; superintendent of the plant, came out on the floor and, handing Oltman his check in open view of other, workers, told him that he was, discharged. Oltinan testified that when he asked Depue III the reason for this,action, Depue III replied that there had been complaints that Oltman had been smoking in the toilet room in violation of a plant rule. Oltman told Depue III that he had not engaged in such ,conduct, but Depue IIII merely walked away. At the hearing, Depue III testified that he had, received complaints from foremen that Oltman violated the rule against smoking. However, he admitted that he did not discharge Oltman for that reason. That offense, Depue III testified, called only for a'1 to 3 day lay-off.4 According to* Depue III, he discharged 0ltman for "general inefficiency and not performing his job". This, Depue III testified, consisted in the main of Oltman's persistence in leaving his machine to talk to other employees to, the neglect of'hia work. `Depue III stated that he knew this from personal observation and from the fact that Henry Wenzel, foreman of the automatic machine department, had reported to him about 3 months before the discharge that Oltman's work was unsatisfac tory. The undersigned does not credit the testimony of Depue III in this regard. The record establishes that Wenzel did not work in Oltman's department. Indeed, Holmes, who was Oltman's forman and best qualified to judge Oltman, testified that "There wasn't any reason why I should 'have him removed".' He further testified that he "probably should have" intervened in Oltman's behalf but that he "just let it ride". - In view of the failure of the reason advanced by Depue III to conform with the facts, there remains only as the reason for' the discharge the fact that Oltman was the leading spirit in the effort to establish a labor organization at the respondent's plant. The day Oltman was discharged, Depue III called Knutson into his office and advised him that he "didn't give [Oltman] a chance to talk" but that he was going'to give Knutsen a chance. Depue then asked. Knutsen how he.felt about the Union . Knutsen stated that he favored the Union "100 percent." Depue replied that "if the union would go in ... it would close . the place , down . .." Depue III also advised Knutsen that if he, re- frained from.attending the organizational meeting that night, Depue III would "take care" of Knutsen's wage rate. -Depue denied having such conversation with Knutsen. ." Depue III was ,an unimpressive witness ; the undersigned does not credit his denial. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Hogan, the Union's representative, C. A. Depue, president of the respondent, advised him, following Oltman's,discharge that the respondent "didn't want a union in the plant" and "saw no reason why [its] employees should belong to an outside organization and pay, dues in that organization ". Holmes had indicated only the night before the discharge that- the discovery of union activity would be met by dismissal. Although Depue III testified he had no knowledge of any- union ,activity prior to the time he discharged Oltman, the circumstances clearly 3 C. A. Depue was president of the respondent . Clark A. Depue III, his son, was super- intendent of the plant . It is not clear whether Holmes' statement referred to the older or the younger,Depue. 4 The undersigned does not credit the testimony that Oltman violated the no-smoking, rule. Had Oltman done so, . there would be no reason for, not invoking the lay -off penalty against him , as had been the case when other employees had violated the rule . Depue III admitted that the prescribed penalty had never been invoked against Oltnran. 'Holmes testified that Depue had told him that Oltman "wasn't producing at night". However, the fact is that Oltman did not work nights ; his shift was from 8 a m. to 4 p. m. 1 CENTRAL STEEL TUBE COMPANY 609 point to, the contrary. Holmes admitted that Oltman's connection with a union movement was a matter of common talk among the workers at the plant. ' Fur- ther, Depue III testified that on the day of the discharge he had Oltman "under rather close observation". Yet no valid reason appears why, Depue III.should have chosen that particular day to keep unusual watch over Oltman. Depue III advanced none. In the view of the undersigned, this action on the part of Depue III can, in all the circumstances, be laid only to an effort by Depue III to find some excuse upon which to base the dismissal prior to the union' meeting scheduled for that night. In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that, in discharging Henry Oltman on February 15, 1941, the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of Henry Oltman, thereby discouraging membership in the Union' and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Alvin H. Knutsen and Tony C. Thielen Alvin H. Knutsen was, employed by the, respondent shortly prior to May 1940. Tony C Thielen was employed in September 1940. Both worked in the bending department of the plant. Knutsen operated a machine ; Thielen was his helper. Both were laid off on May 7, 1941. They were recalled on May 12, and finally discharged on May 13, 1941. As indicated above, Knutsen and Thielen were active in the movement to form a union.prior to the discharge of Oltman. Their efforts did not thereafter. abate., The initial meeting to -form a union, scheduled for February 15, was held. Dis- regarding the effort of Depue III, found above, to induce Knutsen to stay away, Knutsen attended that meeting That night Knutsen, Thielen, and Oltman were selected as a committee of three to forward union organization at the plant: The following day, Knutsen testified, he was approached by William Greaves, foreman, of the welding department, who advised him that he "better leave the damn union alone and go on about [his] work and forget about it". At the hearing, Greaves denied. having any such conversation with Knutsen. The undersigned, in all the, circumstances, does not credit Greaves' denial, and finds that Greaves made the statement to Knutsen in terms substantially as testified to by Knutsen. Several, days after the February 15 meeting, Thielen, while driving home from work with Peter Andresen, foreman of the polishing department, and another employee, started to discuss the formation of a union. Andresen declared that "it wouldn't do any good" to attempt such a project' because "Depue didn't want any union"." Following the meeting also, Depue III told Knutsen, in sum, that he would "suffer" for having attended. Despite these clear indications of management opposition, Knutsen and Thielen openly continued their efforts to advance the Union. Meetings continued to be held and membership applications solicited. Sometime following the middle of April 1941, they distributed copies of the Dubuque Leader, a union publication, in front of the plant. These copies publi- cized the payment by the respondent of a sum of money to Oltman in settlement of charges filed with the Board arising out of his dismissal. On May 7, 1941, Knutsen and Thielen were laid ;off Hogan, the union repre- sentative, immediately called on President Depue and requested that the.men be reinstated. Depue testified that he was "very much burned up"'about this. On May 12 the men'were recalled. The following day, however, they were finally discharged. The reasons advanced by the respondent's witnesses for the lay-off 6 This conversation is based upon the testimony of Thielen. It was not contradicted at the hearing. 610, DECISIONS, OF NAfT'IONAL,LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD and subsequent discharge of Knu,tsen and Thielen were contradictory and un- convincing. Clarence Peterson, their foreman, testified that when Knutsen first at'arted to work for him, a year prior to the dismissal, he was "a good man", but that as time went by Knutsen "seemed to just complain" and was "always just complaining and crabbing" and "never was satisfied.with anything there was to do". When asked to particularize as to the matters about which Knutsen com- plained, Peterson testified that Knutsen complained "he didn't get enough money", that "the work was too hard", that "he had some trouble, or something, with hi,s wife," and "everything you could think of". In regard to Thielen, Petersen testi-_ fled that Thielen did not make any complaints. He added, however, that the trouble with Thielen was that Thielen would not follow his instructions but,, instead, would always €1o what Knutsen told him. On cross-examination , Petersen left the subject of Knutsen's complaints, and testified that Knutsen's deficiency as a worker lay in the fact that he would disobey orders and would leave his machine to smoke and visit with other workmen. As a result of such conduct by both Knutsen and Thielen, according to Petersen, production suffered. Petersen, how- ever, could remember only one instance when Thielen failed to follow his orders. On that occasion, Petersen testified, both Knutsen and Thielen refused to work because it was too hot that day. Curiously, however, Petersen stated that he did not discipline the men or report them to Depue III, the plant superintendent, for so `flagrant a violation of orders. In addition to the above, Petersen sought to have it appear that Knutsen and Thielen were inefficient workmen. He'testified that at times they failed to set up their machine properly so that a considerable amount of scrap and spoilage resulted The fact, however, is that Thielen was merely a helper; it'was not his job to set up the machine. Moreover, in regard to the only improper set-up that Petersen could recall, Petersen admitted that he was present at the time and that it was his duty to assist in setting up the machine. In' any event, when the attention of Depue III was called to this incident, he testified that he "did not criticize [Knutsen] for that". Further, Petersen could not consistently testify as to what period Knutsen and Thielen first appeared as unsatisfactory workers At one point he testified that for "probably the first year" Knutsen was satisfactory; since Knutsen was with the respondent only a little more than a year, this would mean that Knutsen was not unsatisfactory until shortly before his discharge. At another point, Petersen testified that it was not until after Knutsen and Thielen had been with the respondent six months that they became unsatisfactory. At still another point, he testified that Thielen emulated Knutsen "from the time he came in". Petersen testified that he re- peatedly warned Knutsen and Thielen throughout their employment and that, in addition, he reported their conduct to Depue III. The respondent adduced additional testimony to corroborate that of Petersen. Willard Grimsley, works manager, testified that Knutsen was "more or less a troublemaker" because he was dissatisfied with the wages he was earning In addition, Grimsley testified that he saw Knutsen wandering about the plant away from his normal duties on "many" occasions and that on several occasions he received complaints from customers in regard to materials upon which Knut- sen and Thielen had worked. Grimsley, however, could not clearly testify whether Foreman Petersen had not also worked on the materials as to which complaints were registered. Henry Neubauer,, a punch press operator in another depart- ment, testified that nearly every day over a period of 2 or 3 months Knutsen would visit his machine as often as three or four times a day. In addition, he testified that he saw Knutsen visiting with other workmen nearly every day - Yet Neubauer testified that he complained to no,one about Knutsen's visiting with him and that he saw, nothing unusual about Knutsen's visits with others. More-i CENTRAL STEEL, TUBE COMPANY. 611 over, Petersen had testified that he saw Knutsen away -from his work only five or six, times in the total period of his employment. Thielen; according to Neu- bauer, was with Knutsen only "very seldom". Henry Wenzel, at the time fore- man of the automatic machine department, testified that he complained to Petersen and Depue III that Knutsen was talking to his men about wages and was stirring up dissatisfaction In addition, Wenzel testified that on several occasions Knutsen asked his advice in regard to his work. Wenzel considered that Knutsen thereby was going over the head of his foreman, Petersen. "He admitted, however, that Petersen never indicated that this action was improper. Depue•III testified that Knutsen and Thielen failed to follow Petersen's instruc- tions and that Petersen spoke to him about their poor production from 20 to 25 times in the period of their employment, although Petersen, himself, had testified that he registered complaints with Depue III only 5 or 6 times. Indeed, Depue III testified that prior to February 15 he had only had complaints about Knutsen- and Thielen "a couple of times." Prior to February 15, the day of the first meeting of the Union, Depue III, testified, Knutsen and Thielen had good records as employees. The undersigned cannot credit the testimony adduced by the respondent to establish that Knutsen and Thielen were unsatisfactory employees. The re- spondent's witnesses, the record shows, were clearly seeking to establish a case of gross insubordination, misconduct, and inefficiency on the part of Knutsen and Thielen without regard to fact. , If the facts were as the witnesses sought to make them out at the hearing, no reason would appear why the two employees were retained over so long a period, without any disciplinary action by the, respondent. The normal facts of experience alone require rejection of the testimony., Nor did the respondent itself attribute the lay off of May 7 to the poor records of the men. According to the respondent, Knutsen and Thielen were laid off on that date because work in the bending department was running low at the time When an additional order for such work came in shortly-after the layoff, the two men were recalled and worked on May 12 and 13. When they returned to work, Petersen admitted that he and Depue III were "laying for them". On May 13, the second day of their return, Petersen, according to his testimony, found them away from their job and immediately reported them to Depue III. Depue III testified that he personally observed the two away from their machine and that he reported this fact to President Depue who instructed that they be sent to him. President Depue testified that he, too, saw Knutsen and, Thielen loafing that day. Depue, however, did not appear to be overly concerned with' that fact. According to his testimony, Knutsen had told him that morning that his birth certificate was on file at the local court house. Depue investigated, but found it was not on file. Accordingly, he immediately called the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Des Moines. That afternoon, according to Depue, the Federal Bureau of Investigation returned his call and advised him that there was no record of Knutsen's birth in Iowa. Depue testified that the reason for his concern over' Knutsen's birth certificate was that it was necessary for him to have it to enable him to determine whether to transfer Knutsen to defense work in the plant, since Knutsen's regular work was being discontinued. The F. t. .1. report added ' to Knutsen's inefficiency' caused Depue, according to his testimony, to- dismiss, Knutsen. As concerns Thielen, Depue testified that he had nothing against Thieleff except that he was weak and led by Knutsen. Accordingly, Thielen was also dismissed- But for the F. B. I. report, it appears clear from Depue's testimony, Knutsen would have been retained by transfer to the re- spondent's.defense work division. Otherwise no reason would appear for Depue's 521247-43-vol. 48-40 0 612 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL- LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD interest' in Knutsen's birth record. Unlike President Depue, Plant Superintendent Depue III attributed the failure - to transfer Knutsen entirely' to the latter's "attitude" toward his work. Depue III testified, in regard to Thielen, that Thielen was not transferred because he had not been too careful a worker when first employed by the respondent in the automatic machine department. The undersigned -has already found, above; that no reliance may be placed upon- the claim of the respondent that Knutsen and -Thielen were unsatisfac-' tory employees. The undersigned further finds that the respondent's concern with Knutsen's nativity was prompted- by a desire to rid itself of Knutsen, and with him Thielen, because of the continued efforts of these employees on behalf of the Union. Immediately prior to Depue's call to the F. B^ I., Depue, as Knutsen testified, complained to Knutsen about the fact that Knutsen and Thie- len had brought their lay-off of May 7,to the attention of the Board. Further, Depue told Knutsen that the respondent treated its employees well and he did not know "why in hell a union should come in". Depue denied - having such conversation with Knutsen. The undersigned does not credit Depue's denial. Nor does the undersigned credit Depue's testimony that Depue was informed by the 'F. B. I. prior to'the discharge that Knutsen's record of birth was not known to it. Had that been so, no reason would appear why, as the record shows, a further inquiry in the matter should have been addressed to the F. B. I. by the respondent as late as September 1941. The record indisputably estab- lishes that Knutsen in fact was a native American citizen. In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that in discharging Alvin H. Knutsen and Tony C. Thielen on May 13; 1941, the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of Knutsen and Thielen, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing-its-em- ployees in the exercise of the'rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 3. Milton J. Winchip Milton J. Winchip was employed by the respondent in the early part of April 1942 as a precision inspector. On May 10, 1942, Winchip was discharged. Fol- lowing the discharges of Oilman, Knutsen, and Thielen the preceding year, efforts to form, a labor organization at the plant had lapsed. Shortly after Winchip was employed by the respondent, there was, as Winchip testified, con- siderable dissatisfaction among the inspectors in regard to wages. No effort, was made to form any organization at this time. There was, however, con- siderable discussion among the employees as to what action should be taken - to, .better, their conditions. Various employees believed that some collective showing should be made. It was suggested to Winchip that the employees band together and go on strike. Winchip did not favor this suggestion! Winchip believed that a sounder course, suggested by one of the employees, would be to write a letter to the respondent, signed by all of the workers in the department, demanding a wage increase. Winchip approached many of the employees on this proposal. Many of them favored the idea, others weie hesitant, others, re- fused to have anything to do with it. Winchip's activity in this regard be- came known ,to, the respondent. - Three or four days before Winchip was dis- missed, Charles Holsinger, a fellow employee,. advised Henry Wenzel, who was then chief inspector, that Winchip was constantly discussing wage rates with the men. Wenzel testified that he personally observed Winchip talking to his fellow workers. 4 There was some testimony that Winchip suggested a strike or - slowdown by the em- ployees. ' Winchip denied this. ' The undersigned credits his testimony in this aegard. CENTRAI, STEEI^ TUBE' COMPANY 613 - In addition to his activity among the men, Winchip,,the record establishes, repeatedly requested Wenzel and Berg,- another supervisory official, for, an individual increase in his rate of pay. Each, according to Winchip, promised that the increase would be granted if the other approved. Finally, the rec- ord establishes, on May 10, Winchip, 'finding Wenzel and Berg -together, de- manded that he be given an increase without further delay. Otherwise, Win- chip indicated he would' quit. Shortly thereafter, according to Winchip, Wen- zel called him aside and told him that the management had decided to dispense with his services. Wenzel further asserted that Winchip was "agitating" among the men and "getting them all keyed up and making them dissatisfied," and that, "We don't believe in unionism, or any part of the union around here. We don't want it around here at all." Wenzel denied making any such state- ments to Winchip. The undersigned does not credit his denial. According to Wenzel, Winchip's employment was terminated because he did not believe that Winchip merited an increase. But according to Holsinger, who testified on be- half of the respondent, Wenzel had told him only 3 or 4 days before the dismissal that he was trying to effect an increase for several of the men including Winchip. Further, in a conversation with Robert Hubbard, active in union circles in Clinton, following Winchip's discharge, Wenzel advised Hubbard that he had discharged Winchip because Winchip had,been "agitating trouble" in the plant by trying to get fellow workers to sign a paper. Wenzel denied making this admission to'Hubbard The undersigned does not credit the denial. At 'the hearing Wenzel admitted that he was'not pleased when lie found that Winchip had been talking to other employees about a wage increase. Wenzel testified that he did not believe employees should discuss such matters among themselves "to the extent:of soliciting or,anything like that * * , *." ' He stated, "If they want to talk wages, I would be glad to talk to them myself " - The evidence amply shows, and the undersigned finds, that Winchip was not discharged because of any -failure on the part of the respondent to meet his demand for a wage increase, but solely because he was seeking to induce others to engage in concerted and collective action with him for the purpose of improving their,wage conditions. In the view of the undersigned, it is no answer, as claimed by the respondent in its brief, that Winchip was not a member of a labor organization or engaged in formal union activity. The Act extends full protection against discrimination directed toward all concerted activities for the improvement ,of working conditions whether or not part of a movement which has reached the stage of formal organization. In all the ^ circumstances', . the - undersigned finds that in, dismissing Milton J. Winchip on May 10, 1942, the respondent discriminated in regard' to the hire and tenure of employment of Winchip, thereby discouraging' concerted and collective activities among its employees for the purpose of mutual aid and protection, and interfering with, restraining, and coerced its, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 4. Evart Carrier Evart Carrier was employed by the respondent in April 1941. In October 1942, Carrier became interested in -establishing a local of the 'Union at the plant. , At that time he secured and distributed some membership application cards among the employees. On November 17, 1942, Carrier secured some additional' 35 to 40 such cards. He gave Lloyd Hammond, a fellow employee, some of these cards asking him to distribute them. In addition, Carrier-gave about a dozen cards to Taylor, employed in the respondent's 'guard house. That day, Carrier was discharged. 1 614 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL , LABORR., RELATIONS BOARD Aimar Petersen , who was Carrier's immediate superior , testified that, Car- rier was constantly dissatisfied with his job . On the night of the discharge, Petersen testified , Carrier was again "doing a little griping ." Accordingly, Petersen reported Carrier to A. L. Lafferty , foreman of that shift. By his own testimony, however, Petersen did not advise Lafferty that Carrier was complaining. He told Lafferty that Carrier was unable to perform his- work ; that Carrier had asked him about the-dimensions of a certain part upon which he was working and that, since Carrier should have known about this, he "got disgusted" and told Lafferty that he-had no work which Carrier could capably perform Without regard for consistency, Petersen at another point testified that Carrier 's work was "okay," but that Carrier consistently failed to produce as much work as of Lafferty testified that Petersen com- plained to him about Carrier 'on the night of, the discharge ; he could not re- member what the substance of the complaint was. He believed, at the time, however, that because of the accumulation of complaints against Carrier this would be a propitious time to dismiss him. According to Lafferty , Carrier was a dissatisfied worker who constantly complained about the work assigned him. In addition, on one occasion , Lafferty testified , Petersen had told him' he did not think that Carrier was producing as much work as he should . Petersen and Lafferty testified ' that Carrier's shortcomings were discussed with Sikkd Vogel, superintendent . Vogel's testimony does not accord with that of Petersen and Lafferty. Although they testified that Carrier was constantly complaining about his work, Vogel testified that after Carrier was transferred away froui "wet work" which caused him serious skin irritation , the only reports that came to him were that Carrier was not producing enough work . Little re-, liance, however, may ,be placed upon this claim. Since Lafferty had been told' by Petersen on only ' one occasion . that Carrier 's production was below that- required, it is difficult to explain why, as Vogel testified ,. Lafferty should have repeatedly made complaints to him on this score. Indeed Lafferty testified that he spoke to Vogel about Carrier "maybe once, maybe twice." Further, both Petersen and Vogel testified that no records were kept . of Carrier's produc- tion. Vogel first also so testified . Thereafter, Vogel admitted that a record of production was made on each of ,the employees' time cards and that these cards,, kept in the respondent's office, would show the comparative production figures of the employees The cards, however , were not produced at the hearing. The testimony of the respondent's witnesses is, in the view of the undersigned, unworthy of credit. As in the cases of Knutsen and Thielen , discussed above,, it plainly reveals a deliberate effort to manufacture,a case against the employee involved. - Carrier, on the other hand, appeared a- reliable witness. He admitted that. when first assigned to do "wet work," il. e. work on machines requiring the use of oils, he complained because the work caused the eruption of boils. After he was transferred , however, he testified , he made no further complaint . In addi-, tion, he denied that his production rate was -below that of others or that any complaints had ever been made to him in this regard by any of his superiors. Indeed, the respondent did not attempt to refute Carrier's statement of his pro- duction figures, as nearly as he could recall them at the hearing, which compared very favorably with the production of other fellow workers. The reason for Carrier's discharge lies;_in the view of the undersigned, in the testimony of Carrier as to what 'occurred at the time of his dismissal :, . According. to Carrier, Lafferty at the time of the discharge literrogated , him as to whether anyone in addition to him and Hammond were distributing union membership ti r CENTRAL- STEEL TUBE'-COMPANY 615 caids' and told him, "We' don't want no 'damn union' out here."- Immediately --thereafter',- Carrier asked Petersen-:whetlier"his work 'had'notf been"satisfactory. Petersen replied that i(had been "more than satisfactory" but wanted to know wliat he-had been doing in attempting to organize a`union - Lafferty and Petersen denied making such statements to Carrier."' The` undersigned does- not credit their denials" ' - ' In- all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the'responderit' in discharg- ing Evart' Carrier on November 17, 1942, discriminated in - regard to the hire and tenure of Carrier, thereby 'discouraging membership in the Union `and `inter- fering with, restraining, and coercmggits employees in the exercise of, the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 5 Lloyd 'Hammond - Lloyd Hammond was employed by the respondent in September 1941. From that time until about August 1942 Hammond ` for the most part operated a drill press. . Thereafter,vuntil his discharge on November 17, 1942, Hammond worked in the grinding department . As indicated above, Hammond ' on the day of his discharge received a 'number . of membership application cards from Evart Carrier. Hammond distributed the cards that night among some 5 to 10 fellow employees, soliciting them to sign. In short order , Hammond, ,like Carrier,, was dismissed from the respondent's employ. Hammond's case parallels that of Carrier in striking respects . As in the case of Carrier, the respondent introduced considerable testimony directed -toward establishing that Hammond was an unsatisfactory workman. In the period ending August 1942, while Hammond operated a drill press , Foreman Lafferty testified that Hammond would be away'from his machine "every day." 'However, Warren Kelley, who was Hammond's immediate superior , although patently seeking to corroborate Lafferty, admitted that in this period Hammond found his work "quite easy," and would leave his machine only when his production equalled that of his fellow workmen . Further, Kelly admitted that, in terms of skill, Hammond was an "adept workman " and had "very little breakage." In the period between August 1942 and the time of Hammond's discharge, when ' he worked in the grinding department; the respondent's wit- nesses further sought to have it appear that Hammond was both an ' inefflcient and an unproductive workman. Their testimony , however; is not convincing. For all of the testimony to the contrary , Hammond's immediate superior , Virtus Struve, testified that although ' there- were three or four complaints that tools were not properly sharpened , there was no way of telling whether 'the- tools complained of had been sharpened by Hammond - or by some other employee. Further, although Struve testified that "several" 'times there had been- com- plaints by the shift following the one - on which Hammond worked that' not enough cutters had been -sharpened, Struve admitted that Hammond for the most part worked on taps and that he took '' these complaints up, not with Hammond, but with Holdgraver, an employee who worked' on Hammond 's shift. Moreover, Struve testified that he did ' not know ' the reason for Hammond's 'discharge. Lafferty who effected - Hammond's discharge • testified that it was prompted by the fact that on that day he' saw Hammond in the tool room away from his machine and that this was a ' frequent- occurrence which he could no longer tolerate. Yet, Lafferty admitted that it was "probably " not improper for Hammond to be in the'tool room "at that particular time" The record, in the view of the undersigned ; - amply establishes that the respondent seized upon the first available pretext to rid itself of Hammond 616 DECISIONS -OF .NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD for the reason, in fact, that he,was engaging -in an, effort to revive the. Union- at the plant. The day following the discharge, Hammond, upon inquiry of .Stephen Emrick, tool supervisor, was, .told that "Lafferty. has turned you in for everything he can think,of." That day, too, Emrick told Holdgraver, "It's too bad Hamniond got into trouble last night." Emrick asked Holdgraver whether he had seen any of the union cards. When Holdgraver replied that he had seen one but had not signed it, Emrick stated,- "It is a, good thing you didn't, * * *. Hammond came out this morning and- played like he was dumb ; he didn't know what he was canned for. I went over to the office to find out and when I found out what it was for,,I couldn't do anything about it." Emrick further stated, Holdgraver `testified, ,that the discharge was for "passing out cards * * *." The discharge of Hammond and Carrier, the only two employees active -in renewing the movement to establish the Union, 4t the first indication that such an effort was being attempted cannot be laid, in the circumstances disclosed by.the record, to the disinterested operation of coincidence. In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the respondent in dis- charging Lloyd Hammond on November 17, 1942, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of Hammond, thereby 'discouraging membership' in, the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Alleged discrimination in regard to Lester Schutte Lester Schutte was employed by the respondent in February 1941. .He bper- ated one of the respondent's single spindle automatic screw machines. In July 1942 he was transferred to a six spindle automatic machine, then recently purchased by the respondent: On November -17, 1942, Lloyd Hammond gave Schutte some union membership application cards. Schutte. distributed two or ,three of the cards among employees during the lunch period that night. He did not, however, as he testified, discuss the matter with any of. the 'employees. On Saturday,, November 28, a dovetail • tool broke on Schutte's machine. Schutte left a note on the machine to advise the operator on the following shift, which commenced Monday, November 30, of that fact. When Schutte returned to work the next Monday, he was advised by his superiors that he was to be transferred to the single spindle machine department. Schutte testified that he ,advised his superiors he would not return to the single spindle machine, but would quit. They refused to reconsider their judgment. Accordingly, Schutte ,quit his employment. - Considerable conflicting testimony wasp adduced at the bearing bearing on -whether the tool breakage on this and on one or two prior occasions was due to Schutte's improper handling of the machine. It is undisputed that as a result ,of the breakage',the-machine was.'out• of operation-for-approximately, 3 days: "The conflict as,to whether Schutte was at, fault does not, in the view of the under- signed,' require resolution. According to Schutte, he objected to being re- moved from the six spindle machine, only because it involved a reduction in pay from 80 to 72 cents an hour. Schutte testified that M• H Kramer, personnel manager, so advised him Kramer denied so advising Schutte. • The under- signed does not credit Schutte's testimony in this regard. • Schutte admitted ,that Gene Holmes, his immediate superior, made no statement to him in regard to a wage reduction. at the time Holmes advised him of the transfer. The un- ^contradicted • testimony of Vogel, superintendent, -who also spoke, to Schutte about-the matter, was that there was no discussion of a wage reduction. The revord otherwise amply indicates that the respondent's uniform policy was not to I CENTRAL..STEEL TUBE COMPANiY ,reduce wages -in such situations, that the position to which the respondent intended to, transfer Schutte would have paid at least as much as he was then earning, and that after further experience by Schutte on the single spindle machines the respondent intended to return Schutte to the six spindle machine. In all the circumstances, the undersigned finds that the respondent's pro- posed transfer of Schutte was not a' transfer to a ,less desirable and less re- munerative position. The undersigned further finds that, absent any substantial basis, for holding that the proposed transfer involved less desirable and less .remunerative employment, the respondent was not in the circumstances actuated by any purpose of reprisal on account of Schutte's union activity. C. Interference, restraint, and, coercion As' found 'ab'ove, Gene Holmes, foreman; indicated to Oltman and Knutsen in February 1941 that the respondent was opposed to union organization and would meet conduct of such kind by reprisals. In addition it has been found above that in February 1941 Depue III, superintendent, interrogated Knutsen in regard to union organization, threatened that the respondent would shut down opera- tions if such organization was successful, sought to induce Knutsen to refrain -from attending a union meeting, and thereafter advised'Knutsen that he would stiffer for having attended ; that Peter Andresen, foreman,- and William Greaves, also a foreman, in conversations with Thielen and Knutsen in the same month 'Indicated the hostility of the respondent to labor organizations ; 'that in May 1941 President Depue in a conversation with Knutsen further+ indicated manage- ment opposition to such a movement ; that in May 1942 Wenzel, a' supervisor, expressed again the, antipathy of the respondent toward collective activity ; that in November 1942 Stephen Emrick, tool supervisor, interrogated Holdgraver about the distribution of union application cards ;-and that the same month C. A. Laferrty, a. supervisory- official, addressed a similar inquiry to Carrier, indi- cating in addition that the respondent opposed the establishment of a union in the plant. In addition. to the foregoing, the record shows, that Lafferty made similar inquiry of Sam Davis, an employee. Lafferty so admitted,at the hearing. The undersigned finds that by the foregoing conduct of its supervisory officials and employees the respondent further interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.UPON COMMERCE The undersigned finds that'the activities of the respondent set forth in Section, III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation toy trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. - V. THE- REMEDY' Having found that the respondent has engaged, in certain -unfair- labor prac- tices, within the meaning of, the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom' and take certain affirmative action which the under- signed finds'will effectuate the policies of,the Act., Since it has,been found that the respondent discriminatorily dismissed Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent offer these employees. immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of • the- said -empioyees 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD whole for any loss in earnings suffeied by them as the result 'of the respondent's discrimination, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the amount each would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discharge of each to the date of offers of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during that period e The undersigned` has also found that the'responden't discriminatorily dismissed Henry Oltman, Alvin H. Knutsen, and Tony C. Thielen. The record shows that .on March 26, 1941 and on October 6, 1941, agreements were entered into between the respondent, the Union, and the Regional Director of the Board for the Eight- eenth Region, in settlement of charges filed on account of the dismissal of these employees. In each case the. respondent, compensated the employee for losses in earnings suffered by them. Thielen was offered reinstatement, but refused. fOltman and Knutsen did not desire, reinstatement. , Because the respondent, following the successive settlement agreements, continued to disregard the Act ,by further discrimination and other interference in regard to the statutory rights 'of its employees, the undersigned finds that the agreements are not a bar to the -findings above in connection with the discharges of Oltman, Knutsen, and Thielen.A Since, however, the employees were made whole for their losses and did not desire reinstatement, the undersigned will not recommend that the respondent take fur- ,ther'affirma`tive action in this regard. The undersigned will further recommend that the complaint, insofar. as it alleges discrimination in regard to,the hire and,tenure of employment of Lester Schutte, be dismissed. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW '1: International Association of^ Machinists , Local 1623, is a labor organization, 'witliili'the meaning of 'Section 2 (5) of the Act • ' '2.'`By'interfering wifli, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise 'of 'the rights guaranteed 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 . - - ` - ' ' 3. By discriminating iii regard'to the hire 'grid tenure of-empldyment of Henry Oltman, Alvin H. Knutsen , Tony C. Thielen , Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond , the respondent lias engaged in and is engaging'in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act 4 ,, The foregoing 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 discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lester .Schutte. - - - , 8 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, 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 Amer- -ica,'Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B 440. Monies received for work 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. Matter of Corinth Hosiery Mills, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 16 N. L. R B. 414; Matter of Chambers Corporation and Allied Stove Mounters and Stove 'Processors International Union, Local No. 36 (A. F. of L.), 21 N. L. R. B. 808; Matter of -Hawk and Buck Company, Inc. and United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 229, 25 N. L. R. B. 837, 842, 852. - - CENTRAL STEEL TUBE COMPANY- 619 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ; . . Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,'the undersigned recommends that the respondent , Central Steel Tube Company, Clin- ton, Iowa, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns , shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) 'Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, Local 1623, or any other labor organization of its employees , by discriminating in iegard to the hire and tenure of its employees or any term or condition of their employment ; • (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em- ployees 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 bar- gaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act ; (a) Offer to Milton J. Winchip, Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond immediate and full , reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other right 's and privileges; (b) Make whole Milton J. Winship , Evart Carrier, and Lloyd Hammond for any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's-discrimi- nation in regard to their hire and tenure , of employment, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which each normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings 10 during such period ; (c) Immediately post and maintain for a period of at, least sixty ( 60) consecu- tive days, in conspicuous places throughout the plant at Clinton, Iowa, notices stating ( 1) that it will not engage in the conduct from which it is recom- mended that it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and ( b) of these recommen- dations; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b ) of these recommendations ; and (3 ) that the respondent's employees are-free to remain or become members of International Association of Machin- ists, Local 1623, or any other labor organization of its employees ; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken tg comply herewith. It is further recommended that the allegation of the complaint, insofar as it alleges discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lester Schutte, be dismissed. It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the 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. - As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to' Section 32 of Article 11 10 See footnote 8, supra. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building , Washing- ton, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. Dated February 12, 1943. SAMUEL EDES, Trial Ewanvlner.