Laister-Kauffmann Aircraft Corp.

In the Matter of LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9 AFL Case No. C-2663.-Decided August R8,1943 DECISION AND ORDER Upon complaint issued, pursuant to charges duly filed by Inter- national Association of Machinists, District No. 9,' herein called the Union, against Laister-Kauffmann Aircraft Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the respondent, a hearing was held before a Trial Examiner in St. Louis, Missouri, between April 6 and 30, 1943, inclusive, in which the Board, the respondent, and the Union participated by their representatives. At the conclusion of the hear- ing, counsel for the respondent moved to strike certain testimony relating to, acts and statements attributed to James Knowles, John McTasney, and Bertha-Bauer .Rice on the ground that such acts and statements were not imputable to the respondent. Although the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion, no disposition of the motion was made in the Intermediate Report. Since we concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that Rice was a representative of management, and that McTasney and Knowles were not identified with management, the motion is granted with respect to the testimony regarding the acts and statements of McTasney and Knowles but is denied in regard to the testimony,concerning the acts and statements of Rice. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made on motions and on^objections to,the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial error was committed, with the exception of his denial of the motion to strike made by counsel for the Board with respect to testimony elicited by the respondent's counsel on the cross-examination of Earl Pfeiffer regarding his former arrest on charges of non-support and of issuing a check without sufficient funds, both of which charges had been settled 'Although the charges, complaint, and other formal papers indicated that the Union was affiliated 'with the American Federation of Labor, we take notice of the fact that since the hearing the Union has withdrawn from the American Federation of Labor. 52 N L R B, No. 37. 261 262 DECISLONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD out of court and dismissed: For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the motion to strike the testimony regarding these charges is hereby granted. The remaining rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. On June 30, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port, finding that the respondent had engaged in violations of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs were thereafter filed by the respondent and the Union and were con- sidered by the Board. Oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on July 29, 1943. The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the oral argument. Upon our consideration of the entire record, we affirm and adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, a copy of whose report is attached hereto, except insofar as they are in- consistent with our findings and conclusions as'hereinafter set forth. A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The record is clear and we are convinced that the respondent en- gaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The Union commenced its organizational activities among the respondent's employees in September 1942, and on the evening of September 22, 1942, a meeting of the respondent's employees was held under the aus- pices of the Union. At this meeting a number of employees signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, identification buttons were distributed, and Emma Schaper, an employee in the rib-assembly section of the wood shop, was designated as an organization representative in the position of steward, being the first employee to occupy that position. The fol- lowing day a number of employees wore their union buttons in the plant for the first time and Schaper appeared at work wearing a steward's button, which was somewhat larger and more conspicuous than the buttons distributed generally. Apparently the appearance of union buttons was the first indication to the respondent of the Union's organizational campaign, which, according to Assistant Secre- tary W. F. Nesbit, "came to us as pretty much of a surprise." In any event, Nesbit noticed the buttons in the course of an inspec- tion trip through the plant on the morning of September 23, 1942, and requested that Schaper come to his office to talk with him about the Union. Schaper testified that during the course of the interview in Nesbit's office, Nesbit asked her what she thought she "would gain by trying to get a union in there," stated that "if we get a union in here this place is going to shut-down and you and I are both going to be out of a job," urged her to use her influence with the other girls in the wood shop to "see if they wouldn't stop trying to organize," and LAISTEIR-KAIPFFNIANN AI KRAFT' GOIR'PORATI0fN1 . 263 complimented her work, promising that "in time to come" she could "probably be a forelady or something." Nesbit admitted that he had a- conversation in his office with Schaper that morning. He further admitted that he asked her the name of the union to which she belonged and the number of employees affiliated with the Union. Nesbit testi- fied that when Schaper expressed the hope of receiving an increase in wages through the efforts of the Union , he stated, "If we were to in- crease her salary fifty percent and increased everyone else's salary fifty percent that that would work quite a hardship on the Company." \N esbit denied that lie told her that the plant would cease operation if the Union were successful in its organizational campaign, but he ad- mitted that he could "see why she could have understood that from my previous remark." According to Nesbit, he told Schaper that he "had absolutely no reason for not wanting a union in the shop." 2 He stated that he remembered Schaper's mentioning that she had had two raises but he was unable to recall his reply or any discussion of the possibility of her promotion to the position of forelady or supervisor. Nesbit testified that he asked Schaper "if there were any grievances or anything wrong in the plant that she or her coworkers thought should be remedied," and that Schaper replied that the women's rest rooms were not clean . Schaper, however , denied that there was any discussion of grievances. Although we concur in the Trial Examiner's finding, based upon Nesbit's admissions, that the latter's conduct in summoning Schaper for questioning , the nature of his inquiries con- cerning the Union, and his effort to discourage her expectations of a substantial wage increase through the instrumentality of the Union were violative of the Act, we cannot agree with his conclusion that Nesbit's testimony, rather than Schaper's, is to be credited with respect to the entire interview. Nesbit proffered the following reasons for his interrogation of Schaper : (1) Being the respondent's internal se- curity officer he is responsible to the Army Air Forces for the protec- tion of the plant and its equipment and, therefore , he reports to the Army "anything that would tend to slow down production or endanger the property, or any suspicion that anything is going on within the organization which would lead to a slow-down in production or en- danger the property." (2) "My principal purpose in having her come in was to find out if the Union was in the plant and if they had 2 Roberta Meier, formerly Nesbit's secretary , testified that she was present during the first 10 or 15 minutes of this conversation and that "the only exact words that I can recall is a remark made by Mr. Nesbit He said, 'Now, understand, I don't object to a union.' " Since Meier was unable to recall any other portion of the conversation, the fortuitous corroboration of Nesbit's testimony in regard to this one remark alone does not, in our opinion, appear to be significant. Schaper testified that she and Nesbit were alone in the office throughout the conversation. Meier and Nesbit, however, testified not only that Meier was in the office during part of the interview but that other employees were present for brief periods. Even if the testimony of Meier and Nesbit is credited in this respect, the credibility of Schaper is not, in our opinion, thereby impaired in view of the unusual circumstances and the subject matter of the interview. 264 DECLSILONS OF NMFIONAL -LABOR RELATLONS BOARD organized, how many members they had, and I though it was my duty, my official duty to know that information." (3) That it was his duty to remedy grievances because "It was my duty for one reason un- der plant protection to know, to have a pretty good idea of what was go- ing on throughout the plant and the entire organization at all times. Keep my finger on the pulse of the company." In our opinion, these reasons do not justify Nesbit's actions or condone his conduct. There was no reason for Nesbit to suppose that the Union's organizational campaign would,have, any tendency to slow down production or-endan- ger the plant. Moreover, the record established that authority to deal with grievances of employees is lodged in Vice-President M. N. White- head, the respondent's director of personnel, who is in charge of the re- spondent's labor relations and represents management in the meetings of the Labor-Management Committee ; in fact, Nesbit admitted that he had no authority with respect to wages and wage disputes. Further- more, since Nesbit admitted that 'Schaper's testimony was correct as to a substantial part of the conversation, and did not deny, although unable to recall, certain other portions of the colloquy, it seems more plausible, to- believe • that Nesbit in fact, made all- the statements at- tributed to him rather than to accept his version. In view of these factors, we do not credit Nesbit's denials and we find that during the course of the interview Nesbit made the statements attributed to him by Schaper. We find that by Nesbit's conduct and statement in sum- moning Schaper for questioning; in interrogating her with respect to the Union, her membership therein, and the number of employees affiliated with the Union; in warning and threatening that the plant would close if the Union's organizational campaign' were successful; and in urging her to use her influence to obtain a cessation of the organizational activities of other employees in the wood shop, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act. Schaper testified that near the end of the first shift on September 23, 1942, Guy E. Williams, supervisor, of 1 the, ,wood, shop,. assembled several of the girls working in the rib-assembly section of the wood shop and inaugurated the conversation by asking, "What we 'thought we would benefit by getting a union in there." When one of the girls replied that increased wages were the chief incentive to their organi- zation, Williams stated, according to Schaper, "Well, you know I have belonged to a Union one time, too, and all you do is pay your money in and you don't get nothing out of it." Employees Lou Eckert and Marie Noeth corroborated - Schaper's testimony, although Eckert stated that she did not recall who started the conversation. Eckert further testified that Noeth inquired if they would be discharged for their union activities 'and that Williams replied in the negative and stated that it made no difference whether they belonged to the Union LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 265 or not. Williams testified that the girls in the rib-assembly section had for some time been wasting time in unnecessary conversations and in excessive use of the rest room and that about September 1, 1942, he had posted a bulletin in the section requesting that these con- ditions be corrected.3 He testified that about the middle of Septem- ber, on noticing that some of the girls "were doing practically nothing but talking," he requested Rice to assemble the girls, whom he repri- manded for wasting time. According to Williams, Noeth asked if her affiliation with the,Union would "cause any trouble as far as her job went" and that he replied that her union membership would make no difference to the respondent. He insisted that only after Schaper twice had asked his opinion of unions , did he state his personal opin- ion, namely, to the effect that he "couldn't see that it did a person much good to pay dues to an outside organization unless they got something for it," that he had "worked in places where they had unions" and it was his observation that "when a fellow showed he was worth a raise he got a raise whether there was a union or not," and that he "couldn't see that it did him any good." The Trial Examiner credited- Williams' version of the incident, but found that the state- ment of his personal opinion regarding unions was violative of the Act. We are unable to agree completely with the Trial Examiner's resolution of the conflict in testimony. In our opinion, Williams' version of the incident is patently implausible. Schaper and Noeth testified that Williams inaugurated the conversation by a discussion of the Union. Supervisor Rice, whom the Trial Examiner found to be an especially credible witness, corroborated their testimony in this respect. Moreover, the testimony of Rice, Schaper, and Noeth es- tablished the fact that Schaper was present only during the intro- ductory discussion of the Union, as she left the group and went about her work immediately after Williams made his statements in deroga- tion of the Union. Eckert denied that Williams cautioned the girls with respect to excessive conversations when he addressed them on September 23. Schaper stated that she had never been reprimanded by Williams for talking too much. Noeth testified that the only statement ever made by Williams with regard to conversational privi- leges occurred on another occasion when "we were all at the table," and Williams stopped and said, "'I know when you get a bunch of women together you can't stop them from talking,' but he didn't mind if they talked, but he didn't want them to stop their work." We con- clude and find that the colloquy between Williams and the girls, work- ing in the rib-assembly section occurred as testified to by Schaper, a Noeth and Rice testified that the bulletin dealt only with excessive trips to the rest room and did not mention the alleged problem of excessive conversations . Williams insisted that the notice dealt with both problems . We credit the testimony of Noeth and Rice and find that the notice did not mention or limit the conversational privileges of the employees in the rib-assembly section. 266 DIECIiSZONS OF NAfP'IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Noeth, Eckert, and Rice, that Williams inaugurated the conversation by inquiring about the Union and made the above statements in der- ogation of the Union, that Williams did not assemble the girls for, the purpose of warning them against talking too much, and that he did not reprimand them during the course of the interview. We further find that, by Williams' interrogation of the employees with respect to the Union and by his statements in derogation of the Union, the respondent interfered, with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Employee Andrew Haffner testified that, about a week after the commencement of the Union's organizational campaign and about 3 days after he joined the Union, Kauffmann said to him, " Haffner, if I were you I'd watch the kind of people I was associating with ... . You don't have to quote me." Kauffmann admitted making the remark but insisted that it was directed specifically to Haffner's friendship with Pfeiffer. Kauffmann further testified that he had received "at least two" anonymous letters about Pfeiffer's character, and on in- vestigation had discovered that Pfeiffer possessed "a pretty bad rec- ord." The Trial Examiner found the statement made by Kauffmann to be insignificant and accepted Kauffmann's version of the incident. We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions. Kauffmann admitted that Haffner was the only production employee in whom he ever evidenced such a paternal concern. Even if Kauffmann's testi- mony be credited, there is no evidence that he recounted Pfeiffer's "bad record" to Haffner, who would have no reason to know of the alleged "bad record." Moreover, since Haffner's leadman had previously observed, and had made a statement concerning, the distribution by Haffner of union representation cards on the same day that Kauffmann warned Haffner regarding his associates, Haffner would understand- ably attribute Kauffmann's warning to Haffner's union affiliation and activities. Upon the entire record, we cannot credit Kauffman's ex- planation of the incident. We find that the conversation occurred in accordance with Haffner's testimony and that Kauffmann made this statement as a warning that Haffner cease his union activities. We further find that, by the above statement of Kauffmann, the respond- ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Earl Pfeiffer, employed as a maintenance man from March 1942, until his resignation on January 8, 1943, testified that on September 24, 1942, the day after union buttons were first worn in the plant, he participated in a conversation with Nesbit and Williams in the wood shop, in which Nesbit stated, "Looks like we are going to have some union activity around here," and, with reference to Schaper and Noeth, "I see we got a couple of shop stewards in here."' According to Pfeif- fer, Nesbit also remarked that Schaper and Noeth "must have went LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 267 out with some union official and got drunk and joined the union." Pfeiffer further testified that during the conversation Williams stated, with reference to Schaper and Noeth, that "he wouldn't have to have a union excuse to fire the girls, that he can always find some excuse to fire the girls; he wouldn't have to have a union excuse." Pfeiffer further testified that, "a day or so" after the girls first wore union buttons in the plant and "about a week or week and half" be- fore Schaper and Noeth were discharged, Kauffman asked him to sign an affidavit that his membership had been solicited by the girls dur- ing working hours, because "he would like to get rid of them .. . they are not allowed to ask anybody to sign those cards during work- ing hours and if he could catch them or have anybody sign a signed affidavit that they did he had a chance to release them right now." According to Pfeiffer, "a week or two weeks later," Kauffmann asked, "Did you sign one of those [union] cards yet?" Nesbit testified that he did not recall any conversation with Wil- liams and Pfeiffer in which the Union was mentioned, and that he did not believe that he made the statement with respect to the ap- parent union activity in the plant. He admitted that he might have stated that there were shop stewards in the wood shop, having "probably said that to several people," but not recalling "having said it in Guy Williams' presence." He also admitted that Rice had reported to him that Schaper and Noeth had attended a union meet- ing, become drunk, and joined the union; but he denied having re- lated such report to Pfeiffer. Williams denied that he had ever talked with , Pfeiffer about the Union. Kauffmann testified that, when Pfeiffer complained that, much to his annoyance, his member- ship was being solicited during working hours, Kauffmann told him, "'Well, some time, if they keep bothering you, maybe you better give me an affidavit to that effect.' But I never bothered getting an affidavit from him because I wanted to get rid of him." Kauffmann denied that he ever told Pfeiffer that he wanted a chance to release the girls and that he ever asked Pfeiffer "directly" if he had joined the Union. The Trial Examiner credited the denials of Nesbit, Williams, and Kauffmann and found that Pfeiffer was an incredible witness for the following reasons: (1) Pfeiffer testified that Nesbit's remarks, set forth above, impressed him, because he, Pfeiffer, was a union member, having joined around September 15, 1942, "a couple days or a week" after the beginning of the organizational campaign. However, Pfeiffer's application card is dated October 15, 1942. (2) Pfeiffer's testimony that both Schaper and Noeth wore steward buttons was erroneous since Schaper was the only steward in the wood shop at that time and since Noeth was wearing a smaller AFL button that day. (3) Although it is not clear, it appears that the erroneously admitted testimony with regard to Pfeiffer's former ar- 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rest may also have influenced the Trial Examiner in evaluating the testimony. Upon a consideration of all the evidence, we cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's evaluation of the evidence. As previously mentioned, counsel for the respondent, in an effort to impeach Pfeiffer's testimony, was permitted by the Trial Examiner to question Pfeiffer on cross-examination with regard to the latter's arrest on charges of non-support and of issuing a check without sufficient funds, both of which charges had been dismissed.4 The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion to strike made by counsel for the Board and denied the motion in the Intermediate Report. In view of the well-settled rules of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, we are of the opinion that the cross-examination was improper.5 The motion to strike is hereby granted, and such testimony is hereby stricken from the record. We do not believe that the factors relied upon by the Trial Examiner are of sufficient import to belie the credibility of Pfeiffer.(' Nesbit admitted that he and Pfeiffer were good friends in the plant and attributed to him many conversations in which Pfeiffer made statements derogatory of the Union and its members. , As to his part in those conversations, Nesbit testified as follows : "I don't believe I ever talked with him at all as far as the Company or I personally was concerned, our attitude towards the unions." He further testified that, when he learned that Pfeiffer was a union member, "I remember being disappointed hearing that because he had definitely told me he wasn't a member." He attributed his disappointment to the fact that Pfeiffer "had lied to me and that he had definitely tried to get me to say things . . . had definitely come to me accusing the Union of having done things which caused him more work out there, accusing the Union of subversive activity, and it appeared to me then 4 Counsel for respondent asked the following questions , among others , over the objections of Board's counsel: Q . Were you ever arrested and charged with non -support? Q... . weren't you picked up in St. Louis by the St. Louis police on a warrant from Waynesville, Missouri? 5 In Glover v . U. S., 147 Fed . 426, the Court stated • "It is competent for the purpose of discrediting a witness to show that he has been convicted of a crime . The general rule is that the crime must rise to the dignity of a felony or petit larceny . . . Whatever may be the limit in this respect , nothing short of a conviction of a crime is admissible for the purpose of impeachment . A mere accusation or indictment will not be admitted, for the reason that Innocent men are often arrested charged with a criminal offense . . . The prior evidence of a conviction of crime is the record thereof . . . . The practice of proving the former conviction by cross-examination is recognized in many States usually by statute and occasionally by judicial decision . . . . But where this practice is recog- nized, the proper question would be as to whether or not the party interrogated had been convicted of a crime, and not whether he had been arrested or indicted ." See also, Edwards v . U. S., 18 F. ( 2d) 402 (C. C. A. 8) ; Lawrence v. U. S., 18 F. ( 2d) 407 (C. C. A. 8) ; Middletown v. U. 8, 49 F. ( 2d) 538 (C. C. A. 8) ; Little v. U. S., 93 F. ( 2d) 401 (C C. A. 8). 5 The dates given by the application cards are not infallible, since It was established that the date on Preston Fiapgood 's card was erroneous and since many duplicate cards were obtained in the organizational campaign. LAISTER-KAUFFVIANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 269 that lie was giving me the cone-on on all this stuff. . . . That was my reaction after I heard he was an active member down there." In view of ( 1) Nesbit's earlier interrogation of Schaper with re- gard to the Union and the statements made by him in the course of that conversation , (2) 'the close association, between Pfeiffer and-Nes- bit, (3 ) the animosity toward the Union displayed by Williams in his conversation on September 23 with the employees of the rib-assembly section, (4) the undenied statements attributed to Kauffmann by Rice, hereinafter set forth , and (5) the significant fact, hereinafter found, that Kauffniann instructed Rice to determine the identity of employees, including Pfeiffer, attending a union meeting and the events occurring at the meeting, we find that the above conversations occurred in accord- ance with Pfeiffer's testimony and that Nesbit, Williams , and Kauff- mann made the statements therein attributed to them by Pfeiffer. We further find that the,respondent by the foregoing statements of Nesbit, `Williams , and Kauffmann -interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Employee Eckert testified that Rice, her immediate supervisor, on several occasions said that "she didn't think that the company would stand for it [the Union] because she didn't think they had enough money to pay any more salaries ; after they got to producing , why, we would make more money." Eckert further testified that, shortly after Schaper and Noeth were discharged , Rice stated that "she was glad she caused those two girls to get fired . . . that she caused them to get fired because she didn't think we were very patriotic for fooling with the union, that if we didn't all be careful we would all get it." The Trial Examiner did not credit the testimony of Eckert for the reason that it was uncorroborated and that Rice denied having made any at- tempt to warn any employee against affiliating with the Union or join- ing in its activities . We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner 's eval- uation of the testimony. Rice's statement that she never attempted to warn any employee with regard to his union activities is not, in our opinion, a specific denial of Eckert's testimony . We find that Rice made the statements attributed to her by Eckert and that by such statements the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Hilda Hairgrove, employed in the sheet-metal department from May 141942, until her' resignation on January 6, 1943, testified that in late September or early October 1942, she had a conversation in the rest room after working hours with Rice, who requested Hairgrove to obtain a copy of a circular distributed by the Union so that Rice might 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD present it to Kauffmann 7 According to Hairgrove, she complied with Rice's request on the following day, at which time Rice inquired if Hairgrove were planning to -attend a meeting of the Union that eve- ning, and when Hairgrove replied in the affirmative, Rice said, "You go ahead and go down there and you come back and let me know who all is there and let me know what goes on." Hairgrove further testified that on the day following the union meeting, the following colloquy occurred : Rice asked, "'Was Earl Pfeiffer there?' I said yes. `Well, who else was there?' I says, 'Oh, just a few!' ... then I said to her that I had already signed up.... She said that Mr. Kauffmann would like to know who all was there, but I didn't tell who all was there; I said just a few were there." Kauffmann denied that he had ever requested Rice to obtain any union circulars for him and that he had asked her or had been told by her who had attended any union meetings. Rice denied that Kauffman had asked her to obtain a union circular for him, but she was not questioned as to whether Kauffmann had instructed her to discover who had attended any union meetings. She did not specifically deny that she had in- quired with regard to employees who had attended a union meeting, since she merely answered negatively a question as to whether she had any recollection about a conversation with Hairgrove in regard to the names of employees present at a union meeting." Although the Trial Examiner was "persuaded that Hairgrove's testimony had a factual basis," he credited only the portion of Hairgrove's testimony relating to Rice's inquiry as to Pfeiffer's attendance at the union meet- ing, but found that such inquiry was not violative of the Act. We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's evaluation of the testimony and his conclusions. Rice admitted that Kauffmann, who had told her "from time to time to come in the office and talk anything over with him that I didn't think was just right," asked her the following questions concerning the union activities in the plant : "How is every- thing going along? . . . Have they'settled down? . . . Is there any union talk?" Kauffmann did not deny asking these questions. ' Although Hairgrove placed the conversation as occurring about the first of October, Hairgrove, according to her testimony, was not transferred to the day shift until about a week after Hapgood resumed his employment with the respondent on October 6, 1942. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Hairgrove' was transferred to the day shift about the middle of October and that she would not have had an opportunity to talk with Rice "in the rest room after working hours" until after the transfer. We conclude and find that the conversations in fact occurred on or about October 15, 1942. s With regard to these conversations with Hairgrove, Rice testified as follows : Q. Now, she testified further that you told her to go to the union meeting or a union meeting and tell her who were there, and that later you asked her about who had been at the meeting. Do you recall anything in that connection? A. Yes, but it wasn't that way. She came to me and said she was going to the union meeting to see what was going on, and when I spoke to Hilda the next time she said, "Well, kid," she said, "Well. I signed a card," she said, "I joined the union e a s s s s w Q. Do you recall any conversation whatsoever with reference to her, as to wanting to know whom she had seen at the meeting or who had attended? A. No, sir. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 271 Moreover, Kauffmann and Nesbit attributed to Pfeiffer several state- ments expressing his disapproval of the Union. We find that Kauff- mann desired to determine the sincerity of those statements and in- structed Rice to learn if Pfeiffer was a member of the Union. Requests by Kauffmann for additional information concerning the Union and the identity of its members are a logical sequel to the questions pro- pounded to Rice concerning the organizational activities of employees within her department. We conclude that the conversations occurred as testified to by Hairgrove and find that, pursuant to Kauffmann's request, Rice (1) inquired if Hairgrove were planning to attend a meeting of the Union, (2) urged her to report the events occurring at the meeting and the names of employees attending the meeting, (3) interrogated Hairgrove with regard to the identity of employees, including Pfeiffer, present at the meeting, and (4) informed Hairgrove that Kauffmann desired to have such information. We further find that by the above inquiry and interrogation the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The discharges Upon our consideration of the evidence, we cannot concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharges of Schaper and Noeth were not discriminatory. Our conclusion that the discharges were discriminatory is supported by the statement made by Williams to Pfeiffer that "he wouldn't have to have a union excuse to fire the girls; he wouldn't have to have a union excuse," and by Kauffmann's urging Pfeiffer to sign an affidavit that his membership had been solicited by Noeth and Schaper during working hours so that Kauffmann might release them "right now." The discriminatory nature of the dis- charges is further shown by Rice's statement to Eckert that "she was glad she caused those two girls to get fired . . . because she didn't think we were very patriotic for fooling with the union," as well as by the anti-union statements previously found to have been made by Nesbit. In view of these statements, it is clear that in an attempt to stem the Union's organizational campaign the respondent discharged Schaper and Noeth, both of whom had been among the small group of employees responsible for launching the Union's organizational campaign and had been especially active in the organization of the wood shop. The respondent contends that Schaper and Noeth were discharged for the reason that, coincident with and following their affiliation with the Union on September 22,1942, (1) the work output of Schaper and Noeth declined sharply, (2) they were insubordinate, refusing to fol- low the instructions of Rice, their immediate supervisor, (3) they 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quarreled with Rice, and (4) they were frequently late to work. In our opinion, the evidence fails to sustain the respondent's contentions. The testimony of Lorraine Bell, assistant foreman of the wood shop and immediately subordinate to Williams, refutes the testimony of Laister, Williams, and Stiglmeier regarding the alleged inefficiency of Schaper and Noeth. Since Bell was a disinterested witness,° we credit his testimony. Bell testified that on several occasions Noeth and Schaper had worked in the wood shop's wing-assembly section, of which Bell was the supervisor, because they were the most capable women workers in the rib-assembly section. He further testified that the two girls performed average work, were never insubordinate, and never wasted time in excessive conversation when they worked in his department, that all women employees quarreled among themselves, and that the quarreling among the women employees continued un- diminished after Noeth and Schaper left the respondent's employ. Although he did not set any date on which the girls were employed in his section, the testimony of Noeth indicates that she had worked in Bell's department a week or two before her discharge. It is there- fore clear that Bell's testimony completely refutes the defense prof- fered by the respondent that after September 22, the efficiency of Schaper and Noeth declined. Moreover, according to the undenied testimony of Schaper, Nesbit commended her work and said that she would not have received increases in pay had she been working ineffi- ciently. Schaper further testified without contradiction that early in September, Rice said, "Emma, no matter whether I get mad at you or not and don't speak to you any more, you will never have to worry about'your work not being done all right or that you don't do enough of it." It is highly significant that the respondent was unable to produce any production records to support its position with regard to Schaper's and Noeth's alleged inefficiency following September 22, 1942. The only evidence introduced in this regard was the number of wings completed. In July, 3 sets were produced; in August, 2 sets; in September, 3 sets; in October, 6 sets; in November, 12 sets; and in December, 12 sets. Williams testified that at the time Schaper and Noeth were discharged the production of ribs, on which the production of wings immediately depended, was barely ahead of the needs of the wing-assembly section. However, Bell testified that the assembly of ribs was always sufficiently in advance of wing production to insure an adequate supply of parts. We do not credit Williams' testimony but rather rely upon the testimony of Bell in this respect. The prob- able cause for the variance in the number of wings produced in Sep- tember, October, and November, lies in the delay in the replacement of At the time of the hearing, Bell, although theoretically in the respondent 's employ, had been on leave of absence for 3 months. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 273 the September loss of personnel in the wood shop. During that month 17 resigned and 3 were discharged, while in October the employment of only 5 was terminated. In September there were 48 employees in the wood shop ; in October approximately 50 employees were employed there, and in November there were approximately 60 employees. By December the number had increased to 80 employees. In view of these facts, we find the statistics of wing production to be inconclusive in demonstrating the alleged inefficiency of Schaper and Noeth. Aside from general testimony, the only instance of Noeth's and Schaper's refusal to follow orders established by the record are one in which Schaper refused to operate a sanding machine and another in which Noeth refused to clean a glue pot. In both instances the girls attributed illness as the reason for the refusal to perform the tasks assigned to them. Time cards were not introduced to prove that Noeth and Schaper were habitually late to work after they affiliated 'With the Union. We find the respondent's contentions with regard to Schaper's and Noeth's alleged insubordination and tardiness to be without merit. Moreover,- the extraordinary interest and the roles assumed by Laister, the respondent's president, and Stiglmeier, the respondent's production supervisor, in the discharge of Noeth and Schaper was, in our opinion, highly unusual and was not justified by the evidence adduced at the hearing. With regard to the procedure followed in the discharge of employees, Laister testified that at time of the hearing, department supervisors make discharges without his knowledge or approval, but that at the time of the discharge of the two girls, he "knew about 90 percent of the discharges," and "never disapproved of any that the head wanted to make." It is noteworthy that he did not specifically testify that it was necessary for him to approve each discharge. At the time the girls were discharged, Williams, the supervisor of the wood shop, was on leave of absence. Although in this instance Stiglmeier assumed Williams' duties, Williams testified that normally Bell, the assistant foreman, was in charge of the first shift, whenever Williams was absent. Bell, however, played no part in the discharge of Schaper and Noeth. We find that in the discharge of Schaper and Noeth this unusual deviation from customary-proced- ure is a further indication of the respondent's discriminatory purpose. In view of all the circumstances, we conclude and find that Schaper and Noeth were discharged because of their union affiliation and activities. We further conclude and find that, by the statements of Nesbit, Williams, Kauffman, and Rice, as set forth above, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act. 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner has found that Preston Hapgood and Edward A. Chapman were discharged for cause. We have reviewed the evi- dence and agree with the conclusions of the Trial Examiner, and we shall dismiss the complaint with respect to Hapgood and Chapman. Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent, by discharging Emma Schaper and Marie Noeth, discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, 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. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Emma Schaper and Marie Noeth. In order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act, we shall order that the respondent offer to Marie Noeth immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, ant make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of the - offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings 10 during such period. In accordance with our practice, the period from the date of the Intermediate Report to the date of the Order herein will be' excluded in computing the amount of whatever back pay Marie Noeth is entitled to have, since the Trial Examiner did not recommend her reinstatement with back pay., Emma Schaper disclaimed any de- sire to be reinstated. We shall consequently not direct that she be restored to her employment, but we shall order the respondent to make her' whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discrimination against her to the date upon which she secured the position she held at the time of the hearing, less her net earnings during such period. 10 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, 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. 21 Cf. Matter of R. R. Hafeifinger Company, Inc., 1 N. L. R. B. 760. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 275 Since we have found that the respondent did not discriminate with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Preston Hapgood and Edward A. Chapman, we shall order that the complaint be dis- missed as to them. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Emma Schaper and Marie Noeth, and thereby discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Preston Hapgood and Edward A. Chap- man. 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 that the respond- ent, Laister-Kauffmann Aircraft Corporation, St. Louis; Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 549875-44-vol. 52-19 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Marie Noeth immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Marie Noeth for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the respondent's discrimination against her to the date of the Intermediate Report herein and during the period from the date of this Order to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such periods; (c) Make whole Emma Schaper for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the respondent's discrimination against her to the date upon which she secured the position she held at the time of the hearing herein, less her net earnings during such period; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that its em- ployees are free to remain and become members of International As- sociation of Machinists, District No. 9, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Preston Hapgood and Edward A. Chapman. CHAIRMAN MILL'S took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Ryburn L. Hackler, for the Board. Mr. Robert D. Abbott, 506 Olive Street, St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. Nelson Brzner, 2345 Lafayette Avenue, St. Louis, Mo., for the Union. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 277 SrATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a second amended charge duly filed on December 9, 1942, by Interna. tional Association of Machinists, District No. 9, AFL, herein known as the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein known as the Board, by its Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), duly issued its complaint dated March 22, 1943, against Laister-Kauffmann Aircraft Corporation, herein known as the respondent, alleging that the respondent had -engaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 3 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein known as the Act. Copies of the com- plaint and of notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged: (1) that the respondent, on or about the dates alleged, discharged and thereafter re- fused to reinstate four named employees' for the reason that they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; (2) that from September 15, 1942, to the date of issuance of the complaint the respondent, by its officers, agents, and employees, (a) warned and threatened its employees against joining, remaining members of, or assisting the Union or any other labor organization, (b) made derogatory statements concerning the Union and its leadership, (c) questioned employees concerning their union activities and affiliations, and (d) engaged in surveillance of employees con- cerning their union activities. The respondent subsequently filed with the Regional Director its motion for a bill of particulars and concurrently therewith its motion for an extension of time within which to answer the complaint until after disposition had been made of its motion for a bill of particulars. By order of the Regional Director, dated March 31, 1943, the latter motion was denied. The respondent thereafter filed its answer, dated April 2, 1943, reserving its rights under its motion for a bill of particulars. The answer admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint but denied that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to order of the Regional Director changing the time and place, of hearing, dated April 5, 1943, and duly served upon the parties, a hearing was held before the undersigned, as the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, at St. Louis, Missouri, on sundry dates between April 6 and 30, 1943, both inclusive. All parties were represented and par- ticipated in the hearing. The parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence bearing on the issues. At the outset of the hearing the undersigned considered the respondent's motion for a bill of particulars. The motion was granted in part and in part denied. Counsel for the Board thereupon furnished to the respondent and dictated into the record the further particulars required. A motion by the respondent for leave to file an amended answer was granted but the parties were directed to proceed with the hearing in the interim, with leave to the respondent to apply during the course of the hearing for appropriate relief as to further time for investigation and preparation of its defense upon cause shown. No further application was made in this connection. In the course of the hearing the respondent filed its amended answer, reiter- ating the admissions and denials of its original answer and setting forth certain 1 Emma Schaper (referred to in the complaint as Emma Shaper ), Marie Noeth , Preston- Hapgood, and Edward Allen Chapman. 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REIATION'S BOARD evidentiary and affirmative matter by way of defense which is hereinafter more fully considered. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent moved to strike certain testimony relating to acts and statements attributed to James Knowles, John McTasney, and Bertha Bauer 2 on the ground that such acts and state- ments were not imputable to the respondent. Ruling on the motion was re- served for disposition in the Intermediate Report Counsel for the Board moved to strike certain testimony elicited' from or relating to Earl Pfeiffer, a Board witness, on the ground that such testimony was irrelevant and imma- terial Ruling on the motion was reserved for disposition in the Intermediate Report. Counsel for the Board also moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion was granted with respect to minor variances not affecting .the substantive allegations of the complaint. The parties were offered an opportunity at the close of the hearing to present .oral argument, which was waived. The parties were also given leave to file briefs with the undersigned. Briefs were subsequently received from counsel for the respondent and the Board respectively. Under date of June 23, 1943, the undersigned issued an order directing that the official report of proceedings be corrected in the particulars therein set forth. Upon the record thus made, and upon his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS The respondent is a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its main office and principal place of busi-, nessness in the city of St. Louis in said State. It is and has been since the date of its organization engaged in the sole business of the manufacture of gliders for the United States Army Air Forces. In the course and conduct of its business the respondent uses large quantities of raw materials consisting principally of wood, metal, fabric, and paint During the year 1942, the re- spondent purchased and caused to be transported to its plant in St. Louis quantities of such raw materials to a value in excess of $100,000, at least 75 percent of which represented material purchased and shipped from points out- side the State of Missouri. Finished products are delivered to the Army Air Forces at St. Louis.4 H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, District No 9, is a labor organiza- tion.` It admits to membership the production and maintenance employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues The issues in this proceeding are: (1) whether or not the respondent, by acts or statements of J. R. Kauffman, W. F. Nesbit, Guy Williams, Bertha Rice, John 2 McTasney is referred to in the amended answer and some of the exhibits as McTastney. 2 Bertha Bauer is frequently referred to in the record as Bertha Rice, her name by marriage after September 22, 1942. 4 The above findings are based on admissions in the respondent 's answer and on a stipulation of the parties entered into of record. 4It is a matter of common knowledge that, since the close of the hearing, the Union has withdrawn from its affiliation with the American , Federation of Labor and is now an unaffiliated body. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 279 McTasrey, and James Knowles, or any of them, interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act; (2) whether or not the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Emma Schaper, Marie Noeth, Preston Hap- good, and Edward Allen Chapman, or any of them, in order to discourage or thereby discouraging membership in the Union. . The respondent's answer in general denies the allegations of the complaint as to interference, restraint, and coercion , and denies that any acts or state- ments attributable to Rice, MeTasney, and Knowles are to be imputed to it, and affirmatively alleges that Schaper, Noeth, and Chapman were discharged for cause unrelated to their union activities, and that Hapgood voluntarily left the respondent's employ. The respondent's answer further alleges that the Union engaged in a "cam- paign of entrapment" of respondent by provoking its officers and supervisory employees to acts and statements upon which charges of unfair labor practices could be founded in order that the process of the Board might be utilized to further the Union's organization activities While the acts of the respondent, as the same may be established by the record, are to be interpreted in their total context in evaluating the testimony and in determining whether the respond- ent has engaged in unfair labor practices, provocative conduct attributable to the Union would not of itself constitute a bar to the prohibition of acts of unfair labor practice. The defense as alleged is in effect merely argumentative as to whether the respondent's conduct, as established, was in derogation of the purposes of the Act. The answer further alleges that, when advised by the Regional representatives of the Board that a charge had been preferred against it, the respondent fully cooperated with the Board in facilitating the Board's investigation of the charge, advised the Board's representatives that it "had no opposition or prejudice ... to the union and had no objection to its employees joining the same and that if the respondent's employees had committed the acts charged, they were without authority" and that the respondent requested that it be advised of the names of such employees for the stated purpose of making its own investigation "in order to locate and stop any ... acts that ... would constitute unfair labor practices . . . and if any wrongs had been done to enable respondent to remedy the same," but that its request had been denied. Without discussing on the merits the question as to whether the record in these proceedings sustains the alleged ground of defense, the defense as stated would not constitute a bar to the prohibition by the Board of unfair labor practices in fact established by the record Other allegations of the answer set forth evidentiary matter that raise no additional issues and need not therefore be further considered in this section. B Gevests and corporate organization of the respondent Sometime during 1941, John W. Laister, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri, wrote to the Army Air Force Headquarters at Wright Field, suggesting ,that his experience with glider airplanes might be of help to the Army. After a visit to Wright Field at the invitation of the Air Force. Laister undertook to develop a trainer glider. Returning to St. Louis, he joined forces with Murray N. White- head and John R. Kauffmann, who were already interested in glider development. Together they organized the Lai,,ter-Kauffmann Aircraft Corporation, the re- spondent herein, which was incorporated September 20, 1941, under the laws of the State of Missouri. 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because of competitive factors in the skilled labor market, the respondent was forced from the outset to depend for its production workers upon a training program under the direction of a skeleton engineering staff. Employment was open to both men and women without respect to previous training. By degrees the pay roll expanded from a total of 21 employees on December 31, 1941, to 469 on December 31, 1942, with considerable labor turn-over in the interim. In June 1942 the plant outgrew its first location, on Ivory Street, and between June 15 and July 15 was moved to the Arena, on Oakland Avenue. The respondents' executive personnel consists of Laister, as president and general manager," Whitehead, as vice-president and director of personnel, Kauff- mann, as secretary-treasurer, and W. F. Nesbit, as assistant-secretary 7 C The events of September 23, 1942 1. Nesbit's talk with Emma Schaper The first open indication of employee interest in self-organization disclosed by the record was in September 1942 when Nelson Briner, a local representative of the Union, began organizational 'efforts among the respondent 's employees! A meeting of employees interested in the Union was held on the evening of Sep- tember 22 at which a number of representation cards were signed.' Identifica- tion buttons were distributed at this meeting and Emma Schaper, an employee in the rib-assembly section of the woodshop, was designated as an organization representative and was given a steward's button,10 which was somewhat larger and more conspicuous than the buttons distributed generally The following day a number of the employees, including Schaper, wore their buttons in the plant. In the course of a routine safety inspection trip through the plant that morning Nesbit 11 noticed the buttons and especially the button that Schaper was wear- ing.1' Nesbit testified : I had known Emma pretty well . . . and as soon as I saw her I noticed she had on a . . . button which said, "Steward" which I assumed to be a union button ; so I went over and asked her what the button was and she said @ With special reference to production Laister also serves as chief engineer 7Nesbit performs a variety of other managerial functions that will be hereinafter indicated 81t appears from Briner's testimony that Andrew Haffner , one of the respondent's employees, and three former employees, had talked with him as early as September 4 about organizing the plant . Briner was delayed in making a start, however, and overt efforts toward organization did not begin until the latter part of the month. 9 Briner explained that the Union was not soliciting applications for membership, its efforts being directed exclusively toward establishing itself as the statutory representative. for purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in an appropriate unit. It was contemplated that, when contractual relations had been established with the respondent, a campaign would be conducted to secure a dues-paying membership among the employees. Meanwhile the employees were requested only to sign cards authorizing the Union to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining Some of the employees were unaware of the distinction and a number of the witnesses in this proceeding testified that they were members of, or had joined , the Union . What they did in fact was to sign representation cards and their testimony as to membership is so interpreted. 1° Briner explained that the steward button worn by Schaper and similar buttons worn later on by other employees were intended at the time only to designate the employees to whom representation cards might be turned in for transmittal to the Union, and that such employees were not intended to exercise any of the usual functions of stewards. 11 Among other duties Nesbit was the plant safety director. 12 Bertha Rice, who was in charge of the girls in the rib-assembly , testified that either Nesbit or Kauffmann observed the buttons that morning and asked her what she knew about it and she replied, "I don't know any more than you do " The record does not establish the point, but it is probable that this inquiry came at the time from Nesbit. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 281 that it was a union button, and I asked her what union it was, and she told me it was the Machinists' Union. There were several other union buttons being worn that morning, but I particularly questioned Emma because she had on the steward button ... I wasn't too familiar with unions or their organizations. This was the first instance that I personally knew of that organization was going on or that there was a union within our plant, I had no indication there was any organization going on before that time, or that any of these people belonged to a union. I was interested, and after Emma told me she was the shop steward for the Machinists' Union I then asked her to come into my office, I would like to talk to her and know more about it ... I think she came in a little later. As to what happened at this interview Schaper testified as follows : Q. Now, tell us what that conversation was. What Mr. Nesbit said to you and what you said to him. A. Well, he asked me what I thought I would gain by trying to get a union in there. I says, well, I thought we would get more wages. He says, well, he thought it was a happy family as it was going and he thought we ought to carry it on like that. So he says, "You know, if we get a union in here this place is going to shut down and you and I are both going to be out of a job." And he says that the boys that was out there fighting needed the gliders and they weren't asking for--more money, all they were asking for was gliders. Q. Say anything else to you? A. Well, he says that I was doing fair-well, I asked him if I wasn't doing fair work and he says yes. He says if I wasn't I wouldn't have been getting the raises. Q. Anything else about your work? - A. Well, he said I was doing good work and lie says in time to come I could probably be a forelady or something. Q. Did he say anything else now about the Union, about your joining it? A. Well, he says that I should try and talk to the girls and see if they wouldn't stop trying to organize . . . I told him that I would talk to them and see if they wanted to back out of it, but I never had no intention to .. . Q. How long did that interview with Mr. Nesbit last? A. Oh, I would say about forty-five minutes. Q. Was there anybody else present? A. No, there wasn't. Nesbit testified as to this interview as follows : Q. Now, tell us as best you can, Mr. Nesbit, what was said by you and what was said by Miss Schaper and all the subjects you talked about while she was in there. A. Well, I asked [Emma] again what union she belonged to and she told me it was the Machinists Union . . . and I asked [her] how many people belonged to the union in our woodshop or in our plant, I don't recall that she gave me a definite answer. I think she said several or quite a few of the girls, some answer of that nature . . . I assumed throughout this con- versation and verified it in talking with Emma, that in her official capacity as steward that she would be the one that I should discuss any grievance with or if they had any complaint about anything that she would be the normal, natural person to talk about it; so I asked if there were any griev- ances or anything wrong in the plant that she or her co-workers thought should be remedied. Q. Now, after you asked miss Schaper about any grievance, what did she say in response to that? 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. She mentioned as a grievance, the women's toilet, it wasn't being kept clean enough in her estimation, the washbowls were not washed out fre- quently enough, they were dirty ; at that time they ^ were pouring glue, that was one of the grievances. Q. Did she mention any other thing that you would call a grievance? A. That is the only specific grievance that I recall. There may have been, I dimly recall, I couldn't prove it, there was something mentioned about lunches, the food situation ... I am more or less the company's representative on the canteen out there. Q. Well, now, what else was said there by you or Miss Schaper, what was the rest of the conversation? A. Well, as far as the unions are concerned, Miss Schaper brought up the point that she was going to get more money by belonging to the Union. * * * * * * * Q. Do you recall whether or not you made any statement to her about the money? A. It is my recollection that she told me that by more money, she meant eighty-seven and half cents an hour . . . For herself . . . She had told me that she was making I believe it was forty or forty-five cents an hour at the time, and by simple arithmetic I arrived at the fact that such an increase in her salary, if that became and that was the basis of increase throughout the entire plant, it would be pretty rough on the company . . . Q. Now, did you make some comment to that effect to her or not? A. I believe I did. I don't recall anything definite that I said. My re- action was that-and I probably said-that if we were to increase her salary fifty percent and increased everyone else's salary fifty percent that that would work quite a hardship on the company. Q. Well now, do you recall any statement that you made to Miss Schauer about the Union or your attitude toward the Union, Mr Nesbit? A. I recall that I told Emma I had absolutely no reason for not wanting a union in the shop, personally I am not averse to unions, I have relatives in unions" and as a matter of fact ... I have known of shops that have been much better with unions than before. * * * * * * * Q. Well, I will ask you Mr. Nesbit, did you say this to Miss Schaper, "You know if we get a union in here that this place is going to shut down and you and I are both going to be out of a job? A. No, Z didn't say that. * * * * * * * Q Did you tell Miss Schaper that she should try and talk to the girls and see if they wouldn't stop trying to organize? A. No, I didn't say that. Q. You didn't say that. You are sure of that, Mr. Nesbit? A. Yes, I am quite sure. Q Now, can you recall anything else that was said by you or by Miss Schaper in which the union was mentioned? A. Well, we had a discussion there of some thirty minutes, talked back and forth, and it was a very friendly conversation ... Not all our conversation was devoted to the union or its activities. My principal purpose in having her come in was to find out if the union was in the plant and if they had 13 In this connection Nesbit further testified that his brother-in-law was a union official. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 283 organized, how many members they had, and I thought it was my duty, my official duty, to know that information. Q. Well, now, did you at that conversation attempt in any *ay to dis- courage the union? A. No, I definitely told Emma that I had no reason for not wanting a union in there. I had no personal animosity and I felt the company had no personal animosity against unions. Roberta Meier testified that she had been in the respondent's employ from the first week in August until October 20, 1942, all but the first 8 days as Nesbit's secretary with a desk in Nesbit's office ; she recalled the occasion of Nesbit's talk with Schaper, having shown her to a chair and remained in the room for the first 10 or 15 minutes of their conversation ; she then had occasion to leave the office and'when she returned 10 or 15 minutes later Schaper had gone; she recalled hearing Nesbit remark, "Now, understand, I don't object to a union," but had no other specific recollection of what was said. ' - On the basis of all the testimony relating to the conference between Nesbit and Schaper, and on the whole record herein, the undersigned finds and concludes as follows : Nesbit's first intimation that any of the employees were interested in the unionization of the plant came from observing the appearance of the organization buttons on September 23. He was at once concerned about the effect of the movement on future production. As the plant liaison official with the Army Air Force he conceived it to be his duty to acquaint himself with the facts as to what union was involved, to what extent organization had pro- gressed, and what demands on the respondent were in prospect, and because of Schaper's apparent official position with the Union and the fact that he knew her well enough to talk to, he asked her to come to his office for an interview. They talked informally for some 30 to 45 minutes. Nesbit asked Schaper what union she belonged to, how many of the employees had joined, and what the em- ployees expected to gain from the Union. When Schaper told him what she personally expected in increased wages he indicated that the respondent could not stand for a general wage increase of such proportions. Nesbit further inquired if there were any general shop grievances or complaints and one or two minor grievances were discussed." In the course of the interview Nesbit stated to Schaper that he had no personal animosity toward unions and felt that this was also the position of the respondent. Schaper's testimony that Nesbit stated that if the Union got in the plant it would shut down and they would both be out of a job, and that Nesbit had asked her to talk to the girls and see if they would not stop trying to organize, is not credited in the face of Nesbit's denials. Nesbit impressed the undersigned as the more credible witness. While his inexperience with labor relations led him into a prejudicial blunder," his motivation for the interview came from a desire to learn facts affecting the plant that he thought he had the right and was under duty to obtain and not from antipathy to the Union itself. The statements attrib- uted to him by Schaper combining the "happy family" formula, a threat to close the plant, the intimation of a promotion in the offing, and an appeal to abandon the Union, imply a familiarity with sterotyped and hackneyed techinques of op- position that, attributed to Nesbit, seems implausible 1e However, on his own admissions and on the findings herein above made, Nesbit's conduct in summon- 14 Schaper testified that they did not discuss any grievances but the undersigned credits Nesbit's testimony on this point. is When Whitehead, who was the only official of the respondent with any experience in dealing with labor or labor organizations, learned of Nesbit's interview he told Nesbit it had not been a "wise move." 14 It is significant in this connection that none of the charges filed by the Union are framed in the tenor of the statements attributed to Nesbit by 'Schaper. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing Schaper for questioning, the nature of his inquiries concerning the Union and his effort to discourage her expectations of a substantial wage increase through the instrumentality of the Union, were an unwarranted intrusion of management into the Union's affairs and an overt expression of concerned interest on the part of the employer that is inconsistent with the role of absolute neutrality en- joined by the Act. By Nesbit's conduct, as above found, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Williams' talk to the rib-assemblers Just before the 'end -of, the first-shift, ^ Supervisor 'Williams' went `ovdr, to` the rib assembly section and told Rice to call together the girls who were close by. Some 6 or 7 girls gathered at one of the work benches in response. Emma Schaper, Marie Noeth, and Lou Eckert, as Board witnesses, Williams, as respond- ent's witness, and Rice, called directly by the undersigned, testified as to what ensued. Schaper testified Williams "wanted to know what we thought we would benefit by getting a union in there and when [one of] the girls 17 says they thought we would make more money he says, `Well you know I have belonged to a Union one time, too, and all you do is pay your money in and you don't get nothing out of it.' So I was busy at the time and,I; didn'•t, care,to hear the conversation, I walked away." Asked if she had participated in the conversation, Schaper'tes- tifled, "Well, I just says I thought we would benefit by it, we would get more money." When asked, "Did any of the girls approach Mr. Williams to start the conversation, ask him any questions?", Schaper replied: "Not before he asked what we thought we would benefit by the Union." 'a Noeth testified as follows : "Well, I was working at the table there with Lou Eckert and Loretta Eckert was there, and Addle [Howard] was right over, maybe at the next table, and Emma [Schaper] was there . . . and he came up to us and asked us what we thought we would get by joining the union, what benefit we would get out of it." When asked, "Do you recall the exact words that Guy Williams spoke to that group?", Noeth replied, "Well, he stated-he had told us that unions, from his experience, that all they do is to get your money and never give you nothing back for it." 19 Lou Eckert'o testified as follows : "Well, he wanted to know if-what we thought the union was going to do for us, and I said, well, I figured we would make more money by joining the union. and ,then he said, well, he said, "You just pay in dues and maybe not get nothing for it." Q. Is that all he said? A. And that was his conversation .. . Q. Did anybody ask him any question before he started to talk-didn't Miss Schaper asked him what he thought about the union? A. I don't remember if she did .. . Q. You don't think Emma did ; what about Marie [Noeth] ? 17 Schaper later testified that she was referring here to Marie Noeth. Is At another point in her testimony Schaper testified that all that she heard was Williams' opening question, at which point she had walked away. Noeth corroborated Schaper on this point and testified that Schaper had not said a word to Williams. 19 Noeth testified that during the conversation Rice "made'the statement to the effect that she would not sign a card, that the only certificate she signed was her marriage license." Eckert and Rice both testified that the latter took no part in the conversation. Noeth's testimony on this point is uncorroborated and is not credited. 20 Eckert was among those present at the Union meeting the night before. She had signed a representation card and wore a union button at,work on September 23. LAISTER-BAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CARPORATIOIQI 285 A. All I remember Marie asking him if she was going to get fired over it, I know she said that. Q. Didn't she ask him what he thought of the union? A. No, I don't believe she did. Q. But I mean he walked up there and started talking without anybody saying anything to him about it? A. I, just at the moment, I just don't know who started the conversation. Q. You don't know who started it? A. No. Q. So you don't know whether Emma might have started it or whether Marie might have started it or whether Guy Williams might ' have -started- it, you are not sure now? A. I am not sure who started the conversation. Eckert further testified that the conversation took "just a few minutes" and "wasn't disagreeable." Q. He didn't tell you anything about getting fired, did lie? A. No, I know Marie asked him but he said no. Q. She asked him if she would get fired for being in the union and he said no? A. Uh-huh. Q Did he say it didn't make any difference to the company whether you belong to the •union or not? A. Yes, I believe he did say that. Q. You believe lie did? A. Uh-huh. Q. And nobody would get fired for it? A. That's what he said. Williams testified that the girls in the rib assembly section had for some time previously been doing so much talking and making such excessive use of the rest room that production was falling off and about September 1 he had posted a bulletin above the rib assembly press requesting that these conditions be cor- rected ; u that one afternoon "around the middle of September , he noticed that some of the girls "were doing practically nothing but talking" and just before the end of the shift he asked Rice to call together the girls that were "right around that vicinity" ' and when a small group had assembled he told them that they were talking and going to the rest room too much and not getting any work done ; that the group argued about the matter for a while and then Noeth asked him if her affiliation with the Union was going to cause any trouble as far as her job went ; he told her that as far' as the Company was concerned it would make no difference and the matter was up to the employees ; that Schaper asked him if he had ever belonged to a union and what he thought of it ; that he told her that his personal opinion was that he "couldn't see that it did a person much good to pay dues to an outside organization unless they got something for it," that he had "worked in places where they had unions " and it was his observation that "when a fellow showed he was worth a raise he got a raise whether there was a union or not, " and that he "couldn't see that it did him any good." Eckert denied that Williams had said anything on September 23 about their wasting time and not getting out production . Schaper testified that Williams had never said anything to her individually or in her presence about talking too i1 Williams testified that he had no objection to their talking except when they quit work to talk 2i Williams testified that he spoke to the girls on this particular occasion because they had been particularly talkative and there were several of them working together at the time. 286 DECThSUONS Or' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD much and interfering with production and denied that she had asked him what he thought of the Union. Noeth denied that she had ever heard Williams tell the girls they were talking too much but admitted : "He did tell us that he didn't mind us talking as long as we didn't stop our work while we were talking " She recalled a bulletin about using the rest room but did not remember any reference in that bulletin to talking and wasting time. Recalled as a rebuttal witness, Noeth testified that the bulletin about the rest ioom made no reference to talking. She admitted that Williams did' caution the girls about talking "We [the girl's that worked in the wood shop in the rib assembly part] were all at the table at the time 23 and he came up and said ... that there was too much talking, said be didn't mind if they talked, said, `I know when you get a bunch of women to- gether you can't stop them from talking,' but he didn't mind it they talked, but he didn't want them to stop their work." Rice testified on examination by the undersigned that she recalled the occasion, but that just what Williams said to the girls she did not know because she wasn't paying any attention. She recalled, however, "I heard him say after lie got there, `What do you think about the union' and Em [Schaper] says, `I think it's all right'"; and th,it "that is the first thing he said when lie got the girls to- gether." Rice further testified that Emma Schaper was not present for the whole conversation, "it was near quitting time and she had some stock to put up or something, whatever it is, and she answered Guy, she said, `I think they are swell,' or `It is fine,' or something like that, and she went on about doing some work She was not present as Guy talked to the girls." On the basis of the evidence herein above reviewed, and on the whole record herein, the undersigned finds and concludes that Williams assembled the girls in the rib assembly section primarily for the purpose of admonishing them about wasting time by excessive talking, and that a'discussion of the Union ensued in which Williams stated the respondent's attitude toward their affiliating with the Union and his own personal views, substantially as related in his testimony." While the Board has in some cases held that, under given circumstances, the communication to employees by a supervisory official of his personal opinion on the subject of unionization, upon the employee's express request was in the area of normal social intercourse without significance from the standpoint of the Act, Williams' statement, as above found, cannot be deemed so innocuous even if made in answer to inquiries. Williams was the responsible head of the entire wood shop with the right to hire and fire, and was responsible within his department for initiating recommendations for individual promotions in pay. His statement addressed to a group of girls who were not only recent employees of the respon- dent but without previous industrial experience as well, was tantamount from the employees' standpoint to authoritative advice to the effect that those who merited more pay would receive it, union or no union, and that to pay union dues for the same result would be a mere waste of money. The undersigned finds and concludes that by Williams' statement as above found the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act. D. Incidents between September 23 and October 12 25 As found above, the Union started organizational efforts in September, 1942. During the organization campaign, Briner, at times accompanied by other or- 21 Noeth did not specifically place the date of this occasion 24The undersigned makes no finding as to whether this discussion was introduced by Williams, or precipitated by inquiries from the group. ss Some of the incidents considered in this section relate as hereinafter found to a period subsequent to October 12 but are discussed at this point because of their relation to prior Incidents LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 287 ganizers, distributed authorization cards and handbills to employees at or near the plant. Briner testified that "approximately the end of September or around the first of October" he was putting out handbills and cards near the gate of the plant as the second shift was going in to work ; John McTasney, whom one of the employees subsequently told him was a foreman, was hanging around outside for awhile, squatting on his heels, and "started cautioning people about,takigg their handbills and their cards." Asked to particularize, Briner testified: "Well, he said, 'That is enough.' 20 Briner further testified that, on a later occasion, about October 6, he and two other organizers were handing out handbills at a street car stop near the plant, and while one street car was unloading, McTasney, was sitting with two other employees on a guard rail about 3 feet away ; as each, passing employee would accept a handbill, McTasney would wave a finger at him and say, calling the employee by name, "That is enough, now, that is enough" Richard Hageman testified that as he came in to work one day, about October 1, Briner was passing out handbills and McTasney was sitting on a railing near by; that Briner handed him a handbill as he passed and McTasney said, "That's enough of that, Gregg" ; that McTasney made similar comments to other employees who accepted handbills. Hageman further testified that he didn't think he "could rightfully say" whether McTasney's manner indicated whether he was mad or "rather kidding" and that he did not know whether he was kidding or not ; that he did not even remember the tone of voice that he used ; that as far as he knew MeTasney was good-natured with everybody; the he "would come over and kid with you a lot of times" ; that on this occasion McTasney "could have" been kidding, "but Johnny had a way he looked like he was kidding whether he meant it or not" and "it looked like he was" kidding but that he did not think he was. Hilda Hairgrove testified that she had worked for awhile on the same shift with McTasney and that it was the custom among the employees to sit outside the employees' entrance until the guards opened the gates. According to her testimony, she was sitting by McTasney one afternoon on the sidewalk curbing "and there was somebody standing up in front of me . . . and Mr. Briner was up by the gate as you come in the place, and he had some of those hand- bills telling about a meeting, and we were all talking and joking around there and John said to the man that was standing up in front of me .. . to move back, 'I want to see who is taking those circulars.' And he says, 'Well, I am going to find out just who is taking them: I am going to fix them if they do.' I says, 'Oh, John, you are kidding.' He says, 'No, I mean it. I will fix it for them good.' And that was about all that he said concerning it. I thought he was really kidding about it." On the basis of the evidence above reviewed, and on the whole record herein the undersigned finds that McTasney made in substance, the statements at- tributed to him in the testimony of Briner, Hairgrove, and Hageman c, The undersigned attaches no significance to these statements. While McTasney was subsequently promoted, i t the, times indicated in the foregoing testimony "At another point in his testimony Briner stated, " he would say, 'Now, I wouldn't do that if I were you,' and things like that." n At the time of the healing McTasney was no longer in the employ'of the respondent. At the instance of the undersigned a subpena was issued for his appearance on the last day of the hearing but he did, not respond. The record, does not definitely indicate that the, subpena was in fact delivered to him. The undersigned did not deem that his testimony would be sufficiently important to justify a continuance of the hearing in older to secure- his appearance 288 DRCI€ ONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he was a "lead-man," ' working the greater part of his tune at the same type of work as the other sheet metal workers. He had no "authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise` effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action." That his fellow employees did not iden- tify McTasney with management is indicated by the fact that be subsequently attended and participated in a meeting of the Union and was vouched for by his fellow employees. Hageman testified that he himself was present at this meeting. Hageman also testified that McTasney worked with his hands on production as much "if not more" than any of the men under him. The testimony hereinabove reviewed indicates that McTasney' s comments were merely jocular and were so construed. Andrew Haffner was employed by the respondent on July 7, 1942, and worked in the machine shop as a welder. On September 22, 1942, he signed a representa- tioii card and was thereafter interested in getting other employees to sign. About 3 days after he had affiliated with the Union he had been passing out representation cards before work hours and when he went in to work, James Knowles, his "foreman," said to him, "What is the matter, Andy, don't you like working here?"' The testimony as to Knowles' duties does not establish that his supervisory functions were such as to identify him with management At most his authority was co-ordinate with McTasney's prior to the latter's promotion to a foremanship. He was classified by the respondent as a "lead-man." The statement attributed to him by Haffner is standing alone, deemed by the undersigned as insignificant. Haffner was himself later promoted to lead-man but continued his affiliation with the Union. - Haffner testified that, on the same day,,Kauffmann said to him: "Haffner, if I were you I'd watch the kind of people Lwas associating„ with. You don't have to quote me." Haffner further testified that Kauffmann said "something about him being pushed around as a young boy" but that he "was working and didn't pay much attention to it." Kauffmann testified that he often talked to Haffner who had impressed him as "a very nice boy" and "a good worker" that he knew that Earl Pfeiffer, one of the employees of the respondent, "had a pretty bad record" and didn't con- sider him a fitting associate for Haffner; and that the statement quoted by Haffner was made in express reference to Pfeiffer, with `whom he had heard Haffner was associating. Kauffmann further testified that 'they had received "at least two" anonymous letters about Pfeiffer's character, and "had heard" that he had a "police record," and that he had talked to Haffner after they had"-made a check-up.80, • - 29 As hereinabove found, the respondent has built up its production pay roll from what- ever labor was available , without reference to previous experience . Each of the major departments is under the supervision of a skilled foreman. The operations of each de- partment were distributed among small specialized work units , each engaged in a specific operation and each including a lead-man (or woman ) who in part works along with the members of the unit and in part supervises the operations of the unit under instructions of the foreman. Their specialized functions as employees relate to production rather than to personnel and serve to integrate diversities of training and experience into a practicable production unit. As in the "case of other production employees they are paid on an hourly basis. ^ Haffner's testimony was uncorroborated. Knowles ' was'. in , the Army and no longer in the employ of the respondent,,at the ',ti ne of;the heariW ,agd dtfi not, testify. 30 Kauffnrann further testified that' Bertha Rice had complained to him about Pfeiffer and said he disturbed the girls in her section. Rice testified that Pfeiffer "used to go through" and "make remarks to the girls and talk to them" but that she had never complained to Kauffmann about him ; that she may have made a passing remark to someone that she "thought he was smart or something like that." LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 289 On the basis of the testimony hereinabove reviewed and of the whole record, the undersigned credits Kauffmann's testimony, which is undenied. The record convincingly substantiates the fact of Kauffmann's personal antipathy to Pfeiffer. Since Pfeiffer did not affiliate with the Union until several weeks after Kauff- mann's conversation with Haffner, Kauffmann's admonition had no connection with Pfeiffer's union activities. Earl Pfeiffer, who was in the respondent's employ as a maintenance man from March 1942, until his resignation on January 8, 1943, testified that he had joined the Union around September 15, a couple of days or a week after organizing started" and that the day after Schaper and Noeth came in the plant wearing steward buttons he was in a conversation with Williams and Nesbit in the wood- shop, either during a rest period or at lunch hour. He further testified as follows : Q. All right. Tell what was said there. Who said it now, first? A. Well, Bill Nesbit or' Mr. Nesbit says, "Looks like we are going to have some union activity around here." I can't say the exact words, ... and says, "I see we got a couple of shop stewards in here." And Guy Williams says . . . he ... wouldn't have to have no union activity to fire anyone in the whole plant in his department, he said. Q. Now, did they make any particular reference to any particular person, did they point out anybody? A. Well, they was talking about the two girls that come in with the union buttons . . . Emma [Schaper] and Marie [Noeth]. Q. What did they say about Emma and Marie? A. Says that he had other reasons to fire them other than union activity. Q. Did he mention their names? A. No, he didn't. Q. What did they say about Emma and Marie then? .. . A. Well, Bill [Nesbit] made a remark that the girls went out that night and got drunk and they joined the union. Q.... When Nesbit said that about the girls what did Williams say, what was his part of the conversation if any? A. Well, that he could get rid of them ... That he wouldn't have no union activity-have to have no union excuse to fire them, in other words. TRIAL E%AMIrxn.... Will you repeat what you said? I haven't got your answer there. A. Well, we- was all in there talking and Nesbit says the two girls Emma and Marie, niust'have went out with some union official and got drunk and joined the union.' S ' * * * * * * * Q. (By Mr. Hackler.) What did Williams say? A. Well, Williams said he wouldn't have to have a union reason to fire the girls, that he can always find some excuse to fire the girls ; he wouldn't have to have a union excuse. Q. Did he'use the word "excuse? A. I don't know whether he,.lid or not. Pfeiffer further testified that he, ould not recall his own part in this con- versation. Under cross-examinahn he testified that what the others said im- pressed him because he belonged to the Union and did not think it was the proper thing to say. n Pfeiffer's card is dated October 15, 1942. 290 DECIiSMONS OF NAT'IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nesbit testified that he did not recall any conversation with Williams and Pfeiffer in which the Union was mentioned. Q. Well, I will ask you definitely was there ever a conversation between you and Earl Pfeiffer and Guy Williams-in which you made this statement: "It looks like we are going to have some union activity around here." Did you ever say that to Earl Pfeiffer? A. I don't believe I did. Q: Did you ever say to Earl^Pfeiffer, "I see we have got a couple of shop stewards in here." A. I may have said that to him, probably said that to several people . I don't recall having said it in Guy Williams' presence. Q. In your presence did Guy Williams ever say to you or to Earl Pfeiffer, that he, Guy Williams, would like to get rid of the union? A. No. Q. Did he ever say that he wouldn't have to have any union activity to fire anybody in the whole plant or in his department? * A. No. Q. Did you ever say to Earl Pfeiffer that Emma Schaper and Marie Noeth went out that night and got drunk and they Joined the Union? A. That was reported to me"' I don't recall having said it to Earl .. . I know of no reason why I would say it to Earl. My answer to that would be no. * * * * * * * By whom [was that reported to you]? A. Bertha Bauer. Williams denied that he had ever talked with Earl Pfeiffer about the Union. He further testified that he had had no talks with Nesbit about the Union before the Union filed its charges against the respondent. The undersigned does not credit Pfeiffer's testimony as to his purported con- versation with Nesbit and Williams. Marie Noeth was never designated as a steward and never wore a steward's button in the plant. Pfeiffer's testimony as to her having done so is in error and Nesbit's purported reference to her as a steward would be inexplicable, especially since Nesbit had already noted the distinction between Schaper's button and those that Noeth and others were wear- ing. Pfeiffer's explanation as to why he remembered what Nesbit and Williams said on this occasion but not what he himself said is contradicted by the fact that he did not, according to the date on his representation card, affiliate with the Union until October 15, more than 3 weeks later. The undersigned finds and concludes that there was no such conversation as Pfeiffer relates.3 89 Both Schaper and Marie Noeth, another employee in rib assembly, who habitually rode to work in Scheper's car, reported late the morning after the Union meeting of September 22. Schaper told Beitha Rice, their "lead-girl," that she had gone to the Union meeting the night before and that she had also had too much to drink; Rice made no comment but later repeated Schapei's statement to Williams, the supervisor of the woodshop, and to Nesbit. as On cross-examination, Pfeiffer testified as to his former arrest on respective charges of non-support and of issuing a check without sufficient funds, both of which had been settled out of court and the cases dismissed., Counsel for the Board moved to strike this testimony in the absence of proof of convictions. The undersigned reserved ruling. The-motion is, hereby denied. In the, absence of proof of convictions the respondent is LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 291 Pfeiffer testified that a day or so after the girls wore their buttons in the plant, Kauffman asked him whether he would sign an affidavit that they had asked him during working hours to join the Union, because "he would like to get rid of them," and that he replied that he "wouldn't be a stool pigeon for nobody." Q. You refused to sign any such affidavit? A. That is right. He says that they are not allowed to ask anybody to sign those cards during working hours and if he could catch them or have anybody sign a signed affidavit that they did he had a chance to release them right now. Q. How long was this before the girls were released, do you have any recollection on that? A. Must have been about a week or week and a half. Pfeiffer further testified that a week or two later Kauffmann asked him, "Did you sign one of those cards yet?" and he told him that he had not. Kauffmann testified that Pfeiffer had told him several times that "they were bothering him to sign a union card and he didn't want to sign one" and that he had told Pfeiffer that was his own business and he wanted to hear no more about it; that Pfeiffer came back again and said that "they were even bothering him on the company's time" ; "I said, `What do you mean, on the premises, or actually working hours?' And he said, 'On the working hours.' I said `Well, some time, if they keep bothering you, maybe you better give me an affidavit to that effect.' But I never bothered getting an affidavit from him because I wanted to get rid of him." Kauffmann denied that he ever told Pfeiffer that he wanted a chance to release the girls. Q. Did you ever ask Earl Pfeiffer if he joined the union? A. I never asked him directly, I don't recall that I even asked him at all. ... He made a statement to me one time to the effect that he wouldn't belong to any union . . . He said they were a bunch of racketeers. Q. And did you make any comment on that? A. No. Pfeiffer's duties as maintenance man required his ranging over the whole plant including the executive offices. He was in especially frequent contact bound by the testimony of the witness but the subject matter of respondent's inquiries was within the permissible scope of cross -examination. Pfeiffer was further cross-examined as follows : Q. Weren't you arrested once for disturbing the peace in July, 1938? A. No. Q. Weren't you in St. Louis? A. Not that I know of. Q. July 20, 1938? A. No. The respondent thereafter introduced evidence of a police blotter entry together with identification evidence tending to contradict Pfeiffer's denial. Counsel for the Board moved to strike this evidence, in the absence of proof of conviction, from the record. The undersigned reserved ruling. The point involved is whether for purposes of impeachment extrinsic evidence tending to contradict the testimony of a witness on a collateral issue is admissible, where the sole purpose of the evidence tendered is to prove that the witness has testified incorrectly as to a fact presumptively within his personal knowledge. While the theoretical relevancy of such evidence is obvious, practical exigencies require that the hearing process be safeguarded from the endless pioliferation of issues that would result from eliciting otherwise irrelevant testimony from a witness solely to prove that it was untrue . On this view of the issue raised, the motion of counsel toi the Board is granted. The scope of the Board's motion is taken, for the purposes of the above ruling, to cover the entire testimony of the witnesses Lawrence Boberschmidt, Hugo S. Weismantel, and Jackson F. Adams. 649876-44-vol. 52-20 292 DEC'IISiJONS OT NAfrIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with Nesbit who was in general charge of plant maintenance. Pfeiffer was of a naturally talkative disposition and Nesbit was friendly and approachable so that, as Nesbit testified, Pfeiffer tended to make of each time they met an occasion for conversation. After the Union started organizing many of these conversa- tions related to the Union. Pfeiffer told Nesbit that he was not a member of a union and would not join one as he had had some sad experience with unions. Be referred to the employees affiliated with the Union as "that union gang" and charged them with slowing production and minor acts of property damage. On one occasion, when he was told that a toilet bowl in the girls' rest room was clogged up, Pfeiffer said that "one of those union girls over in the wood shop" had probably clogged it, but admitted that he had no proof. Subsequently a report reached Nesbit that Pfeiffer was in fact a member of the Union and had made a speech at one of the Union meetings. In the, light of Pfeiffer's statements to Nesbit, as above found, and because Kauffmann impressed the undersigned as the more credible witness, the under- signed credits Kauffmann's denial that he told Pfeiffer that he would like to get rid of Schaper and Noeth or that he had solicited from Pfeiffer an affi- davit as to their union activities. The undersigned further credits Kauffmann's denial that he made any direct inquiries of Pfeiffer as to whether he had joined the Union, and credits Kauffmann's testimony as to Pfeiffer's state- ments of personal antagonism toward the Union. Hairgrove testified that she had been in the employ of the respondent from May 11, 1942, until her resignation on January 6, 1943; that she had worked in the sheet metal department, first on the night shift and later on the day shift ; that she had signed a union card; ' that sometime "in the latter part of September, or first of October," she had a talk with Bertha Rice in the rest room after working hours, in which Rice asked her to bring her a copy of one of the circulars that had been distributed by the Union; that she did so the next day -"and I don't know, she, said, something about wanting to give it to Mr. Kauffmann" ; that Rice asked her if she were going to the union meeting; "I said yes, I thought I would go down there and see what it was all about . . . I hadn't told her that I had signed a card" ; that Rice asked her to let her know who was there and what happened ; that the next (day Rice asked her if Earl Pfeiffer was at the meeting and she told her that he was; that Rice asked her who else was there and she replied, "Oh, just h few" ; that she told Rice that she had signed up ; that Rice told her that Kauffmann wanted to know who were there but that she did not name any of those who were present except Pfeiffer. Rice, under examination by the undersigned, testified as follows : Q. I want-to ask what you recall, if anything,;in connection, with the testi- mony of Hilda Hairgrove, that she had a conversation with you in the dressing room after work around the first of October, and at that time you asked .. . her to get for you a union bulletin, union circular of some sort that you wanted to give it to Mr. Kauffmann. Do you remember any such conversation? A. No, I don't think' I asked Hilda for one because there would always be some of them lying around ; I didn't ask Hilda to get one for me. Q. They were-always •lying,around where? A. Yes, someone would bring them in and they would be in the wash room or even in the shop. , - Q. Did Mr. Kauffmann ask you to get a circular for him? 81 Hairgrove's card bears date September 22, 1942 LAISTER-KAUFFMIANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 293 A No, sir, he did not. Q Did he have any discussion with you at all about getting a circular or wanting to see one, or any reference to it at all? A. No, sir. Q. Did you tell Hilda Hairgrove that he wanted one or that he told you to get one? A. No Q. Now, she testified further that you told her to go to the union meeting or a union meeting and tell her who were there and that later you asked her about who had been at the meeting.- Do you recall anything in that connection? A. Yes, but it wasn't that way. She came to me and said she was going to the union meeting to see what was going on, and when I spoke to Hilda the next time she said, "Well, kid," she said, "Well, I signed a card," she said, "I joined the union." Q Do you recall any conversation whatsoever with reference to her, as to wanting to know whom she,had seen at the meeting or who had attended? A No, sir Kauffmann testified that he had never asked Rice to get him any union circulars and that she had never brought him any and that he had never inquired of her of been told as to who attended any union meetings. Kauffmann further testified, however, "Oh, she would try to start a conversation with me and-respecting union meetings, something that happened or-at a meeting, or what was going on, and I would say, 'It is of no interest to me,' and walk on." In answer to the question, _"Did Mr. Kauffmann ever make any remark to you about noticing union buttons or union, activities, in the plant?"; Rice testified, "Well, just maybe,as he would go by he could say, "Bert, 'how is everything going along?' or 'have they settled down?'; or 'Is there any union talk?'" While Hairgrove in her account of her conversations with Rice placed these as occurring about the first of October, Hairgrove was not transferred to the day shift until about the middle of October, and would not have had an oppor- tunity to talk to Rice "in the rest room after working hours" until after the transfer. The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that the conversations in fact occurred after October 15. Both Hairgrove and Rice impressed the un- dersigned as sincere witnesses even though their testimony is in some respects irreconcilable. It is impossible to reconstruct the content of either conversation in detail,, but while crediting Rice's denial that,she was, requested, to make or did make any general inquiries as to the identity of the employees affiliated , with the Union, "h the` undersigned is'persuad'ed that Hairgrove's'testimony'had a factual basis. It is probable that both conversations appear to the participants at the time as so innocuous as to leave little impression on either of them. Rice was not specifically questioned at the hearing as to whether she had made any special inquiry as to Pfeiffer, and her testimony is consistent with the possibility that she did. Such an inquiry could well be expected to assume exaggerated form in Hairgrove's later recollection. As found above, the conversations relate approxi- mately to the time that Pfeiffer affiliated with the Union. The report that he was so affiliated, coming to the respondent after Pfeiffer's volunteered protes- .The contrast between. Hairgrove's ready reply as to Pfeiffer, and her volunteered information as to herself, and her alleged reticence as to disclosing the identity of aaher attendants at the meeting is a definite indication that Rice made no general inquiry. 294 DfECLSILONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tations of repugnance toward the Union, would naturally at once suggest that Pfeiffer had been laying a trap," and would lead to an attempt on the part of the respondent to verify the fact. On the basis of the testimony hereinabove reviewed, the above findings of fact, and the whole record herein, the undersigned concludes and so finds that the respondent made inquiry through Bertha Rice as to whether Earl Pfeiffer had affiliated with the Union. Under the special circumstances of this case, and where the inquiry was made to determine whether Pfeiffer had attempted to trap the respondent rather than to ascertain his Union affiliations as such, the un- dersigned finds that the respondent did not, by making such inquiry, interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. E. The discharge of Emma Schaper and Marie Noeth Schaper was first employed by the respondent on June 4, 1942, and Noeth 2 days later. Schaper had previously worked in a dress shop, but neither of them had had any industrial experience. They were assigned to the rib-assembly unit in the wood shop as trainees under the direction of Rice. As found above, they attended the Union meeting of September 22, signed authorization cards, and appeared at the plant next morning wearing identification pins, Schaper's bearing the designation "Steward" and Noeth's, which was somewhat smaller, the designation "AFL." There were a number of AFL pins in evidence that morning but Schaper's was the only steward pin .8' Both were thereafter active in trying to get cards signed by other employees and in the early stages of the Union's campaign the greatest interest in organization was shown among the wood-shop employees. They were simultaneously discharged on October 12, 1942. Each was furnished by the personnel office with a certificate of release reciting that "she failed to follow orders, was warned twice to keep up with her work, and was insubordinate." The rib-assembly unit proper was comprised of four girls working with and under the direction of Rice as lead girl. A preliminary operation consisted of sawing long strips of quarter-inch spruce into sections varying from 11/2 to 6 or 8 inches in length which were distributed in bins according to length The ribs were assembled from combinations of these short lengths, reinforced with gussets and glued together in a jig. After drying under pressure for 4 hours, the ribs were rough cleaned of excess glue with sand paper." The girls worked in pairs, Schaper and Noeth, who were close friends, usually working together. When there was no immediate sanding to be done, whatever pair would otherwise be sanding would be given temporary work in the wing assembly Rice testified that prior to September 23, both Schaper and Noeth were good, average workers, and that Schaper was faster than the average ; Noeth had never given any occasion for complaint ; Schaper had on two prior occasions refused to obey her instructions and she, had reported the fact to Williams but did not know whether he had taken any 'action ; after September 23 both girls fell behind in production though not in the quality of their work and she had "told them they would have to settle down to work and' quit their talking" ; Schaper would also go to the men in the shop for work assignments instead of 3" The record does not in fact establish that Pfeiffer had such intent As found above, he did not affiliate with' the Union until' October 15, and the record does not establish that he voiced any expression of distaste for the Union thereafter. His remarks prior to that time may be accounted for in part by his natural garrulousness. . 24 Schaper testified that there was one other "steward" at the time but that she did not wear a "Steward" pin. Briner's testimony, however, which the undersigned credits, establishes that Schaper was the only employee designated as a steward on that day. 11 Smooth finish and contour sanding comprised an independent operation. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 295 ,coming to her as she had been instructed; after they joined the Union "it just seemed that they didn't work, they were all around in the shop talking to the different . . . workers,39 and it seemed like when we would put them to work together they talked all the time, and if I would tell them what to do, they just seemed like they resented ... taking orders from me"; she reported to Williams that "since they started to organize, the two had become rather belligerent, they had become hateful towards me and when I would give them work to do they showed resentment" and "showed no cooperation whatsoever" ; shortly before Schaper and Noeth were discharged she bad told Williams that "if that continued with the girls acting that way" she was going to resign because she "could not work with people like that," and Williams told her that he had spoken to the girls and maybe they would settle down, and, if not, he was going to discharge them ; she had never recommended that Schaper and Noeth be discharged and knew nothing about it until it had happened. Williams testified that after his talk to the girls on September 23 most of them improved, "at least they got the work done" ; that, Schaper. and Noeth did not improve and he finally decided to let them go ; that on "more than one occasion" they "were not on speaking terms" with Rice, and were not always friendly to new employees, but "the main thing I was discharging them for was that they didn't get their work done, wasted a lot of time and instead of going to their lead girl for work which was the instructions I had given them when they finished their job, they would go around to some other lead person and ask them if they had something to do, or clse just loaf around." On September 30, Williams pulled their time cards from the rack and turned them in to the personnel office with a request for dismissal. Being later told by the personnel office that Laister wanted to see him, Williams went to Laister's office. At Laister's request Williams explained his reasons for discharging Schaper and Noeth and Laister told him that employees were hard to get, that the two girls had now had some training, and that it won'd be better to see if they could not be straightened out with a warning rather than start all over again with new trainees. Williams further testified that the first shift ended during their conversation so that he did not see Schaper and Noeth until the next day ; that he then told them that he had reported them to personnel for termination of service but had decided to give them another chance and that he was putting them on probation and would keep them on if they would at least maintain their earlier standards of production ; that the girls protested that "they couldn't see that they were doing the things I told them they were,'° they seemed to think they were getting along perfectly normal," but they agreed to try to improve and cut out unneces- sary talking ; on the possibility that their trouble with their lead-girl might be in part the fault of the latter, he put Schaper and Noeth on another job at a different work bench ; for a few days they worked along steadily but were soon "back to the old rut . . . talking and wasting time the same as usual." Williams was ill and away from the plant on October 9 and for several days after, during which period Stiglmeier, who had become general production super- visor about September 1, carried on Williams' functions in supervision of the wood shop. Stiglmeier testified that during the 2 weeks prior to the discharge 19Rice testified that there was no hard and fast rule about talking ; that some of the girls could work while they talked but others quit their work to talk ca Williams testified : "I told them there was too much loafing and wasting of time" ; they ignored Rice and went to other people for work assignments ; they "took their own sweet time" about doing work that Rice gave them ; It was causing quite a bit of trouble in the department ; "and the only way I knew how to git rid of the trouble was to let the two go that seemed to be causing the unrest." 296 DICIiS(GONS OF NMPIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Schaper and Noeth he had been making tours of the plant, studying produc- tion problems, and had several discussions with Williams about his personnel in the wood shop ; during this time he had observed that Schaper and Noeth were idling and had asked Williams who they were and why they were not working ; Williams replied that they had joined the Union and had the idea that they did not have to work ; Williams also told him that the girls had already been warned and were on probation; he [Stiglmeier] was too busy at the time with the rest of the shop "to be bothered with two girls who didn't want to work," and let the matter drop ; on October 9 he and Laister were going over the plant with a visiting aeronautical engineer from the Los Angeles plant of the Douglas Air- craft Corporation and all of 'them iioticed'that tl e'two girls were no£4woi'kiiig; after the visitor had left, he went to see Laister and asked him what they should do about ` them ; Laister talked with Williams on 'the telephone and then told him [Stiglmeier] to take steps to discharge the girls; the accounting office was closed for the afternoon and he decided to let the matter go over until Monday ; meanwhile he visited Williams on Sunday to talk over production problems in general and discussed especially the cases of Schaper and Noeth, and both of them concluded that the girls should be dismissed ; on Monday he instructed Bertha Rice to send them in to the personnel office and phoned Gordon Lewis, the assistant personnel director, and told him that they were unsatisfactory workers and were to be discharged. Laister's testimony corroborates Stiglmeier's as to their later discussion of the matter, and- his phone 'call to Williams. ' L' aistei further testified! that he, told Stiglmeier "there was no point in fooling around any longer" and left it to Stiglmeier to notify the girls and then called the personnel office to explain the circumstances. Williams' testimony corroborates Laister's as to the phone con- versation on October 9, and Stiglmeier's as to his visit on October 10. Board's counsel introduced evidence that during the period of their employ- ment both Schaper and Noeth had received raises in pay which brought their wage scale up to 50 cents an hour at the time they were discharged. The record shows, however, that these were granted prior to the period in which their services are alleged to have deteriorated, and that the maximum rate they re- ceived was the plant minimum for workers who had had any experience. Lorraine Bell, assistant shop foreman in the wood shop during the fall of 1942, and still in the employ of the respondent at the time of the hearing, appeared as a Board witness under subpena. He testified that at times Schaper and Noeth worked on wing assembly in his department and were "average" workers ; they were the only women who worked in his department ° and made more mistakes than the men but- their work was acceptable ; wing assembly is more difficult than the rib-assembly and Schaper and Noeth were put on wing assembly work because they were the most capable rib-assembly workers ; new girls were always started on ribs. On cross-examination Bell testified that he had never observed Schaper and Noeth talking and wasting time while working on wing assembly ; all the women workers talked and quarreled among themselves; the only times that any of the girls worked for him were when Williams or Rice sent them or he would ask Rice for some girl who was not busy at the time Williams further testified that at the time Schaper and Noeth were discharged,, the production of ribs, on which the production of wings immediately depended, was just ahead of the needs of the wing assembly; wing assembly production expanded from 3 sets of wings in September to 6 sets in October and 12 sets in n Under cross-examination Bell later recalled that Alice Reeves, Elsie Gavin, and Arline Stein also worked on wing assembly at times during the same period, and, with the excep- tion of Stein, did equally acceptable work. LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 297 both November and December ; at the time of the hearing the plant had rib stock in reserve for 15 gliders; Schaper and Noeth were replaced by trainees; the rib- assembly unit has employed the same number of workers at all times since their discharge. The discharge of Schaper and Noeth is thus attributed by the respondent to generally unsatisfactory work performance rather than to specific incidents. Both Rice and Williams date their deterioration in efficiency as beginning from the time they affiliated with the Union. Rice testified in general terms that Schaper and Noeth thereafter became belligerent and hateful toward her, resent- ful about, carrying out her instructions, and ignoring her in asking for work as- signments. At the time that Rice testified, she was no longer employed by the respondent but her testimony- related to'reactions experienced and judgments formed in the period from September 23 to October 12, 1942. The evidence does not satisfy the undersigned that she was at that time antagonistic toward the Union, or that there was such antagonism on the part of the respondent as she might be expected to reflect" The few factual details disclosed by the record that lend color to Rice's claim that Schaper and Noeth showed a change in attitude after affiliation with the Union should be considered in relation to Rice's own position with the respondent. She had been employed as a wood worker when the plant was first starting production, and was almost immediately given general supervision of the few girls- working in the -wood 'shop. A few weeks after Kauffmann urged her to take a special course in methods of training new workers, telling her that he thought she had "the ability to become a good supervisor." She acted on Kauff- mann's suggestion and completed a 10-hour course, for which she received a di- ploma. As the departmental organization shaped up she was put in specific charge of the girls in the rib-assembly unit, consisting of five girls including herself. The record indicates that her duties were essentially coordinate with those of the lead-man. However, she was never specifically advised of her classification and because of this indefiniteness of status, and of her having received special train- ing, as well as of certain positive traits of personality, she definitely identified herself with management. Kauffmann had given added stimulus to this tendency as far back as July by encouraging her "to come in the office and talk anything over with him that `she didn't think was just right,' " and the record indicates that she discussed her problems with him and with Nesbit as well ss with Williams , her immediate supervisor. "When Schaper and Noeth appeared at the plant on September 23, Rice was disturbed about, their coming in late and about their not bringing the other girls who customarily came to work in'Schaper's car but appears to have taken'no interest in the fact'that-they wore AFL buttons. When Noeth told Rice at a later date that she planned to attend a Union meeting that night, Rice replied, according to Noeth's testimony, that it was all right for her to go to the meeting but to get to work on time the next day. Eckert testified that about 2 or 3 days after Schafer and Noeth were discharged Rice "passed a remark that she was glad she caused those two girls to get fired . . . she said that she was glad that caused them to get fired because she didn't think we were very patriotic for fooling with the Union, that if we didn't all be careful we would all get it." Eckert further testified that Rice talked to them several times about the Union ; "she said she didn't think that the company would stand for it because she didn't think they had enough money to pay any more salaries ; after they got to producing, why, we would make more money." Chapman testified that Rice told him "that the Company positively did not have sufficient funds to afford a raise, that a union could do no good, and that anyone caught having union activities would be discharged." The above testimony of Eckert and Chapman is uncorroborated. Rice denied that she had made any attempt to warn any of the employees against affiliating with the Union or joining in its activities. The undersigned credits Rice's.denal. 298 DECISIONS OFF NA[rTONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The girls who worked with her did not wholly accept Rice's ideas of her supervisory status.` Prior to September 23, however, no issues arose between them that were serious enough to require managerial intervention. On September 23, Schaper came to work with high expectations of what she could obtain through the Union. In her talk with Nesbit she hold him she expected her wage rate to be increased to 87% cents an hour . She told Rice that she was going to get a good job out of the Union at the Curtiss-Wright plant. These statements are suggestive, though not in themselves probative, of a new sense of economic independence. Noeth testified that they thereafter came to work late "several times." Both Schaper and Noeth testified that they stopped speaking socially to Rice." The record clearly'indicates a growing rift in personal relations. Rice complained to Williams about the demoralization in her unit, blaming Schaper as ring leader and Noeth as taking her cue,from Schaper. On September 30, Williams decided to discharge Schaper and Noeth. He testified that he acted on the,basis of complaints received from Rice and also on the basis of his own observation of the girls' waste of.time. Apart from Williams' statement on September 23 that he thought it a waste of money to pay out dues, there is no testimony which the undersigned finds credible which indicates that Williams had any antagonism to unions or interfered in any way with the Union's organization campaign `5 Laister overruled Williams' recommendation for immediate discharge and told Williams to warn them instead and keep them for a while longer on probation. Williams testified that he did warn them. When Rice continued to complain of their conduct, he told her that he had warned them. When Stiglmeier spoke to Williams about their inattention to work, Williams told him that the girls had been warned. He advised Laister to the same effect. Schaper and Noeth both denied that they had received any warning. On the basis of the overwhelming weight of the probabilities and the impression Williams made upon the undersigned as the more credible witness, these denials are not credited. Williams testified that for a few days after his warning, the conduct of the girls improved but soon retrograded He himself took no further action, however. Schaper and Noeth next came to Laister's attention through his own and Stigl- meier's observations of their conduct on October 10 at a time when, he and Stigl- meier were particularly concerned about their visitor's impressions of the efficiency of the plant. After checking over the telephone with Williams, who told him that the girls' conduct had not improved, Laister took steps to discharge them. Since the matter could not be concluded that afternoon, Stiglmeier took the opportunity of an intervening Sunday to talk with Williams personally in order to be satisfied that the discharges met with his approval. Williams agreed with the decision and Stiglmeier made the discharges effective the following day .4' 18 Noeth testified : "We used to kid her and tell her she was our forelady , and she would get mad at us, she didn't want to be called our forelady , she was a supervisor." " It is impossible for the undersigned to evaluate the respective merits of this quarrel. " Williams had in fact received official instructions that the respondent's policy was one of neutrality. Williams testified that even before the buttons appeared in the plant he had been told by some of the employees that "there was a union man distributing literature and pamphlets . . . outside the plant at the gate when the employees go in and out . . . I checked with the personnel office to find out what the company's policy was" ; and that Whitehead informed all the supervisors "it was up to the employees if they wanted a union, it didn't make any difference to the company." " Counsel for the Board emphasized as a suspicious circumstance that Stiglmeier should consult with Williams after Laister had decided the matter. But Stiglmeier's action seems to the undersigned entirely congruous under the circumstances. Laister had left the effectuation of the discharge in his hands. He was only temporarily substituting for Williams as supervisor of the wood shop. Discussion of the cases of Schaper and Noeth LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 299 On the basis of the evidence hereinabove reviewed , of the above findings, and of the whole record herein , the undersigned concludes and so finds that the respond- ent discharged Emma Schaper and Marie Noeth for causes unrelated to their union affiliations and activities." F. The termination of the employment of Preston Hapgood Shortly after Stiglmeier became production supervisor' he requisitioned the personnel office to engage an expert machinist for employment in the sheet metal department. The personnel office listed its requirements with the State Employ- ment Office and, on or about September 11, Preston Hapgood applied at the respondent's plant for employment, on referral from the State Office. Stiglmeier personally handled the employment interview. Hapgood told him that he had had 14 years' experience as a sheet metal worker and until recently had had his own shop at Alton, Illinois, equipped with the customary power tools, from which he had netted about $75 a week income After some discussion they agreed on a starting wage of 90 cents an hour. Stiglmeier explained to Hapgood that at this rate he would be getting more than the highest paid worker in the shop and that his wage rate would have to be justified by the nature of his work. Under the terms of his application Hapgood agreed to furnish his own hand tools. Hapgood was assigned to the day shift and worked 1 day. On October 5, after an intervening illness, he appeared at the personnel office with a doctor's certifi- cate and asked Whitehead if his job were still open Whitehead told him that it was.4s On the following clay lie reported for work and was transferred at his own request to the night shift, in order to continue to receive medical "therapy" during the day. during his visit to Williams was only one of several departmental problems discussed. Stiglmeier' desire to be satisfied that Williams, the head of the department, was in agree- ment with the proposed action is quite understandable 47 In the foregoing section, and elsewhere in this Report, the undersigned has attached great weight to Rice's testimony, both because of the blunt, forthright character of the witness, and because of her special status as a witness. After the Union filed charges against the respondent following the discharge of Schaper and Noeth, respondent's counsel visited the plant to investigate the circumstances. Kauffmann at that time introduced Rice to him as the "supervisor" of the rib assembly. Rice shoitly afterward asked Williams for an increase in pay and, construing Williams' reply as evasive, appealed to Kauffmann, on the ground that as a supervisor she was entitled to more money. Kauff- mann turned down her request and further offended her by intimating that she was look- ing for a soft job. A few days later a bulletin listing the supervisory personnel was posted in the plant in which Rice was designated as a leader-girl. She interpreted this as a demotion and decided to join the rest of the girls in affiliating with the Union She mailed in an authorization card and attended a Union meeting at which some question was first raised as to her status but upon the statement of other employees that they had seen the bulletin listing her as a lead-girl-the issue was abandoned. After the posting of the bulletin, Rice confined her activities to her immediate unit. On January 1, 1943, she reported to John Wiggans, a shop foreman, that they needed gussets for the ribs and that the girl who cut the gussets was absent. Wiggans told her, to cut them herself On previous occasions she had substituted for the same girl, but this time refused on the ground that it was not her job. A little later Wiggans reprimanded her for standing around talking while he had to cut gussets. Rice at once handed in her resignation to Williams, effective, after the usual period of notice, on January 8. She obtained employment at another plant and was so employed at the time of the hearing. '8 During this interview Hapgood asked Whitehead if he knew that the Union was organizing the plant and what he thought of it. Whitehead replied that the matter was entirely for the employees to decide. 300 DEC18IONS OF NA(PIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 8, Hapgood signed a representation card for the Union.'- A few days later Briner gave him the nominal designation of steward and an identify- ing button which he thereafter wore at the plant,6D and he was active during his free periods in soliciting other employees in behalf of the Union. In the course of a week or 10 days after Hapgood's return, Stiglmeier 's atten- tion was called to the quality of his work by the inspectors ' rejection of a total lot of 15 bell cranks which Hapgood had turned out.b' , Stiglmeier spoke to Hap- good about the defects, which Stigmeier attributed to Hapgood 's carelessness in not following the blue print specifications and in turning out the entire lot without checking the first bell crank against the blue print for possible error. Hapgood admitted that the bell cranks were defective but attributed the defect to inadequate tools 52 '- Hapgood's card bears date "9/8/42.11 On the basis of this fact, and of the testimony of George Votruba that Hapgood subsequently stated to him that lie had only come to the plant to organize it, counsel for the respondent contended that Hapgood had never accepted his employment status in good faith. This contention is without merit. Briner testified that the card was dated in error. The circumstances under which Hapgood was employed, the fact that organization efforts commenced during Hapgood's illness, Briner's testimony, which Hapgood corroborated, that he had never met Hapgood until October, the likelihood of Hapgood's writing the wrong month number, convincingly establish the fact that Hapgood did not affiliate with the Union until lie `returned to 'work in October. 60 Hapgood testified that McTasney, alluding to his "Steward" button, asked him in the presence of Hilda Hairgrove if he was looking for a soft job and stated that he would never work on his shift as long as he wore that button. The record shows that Hapgood was working on McTasney's shift at the tihle this statement is alleged to have been made. Hair- grove testified as to the substance of MeTasney's comment : "Oh, well, that it wouldn't do him any good to wear that thing because-he didn't say exactly why, but that wouldn't get him anywhere with just wearing that button." 5' Stiglmeier testified that in the usual routine it would take from a week to 10 days before the work done on a given day would clear inspection and reports of rejected material would reach him. i2 Hapgood testified generally that up to the time his services with the respondent were terminated there was no machinery in the metal shop in proper condition "to turn out production work" As indicating an ulterior purpose back of Stiglmeier's criticism, Hapgood testified that this conversation occurred on the first day that he appeared at the plant wearing his "Steward" button, and was preceded by the following circumstances : he had been talking during his lunch period with some employees, including Andrew Haffner, a welder, about their joining the Union and about IIaffner's helping him get authorization cards ; just then the bell rang and he went to work ; Stiglmeier came over to him immediately and "found fault with a job ... that had been referred to as an ordinary mistake," he had done some faulty work on some bell cranks about 3 weeks or a month before and had told Will Meyer at the time that he was ill and the next day he was at home sick ; when he returned, and about a week after the 'nork in question had been done, McTasney had called his attention to the error and they had discussed It "just more in a friendly vay than in a boss to an employee" ; when Stiglmeier spoke to him about the error, he told him'that lie was a little late, that McTasney had "bawled him out" about 3 weeks before that and that lie thought the present discussion was because of the button lie was wearing.- Haffner testified that at the time referred to, Hapgood was trying to interest an employee (identi- fied as "Tony," now in the Marines) in signing a Union card ; Knowles was 5 or 10 feet away ; Haffner saw Tony go over and speak to Knowles, Knowles go and speak to Will Meyer, Will Meyer go and speak to Stiglmeier, and Stiglmeier, about an hour later, go and speak to Hapgood. According to Hapgood's account, the work on the bell cranks would have been done on the first day he was employed. Stiglmeier testified that any errors which, Hapgood may have made, before his illness would have been forgotten. It is also unlikely that McTasney, who then worked on the second shift, would have talked to Hapgood about work done by Hapgood on the first shift more than 3 weeks before. Stiglmeier denied that when he spoke to Hapgood about the bell cranks Hapgood had made any reference to McTasney or to the fact that he was wearing his union button. The undersigned finds that Hapgood's work on the bell cranks was done after his illness , and credits Hapgood's testimony that McTasney bad talked to him about it It is not improbable that Hapgood so told Stiglmeier. In its context, Stiglmeier's denial may have been directed only to Hapgood's testimony with reference to LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 301 Stiglmeier testified that lie soon became convinced that Hapgood's work was not such as to justify his rate. McTasney complained to him about Hapgood's receiving more than he was being paid and reported that the other employees had complained to him. All the sheet metal workers were doing the same type of work. Stiglmeier talked to Hapgood and told him that it was unfair to the other workers to pay him a premium of 20 to 35 cents. an hour for doing inferior work, and that his rate would have to be cut. Hapgood clearly indicated that he would not accept the reduction. About October 15 , George Votruba was appointed supervisor of the metal shop. From that time, according to Votruba's testimony, be met with complaints from other sheet metal workers that Hapgood was being paid more than they were and yet they were having to help him do his work. Votruba told Hapgood of these complaints and urged him to try to do better work. Complaints from the other workers continued and Votruba reported the situation to Stiglmeier and asked him how Hapgood's rate had been set so much out of line. Stiglmeier told him that he had been trying to get an experienced worker for the department. Votruba insisted that something would have to be done about stabilizing the rates in the department as the other employees were very much dissatisfied. Stigl- meier told-both Votruba and Will Meyer, who had been transferred to the night shift as lead-man, to do whatever they could do to help Hapgood, that they needed personnel and that it was hard to get, but to get more production or a higher quality of work out of him. About the same time he sent in a recom- mendation to the personnel office that Hapgood's rate be reduced from 90 to 70 cents. Whitehead called Hapgood to the office to discuss the matter and told him that his rate would have to be reduced but that they would be glad to have him stay on at the reduced rate Hapgood again said that he would not stand for the cut. Stiglmeier's recommendation was not immediately put into effect 63 At about this time Stiglmeier was advised of the rejection by the inspectors of a total lot of 100 clips which Hapgood had turned out and for which he had made the template. Stiglmeier spoke to Hapgood and reprimanded him for failing to check his first clips against specifications to avoid duplicating the same defect in the entire lot. Hapgood admitted that the clips were defective but attributed the fault to the inadequacy of his equipment. Subsequently, according to Votruba, Hapgood ruined 5 out of a lot of 10 stick- sockets by negligence in counterboring, representing a loss to the respondent of about $200. Hapgood denied having ruined any stick-sockets but admitted having reamed some parts for pedals a few thousandths of an inch out of toler- ance, attributing the error to faulty equipment. Votruba saw Hapgood about 6 o'clock on the evening of November 11 and told him that rates in the department would have to be more nearly equalized and that his wage rate would be cut 20 cents an hour. Hapgood told him that he wanted to talk it over with "the his wearing a Union button. The undersigned credits Stiglmeier's denial that Hapgood made any such reference 9 The ruling by the undersigned on the motion of counsel for the respondent to strike a part of Ilapgood's testimony appearing at page 297 of the official Report of Proceedings, lines 18-22, as a "conclusion" is intended to cover so much of Ilapgood's answer as com- mences with the word "because," on line 18, and ends with the word "and," on line 21 Stiglmeier testified and the record, indicates that he was at the time,using this,means of warning Hapgood that the quality of his work would have to improve Stiglmeier appears to have been sincerely anxious to hold on to Hapgood as the only experienced sheet metal worker in the department. Stiglmeier testified, "I thought perhaps lie would get on to the chrome molybdenum sheet metal work and do good production ... with what training he had at Laister-Kauffmann and what he picked up previous to that lie had more as a sheet metal worker than anybody that I would pick up off the street. I felt as though we had an investment in the man in the time he was under our employ and if be did leave we would lose that " 302 DECISfONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD boys in the Union" and would let Vetruba know his decision later . He left the plant at once without completing his shift . The next day he told Votruba that he had'been/advised that he "would be a chump" to consent to the reduction. In the meanwhile the personnel office had put through the reduction in Hapgood's rate, effective November 12. On leaving Votruba, Hapgood applied at the personnel office for his separation papers and a "release " from his employment by the respondent . His separation notice assigned as the cause : "resigned-work unsatisfactory-refused cut in wages " His release recited "his inability to qualify as a sheet metal worker at the rate he was hired, and his refusal to take a cut in wages." He was replaced by a trainee at 55 cents an hour. During the period of Hapgood's employment with the respondent there were five other employees engaged in the same line of work . The names of these employees, their starting rates, and the rates they were being paid at the time Hapgood's employment terminated , are as follows : Hilda Hairgrove____________________________ 40 cents 60 cents H. Rabinoux_______________________________ 50 cents 60 cents G. Matsesick_______________________________ 55 cents 571h cents F. Twelker_________________________________ 55 cents 55 cents John McTasney (lead man) ---------------- 50 cents 70 cents Hapgood made no attempt to justify his work record with the respondent except on the basis of the respondent's inadequate equipment. The same power equipment was still in successful use at the plant, at the time of the hearing. There is no corroboration in the record of Hapgood's claim that it was inadequate He was personally responsible for supplying certain standard hand tools and admitted that his equipment had become scattered prior to his employment by the respondent and that he had just completed assembling the required tools when he was released. Haffner, with 1 year's experience as a welder and no experience whatever as a sheet metal worker, testified that in his judgment Hapgood was worth the difference in his wage rate as compared to the other workers. He was the only witness so to testify. Hairgrove, another Board witness, testified to the con- trary, "I know I resented The fact that [Hapgood] was getting so much more than me and I was putting out just as much work, if not more than he was." Hapgood made no claim that he was doing more or better work than the other sheet metal workers. Stiglmeier testified from his general observation of Hapgood : "One thing I noticed about him, he was the busiest and fastest man in the factory, he was helter skelter all the time, something here, picking up a hammer three times and set it on the bench and never use it. He was a very nervous individual .. . I had several remarks he was a very busy man but he didn't turn out any results." Hapgood's demeanor on the stand tended to corroborate the accuracy of this characterization. His hands and body were in constant motion, indicative of high nervous tension. Except for the 1 day he worked in September, his brief period of employment followed immediately upon a severe illness. The inference is strongly indicated that his physical and nervous condition at the time were a severe handicap in the execution of precision work designed to close tolerances, but in any case the record leaves the undersigned in no doubt that his work performance did not measure up to the respondent's expectations on which his wage rate had been fixed and made the wage differential in his favor discriminatory in fact against his fellow workers. On the basis of the foregoing findings, and on the whole record herein, the undersigned finds and concludes: (1) that Preston Hapgood terminated his services with the respondent on November 12, 1942, by his voluntary resignation LAISTER-KAUFFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 303 in lieu of accepting continuing employment at a reduction in his wage rate from 90 cents to 70 cents an hour; (2) that the respondent effected a reduction in Hapgood's wage rate solely for the reasons that (1) his starting rate had been predicated on a standard of skill which his actual work performance had failed to maintain; (2) this rate was out of line with the wage rates of other employees doing the sauce type of work with at least equal skill; (3) the disparity in wage rates for comparable work performance had led to dissatisfaction among, and complaints to the management by, the other workers in Hapgood's department. G. The respondent's letter of November 17, 1942, to the Union representative On November 9, 1942, Briner sent the respondent a registered letter advising that the Union had been designated by a majority of the production and maintenance employees as their representative for purposes of collective bar- gaining. Briner's letter concluded as follows : Hoping to hear from you at an early date as to when it will be con, venient for you to meet with the representative of the International Associa- tion of Machinists to negotiate an agreement covering the above-mentioned employees, and thanking you in advance, I remain Sincerely yours, [S] Nzason BsiuEa, Bus. Representative, Dist. #9. The respondent replied on November 12, acknowledging receipt of Briner's letter of November 9, and stating: Please be informed that the contents of your communication have been taken under advisement by the management and will be a matter of dis- cussion at the Board of Directors' nett- meeting. Following that meeting you will be advised as to a date, which we trust will be mutually agreeable, for a discussion with your representatives. Briner learned of the termination of Hapgood's services almost coincidentally with his receipt of the respondent's letter. Although a periodic meeting of the board was scheduled for Tuesday of the following week, the respondent's letter did not so state. From reports received. Briner conceived the discharges of Schaper and Noeth and the demotion leading to Hapgood's resignation to be discriminatory, and therefore interpreted the respondent's letter as purposely vague and noncommittal and as a further indication of an attitude of opposition. What the respondent's intentions were in fact can be determined only from the testimony of its executives viewed in the light of all the attendant circum- stances. The undersigned is convinced from the record, however, and his im- pressions of the credibility of the witnesses, that the respondent's letter of November 12 was written in good faith. Laister and his associates appear to have assumed that the plant would sooner or later be organized in conformity -with the status of other plants in the same industry, and to have accepted the Union's initial claim of majority designation as presumptively true.64 Their ' Counsel for the Board undertook to test the attitude of the respondent by eliciting a categorical answer to the question of whether the respondent proposed to entei into negotiations with the Union upon the basis of a bare claim of representative capacity or to require further proof of such claim . The record indicates that this point was never expressly considered . Some informal procedure was anticipated, as a matter of course, but the details were not visualized , and the outcome was regarded as a foregone con- clusion . Whitehead was the only official of the respondent with any previous experience in labor relations and the indefiniteness appearing in the testimony of Laister and other-, as to what procedure was intended is consistent with their testimony that they accepted Briner's claim as true and gave no special thought to the manner in which it wou-d pre- sumably be substantiated. 304 D1ECLSQONS OF NNA(PIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD concern was with the substantive terms of the anticipated contract and on this point they felt that they needed the advice of the directors because of their own inexperience in labor negotiations. The proposed discussion with the directors was intended to further rather than delay negotiations by putting the respond- ent's representatives in a position to negotiate from the outset. Acting on a contrary assumption, Briner on November 13 wrote to the re- spondent acknowledging its letter of November 12 and continuing as follows : You failed to state as to when your Board of Directors will meet. Tha International Association of Machinists feels that this case n has been delayea for a considerable amount of time and that we are in a position at the present time of requesting the representation of the majority of the maintenance and production employees. It has been our general practice to bend every effort to producing towards the prosecution of the War wherever we are organizing, but in the case of your Company we find regretfully that your Company has bent every effort to stop from producing towards the War effort. We are not threatening a stoppage of work, but we are stating a fact that if this matter is not cleared up between this date and the 18th of November, that if something isn't cleared so that it shows that the Company is willing to go along with the Wagner Act, then the International Association of Machinists feels that it will be necessary to go to the War Labor Board to get this case clarified for the interests of the,country as a whole. Thanking you for your future cooperation and hoping for a very early reply so that the International Association of Machinists shall not need to take the steps of going before the War Labor Board, I am Sincerely yours, (Signed) NELSON BRINEii Assistant Business Representative, District No. 9. Laister replied to this letter on behalf of the respondent on November 17, taking sharp exception to Briner's statement that "we find regretfully that your company has bent every effort to stop from producing towards the War effort" He reviewed briefly the correspondence between Briner and the respondent since receipt of his letter of November 9, and stated the respondent's willingness "to waive the preliminaries" and to abide by the result of a consent election "to be held Immediately under the supervision" of, the -Board. In accordance with recitals to this effect in Laister's letter, copies thereof were sent to the Board's Regional Office and posted on the plant bulletin board. Laister testified that his own attitude toward recognition of the Union was completely changed by what he felt to be the unwarranted accusations in Briner's letter. This change in attitude is sharply pointed in its shift of position on the Union's claim to majority designation. Briner was advised that the respondent was "entirely willing . . . to recognize your Union" as the bargaining representative of its, employees "if a majority of our employees wish us to do so," but whereas the respondent had theretofore accepted Briner's representations as presumptively true and was anticipating no more than a pro forma substantiation when the parties met to negotiate, it now required that that issue be pit to more formal lest The respondent was willing "to waive the preliminaries" (presumably a m Briner testified that the term "this case" was intended to refer to the pending charge of unfair labor practices rather than the request of November 9 to start negotiations for a contract. LAISTER-KAUFFIMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 305 formal hearing before the Board) but the question must be settled "by secret ballot" in a consent election to be held under supervision of the Board.` The terms of Briner's letter were ill-advised in making a collateral attack on the respondent's good faith in reference to production. The respondent was within its rights in taking exception to Briner's accusation and in clarifying the record. It was also within its rights, under the cricumstances, in requiring that the question of the Union's representative capacity be settled under Board su- pervision.? The crux of the issue here is whether the respondent used an admitted provocation as the pretext for a reply that overreached the reasonable limits of legitimate purpose and took on the character of attack. The statement, ad- dressed to an employer engaged wholly in the production of war equipment in the midst of war, "we find regretfully that your company has bent every effort to stop from producing towards the War effort," is open to a wide gamut of equally sincere reactions. The undersigned is not convinced that the respond- ent's letter constituted an excessive exercise of its right of rejoinder. The same considerations are applicable to the respondent's act in posting its letter on the plant bulletin board. As stated above, there was no obligation on the part of the respondent to stand mute under Briner's accusation. It did not know, and there was no way open to it to determine, the extent to which the position taken in Briner's letter had been or might be communicated to its employees, and it had a legitimate interest in protecting its relationships with its employees by a statement of the relevant facts. Laister admitted that after reading Briner's accusation he felt "it would be hard to talk with the man" in negotiating, an agreement. ' He further testified in connection with his purpose in posting the letter, "If they [the employees] felt that the Union was unfair in its operations, they would possibly think twice before they made a move. Of course, the same thing [would apply] in coming to work for our company or working for us, if we make a misstatement to them, they would lose faith in our company." The undersigned is of the opinion, however, that the propriety of the respondent's act in posting the letter must be determined from the terms of the letter itself and not from Laister's inner hopes of sympathetic employee reaction. On the basis of the foregoing findings, and of the whole record, the under- signed finds and concludes that the respondent did not, by publicizing its letter of November 17, interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. H. The discharge of Edward Allen Chapman Chapman was employed by the respondent on November 9, 1942, on referral from the State Employment Office. He had previously worked as a floor-walker in a Five-and-Ten Cent Store, and as a drug-store clerk, but had been interested in®wood-working as a hobby and, was assigned to the wood working department as a wing tip finisher. He signed a Union authorization card on November 17, 11 Laister testified as to the reason for the respondent's change of front on this point. "I think it was rather evident from the inflammatory letter we received from Mr. Briner that we might be being pressed for some reason of his own, perhaps it was not the liking of the employees that this Union should be their representative, and rather than go over the deep end on something we were unfamiliar with and not very sure of, we decided to put it up to the employees to do as they wished." ii The respondent could not , of course, prescribe the method by which the Board would make a determination of the issue if the question were formally before the Board for action. The respondent's proposal, however, was made beloie the Union had filed a petition for investigation and certification. 306 DEC'LSIOITS OF NAATIONAL• LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1942, and at once became zealously active in soliciting signatures from other em- ployees, turning in approximately 100 signed cards to the Union." Briner gave him the nominal designation of Steward and he wore a "Steward" button in the plant on December 1 and 2. On December 1 he was notified of his discharge to become effective the following day. His separation papers were endorsed, "Released-services unsatisfactory." The record leaves no doubt that Chapman's activities on behalf of the Union were outstanding and within the respondent's knowledge. Moreover, he was discharged at a time when the respondent's attitude toward the Union had ad- mittedly changed from that of neutrality to resentment. But while these cir- cumstances of themselves give rise to a strong prima facie presumption of dis- criminatory action, the evidence as to Chapman, interpreted in the light of his own testimony and his attitude and demeanor on the witness stand, are con- clusive as to his inadaptability as an employee. The record shows a high per- centage of labor turnover in the respondent's plant due to the necessity for sifting out from a miscellaneous intake of untrained and partially trained applicants for employment those who showed capacity for training and develop- ment. Chapman was one of the many who after a short period of trial proved ineligible for continued employment 80 The testimony of both Bell, his foreman, and of Supervisor Williams, indicates that the basic difficulty was in his attitude of indifference toward his job, which was reflected both in low production and careless craftmanship His time card record for the period November 21 to December 2, inclusive, shows that he was late each day in reporting for work. He testified that he had "too many things to do" to bother with filling out the progress reports requested of the employees, since he was of the opinion that they served no purpose and that the employees who did fill them out just "felt that by filling that sheet out that they could chisel a little bit according to the time it took to finish a job, therefore showing a good impression deserving a raise." His opinion as to the general morale in the plant was : "there was no united unitism there at all, it was just everybody doing anything you can to look like you are working, as far as I could see, and that's all there was." The respondent's justification for dispensing with his services appears so obvious on the face of the record that a detailed review of the evidence would, in the opinion of the undersigned, be superfluous. His testimony as a whole is so Invalidated by the impression of general instability made by Chapman as a witness that the undersigned can accord it no independent probative value. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce mong the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 0 58 Chapman even secured new cards from those employees who had already signed up with the Union. w Lorraine Bell, his foreman, testified that he had heard from other employees that Chapman "had some union membership cards with him," and that be understood that Chapman was "trying to get membership in the union." 80 Both Williams and Bell testified that the latter had recommended Chapman's discharge shortly after the first week of his employment. Williams told Bell to keep him on as he had no one else to put on the job at the time, and "even If he could only halfway do his job it was better than nobody there at all." LAISTEE -KAU'FFMANN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION . V. THE REMEDY 307 The respondent having been found to have engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be herein recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. American Association of Mechanics, District No. 9, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under 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. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that Laister-Kauffmann Aircraft Corporation, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization and to form, join, or assist labor organizations, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the respondent's plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) days from the date of posting, notices stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 of these recommenda- tions ; (b) File with the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the foregoing recommendations ; (c) 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. It is further recommended that so much of the complaint herein as alleges that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Emma Schaper, Marie Noeth, Preston Hapgood and Edward Allen Chapman and thereafter discriminatorily failed and refused to reinstate them, and that the respondent urged, warned and threatened its employees against their joining, remaining members of, or assisting the Union or any other labor organization and that respondent engaged in surveil- lance of employees concerning their union activities be dismissed. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to /the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of 5498 7 5-44-col 52-21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said Rules and Regulations, file with the National Labor Relations Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. 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. WALTER WILBUR, Trial Dxamviner. Dated June 30, 1943.