The Wallingford Steel Co.

In the Matter of THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEEL- WORKERS OF AMERICA (C. I. 0.) Case No. C-2707 (I-C-2212).-Decided November 5, 1943 ' DECISION AND ORDER. On August 17, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re- port in the above-entitled. proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions, and re- quested permission to present oral argument before the Board. On October 6, 1943, the respondent filed with the Board an addition to one of its exceptions,, to which were attached copies of two letters from a Field Examiner of the Board to the respondent, and a copy of a letter from a Regional Director to the respondent. We have treated the "addition to exception" and, the attached letters as a motion to supplement the record. Examination of the record shows that a copy of the attached letter from the Regional Director has already been admitted into evidence at the hearing. The motion of the respondent to supplement the record is therefore granted only as to the copies of the letters from the Field Examiner, which are hereby ordered made a part of the record. On October 14, 1943, pursuant to notice served upon all the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions noted below. In discrediting the testimony of Foreman Stanley Uliasz, the Trial Examiner cites two instances of contradictions contained in his testi- mony. One such instance has reference to Uliasz's first testifying 53 N. L. R. B., No. 72. 404 THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY . 405 that he had seen "some," employees wearing C. I. O. buttons, and there- after testifying that Romanski was the only one he, had seen wearing a button. We do not believe that this apparent contradiction of itself affords any basis for discrediting Uliasz. Uliasz did state that he had seen "some" employees wearing C. I. O. buttons. On further question- ing, however, he added that Romanski was the only person he could remember doing so. Thereafter, in reply to the leading question, "And the only one you saw wearing a C. I. O. button was Romanski," Uliasz answered, "Yes." While we do not think that Uliasz's testimony in this respect can fairly be said to be contradictory, we nevertheless agree with the Trial Examiner in crediting the testimony of Romanski and Basarab over that of Uliasz. In disposing of the respondent's contentions as to the discharge of Corriveau, the Trial Examiner states that Grinold "admitted that Corriveau's `discrepancy in production' in February was not serious enough to warrant discharge." This admission should be qualified by the addition after the word "discharge," of the words "in Feb- ruary." In other words, it was Grinold's position that Corriveau was comparatively new at his work, and that his inefficiency in February was therefore not sufficient to warrant his discharge at that time. The Trial Examiner also sets forth the following excerpt from Grinold's testimony as "revealing as to [his] confused state of mind and the unreliability of his testimony :" Q. How long had Corriveau been rolling? A. I don't know, but I know he had been one of our old rollers. Q. There had not been any complaint about his work? A. Not serious. He was a fairly new man. The respondent, in its exceptions and brief, suggests that this correctly quoted portion of the record embodies an error made in the transcrip- tion of Grinold's testimony, and that the phrase "old rollers" should be "cold rollers," a job classification in use at the plant. We are per- suaded that it is probable that Grinold did refer to Corriveau as a "cold roller" and not as an "old roller," and that the excerpt quoted from the record cannot therefore be used to demonstrate that Grinold's testimony was confused and unreliable. The respondent, in its exceptions and brief, also suggests that an- other error of transcription in the record has been carried over into the Intermediate Report in the Trial Examiner's discussion of the respondent's contention that Giret was discharged for his "entirely poor attitude." The Trial Examiner notes that Grinold first testified that he had "known Giret for a good many years," and subsequently testified contradictorily that "Giret was a `new man,' and that lie seldom saw him." The respondent suggests that Grinold actually testified that Giret was a hhight man, not that he was a new man, in 406 DECISIONS OF' NATI ONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which case there would be no contradiction. The record is clear that Giret worked on the night shift, and the term "night man" fits readily into the context in which the words "new man" appear in the record. Moreover, while "night" would hardly be mistaken for "new" when spoken, nevertheless the shorthand symbols for the two words are sufficiently similar so that if written hastily one could be mistaken for the other. Under the circumstances, we shall accept the suggested correction of the record in this respect. Despite the above two cor- rections of Grinold's testimony as it appears in the record, we are convinced that there still remain substantial grounds for discrediting his testimony as to the reasons for the discharges of Corriveau and Giret, and we sustain the Trial Examiner in that respect. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, The Wallingford Steel Company, Wallingford, Con- necticut, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or con- dition 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 rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Joseph Corriveau, Stephen Giret, and the employees listed in Appendix A hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" in the Intermediate Report, and place those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list and thereafter offer them employ- ment as it becomes available, in the manner set forth in said section; (b) Make whole Joseph Corriveau, Stephen °Giret, and the em- ployees listed in Appendix A hereto, for any loss of pay they have THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 407 suffered because of the respondent's discrimination against. them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, or of his placement on a prefer ential list, as the case may be, and in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" in the Intermediate Report, less his net earn- ings during such period; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Wall- ingford plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stat- ing: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that its employees are free to become and remain members of United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership. in or activity on behalf of said organization; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. GERARD D. Ram Y took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A Anderson, Gustave Drum, Chas. F. Melillo, Michael Austin, Henry Festa, Joseph Mihovitz, Jos. Bakanas, J. Foucault, Paul Nagy, Julius Bakanas, J. Jr. Gavette, Russell Naszcywiec, Stanley Balou, Joseph Gayer, Chas. Palmer, Frank Basarab, John Gelt, Frank Pare, Jean Brassil, Michael Gelt, J. Petros, Walter Brow, L. M. Gelt, M. Polnar, Walter Carlson, Bertil Germain, Roland Popovich, S. Charnysh, John Hanisko, Samuel Prizzi, Peter Charnysh, Maurice Horvath, L. Rabito, John Cichowski, Joseph Huey, Chas. Romanski, Edward Citak, John Karaly, John Roy, Delphis Corllio, Antonio Kurcaba, Jos. Rumi, Eugene Corriveau, Leo Lenart, John Rumi, Lacy Czaga, Louis Magyar, J. Setterstrom, Oscar 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Simon, J. Urban, John Zalanka, Ray Sittnick, Edward Valentine, Tony Zieminski, Chas. Stankevitz J Wells Theron A Zieminski old Leo , . , . % , p Stewart, Milton Yacek, Walter Szymanski, Walter Yasket, Frank INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Robert E. Greene, for the Board. ' Mr. Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, Conn., and Mr. Francis R. Danaher, of Meriden, Conn., for the respondent. Grant & Angoff, by Mr. Samuel E. Angoff, of Boston, Mass.; and Mr. Frank L. Trainor, of Worcester, Mass., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed on June 29, 1943, by United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region, (Boston, Massachusetts) issued its complaint dated June 29, 1943, against The Walling- ford Steel Company, Wallingford, Connecticut, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was epgaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended during the hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that on or about May 2, 1941, the respond- ent discharged Joseph Corriveau and Stephen Giret because they had joined- and assisted the Union; (2) that on or about September 18, 1941, certain em- ployees of the respondent went on strike; (3) that on or about September 30, 1941, the respondent discharged, and at all times thereafter refused to reinstate to their former or substantially -equivalent positions, 61 named employees,' ' The employees so alleged to have been discriminated against are the following : Anderson, Gustave Gelt, Frank Rahito, John Austin, Henry - Gelt, J. Romanski, Edward Bakanas, J. Gelt, M. Roy, Deiphis Bakanas, J. Jr. Germain, Roland Rumi, Eugene Balou, Joseph Hanisko, Samuel Rumi, Lacy Basarab, John Horvath , L. Setterstrom, Oscar Brassil, Michael IIuey, Chas. Simon, J. Brow, L. M. - Karaly, John Sittnick, Edward Carlson, Bertil Kurcaba, Jos. Stankevitz, J. Cbarnyah, John Lenart, John Stewart, Milton Charnyah, Maurice Magyar, J. Szymanski, Walter Cichowski , Joseph Melillo , Michael Urban, John Citak, John ' Mihovitz, Joe. Valentine, Tony Corlllo, Antonio Nagy, Julius Wells, Theron A. Corriveau, Leo- Naszcywiec, Stanley ' Yacek, Walter Czaja, Louis Palmer, Frank Yasket, Frank Drum, Chas., F. Pare, Jean Zalanka, Ray Festa, Joseph Petros, Walter_ . Zieminski, Chas. Foucault, Paul Polnar, Walter Zieminski , Leopold Gavette, Russell Popovich, S. Gayer, Chas. Prizzi, Peter - It was stipulated by the parties that all of these persons were employees of the respondent at the time of the strike on September 18, 1941, and that all of them went on strike on that date. THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 409 because they bad joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for their mutual aid and protection, and because they went on strike; (4) that from about August 1, 1940, the respondent, by its officers and agents, and more particularly by E. B. Cleborne, its president, W. H. Grinold, works manager, Albert Thomas, super- intendent, Arthur Habershon, assistant superintendent, and Foremen Louis Foucault, Stanley Uliasz, Lawrence Gingras and Raymond Gianotti,2 has threat- ened its employees with discharge and other disciplinary measures, if they joined or assisted the Union ; questioned them in regard to their union affiliation ; made derogatory statements about the Union and the Union leaders, and threatened the latter with physical violence; and threatened to close the plant rather than recognize the Union; and (5) that the respondent by the fore- going acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1943, at Wallingford, Connecticut, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing, the respondent filed its answer, in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint in respect to its business, and that it had discharged Joseph Corriveau and Stephen Giret on or about May 2, 1941, but denied all material averments relating to the unfair labor practices. During the course of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint by striking the name of Walter Lanzour from it. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. A motion by Board's counsel, made at the conclusion of the hearing, to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to names and dates, and other matters not related to the fundamental issues, was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. ' The opportunity to make oral argument before the Trial Examiner at the close of the hearing, and to file briefs with the Trial Examiner, was waived by the parties. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT a The respondent, The Wallingford Steel Company, is a Connecticut corporation, having its principal office and place of business at Wallingford, Connecticut. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of cold rolled, high car- bon, and stainless strip steel. The principal raw materials used at the plant are hot rolled carbon steel and hot rolled stainless steel. The respondent nor- mally purchases, semi-annually, approximately 40,438,934 pounds of hot rolled steel and 1,847,651 pounds of stainless steel from points outside of Connecticut.' Approximately 25 percent of all finished products, which,amounts to approxi- 2 The respondent admitted that E B. Cleborne was president of the respondent, W. H. Grinold, works manager and assistant secretary , Albert Thomas, superintendent , Arthur Habershon „ assistant superintendent , and that Louis Foucault , Stanley UllAsz, Lawrence Gingras, and Raymond Glanotti, were foremen at all times material herein. a The findings of fact in this section are based upon a stipulation entered into by counsel for the Board and for the respondent. These amounts are about 90 percent of the respondent's total purchases. 6 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mately $654;000 in value, is sold and distributed semi-annually to points outside of Connecticut. The respondent admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. The respondent normally employs about 250 persons in the plant. II, THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Steelworkers of Americas is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. Wallingford Independent Steel Workers Association, herein called the Independent, is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Events leading up to the strike of September 1941 1. Formation of the labor organizations involved In July 1940 Frank Trainor, field representative of the Union, went to Wal- lingford at the request of certain employees of the respondent to organize them and establish a local union in the plant. At that time the employees were un- organized. Leaflets were distributed at the plant and management admittedly became aware of the organizational drive. The first Union meeting was held on August 17, when about 25 of the respondent's employees signed application cards for membership in the Union. At this meeting, a volunteer organizing committee was selected, which included as members Joseph Corriveau and Stephen Giret, whose discharges are discussed below, and Gustave Anderson who, together with others, was refused reinstatement after the strike of September 1941, also de- scribed below. Thereafter, Union meetings were held frequently and leaflets were distributed inviting employees to attend. About the middle of September, Local 2242 was set rip and chartered by the Union, and officers were elected.' Soon after the Union local was established, an organization known as the Mutual Benefit Union was started in the plant. At its second meeting, however. it was dissolved, and its members joined the Union. A few days later the Independent was formed in the plant. 2. Coercive remarks and interference by management and foremen The day after the first Union meeting, while on a bus trip with a number of employees, Foreman Stanley Uliasz told employee Edward Romanski that he had heard about the meeting, inquired if he had been present, declared that he knew who had started "that business" and asserted that the "fellows won't get no place down there on it.,, ° At about the same time Uliasz told employee Basarab that he had better not join the Union or he would be laid off in slack periods.' Shortly before the first Union meeting Foreman Louis Foucault told his brother, employee Paul Foucault, that any employee who attended it was foolish, because Formerly known as Steel Workers Organizing Committee . (C. I. O.) Giret was elected as guide. 7 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Romanski . Uliasz admitted having gone on the trip, but denied having said anything against the C. I. 0. The undersigned does not accept the denial as true ; the foreman at first denied having heard any talk in the plant, about the Union and then admitted that he had. He testified that he had seen "some" employees wearing C. I. 0. buttons , but later said that the only one he saw wearing one was Romanski.. . 8 Uliasz denied having said anything to Basarab about the Union. The undersigned does not accept the denial as true for reasons set forth in the footnote immediately above. THE, WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 411 President•Cleborne and Works Manager Grinold would learn who was present. The' foreman further declared that 'Cleborne would never deal with the Union which was "all a bunch of Communists." 9 During working hours on August 16 the same foreman told his brother-iii-law, Joseph Corriveau, whose discharge is described below, that the C. I. O. was "no good,"' "communistic," and "led by Russians." When the employee indicated a' different opinion, Foucault called Foreman Gianotti to them, who told Cdr' riveau that on one occasion he had been thrown out of a union after paying in $50.•''On the same occasion Foreman Foucault told the employee that employees who assisted the Union would be discharged, and that it would be easy to make it appear-that such dismissals were for reasons other than Union activity io "A about the same'tiine, Foreman Foucault approached employee Bert Carlson, looked at the latter's C. I. O. button, and declared, "So you are a member of the party, too." -When Carlson asked what he meant, the foreman replied, "The Communist party." 11 Upon his return:home from the'second Union meeting Corriveau was informed by his wife that,-while visiting her mother, Foreman Foucault had told her and others that Corriveau would be fired as a result of joining the C. I. O. She was distraught, and Corriveau proceeded at oncei to the home of his mother-in=law, called the'foreman''out to his car, and asked him to "repair the damage" he had done.' Foucault, however, insisted that the employee would be fired and, as the foreman admitted, told Corriveau to "go to hell." After Corriveau left the house, the foreman told his brother Paul that Corriveau would be fired anyway." As a result of the foreman's threat;- Corriveau withdrew his Union application card.' • , ` I Corriveau informed Trainor of the pressure brought to bear upon him, and the Union representative' arranged for a conference with management At this conference, with both Corriveau and the foreman present, Trainor protested that such action interfered with organization of the Union. Cleborne declared that Foucault's conduct was not with the approval or consent of management, and, the conference' ended with Cleborne's assurance to Trainor that such activi- ties "would not be' tolerated in the future.13 Corriveau thereafter rejoined the Union. Atioukh Cleborne testified that he issued instructions to all foremen to main- tain a hands-off policy toward labor organizations, credible evidence establishes that Foreman Foucault and other management representatives continued their campaign of interference. Foreman Foucault told his brother Paul that an Independent 'organization as 'to be formed, advised him to join, and named employees who were to lead it as officers. Later events corroborated the fore- man's claim to advance knowledge.16 -Paul Foucault followed his brother's advice 'The above testimony is'based upon the credible testimony of Paul Foucault. The fore- man testified that he had ' never made statements to his brother hostile to the Union, but did riot deny the specific- remark attributed to him. 10'The above finding is based upon the , credible testimony of Corriveau . Neither Foucault nor Glanotti denied the specific remarks attributed to them by the employee. "Foreman Foucault did not deny having made ' the remark attributed to him by Carlson, upon whose credible testimony the finding rests ' u The findings as to the above -described incident rest upon the credible testimony of Paul Foucault and Corriveau , as well as upon admissions by the foreman that the dispute arose and that he had told Corriveau to "go to hell ." The Trial Examiner does not credit the foreman's denial ' that -he discussed the C. I. 0 with, Corriveau that evening. 33 The findings as to this conference rest mainly upon the testimony of Trainor , which is substantiated in major respects by that of Cleborne , Corriveau and the foreman. 14 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of the employee . The foreman was not questioned about the specific incident , but denied having ever tried to influence his brother one way or the other, a conclusion which the undersigned does not accept as true. 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and joined the Independent. Thereafter, however, the employee also joined the Union and upon the foreman's urging informed Grinold of his action. Grinold called the employee to his office, where Cleborne was also present. Paul Foucault explained to these officials that he had joined the Union because he was, the only one on the night shift not a member, and because some of the "boys" would not talk to him. The officials asked who had signed him tip, and he named Giret and one other. As to,his having joined the C. I. O. Cleborne said, "It is all right, we know where your heart is, anyway," and added, "If there is any- thing you think we should know, tell your brother [the foreman]" or the, head of the Independent.' Thereafter Foreman Foucault asked his brother on several occasions whether or not certain employees had joined'the Union.16 At.a Christmas party held at the home of Superintendent Albert Thomas, the latter told Paul Foucault that, the employees were foolish to join the Union and that they were thereby being unfair to him. He further asked the employee to keep him informed of any "trouble brewing," by leaving a note for him at an office outside the plant. Thereafter, and over a long period, Paul Foucault left notes for him as in- structed, or wrote letters to the superintendent, informing him of Union ac- tivities.' Soon after Anthony Valentine was hired in September 1940, according to his uncontradicted testimony, Cleborne called him and another employee. to his office, asked how they liked their jobs, and told them that if they had any trouble to see him or the secretary of the Independent, but not to "bother with those other fellows." Valentine also testified that the only other group then in the plant was the C. I. O. The undersigned finds that by his remarks Cleborne plainly warned the new employees to keep away from the Union. Sometime in November 1940 employee Romanski, then a Union steward, and other employees conferred with Thomas concerning certain discharges which had previously occurred. Thomas told them he would "quit his job" before recognizing any grievance committee of the Union." As described below, an election was held at the respondent's plant in March 1941. Shortly before the election Thomas told employee Lacy Rumi, "You 15 The findings as to Paul Foucault's interview with Cleborne and Grinold rest upon the employee's credible testimony Grinold admitted the occasion and the substance of the interview, but stated that he did not recall whether or not Cleborne was present. Cleborne testified, "I have no recollection of any such meeting, not the slightest. I would not say I didn't." 16 This finding rests upon the employee's credible testimony. The foreman simply denied having discussed the C. I. 0. with his brother, a general denial which the undersigned does not accept as true. 17 These findings are based upon the employee's credible testimony. The superintendent admitted that Paul Foucault had visited his home and that lie had received several notes from him. He declared, however, that he could not recall the text of the notes He denied having said anything to the employee hostile to the Union, a denial which the undersigned does not accept as true. Foucault admitted having "played both ends against the middle," in his dealings between management and the Union, but explained that he had done so because, while he believed in the Union, he was afraid of being fired. In view of the open threats against his brother-in-law, and his subsequent discharge, the undersigned accepts his explanation as reasonable. Furthermore, since the employee's conduct was instigated by the foreman, the president, the works manager and the superintendent, the undersigned is unable to find that his conduct in any way detracts from his credibility as a witness. 11 Thomas did not contradict the testimony of Ronianski, upon which the finding is based The superintendent admitted many complaints had been brought to him by Union com- mittees, and that he could not "ratify any question they asked." THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 413 fellows are goddam fools for joining the C. I. 0., you don't know what you are getting into." 1B Also before the election Foreman Foucault told employee Michael Melillo that Cleburne would close the plant before he would have the "God damn C. I. 0." in there"' At about the same time the foreman asked his brother Paul for a list of employees who had attended a recent Union meeting." Before the election Foreman Lawrence Gingras told employee Delphis Roy that the Union was "no good" and that it was a "bunch of Communists." On the day of the election lie told the same employee that the Union was "no good" and would lose .21 Following the election Foreman Raymond Gianotti asked Paul Foucault if a certain employee was a Union member, and why he, himself, was wearing a Union button. When Paul replied that he was probably wearing it as a joke, the foreman informed him that he had been instructed by Grinold to count the buttons, and that he had better remove the one he was wearing In June 1941, Foreman Uliasz asked employee Romanski if he still belonged to the C. I. 0., and when the employee replied that lie did, the foreman asked if he had joined the Independent?` The undersigned concludes and finds that by the above-described conduct and remarks of management officials and foremen the respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 3. The consent election on March 7, 1941 On January 30, 1941, the Union filed charges against the respondent, alleging that the Independent was company-dominated. Conferences were thereafter held and all of the parties finally agreed to a consent election. The Union then with- drew its charges. An election was held in the plant on March 7 under the direc- tion of the Regional Director. On March 11 the Regional Director issued her report, stating that of a total of 250 ballots,/135 had been cast for the Independ- ent, 109 for the Union, and 6 for neither. 30 Thomas denied the remark attributed to him by Ruini, whose testimony the undersigned accepts as true. As found above, Thomas had openly expressed hostility toward the Union on other occasions. 20 The finding rests upon Melillo's credible testimony. The foreman's general denial of ever having made anti-Union remarks has previously been found by the.undersigned to be untrue. 21 The foreman tsas not questioned as to this incident. As found heretofore, the under- signed placed no credence in his general denial of ever having discussed the C. I. 0. with his brother. 22 These findings are based upon the employee's credible testimony. Gingras denied ever talking to Roy about the C. I. 0 In view of the established facts that other foremen, the superintendent, the works manager and even the president had previously made anti-Union statements to employees, the undersigned does not accept Gingras' denial as true. 23 The finding rests upon the employee's testimony: The foreman admitted that lie "would not be surprised" if he had discussed the C. I. 0. with Paul, and that be had no recollection of any specific conversation with him. 24 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Romanski. As found heretofore, the Trial Examiner does not credit the foreman's general denial that lie ever said anything about the C. I. 0. to Romanski or other employees. 559015-44--vol. 53-28 414 IYECIS'I0NIS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD 4. The discharges of Joseph Corriveau and Stephen Giret on May 2, 1941 (a) ' Events leading up to the discharges The complaint alleges and the answer denies that employees Corriveau.and Giret were discharged by the respondent because they had joined and assisted the, Union., No affirmative allegation as to its reasons for the discharges is contained in the answer. ,Both employees were discharged on,,May 2, 1941. At that time Corriveau had been employed about 47/2 years, Giret for about 10 years. As found above, both Corriveau and Giret served on the first organizing com- mittee ofthe Union , and the latter was elected as Guide. Corriveau , as noted above, was repeatedly subjected to coercion on the part of Foreman Foucault, withdrew from the Union and later , rejoined. It has likewise been found that Corriveau's grievance was brought to the attention of both Cleborne and Grinold. The evidence establishes and the undersigned finds that the respondent,•knew of Corriveau's Union membership , aud activity.25 Giret worked on the third shift, and was under the supervision of Nigilt Su- perintendent Thomas. Thomas, admitted , at the hearing that he had had a "lot of trouble" with the Union , and that Giret and other Union officers frequently made "certain demands," Shortly before the election in March , Giret and two other Union officers were called into the superintendent 's office, where Thomas told them they "were going about this Union the wrong way," according to Giret's undisputed testimony . The evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that the respondent knew of Giret's leadership in the Union. In November 1940, after that confeience at which protest ' was made about Fore- man Foucaiilt's anti-Union conduct,' Corriveau was' called to' Grinold's office and told by the works manager, according to the employee's' undisputed testimony, "You are going to'get fired ; you get the hell out of here; you will never get a job in the State of'Connecticut . . .- I'll fiiel you:" ' Cbrriveau asked what he had done wrong: ' Grinold replied, "I can't 'tell you ; I can't tell you." ' Later the same day, at the employee's machine, Grinold told Corriveau , "`we' will find a way to fire you." At about the same time Corriveau began to receive numerous complaint about his work, which was that of a roller. As Corriveau expressed it, "they raise holy hell with me," and he was told that he had made mistakes or had not properly rolled his steel. ' A few days before Corriveau was discharged , - 'Thomas told Paul Foucault that Corriveau was a "God damn fool" for joining the' Union; and that he would get rid of the "son of,a bitch "if was ,the last thing he did." " Corriveau was, discharged by Thomas on May 2,,1941 . The superintendent told him that he was being dismissed because his work was "no good." When the 'employee 'ventu 'red his belief ' that the real reason was his, Union membership, the superintendent declared , "I am sorry I got to fire you . I got orders to fire you.,, Within' an hour after Corriveau's'discharge^Foreman, Gianotti told Paul Fou- cault : . d see they finally got rid of your brother. It is, too bad. He was ' a"damn good worker We will, have to go '-a long ways to' find one 'like hini; 25 Grinold testified : "I would assume definitely that he was a C I . 0. man due to the meeting that was arranged with Mr. Trainor and myself that night It was plain then that Corriveau was a C. I 0 man " 26 The testimony of Paul Foucault on this incident, upon which the finding is based, was not contradicted. 27 The finding as to Thomas' remark at the time of Corriveau 's discharge is based upon the employee's undisputed testimony. THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 415 as strong as a horse, a good worker, never loses a minute . On the other 'hand, I'am 'glad because . . . I don't see how the poor fellow could stand being picked at all the time . . . If they want to get rid of a' fellow why not get rid of him right away instead of picking at him as they, did for two or three weeks." .Soon after the election in March, Thomas began to complain to Giret that his work was not "up to production," and transferred the employee from his regular job as a cutting machine operator to that of running the scrap machine, at a reduced wage.' Being classified as a' "general all-around man,"- capable of operating many different' machines, Giret had frequently been shifted from one job to another during the 10 years of big employment, but never before had he suffered loss'of pay as a result of such transfer. On May, 2, the same day Corriveau was discharged, Giret was called, to the office and was laid off by Thomas, who told him there was no work for him. The superintendent suggested that he seek work at another mill in a nearby city where there was a C. I. O. union "operating," and that if he would go there he would give him ..a good recommendation,-or would give him an even better recommendation if he would go out of the State of Connecticut. When Giret protested,that he was not looking for another job, Thomas replied, "I am not saying, anything about your work."' At the hearing Thomas admitted that although, work was resumed on the scrap machine after Giret's "lay off," he has never been recalled. (b) The respondent's contentions as to the discharges of Corriveau and Giret;' the testimony and its merits (1.) As to Corriveau ''Griiiold testified that Corriveau was discharged "for poor work and ineffi- eieney." 11 Iii support of his statement that Corriveau's work was "not up to standard," Grinold read into the record certain data prepared by his accounting department which purported to show that on four different days, in January and February, 1941, Corriveau's comparative "efficiency" was lower than that of another operation 'of a mill similar to that operated by Corriveau. He offered no 'similar data for 'the last 2 months of Corriveau's employment, and admitted that without 'records he was unable to testify as to the employee's production efficiency during that period. He' further testified that he believed the data for January and February "seemed to be enough" to offer at 'the hearing, al- though' he' admitted that Corriveau's "discrepancy' in production" in February was not serious enough to warrant discharge. In view of Grinold's admissions, the failure of the respondent to offer more than unauthenticated and selected data, and 'the unconvincing testimony of Grinold with respect to the 4 days' data that he'did offer; the 'undersigned finds his'testimony on this point to be wholly unreliable. Also during' his testimony, Grinold' referred to certain memoranda which he stated had been received from an assistant superintendent who died before the Nearing.' The works manager testified that these memoranda contained notations of Corriveau's "poor work." One such memorandum, however, " he ad- mitted 'was undated, and he further admitted that he could not prove that any 28 The findings as to Glanotti's remarks concerning Corriveau are based upon Foucault's credible testimony., The undersigned does not accept as true the foreman's general denial that ',`I never discussed any man with another man." 20 Giret's testimony is undisputed that he was reduced from about 90 cents an hour to 72% cents an hour as a result of this transfer. , . zo The findings as to this interview rest upon the credible testimony of Giret, the essentials of which were corroborated by Thomas. I 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of them was in the assistant superintendent's handwriting. No one of these documents was offered in evidence, and the undersigned can place no reliance upon Grinold's testimony with respect to them. Grinold further testified that before January, 1941, Corriveau' s work was "possibly passable. In other words, so that he wouldn't question it too much." He stated that the employee "hadn't been rolling too long and you just have to give anybody a chafice." The following colloquy is revealing as to Grinold's confused state of mind and the unreliability of his testimony: Q. How long had Corriveau been rolling? A. I don't know, but I know he had been one of our old rollers. Q. There had not been any complaint about his work? A. Not serious. He was a fairly new man. [Italics supplied] Grinold admitted that Corriveau participated in the general wage increase of 10 cents an hour shortly before he was discharged. He also admitted that he had no record of any complaints about Corriveau's work before January, 1941. The works manager testified that about '2 weeks before May 2 he warned Corriveau that unless his work improved he would be dismissed. There is no evidence that foreman Gianotti, Corriveau's immediate supervisor for the greater part of each shift ever made any complaint to Thomas about the employee. The foreman testified that the only complaint he ever made about Corriveau was to the employee himself, on an occasion when some one of-four employees threw a glove. Gianotti admitted that he did not know which of the four threw it, and that he so told Corriveau at the time. Foreman Foucault was in charge of Corriveau for 2 hours each clay. He ad- mitted that he never made any recommendation that Corriveau be fired for "poor work," and that he was never consulted about the discharge. In, the face of this admission , however, Foucault declared that from the time of Corriveau' s hiring until the dispute at the Foucault home, above described, be had spent the period from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock in the afternoon with the employee "personally to help him out,"-"and to keep him happy." He further testified that throughout his employment Corriveau was the poorest workman in the unit, and that "I worked with him until I damn near went nuts myself on account of helping the man, because he being my brother-in-law, to bring him along so he will do good work." The undersigned finds Foucault's testimony to be wholly untrustworthy. It was completely without support by foreman Gianotti, who supervised Corriveau's work after 5 o'clock each afternoon and for a much longer period than did Foucault. Assistant Superintendent Habershon testified that Corriveau had been doing "poor work" for 2 years before his discharge, but that lie "covered him up" until caught at it, and made no reports to Grinold about the employee until April 21, 1941, a few days before the discharge. He testified that he prepared reports- one of which he admitted was based upon an error-on the employee because asked to do so by Grinold, and that Corriveau was the only employee he was instructed to check upon. He admitted that no one of the foremen over Corriveau ever complained about his work. It is plain, from the foregoing resume of testimony given by the respondent's management officials, that there was little agreement among them as to Corri- veau's work or ability, and much confusion and contradiction. The evidence is clear on one point, however, that neither of the two foremen nor the assistant superintendent made any complaint about Corriveau's work until Grinold himself instructed Habershon to check on it. - THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 417 The undersigned finds that the evidence does not support Grinold's contention that Corriveau was discharged for inefficiency or poor work. (2) As to Giret Grinold testified that Giret was.discharged "for a combination of reason," and enumerated them as (1) "poor efficiency"; (2) "lack of cooperation"; and (3) "entirely poor attitude throughout the plant." Superintendent Thomas,'however, testified that the employee was laid off because of lack of work, although he stated that he was told by Grinold to discharge him "on account of inefficiency." 31 Grinold testified that he had had complaints from Thomas for months before the discharge occurred. He was not questioned, however, as to the nature of such complaints, nor did Thomas testify as to any instance when he complained to Grinold about the employee's work. Foreman Gianotti, Giret's immediate supervisor, admitted that he had never complained about Giret. As in the case of Corriveau, Grinold referred in his testimony to certain unauthenticated data relating to Giret's comparative efficiency purportedly drawn up by the "accounting department" from records not introduced into evidence. Grinold testified that such data showed Giret's efficiency was relatively lower than that of four other operators of similar machines. Other evidence estab- lishes, however, that Giret worked alone on the third shift while, of the other four, two worked on each of the other shifts. It also establishes that Giret worked without a helper and during his shift performed numerous other tasks than operating his machine. When this fact was called to Grinold's attention during the hearing, the works manager admitted that this would explain the "difference" in the production records. As to "lack of cooperation," Grinold testified that the employee would not cooperate with the supervisors, and that he accepted the reports which came to him from such supervisors. It has been found above that Gianotti, Giret's immediate supervisor, never complained about the employee. The only instance Grinold cited to support this broad contention in this respect was that relat- ing to Giret's objection, on one occasion, to being given a helper on his shift. Grinold thereafter admitted, however, that Giret did not refuse to have a helper assigned to him, but "did not seem to be inclined to warn the man there." As to Giret's "entirely poor attitude," Grinold explained that he meant a "belligerent attitude, argumentative attitude." His testimony that the foreman _ reported this to him is implicity contradicted by Gianotti, as noted above. Fur- thermore, the only specific occasion when Giret's "attitude" was observed by the works manager himself, according to his own testimony, was when the employee expressed unwillingness to have a helper assigned to him. As to this incident Grinold stated : ". . . while lie seemed to agree at the time, he did not seem to have the same attitude he had in previous years, and I have known Giret a good many years." Thereafter, however, Grinold stated that Giret was a "new man," and that he seldom saw him. When asked to fix the time when the change in Giret's attitude first came to Si The undersigned can place no reliance upon Thomas' testimony. It is replete with such inconsistencies and circumlocutions as is contained in the following excerpt: Q. Did he cooperate? A. He would not cooperate. Q. Was he discharged for that? A. No. Q. Why was he discharged? A. For the inefficiency of his work. Q. What do you mean by ' inefficiency of his work?" A. He would not cooperate with the company. 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REUATIONS BOARD his attention he testified that it was a matter of 6 months before his discharge. This was at about the time when Union organization was active. In view of the conflicting evidence cited above, and the failure of Grinold to substantiate his broad claims with specific and credible instances of Giret's inefficiency, lack of cooperation, or poor attitude, the undersigned finds no merit in his contention that the employee was discharged for such reasons. (c) Conclusions as to the discharges of Corriveau and Giret. Cleborne and Grinold testified that soon after Union organization began, the former issued instructions that no employee should be discharged until further notice. There were no discharges from July 1940, until the dismissals of Corri- veau and Giret on May 2, 1941, and only these two employees were discharged then. Grinold further testified : after the campaign was all over and the National Labor Relations Board held an election and the bargaining agencies were so designated, we felt free to go along and operate our plant in the way we should so that we should not be considered to be discriminating against any of the men, as to whether he was Joined up to or lined up with any union, whether the C. I. O. or the Independent. Cleborne lifted his ban on discharges, whereupon Grinold issued instructions to check on Corriveau and told Thomas to get rid of Giret. It has been found above that the respondent knew that both of these employees were among the few original organizers of the Union, and were active on behalf of their fellow-members. Corriveau had repeatedly been threatened with dis- charge because of the Union activity. The testimony of Paul Foucault Is undis- puted that about 3 weeks after Corriveau's discharge, Thomas asked him, "Is your brother still walking the street . . . I thought he wouldn't have much trouble getting a Job because he is a good worker. Too God damn bad he got messed up with the C. I. O. bunch." Credible and undisputed testimony leads to the conclusion that both Corriveau and Giret incurred management's displeasure during the organization and elec- tion-campaign periods, as a direct result of their Union leadership and activity. Actual discharge, however, was delayed by Cleborne' s instructions. Immediately after the election Corriveau was criticized because of his work, and Giret was transferred and demoted to the scrap machine. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned finds, that this discriminatory campaign was designed to pro- duce pretexts whereby the respondent might rid itself of the two employees without appearing to violate the Act. It is clear and the undersigned finds that Giret was, In fact, discharged on May 2, and not laid off as informed by Thomas. It is further found, in view of the undisputed evidence that although Giret had been previously transferred to other jobs during slack periods he had never before had his pay reduced, that his transfer to the scrap machine about a month before his actual discharge was discriminatory and designed to discourage membership in the Union. In summary, the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent dis- charged Corriveau and Giret on May 2, 1941 because of their Union member- ship and activity, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with, coercing and restraining its employees in rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 5. Filing of charges by the Union on May 27 On May 27, 1941, the Union filed charges with the Regional Director, Second Region (New York, N. Y.) alleging that the respondent had discharged Corriveau THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 419 and had threatened to discharge Giret because of their Union membership. Thereafter a representative of that Regional Office conferred with the respon- dent's 'officials, and on September 2, 1941'the Regional Director' informed the respondent and the Union, 'by letter, that as a•result of an investigation' no com- plaint would be issued 32 Following this action by the Regional Director, the Union employed the serv- ices of an attorney to make further investigation on its behalf. As a' result of this investigation new evidence was discovered,-in particular that' of Paul Foucault which has been quoted, in part, above, and the- two discharges were alleged as discriminatory in a new charge dated March 23, 1942, froi ' which these proceedings arose. As found heretofore, amended charges were flied by the Union on June 29, 1943, and on the same clay the complaint 'was' issued in these proceedings by the Regional Director of the First Region'' ' ' .^ B: The strike of September 18, 1941. and the respondent's refusal to reinstate the - strikers. I ' • I ' 1. Other events leading up to the strike Two days after losing the election of March 7, described above, the Union held a meeting of its members It was decided by majority vote that it would be wise to dissolve the local and have its members seek membership in the Independent in order to be represented by the organization which had won the right to be the collective bargaining agent. A letter was sent to the Independent informing it of the Union's action but no reply was received. About a month later, Trainor advised Union members to apply individually for membership in the, Independent. Such applications were made, but were rejected by the Inde- pendent. . , , 11 Unable to obtain representation through the Independent, Union members began to bring grievances and complaints of discrimination to Trainor. Among the complaints were the discharges of Corriveau and Giret. Since the,colpplaint does not allege that the strike of September 1941 was caused by the respondent's unfair labor practices, the undersigned does not consider it necessary to consider, in detail, the merits of the various complaints which immediately preceded the strike. It is plain, however, that a number of Union employees were dissatisfied because they were unable to obtain representation through the Independent and because of many grievances, whatever their merits. On at least one occasion, before September 18, Trainor dissuaded these dissatisfied members from -going on strike. , , On September 12 the following circular, prepared by, the Unions Executive Board, was distributed among the respondent's employees: , , , A CHALLENGE SINCE THE ELECTION LAST MARCH THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS MILL'HACE HAD TO TAKE A LOT OF THINGS THEY DIDN'T LIKE The,"Independent Union" betrayed the employees by signing a rotten agree- ment that gave absolutely no protection to the worker. Since that time inequal wage rates have been adjusted-downwards;, Favoritism has ,be- come the practice ; Grievances have become a joke ; Seniority and honest representation something to dream about, but not, to,have. That in substance is the net result of all the promises of last March. , • . 11 .1 1. 1 , 22 This case was entitled II-C-3694. 13 By order of the Board dated April 5, 1943, the county of New Haven, Connecticut, was transferred from the Second to the First Region 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NOW THE LAST STRAW HAS BEEN PILED• ON * * * Last week Ed Romanski got fed up with carrying his lazy helper on his back. He complained to his foreman and was finally called into Grinold's office. One would expect that when an Operator, with a long service record with the Company, makes a complaint about his helper, with a few months serv- ice, that the Company would pay attention to his complaint. NOT IN THE WALLINGFORD STEEL WITH IT's "INDEPENDENT UNION" ! In this shop it seems that all questions that come to Grinold are settled not on the basis of right and wrong, but rather on the basis that an SWOC man is always wrong. In this instance the young punk of a helper based his defense on a charge that Eddie was a "CIO man" and "I (the prink) am a Company man " That was enough for Grinold. In spite of the fact that a foreman had, the night before Eddie made his complaint, warned the helper that he was due to be canned if he didn't shake a leg and do. some work, Grinold finished up the conference by warning Eddie that if any more trouble occurred between he and his helpless helper that he (Eddie) could look for another job. That's Grinold-Justice! WE DON'T LIKE IT * * * WE'VE HAD ENOUGH We issue this statement to Grinold and anyone else that might need the advice : We are willing to wait until next March for another election to gain our bargaining rights and abolish the poor conditions in the mill. However, we can stand only so much. You have been kicking our members around long enough and we have had to take it and like it. Conditions have changed in the past couple of months and we no longer have to take it. Another move against our members, another violation of our seniority rights, another unfair discharge and * * * THIS MILL SHUTS DOWN. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, GRINOLD. IT's YOUR MOVE. YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER THERE WILL BE AN ELECTION NEXT MARCH-OR A PICKET LINE BEFORE THEN. ExECUTIvE BOARD, Local 2212, S. W. 0. C. 2. The strike On the evening of September 17, while Trainor was away on vacation, a num- ber of Union members congregated at-a street corner near the plant and decided to strike the next day. During the afternoon of September 18, 9 Union members left their jobs and walked out, and 53 other members failed to report for work on their shifts. On September 19 Romanski and other Union members telephoned to Cleborne, who refused to confer with the strikers on the ground that he had only one grievance committee in the plant. Trainor returned from vacation on September 20, and upon learning of the strike proceeded to Wallingford. He assisted in the forming of a strike com- mittee, and the plant was picketed. On September 22 Trainor sought the inter- cession of a representative of the State Labor Board, informing him that he was anxious to settle the strike on the basis of having the strikers return to work and discuss with management the grievances after their return. Management refused to meet with the representatives of the Union or to settle any grievance of a Union member with a Union representative. Trainor was thereafter in- formed by representatives of the U. S. Department of Labor and of the Office of Production Management, both of whom came to Wallingford because of the THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 421 strike, that the respondent continued to refuse to meet with Union representa- tives in regard to grievances or reinstatement of the strikers. The Union thereupon communicated with officials of two C. I. 0. locals at the Pennsylvania plant of the Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Company, which owns a controlling interest in the respondent corporation. The Pennsylvania locals con- ferred with an official of that company, and sent an investigating committee to Wallingford September 26. Cleborne and the Allegheny-Ludlum official conferred by telephone; Cleborne agreed to a strike settlement which provided, in part, that all strikers should be reinstated without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges, and Trainor was so informed by telephone through an official of the Pennsylvania locals. Trainor thereupon called a meeting of the strike committee which voted to accept the settlement. On October 1 a majority of the strikers likewise voted, and on the same day Trainor instructed a number of the employees to go to the plant office and formally request reinstatement. These employees returned shortly to Trainor and other strikers and reported that Cleborne and Grinold had denied having agreed to any settlement of the strike. The same employees were also told by management that if they wanted to work they must sign applications as new employees. Thereafter a number of other strikers also reported for work but were also told they must apply as new employees. Thus John Citak, despite his 10 years employment by the respondent, was told by Grinold that he must apply as a new employee. be examined by a doctor, and take 10 cents an hour less pay. John Basarab likewise applied and was similarly told to file an application. He filed as instructed, but was never called. A number of the strikers testified that they did not apply personally for reinstatement because they were informed by fellow-strikers who did apply that they must return, if at all, as new em- ployees, with loss of pay and seniority. At the hearing Grinold admitted that all strikers were considered by the respondent as new employees and that they were required to fill out applica- tions as such, losing their seniority. He also admitted that although he saw many of the employees on the picket line he nevertheless considered that they had quit their jobs. Clehorne admitted, at the hearing, that lie informed the official of the parent company in Pennsylvania, on the Tuesday following the beginning of the strike, that he would reinstate the strikers, although he admitted some uncertainty as to the actual date. The evidence is undisputed that the investigating com- mittee of the Pennsylvania locals did not come to Wallingford until September 26, and that it did not return until September 29. The undersigned is con- vinced from the sequence of events, and finds, that Cleborne's agreement with the official at Allegheny-Ludlum was made on Tuesday, September 30. It has previously been found that on the following day, October 1, the Union voted to return to work. The undersigned concludes and finds that the strike was ended on that day, and that also on October 1 strikers who applied for rein- statement were, in effect, refused such reinstatement " Since Grinold admitted 31 At the hearing Trainor contended that September 22, 1941, Is the date when the strike ended and the "lock out" began, since upon that date an offer was made by him for return of the strikers through a representative of the State Department of Labor. The evidence Is not clear, however, that the offer to return on that date was unconditional. On the contrary, Trainor testified that he promised the Labor Department representative that he would urge the strikers to return if management would agree that the grievances bringing about the strike would be settled or at least discussed with the strikers upon their return to work . October 1 was the date upon which the first unconditional offer to return to work was made. 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that conditions imposed upon those who did apply would have similarly been imposed upon all, it is found that on October 1, 1941, the respondent refused reinstatement to all employees who went on strike September 18, 1941. 3. Contentions of the respondent as to its reasons for refusing to reinstate the strikers. At the hearing the respondent's officials contended that they were dissuaded from rehiring the strikers because a committee of the Independent informed them that their members would not work with them if reinstated. The respond- ent introduced much evidence on this point, as well as testimony to support its contention that the Independent refused to permit rehiring of the strikers because of violence during the strike. The undersigned does not consider it necessary herein to review such evidence in detail. In the first place, the respondent, as made clear by Grinold's testimony, established on October 1 the policy from which it did not thereafter depart, (that the strikers were no longer employees, but treated as new applicants) while documentary evidence and Grinold's testimony show that no Independent objection to reinstatement was made until October 8. The respondent makes no claim that the imposition of its discriminatory condi- tion of employment upon the strikers was the result of any pressure brought by the Independent. Furthermore, consideration of the evidence as to the alleged violence is made immaterial since the respondent makes no claim that it refused reinstatement to any striker because of such violence.S6 And finally, the evi- dence received establishes that no striker was arrested for violence and all of the witnesses testifying on the point admitted that they could not identify who had engaged in the alleged acts of violence, if any. Nor is it necessary here to consider the merits of the evidence adduced by the respondent to support its claim that after October 8 the Independent would not consent to rehiring the strikers, since Grinold admitted that any striker would have had to return as a new worker. 4. Conclusions as to the respondent's refusal to reinstate the strikers The parties stipulated at the hearing that all employees named in the complaint, and set forth in footnote 1 above, were on the respondent's pay roll of September 18, and that. all of them ceased work on that date. It was further stipulated that with four exceptions (J. Bakanas, J. Bakanas, Jr., S. Popovich and J. Simon) none of the strikers so named has since been employed by the respondent. As to the employees who were rehired, named immediately above, it was also stipu- lated that they were hired as new employees,-Bakanas, Bakanas, Jr., and Popovich on October 9, and J. Simon on October 22, 1941.x° The distinction is clear between reinstatement, with all previous rights and privileges, and hiring The followipg colloquy supports the above finding : Q. Let us see what your real reason was for not taking these men back. First, was it because any of them committed violence? A. (Cleborne) The real reason we didn't take these men back was that the men in the plant refused to work with them, and threatened to walk out of the plant if we took them back. Q. Is that the only reason? A. That is the only reason, and why the men felt that way is because of what happened during the strike. 38 It was also stipulated that the respondent offered employment to C. Gayer on or about October 8, but that he did not accept the offer. Since the respondent also admitted, how- ever, that the offer was not reinstatement but employment as a new worker, the undersigned finds that Gayer, like all other strikers, was not offered unconditional reinstatement but was, in effect, refused reinstatement. THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY 423 as a"new employee. The four employees named above, the undersigned finds, were'no less discriminated against than all other strikers. 'The undersigned' concludes and finds that the 61 employees named in footnote 1 above ceased' work on September 18,1941, because of and in connection with a current, labor dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of the Act, and that therefore they -continued to be employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act' It' is also found that on October 1 the respondent refused reinstate- ment to these 61 employees because they had engaged in'concerted action by going 'on strike. , The- respondent, by refusing to reinstate these 61 employees because of their Union and concerted activities, discriminated as to their hire and tenure of employment, and terms and 'conditions of their employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing tis employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by'Section 7 of the Act. 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 among the several States have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned, will, recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certainafl'irmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Joseph Corriveau, demoted and thereafter discharged Stephen Giret, and refused to reinstate the 61 striking employees whose names are listed in footnote 1 above. Therefore it will be recommended that the respondent offer to these employees immediate" and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, re- instatement as to ,the 61 employees above described, to be effected in the following manner : All new employees hired by the respondent after October 1, 1941, shall, if necessary to provide employment for those to be offered reinstatement, be dis- missed. If, thereafter, despite such reduction in force, there is not sufficient employment available for all the employees to be offered reinstatement, all avail- able positions shall be distributed among such employees according to their relative seniority as of September 18, 1941, without discrimination against any employee because of his union affiliation or activities or because of his participa- tion in the. strike. Those employees, if any, remaining after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed upon a preferential list and offered employment in their former or substantially equiv- alent positions as such employment becomes available and before other persons are,hired for such work, in the order of their relative seniority as of September 18, 1941! - ' • 87 The, record' shows that J Bakanas, Jr: and 'S Popovich; after being rehired as new employees; were inducted into the Armed Forces of the United States It will therefore be recommended that offer of reinstatement, as above set forth;, shall be made to Bak'anas, Popovich or any'other employee named in footnote 1,' above, who presently is serving in, the armed forces, upon application by them within forty (40) days after their discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To remedy the effects of the respondent's discharge of Corriveau , its demotion and discharge of Stephen Giret, and its refusal to reinstate the employees whose names appear in footnote 1 above, the undersigned will recommend that the re- spondent make whole the 63 employees above described for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the respondent 's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned ' as wages during the period from the date of the . respond- ent's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent 's offer of reinstate- ment, or of his placement on a preferential list, as the case may be, less his net earnings 33 during such period,39 except that (1) in the cases of Corriveau and Giret it is recommended that they not be reimbursed for any loss of earnings during the period between September 2,,1641, the date of the Regional Director's notification to the respondent that no complaint would be issued as to them, and June 29, 1943, the date of the issuance of the complaint in these proceedings, and (2) that in the cases of employees named in footnote 1 above who have been in- ducted into the armed forces of the United States since October 1 , 1941, each of them shall be made whole for loss of earnings in the manner above described during the periods; ( a) between October 1 , 1941, and the date of his induction into the armed forces, and ( h) between a date five (5 ) days after his timely application for reinstatement, and the date ' of offer of reinstatement by the respondent, or placement upon a preferential list. 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. United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0 ) ; and Wallingford Independent Steel Workers Association, unaffiliated, ' are labor organizations, 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 in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or the terms and conditions of employment of Joseph Corriveau, Stephen Giret, and the 61 employees whose names are listed in footnote 1 above, and thereby dis- couraging membership in the United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in-unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) 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. 38 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be con- sidered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. If. B 311 U. S. 7. 89Tbe record shows that at some undeteimined date after being rehired as a new em- ployee J. Simon quit the respondent's employ Since it has been found that such condi- tional hiring did not constitute unconditional reinstatement, the undersigned Is,, of the opinion and finds that the above-described remedy should likewise apply to Simon, whose name is included in the list in footnote 1 above . THE WALLINGFORD STEEL .COMPANY 425 RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the respondent, The Wallingford Steel Company, Walling- ford, Connecticut, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or the terms or conditions of employment, of any of its employees ; (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 choos- ing, 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Joseph Corriveau, Stephen Giret and the 61 employees whose names are listed in footnote 1 above, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The remedy," and place those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list and thereafter offer them employment as it becomes available, in the manner set forth in said section ; (b) Make whole Joseph Corriveau, Stephen Giret and the 61 employees whose names are listed in footnote 1 above, for any loss of pay they have suffered because of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, or of his placement on a preferential list, as the case may be and in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The remedy" less his net earnings' during such period ; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the respondent's Wall- ingford plant 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 respond- ent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of these recommenda- tions; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of United Steelworkers of America (C. I O ), and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity In said organization ; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid. 40 See footnote 38, supra. 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash- ington, 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 the 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. W. P. WESH, Trial Examiner. Dated August 17, 1943.