Arthur Colton Co.

50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ference with the employees' freedom of choice, or that the Respondent has domi- nated and interfered with the administration of the Shop Union or contributed fi- nancial or other support to it.17 It is found, therefore , that at no time did the Respondent interfere with, restrain, or coerce the Shop Union. After considering the entire record and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, it is concluded that the evidence does not indicate any violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. In view of the conclusions reached in earlier sections of this report , it is found also that the complaint's allegations of independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) on the part of the Respondent have not been sustained The burden was on the General Coun- sel to prove affirmatively, by substantial evidence, that the conduct described above constitutes unfair labor practices . The Trial Examiner does not believe that the General Counsel met this burden and it is so found.18 In view of the foregoing conclusions, it is concluded that the evidence warrants no finding that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act, and it will therefore be recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety 19 On the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case , the under- signed makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Ephraim Haspel , an individual doing business as Ephraim Haspel has engaged in and is engaging in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The E. Haspel Shop Union and Bonnaz and Hand Embroiderers, Tuckers, Stitchers and Pleaters Union, Local 66, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act have not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 17 Cf N L. R B. v Swank Products, 108 F 2d 872, 874 (C. A. 3). Is Indiana Metal Products Corp. v N L. R. B., 202 F 2d 613 (C A. 7) 'O N. L. R. B v. Universal Camera Corp, 340 U S 474 at 494, 495, 496; N. L R B. v. Dimon Cool Co., Inc., 201 F 2d 484 (C. A. 2). ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY and SNYDER TOOL AND ENGINEERING COM- PANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-.92 11. July 8,1954 Decision and Order On February 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Loren H. Laughlin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain un- fair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respond- ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 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 Inter- 109 NLRB No. 7 ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 51 mediate Report , the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner except for the following modifications : In adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we do not rely upon Respond- ents' action in following truckdriver Charles Covert out of the Mancelona plant on May 13, 1953. This incident occurred shortly after Covert notified management officials of the Mancelona employ- ees' organizing activities, precipitating Respondents' discriminatory discharge of the union leaders. Employee Covert testified that plant superintendent, Berthold C. Hammer, urged him to leave the plant, and go to a nearby town because "You will be safe down there." According to Covert's own testimony, lie drove instead to Detroit, 240 miles and 71/2 hours away, because he was afraid something might happen to him at the hands of "the boys they fired" at Mancelona. And the Trial Examiner noted at the hearing that Covert's attitude was still fearful. We therefore conclude that Respondents hurriedly unloaded Covert's truck and urged him to leave the premises to assure his safety and not to prevent him from coin inunicating with union leaders. Nor, in adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion as to the violation of Section 8 (a) (1), do we rely upon his finding that the Respond- ents made threats of economic reprisals to the employees. This find- ing lacks evidentiary support. We shall modify the Trial Examiner's recommended order to re- quire that Respondents post copies of the notice attached to this Deci- sion and Order as an "Appendix," only at its Mancelona plant because the violations alleged in the complaint related only to the union organizational campaign at that plant Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents, Arthur Colton Company and Snyder Tool and Engineering Company, Detroit, Michigan, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, UAW-CIO, or in any other labor organization of their employ- ees, by discharging any of their employees, or in any other manner 1 Member Murdock would sustain the Intcimediate Report in its entirety except foi that part of the recommended order requiring the posting of notices at both of Respondents' plants. He agrees that Respondents should be required to post notices only at their Mancelona plant 3:1-4311-: --- of 109---5 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discriminating against them in regard to line or tenure of employ- ment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Engaging in surveillance or interrogating their employees concerning their membership in, or activities on behalf of, Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con- dition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.' 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Ahmo Jordan, Ernest Bradley, Tony McKenny, and John Waterman immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole Ahmo Jordan, Ernest Bradley, Tony McKenny, and John Waterman for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondents' discrimination against them, in the manner provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (c) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re- ports, and all other records necessary for a determination of the amount of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at the Mancelona, Michigan, plant copies of the notice attached hereto as an "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents' representative, be posted by Re- 2 N. L. R B v. Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F 2d 532 (C A 4). 3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 59, spondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them, for sixty (60) consecutive dtys thereafter in conspicuous places, in- eluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. Appendix NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor- Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in any labor organizatibrv^ of our employees by discharging them or by in any manner dis- criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment. WE WILL immediately reinstate Alnno Jordan, Ernest Bradley,. Tony McKenny, and John Waterman to their former positions in the plant of Arthur Colton Company at Mancelona, Michigan, which they held prior to their discharges in May 1953, or to sub- stantially equivalent employments and we will make each of them, whole for any loss of pay he may have sustained. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance or interrogate our em- ployees concerning their membership in, or activities on behalf' of, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, or any other- labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, re- straint, or coercion, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-- ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, or any other labor organization, 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, and' to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8 (3^ 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain mem- bers of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization to which they are or may become eligible. ARTI)uit COLTON CWAIi'ANI AND SNYDER TOOL ANn Exi i EER1NG Co3tPAN1, Employers. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves alleged violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, 29 USCA 141 et seq., as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The acts are claimed to have been committed by the two Respondent Employers. The first, Arthur Colton Company, hereinafter reterred to as Colton, is admittedly a wholly owned subsidiary of the second, Snyder Tool and Engineering Company, hereinafter referred to as Snyder. The alleged violations arise from the said Respondents' discharges of four employees at the Colton plant at Mancelona, Michigan, on several fairly successive dates in mid-May 1953, at a time when they. together with other employees, were engaged in concerted activities definitely look- ing toward unionization of the plant. The original charge was filed June 11, 1953, by Kent L. Hanslowe, assistant gen- eral counsel of the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, always referred to herein as the Union. He also filed an amended charge on August 12, 1953. On the basis of these documents and his investigation the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) issued the complaint herein on August 21, 1953. Copies of the complaint, notice of hearing, the charge, and amended charge were all served in due course on both Respondents, and on the charging Union as well. Pursuant to due notice hearing of the case was held at the circuit courtroom in the Otsego County courthouse at Gaylord, Michigan, on October 13 and 14, 1953, by the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. General Counsel and Respondents appeared by their respective counsel and par- ticipated in the case. The Union did not appear either by representative or by counsel. The said parties so appearing and participating in the hearing were given full opportunity to be heard, to introduce competent evidence relevant to the issues, and to properly examine and cross-examine witnesses. Counsel appearing for the said parties were also respectively given every opportunity to make proper objec- tions and to present appropriate arguments and authorities throughout the hearing. Final arguments were waived. All parties were afforded full opportunity to submit briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. No briefs have been submitted, how- ever, by any of the parties. The ultimate issues for decision presented by the pleadings and evidence are: (1) Were the admitted discharges by Respondents in May 1953, of each and all of the four following-named employees at Respondent Colton's plant in Mance- lona, Michigan- Ahmo Jordan on May 8. John Waterman on May 9, and Tony McKenney and Ernest Bradley, both on May 13, and the corresponding refusals to reinstate each of them, discriminatory and violative of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as charged in paragraphs IX, X, XI, and XIII of the complaint? And were such discharges and refusals to reinstate also violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as also charged in said paragraphs, as well as in paragraphs XII (b) and XIV of the complaint? (2) Did Respondents violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as charged in the complaint, paragraph XII, subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c), respectively, and paragraph XIV, by ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 55 (a) Interrogating its employees and others concerning their own and other em- ployees' union affiliations and sympathies , and their concerted activities substan- tially looking toward unionization of the Mancelona plant? (b) Threatening their employees with discharge and other reprisals , if they joined, assisted, or adhered to the Union or engaged in their aforesaid concerted and union activities? (c) Engaging in a course of surveillance and espionage of their employees with respect to such employees' aforesaid concerted and union activities? I find generally that the General Counsel has proved each of the alleged viola- tions by a preponderance of the evidence , although the evidence as to each of sev- eral specific incidents or transactions relied upon by General Counsel is insufficient to sustain Section 8 (a) (1) allegations, and such incidents must be disregarded in the affirmative findings, all as covered in detail herein . There is, however, but little factual controversy on most of the issues, although as to John Waterman, one of the four dischargees , there is some substantial evidence to support the em- ployers' contention that the real reason for his discharge was his ineptitude or incompetence , not his concerted activity. This creates a sharp issue of fact as to that particular discharge. I have resolved against Respondents on that issue also, however, upon the entire evidence relevant to such discharge , and for good reasons hereinafter fully set forth. The Pleadings The complaint alleges in substance that Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act in that at the Colton plant in Mancelona on May 8, 9, 10, and 13, 1953, respectively , they discharged employees Ahmo Jordan, John Waterman, Tony McKenney (usually spelled McKenny in the record ), and Ernest Bradley and thereafter refused to reinstate or reemploy them to their former or substantially equivalent positions ; that they were so discharged and refused reinstatement or reemployment because of their concerted activities in attempting to join or assist a labor organization and to bargain collectively and engage in other concerted activities to that end through the Union. At the hearing, in accordance with the evidence and a stipulation entered into as to the actual dates of the discharges, General Coun- sel amended to conform so that it is now properly alleged both McKenny and Bradley were discharged on May 13. it was further alleged generally that Respondents : (a) Interrogated their employees and others concerning their union and concerted activities , (b) threatened their em- ployees with discharge and other reprisals if they joined the Union or engaged in concerted activities , and (c ) engaged in surveillance and espionage of their employees with respect to their union and concerted activities ; and that all of such alleged acts were violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The answer neither admitted nor denied the allegations as to the said discharges alleged to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (3). This was not technically tantamount to a denial thereof under Section 102 .20, Rules and Regulations of the Board, Series 6, as amended , despite an "information and belief" clause in the verification to the answer. General Counsel , however, tried the case upon the theory such alleged Section 8 ( a) (3) matters actually were denied by Respondents and the Trial Ex- aminer therefore considers them so denied, and holds that the burden of proof therefore lies upon General Counsel at all times to establish such facts by a pre- ponderance of the evidence . There was, however, special denial of each of the alleged independent Section 8 (a) (1) violations by Respondents , and of course the General Counsel has the usual burden of proof thereon. Jurisdictional and other matters pleaded in the complaint and either admitted or denied in the answer are specially dealt with under appropriate subsequent cap- tions. Motion To Strike and To Dismiss Overruled At the beginning of the hearing before any testimony had been adduced Respond- ents' counsel moved to strike and dismiss all portions of the complaint based upon the amended charge, as distinguished from the original charge, it being such coun- sel's position in substance that the Board , after a charge has been filed , has no au- thority to investigate and then incorporate further alleged acts in an amended charge. (Another ground of objection , that the original charging party had not signed the amended charge , was immediately cleared up by General Counsel demonstrating that the same party had signed both . This ground would be immaterial in any event since a charge "may be made by any person." See Section 102.9, Rules and Regula- tion of the Board , Series 6, as amended ; and N L R. B v. Indiana & Michigan Elec- tric Co. 318 U. S. 9.) Z6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The said motion to strike and dismiss was overruled by the Trial Examiner with- .out prejudice to its renewal , either formally at the close of the hearing or other- wise appropriately throughout the record . No further action was taken by Re- spondent, however, in regard to said motion . The original charge merely set out the four discharges and alleged their illegal character in brief as violative of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) and ( 3), whereas the amended charge stated such matter in more formal language and added further and very generally the 8 (a) (1) allegations -of surveillance and threats of discharge and other reprisals . The complaint elab- orated somewhat on the amended charge but added no new matters other than as set out in the amended charge, and all matters pleaded were properly incorporated in the complaint . This method of pleading accords to the now well -established Cathey Lumber Co. doctrine that a complaint may lawfully enlarge upon a timely ,charge if the additionally alleged unfair labor practices were committed no longer .than 6 months prior to the charge See Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157, enforced Catliey Lumber Co v N. L R. B, 185 F 2d 1021 (C. A. 6), (en- forcement later vacated, however, on the sole ground that the union had not com- plied with Section 9 (b) of the Act), N. L. R. B. v. Kobritz, Samuel J. d/b/a Star Beef Company, 193 F. 2d 8 (C. A. 1), Cusano d/b/a American Shuffleboard Co. v. N. L. R. B, 190 F. 2d 898 (C. A. 3) All pertinent cases are collated in LRRM Cum. Digest, Sec 36. 055. See also the very recent case of N. L R. B v. Pecheur Lozenge Co., Inc , 209 F 2d 393 (C. A 2), and cases cited holding in accordance with this doctrine that General Counsel is not restricted to the precise violations specified in the charge but may properly plead others if they are closely related and occurred within 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. Respondent has cited no authority to the contrary . And all matters charged in the amended charge and alleged in the complaint were well within the 6-month limitation prior to the ,original charge. The ruling denying the motion in toto is in accordance with law .and is now adhered to. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses , I make the following findings of fact: 1. JURISDICTION-NATURE AND EXTENT OF RESPONDENTS' BUSINESSES The complaint alleges and the answer admits that Respondents Colton and Snyder ,are and were at all material times Michigan corporations , with their principal offices .and places of business at Mancelona , Michigan, and Detroit, Michigan , respec- tively, where they operate manufacturing plants and are engaged in the production of packaging machinery; that Colton is a wholly owned subsidiary of Snyder, both operating under common management , ownership , and control , and constituting a single integrated enterprise and a single employer , that Colton during its fiscal year -ending June 30, 1953 , caused to be purchased , transferred , and delivered in interstate and/or foreign commerce to its Mancelona plant from points outside of Michigan materials valued in excess of $4,800 , that Colton manufactured and shipped di- rectly from the Mancelona plant to points outside of Michigan products exceeding `$50,000 in value, and a like amount to purchasers in Michigan , each of whom an- nually ships products valued in excess of $25,000 to points outside of Michigan, that Snyder annually causes to be manufactured and ships from its Detroit plant in in- terstate and foreign commerce products valued in excess of $750,000 , and annually ships into said Detroit plant from points outside of Michigan materials valued in excess of $ 100,000, and that both Respondents are and at all material times have been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. At the hearing the parties also stipulated that these admitted facts established the Board's jurisdiction . This is true under the Board's jurisdictional policies estab- lished in 1950 and still current , as stated below . I therefore find jurisdiction exists ,and should be exercised. Upon this admitted integrated corporate relationship which I find to be true in „accordance with Section 102.20, Rules and Regulations of the Board , Series 6, as amended, there can be no question both as to the Board's jurisdiction over each Respondent, and as to Respondents' joint responsibility for any unfair labor practices connected with the Colton plant which the evidence establishes were committed by Colton. As to joint responsibility see. N. L. R. B. v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U. S. 226, 227, note 2; N. L. R. B v. Federal Engineering Co., 153 F. 2d 233, 234 (C. A. ,6), N. L. R. B v. Dayton Coal and Iron Corp, and Luke Lea, Jr., 208 F. 2d 394 ,(C. A. 6); N. L. R B. v. Somerset Classics, Inc cC Modern Mfg. Co, Inc., 193 F. 2d 613, 615 (C. A. 2), cert. denied 344 U. S. 816, N L. R. B. v. National Garment Co., 166 F. 2d 233 (C. A 8), cert. denied, 344 U. S. 845, and N. L R B. v. National ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 57 Shoes, Inc., et a!.,, 208 F. 2d 688 (C. A. 2). It is interesting to note that under the Act this particular principle was originally enunciated by the Board in its very first officially reported case. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, 1 NLRB 1, 3, 4, 43, 44, affirmed, N. L. R. B v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261. Current policies of the Board established in 1950 are that the Board will take juris- diction over any enterprises (1) producing goods for out-of-State shipments valued at $25,000 a year (Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618), and (2) furnishing goods of $50,000 a year to concerns shipping $25,000 worth of goods annually outside of the State (Hollow Tree Lumber Com- pany, 91 NLRB 635). II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges that International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act . The answer neither admits nor denies the same, but the parties at the hearing stipulated that the facts were as alleged in the complaint . I therefore find such facts to be true in accordance with the said stipulation. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The general situation Respondent Snyder manufactures special machinery at its plant in Detroit. Re- spondent Colton, wholly owned by Snyder, is located in the same general plant and manufactures pharmaceutical machinery, which in turn uses punches and dies manu- factured by Colton at Mancelona. The same officers and management control all the operations of the two corporations except that there is a plant superintendent at Mancelona who hires employees locally. Overall production policies, orders, capital expenditures, and fiscal controls emanate from and through the management of Snyder in Detroit. All equipment such as machinery is also purchased by the Detroit management and then it is hauled from Detroit to Mancelona for installa- tion. Except for minor repairs made locally, such machinery is also returned to Detroit for any necessary reconditioning and major repairs, then shipped back to Mancelona. Whenever machinery and supplies are needed at Mancelona, a loaded truck leaves Detroit for Mancelona 1 day and returns to Detroit the next with machinery needing repair and also any manufactured products from the Mancelona plant ready for the Detroit plant. It is about 240 miles from Detroit to Mancelona which is in the northern part of Michigan's southern peninsula. The Mancelona plant was established about September 1952, and the first five men hired there were employed on September 26. The floor was then being laid and as machinery was brought in and placed, the men were gradually taken off this general labor and put on the machines. And after the plant was completed about 50 people were employed at all times material hereto, some 42 or 43 of them being production workers and the balance supervisory and clerical. One Henry Collins is the plant manager and Berthold C Hammer has been plant superintendent since November 1952, his predecessor having been one Homer Vance. Hammer is directly responsible to Bruce Regan of Detroit, who is the works manager for both Respondents. At the Mancelona plant Homer Culp is assistant plant superintendent, Clifford Bradshaw is a foreman, and Charles Kraft is night superintendent. The physical layout of the Colton plant at Mancelona is described by Superin- tendent Hammer as being a cement block building, along the railroad in the north part of the town, which is about 100 feet long and some 30 to 35 feet wide. The offices are at the front of the building. A large truck entrance is at the rear. A wide aisle runs through the center of the production area leading to the rear entrance where trucks come in. Also at the rear of the building in one corner is located the shipping or maintenance supply room and in the other rear corner there is a room for heat-treating and chrome-plating. In the main room of the plant on each side of the wide center aisle stands a line of the machinery necessary to the plant's pro- duction, that is lathes, turret lathes, and grinders of all types. There are also wash- rooms which other evidence discloses are near the front of the building next to the offices. There was also another outside door entering into the main workroom at one side of the building leading from the parking space outside. Some of the male employees eat their noon meals in the building in bad weather. There are also some female employees who eat in the plant but apart from the men, the latter gathering in several congenial groups to eat their lunches. "Mancelona is about 30 miles from Gaylord, the place of hearing, and no view of the plant was requested and none was made. It is quite clear from the evidence, 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD however, that it is a rather small 1-story building and that the supervisory personnel could easily observe the activities of the plant's comparatively few employees, and could even overhear their discussions in ordinary tones of voice in the plant's toilets, at lunch and at work. The plant certainly was not well arranged for the holding of any secret conclaves. B. The employees' concerted activities at Mancelona There was naturally no union organization at the Colton Mancelona plant when it was opened. Talk concerning bringing a union into the plant began almost at once, however, as part of the general conversations among the employees. Jordan says, "[W]e were disgusted with the pay we was getting, the work we was doing and some of the discharges and . other conditions within the plant." Bradley stated, "[E]ver since it [the plant] started there was a little whisper here and there, and as time went on, times got worse, it [union talk] built up." Waterman takes credit for having started the discussions "way back . . . before the plant got into opera- tion." These general conversations concerning unionizing took place among a group of some 12 or more employees, usually during the time they ate their noon lunch at a bench or at some tables near a side door at the back of the main workroom of the plant. Sometimes on nice days they ate and carried on their discussions just outside the plant in the yard. Most of the talking was done by Jordan, Bradley, Waterman, and 1 or 2 others. Waterman said, "I just discussed . that I thought we should have protection against being discharged," explaining that at the beginning the employees while trying to work at the machines very annoyingly would be shifted to painting, moving machines, and other odd jobs. These luncheon conversations were, of course, informal, but usually one man at a time talked and the others listened. McKenny, who was not employed by Colton until February 1953, had then joined this luncheon group and took some part in these conversations and other concerted activities. McKenny says the talk was mostly "by Jordan or `Free' Bradley or John Waterman," and Bradley agrees, but says that although the rest of the persons present did not participate in the talk, "[T]hey was all in favor of it," and he knew of none "who were against it " McKenny also said that he and Bradley were the ones who passed out the union authorization cards, but that they did not do so in the plant. McKenny said he signed I card and passed out such cards individually to 12 or 13 other employees The testimony does not disclose just when these cards were circulated but it was evidently shortly prior to the four discharges. C. Decision to contact Union ,at Detroit The record is not at all clear as to just how many persons had already been dis- charged at the plant before this group of employees finally definitely decided to take action toward unionizing rather than to just continue talking about it. One or two particular discharges , however, seemed to have brought about the group's deci- sion to act . Although Bradley claimed that some 20 to 25 employees either quit or were discharged between the time the plant opened up in September 1952 and May 1953, he is not very specific. Wateiman also refers very generally to the subject, saying, "every time someone would be discharged , there was discussion of it." Jordan, however, can only recall 2 discharges within the period of about 2 months prior to his own discharge in May. that of one Harvey Burkholder and also that of a girl , one Phyllis Puckett, who was discharged on April 30 . The details of these several discharges and either the real or alleged reasons for them were not developed in the evidence , although rumor had it that the girl was discharged for talking too much at her work. But it is clear that the Phyllis Puckett discharge on April 30 so angered the men that it actually precipitated the concerted effort of this group of employees to actually get in touch with the Union in Detroit. D. Respondents' knowledge of employees concerted activities There was both direct and circumstantial evidence that the employees ' concerted activities had not escaped management's sharp eyes and ears even before the "Covert" disclosure on May 6 , 1953. Jordan testified that in the evening of the day he was discharged , while talking to Culp at the latter 's home about the reasons for his discharge, and after Jordan had told Culp that Covert , the truckdriver, had been bringing union information from Detroit, Culp told Jordan that "he [Culp] knew we was talking Union back at the table during our lunch period," and that "he knew that we was getting information about the Union from the truck drivers." Culp denies this conversation but not too positively, claiming that it had "been so ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 59 long ago that most of it has slipped my mind." I find therefore that substantially such a conversation actually occurred. As already recited the employees' lunchtime conversations were anything but secret sessions and each of the four who were later discharged took a leading part therein. While most of the supervisory force usually ate their luncheons at their homes during this noonday period, other employees not in this group of men were in the plant, and these noon talks and similar discussions about unionizing often also took place in their presence. At least one other employee was suspected of reporting to management. Once in the men's restroom Jordan and Bradley were openly discussing the Union when Plant Manager Collins came it There was fre- quent discussion concerning union organization in this restroom which was separated from the office by only a thin partition. And members of management returning from lunch would come in the plant's side door near where this concerting group ate their lunch and talked Union since that door was closer to the auto parking than the front door. Also during the lunch period there was always some member of the supervisory personnel left in the plant None of the foregoing generally recited facts were denied by representatives of management and 1 find them to be true. In addition to Culp's alleged express admission of knowledge as testified to by Jordan, evidence as to the small size and the arrangement of the plant was such that I infer the supervisors, without any expressly planned surveillance, could not possibly escape overhearing and knowing about the employees' talk of unionizing and who the leaders in the movement were. Apparently nothing was done in opposition to it by management, however, as long as the employees' activity remained in the purely conversational stages. E. Selection of truckdriver Covert to obtain union information The Mancelona plant employees knew that the Respondents' Detroit plant had been organized by the Union and that the truckdriver, Charles Covert, who brought equipment and materials up to Mancelona from the Detroit plant, was a member of the union local at Detroit. Jordan had eaten breakfast with Covert in a coffee shop in Mancelona on a number of occasions. So Jordan was selected by the employees' group to see him since he knew Covert better than any of the other interested employees, and as Jordan put it, "it was easier for me to make contact with him, so we figured, without the company getting wise to what was going on." Jordan at a prior breakfast had already discussed with Covert the desire of the Mancelona plant employees to unionize in order to better their conditions, so on May 6, while again in the coffee shop, Jordan asked Covert to obtain the name of the union steward in Detroit for him. Covert had driven a loaded truck up from Detroit the preceding day and in accordance with his usual practice was leaving again for Detroit that morning After breakfast was concluded they rode over in Jordan's car to the plant which was a few blocks away. And just before Covert drove the truck off for Detroit Jordan rather childishly wrote a short message on a slip of paper and gave it to Covert, who on a prior trip had explained to Jordan that a new union steward would soon be elected The note was addressed to no one, and since the original, which had passed into Respondents' hands as herein- after discussed, was not produced in evidence, Jordan and Covert both testified without objection to the substance of it, which I find was "Will you get us the name and address of the new steward? . and we'll try to get together. . . ... Since it was addressed to no one it was much like a wife tying a string on her husband's thumb to remind him to bring home some bread. After Covert had again told him it would be well to wait until the new steward was elected, Jordan said they would take no action to unionize at Mancelona until about May 16. There is some in- ference that there would be some merit increases by that time and the concerting employees apparently did not desire to cut off such possible increases by earlier unionization at Mancelona. Covert readily agreed to bring the requested informa- tion to Jordan on his next trip up to Mancelona from Detroit F. On May 6 Detroit management informed by Covert But Covert belied his name. He was anything but "covert" and discreet when it came to carrying out his confidential mission. The late "Fra Elbertus" Hubbard would never have selected him as the hero of his classic story, "A Message to Garcia," since about the first thing Covert did after he got to Detroit at 3 p. m. was to reveal the concerted activity at Mancelona that very afernoon to Louis Coleman, the machine shop foreman of Respondent Snyder. (It was stipulated between the parties at the hearing that Coleman was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, particularly Section 2 (11).) For a year or so Covert had ridden home from work 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the evenings in Coleman's car so he naturally waited for Coleman that evening and rode home with him. Both Covert and Coleman testified under subpena for General Counsel and are in very substantial agreement as to what happened that evening of May 6. As they rode along, Covert, who was somewhat tired, suddenly volunteered the information to Coleman that the employees at Mancelona wanted to join the Union, and then he told Coleman about receiving the note, which he said "Kind of puts me on a spot." A simple inquiry was made by Coleman concerning the note, and after some slight discussion between them, it finally resulted in Covert giving the note somewhat reluctantly to Coleman, who then said he would take care of it. As Covert got out of the car Coleman told him, "Don't worry about any- thing, everything will be taken care of." "Everything" was "taken care of" the next day by Coleman who promptly turned the note over to Bruce Regan, the works manager of Snyder. And without seeing Coleman at all, Covert himself went in to see Regan and simply inquired whether Coleman had talked to Regan Covert received a "Yes" answer and departed. Later in the day, however, Regan called Covert into his office and asked him to pick up a package in front of Regan's apartment at 1:30 p m When Covert got there Regan and Vice-President Kenneth B. Hollidge of Respondent Companies drove up in Hollidge's car. Covert at their request got into the car and there then ensued an extensive conversation concerning what was going on at the Mancelona plant, detailed later under the caption, "Alleged Interrogations." Covert did not know too much but he apparently told them about all that he did know. And it developed there was in fact no package at all for him to get. it being only a pretext of management to meet Covert outside of the plant to get all the informa- tion possible from him about who was most active in the concerted activities up at Mancelona. G. Covert's return to Mancelona on May 13 Jordan and Waterman were discharged on May 8 and 9 at Mancelona. But on May 13 Covert was directed to take a needed lathe and other material in the truck to the Mancelona plant. He left Detroit about 8:30 a. in. testifying that he first made inquiry of Regan, "[I]s everything all right in Mancelona and he [Regan] said, `Yes'." Covert was then in fear of the results of his revelations to Coleman and Hollidge . Covert arrived about 4:10 p. m. at Mancelona and backed into the rear door in accordance with his usual procedure But instead of the usual two workmen to help him as had been the custom he found "all the bosses and the foremen were around there ." Hammer told him "to unload in a hurry and get out of there. I [Covert] asked him why and he said, `Well , we expect trouble."' Covert did not want to leave but Hammer told him to go to Roscommon and stay all night, and when Covert resisted the idea, Hammer said , "No, you better go You will be safe down there , Charlie," and "We'll have the station wagon follow you down to see that you get down there all right." Two supervisors stayed with him all the time they were hurriedly unloading with the aid of extra help . So although the union election had been held at Detroit on the 9th and Covert had just obtained the new union steward 's name and address "to give to Jordan when I came back [to Mancelona ) . 1 didn't have a chance . . . [E]verything was rushed . They told me to get unloaded and get out of there in a hurry." He talked to no one at the plant but Superintendent Hammer Finishing the unloading about 4:30 p. in., Covert hurriedly drove to Roscommon. Collins, the plant manager at Mancelona , talked to Covert at Roscommon , however, pulling up by the truck. Collins was in the station wagon alone and he asked Covert if he was all right and if he had enough money Inquiry by Covert as to what was the trouble at the Mancelona plant yielded no definite information , and Covert then told Collins he would not stay in Roscommon but would go on to Bay City, or even oil home to Detroit that night . Covert did drive on home to Detroit that night some 240 miles, a 71/2 hour trip . He stated he was afraid something might happen to him at the hands of "the boys that they fired" at Mancelona Just who told him about it during the hurried job of unloading does not appear in the evidence, but it was evidently Hammer since Covert talked to no one else While Hammer was present as a witness for General Counsel under subpena, he did not testify at any time concerning these events on May 13, and Collins was never called as a witness. H. Subsequent events at Detroit Covert got back to Detroit quite late from his Mancelona trip on May 13 so he slept all day May 14. Coleman , the supervisor to whom he had earlier confided the concerted activities at Mancelona, telephoned him on May 15, saying, "Sorry, Charlie, I got you in trouble ," to which Covert responded , "The thing has happened ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 61 now." Coleman then said, "Don't say anything . If you lose your job , I will get you another job." Covert then told him he would see him in the morning . Whether he did or not the evidence does not disclose, but it is of no importance. On Friday, May 15, for the first time Covert told Steve Ryan, the new chief steward of the Union, about what he, Covert, had done about revealing the Man- celona activities to management. Ryan knew there had been some trouble at Mancelona because 3 or 4 of the men from Mancelona had come to Detroit that very day and wanted to see Colton, but Ryan did not let Colton meet with them. When Covert told Ryan what he had done , Ryan told him "it looks bad, . . . I would advise you to go home . The boys are around here looking for you .. . I don't want you to get hurt." So Covert accepted his advice and left for home right after lunch . He did not return to work until noon Wednesday , the 20th, and then only worked a day. Meanwhile he had had further talks with Ryan on the telephone. Ryan said the union president wanted to talk to Covert and Covert then tried to reach the president by leaving a message at the CIO hall, but got no response. And during his 1 day back at work Ryan also told him , "the boys didn't think much of . . what (you) had done," and whether he quit or not was up to Covert himself. Covert fortunately had been previously selected to serve on a jury commencing the following Monday, May 25, and during the course of some 4 weeks' jury duty he decided he would not return to his employment with Respondents. Apparently he had discussed his dilemma with an abstract -of-title man he knew and then called the Respondents ' office on June 12 and advised that he "wouldn't be back on account of . the way the boys felt about me , I didn't figure it was right for me to go back there." He testified there had been no threats of reprisal if he did not testify in this case, nor any other threats toward him. At the time of hearing he was a route salesman for Jewel Tea Company in Detroit. 1. Covert's story credible Covert's story is very strange , and standing alone on a cold record it does challenge even simple credulity. Covert had been a union member for some 7 to 8 years and it is difficult to believe that he was still so innocent and naive as to knowingly con fide confidential union business in a supervisor , with the very grave and certain danger that management would take up some counteraction with the probable con- sequence, at the least, that other union members or prospective union members would feel that Covert had betrayed them, or even worse, that there might be re- suiting physical encounters and injury to him. The inference might well arise that Covert had deliberately engaged in espionage for Respondents. But Covert was not the typical robust, large, and extroversive truckdriver. He was a "light truck driver." He was rather small physically, and quite inoffensive in character, an extremely timid and vacillating man. From my close observation of him on the stand, I believe he was honest and sincere and that he did not intend to harm anyone by deliberately revealing union confidences to management , but that after he had too hastily promised Jordan to get some union information at Detroit for the Man- celona employees, driving along on his way back to Detroit he had begun to worry about it, and feeling that he "was on the spot," in a hasty burst of confidence he had told his good friend , Louis Coleman, about it Asked on cross-examination why he told Coleman, Covert credibly answered "Well, I rode home with him. I always thought he was a pretty good man. We have good men in our staff as well as you have in the Union. I didn't think he would go and tell Regan. . Coleman, in turn, as a part of management , was confronted with a difficult ethical problem, that is whether to tell higher authority in the management, or to respect Covert's personal confidence. He made the choice where his legal duty lay-and in fact Covert had apparently not expressly asked him not to tell his superiors. But Coleman, of course, knew that in all probability the news would spread and it would definitely lead back to Covert as the informant, and Covert would then most surely, be regarded as a pariah and traitor by his fellow union members. Coleman evi- dently did not find the results of his revelations to higher authority too pleasant since on July 20 he resigned his position as machine shop foreman for Respondents where he had been employed 31/2 years, and began to operate a business of his own, a bar at Onaway, Michigan , away up in the lower peninsula of the State. I observed: Coleman on the stand to be very shame-faced and embarrassed because of his part in the business of having involved Covert in anxieties and other difficulties. Coleman fully corroborated Covert, and since Respondents' Vice-President Hol- lidge and Works Manager Regan failed to appear as witnesses to deny other parts of Covert's story, their strange silence in effect also corroborates his testimony. And the train of events which was set in motion by Coleman's repetition of Covert's. story, and which almost immediately resulted in the four discharges and other unfair 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices at Mancelona, all in substance are confirmatory of the truth of Covert's story I believe from its very timing that the decision of Respondent's man- agement at Detroit to act suddenly to head off union membership and activity in the Mancelona plant by discharging the ringleaders among the employees there was truly generated by Covert's report to Coleman about the immediate incipience of union activity up in the woods of northern Michigan where management had appar- ently hoped it would not gain impetus. And I do believe Covert was actually in fear of physical violence not only when he fled Mancelona , and also later on at the De- troit plant, but still later . At the hearing he still had the attitude of fear upon his face and in his restless nervousness all the while he was testifying , although before the hearing was over the following day I observed the four dischargees , several of whom were large men, come up and shake hands with him in a friendly manner and thereafter they all sat together and visited in the courtroom when the hearing was being conducted . I noticed Covert was still nervous at that time , however, despite the apparent security of his situation Covert, in my judgment , was far from clever and wholly unpossessed of guile, and undoubtedly suffered intensely from fear as well as from remorse in consequence of his foolish loquacity I therefore find his entire story to be true as it has hereinbefore been narrated. J. Alleged Section 8 (a) (3) violations 1. The discharges It was alleged in the complaint (paragraphs IX, X, and Xl ) in substance that as a result of their concerted activities the four employees Ahmo Jordan, Ernest Freeman ("Free" ) Bradley, Tony James McKenny (sometimes also spelled McKen- ney in the record ) and John Albert Waterman were discriminately discharged from the employ of Respondent Colton and have been refused reinstatement . Respond- ent neither admits nor denies the discharges (Answer , Paragraphs 10 and 11), but denies the allegation of discrimination . Respondent apparently contends by the factual developments at the hearing that the four dischargees were each respectively discharged for cause . It is entirely undisputed that Jordan was discharged on May 8, Waterman on May 9, and McKenny and Bradley both on May 13, each discharge being without prior notice . All of these four discharges took place within a week of the time Covert had late on May 6 so indiscreetly made known to the Detroit management the employees' plan to enter upon a definite organizational campaign about May 16 for the purpose of unionizing the Mancelona plant Each dischargee's particular situation will be separately considered, as well as in connection with all the relevant evidence on the subject. 2. In general-qualifications of the four discharged employees The production at the Mancelona plant is the making of punches and dies. The ultimate plant output is precision production with close tolerance . The machinist employees work chiefly on lathes and grinders . There is some preliminary rough machining. The work is all done on a production line. Plant superintendent Ham- mer testified that "After some training" anybody could do the finished operations, but that "some fellows learn faster than others." Each workman sets up his own ma- chine and makes the adjustments required due to the wear and deterioration of parts of machines , perishable tools, and grinding wheels. A floor inspector "spot- checks" the work for quality and a final inspection department must clear every piece before it leaves the plant. A maintenance man assists the workmen in cor- recting any trouble on their machines . The rough machining or grinding is done on soft metals. The pieces are then heat-treated, after which the finished grinding and machining takes place. It was stipulated in substance that on or about July 9, 1953, Superintendent Ham- mer and Plant Manager Collins of the Mancelona plant had indicated to counsel for Respondent that the said four dischargees were not discharged because their individual work records were particularly bad when compared with the average in the plant , but that with one exception they were average; that this one exception did not impress the Detroit manager too well, but his work record was average. It is not definitely indicated just who the one exception was. The evidence pertaining to the work and qualification of each of the four dis- chargees will now be carefully and separately analyzed. Jordan Ahmo Leo Ralph Jordan was hired by Plant Manager Homer Culp. He began to work for Respondent Colton at the Mancelona plant on December 8, 1952, and ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 63 was discharged on May 8, 1953. On May 18 he began work as a machinist in the toolroom of the Duo-Therm Division of Motor Wheel Corporation at Lansing, Michigan. Before joining Colton, he had had some previous mechanical training. He had only been criticized once during his work for Respondent. This occurred about 2 months before his discharge, when Superintendent Hammer told him to take a "heavier cut," to which he answered in substance that he had been trained by then Foreman Culp (later assistant plant superintendent) to first take a light cut and then to take a heavy cut on a new chuck to see how they lined up. Jordan had started for Colton at $1.20 per hour and had received 2 periodic 5-cent an hour increases during his first 90 days of employment. Hammer did not contradict this testimony. Bradley Ernest Freeman Bradley, usually called "Free," was employed by William Vance, former superintendent at the Colton Mancelona plant, on September 26, 1952, Brad- ley being 1 of the first 5 men hired there. He was hired as a laborer to lay floor and set machines but later on did machine work under Foreman Bradshaw. In February he worked a month on the night shift which had just started and when he came off that shift he asked to be transferred to the lathe department across the aisle because of some misunderstanding with Bradshaw, his foreman on the day shift, but he was never so transferred. Bradley was discharged May 13, 1953. On May 21 he began working at the Jet Plant Division of General Motors at Lansing. i McKenny Tony James McKenny was employed as a grinder at the Colton Mancelona plant about February 1, 1953, by Collins, the plant manager. He was so employed until his discharge on May 13. On May 21 he began work grinding on assembly at the Oldsmobile Jet Plant in Lansing, Michigan. Waterman Jchn Albert Waterman was also hued by the former plant superintendent, Vance, on September 26, 1952, as a common laborer to set up machines and get the plant in readiness. He then became a production machinist on a grinder. On December 20 he became a screw machine operator and still later in January 1953 was trans- ferred back into the grinding department. He was then again transferred back to a different sciew machine at which he worked until discharged. He started at $1.05 per hour and was receiving $1.40 per hour when he was discharged on May 9, 1953. On June 9, 1953, he began to work for Lincoln-Mercury Division of Ford Motor Company at Wayne, Michigan, as a hand disc grinder and less than 5 months later was earning $2.101/2 per hour including night premium and cost-of-living allow- ance. Prior to his employment by Colton he had worked several years as toreman of a cherry packing plant. He had also formerly been a farmer and restaurant operator and his mechanical experience had been not only that usual to the farm but for 3 years he had also worked on machinery of some sort in a war plant. It appears from this evidence that all four of these dischargees Jordan, Bradley, McKenny, and Waterman were not only average in their production records with Respondents, but were also sufficiently qualified to obtain other similar employment elsewhere within relatively short periods of time, respectively 10, 8, 8, and 30 days, after their said discharges by Respondents The reasons given by Respondents for their said discharges will be covered under the succeeding caption, "Alleged reasons for the discharges." Absent substantial affirmative evidence to show their incom- petence or inefficiency it appeais from the evidence already recited that such reasons were not the real causes of three of the discharges, those of Jordan, Bradley, and McKenny. Respondents' evidence strongly indicates, however, that such ele- ment of incompetence was controlling in its discharge of Waterman, who was evi- dently the exception referred to in the stipulation who did not impress the Detroit management too well. Each of the four dischargees appeared to be a man of average intelligence and general experience in middle age All made favorable impressions on the Trial Examiner as to honesty, industry, and integrity. Jordan and Waterman had actually received wage raises during their employment by Colton. Waterman was only 42 but appeared to be much older and as a witness he was not quite as quick or fluent as the other three dischargees. But he, like the others, soon after his discharge, achieved another position, and he now receives much higher pay and is apparently making good at his new job. 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Discharges and alleged reasons therefor Plant Superintendent Hammer and Assistant Plant Superintendent Homer Culp of 'Colton's Mancelona plant were the only persons connected with Respondents man- agement who testified in the case concerning the technical qualifications of the four dischargees or the alleged reasons for their discharges . Hammer testified under subpoena for General Counsel . Culp was called by Respondents. As to Ahmo Jordan 's discharge, Jordan himself testified that on May 8, 1953, at 4 30 p . m. without prior notice he was called into the office by Superintendent Ham- mer who then said, "Well , Ahmo , here is where we part friendship " Jordan saw his check had already been made out and he surmised what was happening but asked why it was. Hammer responded , "You are not getting enough work out, there are more fellows all around you getting more work out than you are " Jordan told him he "was getting just as much out as some of the rest of them," whereupon Hammer raised the issue of the incident which had occurred 2 months prior when Hammer had criticized Jordan's method of cutting too lightly , hereinbefore mentioned. Jor- dan again explained the situation to Hammer , and after some conversation about the Union , covered under the subsequent caption , "The alleged interrogations," Jor- ,dan then picked up his toolbox and left the plant . That evening he went to see Homer Culp at the latter 's home and inquired as to why he had been discharged. The latter said he really did not know . There was then also some conversation between them about the Union , which is likewise covered under the subsequent heading "The alleged interrogations." The conversation was friendly but netted no tangible results for Jordan. . Hammer testified that he discharged Jordan but did not explain the precise cir- cumstances . Culp testified that Jordan came to his home and that they had a con- versation and that Jordan , altho he had previously had a drink and was upset, was not drunk and was comparatively orderly. Culp controverted Jordan's version of events only insofar as it related to the matters occurring at Culp's home , covered later herein under the caption "The alleged interrogations." I therefore find Jordan's version of the events of his discharge at the plant to be true. "Free" Bradley 's discharge as testified to by him was that he was discharged about 4 29 p . m. on May 13 by Hammer. It was right after the truck from Detroit came in. Hammer had been suffering from a bad back and did not come to the plant until a little after 4 o'clock. He first complained to Bradley about his back and then later when they had gone in Hammer's office, Hammer said "Well, Bradley, I guess here is where we part ." Bradley asked , "Why?" and Hammer replied, "You haven't been cooperating . . . with Clif [Bradshaw, Bradley's foreman]." Bradley then said. "Well, why wasn 't I transferred [to the lathe department under a different foreman] like I asked to be?", and Hammer said, "Well , you are doing all right there, we thought we would leave you there ." Bradley stated that prior to this time Culp and Hammer had told him "Clif [ Bradshaw ] had a personal feeling that I [Bradley] could put out more than I was," but they had never explained to Bradley the basis for Bradshaw's view. Bradley after the discharge went out into the plant to see Bradshaw, who then disclaimed any prior knowledge of the proposed discharge of Bradley until just before it actually had occurred, stating he had just been told that Bradley had been called to the office for discharge. Bradley then picked up his tool- box and left. Hammer testified that he discharged Bradley but did not explain the circumstances . Bradshaw did not testify. I therefore find Bradley's version of his ,discharge to be true. Tony James McKenny 's discharge according to his testimony was that he was discharged by Culp in his office about 4:30 p . m. on May 13, 1953, at the same time Bradley was being discharged by Hammer in the latter's office . Culp gave McKenny his check saying, "Well, Tony, this is it." McKenny, quite surprised, said, "What is the scoop?" to which Culp replied , "Well, the orders are coming in very slow . we're going to modernize the shop to get more production out." McKen- ny then inquired, "In other words, this is just temporarily9 ", and Culp answered "No, I am afraid this is it." McKenny complained bitterly about the layoff without a minute's notice and Culp said, ".I can't help it . . There is four or five of us get ,our heads together [either] Wednesday of Thursday . . . ( W)e had the discussion and I ain't got much to say about it." McKenny then asked if his work was satis- factory and Culp replied , "(A)t first you was a little slow about it, but lately you have been improving a lot " McKenny thanked him, took his check, and walked ,out. Culp did not deny McKenny's story of the discharge and I find it to be true. The reasons for John Albert Waterman 's discharge are in some substantial dispute altho the circumstances pertaining to the actual event itself are not. Waterman testi- fied he was discharged by Culp on May 9, 1953, about 4.29 p . m., just at the end ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 65 of Waterman's shift . Culp came to him and asked Waterman to come into the office and when he arrived there said , "I have got an unpleasant task to perform," opened his desk drawer , took out Waterman's check, and threw it on the desk. Waterman asked, "What is the matter , Homer? . . ." and he just shrugged his shoulders." Waterman said he had done his best and Culp replied , "I know you have, . You have had a lot of trouble with your machine and I thought you were doing all right. . . ... As to why Waterman was discharged , he said Culp told him "he didn't know, he supposed my work was satisfactory and if I [Waterman ] wanted to get a job some place else that the Company would give . a recommendation." Waterman did not know what reason was shown on his discharge slip, but he applied for and received unemployment compensation . This he was entitled to under Mich- igan law after I week's waiting period, provided he was not ineligible due to miscon- duct or other statutory exception not existing here. See Secs . 17.530 and 17.531, Mich. Ann St., Vol. 12, 1953 Cum. Supp. pp 99- 103. There was no evidence to the contrary . And Waterman was employed elsewhere 30 days after his discharge by Respondents . Culp testified that he had discharged Waterman more or less in sub- stance as Waterman had stated, his version of the conversation being as follows: I called him into the office and told him I was going to have to discharge him and that it was one of those unpleasant incidents that a fellow hated to do, because in my own opinion I felt he had been doing his very best , which he had to get production from the machines which he was on. He in turn agreed with me and told me he had discussed the problem with his wife and . had told his wife that he didn't feel that he was going to make it, and I gave him his check. We shook hands, I told him that if any time I could help him in relation to obtaining another job, that I would give him a good reference. As to Waterman's ability Culp testified it didn't compare in any way " to the man that replaced him "on the screw machine as far as volume of production went " As a rough grinder Waterman "did very well ," but he had a "heavy hand" and no "knack of holding a tolerance" on skilled planer operations On cross-examination Culp stated that after Waterman was discharged, his job and the machine on which he did rough grinding were both dispensed with and there is no longer any work in the plant which Waterman could do. Waterman did have a rather varied and unusual career in the plant in the short 71/2 months' time he worked there from September 26, 1952, to May 9, 1953. He (1) started as a common laborer, ( 2) then became a production machinist on a grinder, ( 3) thereafter operated a screw machine for about a month during Decem- ber 1952 and January 1953 , (4) was then transferred back to grinding for a while, and (5 ) finally was put back on a different screw machine where he remained until he was discharged . His starting wage was $1.05 and he was receiving $ 1 40 at the time of discharge . The Respondents' top local supervisory personnel , Plant Super- intendent Hammer and Assistant Superintendent Culp, both testified in substance that the brand new Italian screw machine or turret lathe on which Waterman had worked , suffered breakage attributable to him, and that he was therefore transferred back to rough grinding . Waterman testified that the roller turner on said machine had become broken, and frankly admitted "it was partly my fault." Culp, who was then his foreman "did not . . bawl [him] out," although indicating that the blame lay with Waterman . The night foreman, Chuck Kraft, however, was very angry about it. Waterman later had a lot of trouble with the other screw machine on which he had been placed later on and after a hectic day's work on some three different occasions told his fellow employees he "wouldn't be surprised to be fired." But he testified that on the day "I was fired I had had good luck with the machine all day and turned out a lot of production ." There was evidence given by the two said supervisors , however, to the effect that although it first suffered breakage of parts when Waterman operated it , the Italian screw machine also developed trouble later on a half dozen times in its operation, in that it did not make good parts, and on which occasions Waterman was not operating the machine , that Superintendent Hammer himself tried to fix it but that a repairman from Italy finally had to come to check it and in the matter of some weeks new parts were obtained through him from Italy; that this repairman found a defective square turret which was made of too soft a metal in addition to the roller which was broken while Watermar had operated the machine , which roller had continued to break later under other opera- tors. although it had been welded or brazed together in the Mancelona plant After the new parts arrived from Italy the machine has generally operated success- fully, but Waterman never operated it again. There is still occasional trouble with the machine due to tooling, however, that is the regrinding and resetting of the machine by the operator when a tool breaks down. Culp testified that when the 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD roller turner broke on this Italian machine, Waterman was put back to grinding, but due to a promise made by Hammer's predecessor, Vance, that Waterman would have a chance on a screw machine, which job carried a wage premium and which Waterman badly wanted, he was therefore put on another screw machine, a Geisholdt, of German make, which was a used machine. Culp said further Water- man was given an opportunity to make good but did not do any better and created a bottleneck in their screw machine operations, so Hammer and Culp jointly decided to let him go and replace him, the initiative of the discharge coming from Culp. He testified further that when Waterman was discharged it had already been con- templated by the management that the rough grinding was to be done in the future on a Landis grinder, which is a precision machine on which both rough and finish grinding operations are done. But there was no evidence that they had ever told Waterman about this. Waterman testified that the tips of the tools were very hard and the plant did not have the proper equipment to grind them. 4. New employees hired exceed number of dischargees Superintendent Hammer testified that after discharges of McKenny and Water- man on May 13, during the ensuing 60-day period, there were only 2 more dis- charges. These took place on May 17, although he could not name the employees who were discharged. There is no proof that these 2 additional dischargees included any of the several other employees who usually ate lunch with the 4-named dis- chargees. Some of such persons had been named by Jordan and Bradley as being employees Herman Kline, Bill Philip, Bert Sweeney, Herbert Dieder, and Marshall Shepherd. Neither of said two discharges of May 17 are involved as alleged unfair labor practices herein. But it is certain that there were no other additional dis- charges than these 2 between May 13 and July 15, and that 11 new people were hired at the Mancelona plant during that period While the precise nature of the work given them is not shown, this evidence does clearly disclose 11 hirings against only 6 discharges during this 60-day period, indicating that the slack business given as a tentative excuse to McKenny was entirely untrue, and reflecting upon the veracity of Respondents' local management. 5. Discharges were discriminatory Among the many mdicia pointing to discriminatory discharge in each of the 4 cases are the following: The timing of the discharges right after the disclosure made to the Detroit management by truckdriver Covert that unionization of the Mancelona plant was imminent, the "average" character of the work production records of each of the 4 dischargees; the failure to give the dischargees any advance notices of separation from their employment, very weak or false reasons for 3 of the discharges, the early subsequent employment of 11 new employees to fill the 6 vacancies (those of the 4 named dischargees and the 2 others not involved herein); the Respondents' admitted knowledge of the concerted activities of the particular lunchtime group of which the 4 dischargees were the ringleaders, and the failure of Respondents' executives to testify at all as to many of the matters involved in the discharges. The respective excuses for their discharges given to Jordan, Bradley, and Mc- Kenny, as related by each of them were in substance (1) insufficient production, (2) noncooperation, and (3) slow orders. Management did not even bother to take the stand to explain or further amplify any of such alleged reasons as testified to by the dischargees, each of which reasons appears implausible upon the face of the record as it exists, without any such affirmative expository defensive evidence. Therefore, in my opinion General Counsel has definitely established by a preponder- ance of the credible evidence that the reason for each of these three discharges was the leadership and vigor of the dischargee in the concerted activities of those employees who sought to bring the Union into the Mancelona plant as their bargain- ing representative. I so find and recommend accordingly. The discharge of employee Waterman, however, stands on somewhat less firm ground While nearly all the foregoing general indicia of discriminatory discharge also apply in his case, Respondents' evidence largely centers about Waterman's lack of skill and his frequent shifting from one type of work to another. It is true, as already pointed out, that Waterman did move from one position to another rather frequently. That is usually a sign either of the employee's petulant and capricious dissatisfaction with his work, or sheer incompetence on his part. In such a case management's considerate and painstaking effort to properly place the employee by moving him from job to job to prove himself certainly is not a waiver of the em- ployer's right to discharge the employee, if it ultimately develops that the employee ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 67 is wholly unsuited and unqualified for the employer's work In this case , however, Waterman had asked for a better job, and his foreman knowing him to be merely in training on precision work had put him on a brand new Italian screw machine, the roller turner of which unfortunately broke while he as a beginner was operating it The night foreman was properly vexed when Waterman conceded he was partly to blame and put him back on a grinder . But it then developed that even after the broken roller turner of the Italian screw machine had been welded other employees also had trouble with it and "It just continually broke," although it never completely broke down afterwards. It was definitely a defective machine when Waterman operated it for when an expert came from the factory in Italy , after Waterman hail been discharged , he found the machine absolutely needed new parts which were then ordered and obtained from Italy These included not only a new roller but new square turrets as the metal in the old turrets had proved to be too soft. The machine was certainly a difficult and uncertain one at best. But even after this incident , assuming it was all Waterman's fault, he was again put back on a screw machine . This time it was a secondhand "Geisholdt" machine It was contended by his immediate supervisor, Assistant Plant Superintendent Culp, that Waterman was put back on this screw machine because of an alleged prior promise made to Waterman by Vance, the former superintendent , but that Waterman did not do any better than he did on the Italian machine . Since Vance had left the plant long before Waterman's first attempt to operate any screw machine, any such alleged promise of Vance would seem to have been kept already when Waterman was tried out on the Italian machine if its poor performance and breakdown really was Waterman's fault. Culp after some equivocation finally said he had told Water- man he had to make good on that particular second screw machine or his job was over. Waterman denied this. Culp also explained that when Waterman was put on this machine the management had already contemplated doing away with his job for rough grinding but admitted Waterman was not so advised by the manage- ment, a rather unfair attitude . Culp had given McKenny a false reason at first for his discharge and I therefore credit Waterman in this instance where there is con- tradiction. I do find that while Waterman was in training, he learned slowly and was not as highly skilled as he might have been , but he had been "average" on his overall pro- duction record with Respondent Colton; that he was certainly not altogether to blame for the mechanical failures and breakage of the Italian screw machine, which under the hands of more skilled persons proved to be quite defective in several inherent respects ; that Waterman's discharge was almost coincidental with the Re- spondents' discovery of his leading part in the said concerted activities , and that after his discharge he was soon able to obtain more profitable employment else- where. All these matters must be considered but to my mind the most important thing here is the timing of the discharge . Had it occurred either long prior or long subsequent to the current excitement that had just been stirred up by reason of Covert's disclosure of the threatened immediate entry of the Union into the Mancelona plant there would possibly have been bona fide justification for the discharge. But by its suddenness at this very particular time the discharge is tainted with an extremely strong inference that Waterman had been singled out as one of the several good examples of what would happen to any too enthusiastic prounion people in the shop. His connection with the breakage of the Italian screw machine had been some months before and he apparently was entirely forgiven, even if he was to blame, since he was later on placed at a similar machine . And after all , Plant Superintendent Ham- mer did not deny that he had already told Jordan at the time of his discharge on May 8, just the preceding evening, "I hope they [the employees ] don't try it [ to bring the Union into the plant ]." And Culp did not give Waterman a discharge slip indicat- ing his incompetence , but on the contrary volunteered to recommend him for an- other position . This would scarcely be true if Waterman was so utterly incompetent as to warrant discharge for such cause , especially as Hammer testified that anybody can do the most skilled operations in the plant "After some training . . . some fellows learn faster than others " In line with this policy Respondents ' management had had patience with Waterman, but most singularly it ran out just as he and his colleagues were about to actively campaign for the unionization of the plant and the management had just received word of it. I therefore conclude upon all the pertinent evidence that Waterman was also discharged for discriminatory reasons, which General Counsel has fully established by a preponderance of the evidence . I so find and recommend accoidingly. There is no evidence that any of the four dischargees ever sought reemployment, but this is immaterial since the evidence discloses it would have been futile in each 334811-55-col 109-6 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD case, Morristown Knitting Mills, 80 NLRB 731, 732, and all the positions were soon filled by newly employed persons. The Respondents are guilty of refusal to reemploy each of the four dischargees. K. Alleged Section 8 (a) (1) violations - 1 The discharges Each of the 4 discriminatory discharges and refusals of reemployment not only violates Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, but is also a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) as alleged in paragraphs IX, X, XIII, XII (b), and XIV of the complaint since it is quite evident that the purpose of each and all of the discharges, both singly and collectively , was not only to permanently rid Respondents of the 4 dischargees themselves but also to make them outstanding examples to others , thereby definitely demonstrating to all employees at the Mancelona plant that anyone else among them who would also venture to so advocate or seek unionization in that plant would soon find himself unemployed. These discharges and refusals to reemploy the four-named employees therefore were not only interference and restraint of them and other employees but they were also definitely coercive of them and of the other employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as alleged and charged in the foregoing numbered paragraphs of the complaint. 2. The alleged interrogations It was alleged in paragraph XII (a) of the complaint that Respondents had unlaw- fully interrogated employees concerning union and concerted activities The only evidence of interrogations of employees in this case to sustain the allegations of para- graph XII (a) of the complaint were the following: (1) There was apparently some conversation and questioning of Ahmo Jordan by Assistant Plant Superintendent Homer Culp at the latter's home the evening of Jor- dan's discharge on May 8. It is undisputed that Jordan had been drinking a little following his discharge , although he remained comparatively orderly while at Culp's home for about half an hour. Culp did not invite Jordan to his home. Jordan claims that he asked Culp if his discharge was "for talking Union or anything to do with the Union," but that Culp said he did not know and could not find out. Culp says he thought Jordan's "main reason for the visit was to try to find out from me the exact reason of his discharge ." So Culp cleverly avoided the subject . I find that Jordan, who apparently liked to go to supervisors ' homes, having also gone to Ham- mer's once before to gripe about conditions , invited whatever little conversation there was with Culp and there could be no finding under this evidence that the Employer had made any improper or undue inquiry into the employees ' concerted activities. It certainly was not a part of a plan devised by Respondents to interrogate its employees. ( 2) This is also true of the alleged conversation with and questioning of Jordan by Hammer at the time he discharged Jordan just at the close of business on May 8. While Hammer did not dispute the conversation as narrated by Jordan , his story shows that after he had already been discharged he then voluntarily told Hammer "You know, the fellows are talking Union here in the plant," and Hammer then asked who they were , but Jordan refused to answer. The inquiry was only a natural one. Managers are just people after all and cannot be required to remain mummies in a conversation such as this. While Jordan may have been "baiting" Hammer to violate the Act, from my observation of Jordan I do not think he was clever enough for that. I base my opinion that he was just a garrulous man and not too keen to some extent upon his awkward and unwise selection of Covert as the bearer of union information . And I am also sure that the plan to unionize was not kept quiet in Mancelona with Jordan one of the leaders in the movement. The Act must be construed sensibly and Jordan 's volunteer statement about the Union cannot indict Hammer for incidentally voicing his natural curiosity under the circumstances. There certainly was no previous plan to systematically interrogate Jordan (3) But the interrogation of Covert on May 7 by Vice-President Hollidge and Works Manager Regan in front of the latter's apartment in Detroit was highly im- proper and violative of the Act. The conversation in Foreman Coleman's auto when he and Covert were riding home the evening of May 6 was brought up by Covert himself and Coleman only incidentally and properly asked the questions which naturally arose in his mind . But the special pretended arrangement made by man- agement the next day to have Covert pick up a wholly nonexistent package at Ham- mer's home gives a different air to this later interview with Covert. It was not just a casual conversation and inquiry by a minor supervisor . It was a definitely planned ARTHUR COLTON COMPANY 69 and arranged interrogation by those in high command to learn if possible from Covert just who the ringleaders at Mancelona were, although the local management there, and I infer the Detroit office also, already knew generally of the concerted activities at Mancelona. Covert really thought he was to get a package to deliver but when he got to the place of appointment there was no package waiting for him. I credit Covert as to this questioning, and it is wholly uncontradicted by Hollidge and Regan, neither of whom appeared as a witness. Covert testified: I waited there [in front of Hollidge's apartment] five minutes and here come Mr. Hollidge's car driving up. . So they called me come sit in the back of their car which I did. . They said, "Hello, Charlie." Bruce [Regan] said, "Well, tell Mr. Hollidge about Mancelona." He LHollidge] asked me what was going on up there. I said, wanted to join the Union [sic] and he wanted to know if I knew the fellow who was going to start it. I told him I thought his name was George . . . "Does he have a car?" "Yes, he has a car, he has a black Buick." He wanted to know what he [the individual who gave me the note] looked like, what build he was, and that, I couldn't tell him. . Wanted to know if I could pick him out and [1 said] "All I know about the man is he asked Mr. Homer Culp for the raise and didn't get any- thing out of him that way. . . . Well, they told me not to say anything. . . . Then he [Hollidge] told me as I got out of the car that I was in this, too. The evidence shows that Jordan at this time owned a "Real dark green 1946 Buick" which he drove back and forth to work. It was undoubtedly this car in which Covert rode from the Mancelona coffee shop to the plant several mornings after breakfast. Jordan denied ever asking Culp for a raise but admitted he had at one time complained to Hammer at Hammer's home that "most of us [employees] run pretty short on pay, on what we was getting . . . only working five days a week." Management certainly had no business to ask Covert these questions after de- liberately staging a special inquisition therefor. It is immaterial whether it be con- sidered as pure interrogation or as part of a plan of espionage since both types of activity are illegal under the Act. Covert was an employee and a union member and to cross-examine him concerning what employees were most actively engaged la the concerted activities looking toward unionization at the Mancelona plant clearly transcended the Respondents' proper prerogatives. That Covert had not theretofore been circumspect in divulging the note to his personal friend, Foreman Louis Cole- man, is immaterial. This interrogation of Covert on May 7 was not a mere isolated instance of inquiry by a minor supervisor but one of the deliberate steps by top management in its full antiunion program of driving right through to the discharge of the leaders of the employees' concerted activity at Mancelona and the ultimate stamping out of the union movement there. Jordan was the first one discharged and it occurred on the very next day, May 8. Whether viewed as an attempt to either subvert Covert or to coerce him, the remarks made and questions put to him by Hollidge and Regan were directly connected with the program of interference, re- straint, coercion, and discrimination which Respondent so promptly and vigorously initiated at Mancelona the following day by discharging Jordan and carried through in the several succeeding discharges. There is no history of the management's prior attitude toward the Union in its Detroit plant but judging from their prompt and vigorous efforts to eradicate any union or concerted movement in Mancelona I believe that Respondents' officers were extremely unfriendly to the Union. I conclude and find from the evidence that the interrogation of Covert by Hollidge and Regan on May 7, 1953, was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and sus- tains so much of paragraph XII (a) of the complaint as charges that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by interrogating them about their own and other employees' concerted activities. I recommend accordingly. Covert was definitely engaged in concerted activities with other employees of Re- spondents in acting as liaison between the union steward and membership at Detroit and those employees at Mancelona who wished to join the Union. The interroga- tion had direct and clear relationship to coercion and restraint of Respondents' em- ployees and was not permissible under the Act. See N. L. R B v. Tennessee Coach Company, 191 F 2d 546, 555 (C. A. 6) and N. L. R. B. v. Superior Company, Inc., 199 F. 2d 39 (C. A 6). 3. Alleged surveillance and espionage It was alleged in paragraph XII (c) of the complaint that Respondent contrary to Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, engaged in a course of surveillance and espionage 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of their employees with respect to their concerted and union activities. I find this allegation to be sustained by the following evidence and recommend accordingly The constant guarding and chaperoning of Covert on his trip to the Mancelona plant on May 13 so that he could not find time or opportunity to advise Jordan or- other active concerting participants of the union steward's name and address in Detroit, is proof of facts clearly sustaining this allegation While it might be urged by Respondents that Covert was in a sort of protective custody for his own personal safety, I do not so view the situation If there had actually been real peril to him at Mancelona after the discharges of Jordan and Waterman on May 8 and 9, an em- ployer truly inter^3ted in his welfare would never have sent him back up to Man- celona. And at he very time he was being so watched in the rear of the plant, less than 100 feet away up front in the plant's offices, Bradley and McKenny were both. being discharged. I believe that the Respondents simply did not trust Covert and were simply making sure that Covert, who quite evidently by this time regretted his foolish betrayal of the employees' trust, did not and could not advise any employee or former employee at Mancelona as to whom they could reach in Detroit in order to protect their concerted interests. And the Respondents, not having advised Covert of any of these discharges in advance, did not purpose that he learn too much about them while he was there. There was bad faith in not frankly and fully telling him just what the excitement was about while his truck was being so quickly unloaded and he was being so unceremoniously put in fear and hastily hustled away There is also some evidence of Bradley to the effect that practically every day for- a week after his discharge on May 13 either Hammer or Collins had his car parked around the corner from Bradley's house and that they were watching him. This- evidence is rather vague in some respects, such as to just where Bradley lived, where he was going on these several occasions, whom he was to see, etc., and since Man- celona is a small town of some 1,000 people it would be quite possible that these 2 supervisory officials of Respondents were near his home on lawful business and that Bradley only imagined he was being watched. But neither Hammer nor Collins. took the stand to testify in denial or explanation of this alleged surveillance. And since Bradley's story is not improbable but is definitely conformable to the general pattern of the way management had conducted the other happenings hereinbefore narrated, I find that surveillance of Bradley by Hammer and Collins did occur just as he testified. Some of Respondents' acts, like some of those of its employees, may appear to have been rather unnecessarily juvenile, suspicious, and unwarranted, but in the circumstances developed by the evidence, they seem, however unfortunately, to be only a natural part of the instinctive mutual distrust existing between the Respondents and their Mancelora employees. It has been decided repeatedly that spying and prying into union affairs by em- ployers are violative of the Act N. L. R. B. v. Eaton Mfg. Co., 175 F. 2d 292, 298- 299 (C. A 6), where many cases are cited. The conduct of Respondents in these respects has been fully established. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have discriminated in regard to the hire, tenure, and conditions of employment of these four employees, Ahmo Jordan, Ernest (Free- man) Bradley, Tony (James) McKenny, and John (Albert) Waterman of the Arthur Colton Company plant at Mancelona, Michigan, by discharging them and each of them because of their having actively engaged in concerted activities in attempting to join or assist the Union, and by refusing to reinstate them to their former posi- tions or positions substantially equivalent thereto, it is recommended that Respond- ents cease and desist from any such unfair labor practices in the future, and take such affirmative action as may be required under the circumstances to make each of such discharged employees whole financially and to fully restore each of them to his former employment and employment rights. Loss of pay shall be computed in accordance with the Board's Rule prescribed in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 , NLRB 289, and approved in N. L. R. B. v Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U. S 344. And having found that the Respondents have engaged in the, foregoing unfair labor practices of discriminatorily discharging the said named four employees, and, G. H. R. FOUNDRY DIVISION 71 also having further found it guilty of other unfair labor practices in the nature of interrogating and making threats of economic reprisals to the employees and engaging in a course of surveillance and espionage of their employees , and having found that all such acts amount to interference , restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, and be- cause of the nature of each and all of the unfair labor practices so committed, it is recommended that Respondents not only henceforth cease and desist from such un- fair labor practices so specifically found, but also that Respondents in the future cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of their employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondents which it should exercise in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. 2. International UniOn, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure and terms and conditions of their employment by discharging their 4 employees, Ahmo Jordan, John Waterman, Tony McKenny, and Ernest Bradley , and by failing and refusing to reinstate them and each of the said named 4 employees Respondents have engaged in and are en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By said acts of discharge, and also by interrogating employee Charles Covert, by acts threatening economic reprisal to their employees and by engaging in a course of surveillance and espionage of their employees , as alleged, Respondents have inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. IRecommendations omitted from publication.] G. H. R. FOUNDRY DIVISION, THE DAYTON MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION Or ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, LOCAL 798, CIO 1 and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE) AND ITS LOCAL 768.2 (Case No. 9-PM-99. July 8,1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William G. Wilkerson, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 1 Herein called IUE. Herein called UE. 109 NLRB No. 11.