Ford Motor Company

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORI{ERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-199.-Decided August 9,1939 Automobile Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: intimidating, assaulting, and beating union members and sympathizers distrib- uting literature in vicinity of plants ; distributing anti-union , literature to em- ployees ; circulating "Vote of Confidence" in policies among employees and publicizing vote as rejection of union ; discharging. employees because of member- ship in, activity or suspected activity for, or sympathy toward, union- Company-Dominated Union: charges of, not sustained-Discrimination: dis- charge ; charges of, sustained as to 24 employees, not sustained as to 11 em- ployees-Reinstatement Ordered: as to employees found to have been discrimina- torily discharged-Back Pay: awarded to employees discriminatorily discharged. Mr. Laurence A. Knapp, Mr. John T. McTernan, and Mr. Christo- pher W..Hoey,'for the Board. Mr. Louis J. Colombo, Sr., Mr. Louis J. Colombo, Jr., and Mr. Anthony Vermeulen, of Detroit, Mich., and Cravath, de Gersdorff, ,Swaine cC Wood, by Mr. Frederick H. Wood, Mr. Alfred McCormack, and Mr. Harmon Duncombe, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. Maurice Sugar and Davidow c Davidow, by Mr. Larry S. Davidow, of Detroit, Mich., for the U. A. W. Mr. Ivar Peterson, Mr. Julius Schlesinger, and Miss Anne E. Free- ling, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, herein called the U. A. W., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Frank H. Bowen, Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint, dated June 26, 1937, against the' Ford Motor Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), 14 N. L. R. B., No. 28. 346 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 347 (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance: (1) That the-respondent had for several months distributed and. circulated among its employees and the public generally statements and propaganda disparaging and criticizing labor organizations and discouraging membership therein. (2) That on or about May 26, 1937, when representatives of the U. A. W. attempted peaceably to distribute union literature at or in the vicinity of the respondent's plant in Dearborn, Michigan, the respondent; caused a number of such representatives to be brutally assaulted and beaten. (3) That the respondent at various other times had, by enumer- ated acts and threats, intimidated its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. (4) That membership in a labor organization known as the Ford Brotherhood of America, Inc., herein called the Brotherhood, was solicited: ;within the, respondent's River Rouge plant during working hours with the sanction and aid of the respondent's officials, and that the respondent thereafter caused to be published an announce- ment in the public press that the Brotherhood had been disbanded at the request of the respondent, these several acts constituting domi- nation and interference with the formation and administration of a labor organization. (5) That the respondent caused the discharge, demotion, transfer, lay-off, or resignation because of membership in, affiliation with, ac- tivity in behalf of, or sympathy or suspected sympathy toward, the U. A. W., of certain named employees," thereby discouraging mem- bership in a labor organization. The complaint, and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. On July 3, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices. In its answer the respondent also moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Act does not prohibit freedom of speech or freedom of . the press, that the Board has no I Valeriu Pops, Alphonso Kuzulls , Percy Llewellyn , Jack Leis . John Pirosko , James Pirosko, Fred Nygard , John Schipper, Emil Tomkow, Jacob Winsiewski, Joseph Nierotko . George Onnela, Martin Jensen , Clarence A . Fleming, Richard Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, Thaddeus Radke, Ray Onnela, Alfred Onnela. Joseph Sable . Birtus C. Hall, Hector F. Manseau . Herbert C. Mehl, Gabriel Bobaila (erroneously spelled Babaila), John Barron, Leo J. Krugh, •Joseph V. Bailey, John Cwikiel, Fred Gulliksen , George B. Zublek , Joseph Gutierrez , Joseph Galusky, Gulseppe Gregarlo , Clifford Sheldon , John J. Dovey, Daniel E. Devor, Raymond Jewell, and Joe Sazynski , During the hearing the complaint was amended several times to conform to the proof adduced, to which amendments the respondent filed answers . These amendments, among other things, added Homer King and George Smick to the names of thore discharged, and dismissed the complaint as to Jack Leis, John Pirosko , Valeriu Pops, James Pirosko, and Herbert C. Mehl. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD jurisdiction to hear and, determine assault and battery and felonious assault cases, and finally, that the Board has no jurisdiction over the respondent. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, from July 6 to July 30, 1937, before John T. Lindsay, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond- ent, and the U. A. W. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the conclusion of the Board's case, the conclusion of the respond- ent's case, and again at the conclusion of the hearing, the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss. The motions were denied by the Trial Examiner and exceptions taken. During the hearing a so-called notion to intervene was filed in behalf of the Brotherhood. Such motion requested certification of the Brotherhood as the representative for the purpose of collective bar- gaining of all the employees of the respondent engaged in production in the State of Michigan. The motion was denied by the Trial Exam- iner. The Brotherhood thereupon filed a caveat with the Board in Washington, and thereafter, in accordance with permission granted by the Board, filed a brief. The motion of the Brotherhood is in actual fact a petition for certification of representatives and bears no rela- tionship to the charges of unfair labor practices involved in this proceeding. It could properly have been filed with the Regional Director in accordance with Article III, Section 1, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended. The ruling of the Trial Examiner is hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing exceptions were taken by the parties to various rulings of the Trial Examiner. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. All rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. By order of the Board, dated August 3, 1937, the proceeding was transferred to and continued before the Board in accordance with Article II, Section 37, of the Rules and Regulations. On December 22, 1937, the Board issued a Decision and Order in this case. Pursuant to Section 10 (e) of the Act, the Board, on January 7, 1938, filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for enforcement of the 'above order. On April 11, 1938, the respondent filed an answer to the Board's petition for enforcement contesting the validity of the Board's Order. Various grounds were relied upon, one of which was that petitioner had been denied a full and fair hearing in that from August 3, 1937, when the proceeding was transferred to the Board until December 23, 1937, when the De- cision and Order were served upon the respondent, the Board did not FORD MOTOR COMPANY 349 communicate with the respondent with respect to the proceeding and did not afford the respondent an opportunity to object or except before the Board to any Intermediate Report or to any proposed findings of fact or order. On May 2, 1938, following the decision of the Supreme Court on April 25, 1938, in Morgan v. United States, 304 U.. S. 1, the Board filed a motion for leave to withdraw its petition for enforcement and the transcript of the record which had previously been filed with the Court, for the purpose of further proceedings. On May 4, 1938, the respond- ent filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals a petition to review and set aside the order of the Board. The Board's motion to withdraw its petition for enforcement was granted on May 5, 1'938.2 On June 10, 1938, a motion of the Board to remand the cause initiated by the re- spondent's petition for review to the Board for the purpose of setting aside the findings and order of December 22, 1937, and issuing pro- posed findings, and making a decision and order upon a reconsider- ation of the entire case, was granted. On January 3, 1939, the Supreme Court affirmed the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals in granting the Board's motion to remand and dismissed a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals permitting the Board to withdraw its petition for enforcement, on the ground that the ques- tion involved had been resolved by the remanding of the case to the Board. On January 23, 1939, the Board issued an order setting aside the -findings and order of December 22, 1937, and on January 26, 1939, issued Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. On January 28, 1939, the respondent filed a motion "To Suppress the Evidence Heretofore Taken Herein Before Trial Examiner John T. Lindsay And To Set Aside the Hearing Held Before Said Trial Ex- aminer" together with a memorandum in support thereof, and on February 1, 1939, filed a motion for oral argument on the aforesaid motion to suppress the evidence. On February 6, 1939, the Board denied both of the foregoing mo- tions. On March 13, 1939, the respondent filed a motion "To Reopen the Record and to Permit Further Evidence To Be Adduced," which motion was denied on March 31, 1939. Pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Board on February 15, 1939, the respondent, on March 14, 1939, filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Pro- 2 The order of the Court granted the Board's motion in full, including leave for the Board to withdraw the transcript of the record. The order was amended on May 9, however, in so far as it permitted the withdrawal of the transcript. The Court ordered that the tran- script be and remain in the files of the Court, and further ordered that such transcript be deemed to have been filed in the cause initiated by the respondent's petition for review as of the date of the filing of such petition. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD posed Order, and moved that • the complaint be dismissed. The motion to dismiss is hereby denied. On April 17, 1939, pursuant to permission requested on March 17 and granted by the Board on March 22, 1939, the respondent filed a brief in support of its excep- tions. A brief was also filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, on April 11, 1939. Pursuant to notice, a ,hearing was held before the Board on April 22, 1939, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the U. A. W. were represented by counsel-and both participated in the argument. On May 1, 1939, the respondent filed a motion "To Supplement the Record As To The Procedure Of The Board Herein And For Leave To Except And Argue To The Record As So Supplemented," which motion the Board denied on May 18, 1939. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, and the brief in support thereof, and in so far as the exceptions are incon- sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Ford Motor Company is aDelaware 8 corporation having its prin, cipal executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. It is engaged in the manufacture, assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles and auto- mobile trucks and various types of automobile parts and accessories.' The respondent owns, operates, or maintains manufacturing or assembly plants in many States throughout the country. Ford sales and service branches are located in practically every major city in the United States. Foreign subsidiaries of the respondent operate in a similar fashion throughout the world.5 , Ford Motor Company was incorporated in 1919 with an authorized capital stock of $100,000 ,000. Moody's Manual of Investments for 1936 states that this stock is entirely owned by Henry Ford, his wife , Mrs. Henry Ford, and his son, Edsel B. Ford. In addition , the respondent is in the following lines of business , all connected with or growing out of the making of motors : Aeroplanes , coal mining , coke manufacture, byproducts manufacture , load mining, iron mining, foundry, steel manufacture , tool making, machinery manufacture , car truck and tractor manufacture , glass manufacture , artificial leather, copper wire, Fordite, textiles , batteries and generators , paper cement , automobile bodies, Jobanssen gages, electric power, filtered water; flour, motion pictures, hospital , farming and stock rais- ing, radio , printing, photography, forging, flax growing, steam turbine, electric locomo- tives , logging, sawmills , body parts , dry kilns, wood distillation , products of hydroelectric power, grocery stores, shoe stores, clothing stores, butcher shops, railroads , education, and ocean and lake transportation. 6 The respondent owns a majority of stock in , or is affiliated through stock ownership with, the following companies: Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ford Motor Company . Ltd., of England, Ford Motor Company A. G. (Germany ), Ford Motor Co. ( Belgium ) S. A., Ford Motor Co. A/S ( Denmark ), Ford Motor Co. of Finland , O. Y., Ford Societe Anonyme Francaise and FORD MOTOR COMPANY 351. The respondent operates iron-ore mines and lumber properties in Michigan, coal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia, a silica quarry in Pennsylvania, and other raw material properties in the various States. A subsidiary of the respondent has a concession for approxi- mately 2,500,000 acres of land in Brazil for, rubber development. Although by owning sources of essential raw materials the respondent has made its operations largely self-sufficient, its manufacturing operations are so extensive that it must still purchase great quantities of raw materials. The respondent owns and operates a fleet of ships, including 7 ocean-going vessels, the 2 largest motorships on the Great Lakes, 13 barges, 4 towing tugs, a harbor tug, and 2 twin-screw canal boats. For the care of these vessels, it has purchased a ship-building plant at Chester, Pennsylvania. The activities of the respondent are closely coordinated as a result of its control of transportation facili- ties. The respondent up to June 1936, had built and sold more than 24,000,000 Ford cars. Of a total of 3,404,497 new car registrations in the United States in 1936, there were 764,121 registrations of Ford cars, or 22.44 per cent of the total. It is the'third largest manufac- turer in the automobile industry. The respondent's chief manufacturing plants abroad are in Ireland, England (the factory at Dagenham, England, is the largest automo- bile factory in the world outside the United States), Germany, and France. It also has assembly plants and sales and service branches in Argentina, Canal Zone, Cuba, Mexico, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, China, Japan, Egypt, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Rumania, Den- mark, Ireland, Finland, Turkey, Portugal, Holland, Sweden, Greece, and Germany. The only plants of the respondent involved in this proceeding are the ones located in Highland Park, Michigan, herein called the High- land Park plant, and in Dearborn, Michigan, herein called the River Rouge plant. Fender enamel, frame paint, anti-rust solution, dryers, polishers, resins, automobile paints, and artificial leather are manu- factured in the Highland Park plant." These products are shipped to the various branches of the respondent located in this country and abroad. The heart of the giant Ford organization is the River Rouge plant, which is the largest industrial unit in the world, employing more than 80,000 men. The plant grounds cover 1,096 acres and the build- Matford Company (France), N. V. Nederlandsche Ford Automoblel Fabrick ( Holland), Ford Italians S. A. (Italy ), Ford Motor Iberica ( Spain ), Ford Motor Co. A/B , ( Sweden), Ford Motor Company, Australia , Proprietary Ltd., Ford Manufacturing Company, Proprietary Ltd. (Australia ), Ford Motor Company, South Africa, Ltd. 6 Until 1929 automobiles and automobile parts were also manufactured at this plant. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ings have a floor area of over 7,250,000 square feet. The respondent operates at the River Rouge plant its own blast furnaces , locomotive repair shop, the largest foundry and the largest industrial steam-gen- erating plant in the world, motor-assembly plant, coke ovens, open hearth furnaces, steel plant and rolling mill , paper mill, sintering plant, glass factory, laboratories , and a cement plant. The plant has 14 miles of roadways and 92 miles of railroad tracks. Twenty-four locomotives , one road roller, 14 locomotive cranes, and 11 steam shovels operate there. The docks at the River Rouge plant are a mile and a third long and can accommodate ocean-going vessels. Almost all of the products manufactured at the River Rouge plant are shipped to assembly plants in various parts of the country. The only cars which are completely assembled there are the ones intended for local sale. The average shipping time between the factory and the branches is 6.16 days. The respondent maintains an elaborate system of inventory control by means of thousands of miles of leased telephone wires. The automobile industry ranks first in the United States in the value of products and twelfth in the number of wage earners. It is the largest consumer of steel and also ranks first in the use of various other commodities , including gasoline , lubricating oil, rubber, plate glass, nickel , lead, and mohair. The industry involves the constant movement of enormous quan- tities of materials and products in interstate commerce. Michigan, which produces 52 per cent of all the automobiles manufactured in the United States, accounts for the sale of less than 6 per cent. Only slightly more than 2 per cent of the steel produced in the country is manufactured in Michigan , and only trifling quantities of most of the other commodities which have been named above. II. THE UNION International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is It labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of the unfair labor practices In the spring of 1937, the U. A. W. commenced a drive to organize the respondent's employees. As this drive was getting under way, Henry Ford issued a number of statements to the press in which he clearly indicated an open and active hostility to labor organizations and to the U. A. W. On April 8, 1937, the St. Louis, Missouri , Globe-Democrat carried the story of an interview with Henry Ford, in which he announced, FORD MOTOR COMPANY 353 as the press dispatch stated, "a short-lived `sit-down' strike in his St. Louis assembly plant," and in which he was quoted as. saying, "We'll never recognize the United Automobile Workers' Union or any other union."7 In the same interview he was quoted as saying, in reference to the settlement of a strike in the respondent's Kansas City plant, that "no concessions" were, made and that "Our men know what we can do and what we can't do. We'll deal with them individually." On April 10, 1937, in an interview at his winter home in Georgia, Ford delivered an attack against labor organizations in which he stated : Labor union organizations are the worst thing that ever struck the earth, because they take away a man's independence. Finan- ciers are behind the unions and their object is to kill competition so as to reduce the income of workers, and eventually bring on war.8 On April 29, 1937, in an interview with A. M. Smith of the North American Newspaper Alliance, Ford issued another bitter attack upon labor organizations during the course of which he said : But, now along comes another group-9 that says : "There are 100,000 jobs out at Ford's. If you want one of them, pay us a registration fee, and so much every month, and we will pass you in, and you can work as long as you pay us." This group is asking us to sit still while it sells our men the jobs that have always been free. If we agreed to this, they would have com- plete control of American;' labor, a control no one has ever before had. I have never sought to prevent our men from joining any association-religious, racial, political, or social. No one who believes in American freedom would do that. When our men ask about unions, I give them the same advice as when they ask about any of the other schemes that are always aimed at working men's wages.. I say to them : "First, figure out for yourself what you are going to get out of it. If you go into a union, they have got you, but what have you got?" We think our men ought to consider whether it is necessary for them to pay some outsider every month for the privilege of working at Ford's. Or, whether any union can do more for them than we are doing. ''Board Exhibit 112. This statement was also quoted in the Chicago Times of April 9, 1937, and in other newspapers. 8 Board Exhibit 115. 9 Ford was here referring to the U. A. W. 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If union leaders think that they can manage an automobile factory better than we can, and pay better wages under better working conditions than we can, why don't they build a factory of their own and show us up? They have the. capital-they have all the money they need and a lot more. The country is big; they have the men; and think of all the union customers they would have ! If the union leaders are sincere, they should go into business themselves. - If they have thought out a better way to manage business, let them demonstrate what it is. If they can't do that, why do they pretend they can? Of course, the financial interests that use strikes as a way to build up unions, would not permit them to build new factories- big progressive factories with everything in them that union leaders now demand. They don't want that. They want control. I have always made a better bargain for our men than an outsider could. We have never had to. bargain against our men, and we don't expect to begin now. There is no mystery about the connection between corporation control and labor control. They are simply the two ends of the same rope. To have one, you have got to have the other. You may say as emphatically as you like, that all this does not disturb me in the least. I know the scheme is wrong, and it will not work.1o The foregoing statements were neither denied nor contradicted at the time of the hearing. Coming from the respondent's dominant figure, they serve as a significant: background to the relentless cam- paign of intimidation and coercion carried on against the U. A. W. in the respondent's plants. B. The riot of May 26, 1937 In connection with its drive to organize the respondent's employees, the General Executive Board of the U. A. W. set up a committee, known as the Ford Organizing Committee. This committee, at a meeting held sometime about the middle of May 1937, decided to dis- tribute union leaflets on May 26 to the workers at the River Rouge plant. In accordance with this decision a permit for the distribu- tion, of. handbills was obtained from the city of Dearborn.' Also, 10 Board Exhibit 111. "Board Exhibit 70. The permit was issued to William McKie, one of the U. A. W. organi- zers, and was marked "not transferable." During the attempted distribution of union literature on May 26, the permit was in the possession of Walter Reuther, president of Local No. 174. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 355 the committee issued a call for volunteers to assist it in the distribution. In response to this call about 300 persons attended a meeting of the committee held at 12: 30 p. m. on May 26, 1937, at the office of Local No. 174 of the U. A. W. At this meeting final plans for the dis- tribution of leaflets at the River Rouge plant that afternoon were made; Groups were assigned to the various gates of the plant and it was decided that only women would actually pass out the hand- bills. ',A total- of from 50 to 70 persons, at least two-thirds of whom were women, were selected to take part in the distribution. All per= sons were carefully instructed to refrain from violence. At the conclusion of the meeting four of the union leaders, Walter P. Reuther, president of Local-No. 174 and a member of the General Executive Board of the U. A. W., Richard T. Frankensteen, Organi- zational Director of the Ford Organizing Committee and also a member of the General Executive Board, Jack Kennedy, the As- sistant Organizational Director, and Robert Kanter, a U. A. W. or- ganizer, together with Reverend Raymond P. Sanford, a Chicago, minister assigned to observe the distribution by the Conference for the Protection of Civil Rights, proceeded to Gate 4, the main en- trance of the- Rouge plant, in automobiles. The women assigned to distribute leaflets at - that gate were instructed to follow by street- car. In order to understand the events which took place after their arrival, a brief description of the locality surrounding Gate 4 is nec- essary. - Gate 4 is located on the west side, of Miller Road, a.120- foot public highway, only 40 feet.of which is- paved. Thirteen feet of the unpaved portion of the highway lie west of the pavement and. the other 67 feet east of it. The eastern part is covered with cinders- upon which cars are permitted to park. Although the property on both sides of Miller Road is owned by the respondent, buildings: have been constructed only 'on the western side. Streetcar tracks. run within the plant grounds just east of the roadway and on the other side of the tracks an open parking space for employees' cars is located. The tracks are separated from both the parking space. and the street by iron fences. The fence to the west of the tracks: is located on Ford property and about seven feet of the unpaved- portion of Miller Road belongs to the respondent. A large overpass has been constructed by the respondent across Miller Road at Gate 4 to enable its employees to enter the plant without crossing the street. Steps facing both toward the north and the south lead to the overpass from the eastern edge of Miller Road.. Within the fence there are also steps leading to the overpass from the streetcar loading and unloading platforms. 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The union group arrived at Gate 4 at approximately 1:45. Before proceeding up the south stairway they were stopped and questioned as to who they were. Albert Rasmussen, a Ford serviceman assigned to directing traffic at Gate 4 on May 26, testified that as the union group approached the stairway, Ted Greis, another serviceman, told them, "Boys, don't go up there, that is private Ford Motor Company property." However, Herbert Bauer, a photographer, testified that about a minute after the union group had gone up the stairway several men came out of the plant entrance at Gate 4, led by Ted Greis, and followed the union group up the stairway. . We accept the testimony of Bauer as more credible than that of Rasmussen and accordingly find that the union group was not warned by Greis, prior to mounting the overpass, that they should not go up. The proposed distribution had received considerable publicity and the union group found a large number of newspapermen awaiting their arrival. In response to requests from the photographers the group posed for pictures in the center of the.bridge. Almost im- mediately, however, they were approached by three men, one of whom announced, "This is Ford property. Get the hell off of here." At the same time a number of other men 12 who had been loitering along the railings began closing in on them from all directions. The uncontradicted testimony of several witnesses indicates clearly that as soon as these words were spoken the union group, without making any response or objection whatsoever, turned quietly around and be- gan walking toward the stairway. They had taken only a few steps, however, when they were surrounded and attacked by the men who had been closing in on them. The testimony concerning the events on the overpass establishes that the attack upon the union group was vicious and unnecessarily brutal particularly in view of the fact that no resistance was offered by. those attacked. Reuther and Frankensteen were singled out for particular attention and given terrific beatings. Each of theni was knocked down and pounded and kicked in various parts of -the body. Reuther was kicked down the north stairway and beaten and chased down Miller Road. Frankensteen, who testified he was beaten into insensibility for a few minutes, was also kicked down the north stairway, after which he was driven for several hundred yards along the streetcar tracks within the fence.' 12The main afternoon change of shifts at the River Rouge plant does not take place until 3: 30. The number of men standing on the overpass was unusually large for this early in the afternoon. 13 The notes taken by Dr. I. W. Ruskin, one of the physicians who attended Frankensteen after the riot, read with respect to him as follows : "Richard Frankensteen. Bruise on the back of the neck . Injuries to face, nose and chin . Bleeding from internal injuries of the nose. Bruised in the groins. Bruised ribs , right side." FORD MOTOR COMPANY 357 Reverend Sanford's description of the events which took place on the bridge was as follows: A. Well, there was a continuous clicking of cameras which seemed to last for some time for two or three minutes, and almost instantly after that,-in fact, during the latter part of that I observed a number of men approaching toward me from the south side of the overpass near the top of the steps, with other people coming up behind them. Q. Now, as they approached toward the Union group, what - occurred? A. Well, when they got near the Union group, some man with a rather deep voice said, "This is Ford property; get the hell off of here," whereupon we all immediately turned towards 'the north and took three or four steps toward the north stairway. I was rather following the lead of these men. I followed along by their side to the right of them, with Mr. Kennedy, and Frank- ensteen, and Reuther and Kanter on my left, in approximately that order. Q. You proceeded toward the stairway, is that it, the stairs? A. We proceeded toward the north stairway. Q. Well, what did you notice first as you were proceeding to- wards the stairs? After that did • you go down the stairs or what happened? A. Well, after we got within a few feet from the top of the stairs, there were two things that happened, I should say, almost simultaneously, immediately following the-almost immediately following the demand to get off the property, and that was- although I couldn't see what was happening in back of me, there was.a scuffling and I caught scraps of conversation which informed me unmistakably that the cameramen were in trouble and their cameras were being attacked, and then I was sort of nudged or pushed over to the east, and two men grabbed or hit at, I couldn't say which, because I just got a glance over my left shoulder,-grabbed or hit at Mr. Frankensteen. Then I turned toward the west and saw him surrounded by four or five men who were slugging at him, kicking at him and trying to grab his hands. Q. Now, had there been any remarks addressed to this group advancing on those with whom you were prior to this command to get off the property, or get the hell off; do you recall? A. Will you repeat that question? Q. Had there been any conversation prior to the command to get off the property between the Union group with whom you were and the group who were advancing behind them? 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. No, I had heard no conversation whatsoever. Q. Now, after that command, did any one in the Union group reply orally? A. I heard no oral reply whatsoever. Q. And did any of the Union group offer any physical re- sistance to that command, after it was issued? A. No, just the contrary. They seemed to be complying with it immediately. Q. Was Mr. Frankensteen attacked from the front or from the rear, from what you saw? A. From the rear. Q. In the course of his progress toward the north stairs? A. That is correct. Q.. Now, can you describe the sort of beating that he received there? A.' Well, first near the northeast corner of the overpass Mr. Frankensteen was attacked by four or five men who kicked him in the general region of his stomach and plugged him from the rear and were endeavoring to pull his coat over his head and then an increasing number of men fell upon him of a heavier type, and he was finally forced to the cement over to my left just north of the passageway which leads over to the ticket windows going down to the street car tracks, and there a man who was engaged in the attack, an individual who was engaged in attacking him, a separate individual grabbed him by each foot and by each hand and his legs were spread apart and his body was twisted over towards the east, over to my left, and then other men proceeded to kick him in the crotch and groin, and left kidney and around the head and also to gore him with their heels in the abdomen, or the general range of his solar plexus. Q. Now, was he knocked down at the time? A. He was flat on his back on the concrete. Q. What happened to you, then? A. Well, at that time he was so completely surrounded by men on all sides, including the east side, who didn't seem to be. engaged in the attack. There were men to the east of him who seemed to be observing. The attack came mostly from those on the east and west and northwest of him. Q. Anyway, your vision was cut off ? A. My vision was so completely cut off that I turned my at- tention towards the west, and then for the first time since we FORD MOTOR COMPANY 359 had started to walk toward the north stairway I saw Mr. Walter Reuther again, and he was I should say three or four feet di- rectly south of the west aisle of the stairs, going down the north stairs and facing north and he was standing up and crouched over towards the north, and he had his fists crossed over his forearms and looking out under his hands with a look of terror written upon his face, with his face blanched white around his upper lip and nose and mouth, with the exception of a trickle of blood coming from his nose, and then there seemed a pause of I suppose, a second or so there, it seemed like a long time, when no one attacked him, he just stood there sort of in a crouched position, and then he moved forward unmolested and grabbed hold of the iron rail on either side of this west lane, but no sooner had he grabbed hold of this iron pipe on either side of him than a very husky individual from the rear wrenched him loose and endeavored to hurl him down the first flight of steps, . which I should say, were about nine or ten in number. Q. How many flights of those steps are there on that bridge? A. Three or two landings before the ground, and he caught himself, I should say, about the sixth or seventh step, and at that time I observed men coming up from the ground below at both the last and next to the last aisle, to the west, on the north stairway, and other men following him down all the way down, sometimes being hurled right into men coming up the stairway, and I lost track of what was happening to Mr. Frankensteen, and gradually followed down the eastermost aisle of the north stairway till I came to the bottom of the north stairway. In the meantime while the assaults on the bridge were taking place, a streetcar carrying the women who had been assigned to dis- tribute handbills at Gate 4 arrived. It stopped at the unloading plat- form within the fence just north of the overpass and the girls began getting off. A number of men immediately attacked them and, call- ing them vile names, twisted their arms in an effort to get the bundles of leaflets which they were carrying away from them. All of the women were first pushed about and then violently shoved back into the streetcar. A girl named Catherine Gelles and another one named Stella were knocked to the ground and kicked. Reverend Sanford, who had walked down the north stairway of the overpass just as the union women started getting off of the streetcar, gave the vivid de- scription of the events that followed : Q. Describe whatever happened to the girls there, what was the situation? A. Well, they were pushed around and called all manner of vile names that are generally attributed to women of the street, 190935-40-vol. 14--24 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and one question which was directed to them two or three times, in substance, and which I couldn't understand, was, "Why don't you get your citizenship papers before you come sucking around here for a job," and as they tried to distribute this-I suppose they were trying to distribute the literature, there was an effort made and sometimes successful to grab the literature out of their hands, and they were hit and pushed around, and especially one very well dressed gentleman in a brown suit by Q. What was the purpose of that, trying to get them back on the street cars or just a general mauling, or what was it? A. First it seemed to be a. general mauling, because they were first told to get over on the east side of the fence and then they got over on the fence, they were commanded to get back on the west side of the fence, and the girls were at a loss to,know ap- parently what to do, and then one girl near me was kicked in the stomach, and vomited at my feet, right at the end of the steps there and I finally shot an imploring glance at one of the mounted policemen, to whom I had previously spoken and he dashed over on horseback to the west side of the fence and in a rather pleading tone, sort of "For God's sake" tone in his voice, seemed to direct his remarks to this well-dressed gentle- man in brown, and said, "You mustn't hurt those women : you mustn't hurt those women;" and I was attracted to the manner in which he spoke, because he seemed to speak as one not having authority in the situation and seemed to be pleading rather not to injure the women. Q. In any event, there was no physical effort on his part to prevent that, is that correct? A. No, there was no show of authority whatsoever.14 Q. Now, how long did you stay there along the street car tracks? A. I stayed there until practically all the literature had been gathered from the ground and until the girls had been pushed back on the trolley and the trolley had gone and it became very quiet around there and relatively still. Q. Did the girls get back on the street car voluntarily? A. They were, for the most part, pushed back on the street car; some of them went according to instruction, but some were pushed back on them. In addition to the union leaders on the overpass and the women carrying the leaflets other members of the U. A. W. who were in the vicinity of Gate 4 were subjected to savage assaults. William Merri- "Several witnesses testified to the presence of mounted policemen at Gate 4 during the riot. All of these witnesses agreed that they made no attempt to intervene and prevent violence. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 361 weather, one of the volunteers, had driven out to the plant in his automobile and parked it just north of Gate 4 on the unpaved eastern portion of Miller Road. When the streetcar carrying the union women arrived he got out of his automobile and attempted to go through an opening in the fence to join them. He was stopped, how- ever, by a large group of men who forced him to move on. A little later when he again tried to go through the opening, he was grasped from behind in such a manner that his jacket flew open disclosing a union button on his shirt. Then someone hollered, "Get that Union son of a B." and several men pounced on him and gave him a severe beating. He was knocked to the ground and violently kicked while one of his assailants shouted, "Kill him," "Kick his brains out," "Stomp his face in." Merriweather's back was broken during this assault and it was still in a cast at the time of the hearing in this case. 15 Robert Sentmen, a U. A. W. member who went out to the plant with the women on the streetcar, was attacked by six or eight men when he asked them to stop molesting the girls. He was knocked down several times and then driven along the car tracks. Alvin Stickle, another U. A. W. member who went out to the plant on the streetcar, had a somewhat different type of experience. He was throwing bundles of leaflets which had been knocked out of the arms of the women over the fence when he was attacked by three men who knocked him to the ground. One of them, later identified as Wilfred Comment, then took hold of him, saying, "You are the one we have been looking for," and dragged him through the opening in the fence and across Miller Road into the office of the Service Department at Gate 4. He was left in the office for a few moments until Everett Moore, head of the Ford Service Department, came into the room. Moore motioned him toward the door, and after Stickle got out of the room Comment and another man commenced beating Stickle. Moore did not participate in the beating but while it was going on kept saying, "Get him out of here." 10 The union group assigned to Gate 5, consisting of about 8 girls and 10 men, assembled under the leadership of William McKie, a U. A. W. organizer, at the intersection of Eagle and Wyoming Avenues, one block east of Miller Road at about 2 o'clock on the afternoon of May 26. They then proceeded down the center of Eagle Avenue toward the plant. When they arrived at the corner 15 Dr. E. M. Shafarman , the physician who attended Merriweather , testified that, although the full extent of Merriweather 's injuries could not as yet be definitely determined , there is a possibility that they may prove to be permanent and that his future earning capacity may be seriously impaired. 15 Dr. Buskin's notes with respect to Stickle read as follows : Alvin Stickle . 18881 Henry Street, Melvindale . Right face lacerated and swollen . Left eye swollen . Bleeding from nose. General beating. 362 DECISIONS OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Eagle Avenue and Miller Road they heard a voice shout, "Here the bastards come, go get them," and about 30 men came running toward them from the north entrance to the tunnel on Miller Road. Others joined them from the overpass at Gate 5, while two auto- mobiles also drove up and discharged several more men. The story of what then transpired was thus related by George Onnela, one of the union group : A. Well, they took a pass at McKie, and he says, "What have you got there?" Q. Who was this? Who do you mean by "he?" A. Well, the service man. Q. Well, that is one of these men that drove up in the car?* A. That is right. Well, he started slugging him, and one of the union men said, "For God's sake, leave an old man alone; pick on somebody of your own size." So they let him go; they didn't hurt him any more. They kicked him-I didn't see them kick him, but I heard about it afterwards. So, this Mary had a bundle of these leaflets they were to pass out that day. Q. Were those leaflets wrapped in packages? A. They were wrapped in packages; yes. Q. Paper around them? A. Paper around them. Q. Did this Marie have any union button on that you know of? A. I can't say. Then they says: "What have you got there?" I says, "These are leaflets we are going to pass." Well, he says,. "You can't pass them," he said, "around here." So I says, "Who can't?" McKie stepped up and says, "We have a license from the City of Dearborn." He said, "That don't mean a damn here." So they started for this Mary, and he said, "Give me. those leaflets." "Nothing doing." She says, "I am out here to do that and I am going to pass them," and he started to hit her- on the armpits, and naturally the leaflets fell on the ground, and. one of the service men picked these leaflets up and threw them. over the fence. So, by that time there seemed to be one of these- men that was the head of this attack here giving orders. Q. Did this man have taped hands? A. Yes; he did. Q. Both hands? A. No, just one; the right hand. Q. Will you describe the nature of that tape on the hands"' -X,. It was white tape; taped around the knuckles. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 363 Q. Will you continue your description of what he was doing? A. So, this guy noticed Tony and he says-well, he says, "Get that bastard with that union cap and go to town with him." So, five or six guys started after Tony and they knocked him down. They stepped on him and they kicked him, and this guy that was head of this group that was giving orders, he said, "Hit him in the stomach ; hit him in the stomach," he said, "that is the most effective place," he said. "Give it to him; let him have it." Q. Now, Mr. Onnela, on Union Exhibit 2, would you pick out the spot that this man Tony was at when he was hit as you have described? A. Yes. He was right here. [Indicating.] Q. That is, on the paved part of Eagle Avenue, on the street car tracks? A. That is right, on the paved part. Q. Continue, please. Go right along. A. So, they kept on beating him, picking him up and throwing him down on the pavement, and then come one of those colored boys, and I don't know, it seems to me he was walking towards them, and his attention was drawn to this colored boy. They says, "Why, you black bastard, what are you doing here?" Q. Was this colored boy one of your group? A. He was one of our group; he was. Q. Was he carrying leaflets? A. Not that I know of, no; I wouldn't say. Q. Go ahead. A. And so the same guy that I was referring to a little while ago giving these orders, he says, "Give it to him." Q. Who was he'referring to then? A. To this other man, this service man, I presume. Q. I mean, when he says, "Give it to him," to whom was he referring? A. The group that left Tony, they were beating Tony, they left Tony laying there and then started to beat this one. Q. The colored boy? A. That is right. A. The colored boy, that is right, so they knocked him down and kept on hitting him over the head and over the shoulders and they picked him up and threw him on the pavement and they kicked him, ' and this guy, this There-service man,- he kept on repeating, "Hit him in the stomach." "Hit him in the stomach;" "Hell, you can't hurt a nigger when you hit him over the head." And, they kept that up, there was four of them picked him up and they threw him like they would throw a sack against the retaining wall. 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Where is that retaining wall? A. That runs along Eagle there. Q. Right under the fence? A. That is right. So, as they kept-they kept beating this colored boy down east toward the overhead, and in the meantime someone attacked me, a big burly guy was going to strike me. Well, I had my Ford badge under the lapel of my coat, and the collar turned, and it became visible, it was underneath, see, so one of the service men came up and grabbed this here other service man by the throat and looked at me, and I just ducked under, I said, "If you want to hit him, go ahead," and he hit him and blood just squirted out of his mouth, and he thought I was a Ford man, so after I seen that I thought, "Well, I will use this to advantage," so I put the badge on the outside so I could walk anywhere, they would look at me, and I said "Right here, boys" (indicating), "No." So, they let me go. So, as they kept on hitting I followed up the colored boy down to the overhead and they were still kick- ing him and beating him, and I walked up to the guys over there and grabbed them by the neck, I said, "That is enough," I said, "for Christ's sake, don't you know when a guy has had enough." They looked at me and saw the badge and walked out. He said, "You black bastard, don't come back here again; let that be a lesson." So I sarted back Q. Now, Mr. Onnela, what happened to the girls that were in this group? A. Well, the girls run. Q. Which way did they run? A. They ran east, down Eagle. Q. When did they start to run? A. Well, as soon as they seen the attack. Even with Onnela's description it is difficult to conceive the full savagery of the assault at Gate 5. The testimony of Dr. Shafarman, the physician who attended Tony Marinovich after the riot, is illuminating. Dr. Shafarman testified as follows: Q. Did you treat Tony Marinovich? A. I did. Q. Please describe to the Trial Examiner the injuries suffered by Mr. Marinovich? A. Mr. Marinovich was probably the most severely injured of the entire group. He sustained a fracture of the skull, a severe concussion of the brain and developed later a post traumatic FORD MOTOR COMPANY 365 encephalitis, that is, inflammation of the brain, due to injury. He also had numerous contusions, bruises and lacerations about the body. Q. What was your diagnosis of the case of Mr. Marinovich? A. Fracture of the skull, concussion of the brain and post traumatic encephalitis; that was the diagnosis, the other injuries were less significant. Q. Your use of the words "Post traumatic," Doctor, indicate that the encephalitis cane after and as the result of an injury or trauma, is that so? A. That is correct. Q. In your opinion, Doctor, are the injuries from which Mr. Ma.rinovich is suffering, of a permanent nature? A. That is a very difficult question to answer because of the frequency with which individuals so injured do develop perma- nent impairment of the psychic functions and permanent deterio- ration of their intellect. Mr. Marinovich may suffer from headaches and dizziness for an indefinite period to come, as he is now suffering. It is possible that in the course of a couple of years he may develop epilepsy, due to the head injury. It is impossible now to predict just what the ultimate outcome will be, but the prognosis must be guarded because of the frequency with which, as I said before, these individuals do develop permanent disability. Q. From your observation, diagnosis and treatment of Mr. Marinovich, Doctor, can you tell the Trial Examiner to what extent Mr. Marinovich's future earning capacity will be affected? A. His earning capacity may be reduced to zero before a year is out. It is impossible to predict now just what will happen to him. He is still under observation. Newspapermen were no freer to take pictures at Gate 5 than at Gate 4. Frederick Arnold, a Detroit Times staff photographer, was cruising along Miller Road when he saw the union group approaching on Eagle Avenue. He immediately got out of his car and began setting up his camera. Before he had a chance to take any pictures, however, the leader of the assailants, a man known as Tubby, saw him and shouted, "There is a camera man. Get that son-of-a-bitch. Break that camera." Three men rushed toward him but before they could catch him his driver, Omar Shull, picked him up. Not in the least daunted, his pursuers got into. another car and started out after him. There followed a wild chase of four or five miles through crowded city streets. Numerous red lights were passed and both cars traveled at a speed of close to 80 miles an hour. Shull finally drove to the Melvin- 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .dale police station and Arnold escaped into the station one step ahead of the men who were after him. At the police station the pursuers identified themselves as Michael Devlin, Charles Grundish, and Stan- ley Terry of the Ford Service Department.17 Officer Steele, who was on duty in the police station at the time, asked the servicemen "what their idea was of chasing these fellows, and they said they had orders not to let anyone take pictures around the Ford Motor plant." Steele stated he called Moore's- office, and reported the fact that the servicemen claimed to be acting under orders. The party who answered the call told Steele, "There must be some mistake. I don't know of any orders being issued to that effect." Steele could not remember the identity of the party who answered the call, however. And the respondent failed to call any witness to testify as to what orders were given the servicemen."' Most employees going into the River Rouge plant from the Schaef- fer Road side enter by streetcar. Because of this fact, the U. A. W. had made plans for the distribution of leaflets on the streetcars and at about two o'clock on the afternoon of May 26 a group of approxi- mately 14 union women met at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Schaeffer Road, close to the plant. At that point two girls entered each streetcar for the purpose of passing out handbills to the men inside. The girls in the first car were not noticed at the gate and re- mained in the car while it went through the plant. However, those in the succeeding streetcars were not as fortunate and were pulled out of the cars by several men as they entered the plant at Gate 9. Sev- eral union members who were standing across Schaeffer Road from Gate 9 were chased away by a group of men. Four of the union women who were evicted from the streetcars were forced into the car of Nick Demchuk, a U. A. W. member, which was parked nearby. Demchuk already had one companion with him at the time. An automobile driven by Archie Kindell, a Ford employee, and containing four other Ford employees, among them George Fisher and a man identified as Ray, who apparently acted in a supervisory capacity followed Demchuk as he drove along Schaeffer Road. Two of the men in Kindell's car were riding on the running board. Despite his protest that his car was already over- loaded, they forced Demchuk to pick up three other U. A. W. mem- bers who were walking along the sidewalk. One of these men was pushed into the front seat, making a total of seven persons inside the car, while the other two stood on the running board. 17 Board Exhibit 88 Is a copy of the Melvindale police department record of the above incident. ' The time card of Charles Grundish, one of the three men in the station , shows that he was paid for the time he was there . It bears the notation , "0. K. for 8 hrs. 5/26/37," signed by Pat Salancy, an official in the respondent's service department. : FORD MOTOR COMPANY 367 Demchuk then proceeded slowly down Schaeffer Road until he was stopped by a motorcycle patrolman who had been hailed by the pursuing men. The policeman, after a conversation with the men, gave Demchuk a ticket for reckless driving. Yale Bradlyn, one of the occupants of his car, who attempted to explain the affair, was told by the officer, "This was Dearborn and not Detroit." Boyd Simmons, a reporter on the Detroit News, who witnessed the inci- dent and was making notes thereof, had his notebook taken away from him by the officer. Demchuk was then ordered to drive to the Dearborn police station, At the station all of the occupants of his car and Emil Mazey, a U. A. W. organizer who had seen the affair on Schaeffer Road and had come along to the station, were held for more than half an hour without any charges being placed against them. During this time, Mazey was prevented from using the telephone by two of the occu- pants of Kindell's car who came into the station. Demchuk, after pleading not guilty to the charge of reckless driv- ing, was finally released on bail. Before he or any of the others were permitted to leave the police station, however, they were carefully searched for any papers bearing the license number of the auto- mobile in which the Ford employees had been following them; the women being searched by a police matron and the men by the motor- cycle patrolman and the two Ford employees in the station?' Kindell testified, and we find, that the two men from his car who went into the station were George Fisher and the man named Ray. Kindell admitted that when Fisher and Ray came out of the station they told him that the union people had been searched. Mazey, Demchuk, and two of the occupants of his car, Bradlyn and Zigmund Zadrowski, all testified that the two men from Kindell's car who came into the station assisted in searching them. In view of Kin- dell's testimony above set out, we find that these two men were George Fisher and Ray, both employees of the respondent. In front of Gate 10 on Schaeffer Road a union group of two men and four or five women began passing out handbills to persons entering the River Rouge plant shortly before 2:00 p. m. on May 26. Within a few minutes several men came out of the service office at that gate and started taking the girls' leaflets away from them. When Frank Hartung, a U. A. W. organizer, objected he was hit in the mouth. Asher Lauren, a Detroit News reporter, who was present at the scene had his notes taken away from him by some men who had driven up, one of whom said, "You won't need these." Two other acts of violence committed against members of the "When Demchuk 's case came up for trial a week later , the charge against him was dis- missed despite the objection of the U. A. W. attorney who requested a hearing on the charge. 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD U. A. W. on May 26 will be mentioned. Percy Llewellyn, a union member who attempted to distribute leaflets on Dix Avenue near Gate 1, was attacked by several men and given a severe beating. Another union member, Ralph Dunham, who passed out handbills at the intersection of Wyoming and Eagle Avenues was assaulted by four men who pounced on him from a Ford car which had pulled up alongside. The beating administered to Dunham was one of the most vicious of the afternoon and he received, serious internal injuries which necessitated his going to a hospital for 14 days and from which he had not yet recovered at the time of the hearing. We come to the question whether the respondent is responsible for the brutal assaults upon U. A. W. members and sympathizers which have been described above. Upon the record, we think it plain that the respondent is responsible. For some time prior to May 26 the respondent was aware of the intended visit of the U. A. W. During this same period the re- spondent maintained a considerable complement of guards at the gates of the plant. Joseph Barnick, a former, employee of the respondent, testified that sometime about the first of April 1937, he had been transferred from his job as an inspector of connecting rods within the River Rouge plant to the Ford Service Department. His new duties consisted of sitting in a car at Gate 5 and reporting anything "that didn't look right." Sometime later, "along about the first week in May" so Barnick testified, he was instructed by a man named Richter, who had charge of his shift, to the effect that, "If I caught anybody passing handbills, beat him up and bring him to the service office." Richter was not called as a witness, and Barnick's testimony was not contradicted. We, therefore, find in accordance with his statements. This testimony of Barnick substantiated that of Fred Collins, a reporter on the Detroit Times. Collins had had an assignment at the River Rouge plant about 2 weeks before the riot. While there he noticed that cars, each of which contained several men, were parked at the various entrances to the plant. There were five such cars at Gate 4 and two or three at each of the other gates. His attention was attracted to these automobiles by the fact that there were so many of them and also because the men in them were doing noth- ing except sitting in the cars, even eating their lunches in them. Arnold Freeman, a Detroit Times photographer, visited the River Rouge plant at about 4: 30 on the morning of May 24. He noticed a number of Ford employees around Gate 4 wearing badges starting with the serial letters "A" and "F." Freeman, who had frequently visited the River Rouge plant, testified that, "Most of the new faces out there had `A' badges," and that he understood an "F" badge desig- nated a permanent serviceman, whereas men with "A" badges "were FORD MOTOR COMPANY 369 hired temporary for this union invasion." 20 Several men wearing "A" badges attempted to prevent Freeman from parking his car on the cinders along Miller Road east of Gate 4, and objected to his tak- ing pictures without express permission. However, after some delay, Freeman was allowed to park his car and to take pictures. One of the men present at,Gate 4 that morning was Angelo Caruso, who was pointed out to Freeman as "the chief" on that occasion .21 About 11 a. in. on the morning of May 26, Victor Beresford, a Detroit News reporter, and Herbert Bauer, an Acme News Pictures photographer, visited the River Rouge plant for the purpose of mak- ing arrangements for telephone facilities during the distribution of union literature that afternoon and of taking some advance pictures of the scene where such distribution was scheduled to take place. Under the overpass at Gate 4 Beresford and Bauer noticed a number of cars containing men.22 Some of the men jumped out of these cars and pointing at Bauer, who had set up his camera south of the over- pass, shouted, "He is taking pictures; taking pictures; get that camera." Bauer and Beresford were both escorted into the service office at Gate 4 by the men who came out of the cars and, after a tele- phone call had been made, Bauer was granted permission to take pictures provided he did not photograph any faces. Fred Collins and Albert Anderman, a Detroit Times staff photog- rapher were assigned by their paper to cover the River Rouge plant on the morning of May 26 in connection with the proposed distribu- tion of union literature that afternoon. They visited the office of Harry Bennett, the respondent's personnel director, where they saw numerous Ford officials including Bennett and Everett Moore. Collins testified as follows with respect to this visit: Q. Did you inquire of anyone in Mr. Bennett's office about the taking of pictures at the plant that day? A. Yes, sir. Q. And with whom did you talk? A. Do I have to answer that question? Trial Examiner LINDSAY : Yes. That is what you are here for. A. Well, I talked to Mr. Moore about the taking of pictures. 2° This testimony is substantiated by the experience of Joseph Barnick . As a production worker, his badge number had been 1-1-2850. This number was changed to A-5429 early in May 1937, after his transfer to the service department . On May 26, It was changed again, this time to C-5429 . The badge number of Ted Greis , a regular serviceman , was F-546, as shown by his time card , Board Exhibit 73. 21 Freeman pointed out Caruso on Board Exhibit 33-A, which is a copy of a photograph taken by James Kilpatrick of the Detroit News showing Frankensteen being assaulted on the overpass by several men, including Caruso. 22 Beresford testified there were about 25 cars parked under the bridge ; Bauer testified there were 5 or 6 ; Board Exhibit 57, a picture of the scene taken by Bauer , shows 5 or 6 cars. 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. (By Mr. HOEY) What did Mr. Moore tell you? A. He told us we would not have any trouble; that we would be able to take pictures without any interference. Q. Did you talk to anyone about the distribution of pamphlets or leaflets by the organizers of the Union? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were you told about that? A. I asked the gentlemen whether or not the Ford Motor Com- pany was going to do anything to prevent the distribution of the handbills, and I was told that the Ford Motor Company would not have anything to do with them. The service department would not have anything-take any action to prevent the distri- bution, and the gentleman who answered the questions said, "However, maybe some loyal employees might resent it." Q. And who was the gentleman who made the statement? Wha was the gentleman that made the statement to you? A. I have forgotten who the man was. Q. Did that occur in the office there? A. Yes, sir. Anderman testified as follows concerning this visit : Q. Did you inquire of Mr. Bennett or any of his assistants whether or not you could take pictures that day? A. That was our purpose in going there, and we didn't see Mr. Bennett. Q. Did you make an inquiry of anyone? A. Mr. Collins did. Q. Yes, and what were you told? A. We were told-the understanding was that it would be all right to take pictures. Q. And with whom did you or Mr. Collins speak? A. Mr. Moore. Q: Mr. Moore. Mr. Everett Moore, is that his name? A. Yes. Q. What was the information which Mr. Collins received about the attitude of the company with respect to the distribution of leaflets? A. He didn't say anything about the attitude of the company, about the distribution of the leaflets. FORD MOTOR .,COMPANY t r , 371 Q. Did Mr. Moore say that the Ford Motor Company would resent the distribution of leaflets? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Moore say anything about the attitude of the em- ployees of the Company? A. If the employees resented the attitude of the Union, tried to stop them from distributing these leaflets, why, it wouldn't be the fault of the Ford Motor Company. Q. Mr. Moore said that to you at that time? A. Not to me. Q.. He He said it to Mr. Collins? A. That is right. Q. Did you overhear him say that? A. Yes. From the foregoing testimony of Collins and Anderman, it is apparent that the respondent expected friction to develop between "loyal employees" and representatives of the Union. In view of Collins' evident reluctance to identify anyone whom he talked to in Bennett's office, we are unimpressed by his inability to remember who told him that "loyal employees might resent" the distribution. We accept Anderman's unequivocal and uncontradicted testimony, and find, that it was Everett Moore, head of the Ford Service De- partment, who told Collins that "maybe some loyal employees might resent" the attempted distribution of union literature and that if they tried to stop the distribution, "it wouldn't be the fault of the Ford Motor Company." After Collins and Anderman left Bennett's office on the morning of May 26 they went to the office of the chief of police of Dearborn and inquired as to the preparations made for policing in the vicinity of the River Rouge plant. Collins. also communicated with his paper and asked that additional men be assigned to the River Rouge plant that afternoon. When questioned concerning the reason for this request, Collins stated that as a result of his conversation in Bennett's office lie had assumed that there would be trouble at the plant that afternoon. Nor was Collins the only newspaperman who expected trouble to develop that afternoon. Beresford, a Detroit News reporter, testified that after he had been at Gate 4 on the morning of May 26 he reported to his city editor that "we could ex- pect a lot of trouble if Frankensteen and Reuther went through ... with their plans to go up on that overpass and pass out handbills, because I had talked to men out there and they said they would throw them off." The situation as it existed immediately prior to the ,arrival of the U. °'A. W. representatives at Gate 4 may be summarized as follows : 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS • BOARD In and around Gate 4 the respondent had stationed a large force of men; there were very few production workers in the vicinity, inas- much as it was more than an hour before the afternoon change of shifts; newspapermen were on the scene awaiting the arrival of the U. A. W. representatives and were anticipating trouble; and the respondent through Everett Moore, head of its service department, had several hours theretofore announced to newspaper representa- tives that although the respondent would take no action to prevent distribution of union literature, if "loyal employees" did so it would not be the fault of the respondent . Not only did "loyal employees" participate in the riot at Gate 4 and in the events at. other points in the vicinity of the plant, however, but identification of the leading participants definitely establishes that some of the assailants were members of the service department. The three original assailants of Reuther and Frankensteen on the overpass at Gate 4 were two foremen in the River Rouge plant, Sam Taylor and Wilfred Comment, and Ted Greis, a member of the Ford Service Department. Also identified 'at the hearing as having taken more or less promi- nent parts in the savage attacks committed at Gate 4 were Angelo Caruso 2a Lynn Squires , Christian Frey, Oscar Jones,24 Charles Good- man,`6 and Warshon Sarkisian , all Ford employees, the first three of whom were members of the Service Department . Comment, Taylor, and Oscar Jones were pointed out by several witnesses as having been particularly vicious in their assaults. A group of four or five men who arrived at Gate 4 shortly after Frankensteen and, after request- ing information concerning his whereabouts , rushed up the steps of the overpass after him, drove up in a car belonging to the respondent. A leader in the attack at Gate 5 was a member of the Ford Service Department known as Tubby . Michael Devlin , Charles Grundish, and Stanley Terry, the three men who chased Frederick Arnold and Omar Shull from Gate 5 into the Melvindale police station , identified themselves as Ford Service men. Archie Kindell, a Ford employee , was the driver of -the car. in which the Ford employees who participated in the events at Gate 9 and caused the arrest of Nick Demchuk , followed Demchuk to the Dearborn police station . Kindell denied at the hearing that he was a member of the Service Department but admitted that his foreman 23 A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Caruso in connection with the grand-jury investigation of the riot but the police have been unable to locate him. Charles Spare, an investigator attached to the office of the Wayne County prosecutor, testified that Caruso has been reported. to be in- hiding in Canada. 24 Jones fights professionally under .the name of Jackie Young. 26 Bernard Middleton , a 'Detroit police officer, attached to the Bureau of Records , testified that Goodman 's police record showed that he had been convicted of the following crimes : simple larceny, speeding, aiding a prisoner to escape , and frequenting a gambling place. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 373 was connected with that department, and that he and the other men in his car were patrolling Schaeffer Road pursuant to orders.26 The persons who assaulted Frank Hartung and stopped the union group from passing out leaflets in front of Gate 10 on Schaeffer Road came out of the Service Department office at that gate. Alex Saide, who was identified as the leader of the attack on Percy Llewellyn near Gate 1, was a member of the Ford Service Department, while Ralph Dunham, who was so seriously injured at the corner of Wyom- ing and Eagle Avenues, recognized Comment and Taylor as two of his..chief assailants. The time cards for May 26, 1937, of practically all of the above- named persons were introduced into evidence at the hearing.27 In each case the individual was paid by the respondent for his time during the beatings. More important, perhaps, than any other single factor in connect- ing the respondent with the events of May 26, was the presence of Everett Moore, head of the Ford Service Department, at the scene of the rioting and his acquiescence in the acts that were being com- mitted. The testimony of Alvin Stickle that Everett Moore stood by viewing the beating which was given him by Comment and another man in front of the Gate 4 service office, was uncontradicted at the hearing. Upon all the evidence we find the respondent responsible for the attacks on the union organizers and members by Comment, Taylor, Greis, Jones, Frey, Goodman, Grundish, Devlin, Terry, and Kindell and those in the latter's group. From the nature of the evidence introduced by the respondent, it appears that the respondent sought to establish that even if the acts ascribed to it are true, they were committed upon its own property and in defense of that property. It offered evidence tending to show that the streetcar tracks where the assaults upon the union women, Frankensteen, and others in the union groups were com- mitted are within the River Rouge plant and that the overpass at Gate 4 where the first attack took place is the property of the Ford Motor Company. This defense of the respondent is clearly untenable in the light of the events which have been described above. Technical trespass has never been recognized in law as a justification for extreme brutality. The record in this proceeding leaves no doubt that when Franken- steen and Reuther were informed on the overpass that . they were trespassing on Ford property, they immediately about-faced, and, 20 Kindell admitted that the man identified as Ray gave the order "to go over to the gate" and that none of the men in the group questioned his authority. It is not established, however, that Ray was Kindell 's foreman. 27 Board Exhibits 73, 74, 75, 76. 77, 78. 84, 85, 86 . 91, and 103. 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD without making any response or objection whatsoever, began walking toward the stairway. It was clearly unnecessary for the respondent, in protecting its property, to blackjack and otherwise maltreat de- fenseless men and women, to break William Merriweather's back, to take Alvin Stickle into the plant proper and there give him a delayed but nevertheless severe beating. Furthermore, a careful examination of the evidence indicates that there is considerable doubt as to whether any trespass upon the re- spondent's property was committed by the U. A. W. members and sympathizers. The streetcars running within the River Rouge plant are operated by the Detroit Department of Street Railways upon tracks leased by that Department from the respondent.28 The lease covers "The street railway tracks and roadbeds therefor, the loading and unloading platforms, dividing fences, prepayment stations, over- head walkways and the supporting structures therefor . . ." The respondent denies that the overpass at Gate 4 is one of the over- head walkways included within the terms of the lease. Such denial is not convincing, however, in view of the fact that persons wishing to board a streetcar in the vicinity of Gate 4 must cross over the overpass to do so, and that prepayment booths, heated and lighted by the Department of Street Railways, are located on the overpass. The interest of the Department of Street Railways in the streetcar tracks and the overpass is not the only reason to believe that such property is public in character. Numerous witnesses testified that the public has always had free access to the overpass and that mem- bers of the public had never, before May 26, been prevented from using it. Vendors of different types of merchandise regularly ped- dle their wares on the bridge. Aside from the inscription "Ford" on both sides of the structure, the overpass bears no sign describing it as private property.29 It is unnecessary for the determination of this case that the Board decide whether a trespass was being committed when the attacks at 'Gate 4 were commenced. However, it is clear that there were rea- sonable grounds for the union group to believe they had the legal right to go upon the overpass and to travel on streetcars within the River Rouge plant. . Even if it were possible to find some justification for the respond- ent's position that a property owner may commit the brutal acts which have been described above upon persons who are trespassing on his property, the respondent's defense would still be ineffective. The beating of Reuther which was commenced on the overpass at Gate 2s Union Exhibit 7. . 2"A sign stating "Private property , no literature to be passed out of any kind " and signed "Ford Motor Company" was erected on the overpass on July 5, 1937, the clay before the commencement of the hearing in this case. This sign was removed on the following day. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 375 4 was continued on Miller Road, admittedly a public highway, and the assaults upon union members and sympathizers at points other than Gate 4 were committed almost entirely on public property. The attack upon Tony Marinovich and the other union people at Gate 5 was launched on the center of Eagle Avenue at the point where it intersects with Miller Road. The respondent contended at the hearing that Eagle Avenue is the private property of the Ford Motor Company. Eagle Avenue, however, has not only been openly used as a public highway for a number of years but the respondent itself in another proceeding has recognized its public character.ae The attack upon Frank Hartung and his group at Gate 10 was committed on Schaeffer Road and that upon Percy Llewellyn near Gate 1 took place on Dix Road. There was no contention at the hearing that either Schaeffer Road or Dix Road is other than a public highway. Ralph Dunham was assaulted at the intersection ,of Eagle and Wyoming Avenues, a full block away from the plant. At the oral argument and in its brief, the respondent contended that the assaults were the spontaneous expression of resentment and hostility on the part of some of its employees toward the U. A. W. and hence could not be attributed to the respondent. There is no evidence in the record to support this contention; none of the em- ployees who participated in the riot was called as a witness to explain his actions. Nor did any official of the respondent testify concerning what orders, if any, had been issued with respect to the conduct of -employees stationed at the gates during the attempted distribution, and no explanation of such failure to testify was made at the hearing.31 The evidence is uncontradicted that no oral or physical provocation was offered by the union group, and we do not believe that the as- saults described above were spontaneous reactions to the mere presence 30McClintic-Marslall Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 254 Mich . 305 (1931 ). In this case , action involving the question of whether a mechanic's lien could be enforced against the Eagle Avenue railroad viaduct, the respondent filed a brief with the Supreme Court of Michigan in which it contended that, inasmuch as the viaduct was constructed across public land (Eagle Avenue ) it was public in character and hence not subject to a mechanic 's lien . In support of this contention the brief states : "It is inherently public . . . Scores of thousands of the general public reap more benefit than . . . Ford . . . No one can imagine any use to which it can be applied except for public travel." In its decision the Supreme Court of Michigan upheld the respondent's contention and ruled that the Eagle Avenue railroad viaduct was not subject to a mechanic 's lien. a' Affidavits filed in support of the respondent 's motion to reopen the record and to permit further evidence to be adduced, filed on March 13, 1939 , state that, at the time of the hearing, criminal proceedings growing out of the assaults of May 26 had been instituted against Everett Moore and certain other employees, and that had they been called upon to testify each would have claimed his constitutional privilege and refused to testify . No witness claimed the privilege , nor did the respondent indicate at the hearing that it was handicapped in presenting its case because material witnesses refused to testify for the reason that their testimony might incriminate them . A claim of privilege would have been unavailing , since. Section 11 ( 3) of the Act provides that "No person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him . . See Brown V. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 ; Hale v. F1 enkel, 201 U. S. 43. 190935-40-vol. 14-25 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of U. A. W. representatives. Some of the attackers had taped hands which. they used with considerable effectiveness. Several pictures of Wilfred Comment in action reveal a pair of handcuffs in his hip pocket. The men who drove up to Gate 4 in a car belonging to the respondent shortly after the union group had gone up on the over- pass were obviously in search of Frankensteen and rushed up the steps after him. The record also shows that at other gates, and even at points some distance from the plant, union people were sought out and subjected to beatings or other indignities by persons who were either identified as Service Department members, who were Ford employees acting under the supervision of a Ford supervisor, or who came from within the respondent's plant. The foregoing facts, and the entire testimony concerning the riot, convince us that the assaults were not a spontaneous outbreak caused by any supposed hostility entertained by some of the respondent's employees toward the U. A. W. We conclude that the attacks upon union members and sympa- thizers, described above, are attributable to the respondent, and we further find that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Other acts of intimidation and coercion About the first of April 1937, copies of the Ford Almanac for July 1937, a publication issued by the respondent, were placed in boxes at the gates of the River Rouge plant where they could be obtained by workers going to and from work. The Almanac con- tained many uncomplimentary references to labor organizations, in- cluding the following paragraphs which appeared under the title of "Musings of Smoke-Stack Joe" : SHILLBERG-HA HA ! I'll bet when he hears Ma's gone he'll be over to the house tryin' to join me up to this labor racket. None of THAT FOR ME, either. Why should I pay money to a gang FOR NOTHING? They can't give me a single thing MORE'N I ALREADY GOT. Never had to pay to work before-why start Now. 'Specially when they won't show me the books and let me see what they do with MY MONEY. IF I PAY money for groceries, I GET GROCERIES in return. If I pay money for a suit, I GET A SUIT in return. Why should I pay, money to this crowd for NOTHING? And look who's asking-all these fellows who got their labor movement education in RUSSIA . . . It all looks and smells like COMMUNISM to me . . . They say they've got 200,000 members. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 377 each payin' them $1 a month right here in Detroit. Golly, that's 24 hundred thousand-2 million, 4 hundred thousand dollars a year. Ha-that's where all the big cars, airplanes, swell offices, big salaries and all the rest of it comes from. They don't DARE give the members a financial accounting. If you ask for one you get BEATEN. Darned if I join a RACKET LIKE THAT. Heigho-there's the whistle. Goin' home now. G'bye ! 82 During May 1937, the respondent reprinted in pamphlet form under the heading "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor," and distributed to its employees, the article by A. M. Smith of the North American Newspaper Alliance, referred to in subsection A above.'8 During the same month the respondent passed out to its employees cards termed "Fordisms," containing excerpts from various statements of Henry Ford attacking labor organizations. These cards read as follows : FORDISMS "A Monopoly of JOBS in this country is just as bad as a monop- oly of BREAD !" "Our men ought to consider whether it is necessary for them to PAY SOME OUTSIDER every month FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORK- ING at Ford's." "What was the result of these strikes-merely that numbers of men put their necks into an IRON COLLAR. I'm only TRYING to SHOW WHO OWNS THE COLLAR." "Figure it out for yourself. If you go into a union they have GOT You-but what have You got?" "We have always made a better bargain for our men than an outsider COULD. We have never had to bargain against our men and we don't expect to begin now." "There is no mystery about the connection between CORPORA- TION CONTROL and LABOR CONTROL. They are the Two ENDS OF THE SAME ROPE. A little group of those who CONTROL BOTH CAPITAL AND LABOR will sit down in New York and settle PRICES, DIVIDENDS-AND WAGES. " The manner in which the respondent distributed the "Fordisms" and the pamphlet entitled "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor" to its employees is significant. Ordinarily, literature is placed in boxes near the entrances to the plant and employees are free to take the literature or not, as they please. However, Ford servicemen dis- 92 Board Exhibit 102. ^ Board Exhibit 72. "Board Exhibit 93. 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tributed the above-mentioned literature and made sure that eaclL employee received it. George Onnela testified that, "if a guy didn't notice [the literature], they [the service men] pulled him back and gave it to him." Elmer Mackie. testified that the servicemen "run to each man and push one of these cards [Fordisms] in their hands, so they wouldn't miss any of the men as they were coming out of the factory." Mackie further testified that the use of service- men to hand out the literature "struck me funny," that the literature was "pushed into our hands as we were coming out of the gate," and that he felt constrained to take it because the servicemen "might have took your [badge] number if you didn't take it." The respondent contends that the foregoing publications constitute no more than "an expression of opinion upon the part of the em- ployer addressed to his employees." Although counsel for the re- spondent at the oral argument stated that the purpose of distributing the "Viewpoint on Labor" "was unquestionably to put before the employees the views that Mr. Ford entertained as to where the best interests of the employees lay," with "Whatever effect it might have upon the minds of the employees," the respondent claims that, since the Congress "deliberately refrained from extending its prohibitions to acts on the part of the employer calculated to `influence' em- ployees," the Act does not proscribe such expressions of opinion. The respondent further contends that, if the Act be interpreted to authorize the proscription of such publications as are here involved then, to that extent, the Act is unconstitutional as an abridgement of the freedom of speech and of the press in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We are not here concerned with the question whether an "expres- sion of opinion" or an act on the part of an employer calculated to "influence" his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, as such, is forbidden by the Act. The issue here is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization by distributing to its employees literature criticizing and disparaging labor organiza- tions. The publications must be considered in their context. Coming at a time when the U. A. W. was conducting a drive to organize the respondent's employees, the publications had the unmistakable pur- pose and effect of warning employees that they should refrain from joining the union. We find it iinpossible to believe that statements denouncing labor organizations, characterizing union leaders as insincere and racketeering persons who seek only to levy tribute upon workers, and warning employees that by joining a labor organ- FORD MOTOR COMPANY . 379 ization they pay money for nothing, corning from the employer and distributed to employees under circumstances clearly indicating that they should take heed, are merely "directed to the reason of the employee" and are "intended to influence only his mental process," and have no intimidatory or coercive effect. No employee could fail to understand that if he disregarded the warning he might find- himself in difficulties with his employer. Such fear, we think, was the natural and inevitable result of the distribution of the publica- tions involved, particularly in view of the fact that prior to dis- tribution of the statements the respondent had demonstrated that employees found to be affiliated with, sympathetic to, or active in behalf of the union would be discharged, as hereinafter shown. At the least, the publications distributed as aforesaid said to the em- ployees that the respondent would regard anyone who joined the union as a gullible, foolish person. The employees could not fail to believe that in matters of promotion or selection of men for lay-offs such an opinion would have weight. We find that the respondent, by distributing the above-mentioned literature to its employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We do not believe that the foregoing finding unconstitutionally abridges the respondent's freedom of speech and of the press. Free- dom of speech is a qualified, not an absolute right. The Act requires the employer to refrain from acts that interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. The guarantee of such rights to the em- ployees would indeed be wholly ineffective if the employer, under the guise of exercising his constitutional right of free speech, were free to coerce them into refraining from exercising the rights, vouchsafed them in the Act. The contention that coercive statements made by supervisory officials to employees are protected by the First Amend- inent has been rejected in several cases arising under the Act 35 We think the principle thus established is no less applicable to the circula- tion of literature having a like coercive effect. The. respondent's anti-union drive reached its climax but not its end in the riot of May 26. The very next day two union employees of the Chrysler Motor Company, Albert Mooradian and James Kelly, while driving along Miller Road, were attacked and severely beaten by a group of men who had been sitting in two cars, one of which had been parked within the entrance to Gate 4. Mooradian, who was open- ly wearing his union pin, was assaulted first. However, one of the ' National Labor Relations Board v . The Falk Corporation , 102 F. ( 2d) 383; Virginia Ferry Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 101 F. (2d) 103; National Labor Relations Board v . Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 99 F. ( 2d) 153, 179. 380 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD attacking group soon noticed that Kelly was wearing a pin beneath his jacket and with the remark, "There is another Union pin," com- menced beating him also. Mooradian received serious injuries which required him to enter a hospital and from which he had not yet recovered at the time of the hearing. One of the assailants was identi- fied as Albert Rasmussen, a member of the Ford Service Department. We find that the respondent is responsible for the assaults upon Mooradian and Kelly and that thereby the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. About June 1 there was circulated throughout the River Rouge plant a "Vote of Confidence" in the policies of Henry Ford.3° The circulation took place in the presence of the respondent's foremen and, in many cases employees were asked by their foremen to sign. Those refusing to do so had their badge numbers taken. As a result most of the employees signed. The respondent then publicized the vote aa an indorsement of its labor policies and as a rejection of the U. A. W. We find that the respondent by the foregoing acts of its foremen in connection with the circulation of the "Vote of Confidence" and by publicizing the vote as an indorsement of its labor policies and as a rejection of the U. A. W., interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The alleged domination and support of a labor organization The complaint alleges and the answer denies that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization, the Ford Brotherhood of America, Inc., and contributed support to it. We find that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the respondent has dominated and inter- fered with the formation and administration of the Brotherhood or has contributed support thereto. We shall, therefore, dismiss the allegations of the complaint in this respect. E. The discharges The complaint, as amended, alleges the discriminatory discharge of a number of named individuals. The respondent denies that the discharges were because of union activities. We will take up in order the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of each individual. Homer King Homer King commenced working for the respondent in 1919 and continued until his discharge on June 14, 1937. King was an electri- w Board Exhibit 95. FIORD MOTOR COMPANY 381 cian and at the time of his discharge he was engaged in electrical main- tenance work in the gear department at the River Rouge plant. He was earning $7.20 a dAy. King is not a member of the U. A. W. However, on Julie D, the day that the Brotherhood drive was staged in the plant, he handed out some U. A. W. application cards to a number of workmen in his department and collected money from them. King testified that he "didn't want to get mixed up in no Union business" and that after collecting the money he "was going to spend it." However, he became apprehensive that "they might get me up for getting money under false pretenses," and therefore turned the money over to a union man he met at his cousin's house. One of the men to whom King sold an application card said to him, "Hello Mr. Frankensteen." A few minutes later King noticed this man talking to the assistant foreman and nodding at him. On June 14, King was called away from his job by Fred Eagle, the general foreman in charge of electrical work in the motor building,3' and told to report to the employment office. When King inquired whether there was anything the matter with his work, Eagle replied that there was not, but that he was one of a group being transferred to' another department. Eagle added that Miller, the employment manager, knew all about the natter and would explain it to King. King saw Brown at the employment office the next day. Brown, who was a personal friend of his, told him that he had been turned in for union, activities. King denied membership in the U. A. W., and Brown, after making him return the following day, sent him back to the gear department. After he had been on the job only a half an hour, however, he was again called to the employment office, where Brown told him that he had received information that King had been doing organization work for the U. A. W. Brown was quite angry and accused King of lying to him. King at first denied having been engaged in union activity, but finally admitted that he had passed out union application cards. How- ever, he told Brown that he had done so because he "wanted to pick up change for beer money." Brown finally stated that he would put King back on the job provided King first revealed the names and badge numbers of the men to whom he had distributed the application cards. King, however, said he did not know the men by name or badge number, but promised he would get that information for Brown if he were allowed to return to work. King testified that his statement to Brown about having spent the money he collected and his promise to report the men to whom he had given applications, were fabricated in an effort to get his job back. However, Brown refused to send King w The building in which the gear department is located. 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back on the job except on condition that King reveal the identity of the men who had received application cards from him. Eagle denied any knowledge of King's union activities and testified that he had discharged him for constantly leaving his work and ne- glecting the machines for which he was responsible. He said that King had been given several warnings. In view of the fact that the respondent made no effort to rebut King's testimony concerning his conversations with Brown, such testimony is entitled to considerable weight. Also, his 18 years of continuous employment with the respondent casts doubt upon Eagle's statement that King's work was unsatisfactory. We find that Homer King was discharged because the respondent believed that he had engaged in activities iii behalf of the U. A. W. King earned about $103.00 between the date of his discharge and the hearing. George Smick George Smick was employed by the respondent more or less regu- larly from 1920 until his discharge on June 29, 1937. At the time of his discharge he was working as a millwright in the glass plant at the River Rouge plant and was earning $6.80 a day. He testified that his work had never been criticized. Smick joined the U. A. W. on March 5, 1937. Early in June 1937 he refused to sign the "Vote of Confidence" and another paper pledg- ing its signers to fight the U. A. W. Smick worked on the night shift. When he reported for work on June 28, he found a note attached to his time card requesting him to see the timekeeper before he went home the following morning. The timekeeper told hint to clear out his tools and report to the employment ofrice.38 At the employment office he was called a union man and an agitator by Brown, and he was refused reinstatement. The respondent did not offer any evidence contradicting Smick's testimony. The record in this case leaves no doubt that Smick was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W., and we so find. Smick did not earn any money between the date of his discharge and the hearing. Alphonse Knn.suZis With the exception of a lay-off during the depression, Alphonse Kuzulis had been working for the respondent for 18 years at the time of his discharge on February 4, 1937. He had had the same The expression "clear out" as used at the River Rouge plant signifies the turning in of his tools by a workman . This must be done by any workman whose employment is ter- minated. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 383 foreman for the last 12 years of this period. At the time of his discharge he was earning $6.40 a day. Kuzulis joined the U. A. W. on February 1, 1937. He had attended three union meetings before then. When he reported for work on February 4, his foreman told him to clear out his tools and go to the employment office. After making him return to the employment -office several times, Brown told him that he was being fired because he had been seen at a union meeting. Kuzulis' foreman did not testify at the hearing and his testimony was not contradicted. We find that Alphonse Kuzulis was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W. Kuzulis has not earned any money since his discharge. Birtus C. Hall Birtus C. Hall worked for the respondent from April 20, 1934, until his discharge on June 4, 1937. For the last few months of this period, he was employed, as a grinder in the glass plant at the River Rouge plant. At the time of his discharge he was earning $6.40 a day. Hall became a member of the. U. A. W. on May 28, 1937. As he was leaving the plant on June 1, he was attacked by several men, one .of whom said, "Well, I am going to knock hell out of you." Hall was still on Ford property when the attack occurred. On June 3, he signed the "Vote of Confidence" but not until he had told the person circulating it that he was doing so to protect his job. At the conclusion of work on the following day, June 4, Hall was directed to report to the employment office. Before doing so, he asked his general foreman if anything was the matter with his work. The latter replied that it was entirely satisfactory. However, Hall dis- covered at the employment office that he had been discharged. While discussing the matter with Brown, in an attempt to find out the rea- son for his dismissal, he was asked by the latter, "Wasn't you trying to give a fellow, an application card to join the Union out in the parking lot and got socked in the nose?" Hall's foreman, Michael Savados, testified that he had discharged Hall for constantly leaving his job during working hours. He said that he had given him several warnings before discharging him. .Savados admitted, however, that Hall's job at times required him to leave his ordinary position and work in other parts of the department. Hall denied that he had received any warnings from Savados before his discharge. In view of Brown's familiarity with the attack on Hall and his union activities, it is clear that Hall's membership in the U. A. W. was the reason for his discharge, and we so find. 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD George B. Zubick and Joseph Gutierrez George B. Zubick and Joseph Gutierrez were both employed as metal finishers in the body department at the River Rouge plant. Zubick had been employed by the respondent since 1930 and Gutierrez since 1928. They were receiving $7.60 a clay at the time of their discharge. When the "Vote of Confidence" was circulated in their department early in June 1937, Zubick and Gutierrez were the only workers who refused to sign it. A few days later, on June 8, Zubick was discharged, and on the following day Gutierrez also was discharged. Both were members of the U. A. W. at the time. Zubick, who had joined the U. A. W. on May 18, 1937, was particularly active and had succeeded in getting five or six other workers in the department to join. Zubick returned to the employment office the day after his dis- charge in an effort to obtain reinstatement. While there he was inter- viewed by Brown, who asked him why he wasn't satisfied with his job. When Zubick replied that he was satisfied. Brown told him that he was a valuable man but the respondent could not use him since they did not want any trouble at the plant.. Gutierrez was discharged without explanation on June 9. At the employment office, Brown informed him that it was because they were laying off men in the department. Two new metal finishers had com- menced working that very morning, however. John Nazradi, the foreman in charge of Zubick' and Gutierrez, testified that Zubick was discharged for talking too much and Gutierrez for inefficiency, and that both had been warned about scratches in the metal they finished. We think it clear from the record that the reasons assigned by Nazradi for the discharge of these two men are not the true reasons. On June 8, shortly before the shift started, Zubick announced to a group of employees that the union initiation fee was one dollar, and Gutierrez openly gave Zubick a dollar and received a temporary receipt. One of the employees present in the group was Clayton Davis, the third metal finisher on the afternoon shift. A few min- utes after the shift started, Nazradi came around and warned the men against talking. According to Zubick and Gutierrez, Davis was caught talking by Nazradi, and Davis was then taken to'. the su- perintendent's desk. Gutierrez, who suspected something was wrong,. left his job and went to the tool crib to exchange some files. He saw several supervisors, including Nazradi and Olson, the night superin- tendent, around Davis, and it appeared that they were questioning Davis. Davis returned in about 20 minutes and, according to Zubick and Gutierrez, appeared scared and excited. That night Davis did FORD MOTOR COMPANY 385 not eat lunch with the rest of the men. About 5 minutes after Davis returned, Nazradi told Zubick he was discharged and, so Zubick testified, warned the other men, "You guys have been talking around here, you got yourselves in the mess, watch your step, fellows, you see what happened to him [Zubick], that is going to happen to you." Nazradi admitted that Davis had been talking and that Davis had been called away from his work. His testimony as to what oc- casioned Davis' absence was evasive, although he stated that Davis was in the company of the general foreman. We accept Gutierrez's testimony and find that Nazradi was in the group around Davis. The circumstance that Davis observed Zubick's union activity before the shift started, his evident fear and disinclination to associate with the other men after he had been questioned, and Zubick's discharge immediately after the questioning of Davis, persuade us that Zubick was discharged because of his union affiliation, which had been revealed through Davis, and that the charge of talking too much was but a pretext for his dismissal. The next day, June 9, Nazradi took particular pains to find fault with Gutierrez's work. That such is the fact is evident from Nazradi's own testimony, for he stated that, upon receiving some complaints that morning about the quality of the metal finishing on his shift, he determined that, "whoever this guy is, I am going to get him," and that forthwith he commenced criticizing Gutierrez's work. Upon being interrogated as to how he knew that Gutierrez was re- sponsible for the defective work, Nazradi at first attempted to testify that, he- could identify Gutierrez's work, as well as that of other metal finishers, by the manner in which it had been done. Later he testified that he knew the defective work had been done by Gutierrez because Gutierrez admitted it was his. We conclude that Nazradi was aware of the fact that Gutierrez had joined the U. A. W. on the preceding day and had therefore determined to find some pretext for discharging him. The record leaves no doubt that the reason for the discharge of George B. Zubick and Joseph Gutierrez was their membership in the U. A. W. and we so find. George Onnela, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Clarence Flemvng, Richard Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, and Thaddeus Radke George Onnela, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Clarence Fleming, Richard Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, and Thaddeus Radke were, until their discharge in May 1937, employed in the body department of the River Rouge plant. The seven were engaged in the section making seat cushions and backs and had as their immediate fore- man Rudolph Prokop. All of them were members of the U. A. W. 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and active union workers. They rode together to and from work and acquired a reputation in the section as the union gang. George Onnela, the oldest of the group, was first employed by the respondent on February 27, 1922, and, with the exception of the period from 1931 to 1934 during which the respondent- discontinued making its own bodies, has worked for it continuously since that time. He was the lead-off man on the assembly line in which he worked and had been commended on numerous occasions for his satisfactory work. At the time of his discharge he was earning $7.60 a day. When George Onnela reported for work on May 25, 1937, he was called to the desk of the general foreman of the department and informed by the latter's clerk that he was discharged. Although he inquired, no reason was given him for his dismissal. However, he no- ticed that on the slip which had been filled out by the clerk, the words "Work unsatisfactory, not being on the job on time" were written. Inasmuch as Prokop rode to work in his car with him Onnela had never been late. Before leaving the department Onnela approached Prokop and asked the reason for his discharge. Prokop's reply was, "Well, George, God damn it, I warned you and warned you to keep your mouth shut, but you didn't.... This hurts me more than it hurts you fellows but I got to do it.... Orders are orders." Richard Weyhing, the unofficial chairman of the union gang, com- menced working for the respondent on November 5, 1936. Before that time he had been employed in a similar type of work by the BriggsManufacturing Company for 15 years. Weyhing had always done his work in a satisfactory manner and had received three raises in the period from November 1936 until his discharge on May 25, 1937. The last of these occurred only 2 months before his discharge. At that time he was earning $7.60 a day. Weyhing was discharged together with George Onnela when they reported for work on May 25, 1937. No reason was given him for this action. He noticed that the words "work unsatisfactory & late" had been written on the slip which was handed to the serviceman who took him out of the department. Clarence Fleming, Weyhing's brother-in-law, had had 12 years' experience in automobile cushion work at the Briggs Manufacturing Company before beginning work for the respondent on November 5, 1936. He was discharged without explanation on May 24, 1937. While employed by the respondent he had received three increases in pay and at the time of his discharge was earning $7.60 a day. His work had never been criticized. Elmer Mackie commenced working for the respondent in 1925 and, with the exception of a 2-year period from 1932 to 1934 during which FORD MOTOR COMPANY 387 the respondent discontinued making tudor bodies, he had worked for it continuously until his discharge on May 25, 1937. Mackie, was a very efficient workman, and when he had sprained his hand during March he had been given lighter work during the period of his injury instead of being laid off. He was earning $7.60 a day at the time of his discharge. About a half hour after the commencement of work on May 25, Mackie was called to the desk by Prokop and discharged. He noticed that Prokop had written on his slip, "Work not satisfactory." When Mackie asked Prokop if that was the reason why he was being fired, the latter replied, "No, you know what you are fired for." Visibly agitated, Prokop continued, "Elmer, I can't help it. . . . I can't help it. Those are my orders." On the way out of the department, he ran into Richard Elberth, the foreman in charge of the cushion sec- tion, who said, "I am sorry you had to go." At the employment office, where all employees leaving the respondent's employ must go before they can draw their pay, Mackie was told by Al Brown, the assistant employment manager, "Maybe I can fix you up with a job if you behave yourself." Thaddeus Radke commenced working for the respondent on De- cember 1, 1936. On May 25, 1937, he was discharged without ex- planation. He was earning $7.20 a day at the time of his discharge and had received an increase in pay only two weeks before. He testified that his work had never been criticized. Alfred Onnela, George Onnela's brother, was employed by the respondent from December 1934 until his discharge on May 27, 1937. No explanation was given him for his discharge, but the service- man who took him out of the department remarked that his brother had been seen distributing union literature the previous day. Alfred Onnela had always performed his work in a satisfactory manner and had received an increase in pay which raised it to $7.60 a day only 2 days before his discharge. Ray Onnela, a brother of George and Alfred, began working for the respondent in December 1934. For several years before that time he had been employed in the same type of work by the Briggs Manufacturing Company. Ray Onnela testified that he had always performed his work in an efficient manner. He was earning $7.60 a day at the time of his discharge. When Ray Onnela reported for work on May 26, 1937, his time card was missing from the timerack. At the desk he was informed by the clerk, "Your brother is out. You are as good as gone." When Onnela asked if he would be blacklisted in the shops, the clerk told him that he would not be if he quit. He then asked to be cleared out and the clerk filled out a slip which Onnela did not see. 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD George Onnela testified that subsequent to the commencement of the hearing he had heard Prokop state that all of the seven men whose discharges are now being considered were efficient worklnen and that the reason for their discharge was their union activities.39 Richard Elberth, the foreman in charge of the cushion section, stated that for several weeks before the discharge of the seven men the work in Prokop's shift had been very poor; that it had become necessary to make some changes; and that Weyhing, 'Fleming, Mackie, Radke, and the Onnelas had all been doing bad work and for that reason they had been the ones selected for dismissal.. Elberth also contended that Ray Onnela had quit voluntarily and had not been discharged. Inconsistent with the foregoing was a statement by Elberth that one of the reasons for the dismissal of George and Ray Onnela was that they were "stool pigeons" and that he did not care to have any "stool pigeons" in his section. Elberth was positive in his testimony that George Onllela had been working as a back hanger during the month of May and that it was during this period that he found the poor workmanship which he attributed to Onnela. The work of a back hanger requires him to hold tacks in his lips, a practice referred to as "spitting tacks." Onnela's testimony establishes that from May 1 to May 24 he had not worked as a back hanger for the reason that his lower lip had been cut in a fight, which prevented him from "spitting tacks." During this period he turned covers for the back hangers the first week, acted as set-up man the second, and spent the third week put- ting on "night caps." He did not return to his regular job as back hanger until May 24, the day before he was discharged. It is clear, therefore, that Elberth's charge that George Onnela's work as back hanger was inefficient during May, has no basis in fact. Most of the men here involved, except George and Ray Onnela who were partners, worked in pairs with men whom Elberth did not accuse of performing bad work and who were still working at the time of the hearing. It appears that at times the partners assisted each other. Although Elberth testified that one member of each pair of back hangers usually worked on either the left or right back and that he held the man who finished the back responsible, it is difficult to believe that for six or seven weeks practically all the poor back hanging in the section should be attributable to only one mem- ber of each of several pairs of back hangers. We conclude that the discharges in Prokop's section resulted from the union activities of, the men involved. 39A signed statement to this effect by Prokop was excluded at the hearing by the Trial Examiner. Such ruling of the Trial Examiner was erroneous. In view of the other evidence introduced in these cases , however, there has been no need to consider the statement. Inas- much as it has not been prejudicial , therefore, the ruling of the Trial Examiner has not been reversed. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 389 We find that George Onnela, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Clarence Fleming, Richard Weyhing, Elmer Mackie, and Thaddeus Radke were discharged because of their membership in the U. A. W. Neither Mackie, Radke nor the Onnelas had secured any employ- ment in the period between their discharge and the hearing in this case. Weyhing earned about $78 and Fleming $8.30. Martin Jensen Martin Jensen, an employee in the body department at the River Rouge plant, commenced working for the respondent in December 1934. He had had 13 years of experience in the same type of work before then in various automobile body building plants in Detroit and at one time had operated a custom shop of his own. Jensen was employed in the cushion-making. section under Elberth but had as his immediate foreman, William Martin, shift foreman of the shift opposite Prokop's 40 He was considered the most efficient workman in his shift. and was assigned the special custom work for display purposes. When his hand had been infected in January 1937, he had been given the job of checking the assembly line. At the time of his discharge he was earning $7.60 a day. Jensen, although he did not belong to the U. A. W., associated with the union gang and was generally considered a member of it. He played on a shop baseball team which was managed by Weyhing and often discussed the union at the ball games. On May 26, 1937, he was discharged without explanation. However, he noticed on the slip which had been made out concerning him the words, "work unsatisfactory." Elberth made no claim that Jensen was a poor worker and inti- mated that he was discharged because he was always prowling around. Martin stated that for about two weeks Jensen had per- sisted in talking too much to the men on the assembly line; that he had been warned several times; and that on May 25, after the day shift ended, he talked the matter over with Elberth, who said with regard to Jensen, "Well, we will have to take him out of here; he hasn't heeded our warnings, so we will take him out." Martin tes- tified that Jensen was a good worker. Jensen testified that no one had told him that he was not staying at his job or that he was not attending to his duties as he should. We conclude that Jensen was not discharged for talking too much, but that such reason was assigned in order to eliminate him along with the rest of the union group in Elberth's section. We find that Martin Jensen was discharged because of his activity in behalf of the U. A. W. 40 Prokop and Martin' s shifts alternated every two weeks on mornings and afternoons. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Clifford E. Sheldon Clifford E. Sheldon commenced working for the respondent in 1926 and continued until his discharge on March 15, 1937. During that period he had been promoted to the position of a minor fore- man in the trimming section of the body department at the River Rouge plant, a post which he held at the time of his dismissal. He testified that he had often been commended for his work and was on very satisfactory terms with his superiors. He had been given an increase in pay in January 1937, and at the time of his discharge was earning $8.80 a day. Early in March 1937, Ray De Clerque, the superintendent of the body department, assigned Sheldon the task of organizing the fore- men and bosses in the department into a group "to handle, the situa- tion in case it [a strike] did come up." Sheldon was also told to instruct this group "to notify me immediately if they hear any men talking union or unionism." Sheldon objected vigorously to this assignment and made it quite evident that he was carrying it out only under protest. Shortly after reporting for work on March 15, Sheldon was ordered by Stewart, De Clerque's assistant, to call out his men and have them patrol the aisles, as some trouble was ex- pected. Stewart did not mention the specific trouble, but Sheldon testified that he "took it for granted it was a threatened strike or something similar to that." Sheldon had some of the men in his group patrol the aisles for about 15 minutes and then, upon orders from Stewart, had them cease patrolling. Later in the same day he was called to De Clerque's desk and, after being questioned at length concerning his views on the U. A. W., discharged. In discharging him, De Clerque said, "Well, Cliff, I have got to fire you. I.have to fire you for not being on the job." De Clerque then added, "Keep your chin up. This will be all right. We will get this straightened out." De Clerque evaded telling him the real reason for his discharge. However, Everett Gwynn, his immediate foreman, told Sheldon, that he believed someone had told a union story concerning him. Sheldon was not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his dis- charge. However, he had often expressed the opinion to other fore- men that it was a good thing for the average workman. The respondent did not offer any evidence at the hearing contradict- ing Sheldon's testimony. We find that the respondent discharged Clifford E. Sheldon because of his sympathy for the U. A. W. Sheldon obtained employment at the Gar Wood Industries on April 8, and had earned about $287 at the time of the hearing in this case. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 391 Fred Nygard -Fred Nygard was first employed at the River Rouge plant in. October 1933 and worked there continuously from that date until his discharge on April 26, 1937. For the last year before his discharge- he operated a stripper crane in the soaking pits in the rolling mill.. He testified that his work had never been criticized. Nygard was earning $7.20 a day at the time of his discharge._ Nygard joined the U. A. W. on April 19, 1937, along with five other- employees in the soaking pits. Two clays later some U. A. W. appli- cation cards which he was carrying fell to the ground. Before- Nygard could leave his crane and retrieve them they were picked up by the recorder 41 and read. About an hour later Nygard was in- formed by a shift foreman in the soaking pits that the recorder had, reported the incident to his foreman. On his next working clay an- other workman was placed in the crane with him for the purpose of' learning how to operate it. Then on April 26, Nygard was discharged.. Nygard's foreman, William Klingbeil, testified that he had dis- charged Nygard for loafing. He stated that a few days previous to, April 26, he had warned Nygard not to stand by the rail of his crane. but to clean the equipment during the times when there were no molds- for him to lift. Klingbeil asserted that, on April 26, he noticed that Nygard, who then had a mold in the air, was out of the control room; leaning against the railing looking at another crane operator. He. thereupon called Nygard down and said, "Well, I guess the only- thing to do with you is to send you to the employment office." Daniel Devor, who operated the crane next to Nygard's, testified that Kling- beil had been watching Nygard for about half an hour. Both Nygard and Devor, who operated the crane that picked up. the ingot after Nygard had lifted the mold, testified that the ingot had to be measured and that Nygard, in order to know when to move his crane, stepped to the side of the crane cab, away from the, controls, to watch the measuring. We do not credit Klingbeil's testimony, therefore, that Nygard was loafing. Klingbeil admitted. that lie had no criticism of the manner in which Nygard operated. the crane. The fact that shortly after Nygard's connection with the U. A. W.. was revealed another workman was placed in his crane for the- purpose of learing to operate it, the trivial nature of the reason assigned by Klingbeil for Nygard's discharge, and the fact that Klingbeil took special occasion to watch Nygard, persuade us that Nygard was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W., and we so find. Nygard has earned $233.40 since the time of his discharge. 41 A clerical worker in the department. 190935-40-vol. 14-26 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Percy Llewellyn Percy Llewellyn has been employed at the River Rouge plant since June 1932 and at the time of his discharge on May 19, 1937, was engaged in inspecting crankshafts in the final-assembly department. He was earning $6.80 a day at the time. Llewellyn had been a member of the United Mine Workers of America several years before, and he often advocated labor unions in discussions with other Ford workers. He joined the U. A. W. about April 15, 1937. Shortly after Llewellyn started working on May 19, Ray Crossett, foreman of the production inspectors, told him, "I just seen a report on the desk in the office concerning you and union activities."- Llew- ellyn then noticed that the general foreman and two servicemen were watching him closely. Several hours later while he was showing a defective bearing to one Trigger, the other final inspector who worked with him, the general foreman discharged him for talking. When he went to the timerack to get his time card he noticed that it was the only card in the rack.41 Llewellyn testified that his job required him to talk to other inspectors. He had received a raise in pay about 3 or 4 weeks before his discharge, which had been promised to him about a month before when he had been refused a transfer. Albert Norris, the general foreman of the inspection department, testified that he had discharged Llewellyn for constantly leaving his work to talk to other men. He stated that Llewellyn had formerly been a good workman but had become dissatisfied about 2 months before May 19, upon being refused a transfer. Norris contended that after such refusal, Llewellyn had commenced loafing and that he had twice warned him before discharging him. Norris testified that -immediately before he discharged him, Llewellyn was gone from his -job, "walking around the department there talking to this fellow and -that fellow." Norris testified that Llewellyn's job required him to talk to "the other inspector. that was in the department with him," but that Llewellyn had no occasion to talk to other employees. Llew- ellyn, however, stated he had not left his bench that morning because -of the warning given him earlier in the day by Crossett. In view .of the fact that Llewellyn's testimony about the statement made to -him by Crossett was not contradicted we find that it was made to -him, and in view thereof, accept Llewellyn's testimony that he did not leave his bench on May 19 to talk to men "around the department." Upon the entire record in this case, we find that Percy Llewellyn -was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W. Llewellyn earned about $150.00 between the date of his discharge -and the hearing. 42 The other cards had been pulled out by the timekeeper for the purpose of posting time on -them. Norris . the general foreman, testified that he told the timekeeper to put Llewellyn's .card back in the rack as he was on his way to discharge Llewellyn. . FORD MOTOR COMPANY 393 Joseph Nierotko Joseph Nierotko commenced working for the respondent in Au- gust 1925 and, with the exception of a lay-off during the depression, continued until his discharge on February 2, 1937. He had been a polisher in the radiator shell and hub-cap department at the River Rouge plant for the last 5 years of this period. Nierotko testified that he had always performed his work in an efficient manner. At the time of his discharge he was earning $6.80 a day. Nierotko became a member of the U. A. W. on August 6, 1936, and attended all of its meetings thereafter. Early in 1937, he began to discuss the union with other workers in his department. On February 2, Nierotko was taken off his assembly line by the checker and told to clear out his tools. At the employment office no explanation was given him for his discharge but Miller, the em- ployment manager, accused him of trying "to fight Ford." John Reilly, the general foreman of the radiator shell and hub-cap department, testified that Nierotko did poor work for several weeks prior to February 2. Reilly stated that on February 2 McDaniels, the foreman of the department, complained that Nierotko was not doing his work properly. Reilly testified that he thereupon told McDaniels, "Put him on the radiator shell job and see if that will wake him tip." In about 20 minutes McDaniels reported that Nierotko refused to go on the radiator shell job and Reilly then said, "if he doesn't want to do that, why, clear him out." Nierotko denied that he had been assigned to work on the radiator job and had refused. Reilly admitted that all he knew about Nierotko's work was what McDaniels had told him. McDaniels was not called .as a witness. Aside from the testimony of Reilly, who had no direct dealings with Nierotko, there is no evidence concerning Nierotko's alleged in- Pefficiency. Moreover, the precipitate action taken with respect to Nierotko, if Reilly's testimony concerning Nierotko's refusal to work on radiator shells is believed, is inconsistent with the inference which Reilly sought to convey, namely, that he suggested placing Nierotko on another job in order to "wake him up." In view of Nierotko's denial that he had been assigned to different work and had refused, :and in absence of any testimony by any supervisory employee who :allegedly gave him such assignment and was present when he refused, we find that Joseph Nierotko was discharged because of his mem- bership in the U. A. W. Nierotko did not earn any money between the date of his dis- charge .and the hearing. 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joseph Galusky Galusky commenced working for the respondent in May 1928 and. continued more or less regularly until his discharge on June 4, 1937. On the latter date, while working at his job of pumping oil out of the sewers in the River Rouge plant, he was called off • the job by his foreman and discharged. Galusky was earning $6 .80 a day at the time of his discharge. Galusky was not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his discharge. However, he had often , discussed the union with other workers in the plant and when the "Vote of Confidence " had been circulated in his department on June 2, be had refused to sign it despite a warning by the foreman circulating it that he might be discharged as a result. The discharge took place 2 days later. Galusky testified that he had always performed his work in a satis- factory manner. Galusky's foreman, Peter Montague , testified that he had dis- charged him because of constant loafing on the job. He stated that he had given him several warnings, and when he again found him away from his pump on June 4, he had dismissed him. Galusky denied that he had ever been warned for loafing on the job. He explained that he was absent from the pump on two occasions on June 4, the first time to get a grease gun to lubricate the fan on the pump and the second time to get a bag of towels to use in cleaning the screen. On both occasions he left word as to his whereabouts with workmen in the vicinity. Upon all the evidence in the case, we find that Joseph Galusky was discharged because of his activity in behalf of and sympathy toward the U. A. W. Galusky has not earned any money since the date of his discharge. Hector F. Manseau With Clip- exception of two periods of 2 years each, Hector Manseau was employed by the respondent continuously from September. 1920 until his discharge on May 26, 1937. Manseau was engaged as a tool and die grinder at the River Rouge plant and at the time of his discharge was earning $8.40 a day. He had received a raise about 2 months before and testified that he had always performed his work in a satisfactory manner. Manseau became a member of Local No. 8 of the Mechanics Edu- cational Society of America in 1934. In July 1936 Local No. 8 affiliated with the U. A. W. as Local No. 157 of that organization. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 395 About 2 weeks before his discharge, Manseau had a conversation -with another Ford employee named Debor in which he disclosed the fact that he was a member of the U. A. W. A few days later Debor was transferred to the Service Department. About 3 days before his discharge, Manseau was told by another employee that Debor had said, "I understand there is a grinding hand over there doing a lot of organizing," which statement Manseau understood to refer to himself. Manseau was stopped at the gate and questioned by servicemen when he reported for work on the afternoon of May 26. They finally permitted him to enter the plant after taking his badge number. Shortly after he started to work that afternoon, Manseau was assigned to a rush job by his immediate foreman. While working on this assignment, he was discharged by his general foreman for talking, despite the objection of his immediate foreman. The talking con- sisted of answering two or three questions asked him by another work- man. The other workman was also laid off, but only for 1 day. Clyde M. Snyder, Manseau's general foreman, testified that he had discharged Manseau for talking. He stated that he had seen him talking several times before that but admitted that he had not given him any warning . Snyder also admitted that Manseau may have been on a. job which required talking with other workmen. In view of Manseau's long service for the respondent , the reason given by Snyder for his discharge is unpersuasive . We find that Hector Manseau was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W. Manseau obtained another position on June 4, at a wage of 90 cents an hour and subsequently received a raise to $1.00 an hour. He estimated that his earnings between the date of his discharge and the hearing were about $95 less than they would have been had he continued working for the respondent. Emil Tomkow Emil Tomkow, an employee in the final-assembly line at the River Rouge plant, commenced working for the respondent in December 1936. It was his duty to put brake shoes on the emergency cables. On April 13, 1937, he was discharged without explanation. He was earning $6.40 a day at the time. Towkow had obtained his job at the River Rouge plant through Inspector Slamer of the Dearborn police department who communi- cated in Tomkow's presence over the telephone with Miller, the re- spondent's employment manager. Tomkow knew that Slamer had in similar fashion obtained employment for others. After his dis- charge on April 13, Tomkow went to see Slamer in an attempt to 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD get the job back. Slamer, after investigating the matter, informed Tomkow on one occasion that Brown had said that he had been "talk- ing too damned much union" and on a subsequent occasion that he had been advised by Brown that Tomkow was on "the black-list" and would never be taken back by the respondent. Tomkow's testimony concerning the direct connection between the respondent and the Dearborn police department was substantiated by that of Harry L. Mason, an employee of the Packard Motor Company. Mason stated that on several occasions during the past year he had attempted to obtain a job at the River Rouge plant and that each time he had been told that it would first be necessary for him to secure a letter from the Dearborn police department. At the Dear- born City Hall, he saw a man named Schultz who had an office in the basement of the City Hall where he interviewed applicants for jobs with the respondent and. questioned them concerning their affiliation with the union. Tomkow was not a member of the U. A. W. at the time of his dis- charge. However, he had often discussed it with other employees and had stated that he intended joining. Tomkow's foreman, Elmer Fischer, testified that he had discharged. Tomkow because of the latter's constant loafing and talking. He said that as a result of a car having come through the line with the wiring cut, he and the general foreman had watched Tomkow's section of the line with particular attention. Fischer stated that while doing so they had noticed that he was constantly leaving his job to talk with other employees and they had therefore discharged him. Tomkow denied these charges and stated that his work had never been criticized. Upon all the evidence in the record, we find that Emil Tomkow was discharged because of his activities in behalf of the U. A. W. Tomkow has earned only $45.95 since his discharge. John Cwikiel, Fred Gullickson, and Joseph Bailey Cwikiel, Gullickson, and Bailey were, prior to their dismissal in May 1937, employed in the paint and varnish department at the High- land Park plant. At the time of their discharge, Cwikiel had been an employee of the respondent for between 25 and 26 years, Gullickson for about 23 years, and Bailey for approximately 21/2 years. Cwikiel and Gullickson were each receiving $6.80 and Bailey $6.40 a day. Cwikiel and Gullickson became members of the U. A. W. on March 11, 1937. Subsequent to that date they often discussed it with other employees in the department. Late in the day on Friday, May 7, Dennis McKinney, the general foreman of the department, informed Cwikiel that he could not use him in the department any longer. McKinney was very excited at FORD MOTOR COMPANY 397 the time, and Cwikiel believed that he would change his mind over the week end. However, on the way home that evening, Carl Branden- berg, one of the foremen in the department, told him that Gullicksoni and he were to be discharged on the following Monday. That eve- ning, Cwikiel and Gullickson were visited in their homes by their immediate foreman, Stanley Ziek, who in a very excited manner, told them that they were going to be discharged because of their union activities. The two men were discharged when they reported for work on Monday, May 10. Then, upon the advice of the Board's Regional Director for the Seventh Region, with whom they had spoken over the week end, they visited the employment office at the River Rouge plant in an effort to retain their positions. Brown at first told them that there was nothing he could do for them but after they mentioned the Board to him, he agreed to put them back to work. Brown gave them a letter of instructions to the superintendent of the Highland Park plant. Upon their return to the Highland Park plant, Cwikiel and Gullick- son were transferred to the receiving department. Their new jobs would have required them to do considerable heavy and dirty work out of doors and both Cwikiel, who was 49 years of age, and Gullickson who was 60 years of age, believed that it would be too difficult for them. They therefore refused to accept the new positions. On May 14, Cwikiel was visited by McKinney's assistant, a man named Hutto. Hutto told Cwikiel that he had been discharged be- cause of his union activities. When Cwikiel asked to be put back on the job, Hutto replied, "I can't do that. You have got to be punished. They are punishing you for joining the union." Joseph Bailey joined the U. A. W. on April 14, 1937. He also dis- cussed it with other employees in the department and attempted to get them to join. On May 7, while Bailey was doing some work which had been assigned to him by Ziek he noticed that he was being closely watched by McKinney. A few minutes later he was discharged by Ziek. When he attempted to find out the reason for his discharge, Ziek told him that he was doing it on McKinney's orders. McKinney testified that he had discharged Cwikiel, Gullickson, and Bailey for inefficient work. He said that early in 1937 a time study had been made of the varnish room, the room in which all three of the men were employed, which showed that production, in such room was far below the required standard. As a result he had watched it very closely and had discovered that these men were slowing up pro- duction. McKinney's testimony is very confused, and he qualified the reason he had given for the discharges by saying that- he had been of the opinion that there was a conspiracy afoot to slow down production and had concluded that Cwikiel, Gullickson, and Bailey 398 DECISIONS OF NAT10NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were responsible for the conspiracy because they generally associated with each other. Ziek testified that Cwikiel, Gullickson, and Bailey were all good men and that the reason for their discharge was their membership in the U. A. W. Ziek also stated that on the day Cwikiel and Gullickson had returned to the Highland Park plant with the letter from Brown, McKinney had told him that they were to be assigned to jobs which would "break their God-damn backs for' them." Upon all the evidence in these cases, we find that the respondent discharged Joseph Bailey and caused the resignation of John Cwikiel and Fred Gullickson because of their membership in the U. A. W. Cwikiel had earned about $36.00, Gullickson about $40.00, and Bailey about $88.00 between the times of their discharges and the hearing. We further find that the respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Homer King, George Smick, Alphonse Kuzulis, Birtus C. Hall, George B. Zubick, Joseph Gutierrez, George Onnela, Richard Weyhing, Clarence Fleming, Elmer Mackie, Thaddeus Radke, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Martin Jensen, Clifford Sheldon, Fred Nygard, Percy Llewellyn, Joseph Nierotko, Joseph Galusky, Hector F. Manseau, Emil Tomkow, Joseph Bailey, John Cwikiel, and Fred Gullickson, thereby discouraging membership in the U. A. W., interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in. the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Joseph Sable Joseph Sable had been an employee of the respondent for between 31/2 and 4 years at the time of his discharge on June 4, 1937. He was employed in the tool cribs and was earning $6.80 a day. Sable did not belong to the U. A. W. at the time of his discharge but played on the ball team of one of its locals. On May 31, and June 1, 1937, he noticed three men, whom he took to be servicemen, in the stands looking over the players who were taking part in the games. Sable testified he knew the men, to be servicemen because, "I could tell them a mile away. Their nose was pushed in and they had ears that was cauliflower ears, and they kind of stared at us playing ball, looking at each fellow as they came to bat, staring at them, giving them a dirty look, in other words." Sable had been working on the midnight shift for several weeks. On June 2, when he reported for work, he found a note attached to his time card ordering him to start working days on the morning of June 3. On that morning he was assigned to work with another man in crib 61. Shortly after he began work, George Peterson, the foreman, brought over another man, one Russo, to work in the crib. FORD -INIOTOR COMPANY 399 Ordinarily, only two men work in each crib. Sable testified that he "unconsciously" brushed against Russo, who thereupon started a fight with him. Sable started running away, but was intercepted by some servicemen, who took him and Russo to the employment office in a car which he testified was "waiting." Peterson, the foreman, testified that, being in need of two men on his shift, he brought Sable from the midnight shift and Russo was sent to him from the main stockroom. Since Russo was inexpe- rienced in tool-crib work, he put him with Sable and another regu- lar man in crib 61, as was the custom in breaking in new men. Peterson testified he did not see the beginning of the fight, but when he arrived on the scene both Sable and Russo were being taken to the employment office by two servicemen. About 10 minutes later Brown, the employment manager, called him and asked that quit slips be sent down for both men. Peterson stated that Sable and Russo were both discharged for fighting. When Sable returned to the employment office on the following day in an attempt to get back his job, he was asked by Brown how many handbills he had passed around the plant. Sable denied having passed any handbills and testified that he had never talked about the union except to discuss the results of the ball games and that only five or six employees knew he was a member of the union ball team. We do not believe that Sable's identification of the men whom he saw watching the ball players is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they were Ford servicemen: Peterson's uncontradicted testi- mony concerning the circumstances under which Sable was trans- ferred and assigned to work with Russo is straightforward and, in view of the fact that both men were discharged for fighting, militates against any inference of a design to get rid of Sable. There is no other evidence, aside from the inference from Sable's unsubstantiated conclusion that the automobile in which the servicemen took him to the employment office was "waiting," to suggest that the fight was staged to supply a reason for discharging him. We find that the respondent did not discharge Joseph Sable because of his activities in behalf of the U. A. W. John J. Dovey John J. Dovey was first employed by the respondent in January 1929 and, with the exception of a few brief lay-offs during the de- pression, he continued working for the respondent until March 11, 1937. At that time he was engaged as a pipe fitter in the cement plant at the River Rouge plant and was earning $7.20 a day: Dovey, although not a member of the U. A. W., praised it highly in several conversations with his foreman during the early part of •400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1937. He testified that after these conversations his foreman began -discriminating against him in the assignment of work. The dirtiest and most disagreeable job which could be assigned to a pipe fitter -was one to put steam blowers in a boiler. Such jobs are usually -rotated among the different pipe fitters. Dovey, however, claimed -that in March he was given a boiler job when it was not his turn, since he had done the last such job. However, he testified that he had not complained about this assignment. Since a pipe fitter had to be at work every day, although the men worked only 5 days a week, it was necessary to rotate the week ends -among the three pipe fitters. As a result, in some weeks a pipe fitter would have Saturday and Sunday off, whereas at other times his week end would be broken. It was the custom so to arrange the -days off that each pipe fitter would, over a period of time, have about the same number of consecutive Saturdays and Sundays off. Dovey complained that he was being discriminated against in this respect, in that he had the fewest unbroken week ends off in 1937. On March 11, 1937, Dovey's foreman, Harold V. Peterson, posted the schedule of work for the following two weeks ends. The sched- ule required Dovey to work the first Saturday, with Friday and Sunday off, and the following week, to be off Saturday and work Friday and Sunday. Dovey protested to Peterson, who, according to Dovey, replied, "God-damn it, if you don't like the way I make out the schedules, get the hell out of here." Dovey testified that he replied, "Okay, Pete," and then went to Lockhart, the department superintendent, and asked for a department release so that he could be transferred to another department. Dovey admitted that, prior to March 11, 1937, he had had four unbroken week ends, but claimed that another pipe fitter, one Douglas, had had seven or eight. However, Peterson testified that since he had three pipe fitters the number of unbroken week and of each would be about one in three. He denied that Douglas had been favored in the distribution of days off. We do not think the evi- dence establishes that Dovey was discriminated against in the dis- tribution of week ends. When Dovey saw Lockhart, the latter agreed to give him a depart- ment release. However, after leaving Lockhart but while still within the plant, Dovey noticed that the card which Lockhart had given him was marked "quit" instead of "release." Dovey testified that he "didn't feel like going back and arguing the point" with Lockhart, but felt that Lockhart "would get me back to work if I went back to him nice; that is why I went out to his house later on." On the stand, Dovey insisted that he had not quit. However, it does not appear that he made any arrangements, before seeking the "department release" from Lockhart, to get work in another depart- FORD MOTOR COMPANY 401 ment. That Dovey knew a "department release" in itself did not effect a transfer seems clear, since he testified that, "If you are re- leased from one department, you can go down to the employment office and they will very likely place you in another department." Moreover, Dovey admitted, on cross-examination, that, "I didn't see anybody except Mr. Lockhart on March 11th. I didn't go to see anybody else on March 11th, the day I quit." Dovey made several unsuccessful attempts to get back to work at the River Rouge plant. A foreman in another department told him that he had a job for him but an official in the employment office, after calling up the superintendent of the cement plant, refused to permit him to return to work. Dovey's wife testified that Pat Salancy, an official in the Service Department, had told her that the superintendent of the cement plant, a man named Lockhart, had stated that Dovey was an A-1 worker but that he was a dangerous man to have around because he -talked so much about the union. She had then gone to Lockhart in an attempt to get her husband's job back and Lockhart had promised her that he would put him back to work after the union agitation -died down. While the evidence is not entirely free from doubt, inasmuch as it indicates that after his employment terminated Dovey was refused reemployment because of suspected union activity, we think that, on March 11, lie voluntarily quit his employment in the expectation that he would be "transferred" or reemployed in some other department. The complaint contained no allegation that Dovey was refused rein- statement because of his sympathy with or activity in behalf of the U. A. W. Accordingly, we find that John J. Dovey was not dis- charged because of his sympathy toward the U. A. W. Anthony J. Schipper 43. With the exception of a period of 4 months in 1935, Anthony J. Schipper, a glass setter in the body department at the River Rouge plant, worked for the respondent from December 1934 until April 15, 1937. On the latter date lie was earning $6.80 a day. Schipper became a member of the U. A. W. in March 1937. On April 15, 1937, he asked his foreman, Roy Meyers, to read an article in the Detroit Free Press in which Henry Ford was quoted as saying that his employees were free to join labor organizations. About 2 hours after this incident, William Sewell, foreman of the body depart- ment and Meyers' superior, discharged Schipper. Schipper testified that Sewell brought him to Meyers, who, when Schipper asked what "Referred to as John Schipper in the complaint. 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the trouble was, "shrugged his shoulder and didn't give me no answer." Schipper returned to the plant for his pay a few days later and stopped to see Pat Salancy in an attempt to find out the reason for his discharge. During his conversation with Salancy he was asked whether he still belonged to the union and replied in the affirmative. Salancy then told him to get his money and go home. Sewell testified that Schipper had formerly been a good workman but that about April 1 "he started to slow down in his work." Sewell asked him what the trouble was and Schipper complained that he was not getting paid enough. Sewell thereupon recom- mended him for a raise, and Schipper "went along all right until the following two weeks." On April 15 'Sewell noticed Schipper slow- ing down again and, so Sewell testified, Schipper complained again about not having received a raise. Sewell replied that a raise had been recommended and that that was all he could do. Sewell then' placed another employee, Charlie Markham, with Schipper to assist him. Thereafter Schipper again slowed down and Sewell definitely determined to discharge him. That Schipper was. dissatisfied because he had not received a raise appears from his own testimony. He testified that, to his knowledge, he had never asked Sewell for a raise because, "I knew it would not do any good." However, he admitted that he did not get a raise when other employees did and that he "didn't feel any too happy about it." We find that Anthony J. Schipper was not discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W. John Barron John Barron had been an employee of the respondent for 13 years at the time of his discharge on June 16, 1937. He was a member of the machine-repair department and was responsible for keeping the punch-press machines in the pressed-steel building at the River Rouge plant in good condition. At the time of his discharge he was earning $7.20 a day. Barron was a charter member of the U. A. W., having joined in December 1934. Early in 1937 he became very active and addressed several public meetings. He also did considerable organization work among the respondent's employees and succeeded in obtaining 46 members in the pressed-steel building. On June 16, while he was repairing one of his machines, he got into a fight with a sweeper who was sweeping the floor beside him FORD MOTOR COMPANY 403 and was taken off the job by a serviceman and discharged. The serviceman who took him out of the department accused him of making a speech for the union and of advocating anarchy. The evidence as to the cause of the fight is conflicting. Barron testified that the sweeper had first swept some dirt into his face and then had called him vile names without obtaining any response. Finally the sweeper had tripped him and then attacked him. On the other hand, George Smoot, the sweeper, testified that he was peace- fully sweeping the aisle when Barron turned over a can of paint and his bucket of water. Smoot said that when he objected, Barron called him a vile name which caused him to hit Barron. Smoot was .also taken out of the department by servicemen, but after pleading with his foreman, Holly, and several men in the employment office, he was allowed to return to work in another building: William Kadau, the assistant general foreman in charge of mainte- nance in the pressed-steel building, testified that in January Barron had "started making a pass" at a fellow employee and that Barron's foreman had complained of having "a lot of trouble" with Barron and that no one wished to work with him. Kadau testified that he had this previous trouble with Barron in mind and "coupled with this fight I just figured that was the end of it." It is clear from the record that the respondent has a settled policy .of discharging employees engaging in fights within its plants. How- ever, the failure to discharge Smoot is not in itself sufficient to war- rant the inference that the respondent discharged Barron because of his membership in the U. A. W. Smoot's testimony, which was not contradicted, was to the effect that both men were told at the employ- ment office, "Well, you know what this means. You fellows lose your jobs. We don't want no fighters around here." He was told to turn in his tool checks but instead went to see his foreman, Holly. Holly said, "I don't want any fighters. I can't do anything about it. The -fellows in the office will have to take care of it." Smoot then returned to the employment office and, after insisting that the fight was started because Barron called him a vile name, he was sent back to work but placed in another building. We find that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the respondent discharged John Barron because of his membership in the U. A. W. Jacob Winsiewski With the exception of a 3-year lay-off during the depression, Jacob Winsiewski worked for the respondent continuously from 1916 until his discharge on April 8, 1937. He had been employed in the pro- duction department at the River Rouge plant for the last 3 years of that period and had the task of tinning corners on oil pans. Winsiewski was earning $6.40 a day at the time of his discharge. 404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The clerk to the superintendent of his department took Winsiewski off the assembly line on April 8, and told him to clear out his tools. Winsiewski then asked the superintendent why he was being dis- charged and the latter replied that he did not know. Winsiewski was. never given any explanation of his discharge and whenever he in- quired at the employment office, he was invariably told to return the next day. Winsiewski testified that during a conversation with Brown shortly after his discharge, the latter made a remark to him about his son being a union man at the Chevrolet plant and participat- ing in the strike at that plant. Winsiewski's foreman, Harry Da.lameter, testified that he had dis- charged Winsiewski for inefficient work. He stated that he had warned him several times and when, on April 8, he noticed him doing- poor work again, he decided to dismiss him. Winsiewski admitted that 2 or 3 weeks before his discharge his foreman called his attention to some defective work and told him that he was not doing his work properly. Winsiewski was not a member of the U. A. W. and there is no evi- dence that he had evinced an interest in the union. From Winsiew- ski's testimony it appears that Brown's inquiry as to his son being a union man was made in the course of an ordinary interview and was; not unconnected with what had preceded. There is no evidence that Dalameter knew or suspected that Winsiewski's son belonged to the. union. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Jacob Winsiewski was discharged because of his son's membership in the U. A. W. George Sazyn.ki George Sazynski worked for the respondent from December 12, 1936, until his discharge on June 8, 1937. On the latter date he was working as a millwright helper in the foundry machine shop at the River Rouge plant when his foreman transferred him to a different job which he refused to take. His foreman then discharged him- Sazynski testified that the reason for his refusal to take the new job, was that the work was very dirty. Sazynski had joined the U. A. W. on February 20, 1937, and had refused to sign the "Vote of Confidence " when it was circulated in his department during the first week in June 1937. He believed these acts were responsible for his transfer to less desirable work on June 8. The evidence indicates that Sazynski had been transferred from one job to another on several occasions during his employment by the respondent. His foreman testified that one of the reasons for the transfers was that he was an inefficient workman. Sazynski's own testimony shows that he had been dissatisfied with most of his jobs at the River Rouge plant. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 405. The record affords insufficient basis upon which to sustain the charge that Sazynski was discharged because of his membership in the. U. A. W. Gabriel Bobaila Gabriel Bobaila worked for the respondent on and off from 1912: mitil November 20, 1936. For some 13 months prior to the latter date he was engaging in loading automobile parts into freight cars at the- River Rouge plant. Upon reporting for work on November 20, 1936 , Bobaila was di - rected to go to the employment office. After being forced to wait until. the following day, he was transferred to the pressed-steel building as. a spot welder . However, after he had worked on his new job less than a, week, he was discharged without explanation . The person at the employment office who dismissed him said , "The reason for you is to- get out of here and from now on to keep away from Ford Motor Company." Bobaila had joined the U. A. W. in the autumn of 1935. He had attended most of its meetings subsequent to that date. Upon the evidence in this case, we cannot find that the respondent- discharged Gabriel Bobaila because of his membership in the U. A. W.. Guiseppe Gregorio Guiseppe Gregorio was employed by the respondent more or less= regularly from 1923 until his discharge on June 9, 1937. During the- last few months of this period he was working in a, construction gang- in the River Rouge plant and was earning $6.00 a day. Gregorio did not belong to the U. A. W. at the time of his dis- charge. However, on June 2, he had refused to sign the "Vote of Confidence." On June 9, 1937, Gregorio was helping dig a foundation outside. the Foundry Building, when it commenced raining. While putting- on his boots and raincoat, he became involved in an argument. The- evidence is conflicting as to the identity of the person with whom the- argument took place and as to the events that followed in its wake. Gregorio testified that, although he had taken only 2 or 3 minutes- to put on his boots and raincoat, a serviceman whom he had never seen before accused him of loafing, and that his general foreman then, discharged him. Harry Reynolds, the general foreman, on the other- hand, testified that Gregorio's argument had been with his immediate- foreman and had been started by the latter's attempt to reprimand him for taking too much time in putting on his boots and raincoat. Reynolds stated that Gregorio was a good workman and that he had. tried very hard to calm him but that Gregorio, who was very quick-- 406 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tempered, had become more and more angry and had finally quit with the remark, "Oh, the hell with the job." Reynolds' statement that Gregorio had left his employment volun- tarily is substantiated by the fact that the latter made no attempt to visit the employment office and instead sent his wife after his pay. Upon the record in this case, we are unable to find that Guiseppe Gregorio was discharged because of union activities or suspected .sympathy with the U. A. W. Leo J. Krugh With the exception of a 3-year period during the depression, Leo J. Krugh was employed by the respondent from October 1928 until his discharge on May 19, 1937. At the latter date he was engaged as a double end lathe operator in the rear-axle housing department at the River Rouge plant and was receiving a wage of $6.80 a day. He testified that he had always performed his work in a satisfactory manner. Krugh became a member of the U. A. W. on January 27, 1937. On May 19 he was discharged without explanation. He stated that subsequent to his discharge he had been informed by S. J. Feeney, an individual who often associated with Ford servicemen and was commonly known around the River Rouge plant as a "stool pigeon," that he had been dismissed because of his membership in the U. A. W. Charles Barberree, Krugh's foreman, testified that for several -weeks before Krugh's discharge the production in his section had been below standard. He stated that he had warned all of the workers on the assembly line that he was going to discharge the per- son responsible for the poor work. He had then conducted an -investigation and, upon discovering that Krugh was the man who was impeding production, he had dismissed him. Upon the evidence in this case, we cannot find that Leo J. Krugh -was discharged because of his membership in the U. A. W. Raymond Jewell Raymond Jewell, a U. A. W. member, has worked for the respondent -more or. less regularly since 1922. Prior to June 14, 1937, he was employed as a final inspector in the motor-assembly department at the River Rouge plant. On that date he was discharged by his fore- man for talking on the job. Jewell testified that it was necessary for an inspector to speak to other employees. Jewell was interviewed by Brown the day after his discharge. According to Jewell's testimony, Brown spoke to him at length con- cerning the U. A. W. and stated that he had heard that Jewell had been engaging in union activities. Jewell was laid off for 4 days and FORD MOTOR COMPANY 407 then returned to his job by Brown. His foreman refused to take him back, however, and Jewell was transferred to another job which he termed the "doghouse." Since returning to work, Jewell has had an increase in pay from $6.80 to $7.20 a day. In view of the fact that Jewell's lay-off lasted only 4 days and that he has since received an increase in pay, it is difficult to believe that the reason for such lay-off was his union activities. Upon the evidence, we cannot find that Raymond Jewell was laid off because of his membership in the U. A. W. Daniel E. Devor Daniel E. Devor has been employed by the respondent since 1923. On April 19,1937, he became a member of the U. A. W. and on June 9, 1937, he was transferred against his wishes from the job of operating a crane in the soaking pits at the River Rouge plant to one at common labor in the foundry. However, since June 14, he has had the task of operating an electric furnace in the foundry. He enjoys his pres- ent work and has received an increase in pay from $7.60 a day to $8.00 a day. Upon the evidence in this case, we are unable to sustain the charge that Daniel Devor's transfer was due to his membership in the U. A. W. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities, of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial 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. THE REMEDY The respondent having engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that, by directly distributing the anti-union litera- ture consisting of statements in the. "Ford Almanac" for July 1937, the "Fordisms," and the pamphlet entitled "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor," and by the assaults upon union members and sympathizers by some of its employees, including supervisory employees and mem- bers of its service department, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We shall there- fore order the respondent to refrain from such interference. 190935-40--vol. 14--27 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We have also found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of 24 of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in the U. A. W. We shall order the-re- spondent to make such employees whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of its discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings'} during said period. - Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CoNcI usIONs OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. ' 2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Homer King, George Smick, Alphonse Ku- zulis, Birtus C. Hall, George B. Zubick, Joseph Gutierrez, George. Onnela, Richard Weyhing, Clarence Fleming, Elmer Mackie, Thad- deus Radke, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela, Martin Jensen, Clifford Sheldon, Fred Nygard, Percy Llewellyn, Joseph Nierotko, Joseph Galusky, Hector F. Manseau, Emil Tomkow, Joseph Bailey, John Cwikiel, and Fred Gullickson, thereby discouraging membership in the U. A. W., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. Ford Brotherhood of America, Inc., is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)_ of the Act. 4. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 44 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation , room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill , Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work per- formed upon Federal , State , county , municipal, or other work-relief projects are not con- sidered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects. FORD MOTOR COMPANY' 409. 6. The respondent has not dominated or interfered with the forma- tion or administration of, or contributed support to, Ford Brother- hood of America, Inc., within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 7. The respondent, in the discharge of Joseph Sable, John J. Dovey, Anthony J. Schipper, John Barron, Jacob Winsiewski, George Sazynski, Gabriel Bobaila, Guiseppe Gregorio, and Leo J. Krugh and in the transfer of Raymond Jewell and Daniel Devor, has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Ford Motor Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or any labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their em- ployment because of their membership in, activity in, behalf of, or sympathy toward any such labor. organization; (b) Threatening, assaulting, beating, or in any other manner inter- fering with, restraining, or intimidating, directly or indirectly, mem- bers of International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees distributing or other- wise disseminating union literature in the vicinity of its River Rouge plant; (c) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by circu- lating, distributing, or otherwise disseminating among its employees statements or propaganda which disparages or criticizes labor organ- izations or which advises its employees not to join such organizations; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offer to George Onnela, Richard Weyhing, Clarence Fleming, Elmer Mackie, Thaddeus Radke, Alfred Onnela, Ray Onnela,' Martin Jensen, Clifford Sheldon, Fred Nygard, George B. Zubick, Joseph Gutierrez, Alphonse Kuzulis, Homer King , Percy Llewellyn, Joseph Nierotko, George Smick, Joseph Galusky, Hector F. Manseau, Birtus C. Hall, Emil Tomkow, Joseph Bailey, John Cwikiel, and Fred Gullickson, immediate and full reinstatement to their former posi- tions, without prejudice' to their seniority and other rights and priv- ileges; (b) Make whole the persons named in paragraph 2 (a) above for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis- crimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment, by payment to them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which- each, would have earned as wages during the period- from the date. of such discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings during that period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work- relief projects ; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout all depart- ments of its plants in Dearborn and Highland Park, Michigan, notices to its employees stating that, the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) con- secutive days from the date of posting ; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, be, and the same hereby are, dismissed. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint be, and they hereby are, dismissed with respect to Joseph Sable, John J. Dovey, Anthony J. Schipper, John Barron, Jacob Winsiewski, Raymond Jewell, George Sazynski, Guiseppe Gregorio, Gabriel Bobaila, Leo J. Krugh, and Daniel Devor. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. -