The Ohio Brass Co.

In the Matter of THE OHIO BRAss COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-949.-Decided September 12, .1939 Electrical Transmission Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : surveillance of union meeting ; interrogation of em- ployees by supervisors regarding union activities ; employer ordered to cease and desist therefrom-Discriintnation: charge of, dismissed. Mr. Max Johnstone, for the Board. Day, Young, Veach ci LeFever, by Mr. Luther Day and Mr. Thomas F. Veach, of Cleveland, Ohio; and Weldon c Huston, by Mr. William M. Weldon, of Mansfield, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Edwin Beal,.of Delaware, Ohio, for the United. Mr. Wallace Cooper, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the United Elec- trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, herein called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated June 6, 1938, against The Ohio Brass Com- pany,' Mansfield, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the United. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent dis- charged one Tony Colace on or about November 18, 1937, and had at all times since refused to reinstate him, for the reason that Colace 'The respondent was incorrectly named in the complaint as Ohio Brass Company. At the hearing, all the pleadings herein were amended , on motion of the Board 's counsel, so as correctly to name the respondent as The Ohio Brass Company. 15 N. L. R. B., No. 27. 210 THE OHIO BRASS CO âIPANY 21 1 had engaged in organizational and other union activities; and '(2) that "from a date in 1934" and at all subsequent times, the respond- ent held meetings for the purpose of discouraging union activities, and, by conspiracy with and through its foremen and other agents- to eliminate, subdue, and prevent union activities in its plant located, at Mansfield, Ohio, and by various other acts, has interfered with,, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and. coercing its employees in the exercise-of the rights guaranteed in. Section 7 of the Act. On June 11, 1938, the respondent filed an: answer containing a general denial of the material allegations of the. complaint, and affirmative, allegations that Tony Colace had been discharged for cause and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the- respondent and its business activities. Pursuant to notice, a .hearing was held in Mansfield, Ohio, one June 27, 28, and 29, 1938, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Examiner- duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were- represented by counsel and the United by its international representa- tive. All participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course- of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and. objections to the admission of evidence. In addition, the Trial. Examiner reserved decision on other motions made by the respond- ent during the course of the hearing to dismiss the complaint on, jurisdictional-grounds and to strike from the record evidence relating to a period prior to the effective date of the Act. These motions were- denied by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report. The- Board has reviewed all 'such rulings made during the course of the- hearing and in the Intermediate Report and finds that no prejudicial errors were. committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. . On September 14, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate- Report in which lie found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the' meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the- Act, and recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to reinstate Tony Colace with back pay. Copies- of the Intermediate Report were duly served upon the respondent and the United. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the' Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was held before the Board at... Washington, D. ' C., on March 16, 1939. The respondent and the-. .United were represented by counsel and participated in the argument.. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and, except in so far as,they are consistent with the- .212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD :findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Ohio Brass Company is a New Jersey corporation having its :principal place of business at Mansfield, Ohio. It is engaged at its plants located at Barberton and Mansfield, Ohio, in the manufacture ,of porcelain. insulators for use on electrical transmission and distribu- tion systems and substations, overhead trolley-line equipment,. rail bonds, equipment for mines and electric railroads, car couplers for ,-mines and steam railroads, safety-control. devices for mines, and brass valves. This proceeding involves only the Mansfield plant, which has approximately . 800 employees. The respondent also has two wholly owned subsidiaries : Canadian Brass Company, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, and Ohio Brass Company, an Ohio corporation, having its principal place of busi- ness at Mansfield, Ohio. Ohio Brass Company is the sales company for all of the respondent's products, practically all of which are sold by Ohio Brass Company through its salesmen who call on the trade. It also advertises the respondent's products in trade journals having :a national circulation. During 1937 the respondent purchased for use at its Barberton and Mansfield plants raw materials' valued in the sum of $1,915,000, 90 per cent of said sum being used by the respondent for the.pur- chase of materials outside of and caused by it to be shipped into the State of Ohio. Such raw materials shipped to the respondent from outside the State of Ohio amounted to 75 per cent of the total ton- nage of all of such materials purchased.by and shipped to it during 1937. The sales during 1937 of the respondent's finished products totaled '$6,120,000, approximately 93 per cent of which were shipped outside the State of Ohio a In that year, the outbound tonnage from the -Mansfield plant amounted to 5,576 tons out, of a total outbound ton- nage of 13,523 tons from both the Barberton and Mansfield plants. 2 The respondent's answer admits the allegations of the complaint that "a very large -portion of the finished products of the respondent are sold and distributed without the State of Ohio," except that it denies that it "is or at any time referred to in said com- plaint was engaged in the distribution of any of its products" and alleges that the -greater portion of its products are sold by it within the State of Ohio. THE OHIO BRASS. COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 213 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organi- zation, admitting to membership production employees in ' the respondent's Mansfield plant. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background In the latter part of 1934 or early in 1935' and during the course of a strike of the employees of a plant 4 situated adjacent to the respondent's Mansfield plant, a Mr. Lynch, superintendent of the respondent's Mansfield plant,5 addressed a meeting of employees of that plant called by the respondent for the purpose of easing certain employee demands for a wage increase. This meetilig was held in the respondent's plant and on its time. Lynch told the employees that the respondent would not declare a dividend on its stock until the wage of every employee had been raised to its 1929 level and added, according to the testimony of James Warrack (a foreman in the Mansfield plant on the date of this meeting),' "You don't have to join the Union to get money. The Ohio Brass Company has always been fair and square in their dealing with their men. Anyway, the Union men are nothing but a bunch of crooks and racketeers." The fact that Lynch on this occasion made statements designed to dis- courage the respondent's employees from engaging in union activities is likewise established by the testimony of four other witnesses who were employed by the respondent on that date.' In view of this background of opposition expressed by the respond- ent to the unionization of its employees, certain of its actions a few months later in the fall of 1935 (referred to in Section III-B below) take on added significance. 8 The respondent made numerous objections during the course of the hearing and in its exceptions - to the Intermediate Report to the,admission of evidence relating to events occurring prior to the effective date of the Act . The Trial Examiner properly overruled these objections , notwithstanding the fact that events occurring prior to such date do not constitute unfair labor practices, as such events may be relevent as aids in the explanation of subsequent occurrences . See National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lives, Inc., 91 F. (2d) 458, 459 (C. C. A. 9), 303 U. S. 272 ; National Labor Rela- tions Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U. S. 261 ; Matter of American Petroleum. Company and Oil Workers Union Local No. 227, 12 N. L. R. B. 688; Matter of Williams Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 23, 11 N. L. R. B. 579. 4 The employer operating this plant had no connection with the respondent. 5 Lynch has not been employed by the respondent since July 1, 1935. U Warrack has not been employed by the respondent since July 1937. 7 John Winbigler, Joe Medek, Peter Osgar, and Tony Colace. 199549-39-vol. 15--15 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Interference, restraint, and coercion In the fall of 1935 and during the course of a strike at the respond- ent's Barberton plant, a meeting of certain of the respondent's Mans- field employees was held in Johns Park in Mansfield for the purpose of discussing the formation of a labor organization.s This attempt at unionization was initiated by certain Barberton employees who at- tended the meeting. It is clear that the respondent had prior infor- mation as to this meeting, as shortly before it was held a Mr. Manz, works manager of the Mansfield plant, called the foremen together and instructed them to find out and report the names of employees attending the meeting and to watch for and report any union activi- ties among employees. Foreman Warrack testified that he drove in his automobile around Johns Park during the meeting and on the following day. reported to Manz that he had seen three employees from the rail-bond department of the Mansfield plant at the meeting. Pete Osgar, an employee in the rail-bond department, testified that he attended the Johns Park meeting and on' the following day his foreman, a Mr. Perry, asked him whether he had attended the meet- ing 9 and questioned him as to the names of other employees who attended. That the respondent at the time of the aforesaid meeting was opposed to union activities of its employees is further shown by a statement made by Manz to Warrack during the course of the afore- said strike at the Barberton plant. On this occasion, Manz com- plained to Warrack about not being able to ship his castings to Bar- berton, saying, "What am I going to do with all these castings? We are getting all jumbled up every place and can't get rid of them. When are they going to settle that strike over there at Barberton? There is only one way to settle that; take that kind of cattle out and stand them up and shoot them down." In addition to the foregoing facts, one of the respondent's foremen, Ted Dougherty, questioned at least one of the respondent's employ- ees in the summer of 1937 regarding his union activities and that of other employees, and also questioned Tony Colace as to what he thought about unions and whether he wanted to join a union. Although this foreman may have acted without express authoriza- 8 This attempt at organization was unsuccessful and, in so far as the record shows, no subsequent attempt by any of the Mansfield employees to organize was made until the summer of 1937. Osgar testified as follows In this regard : "Yes, he [Perry ] came down to me and asked me if I was in the meeting. I told him yes . So he says , well he says , 'What are you thinking about it?' I says, 'Well, I don't know anything.' He says, 'It is all right to belong to the Union, but you . have to pay the dues.' " THE OHIO BRASS COMPANY 215 tion from the respondent in interrogating the employees in this manner, the respondent is nevertheless responsible therefor i0 The foregoing facts were established by uncontradicted evidence. We find that the respondent, by virtue of the instructions given to its foremen in the fall of 1935 to watch for and report union activities on the part of its employees; by its surveillance of the efforts of its employees to organize on the occasion of the Johns Park meeting in the fall of 1935; by interrogating one of its employees, Peter Osgar, soon after said meeting, regarding his union activities and that of other employees;". and by further attempts in the summer of 1937 to secure information regarding union activities among its-employees, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. The allegedly discriminatory discharge of Tony Colace Tony Colace was first employed by the respondent in 1923 and worked irregularly for it until the latter part of 1928. From January 1929 until his discharge on November 19, 1937, he was regularly em- ployed as it grinder in the hard-iron department of the respondent's Mansfield plant. Colace's union activities began in April or May 1937 when he became a member of the United and agreed to assist a United organ- izer in organizing the respondent's employees in the Mansfield plant. Between that time and about August 27, 1937, he handed out to fellow employees, before working hours and during lunch periods, approximately 25 United application cards and several copies of the United's constitution and bylaws. Approximately 13 of these em- ployees signed application cards and 9 or 10 of them attended an organization meeting held in Mansfield on or about August 27, 1937. This meeting, however, was adjourned after those present decided that an effort should first be made to secure additional membership .applications before holding another meeting for the purpose of elect- ing officers. A date for this proposed meeting was tentatively set for the following Labor Day, but, according to Colace's testimony, it was indefinitely postponed 12 because of (1) the inability of the United organizer to attend the meeting, and (2) the decline in produc- tion at the Mansfield plant commencing in August 1937, which con- 10 See Swift d Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10, June 7, 1939 ) National Labor Relations Board v. A. S . Abell Co., 97 F. (2d) 951 (C. C. A. 4). n See Matter of Commonwealth Telephone Company and Theodore R. Siplon, Walter F. Seidler and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 13 N. L. R. B. 317. 12 There is no evidence in the record as to whether a subsequent meeting was held or additional applications were made by the respondent's employees for membership in the United. However, the clear inference is that there were no union activities after about August 27, 1937. 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD winced those employees interested in the United that there would be a reduction in employment and, consequently, served to deter their union activities. Although Frank E. Blair and Ted Dougherty, superintendent of the Mansfield plant and foreman over Colace respectively, testified that they had no knowledge at the time of Colace's discharge of his union membership, there is evidence that Dougherty at least suspected Colace's aforesaid union activities. In 1937 and prior to August 27, Dougherty frequently engaged in "general" conversations with the employees under him about strikes as they occurred in various sec- tions of the country. Colace testified that during the course of these conversations with Dougherty about strikes, Dougherty would fre- quently say to him, "what do you think about Unions? Do you like to join the Union?" This was not denied by Dougherty.. We find that Dougherty at least suspected Colace of union activities. In view of our findings and conclusions below, we consider it im- material as to whether or not information of such activities came to the attention of Blair who subsequently granted Dougherty permis- sion to discharge, Colace,13 and we make no finding in that regard. In August 1937 the respondent's management concluded that the inventory at the Mansfield plant was being built up too rapidly and iiecided to decrease production. As a result, production took a sharp decline commencing about the middle of August and continuing until about February 1938. This curtailment resulted in the lay-off at Mansfield of 59 employees in September 1937, 61 in October 1937, and 6114 in November 1937. On the occasion of the first lay-off in September, Dougherty, consistent with similar requests previously made by him and referred to.below, asked Blair for permission to clischarge Colace. Blair refused this request on the ground that I• nDloyees with less seniority should be laid off first, but he agreed w consider Colace's discharge at a later date. On November 19, 1937, Blair granted Dougherty permission to discharge Colace, but only after all other grinders in the hard-iron department with less senior= ity had been laid off, thereby reducing the number of grinders in the department from 28 to 9. After Colace's discharge there were sev- eral employees working in the hard-iron department (exclusive of the grinders) with less seniority than that possessed by Colace, and it is clear that under the respondent's established practice Colace would have been entitled to a transfer to another operation had he not been permanently discharged 15 11 The foremen in the Mansfield plant had no, plenary power to discharge , but could only discharge employees after'securing the consent of the plant superintendent. 1* Exclusive of Colace who was discharged on November 19, 1937. 11 The respondent recognizes a plant-wide seniority system in the Mansfield plant, pro- viding for transfers from one operation to another during periods of declining employment in order to preserve seniority rights. THE OHIO BRASS COMPANY 217 The respondent asserts that, despite Colace's high production rec- ord,1e he was' not merely laid off but was permanently discharged because of his refusal in October 1937 to obey Dougherty's order to work on a high-speed grinding machine. This refusal was allegedly the culmination of bitter animosity which had been developing be- tween Dougherty and Colace since about 1929. Frequent complaints had been made since then by Dougherty to his superiors regarding Colace's.work, together with numerous requests for permission to discharge Colace. The decision of the question as to whether Colace was discharged because of his union activities or for the above rea- sons given by the respondent hinges largely upon facts which had their beginning in 1929, a statement of which follows : (1) Background.-From 1929 to 1934, James Warrack was fore- man over both the hard- and soft-iron departments of the. Mansfield plant with Dougherty under him from about September 1929 as fore- man over the hard-iron department. Shortly after Dougherty came into the hard-iron department a feud developed between him and Warrack. Dougherty made frequent requests of Warrack for per- mission to discharge some of the employees because he thought they were not performing their duties as they should, but Warrack ignored these complaints on the ground that the "men knew what they were doing." This situation developed into active hostility between Dougherty and Warrack and Dougherty soon carried his animosity a step further by identifying Colace with Warrack. He testified that he had trouble with Colace "off and on" and took him to Warrack's office several times, but that "it seemed as though every time I would take Tony [Colace] in, he [Warrack] would just talk to him and send him out after he talked to him. After so long I found out it wasn't any use for me to be arguing with Tony, taking him in there. They was hooked up politically." Finally, in 1934 it became apparent to Blair that it was necessary to separate Dougherty and Warrack, and Dougherty was placed in full charge of the hard-iron department leaving Warrack in charge of the soft- iron department. Blair testified that after this separation, Dougherty continued to bring in "reports" against Warrack until in the summer of 1937 Warrack was "let go." (2) Colace's alleged refusal to grind castings:Dougherty testi- fied that from 1929 to November 19, 1937, Colace refused to take boxes of castings allotted to him for grinding; that he reported this situ- ation to Warrack and also to Blair, but that Blair would not give him a "satisfactory answer"; and that sometimes he left Blair "half 10 The respondent's record of earnings of 17 grinders employed by it between May 16 and November 20, 1937 ( including those laid off on November 19, 1937), shows that during that period Colace ranked second in total earnings and in average hourly earnings. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD disgusted, wondering why he wouldn't let me fire Tony." On one occasion, Blair suggested to Dougherty that he try to get along with Colace. (3) The dresser incident.-In 1936, Dougherty refused Colace's request for an additional wheel dresser above the usual number allotted to him, Colace claiming that he had lost a dresser as the result of it "flying off the handle." Colace testified that when Dougherty refused this request, he threatened to go to Blair, but that Dougherty replied, "If you go, you are done,": and that 15 minutes later Dougherty gave him another dresser. Dougherty's version of this incident is that he refused Colace's request on the ground that the other grinders were not asking for additional dressers, and that Colace replied that the others were buying them; that upon investi- gation he found that this was untrue, whereupon Colace jerked off his apron and started to leave the shop ; but that Colace returned to his wheel when he (Dougherty) said to him, "If you go out that door you are through." Dougherty reported this incident to Blair, who testified as follows : Ted [Dougherty] went back and checked with the men, so he reported later, and, they said they were not buying dressers. Ted came over, he was pretty much worked up about the thing, and he checked with them the second time, and reported it back and the matter dropped there. Q. Did you at that time have the impression that Ted Dougherty was building up a case against Tony Colace? A. Well, that is kind of a long story. There seemed to be a lot of things worrying Ted. He seemed to be worried a good deal about the soft iron department [then under Warrack], various rumors, and things. Q. Ted was working in the soft iron department? A. No, but reports would come out of the soft iron department at that time and he seemed to be quite worried about the thing. Dougherty also testified that Blair said to him after this incident had been fully reported, "Now you try and get along with him [Colace]. See if you can't. win him over to your side. He is an old grinder here. See what you can do about it." (4) The rate incident.-When a new casting is sent to the hard- iron department for grinding, it is first ground on a "day rate" basis until a "piece rate" can be arrived at as a result of experience. In February 1937 Dougherty compared Colace's day-rate produc- tion in setting the price on a certain casting with his subsequent piece-rate production on the same casting and found that his pro- THE OHIO BRASS COMPANY 219 duction on the latter rate was nearly double that on the former. He deemed Colace to have been loafing on day-rate production in order to set a standard rate which would permit of higher earnings on piece work. Regarding his conversation with Blair concerning this incident, Dougherty testified : I hated like the devil to tell Mr. Blair that, but I knew they would check up on the other side so I went in and told him and I told him that I wanted to let Tony go. He inferred it was more my fault than Tony's, to take a piece work price that way. That didn't make me feel very good, feel very good towards Tony, after him sticking it on me like that. Blair testified that Dougherty reported this situation to him, but "at that particular time, I hadn't investigated his [Colace' s] case as much as I should have . . . but . . . it was very difficult to meet production schedules, and I hoped that they could settle their dif- ferences and get along ..." Colace admitted that he had difficulties in 1936 with Dougherty about a wheel dresser, as stated above, but denied that he ever refused to grind castings allotted to him or had any other trouble with Dougherty. Colace's fellow employees who testified were divided as to whether these alleged differences between Colace and Dougherty existed. Three 17 of them testified that they had never heard of Colace refusing to obey orders or of any trouble between him and his foreman, while, on the other hand, three 18 others testified to difficulties between them. Anton Stirtzinger, who worked on the same grinding machine with Colace, testified that from 1929 Colace and Dougherty had numerous disputes when Dougherty did not favor Colace with castings. On the basis of the foregoing facts and on the entire record, we are convinced and find that there were serious difficulties between Colace and Dougherty, commencing in or about 1929 and engen- dered in part at least by Dougherty's animosity towards Warrack; that these disagreements became intense during 1936 and 1937; that the respondent, acting through either Warrack or Blair, on several occasions refused Dougherty's requests for permission to discharge Colace; and that the respondent pursued the policy during 1936 and the first half of 1937 of retaining Colace as an employee in the hope that he and Dougherty could reconcile their differences and so long as production requirements rendered him a valuable em- ployee. We make no finding as to the merits of these controversies, but only that they existed. 1' John Winbigler, Joe Medek , and Carl Winbigler. 11 Louis DiGregoria, Anton Stirtzinger,, and Luke Dougherty. ao 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During the summer of. 1937 Dougherty frequently complained to Blair that Colace refused to obey his orders, but made no request at that time for permission to discharge Colace. Blair testified that "It seemed to me that he [Dougherty] was just sort of building up a case, reporting, reporting; and he told me about Tony [Colace] refusing to shift and about disturbances, and various things." In September 1937 and tit-the time of the first lay-off, Dougherty again asked Blair for permission to discharge Colace and complained to Blair about "Tony making these signs, salutes "a at me." The. high-speed grinder incident in October 1937, referred to above as being the direct cause of Colace's discharge on November 19, 1937, had its antecedents in May or June 1937 when the respondent ac- quired a high-speed grinding machine and Dougherty asked the older grinders (including Colace) "in courtesy to them" if they desired to work on it. All declined this opportunity and, according to Dougherty, Colace said, "It ain't fair, Ted. I wouldn't work on it." In the following October, Dougherty, after several grinders had been laid off, needed a man for the high-speed grinder, and Blair directed him to use Colace for this work, he being the only one of the older grinders directed at this time to work on the machine. Dougherty testified that Colace refused this order and that he used another grinder after having reported this situation to Blair. Colace, however, denied that Dougherty gave this order to him or that he refused to work on the machine. Blair testified in this regard : I told Ted Dougherty to put someone else on for the time being and he took a fellow; inexperienced man, a man that had a shorter service record, and put him on for a couple of weeks until we got to the next one [lay-off]. Q. Have there been other men who expressed their disin- clination to work on the high-speed machine? A. Only when I asked them as a matter of courtesy if they wanted it, and not when we told them to take it. Q. And when they declined to take it was. any dismissal taken as regards them? A. No, that was just a matter of courtesy, but we got to the place where we had to put someone on it and Tony refused to take it and we put a man on it that was laid-off in November, and I knew we had to put two of our older men on the high- speed grinder, and he [Colace] wouldn't, and that was the last "These are not described in the record. THE OHIO BRASS COMPANY 221 straw with him, refusing to operate the grinder. Our other grinders average an age better than fifty years old . . . Q. You didn't consider the age or the length of service? A. On the high-speed grinders, we consider the build and the age of the men; for example, we wanted to get the best men possible on the high-speed grinder, to operate it, to get the maximum production . . . At the time of the last lay-off in November 1937 and when all grinders with less seniority than Colace were being laid off, Dough- erty again went to Blair and requested permission to discharge- Colace, which permission Blair granted saying, "0. K.; if you are satisfied, I am." Dougherty said that Colace had continually caused him trouble and that he was satisfied that he' and Colace could not get along. Dougherty then gave Colace notice of his discharge and told him that he was. taking this action because of "the dresser inci'- clent and this other stuff" and that it was necessary for him to protect his own position with the respondent. On the basis of the foregoing, and on the entire record, we find that Blair was convinced in October 1937 by reports brought to him by Dougherty. that,Colace, the youngest of the older grinders and in Blair's estimation the best suited among the older grinders for work on the high-speed grinding machine, had refused 20 to obey Dougherty's order to work on that machine; that hostility between Colace and Dougherty had been growing since about 1929, becoming intense in 1936 and 1937 and prior to Colace's union activities in the summer of 1937; that in November- 1937, after all grinders with less seniority than Colace had been laid off and production demands no longer made- it imperative for it to have Colace's services, the re- spondent was faced with the alternative either of repudiating Dough- erty (which it had not previously done' in connection with Dough- erty's feud with Warrack) or of discharging Colace; that Blair, its plant superintendent, was convinced that very strained relations ex- isted between Dougherty and Colace and, under all the circumstances, granted Dougherty permission to decide whether Colace should be discharged; that Colace was discharged by Dougherty for the reasons stated above and not because of his union activities; and that the respondent has not discriminated against Colace with regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging or discouraging membership in a labor organization. . 10-we'find it unnecessary to decide whether or not Colace had in fact refused to work on the machine. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III-B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. The allegations of the complaint concerning Colace's discharge will be dismissed; Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OE LAW . 1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 13. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice 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, The Ohio Brass Company, Mansfield, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering -with, re- straining, or coercing the employees in the respondent's Mansfield, Ohio, plant in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted THE OHIO BRASS COMI^ANY 223 activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Immediately post and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees, in conspicuous places throughout its Mansfield, Ohio, plant, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid ; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleve- land, Ohio) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.