Ford Motor Co.

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and H. C. MCGARITY, AN INDIVIDUAL In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and UNITED HATTERS, CAP & MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and WILLIAM A. HUMPHRIES In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 100, A LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Cases Nos . C-1554 to C-1558, inclusive.-Decided August 8, 1940 Jurisdiction : automobile manufacturing industry Unfair Labor Practices In General: acts directed against labor organization before any employees have become members; responsibility of employer for acts employees -performed within scope of their employment. Respondent held directly responsible for the anti-union program executed at its Dallas plant and formulated, directed, approved, and ratified by its principal officials at its main office. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: espionage and surveillance; violence. Distribution of booklet containing inflammatory statements against unions in general held violation of 8 (1). Formation of employees into "inside squads" for purpose of aiding in anti-union campaign held violation of 8 (1). Disruption of public meetings and gatherings called by groups and organi- zations for purpose of advocating unionization but not admitting to members ship respondent's employees held violation of 8 (1). Exaction of moneys from employees to defray costs of anti-union program held violation of 8 (1). Discrimination: charges of discrimination as to certain employees, dismissed. Discharge of an employee because his wife, who was not employed by the respondent, was a member of a labor union not admitting to membership the respondent's employees held violation of 8 (3). Banishment of an employee from the plant, because of union membership, under threats of physical violence by fellow-employees acting on behalf of the respondent held violation of 8 (3). 26 N. L. R. B., No. 34. 322 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 323 Remedial Orders : respondent ordered to cease and desist from espionage; violence; disrupting public meetings or gatherings; compelling its employees to contribute toward support of anti-union campaign-respondent ordered to afford its Dallas employees protection against intimidation and violence; to instruct its Dallas employees (1) that they may not make, store, or carry in the plant or remove from the plant, dangerous weapons for the purpose of discouraging union membership and (2) that company officials may not interfere with employees' rights; to disestablish at its Dallas plant inside squads. Respondent ordered to cease and desist from executing at any of its plants in the country an anti-union campaign found to have been carried out in one plant with the approval and ratification of its principal officials. Affirmative action, with the exception of posting of notices, required of re- spondent, restricted to respondent's plant at wihch the unfair labor prac- tices occurred. Employees compelled by respondent to contribute financially to anti-union campaign not ordered reimbursed where Board found it administratively impractical to do so. Filing of a charge of discriminatory discharge 2 years and 5 months after discharge held no bar to recovery of back pay for entire period of discrimina- tion where more timely filing might have subjected employee to physical violence by employer. Evidence : presumptions where party failed to produce evidence. Company personnel records found to have been falsified in several instances held not reliable in other instances where contrary to credible testimony. Practice and Procedure Respondent's motion to set aside the Intermediate Report and order a new hearing before another Trial Examiner denied where record shows respondent was afforded a full and fair hearing on the issues. Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr. and Mr. Charles Brooks, for the Board. Mr. Gabe P. Allen and Mr. Neth L. Leachman, of Dallas, Tex., for the respondent. Mr. Baron De Louis, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Automobile Workers. Miss Ida Klaus, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF IHE CASE Upon charges duly filed by H. C. McGarity, by United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, herein called the Mil- linery Workers, by William A. Humphries, and upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Union of United Auto- mobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and herein called the Automobile Workers, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director for the Sixteenth Region, (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint, dated January 19, 1940, against Ford Motor Company, herein called the respondent.' Copies of the charges, the complaint, and the accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, McGarity, the Millinery Workers, Humphries, and the Automobile Workers. Thereafter, upon charges duly filed by United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of the United States and Canada, Local 100, herein called Local 100, the Board, by said Regional Director, issued an amended complaint, dated February 6, 1940, against 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.2 Copies of the charges, the amended complaint, and the accompanying notice of bearing in the five consolidated cases were duly served upon the respondent, McGarity, the Millinery Workers, Humphries, the Automobile Workers, and upon Local 100. The amended complaint alleged, in substance, (1) that during March 1937 and at various times thereafter, the respondent had organized certain of the employees at its Dallas, Texas, branch into groups and had instructed those groups and their members to engage in acts of espionage against union leaders and sympathizers and to take any means necessary to prevent union organization among the employees at the Dallas branch; (2) that the respondent had, from May through December 1937, caused its agents, and others acting in its behalf and in its interest, to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing by the following acts: (a) visiting and telephoning employees at their homes and at other places, organizing meetings of employees, and otherwise threatening, warning, urging, and persuading them against joining or assisting any labor organization, (b) maintaining sur- veillance over, intimidating, threatening with bodily harm, committing assaults and acts of violence upon, and denying the rights of freedom of speech and assembly to, members, agents, and representatives of labor organizations or persons who were or were suspected of being members of, organizers for, or sympathizers with labor organizations, (c) manufacturing blackjacks and other instruments of violence and torture in connection with its afore-mentioned acts of violence, and (d) forcing, urging, and persuading its employees to make financial contributions toward the support of the respondent's anti-union I By order of the Board issued on January 18 , 1940, pursuant to Article II, Section 36 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, the four proceedings were consolidated. 2 An amended order of consolidation was issued by the Board on February 6, 1940, consolidating the proceeding instituted by Local 100 with the four earlier proceedings previously ordered consolidated on January 18, 1940. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 325 campaign; (3) discharging and refusing to reemploy William A. Humphries because of his wife's membership in and activities in behalf of the Millinery Workers; and (4) discharging and refusing to reemploy H. C. McGarity because of his membership in and activities in behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 59, and Electrical Mechanics, Local Union No. 1, and because he had engaged in concerted activity with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. On February 28, 1940, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in the alternative, to strike all material averments thereof, and, further in the alternative, to make the amended complaint more definite and certain in named respects. On the same day the respondent filed its answer, reserving all constitutional rights and subject to the afore-mentioned motions.' The answer admitted the allegations of the amended complaint as to the corporate structure of the respondent and the nature of its business operations, denied all other material averments, and alleged, by way of affirmative defense, (1) that the respondent undertook to protect its property and plant at Dallas, Texas, against attack, damage, sabotage, and illegal acts of violence threatened by certain labor organizations who conducted sit-down strikes during the spring and summer of 1937; (2) that if any surveillance was maintained by the respondent over persons "who were labor organizers or agitators, agents, or representa- tives" it was solely for the purpose of keeping the respondent's agents and employees informed of the intentions and purposes of such organizers so that the respondent might properly protect its plant and property; (3) that if any acts of interference or coercion were committed by the respondent's officers, agents, or employees such acts were beyond the scope of authority of such persons because they contravened explicit orders and instructions of the respondent; (4) that Humphries was laid off "for lawful reasons"; and (5) that Mc- Garity "quit his employment of his own accord" and failed, upon request by the respondent, to apply for reemployment and, moreover, that the respondent could not in the future reinstate him because it has learned since the issuance of the complaint that he was not "an efficient, good workman." The answer also demanded a trial by jury of the issues in these proceedings. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the amended complaint was held from February 26 up to and including March 28, 1940, at Dallas, , The motion to dismiss and the motion to strike were based in substance on the contention that the Board Is without jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the complaint: that the Act is unconstitutional in its attempted application to the respondent and in its procedural provisions , that all but one of the unfair labor practices charged are barred by the Texas statute of limitations and by lapse of time , and that certain ma - terial variances exist between some of the charges and the allegations of the complaint on which they were purportedly founded. The motion to make more definite and certain requested that names , dates, and the basis of authority of certain individuals be furnished the respondent. 323429-42-vol, 26-22 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Texas, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by coun- sel and participated in the hearing. The Automobile Workers was represented by one of its international representatives and participated in the hearing. No representative officially appeared for any of the other parties. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing the respond- ent requested the Trial Examiner to rule on its earlier motions to dismiss, to strike, and to make more definite and certain. These motions were denied, except as to one of the allegations of the amended complaint which was stricken by direction of the Trial Examiner in disposing of the motion to make more definite and certain The respondent also re- newed its defense of lathes against that part of the proceeding in- volving the alleged discriminatory discharge of Humphries, and the Trial Examiner reserved decision thereon. A motion of the Automobile Workers to amend the caption of the amended complaint was granted. Counsel for- the Board moved to strike from the answer all references to sit-down strikes on the ground that they were immaterial and irrele- vant. The motion was denied, but the Trial Examiner stated that the hearing would not be concerned with sit-down strikes or other labor disturbances in any place other than on the respondent's own property. At the close of the Board's case the respondent's request for a 5-day continuance was granted. Thereafter the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the motion was again denied. The motion was then repeated and granted as to the allega- tions concerning Local 100 and assaults and acts of violence against certain named individuals. The ruling is hereby affirmed and the amended complaint will hereinafter be dismissed in these respects. During the presentation of its case the respondent offered in evidence a large number of newspaper articles dealing with sit-down strikes throughout the country and with general organizational plans of the Automobile Workers. In so far as these offers dealt with events occurring in places other than the city of Dallas they were rejected on the ground that they were irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in the case. The Board has considered the rejected offers and hereby affirms the ruling of the Trial Examiner. At the close of the entire case, counsel for the Board moved to amend the, complaint, as amended, to conform to the proof. The motion was granted with an accompanying explanation by the Trial Examiner that his ruling was not intended to change the substance of the pleadings but was merely directed at minor matters, such as spelling, dates, and similar points. Thereafter the respondent renewed such parts of its motion as had been made and denied at the close of the Board's case. The same ruling was made on this motion, and the Trial Examiner explained FORD • MOTOR COMPANY 327 that he would reserve decision until the issuance of the Intermediate Report on the question of lathes raised earlier by the respondent in defense to the charge involving Humphries. Various rulings were made by the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. These rulings, and all. other rulings made during the course of the hearing are hereby affirmed. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, opportunity for oral argument before the Trial Examiner and for the filing of a brief for his consider- ation was afforded all parties but none of the parties availed itself thereof in either respect. On April 18, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices charged in the complaint as amended and recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. As to the defense of lathes to the charge of discrimination against Humphries, on which he had reserved decision during the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled that the action was not barred by the lapse of time between the commission of the unfair labor practice and the filing of a charge thereof with the Board, and recommended the reinstatement of Humphries with back pay from the date of the filing of the charge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement. More specifically as to the unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner found that the respondent, through its senior officials,in Dearborn, Michigan, "knew of, helped plan and subsequently approved the program of terrorism that was carried out in Dallas" and that that program was one of "brutal beatings, whippings, and other manifesta- tions of physical violence" indulged in for the purpose of intimidating and coercing the respondent's employees throughout the country in contravention of Section 7 of the Act. He found also that, in further- ance of the same basic purpose, the respondent had organized so-called "inside squads" composed of its Dallas employees. Humphries and McGarity were found to have been- discriminatorily discharged, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. His recommendations for -affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act were directed at the respondent, "its officers, directors, executives. agents; and representatives of every character and wheresoever situ- ated within the United States of America." These recommendations, as well as that with respect to Humphries, are hereinafter considered in the portion of the case entitled "The remedy." After issuance of the Intermediate Report the respondent filed exceptions thereto and a supporting brief but waived oral argument 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD before the Board on such exceptions. All other parties also waived oral argument.4 Portions of the exceptions and the brief dealing with the substantive aspects of the case are considered below in the discussion of the unfair labor practices and of the appropriate remedy. Exceptions and their supporting arguments directed at the conduct of the Trial Examiner may be summarized- as follows: (1) He permitted counsel for the Board to introduce evidence lacking in probative value and thereafter relied upon and was influenced by such evidence in formulating his Intermediate Report; (2) he interrogated witnesses favorable to the respondent in a manner calculated to discourage, intimidate, and repress them and induced and encouraged witnesses for the Board to testify unfavorably to the respondent and "to expand, exaggerate, and embroider" their testimony; (3) he improperly limited the respondent's scope of examination and cross-examination of witnesses; (4) he was "abusive and partisan" in his conduct toward counsel for the respond- ent but approved of similar conduct by counsel for the Board toward witnesses apparently favorable to the respondent; (5) he showed partisanship by commenting on the respondent's objections in such a manner,as to inform counsel for the Board of "the method by which such objections could be circumvented"; (6) he made known, in advance of testimony by the respondent, his belief of the respondent's guilt and otherwise showed prejudice in favor of the Board's conten- tions; (7) he conducted himself as an advocate rather than as a judicial officer and, on information and belief, entertained a "fixed bias" and a "fixed prejudice" against employers in general, including the respond- ent, and in favor of unions and union activities. For these reasons, the respondent contends, it has been deprived of a full, fair, and im- partial hearing and requests that the Intermediate Report be set aside and that a new hearing be ordered before another Trial Examiner. References to the record and citations of testimony, claimed by the respondent to be typical examples of the allegedly biased and improper conduct of the Trial Examiner, are set out in its brief. Re find no basis in the record for the contentions directed at the Trial Examiner's examination of witnesses and we consider that he properly exercised his prerogative as a quasi-judicial officer to call witnesses and interrogate them in such manner as he deemed expe- dient for the completion of the record. The respondent was, more- 4 On May 21, 1940, the respondent requested the privilege of oral argument before the Board, and on May 23,1940,the Board granted the privilege to all parties , notifying them that such argument had been scheduled for June 25 , 1940 Thereafter on June 10 , 1940, the respondent informed the Board that it was impossible for its counsel to appear on the scheduled date and that "notice is, therefore, given that Respondent does not desire to appear or be heard at the time of said hearing " By letter of June 13, 1940, in reply to an inquiry by the Board, the respondent clarified its earlier communication by stating that the Board had correctly as- sumed that the respondent did not desire postponement of the oral argument . After all other parties had thereupon indicated their waiver of the privilege of oral argument , the Board issued an order cancelling the argument previously set for June 25, 1940. 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the conduct of its business , the respondent owns, operates, and maintains manufacturing units or plants- located in the States of Michigan, Minnesota , Ohio, and New York. Its assembly plants are located in the States of Massachusetts , New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania , Virginia , Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, and California . The activities of all units and plants are synchronized by central planning and scheduling and by coordination with the main office at Dearborn , Michigan. These proceedings are concerned with occurrences at the Dallas, Texas, branch . At this branch the respondent assembles approxi- mately 290 automobiles per day. It received 95 per cent of the ma. terials necessary for these assembly operations from plants or unit- owned and operated by the respondent outside the State. From said branch the respondent distributes substantial quantities of finishe'1 automobiles and parts to points in the States of Oklahoma , Arkansepa Louisiana , New Mexico , and Colorado and to foreign countries. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union of United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership the production employees of the respondent.' United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership certain classes of workers in the hat, cap, and millinery industry. Its jurisdiction does not extend to any of the respondent's employees. Electrical Mechanics, Local Union No. 1, is an unaffiliated labor organization incorporated under the laws of Texas and admitting to membership electrical mechanics employed in Dallas County, Texas, including those employed by the respondent.' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Acts of interference, restraint, and coercion 1. General espionage upon, and surveillance.of, union activity Sometime early in 1937 Stanley C. Perry, known as "Fat" or "Fats" Perry, weighing 232 pounds, member of the respondent's tug-of-war team, and employed at the Dallas plant for about 10 years as an ordinary employee, was summoned to the office of W. A. Abbott, Jr., then plant superintendent responsible for the operation of- the 8 The Automobile workers was first chartered by the American Federation of Labor in 1935 and the following year became affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization . In 1939 it returned to the American Federation of Labor. 7 In view of our affirmance of the Trial Examiner 's ruling dismissing those portions of the complaint involving United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of the United States and Canada, Local 100, no finding need be made in this part of the case as to that organization. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 329 over, afforded an opportunity, of which, it availed itself, to cross- examine witnesses called by the Trial Examiner. We do not con- sider that the respondent was improperly denied an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, for only such proffers were excluded as were immaterial to the issues in the case and could not have affected the result which we have reached herein. We are also unable to consider as valid the claim of abusive treatment and we find that such remarks as were made by the Trial Examiner to counsel for the respondent were reasonably necessary for the orderly conduct of the hearing. The remarks of the Trial Examiner did not serve to deter the respondent from presenting evidence in support of its defense or from cross-examining witnesses and were not prejudicial to the respondent' s case. There is, furthermore, no showing of the encouragement of abusive treatment of witnesses by counsel for the Board. Finally, we are not persuaded by the citations in the brief or by the record that the Trial Examiner possessed a disqualify- ing personal bias, or that he prejudged the issues in the case, or that he acted in such a manner as to indicate that his mind was not open to proof. We are consequently convinced that the respondent was afforded a full and fair hearing and was accorded due process of law and that there is no reason for setting aside the Intermediate Report and ordering a new hearing before another Trial Examiner.' The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port together with the respondent's supporting brief and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent 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. The respondent is a Delaware corporation, having its principal executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. Its authorized capitaliza- tion is $100,000,000. It is engaged in the manufacture, production, assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles and parts. In con- nection with these principal activities it operates glass factories, open-hearth furnaces, steel plants, glass furnaces, coke ovens, a foundry, a paper mill, a cement plant, a machine shop, electric power and light stations, railroad lines, steamships and barges, as well as numerous other industrial units. b See National Labor Relations Board v Stackpole Carbon Co , 105 F (2d) 167 (C C. A 3), cert denied, 308 U. S. 605 , Subin v National Labor Relations Board, decided March 12, 1940 (C C A 3), Cupples Com- pany Mfgrs v National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 100 (C C. A 8); National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc , 94 F (2d) 862 (C C A 2), cert denied , 304 U S 576, and Jefferson Electric Co v. National Labor Relations Board, 102 F (2d) 949 (C. C. A 7) Contrast Inland Steel Cc v National Labor Relations Board, 109 F. (2d) 9 (C. C. A. 7), and Montgomery Ward Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 193 F. (2d) 147 (C C, A. 8). FORD,MOTOR COMPANY 331 assembly plant and for the production of automobiles. There he found, in addition to Abbott, Rudolph F. Rutland, then general body foreman charged with supervision of all operations connected with automobile bodies, and a stranger, one Warren Worley, who had only a 'short time earlier been transferred to the Dallas plant by the respondent's Dearborn office. The circumstances of his transfer and other evidence which we believe lead us to find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Worley was sent to the Dallas plant by Max Weis- meyer, a Dearborn official charged with supervision of the general operations of all Ford branches, for assignment to special non-produc- tion work. Abbott instructed Perry to take Worley and "scout around" for all possible information as to C. I. 0. activities, saying that the C. I. 0. had been "bothering" plants all through the country, that the respondent had had "trouble" in Michigan and anticipated "trouble" in Dallas. These instructions were clarified by Abbott and Rutland in terms of their translation into action by a joint statement at the time to Perry that he was to "go in and out of different places and find any trouble, or hear anything, find out what I could about it." Both officials assured Perry that his execution of the assignment would not lead others to suspect the nature of his confidential mission, as he was well known in Dallas. The results of the scouting activities were, according to Abbott's instructions, to be reported to Rutland, and Abbott was to be relieved of that aspect of the work. Perry lingered about the plant for a day until he was given a pass by Rutland to Abbott's official car, a company vehicle assigned to Abbott by the respondent for use on company business. Thereupon Perry and Worley entered upon their new assignment, obtaining access to and from the plant at will, a privilege not enjoyed by, any of the other employees, and driving in Abbott's car all through the city of Dallas and into nearby towns and cities. Each evening Perry parked the car in the respondent's garage and each morning he found it washed and filled with gasoline and oil. In the course of their travels Perry and Worley drove to Fort Worth, Texas, where they had heard of strikes among employees of a utility company and among packing house workers. They proceeded to one of the picket lines and stood around, as Perry testified, "with my ears open" in search of intelligence of which Rutland could be advised. While Perry and Worley were engaged in this general espionage they were further instructed by Rutland to check on the activities of certain persons employed at the Dallas branch. Each time Rutland selected a particular employee as the object of Perry's surveillance he would inform Perry that he had somebody "under suspicion" as a C. I. 0. man; that he believed the suspect to be "a rat," in which case "we wanted to get rid of him right quick before he spread it through 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the plant there"; and that he desired substantiation of his suspicion by investigation . These special assignments were thereafter carried out by Perry and Worley. Although during the course of his testi- mony Perry named several employees who had been the object of his surveillance , he could not recall them all because , as he stated, "I checked so many." From the time of Abbott 's original instructions until the end of June 1937, Perry and Worley devoted themselves exclusively to their new tasks of general espionage and surveillance , being paid their regular salary and punching the time clock . On April 28, 1937, both men received an increase in pay of 5 cents an hour, Abbott's notation on the recommendation as to Perry being, "good worker," and as to Worley, "work merits increase ." The recommendations were ap- proved by the respondent 's main office at Dearborn . Perry's rate of pay was again raised in the same manner on June 21 , 1937. The record does not indicate the extent to which their efforts during this period yielded the kind of information Abbott and Rutland were seeking. These findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Perry to which we give credence and which the Trial Examiner also credited. Shortly before or shortly after Abbott summoned Perry to his office and indicated to him the nature of his new duties , Abbott sent for J. D. Moseley, then in charge of the Dallas factory service depart- ment, informed him that there might be some labor "trouble" at the plant, and directed him as a "confidential" matter to take steps to prevent damage to the respondent's equipment . Moseley thereafter designated about 30 employees to hold themselves in readiness for concentration at strategic points in the plant if property damage should be threatened and to apprise him "if anything out of the ordinary was -said or seemed to be going on" as to labor activities. Moseley testified without contradiction as to these matters and his testimony, which we believe, was corroborated by witnesses who worked under his supervision at the time under consideration. Although there had been no overt signs of organizational planning or activity among its Dallas employees during the period in question, the respondent enabled itself, through the instructions of Abbott and the efforts of Rutland , Perry, Worley, and Moseley, to foresee with reasonable accuracy the circumstances which might develop an impetus toward such organizational endeavors. 2. Distribution of "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor" Not long after Perry and Worley undertook their new duties and Moseley assumed his added responsibilities the main office in FORD MOTOR COMPANY 333 Dearborn caused to be published a booklet entitled "Ford Gives View- point on Labor," a reprint of an item appearing on April 29, 1937, in the newspaper, the Detroit News. Thereafter, a large number of the booklets were received at Dallas from Dearborn, and on May 20, 1937, were distributed by the respondent to each employee at the Dallas branch as he punched his time card at the close of the day. The context of this booklet has been before the Board on previous occasions and detailed comment on it as anti-union propaganda is not necessary.' Preparation of the booklet and its distribution are clearly designed to prejudice the respondent's employees against unionization by repre- senting to them that labor unions are in fact controlled by predatory money interests in New York, by indicating that the respondent plainly questions the benefits to be derived by its employees from union membership, and by unequivocally manifesting that it is bitterly opposed to all labor organizations. It is sufficient to quote one portion of this booklet: But how does this labor organization and collection of member- ship fees connect with your assertion the financial interests are back of it? Ford was asked. The connection between finance and strikes-or so-called strikes -is right there, he replied. What was the great result of those strikes? Merely, that numbers of men have put their neck into an iron collar. I am only trying to show them who owns the collar. Have the men gained anything by their strikes? Nothing. In most cases, even with the small pay raises they received, it will take from 22 months to five years to make up the wages they lost. • Read the so-called "agreements" that were reached, and see if you can detect the slightest gain for the men. Labor itself will say that it won little besides "recognition". What in your opinion is the meaning of that recognition? Ford was asked. Simply this, he replied, the type of management that already wears the New York collar, now agrees to "recognize" the employe who wears the same collar. After that, everything will be nice! A little group of those who control both capital and labor will sit down in New York, and they will settle prices, and they will settle dividends, and they will settle wages. The mechanic, the skilled factory man, will take what is left. These are his new bosses-not the bosses who pay him wages, but the bosses who make him pay them. 8 Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, 14 N L R B. 346, Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 325, 23 N L . R. B 342, Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 425, 23 N. L R B. 548. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD COMMON SENSE. I do not believe that the artisans and craftsmen and mechanics and all the useful workers of America can be fooled by this very long. I have worked with them for more than 50 years, and I know they have common sense enough to see the game, and get out of it. The Wagner Act is just one of those things that helps to fasten control upon the necks of labor. Labor doesn't see that yet. It thinks the Wagner Act helps it. All you have to do is to wait and see how it works. It fits perfectly the plans to get control of labor. By means of this booklet, which was handed to each employee, as well as by the covert activities of Moseley's men, the respondent sought to curtail the need for dealing with unforeseeable spontaneous efforts of its Dallas employees to form themselves into a labor organi- zation. The respondent could thus permit Perry and Worley to concentrate their scouting pursuits on the movements of persons and organizations outside the plant. We find that distribution of the booklet by the respondent to its employees was intended to have, and coupled with the events which occurred on and after June 23, 1937, and are hereinafter dealt with, did have the effect of interfering with, restraining, and coercing the respondent's employees in the exercise of their right to self- organiza- tion and collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.9 3. Events leading up to formation of the outside squad The effective lines of contact set up by Perry, as well as the fear of provoking the respondent's disapproval of organizational activity inculcated in its employees by the discrediting of labor organizations in "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor" and the company- inspired zeal of its employees for communicating to the respondent their personal G In Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America , Local No 825, 23 N. L R. B. 342, the Board found as to the effect of the distribution of this booklet Whether the words or actions of an employer constitute interference, restraint , or coercion , within the meaning of the Act, must be judged , not as an abstract proposition , but in the light of the economic reali- ties of the employer -employee relationship It need hardly be stressed that the dominant position of an employer, who exercises the power of economic life and death over his employees, gives to an employer's statements , whether or not ostens.bly couched as argument or advice , an immediate and compelling effect that they would not possess if addressed to economic equals As the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has said, "The voice of authority may . . provoke fear and awe grate as readily as it may bespeak fatherly advice The position of the employer . . carries such weight and in- fluence that his words can be coercive when they would not be so if the relations of master and servant did not exist " (N L R B v Falk Corp ,102 F (2d) 383 (C C A 7), aff'd 308 U S 453). In the Virginian Railway case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made the same observation "It must be remembered in this connection , however, that any sort of influence exerted by an employer upon an employee, dependent upon his employment for means of livelihood , may very easily become undue in that it will coerce the employee 's will in favor of what the employer desires against his better judgment as to what is really in the best interest of himself and his fellow employees ." ( Virginian By. Co V. System Federation No. 40, 94 F. (2d) 641 (C. C. A 4), aff'd 300 U S. 515). FORD MOTOR' COMPANY 335 endorsement of that viewpoint, found the respondent well prepared for the initial entrance of the Automobile Workers upon the Dallas scene. The Automobile Workers, at the time affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the C. I. 0., having attracted adherents at some of the respondent's plants, under- took to explore the possibility of organizing the respondent's Dallas employees. The first step in this direction was taken on June 23, 1937, when there arrived in Dallas from Kansas City, Missouri, Baron De Louis, international representative of the Automobile Workers, accompanied by Leonard Guempelein, a member of its executive com- mittee. Both men were at the time employed by the respondent at its Kansas City plant, where the Automobile Workers had established a local. Early in the afternoon of June 23, and before De Louis or Guem- pelein had appeared in the vicinity of the Dallas plant, Perry credibly testified that be reported to Rutland, "Well, I got a tip there is a couple of rats as we know coming over." The advance information had been acquired by Perry in Fort Worth, Texas. About an hour later De Louis and Guempelein, according to their testimony which we believe, and which the Trial Examiner credited, stood at the entrance to the Dallas plant and approached some of the employees as the latter were leaving their work for the day. Soon the two men went across the street to a drug store frequented by the respondent's employees. Present in the store were about 30 men whom they recog- nized as Ford employees by their badges and their working clothes. To some of these men the organizers identified themselves as persons employed in the respondent's Kansas City branch, described the ac- complishments of the Automobile Workers at the Kansas City branch, and compared generally conditions in the various Ford branches throughout the country. Several employees introduced themselves to the Kansas City men and professed an active interest in the possibility of the advent of that organization in the Dallas plant. Among those who thus appeared to favor the mission of the organizers were Pete Atkinson, one Roderman, and Edward A. Bailey. The last-named employee showed such marked receptivity to the general purpose of the Automobile Workers' representatives as to make an engagement to visit De Louis and Guempelein that evening at their hotel and to bring with him, upon their request, two friends he "could trust." Shortly after Bailey made this engagement, he and Atkinson left the store and returned to the respondent's offices across the street. Atkinson did not testify and his movements are consequently not accounted for. Bailey -testified that he was looking for someone to whom he could report the presence of the C. I. O. organizers. He finally located J. B. Burns, assistant head of factory service, and re- 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ported to him the presence of the organizers in the drug store and the fact that he had made an engagement to call on them that night at their hotel. Burns immediately escorted Bailey to Abbott's office and asked him to repeat his story. The three men then discussed the procedure Bailey was to follow in connection with the engagement for that evening and, according to Bailey's testimony which, we believe, "There was a mutual understanding that I would meet these fellows, an agreement that I would go down and see what they did have and what their meaning was." It was also decided that he should select as his companions Atkinson, who was present during the discussion with Abbott and Burns, and Roderman, Bailey's working foreman at the time who participated in the conversation at the drug store. As Bailey was standing at the front door of the plant prepara- tory to leaving, someone, whose identity Bailey was unable to recall at the bearing, told him that Rutland was across the street in a cafe and wanted to see him. Bailey went to the cafe and, in response to a question from Rutland, told him that the men in the drug store were C. I. 0. organizers. Rutland asked for no details but merely replied-in substance, "That's all I wanted." Bailey then returned to the office. At about the time Bailey was talking to Rutland, an employee whom Perry was unable to identify as to name at the hearing sought out Perry, who was at the pay wagon, and told him, "You got a couple of fellows in the drug store. You better hurry or somebody will beat you to them." In the company of several other employees, Perry immediately went to the drug store. Rutland also appeared at the door of the store. The proprietor thereupon told De Louis and Guempelein that he did not want any talk in his store about or- ganizing a union and requested them to leave immediately. Guem- pelein, who is a man of small stature, agreed to go and started toward the front of the store to telephone for a taxicab. Perry's testimony as to the incidents which ensued, as substantially corroborated by De Louis and Guempelein, is as follows: Q. All right sir. Where did you station yourself in the drug store? A. Well, I didn't know them. I walked over there and one of the boys says, "There they stand' back there." They were standing about as far as from here to you, from that side door, and I walked in, and they was standing there, and I listened to the conversation. I beard them say. something about Kansas City. I walked up and listened a few minutes, * * * and I said, "Who was talking so much about Kansas City?" He says, "I am the one. I am from Kansas City." He says, "I was talking to some of my friends." I said, "You are a union organ- izer, aren't you?" He said, "If you call it that." He says,'"I am trying to line some of the boys up." I• said, ' You line up FORD MOTOR COMPANY 337 out of that door before I throw you out." He says, "No, I am not going out of that door." I said, "Go on. I will give you five minutes to go out of the door." He says, "I won't go out of the door." The little one commenced easing over towards the door, so, I followed the tall one out, and he walks up beside Rudy Q. Who walked up beside Rudy? A. The little fellow, Guempelein. Q. Where was he when he walked up beside Rudy? A. At the end of the cigar counter. Q. By the cash register? A. Yes sir. Q. Where was Rudy with relation to the little fellow, beside him, in front of him,- or behind him? A. He was walking towards the door, and Rudy was standing there facing him, looking at him as he walked to the counter. TRIAL EXAMINER DENHAM: Rudy is who? A. Mr. R. F. Rutland.-, Q. (By Mr. Wells) AG the little fellow, Guempelein, walked toward the cigar stand, did you see what Rudy did? A. Rudy sidestepped and when he passed him he hit him, and as he did I slapped the other one out of the door. Q. You say as he passed him he hit him. Who hit who? A. Rutland hit Guempelein. Q. What happened to Guempelein? A. He lit on his head out there in the aisle. Q. Knocked him down? A. Yes. Q. When Rudy Rutland hit Guempelein what did you do? A. Slapped the other one out of the door. Q. After you slapped Mr. De Louis out of the door, what happened? A. He taken off like a sage hen down the avenue, the last time I saw him. After being hit a number of times, De Louis managed to escape, ran into another store, telephoned for a taxicab, and returned to his hotel in a badly beaten condition. He immediately checked out of the hotel 'at which he and Guempelein had been registered and waited in the lobby for Guempelein. When Guempelein was knocked down by Rutland, he was either carried or pushed out of the store. There he was grabbed'by Worley and a group of other men. He attempted to break away but was again captured and taken down the street some distance. After Guempelein bad been shoved about half a block an unidentified man in'a Ford Motor Company official car drove up and told the group who surrounded Guempelein to take him down by the 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD schoolhouse and "beat hell out of him." They accordingly took him to a nearby schoolyard where the gang, led by Worley and composed of other Ford employees, repeatedly beat him, knocked him down, kicked him in the side, picked hint up and knocked him down until Perry arrived and ordered the assailants' to stop, stating that he had been beaten enough. During this assault Tommy Lewis, one of the assailants, went through Guempelein's pockets and took from them application,cards and buttons belonging to the Automobile Workers. When the beating was over and before Guempelein was permitted freedom of action, Perry instructed him, "Now you get the hell out of town and take that other C. I. O. so and so with you and never come back to Dallas." After locating a taxicab Guempelein returned to the hotel, having sustained numerous cuts and contusions and several broken ribs. He and De Louis immediately left the hotel and ivent into a nearby cafe from which they noticed Perry drive by several times. Perry testified that he drove past the hotel a number of times in an effort to pick up their trail but lost them when they "ducked into a tavern." They finally succeeded in getting a taxicab unobserved and went to another hotel, where they remained un- molested for 2 or 3 days. As already indicated, our findings as to this attack and its surrounding circumstances are based on the uncon- tradicted and credible testimony of the two victims and of Perry, the chief participant. Bailey and Abbott witnessed the affray at the drug store from a window in the latter's office. Bailey had attempted to leave for the locale of the drug store but was deterred by Abbott with the advice that "No, I wouldn't go over there if I was you." That evening, in accordance with the plan approved earlier by Burns and Abbott, Bailey and Roderman went to the hotel at which De Louis and Guempelein had been registered and were informed that the men they were seeking had checked out of the hotel without-leaving a forwarding address. Bailey did not thereafter make any further attempt to track down the representatives of the Automobile Workers. Roderman, however, was more persistent. On the following (lay, while De Louis was conferring in a hotel room with W. J. Houston, a Dallas attorney, Guempelein appeared with Roderman, whom De Louis recognized as one of the men he had seen in the drug store the previous day. In the presence of Roderman, De Louis discussed with Houston plans of the Automobile Workers for organizing the Dallas plant and designated Houston as organizing agent of the Automobile Workers. De Louis adverted to the possibility of forming 'a local at the Dallas plant with Roderman as president but the latter professed to be unwilling to assume the position of "front man." However, he manifested greaterreceptivity to the idea of acting as secretary. De Louis informed Roderman at that point that he was returning, to 'FORD MOTOR COMPANY 339 Kansas City but would be back in Dallas after a short time; that the Automobile Workers would send additional organizers to Dallas; and that if Roderman had any questions in the interim, he was to ask them of Houston. Roderman listened carefully and sympathetically, took all the literature available in the room, put on a union button, and left. The respondent's purposes having thus been apparently fulfilled, Roderman did not thereafter attempt to reach or see Houston. While Roderman did not testify at the hearing and there is no other evidence as to his movements after that conference, it is reasonable to assume, and we find, that all information obtained by Roderman in De Louis' hotel room was directly transmitted to Abbott or Burns. A few days later De Louis and 'Guempelein left Dallas, and Houston assumed the responsibilities of his new undertaking, releasing to newspapermen the Automobile Workers' plans to organize the respondent's employees. Pendency of an actual program of organization for its Dallas em- ployees led the respondent to adopt, in addition to the espionage which it had theretofore engaged in, more forceful and effective means of combatting such organization. The respondent consequently pro- ceeded with expedition to organize a group of its employees into what has been referred to in the record as the "strong arm squad" or the "outside squad." Thus on about June 25, 1937, in the presence of Abbott and Worley, Rutland informed Perry that about 18 or 20 men were to be assigned to Perry so that, according to Perry's testimony, in the event any C. I. 0. men or agitators "came'out there we would run them away from there." Rutland had already selected some of the new aides and Perry and Worley chose the rest and summoned them to a meeting in an office in the plant called the "dark room." James R. Longley, one of Worley's choices, testified that while he was working on the chassis line Worley, who represented to the wit- ness that he was employed in the respondent's personnel department, told him that organizers for the Automobile Workers were "moving in" on the Dallas branch and that if they succeeded the branch might be removed to some other city and "all of the boys would lose their jobs." After this preliminary statement, Worley asked Longley if he could depend on the witness "to fight for my job" and directed him to go to Rutland's office. Buster Bevill, Perry's selection and later to become one of his most faithful followers, testified as follows concerning Perry's initial interview with him: I was working on the commercial line, that is right, close to the back office and Mr. Perry came by and said, "Come here, Buster, 1, want to talk to you." So, he said, "There is a little business we got to be . . . we are going to do a little business. How would you like to go to work for me?" I said, "I don't know, Perry. You know I am here, and I want to work. That is what I hired out to do, is to go to work." 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Perry then directed Bevill to go to the "dark room." In the middle of the afternoon of the second or third day following the assault on De Louis and Guempelein, 21 men, including Perry and Worley and those selected by them and Rutland, assembled in the "dark room." As their photographs which are in evidence show, most of them were of large stature and of unusual muscular develop- ment and had constituted the plant's champion "tug-of-war" team. Except for Perry and Worley all of them had up to that time been engaged in regular production work, although at least one of them, Tommy Lewis, had participated in the assault on De Louis and Guempelein.10 Rutland addressed the group and told them that the advent of the Automobile Workers in the plant would constitute a real threat to their jobs; that no union was needed at the plant; and that this squad would be expected to see that organized labor made no inroads among the employees. Toward this end he directed them, according to Bevill's testimony, "to use any method that we may find fit to do so." He explained that he had selected them for this special work because of their physical prowess and because, as Perry testified, they "had plenty of nerve and wasn't scared to tackle anything they was put up against." An opportunity was given to each member of the group to reject the assignment when Rutland challenged them to leave if they were unwilling "to go along" with him. None left. Thus there came into existence the "outside squad" whose members were to engage, as the record shows, in work "on the outside." Rutland made no further effort at that time to outline the specific assignment of each squad member but informed the group that they would be subject to the supervision of Perry and that they would be notified of their particular tasks and would be given more definite instructions in a few days. About a day or two later Rutland reassembled the squad and he and Perry assigned to each member a special task. Claud Dill, who had been selected by Rutland and who does not appear to have attended the second meeting, was instructed separately by Rutland and did not operate under Perry's supervision. Although he par- ticipated in some of the squad's activities and enjoyed privileges extended to the squad, we do not find that he was one of its members. Rutland explained to the group, according to Longley's testimony, that they were to work in pairs "around over town to check up and see if we could contact any C. I. O. men or anything like that." One pair were stationed at the Greyhound bus terminal to watch incoming buses for C. I. O. organizers, to observe the activities of a 10 Among those identified by Perry, Longley, Bevill, and Richard Liston as having attended this meeting rein addition to the four witnesses . Claud Dill, Earl Johnson, Bob Johnson, (Sailor) Barto Hill, F S cd)Brown, Dennis (Curley) Dukes, Frankie Graham, Ray Martin, Warren Worley, Tommy Lewis, BusteiRoberts, Roy Mason, Jack O'Brien, Leonard Pinter, A D (Red) Cooper, Virgil Norfleet (Fleet) rll,Jack George, George Hornsby, and one Goode FORD MOTOR COMPANY 341, picket line which had been formed outside a garment factory directly across the street from the bus terminal, and to maintain general surveillance over the business offices of a trade union in the immediate vicinity of their espionage station. Others were to detect the whereabouts and identity of union organizers in other designated parts of the city. Another pair were to operate at and near the Republic Bank building and to check on the activities of Houston, a local attorney who had been designated as organizing agent for the Automobile Workers. All members of the group whose duties were to take them outside the plant were directed not to wear their em- ployee badges and to keep in close touch with the plant but were cautioned against reporting there in person, being specifically in- structed to call the plant by a special telephone located in the employ- ment office. Two squad members were stationed at this telephone to receive all calls from their colleagues. Another strategic point in the operations of the squad was the plant's employment office, in which two men were placed for the purpose of receiving applica- tions for employment with instructions to pass on to other members any information they received concerning out-of-town applicants. With the aid of Rutland and of Abbott's secretary, Perry compiled a list, received in evidence, of all members of the squad, on which there appeared, among other entries, the home telephone number of each. Perry was instructed to telephone the members at their homes if he was unable to reach them by personal contact. All members immediately proceeded to execute their assignments under the general supervision of Perry. They were paid at the same rate they had previously received for ordinary work at the plant. At first they relied only on their physical strength for the effective performance of their duties. Somewhat later they were supplied with blackjacks which were manufactured in the maintenance depart- ment of the plant." Men who owned pistols added those to their equipment. Then, as their work progressed, they acquired whips, lengths of rubber hose, described by Perry as "persuaders," and other similar weapons. Moseley's office, separated from the employment office by a railing, became their headquarters and on occasions when they had no need for their equipment, they kept it in his desk. Rules otherwise strictly enforced were relaxed for them and they enjoyed privileges not available to ordinary employees. Thus, when they were unable to punch their time cards, that requirement was fulfilled on their behalf by company watchmen, expressly directed to that effect by Moseley. They were afforded free access to the plant at all hours of the day and night and to assure them such access and free- dom from molestation Moseley, upon instructions from Abbott, 11 Perry testified that he supervised the making of blackjacks by one Bill Wilson of the maintenance department, that at one time he had complained to Wilson that the handles were too long and that Wilson thereafter shortened the handles and produced some "pretty good ones 323429-42-vol. 26-23 '342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD placed an extra shift of guards at the gate. Weekly passes were given to Perry and Worley to permit them hasty and undisturbed use of company cars ordinarily assigned to particular officials for company business. Most of these privileges were afforded them through in- structions which Moseley received from Abbott and Rutland and which he thereafter relayed to his staff of watchmen and guards. Moseley testified without contradiction, and we credit his testimony as did the Trial Examiner, that when he demurred at some of Rut- land's demands, he was informed by Abbott that, if he expected to hold his job, he was to comply with whatever Rutland requested of him in connection with the activities of the squad and with other anti-union plans. Thus, through the general orders of Rutland and Perry to members of the squad that they keep in frequent telephone contact with the employment office and through the general availability of a sub- stantial number of the squad who were stationed in or near the plant or who loitered about it, it became comparatively easy to assemble most of the members on short notice for special assignment at points in or near Dallas. 4. Formation of inside squads While the outside squad was formed primarily to deal with enemies from without in the form of organizers who represented labor organi- zations attempting to spread their jurisdiction to the Dallas plant, the respondent did not overlook the possibility of enemies from within, in the form of its own employees who might spontaneously form themselves into a union or who might imperceptibly to the respondent succumb to the promotional solicitation of outside organ- izers or sympathizers. As the latter danger assumed reality with the appearance of De Louis, it became apparent that desultory espionage and attempts at indoctrination through dissemination of Henry Ford's viewpoint on labor were not sufficient for the respondent's objective. T t was also necessary to expedite and complement the activities of the strong arm squad through some kind of counterpart among the regular employees. The respondent therefore conceived a plan of "inside" squads for its employees. To prepare its employees for its projected plan the respondent, through Claud Dill who operated under instructions from Rutland, directed the holding of two employee mass meetings late in June 1937 at the Mount Auburn schoolyard located not far from the plant. The record does not disclose the means used to summon the employees to the meeting place but whatever method was followed it produced a large attendance for at least one of these gatherings. Each meeting was addressed by Claud Dill. The testimony as to the attendance at the first meeting and the subject of Dill's address is meagre. At the FORD MOTOR COMPANY 343 second meeting, held on June 30, 1937, about 700 or 800 employees were present. Its manifest purpose was to arouse the assembled crowd against the C. I. O. and particularly against the Automobile Workers. Dill was the chairman and principal speaker. His belliger- ency toward the C. I. O. and his attempts to arouse similar emotions in his audience are apparent from these remarks which he made during the course of the meeting- "It is war now. Now let's keep this menace to our homes and families out of the streets. We can't send them downtown in a taxi like we did last time." Two members of the newly-formed outside squad were called upon by Dill to make a few comments over the loudspeaker. One of them compared the C. I. O. with nazism and the general trend of his remarks was that he did not want the C. I. O. in the plant. The meeting was closed by Dill with the following rousing challenge to the "menace" created by character- izations at the meeting: "I haven't seen any C. I. O. organizer lately, and I may not see any, because walking down Grand Avenue for John L. Lewis or one of his men is going to be just like slapping a grizzly bear." Having laid the appropriate emotional foundation at these meet- ings, the respondent proceeded, by means of a more formal program, to solidify and capitalize upon the feelings aroused by Dill and the members of the outside squad. In the factory service-department employees were instructed by Moseley to telephone the plant if they were visited at their homes by C. I. O. organizers. More substantial signs of this aspect of the respondent's endeavors appear to have manifested themselves at first in the maintenance department where W. J. Beck worked as a night maintenance man under the immediate supervision of one Arnsman. Beck testified at the hearing and we believe his testimony, as did the Trial Examiner. Late in June or early in July Arnsman directed Beck to "feel around and find out" if there were any C. I. O. men on the night shift; should Beck's investigation disclose their presence, he continued, "we would have to let them go or get rid of them." After Beck reported to Arnsman a few days later that execution of the assignment had revealed the absence of C. I. O. men, Arnsman suggested to him that "it might be a good idea to get the men together somewhere and give them a little talking to and explain the situation." He indicated more specifi- cally that Beck and a fellow employee named Crocker were to assem- ble the men on the maintenance night shift and "come out and tell them if they joined the C. I. O. they would not have any job, or even in favor of it." Beck and Crocker thereupon engaged a meeting hall in a building located across the street from the respondent's property and during working hours notified all employees on the night shift composed of between 60 and 85 men, that a meeting would be held on the following Saturday night at which attendance was compulsory. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Saturday had been chosen because the men did not work on that night. Shortly before the scheduled meeting, Ragsdale, the respondent's chief electrician, suggested that Beck tell the men at the meeting about the dangers of the C. I. O. and inform them by implication of the dire consequences of joining that organization. On Saturday evening, July 9, 1937, the first meeting was held and Beck addressed the men in the manner suggested by Arnsman and the chief electrician. Thereafter five other meetings were held on successive Saturday nights and as the men entered the hall they were required to sign a register. Absences had to be explained to Beck's satisfaction. While Beck relied on his own resources in execution of his superior's directions during this period, he consulted with Perry and Worley about some of the minor details of his work. The compulsory aspect of member- ship in or leadership of Beck's group is indicated by the following testimony of Beck who was questioned about his attitude toward the assignment given to him by Arnsman, his superior, and about the feeling of the men in his organization: Q. How did they feel about the C. I. 0.? A. Just like all the rest of us felt, no matter how we felt, we were against it. Q. Well were you sincerely against it? A. I can't say that I was. Q. You can't say that you were? A. No. Q. You were doing something, then, that you didn't smcerely believe in? A. That is right. Q. And you mean by that you were doing it because you were forced to do it? A. They never forced me to it, but I have an idea they would have made me wished I had done it, if I hadn't. These gatherings did not at first assume the characteristics of an inte- grated plant-wide organization, as their initiation preceded somewhat a more formal plan introduced by Rutland during mid-July and widely executed in the months which followed. During mid-July of 1937 Rutland made one of the first shifts in the personnel of the outside squad when he informed Longley that he would be returned to production work and would also act as captain of one of a number of "inside groups" which had been organized "for the employees' protection." Rutland explained that he had formed all the employees into groups of from 15 to 25 and that Longley was to head one of those groups as captain of the men in his department. Flis initial duty as captain and the basic purposes and character of the FORD MOTOR COMPANY 345 plan were outlined to him as follows by Rutland, according to Long- ley's testimony, which we accept as true: I was to take all of the men's names and telephone numbers in my group, and give each one of them my telephone number so at any time any union organizer contacted them at their home, they were to call me at my home, and at any time any one of them had any trouble they were to call me and I would immedi- ately call some of the other group captains and the rest of the men on my squad, and we could assemble a good body of men most anywhere in Dallas in just a few minutes. Thereafter (Sailor) Barto Hill, a member of the outside squad, gave Longley a list of all the captains and their telephone numbers, which he was to use when it became necessary to reach those persons, and told Longley that he, Hill, was in charge of the "inside squads," as they came to be known. Longley's activities as captain of his group are described in the next section. - By August 1937 about 90 per cent of the respondent's production employees at Dallas were members of inside squads, most of which had been formed by R. S. Tucker, at that time assistant paint fore- man in charge of about 200 men. Organization, according to Tucker's testimony, took the following form: Each department of the plant was divided into three divisions which were in turn subdivided into small geographically and functionally homogeneous groups of from 5 to 14 men, the number in each group depending upon the neighborhood in which the men worked and the total number of employees in each de- partment. Several "key men" and leaders headed each division, while the individual groups were directly in charge of captains who were in turn responsible to the key men and leaders of each division Tucker outlined the duties and directed the activities of the key men and leaders and, hence, supervised the work of the individual groups. All key men and leaders were selected by Tucker and their choice of captains was approved by him. Tucker testified that in making his selections he took into account "the man as a whole and his ability to carry out the program as outlined." Two of the leaders in the main- tenance department performed supervisory functions for the respond- ent; a key man in the body department was Claud Dill, who had been reserved by Rutland for special assignment to anti-union work; chief key man in the trim department was Roderman who had earlier con- ducted espionage work for Abbott in connection with the organiza- tional plans of De Louis and Houston; Hornsby, an employee-who was from time to time assigned to the outside squad, was a key man in the chassis department; and Bailey, who had first met De Louis and Guempelein on June 23, had reported that fact to Abbott, and had 346 _ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gone with Roderman to their hotel to obtain for Abbott information about those two men, was one of the captains. Beck had by this time assumed the title of captain over the men on the night shift in the maintenance department with whom he was meeting on Saturday nights. The purpose of this elaborate scheme is plainly stated in the follow- ing testimony of Tucker: "We were organizing against the . . . principally against the C. I. 0. I mean principally by that we were organizing against their organizers." In execution of this purpose key men, leaders, captains, and group members were supplied with the telephone numbers of their associates and group superiors for the pur- pose of facilitating direct contact in the event of an attempt by a union organizer to solicit any individual. Members were instructed, in the event of a visit to their homes by a union organizer, to keep such organizer from leaving and to telephone their captain or leader who would employ the necessary means of ridding them of such visitor. Individuals who were called upon to assist in the task of routing a union organizer from the home of a fellow employee were, further ac- cording to Tucker's testimony, to govern themselves as follows: The scheme in that was if a man was so called these men were to go to his home, and whatever it took to get rid of the man, that was to be done. It was to be carried out for the discretion of the men that went out there. However, we advocated no violence whatsoever because we believed in numbers; if there was one or two organizers in a man's home and five or six or a dozen men there, there would be no necessity for any sort of violence. Tucker claimed at the hearing that after several preliminary meet- ings with the various groups he allowed the general organization to operate without further direction from him and that he participated in its activities to a very limited extent. That the inside squads were also organized for the purpose of converting their members into informers who were to report any questionable behavior of their fellow employees is evident from the testimony of E. M. Rogers, a group captain, and A. M. Carter, key man in the body department. Rogers testified, and we believe his testimony and that of Carter by which it is corroborated, that, in addition to the function indicated in Tucker's testimony, his duties as captain required him to listen to the conversations of the men in his group for any statements favorable to the C. I. 0. "If we were satisfied with our jobs," he explained at the hearing, "and didn't want C. I. 0., naturally we would want to find out if someone around us was intending to join the C. I. 0., and interfere with our jobs." The singleness of the pattern of organization pursuant to which the inside squads operated is apparent. As already indicated, Longley testified without contradiction that his designation and instructions as FORD MOTOR COMPANY 347 group captain came directly from Rutland. Beck took orders from Arnsman, his immediate superior , and did not ascertain the source of that supervisor 's instructions . Rutland did not testify. Tucker claimed at the hearing that he was the author of the scheme of organi- zation and that he did not discuss it with or reveal it to Rutland or any other salaried employee . Inspiration for his idea came to him after Rutland had directed him to participate in plans preliminary to the beating of two employees by the outside squad. He had witnessed the beating and believed that the victims were innocent . Further- more, he disapproved of the squad 's methods. The purpose of the squad, he felt, could be accomplished without violence and he turned his mind to alternative methods. The result of his thinking was the plan to organize the inside squads, which he devised independently. His testimony as to the beating he had witnessed and the charge of which the victims were allegedly innocent was vague and confused. The statement that, although he was friendly with Rutland and saw him frequently , he withheld from him the plan of organization, is not convincing. His claim of independent thinking and planning, in the light of the identity between Rutland's instructions to Longley and the, program purportedly initiated by Tucker, is not persuasive. We are also impressed by the impunity with which persons involved in the organization discussed their plans on company time without fear of reprisal . We find, in view of all these considerations , that Rutland conceived the idea of the inside squads just as he had planned its counterpart , the outside squad, and that Arnsman and Tucker were performing functions in that connection delegated to them by Rut- land. We find , also, in view of the supervisory duties performed by Arnsman and Tucker, that had their activities in this respect been conducted independently of Rutland the respondent would never- theless have been responsible under the Act for such activities. The respondent had thus fortified itself at its Dallas plant with a complete scheme for detecting and eradicating all attempts to organize its em- ployees which might originate both inside and outside the plant. 5. Activities of the outside and inside squads Although the activities of the outside or strong arm squad continued from the time of its formation until late in 1937, the record does not disclose their complete history during this period. It indicates, how- ever, a definite pattern. Men were removed by Rutland or Perry from one assignment to another ; the squad's personnel did not remain entirely constant; and general espionage and surveillance of the kind conducted earlier by Perry and Worley was engaged in from time to time for the purpose of detecting the presence or imminent arrival in 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dallas or the general whereabouts of union organizers or sympathizers.l2 For the most part methods of dealing with union organizers or mem- bers or sympathizers or with persons suspected of being in any of these classes were marked by extreme violence, merciless brutality, and banishment from Dallas by threats of immediate bodily harm. Bevill, an active member of the squad, testified that he could not recall the exact number of instances in which these methods had been used by himself and his colleagues "because it must have been 25 or 30 cases." The inside squads operated more sporadically, holding indi- vidual group meetings 13 and attending mass gatherings of employees and their families in the Mount Auburn schoolyard, where Dill had on June 30, 1937, issued a declaration of war against the C. I. 0. and challenged John L. Lewis to walk down the streets of Dallas. The mass gatherings were sponsored by Rutland and arranged by Dill. Speeches impressing the employees with the favorable nature of their working conditions and with the consequent uselessness of union organization were made by Dill and members of the outside squad over a loudspeaker especially installed for such occasions. At one of the meetings at the Mount Auburn schoolyard Perry offered his services to the assembled group by announcing over the loudspeaker that "at any time anything happened, to see me, I was willing to help them at all times. That I would spend my time, do anything I could to help them, and if they wanted to get hold of me to call me at the plant." The extent to which the opportunity presented itself for availing themselves of the carefully planned strategy of trapping union organizers who attempted to solicit any of their members at home is not clear from the record, although there appear to have been some false alarms. From time to time, however, the inside squads per- formed significant functions in cooperation with the outside squad. While the inside and outside squads operated simultaneously toward a similar end from the time of their formation until about the close of 1937, the more prominent, more foreceful, and more direct role was played by the outside squad. 12 Perry, Worley, Bevill, and others made trips to Beaumont, Houston, Galveston, and Fort Worth. Texas The journey to Beaumont was occasioned by a scheduled convention of C. I 0. longshoremen to be attended by a representative from California. Upon their arrival in Beaumont, Bevill talked to the Cali- fornia representative on the telephone and warned him to return to his home State , saying, "You came into this state and it is a little warm on people like you." They observed those present in an effort to recog- nize Dallas residents and searched the meeting hall for literature and memoranda . The trip to Fort Worth was made because they had heard that the workers in a packing house were "having some trouble." Rut- land had designated Beck some time in August 1937 to work "on the outside" as special invetigator to locate C. I. 0 headquarters, determine the extent of its membership, and the imminence of C I 0 encroach- ment on the Dallas plant He wastold to join the C I 0. if necessary. After Beck had spent part of a day on his new assignment , Rutland summoned him back to the plant and told him that Abbott was "a little afraid to go that far" at that time 13 Formal and regular meetings of the group of which Beck was captain ceased after August 7, 1937, on instructions from Schumacher, foreman in charge of the maintenance department , who stated to Beck that "there was something coming out of the main office that would take care of that " FORD MOTOR COMPANY 349 a. Treatment of persons planning to organize the respondent's employees Since the respondent's most immediate concern was to prevent materialization of the projected organization of its employees by the Automobile Workers, representatives of the latter were made the first victims of the outside squad's more drastic methods. On July 3, 1937, De Louis returned to Dallas at the request of Houston, who bad been acting in his behalf after De Louis had left Dallas earlier. De Louis immediately enlisted the aid of one George W. Chandler, not em- ployed by the respondent, in attempting to arrange informal meetings outside the plant with some of the respondent's employees. Two days later, through the services of an intermediary, Chandler obtained an appointment with J. L. Phillips, employed at the Dallas plant. De Louis and Chandler were to meet Phillips at his home that evening. In the afternoon Phillips notified the employment office by telephone that he was to meet a C. I. O. representative and suggested that a plant emissary be present at his home during the scheduled interview. De Louis and Chandler arrived at Phillips' home at about 8 o'clock and were invited into his living room, where they began to discuss C: I. O. organization. Early in the conversation Phillips received a telephone call, which De Louis and Chandler overhead and which consisted, so far as Phillips' participation in it was concerned, of the words "no" and "yes." He did not comment on the call when he returned to his visitors: Phillips testified that the call had been made by his wife who was visiting friends and with whom he had intended to go to the movies that evening. Phillips' explanation was not convincing to the Trial Examiner, who heard his testimony and ob- served his demeanor, and it is similarly unconvincing to us. Both De Louis and Chandler testified that upon overhearing this call they decided it would be safer if they carried on their discussion away from the house. Accordingly they suggested driving to a roadside tavern where they could drink a bottle of beer and talk at the same time They repaired to the tavern and were away from the house for about an hour and a half, during which time Phillips emphatically stated to his companions that he had no interest in the C. I. O. or in any at- tempt to organize the employees of the respondent in Dallas. They then returned to Phillips' home and proceeded to park the car. Be- fore Phillips emerged from the car, it was surrounded by a group of from 12 to 14 men. The group opened the door of the car and released Phillips who indicated that Chandler and De Louis were C. I. O. organizers. Some of the assailants then pulled Chandler out of the car and slugged him with a blackjack, after which they proceeded to kick and beat him into a state of semi-insensibility. At the same time other members of the group pulled De Louis out from behind the 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD driver's wheel and surrounded him. He managed, however, to break through them before he had been very severely beaten and ran to a nearby house in which he took refuge and from which he telephoned for the police. A number of the men remained in the vicinity of that house until the police cars arrived, when they entered their own auto- mobiles and drove away. In the meantime, Chandler had taken refuge in a nearby hedge and managed to make his escape. De Louis, Chandler, and Phillips testified as to this incident, and while we reject the testimony of Phillips where it is contradicted by the other two witnesses or where it is otherwise unconvincing, we accept as true the statements of De Louis and Chandler. None of the members of this attacking group was definitely identified by De Louis, and none of the five squad members who testified admitted to having participated in this assault, although they recognized that it bore the earmarks of a strong-arm squad performance. The respondent offered no evidence to disclaim participation of the outside squad in this incident. Bearing in mind the Trial Examiner's finding, we conclude, in view of the employment office's advance knowledge of the conference with Phillips and in view of the indicia of outside squad activity, that the assault on De Louis and Chandler was perpe- trated by members of that squad. We find further, from the conduct of Phillips in calling the employment office and from his unconvincing explanation of that conduct, that he was acting at the behest or suggestion of the respondent's Dallas officials. The treatment he had received during his two visits at Dallas deterred Do Louis from proceeding with his organizational plans and he left Dallas on July 6, 1937, with no thought of returning at that time. He had also released Houston from any duties on behalf of the Automobile Workers. Nevertheless, because of his association with the Automobile Workers from the latter part of June until July 6, 1937, during which period his name appeared in the Dallas newspapers as spokesman for the Automobile Workers, Houston was marked for handling by the outside squad. Among the original assignments made by Rutland and Perry to the squad members was the patrolling of the Republic Bank building for signs of Houston. By July 10 this passive method of detection was converted into an or- ganized search. Perry had obtained a photograph of the prospective victim which he made available to members of his squad. Soon Earl Johnson, a member of the squad, spotted Houston at a drug store in the company of another man and sent word to the others to join him there. In a short time the squad appeared in the drug store. As Houston and his companion left, the former was seized and beaten by members of the gang and sustained injuries requiring hospital treatment. Among the chief assailants besides Perry and Worley were (Sailor) Barto Hill, Earl Johnson,' Bob Johnson, and FORD MOTOR- COMPANY 351 Longley.14 The police arrived at the scene and arrested Hill and the Johnsons, one of whom struck Houston severely on the mouth in the presence of the police. The three persons' arrested and Houston and his companion proceeded to the police station. Immediately following the arrest, one of the squad telephoned to the plant and reported that fact to Moseley, who had earlier in the day been instructed by Rutland to hold himself in readiness to handle any, trouble which might arise. Moseley went to the police station and proceeded to protect the arrested men, to prevent newspaper photographers from taking their pictures, and to arrange for bonds. Houston decided not to file charges against the men and they were not held. Directly after the assault Longley, who had averted apprehension by the police, drove to the plant and gave Rutland an account of the squad's achievement. Rutland demonstrated his approval by saying "That's fine" and explained that he had sent someone to the police station to have the arrested men released and that they would be free in a little while. Perry.also reported to Rutland as follows, accord- 14 The attack was described as follows by Houston at the hearing. A Just as we stepped through the door, he [Earl Johnson] grabbed both my arms from behind, and in a loud voice cried, " Here is our man." Q When he grabbed your arms from behind , what did he do? Did he hold your arms? A He pinioned them, he pinned them right back. Q. What happened when this man who grabbed your arms and pinned them behind you said, "here is our man?" What happened then? A A very large crowd of men just closed in, just burst in. Q Now, after these men closed in on you, what happened next" A. A man who identified himself at the police station as Bob Johnson, standing directly in front of me, made the statement , "I hear it is against the law to hit a man with glasses on, Houston," and reached up and took my glasses and put them in his pocket. Q And then what happened? A. Sailor Barto, who I had known from his association with Bert Willoughby's Sporcatormm, hit me Q. Where did he hit you? A His first blow hit me right along the temple Q. Then describe to us what happened after that A. After Mr Barto bit me-Mr Barto Hill-blows just came in from all sides , and I was hit from behind, and I was bit from the front and sides and my arms were still pinned behind me, and I was knocked momentarily unconscious, and was supported by the man holding my arms behind. Q. Did you at any time fall to the sidewalk? A Yes, yes, I fell to the pavement Q What, if anything , happened while you were on the pavement? A. I was kicked, kicked very severely in the-first in the head , and I put my arms up over my face, and I was kicked in the face also, and in attempting to defend myself, I was-they kicked me here [in- dicating] and they stomped me on the head , on my legs , and they jumped on one, jumped up on me, and on my stomach , they jumped up and down Twice-I had to roll on my side, and twice someone took my left leg-I rolled on my right side ,-they took my left leg and pulled it back , and someone attempted to kick me in the groin, and did kick me in the lower regions. Q. Did the police arrive, Mr . Houston? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what happened after the police arrived? A. After the police arrived, these men started melting into the crowds . I saw tnem drifting back through the crowd and Bob-the man who later identified himself as Bob Johnson-talked to the policeman, and Mr. Earl Johnson, or the man who identified himself as Earl Johnson, later talked to the policeman, and this man who identified himself as Earl Johnson was the man who had talked to me and who held my arms, and the officer asked what was wrong , and I stated I had been assaulted, and Bob Johnson then reached around the policeman and struck me severely in the inputh, The offi- cer then handcuffed Mr. Bob Johnson. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to Perry's testimony: "He [Rutland] said, `I heard you picked up Mr. Houston down there.' I said, `Yes, they picked him up and liked to beat him to death.' He said, `That is a good job then. Maybe that will learn him a lesson.' " Although the first phase of the respondent's war against the Auto= mobile Workers had thus resulted in an unquestionable victory for the respondent and in the rout of De Louis from Dallas, the respond- ent regarded the continued presence of Houston in Dallas in spite of the manhandling he had received as a source of potential danger re- quiring close scrutiny and perhaps further direct treatment. To ascertain the extent of the danger, Rutland resorted to the device of wire-tapping, apparently selected because of Houston's elusiveness during business hours occasioned by his confinement to a law office located in a busy section of the city. Rutland's covert approach was directed at Houston's home telephone. Thus several days after the strong-arm squad had left its mark on Houston, the preliminary steps necessary for the ultimate execution of the new device were taken under the direction of Rutland. An apartment in the immediate vicinity of Houston's home was rented by Claud Dill and Richard Liston, a member of the outside squad, with money supplied by Rutland. The name "R. L. Lancaster" 15 was given to the landlady by Liston as that of the new tenant. On July 23, immediately following this transaction, Liston, Dill, and Rutland drove to the telephone exchange serving that region and leaving Liston in the automobile outside the telephone office, the other two stated to him that they were going in to arrange for the installation of a telephone in the newly rented apart- ment. The records of the telephone company show that application for the installation of a telephone in the rented quarters had been made by "R. L. Lancaster, c/o C. H. Dill, Box 265, Ennis, Texas," and that 15 dollars had been paid as the required deposit. Houston's telephone proved to be serviced by a different cable from that to which the new telephone was connected and, as the telephone company's divisionplant engineer testified, could not be tapped effectively without enlisting the aid of the telephone company's central office. Thus Rutland directed Liston to locate another apartment. New quarters were found and were again rented in the name of "R. L. Lancaster" and paid for with funds supplied by Rutland. The telephone com- pany's records show that the telephone installed in the first apartment was transferred to the second. This time apparently no mechanical obstacles were encountered, and the telephone company's representa- tive testified that effective tapping of the Houston telephone could be achieved from the second apartment with comparative ease and with- out detection by the central office. Although the record does not dis- close how or by whom the mechanical problem was handled, success- '5 Liston testified that he had independently chosen this assumed name. - . FORD MOTOR COMPANY 353 ful contact was made with the Houston telephone. A set of earphones was nstalled in the second apartment and Jack George, a member of the outside squad, was directed by Rutland to remain at the telephone for 12 hours each day and to listen in, according to George's testi- mony, on a conversation of "the lawyer's that got beat up." George was relieved each day by another member of the squad, and on one occasion Dill visited the apartment while George was on duty. Re- ports of conversations were to be made to Rutland. George remained on this assignment for several weeks, during which time his efforts yielded no information of value to the respondent, although he was able to intercept all conversations going over the Houston telephone. On or about August 18, the telephone was discontinued and a check representing the balance due the user on the original deposit was made out to "R. L. Lancaster" and mailed to the address given on the original application. Houston does not appear to have been subjected to further molestation, as he moved from Dallas on October 17, 1937. Presumably certain by this time that the Automobile Workers had abandoned all promotional plans, the respondent directed its efforts at other groups and individuals whom it regarded as representing a present or potential factor in the possible undermining of the prevailing hostility it had sought to arouse in its employees against any form of self-organization. b. Treatment of persons suspected of planning to organize the respondent's employees Where no actual evidence of affiliation or contemplated affiliation with the Automobile Workers was available to the respondent and its agents, a presumption to that effect was indulged in where certain, kinds of circumstantial factors were present. Thus the presence of an individual in the company of a suspected C. I. O. organizer or advocate was sufficient to give rise to the presumption and to the con- sequent performances of the outside squad. In these situations the inside squads executed incidental but important functions in coopera- tion with the outside squad. Longley testified that some time in late July while he was captain of an inside squad he was instructed by (Sailor) Barto Hill to cooperate with the outside squad in dealing with two employees who had been seen talking to union organizers. The two employees were to be picked up at the home of a third employee who had invited them there and Longley was instructed by Perry and Worley to go out to that house with the group of which he was captain and to engage the suspects in conversation and escort them and their host to waiting automobiles. Longley was to drive one of the auto- mobiles. Although Longley could not recall at the hearing the names of these three employees, his testimony as to the plan of their entrap- ment and the treatment they received is clear and uncontradicted and 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAt1 we find it to be reliable . After Longley had carried out his instruc- tions, he joined a caravan of automobiles which bore the suspects and their ensnarers . The caravan proceeded down a quiet road and into an open field where the crowd got out of the automobiles . Two other automobiles joined the group and one of its occupants, according to Longley, was Tucker, responsible for the formation of a large number of inside squads. Thereupon the two employees were questioned about their union activities until , upon instructions from Worley, each of them was challenged to fight one of the strong -arm men. After one of the suspects had been knocked down twice by Bob Johnson, his opponent , he was directed by the group to one of the automobiles and instructed to leave the respondent's employ the following day. The second employee was challenged by Tommy Lewis and when, according to the witness , "he put up a pretty good fight" he was told by the group that he could go back to work the following day but that he was to have nothing to do with union men. The record does not indicate whether the two employees had in fact talked with union organizers. It is clear from their treatment that they were not found to be union members. The subject of a similar suspicion during this period was William M. Stone, an employee in the stock department at the plant. Stone testified at the hearing and we believe his testimony , which the Trial Examiner also found to be credible . One day during mid-summer of 1937 he was told that Abbott wanted to see him. On his arrival at Abbott's office in the company of two of his immediate superiors, Abbott asked Stone about a man with whom Abbott had seen him driving the previous day. Stone stated that the man was a lawyer friend from Oklahoma. Abbott pressed his inquiry and indicated that the friend might be a C . I. 0. organizer . After Stone protested that the suspicion was unfounded , Abbott desisted , saying, "I believe you, Stone, go back to work." The interview with Abbott had encouraged Stone to maintain a lookout for C. I. 0. organizers , for a few days later he reported to Perry about an unidentified man who had been talking favorably of the C. I. 0. in a beer tavern near Stone's home. Perry instructed him to learn all he could about the suspect and to report to the plant by telephone . A few evenings later Stone again met the stranger at the tavern and proceeded to engage him in conversation but before Stone could elicit any information from him the suspect was called away . When Stone returned to his home he found Perry waiting for him. Perry explained that Stone 's wife had called the plant and reported having seen her husband in a beer tavern in the presence of a C. I. 0. man; that Perry and Mrs. Stone had gone to the tavern but had not seen Stone or his companion ; and that that circumstance led Perry to infer that Stone had in fact attempted to shield the suspect against the strong-arm squad. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 355 A day or two later Perry met Stone as the latter was going to work and told him that Rutland wanted to see him. When Stone found Rutland in Abbott's office, Rutland wanted to know "what side of the fence" he was on. Stone protested to his inquisitor, "My goodness alive man. Certainly, you know I am on the right side of the fence. All of us are. None of us out here want the C. I. 0." Not altogether convinced, Rutland replied, "Well, all right, bear it in mind, if you are not on the right side of the fence I am not going to keep you from getting things put on your head." Stone again professed his innocence and sincerity by remonstrating, "Forget about that part of it. I am for you, everyone of you." He had, however, not succeeded in purg- ing himself of the suspicion aroused by his abortive efforts to serve the respondent by reporting on C. I. 0. organizers. The next afternoon, as Stone was leaving the plant, he was accosted by Dill and two members of the outside squad who asked him to get into a waiting automobile and to go with them to "talk to a fellow." They drove to the woods outside Dallas. There Dill accused him of being a "Dirty C. I. 0. son-of-a-bitch" and, with the aid of one of the squad members, beat him severely, producing cuts and wounds on his head and mouth. When the beating was over, his assailants proceeded to abandon him in the woods but yielded to Stone's plea that he be transported to a point from which he could call for a taxicab. Dill and his two collaborators thereupon reported to Perry at the plant that they had "beaten the hell out of Stone." Perry and one of his assistants went immediately to Stone's house and took him to a hos- pital for medical treatment. After returning to Stone's house from the hospital, Perry explained in extenuation of the beating that the incidents, about which Stone had been questioned by Abbott, Rutland, and himself, together with other observations of the outside squad, had reasonably led them to suspect him of being a C. I. 0. sympa- thizer. Other employees who were thought to have C. I. 0. leanings were in jeopardy of similar treatment unless they were able to demonstrate their innocence to the satisfaction of Abbott or Rutland or Perry. Thus John Farquhar, a watchman in the factory-service department, escaped the brutal treatment suffered by Stone when he disavowed any interest in the C. I. 0. to an impostor organizer who had been sent to his home by Moseley upon instructions to the latter from Rutland. The emissary thereafter reported to Moseley that Farquhar was "0. K." Carroll Ewing, another employee, was- threatened by Perry and his group until he proved through a friend. that he had been un- justly suspected. R. E. Curtis, an electrician at the plant, who surmised from the remarks made to him by fellow employees that he was suspected by the inside groups of being "interested in the C. I. 0. felt compelled to make a personal disclaimer to Abbott. 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The presence in Dallas of a person employed by the respondent in Kansas City, where the Automobile Workers maintained an active local was another factor on which the presumption was based that such person planned to organize the respondent's employees.16 The first Kansas City employee, according to the record, to fall into the hands of the outside squad was L. E. Shepard an assistant foreman in the trim department, who stopped in Dallas to visit the Ford plant and see some acquaintances there while on his way to Galveston, Texas. Shepard was not a member of any union and apparently was not in sympathy with the general principles of labor organization. He arrived in Dallas on August 2, 1937, went to the plant, inquired about a former Kansas City man whom he knew, spoke to men in the office and in the lobby, and identified himself as being from the Kansas City branch which was at that time shut down. As he left the office and started toward the curb where his car was parked, Perry and one of the other members of the strong-arm squad came up on each side of him and asked him if he was from Kansas City. When he replied in the affirmative, Perry said, "Let's take a little ride." Whereupon Perry and some of his assistants got into Shepard's car with Shepard and drove into the country. In the course of the ride, Perry told him that since he was from the Kansas City branch he must of necessity be a member of the C. I. O. Shepard protested that he did not belong to the C. I. O. and that he did not believe in it. He offered to prove his assertions by allowing them to search the car and his billfold. A thorough examination of his car and his person yielded no indicia of union affiliation. While the search was in prog- ress, they told him that if they found anything that showed he might be a member of the C. I. O. he would be subjected to the same treat- ment as others had already received. However, he successfully proved to them that he not only was not a member of the C. I. O. but that he was a foreman at the Kansas City branch and was conse- quently ineligible for membership. Then they talked to him at length about the C. I. O. and how they treated its members in Dallas. After returning to the plant Perry and the others left the car, shook hands with Shepard, and wished him well. He proceeded to Galveston without further interruption. Shepard and Perry testified as to this aspect of the outside squad's activities and we credit their testimony, as did the Trial-Examiner. ` Other Kansas City employees did not fare so well as Shepard. Early in October, Charles D. Elliott, an employee of the respondent at its Kansas City branch, left Kansas City with his wife and two children to visit relatives in Fort Worth, Texas. Elliott had been in the employ of the respondent since 1928 and joined the Automobile 19 The inside squads, according to the testimony of T. White, "key man" in the paint department, were also instructed to attempt to rout Kansas City employees but the exact nature of their activities in this con- nection does not appear in the record. FORD -MOTOR COMPANY 357 workers at the Kansas City branch in April 1937. When he came to Texas he had been delinquent for,3 months in the payment of his dues. On October 5, after spending several days in Fort Worth, Mr. and Mrs. Elliott drove to Dallas to see the Ford plant. They arrived at the plant about noon and stopped in front of the showroom where Elliott left the car to inquire at the office whether they could obtain passes to tour the plant. As he walked toward the employees' entrance, Elliott was accosted by one of the outside squad who asked if he was from the Kansas City plant. When he answered in the affirmative, Bob Johnson and Roy Mason, two squad members, took him by the arms and forced him into a car which was standing close by. Elliott asked why he was being kidnapped but received no answer except, "We want to take you out and question you, and you won't look the same'when you come back." As they drove past the parked car in which Mrs. Elliott was waiting, Elliott asked permission to tell his wife that he was in their custody but was warned to keep look- ing straight ahead. Perry, Buster Bevill, and three others followed in the same direction. A search of his billfold en route disclosed his Automobile Workers card. The group parked their cars at a point on the outskirts of Dallas known as White Rock Lake. They again went through Elliott's billfold, subjected him to considerable cursing, and finally administered a severe beating with switches cut from a nearby tree. Elliott protested throughout without avail that he had no interest in C. I. O. organizational activities in Dallas and offered to go to almost any length to prove the truth of his remarks. Charles N. Moore and Bud Parrish, ordinary employees at the plant, had obtained Bob Johnson's permission to go with the squad to' White Rock Lake. They witnessed the savage attack on Elliott.. Moore testified that when he saw Johnson and Mason shove their quarry into the wating car he bad "a pretty good idea" as to what was about to happen. He explained that his inference was based on the fact that be had "heard about them whipping these other fellows" and that he was impelled by curiosity to ask permission to visit the scene of attack. He stated further that "mighty near everybody" working at the plant knew that men were being taken out and whipped by the strong-arm squad." 17 Moore testified as follows concerning the barbarous conduct he witnessed on this visit to White Rock Lake Q Just tell us what happened out there , what was said to Elliott, and what happened to him that you heard and saw. A Well, when they first got out there, they all got his purse out and went through his purse, and asked him some questions , and he told them he wanted to know what he had done, he asked them what he had done , and they commenced to cussing him and told him he would find out later and said, "You have got no business out here noway, " and commenced abusing and cussing him, and he said, "I can furnish you any kind of reference you want lam no C I 0 organizer," and he said, "I have belonged, and my dues are not paid for this month," and when they was doing this, some of them was cutting switches, and they borrowed my knife to cut switches with, who ever cut the switches I don't know who cut the switches, I just don't know, but they had my knife to cut the switches , and they cut two switches. 323429-42-vol 26 24 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD When they finally returned to Dallas, Elliott was let out of the car several blocks from the Ford plant. He was ordered to stay at that point until his wife came for him, at which time he was to get out of town. The squad then returned to the plant and Perry informed ,Mrs. Elliott of her husband's whereabouts, adding that if she loved him she would get him out of the State of Texas immediately. She ,went to the prescribed spot and returned with her husband to Fort Worth. Mrs. Elliott testified that when she saw her husband "his face was swelled and his clothes were rather bloody and his mouth was in pretty bad condition from a blow and he was pretty well used up" and that later she observed "bruises on his body and his back had stripes across it where he had been whipped." Perry and Bevill, as Well as Elliott, Mrs. Elliott, and Moore testified without contradiction concerning the treatment of Elliott, the circumstances which sur•- Footnote 17 continued. Q. Did you bear what Buster Bevill had to say to Mr Elliott out there? A Yes, sir Q What did he say? A He told him, he said, "I ought to blow your God-damned brains out, you CIO son of a bitch," just like that Q. All right , then what happened? A Well, that was after-Buster told him this after they had done whipped the man Q I see Well, let's go back a little then After they talked to him and went through his purse, what happened then? A. They pulled his breeches off. Q. What did they do then? A. Pulled his shirt up and Bob Johnson grabbed him about the neck, and they commenced to whip him with them switches Q. And how long did that continue? A. Oh, I will say they hit him 50 licks Q. Who was using the switch? A. I don 't know. Q. All right When they hit him about 50 licks , then what happened? A That is when-about that time Buster come up with the gun, and had it in a sack. Q. And he made the statement you have just related? A. Yes sir Q Then what happened? A Well, he-the man was begging them to let him go , and asked them to let him go, and said he hadn't done anything, and they said , "Well, we will see " They said , "Now, about-" well, I don't know how it was now, but anyway he said , -somebody said, "Who is about this man's size?" And so Roy Mason says , "He is about my size," and he says, "I want to give him a damned good whipping myself," and he lit in on him with his fists Q How long did that go on, Mr Moore? A Oh, he hit him 10 or 12 times, I guess, with his fists , and knocked him down, knocked him down and kicked him while he was down. Q. Who kicked him? A. I think he kicked him himself Q Roy Mason kicked him , kicked Elliott? A. Yes sir Q What did Mr Elliott look like when they got through doing that? A. He looked pretty bad. Q Well, just describe it. A Well, his face was beat up, his back was beat up, and his clothes was torn off of him, he was bloody, and he was begging them all of the time they was whipping him, and trying to explain to them that he could give them all kinds of references that they wanted, and that he wasn 't down here for no organi- zation at all, that he merely come down here to visit the plant Q All right After Roy Mason fought him , then what happened? A. Well, that was about all of it After he gave him a whipping, we started off, to get in the cars, and me and Bud started to get in our car, and he started off ahead there wltb Bob ,aud Roy, and he wBS Iletween them, And Roy lit him again and then Jacked Mali. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 350 rounded it, and its consequences. We find their testimony to be credible, as did the Trial Examiner. Another Kansas City employee whose fate at the hands of Perry and his gang was similar to that suffered by Elliott was one Harold M. Bowen, a member of the Automobile Workers local in that city, who was mercilessly pounded on October 26, 1937, by 10 members of the squad, including Jack George, Perry, and Bevill. When he refused to admit membership in the Automobile Workers his inquisitioners told him that they knew he was a member and that they had received advanced information of his arrival in Dallas, indicating that members of the Kansas City local had been the source of their information. They also told him that they were tired "of these Kansas City boys coming down here trying to organize"; that they had orders to prevent traffic between the two cities; and that if De Louis ever came back to Dallas they would kill him.18 Jack George, Perry, Bevill, and Bowen testified without contradiction concerning the vicious treatment to which Bowen was subjected, and we believe their testimony. 18 Jack George, member of the squad and one of those who participated in the cruel and inhuman treatment of Bowen, testified as follows concerning this incident Q Was there anything said to Bowen about being a union organizer? A What I heard them ask him , was he a union orgam7er and he said no, he wasn 't, he was down here for his health , and we told him he was in an unhealthy country Q. What else was said to him about a union? A That was about all. He told him to drop his britches , we were going to whip him Q. All right, who told him that? A Bob Johnson Q What happened then? A He pulled his britches down. Q Then what happened? A Well, sir, he put that hot leather to him. Q Who did? A Bob Johnson. Q What do you mean by "that hot leather to him"? A He whipped him with about four or five wires taped together , electric wires Q Did anybody hold on to him? A With insulation on them. Q Did anybody hold on to Bowen while Bob Johnson was whipping him? - A. Buster Roberts . Buster Roberts had a headlock on him. Q You knocked who down? A. I knocked Bowen down. Q I see Well, let's back up a little bit on that then After Buster Roberts held him while Johnson whipped him , then what happened? A. Well, about that time Fats drove up, and Earl Johnson came around there and hit at him and missed him Q Hit at who? A Hit at Bowen Q All right. A. And he missed him, and he turned like he was going to run, and I knocked him down, and Johnson kicked him while he was down Q. Which Johnson? A. Earl Johnson. Q And what happened then? A And then I left, and I don't know what happened from there on Q W here did you go to? A. I went on back up to the plant Q. Anything else? A. One or two of them we whipped with a regular whip we had made out of rubber wind cord and some of them-one of them was whipped according to whether we thought he could take it or not, was whipped with brushes off of trees, limbs 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Individuals from out of town who presented themselves at the employment office in search of employment were prima facie consid- ered to be C. I. O. adherents and were destined for treatment by the outside squad. As already stated herein, when Perry and Rutland first made assignments to members of the strong-arm squad two of its constituents were stationed in the employment office to take applica- tions for employment. All the members were instructed by Rutland as follows in this connection: You want to cooperate with Fat Perry and myself and Mr. Worley, and if any man comes in from out of the city or any other branch, put it on a piece of paper and hand it to Fats or Worley, or one of the boys. According to Perry, Rutland's instructions to the outside squad were carried out on several occasions. After the applicants had been pointed out to him, he would, to use his language, "Take them for a ride." In describing the procedure of "taking them for a ride," Perry explained at the hearing that he and his men would "take them out and investigate them and find out what they was doing; what they were doing there, and if they were trying to organize, or if they were union men or not." Continuing his testimony along this line Perry further stated: Well, the first thing we would do, we would search them and find out if they had any identification belonging to a union of any kind, or where they were from, or what they belonged to, and gave them a good talk, and worked over some of them, ones that we had under suspicion of being a union man or if they had cards on them. Q. What do you mean "gave them a working over"? A. We would whip them, beat them up. Q. With what? A. Put the fear of God in them as they called it. Q. What would you whip them with? A. Some with fists, some with blackjacks. There were 3 whipping grounds to which men of this kind were cus- tomarily taken and Perry testified that he was present at least 15 times when suspects were taken to one of these spots. This is the general procedure which governed the attack on Richard Sowers on October 18, 1937. Jack George, Perry, and Sowers testified as to this pro- cedure and we find their testimony, which was believed by the Trial Examiner, to be credible. Sowers, a resident of Kansas City, had been employed there in the respondent's plant in 1936 and during part of 1937. In the fall of 1937 he moved to Dallas and on October 18 of that year applied at the employment office of the respondent's Dallas plant for work. A number of other applicants were present at the FORD MOTOR COMPANY 361 time and an employee, whom Sowers did not know and could not identify at the hearing , asked whether there were any men in the group who had formerly been employed in other plants of the re- spondent . Sowers announced that he came from the Kansas City branch and was immediately directed to the desk by the employee who had made the first inquiry. Another employee , similarly unknown to Sowers, directed him to fill out an application and told him that a job requiring the same work he had been doing in Kansas City was open in Dallas. While he was standing at the desk, four members of the outside squad entered the employment office and one of them put a gun in Sowers ' ribs and asked him if he was a member of the C. I. O. Although he replied in the negative , the four men escorted him to a car which was waiting in front of the plant.. He wa- driven to White Rock Lake where the four men beat him into a state of semi-consciousness and repeatedly kicked and hit him until Perry arrived in another car and ordered the beating to cease, stating that he had been sufficiently mauled. Upon returning him to town, the squad members gave him until sundown to leave Dallas and told him that if he reported them to the police they would kill him. Sowers, however, did not leave but went to the police station and swore out a warrant for the arrest of his attackers . At the police station Sowers identified Jack George , O. B. Daniels, and Ray Martin, members of Perry's squad, as three of his assailants . The police had apprehended these three men and Moseley obtained their release on bail . The case against them was subsequently dismissed . At the hearing Sowers identified from pictures of the squad in evidence three of his attackers and Perry. It need hardly be said that persons who openly displayed C. I. O. connections anywhere in Dallas immediately became the prey of Perry and his aides. Such was the fate awaiting Orville C. Phillips, a resident of California , who arrived in Dallas with his wife and rela- tives on August 14, 1937, to visit the Pan-American Fair then in progress at Dallas. Phillips and his brother-in-law, a member of the visiting party, testified at the hearing and we credit their testimony, as did the Trial Examiner . Phillips was a member of the C. I. O. in California and the car in which he arrived at the fair grounds carried a California license and bore stickers stating, in substance, "Join your C. I. O. now." The presence of the car was soon reported to (Sailor) Barto Hill, member of the outside squad and in charge of some of the inside squads . Hill instructed Longley, captain of an inside squad , and three members of the outside squad to proceed toward the parking lot in the vicinity of the fair grounds where Phillips' car was parked and to watch their quarry until the arrival of Hill and other members of the outside squad. Longley was a witness at the hearing and we believe his testimony-. The occupants of the car 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD returned before Hill and his crew reached the parking lot and a fight developed between the men in Phillips' party and Hill's emissaries after one of the latter had pointed to the C. I. O. sticker and told Phillips that such things were not allowed in Dallas. Although some of the occupants of the car were beaten, they succeeded in reversing the usual order by putting their attackers to flight. c. Treatment of persons advocating unionization The scope of the respondent's program included not only those immediately capable of organizing its employees but also those who might generally inspire them to seek out an organization under whose aegis they could be enlisted. During July of 1937 A. C. Lewis, in business with his twin brother in Dallas and in no way connected with any labor organization, had several conversations about unions with one Farrar, a neighbor and an employee at the respondent's plant. Farrar reported Lewis to Perry as a C. I. O. advocate and perhaps an organizer. Perry gave Farrar an application card issued by the Auto- mobile Workers which had earlier been taken from Guempelein during the attack on him outside the drug store. At Perry's direction Farrar filled out the application card and attempted thereby to lead Lewis to believe that he was a member of the Automobile Workers, the purpose of the ruse being to encourage Lewis to reveal the nature of his own connections with the C. I. O. _ When Farrar's attempts proved fruitless, Perry and another member of the outside squad represented to Lewis, to whom they had been introduced by Farrar, that they were union organizers and suggested that Lewis solicit some Ford employees for membership in the C. I. O. After a short conversation, Lewis stated that he was not interested in the proposal and left the impostors. That same afternoon Lewis expressed to Farrar a vehement opinion in favor of union organization. On the night of August 3, several days after the conversation with Farrar, Lewis encountered 10 or 12 members of the strong-arm squad in the vicinity of his home. He thereupon complained to Abbott that the squad was molesting him and that he wanted Abbott to order them to stop. Abbott, according to Lewis' testimony, replied that he was sorry and that he had told the men to be careful. Thereafter, Lewis' twin brother, Archie B. Lewis, was severely beaten by Hill and other members of the squad on the night of August 4, 1937, while be was attending a wrestling match to which Perry and some of his men had attempted to lure A. C. Lewis by an offer of free admittance.19 Lewis and Perry testified concerning iV Archie B Lewis subsequently developed a throat infection and pneumonia from which he died on December 11, 1937 A C Lewis was with his brother during his last illness and had a conversation with him immediately before he died In the presence of another brother and a pastor, Archie B Lewis told A. C. Lewis that he was dying and that he wanted the latter to identify the other men who had killed him and to "see they got justice " Since it was not contended by counsel for the Board at the hearing that the death was caused by the slugging of Hill and the others, we do not so find , although Archie B. Lewis so be11gvCd and declared on his deathbed. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 363 this aspect of the squad's activities, and we find their testimony, which was believed by the Trial Examiner, to be credible. While the C. I. O. and its affiliates were the immediate target of the outside squad, other organizations and their representatives were seriously threatened and did not succeed in escaping from the orbit of its activities. This is demonstrated by the lot which befell George, Baer, organizer for the Millinery Workers affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Baer arrived in Dallas from Massachusetts in April 1936 to perform organizational work on behalf of the Millinery Workers and remained there continuously until the end of August of the following year. On August 6, 1937, he made an appointment for August 9 with one Mike Bierner, proprietor of a millinery shop, to discuss certain aspects of a collective bargaining plan which Baer had in mind. Perry testified that Rutland told him between August 6 and August 8 that he had received a call from the Dallas police sta- tion about the presence in town of an organizer and instructed him to go down to the police station with Moseley in search' of further information. Moseley's testimony is that h2 was directed by Rutland to go with Perry to the police station and to ascertain who it was "that was around here organizing" on behalf of the C. I. O. in the' clothing industry. Further, according to Moseley's testimony, he and Perry went to the police station and inquired of Inspector Welch concerning the organizer who was "playing all of the hell down here." Welch replied that his name was Baer and that "he was causing' lots of trouble." Thereafter, Moseley's testimony continued, he re- turned to the plant but did not report the results of his investigation to anyone there. Perry's testimony is that Welch had told him and Moseley that Mike Bierner, who owned a hat shop in town, was having dealings with, an organizer and wanted the strong-arm squad to' in-' vestigate him; that Perry reported this to Rutland; and that Rutland' directed him to visit Bierner's place of business with "some of the boys" and find out what he could about the organizer. We do not deem it necessary to resolve the conflict between the testimony of Perry and Moseley, as the variance is one of immaterial details. It is sufficient that both agreed on the general outline of essential points and that we consider Perry's memory to be more reliable since he was put in charge of the activities which followed. Welch, called as a witness by the respondent, denied having informed Rutland or Moseley or Perry of these matters. He stated, however, that he and Moseley were friends and that when Moseley visited headquarters during the summer of 1937 "to see about some of his men that had been arrested, or something, or maybe something else had taken place" the two men would discuss labor matters "in some way." The Trial Examiner did not credit Welch's denials; nor do we, in view of the 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nature of his testimony and the absence of a basis in the record for disbelieving Perry and Moseley. After receiving instructions from Rutland to investigate the status and activities of Baer, Perry, and two of his assistants visited Bier- ner's establishment on August 8 and learned that Baer was expected there the following afternoon for a scheduled conference. 'Plans were then made with Bierner for the entrapment of Baer by the outside squad. When Perry thereupon reported to Rutland the details of the plan, Rutland approved them and directed him to "find out" about Baer, saying more specifically that if he was an organizer they were to take him and "give him the works." The following day Baer was apprehended by three of Perry's assistants, and Rutland's direc- tions to "give him the works" were zealously implemented. None of the direct participants in the assault on Baer testified at the hear- ing. Baer was a witness and we find his testimony to be true, as did the Trial Examiner. From the stand Baer identified Earl Johnson, a member of the squad delegated by Perry to handle Baer, as one of his assailants. The details of the strong-arm methods used on Baer are not clear from the record, as the blows he had been dealt with several blackjacks threw him from time to time into alternating states of semi-awareness and total unconsciousness, and he was consequently unable to testify on that aspect of his experience. After the beating, and while Baer was with his attackers at the end of town, Worley, one of those assigned by Perry to deal with Baer, called Perry at the plant and said, "Come down here right away. We got Baer and don't know what to do with him." When Perry and Bevill arrived in a company car and observed that Baer was in a serious condition, a discussion ensued as' to what disposition should be made of him. Bevill's suggestion, made after Baer had protested that they had "got the wrong man" and had pleaded to be left alone, was to "take the son-of-a-bitch over and dump him in the river." 20 The suggestion was rejected by Perry. Instead, the group drove down the 20 Bevill testified as follows concerning Baer 's condition and his cruel questioning of Baer Q After you saw Mr Baer there pretty badly beaten up with Mr Johnson in the car with him, what happened? A I walked over to the car and opened the door, Mr Johnson got out and I reached in and got Mr Baer and pulled him out, pulled him out on the ground lacked him, I said, "Do you know who you are?" He said , "eh, you got the wrong man You have got the wrong man You got the wrong man " I said, "No, we haven't got the wrong man We got the right duck " I says, "Who sent you to this town?" He repeated himself, "You got the wrong man You got the wrong man You got the wrong ,man." I said, "Well, the man isn't going to talk Take him down there and dump him in the river and you can talk to him " I said, "Do you understand what I am talking about." Ho said, "Yes, I understand what you are talking about " -I said, "What is your name?" He said, "My name is Mr. Baer " I said, "Who sent you to this town?" He said, "I came from Boston, Massachusetts," or some place in the East , I am not positive I said, "You are hurt pretty bad, aren 't you?" He said, "Yes, I am hurt pretty bad " I said, "You are not hurt so bad you don't know what you are talking about " He said, "No sir, I am not hurt so bad I don't know what I am talking about " I said, "Who sent you here?" He said, "I don't know, men I am beat up pretty bad I don't know just exactly what I am saying, but I would like for you men to leave me alone " I said, "We are going to leave you alone, and you are not going to be hurt no more if you get out of this town " He said, "Well, I will go I will leave FORD MOTOR COMPANY 365 highway a distance and threw Baer into a field. Baer was picked up by a passing motorist and was taken to the hospital where he lapsed into unconsciousness and required hospitalization until August 18.21 On Perry's return to the plant that evening he gave a detailed report to Rutland who exclaimed, "Darn, you boys better lay low." Two or 3 days after the assault and while Baer was still in the hospital, Bevill learned the name and address of Baer's brother and, on in- structions from Rutland, telephoned the brother to get Baer out of Dallas as quickly as possible. Perry and Bevill, whose testimony was accepted as true by the Trial Examiner and whom we believe, testified without contradiction as to the role they and the other mem- bers of the squad played in the acts of violence and cruelty which characterized the fate suffered by Baer. Another example of the jeopardy in which persons in any manner associated in the minds of Rutland and Perry with organizational activities placed their dignity and their lives is an occurrence at a public park in Dallas on the evening of August 9, the same day as the Baer assault. On this occasion the inside squads cooperated actively with their counterpart, the strong-arm crew. On the afternoon of August 8 a moving picture entitled "Millions of Us," dealing with the general advantages of union organization, was shown at the Dallas City Hall under the auspices of the Textile Workers' Organizing Com- mittee, a C. I. O. unit. A second showing at an open meeting at a public park was advertised for the following evening. During the morning of August 9 Perry discussed the proposed showing at the park with Rutland who instructed him to demolish the film while it was being shown if it was a C. I. O. picture or portrayed a union organ- izer. Perry thereafter made arrangements with the park policeman for the disruption of the meeting and the destruction of the film. At the close of work that afternoon Claud Dill called a meeting of several hundred employees and members of inside squads for the purpose of coordinating their functions with those of the outside squad. Dill and Worley addressed the gathering, Dill instructing them to go to the park and to start breaking up the meeting when he gave the word. The group captains received more specific directions, and Beck's role was to stand beside Dill and heckle the speaker until the general signal to advance was indicated. That afternoon while he was at work on the assembly line at the plant, Longley was instructed by Hill, a member of the outside squad and in charge of some of the inside squads, to notify all members of the inside group of which he was captain to attend a meeting at Hill's home at a designated hour in the early evening. When the group assembled at his house, Hill opened the meeting with the statement that there was to be a showing that 21 Baer testified that in addition to a considerable loss of blood, he had sustained about 25 cuts on his head, had lost several teeth , and that his right eye was practically useless. 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD night of a moving picture on union activity at one of the city parks, to be followed immediately by an address. He then informed the meeting that all the groups would be present at the park; that one group had been specially assigned to breaking up the meeting and to protecting the women and children; and that the members of this particular group had also been selected to go down there on special assignment. Longley was to get the sound records and one or two others were to see that he was not molested in the performance of this task. The question of wrecking the projection machine was also discussed. Hill himself was to tar and feather the speaker. All groups proceeded to the park for the showing and remained silently at their posts until it was over. When a speaker began to address the crowd, he was heckled by those who had been planted in the audience for that purpose, one of the questions asked of him being whether the film could be rented by the C. I. 0. His affirmative reply brought the order "Tear it up, boys!" from Dill and the planned dis- ruption of the meeting and demolition of the film and other equipment ensued. In accordance with prior arrangements, Longley seized the sound records and took them to Rutland's home, after visiting the plant and finding that Rutland was not there. Rutland directed Longley to remove the records from his home and to destroy them, as he was afraid that they might otherwise be discovered in Rutland's possession. Longley followed Rutland's instructions. Hill executed his assignment that evening by seizing, instead of the speaker whom lie considered too old, Herbert Harris, the projectionist, whom he transported under a blindfold to one of the usual whipping places, after beating him into insensibility. Perry and other members of his squad, who were present at the whipping place after Hill and Harris arrived, ordered Harris to remove most of his clothing and applied to his body two coats of a tar-like substance which they had acquired at the plant. They then covered with feathers the coating he had received, put him back in the automobile in which Hill had transported him, and took him into town, leaving him behind the Dallas News building. The usual procedure of directing their victims to leave town immediately was not followed in this instance, as Fleet Hall and Ray Martin had made arrangements in advance of the tarring and feathering with a photographer for the Dallas News, a daily news- paper, for the photographing of Harris in his coat of tar and feathers. When the automobile drove away from the spot at which he had been left behind the Dallas News building, Harris jerked off the blindfold and called for help. A crowd gathered, the police arrived, and photo- graphs were taken of Harris, whom one of Perry's men described as a "bird" after he had been tarred and feathered. Worley and another member of the outside squad returned to the plant and talked with Rutland who had returned there from his home. ' An employee on FORD MOTOR COMPANY 367 duty at the time as relief watchman in the employment office heard Rutland say to them laughingly, "Well, you boys did a damn good job of it." Early the following morning Dill handed one of the watch- men at the plant, who testified without contradiction and credibly, a folded paper, instructing him to give it to Abbott and explaining to the watchman that it contained a specimen of the tar and feathers used the previous evening. The watchman turned it over to Abbott. Perry, Longley, Beck, Bevill, and others whose testimony we believe testified without contradiction as to the various aspects of the activities of the inside and outside squads in connection with this public meeting and as to the role played by Rutland. - The riot at the park and its attendant lawlessness brought to Dallas, upon call of the Governor of Texas, State law-enforcement officers known as "rangers." A few days after the riot a meeting of about 15 persons including Perry, Dill, Tucker, Beck, and others was called by Rutland in the "dark room." One of those present explained that the purpose of the meeting was to draft a telegram to the Governor of Texas protesting his action in sending rangers into Dallas to enforce law and order in that city. A discussion to the effect that the Ford Motor Company was offended by the Governor's conduct because it indicated that the employees were outlaws and were incapable of conducting themselves properly preceded the drafting of the telegram. After a draft had been agreed upon by those present, a copy was presented to each captain of an inside group with instructions to have the members of his group affix their sig- natures.22 Toward the same end a general protest meeting of all inside groups was called at the Mount Auburn schoolyard. Rutland informed Perry in advance of the general meeting that Dill had circulated a notice of the meeting and that Rutland wanted as many members of the outside squad as possible to address the gathering. A loudspeaker had been obtained by Rutland and Perry as part of the equipment for the meeting. Perry addressed the groups, referring to the chief executive of the State as our "C. I. O. Governor" and announcing that neither the C. I. O. nor any of its affiliates was wanted in Dallas. The presence of the rangers in Dallas did not deter the inside squads from disrupting other open meetings held in municipal parks but merely restrained the use of strong-arm methods on such occasions. Thus in the fall of 1937 Hill informed Longley, whose testimony we believe, of a rally to be held on a Sunday afternoon at one of the parks 22 The lawlessness rampant in Dallas and the general anti -union campaign appear to have been the subject of comments in Congress . According to Beck 's testimony, one of the Saturday evening meetings of his squad was visited by the respondent's chief electrician who instructed him to suggest to each member that he wire his representative in Congress expressing displeasure with speeches made by such representative against the Ford Motor Company 's treatment of unions and threatening to do his best in the future to oppose such representative 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD where a C. I. 0. represen tative'from Houston, Texas, would address the assemblage . He directed Longley to have his inside squad attend and break up the meeting, cautioning him that policemen anti rangers would be present and that the speaker should therefore not be touched but that the objective was to be attained by making "so much noise he couldn't talk." Tucker sent about 150 members of inside squads to the park , suggesting to them in advance concerning the speaker, according to Tucker's testimony , that "we would not be adverse to throwing in a few Bronx cheers and boos, and so on, if we didn't like what he was going to talk about." Three or four hundred Ford employees, including Moseley, were present in the park on that Sunday afternoon and their noise and hooting prevented the speaker from proceeding with his remarks. Instead he challenged to a debate any member of the audience - who wished to come up to the platform. Thereupon one Rowe, an employee of the respondent who had come down to Dallas from Detroit earlier in the year with Worley , ascended the platform and announced, "I haven't got very much to say. , We just don't want any C. I. 0. men in Dallas. Isn't that right, boys?" The remark brought forth more shrieks and yells from the audience and the speaker was escorted from the park by a policeman. Although Tucker's testimony does not accord with that of other witnesses as to some of the details of this incident , it is substantially similar to that of the other witnesses as to factors which we deem material. Hill and Tucker had thus through the medium of the inside squad organiza- tion succeeded in preventing the scheduled conduct of the meeting, thereby once again trampling on the basic democratic rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech for the purpose of executing the respondent's determination to isolate its employees from influence of which it disapproved. d. Remuneration and protection of the outside squad; exaction of monies from employees to defray expenses When the strong-arm squad was organized to assist Perry and Worley, its members had been performing regular production or maintenance duties. Thereafter, during their assignment to the squad, they remained on the pay roll under their prior job designations and received their regular rate of pay , based on 40 hours of work per week, although their outside work at times required longer hours than that standard . Their cards were punched for them by plant watchmen so as to reflect 8 hours of work each day for 5 days each week. During the period of their assignment to the squad they benefitted by a general wage increase affecting all regular employees. In addition , Abbott recommended Bevill for a 5-cent increase in his hourly rate of pay , effective September 16, 1937, commenting about him on the form sent to Dearborn for approval "good worker." FORD MOTOR COMPANY 369 The recommendation appears to have been followed by the Dear- born office. Members of the squad were paid their wages in cash either at the plant by Rutland or outside by Moseley and others in regular pay envelopes bearing the words "Ford Motor Company." They performed no regular work at the plant while-they served in the capacity of members of the squad. In addition to the regular wages paid to Perry and his aides, other expenses attendant upon the character of their duties were incurred by them from time to time and borne by the respondent. Thus company cars were serviced for their use in tracking down and trans- porting victims of their methods; rent was paid on the two apart- ments leased in connection with the Houston wire-tapping; and plant materials and labor were consumed in the production of blackjacks and in other related connections. Men involved in the more serious assaults which received wide publicity or were likely to attract the attention of the police were accorded protection from possible ap- prehension and prosecution. Toward this end they were ordered into seclusion and were supplied by Rutland with the funds necessary for escape and maintenance. Perry testified, on cross-examination by the respondent, that at some time in the course of the squad's opera- tions Max Weismeyer, Dearborn official in charge of all the respond- ent's plants, visited the Dallas plant and talked with Abbott and Rutland and that the latter reported to Perry that Weismeyer had "promised us boys would be taken care of for doing that work." Thus on August 4, 1937, the day after the beating of Archie C. Lewis, Perry and Hill were present at Rutland's house and Perry heard Rutland tell Hill that he was "hot" and had to leave town. Hill's reply was that he would leave for Arkansas. Later Hill told Perry that Rutland had given him $25 for the trip. Rutland was again disturbed by the extreme methods used on Baer and the motion picture projectionist on August 9. When Perry visited Rutland's home that night to report the day's achieve- ments, Rutland remarked, "God damn, you boys got it hot now. This town is really on fire. You better lay low." The following morning Perry saw Rutland at the plant and received from him $25 in cash with directions to take Earl and Bob Johnson, the principal participants in the treatment of Baer, and Worley, active in the Baer and motion picture incidents, out of Dallas. Earl Johnson was already in hiding at McKinney, Texas, because the police had made a record-of the license number of his car and were on guard for him. . According to Perry's testimony, Rutland had characterized Johnson's car as "hot." Perry and the others ordered by Rutland to retreat from Dallas stopped for Earl Johnson at Mc-' Kinney and proceeded to a point about 35 miles outside Dallas, where they encamped, spending most of the money Rutland had given them 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for groceries and other necessaries. After Perry had been at the camp about 2 days, he was summoned back to Dallas and returned with Worley. A few days later Moseley fraudulently obtained new license plates for Johnson's car, using money given him by Rutland to pay the license fee. The following Saturday Abbott, Rutland, and Perry and their wives drove to the camp in Abbott's personal car. Further according to Perry's uncontroverted testimony, Rutland cautioned Earl and Bob Johnson that they were "real hot" and directed them to leave for a more distant point in South Texas. In the presence of the visitors he handed them $50 to defray the cost of their enforced journey and sojourn. The Johnsons went to Galveston. When the police could not be eluded or when Rutland and the police officers staged an arrest by prearrangement, as was the case after the Sowers and Bowen assaults when Rutland asked three of the assailants "to take a rap," 23 funds were needed for the payment of fines, for legal fees, for bail bonds, and for other incidental purposes. Part of the burden of this phase of the risks incurred by the outside squad was borne by the respondent's Dallas employees. In July of 1937 Rutland told Perry that a jar would be placed in the plant to "collect some money in case we needed it for anything." Perry testified that although he did not go into the question with Rutland of the dispo- sition to be made of the monies collected, he knew they were to be used for lawyers' fees and the payment of fines in connection with "beatings and fightings that was going on." "That is what we put it out there for," he testified concerning the purpose which he and Rutland had in mind. Starting on or about July 16, 1937, and for several pay days thereafter a gallon-sized jar, resembling a pickle or mustard jar and referred to during the course of the hearing as "the pickle jar," appeared on a stand near the time clocks and bore the sign "In case." After he received his pay and prepared to leave the plant, each employee had to pass the time clocks on his way out. On some of these occasions Perry stationed himself at the jar and told the employees to "hit the jar." On other occasions Claud Dill sat near the jar and directed the men, including such members of the outside 23 The farcical manner in which prearranged arrests were conducted is well illustrated by the procedure which followed the lodging of complaints with the police by Sowers and Bowen who had suffered felonious treatment at the hands of the squad, When Rutland learned of the complaints, be solicited Ray Martin and Jack George as volunteers for arrest by asking them if they were willing to "take a rap " When they offered their services, he asked George to select a third squad member and George enlisted O. B. (Buddy) Daniels. After the selection had been made, the volunteers and Moseley and two police officers assembled in the showroom at the plant. Mosely told the three squad members, according to George's testimony, "to go ahead on down there, and everything would be taken care of " The entire group then repaired to the drug store across the street from the plant for a drink As they sat drinking and conversing, the police officers informed the volunteers that they were being escorted to the police station "for whipping a couple of fellows " When they finished their drinks, the police officers and the three squad members proceeded by automobile to police headquarters On the way the officers jocularly advised their companions that "if you boys have got any blackjacks, you had better get rid of them " At the police station Sowers and Bowen identified the three men as some of their assailants, Moseley provided a hail bond for George, and when the three cases came to trial they were dismissed, FORD MOTOR COMPANY 371 squad as were present, to "pitch in pretty heavy," explaining that funds would probably be needed to pay fines "for the boys on the outside." One employee testified that he saw Rutland standing by the jar on one pay day, while Moseley's testimony is that at another time he observed one of Perry's assistants standing guard at the jar and compelling contributions by reminding the employees as they passed it, "Wait a minute; hit the jar." Although some of the em- ployees who testified stated that they were not certain of what the words "In case" meant, they understood that the collections were to be used to protect the outside squad members. Other witnesses so interpreted the meaning of the sign. Contributions ranging from 5 cents to $5 were made by the employees to the "pickle jar" as a result of the manner in which, as one witness testified, they were "drumming up that business." The record does not indicate, however, what proportion of the employees were thus coerced into returning part of their wages to the respondent. After each day's collection had been completed and the regular employees had left the plant, Perry carried the jar into Abbott's office and proceeded to count the day's returns with Abbott and Rutland. According to Perry's testimony, he saw the money turned over to Leon Armstrong, Abbott's secretary, and heard Rutland instruct Armstrong to "keep the money so it would be in the pool there where, if they needed it for anything, why, he could get the money from him and give it to the boys, if they needed it." Perry heard Abbott issue similar instructions to Armstrong. Thereafter Armstrong deposited the money in a local bank where he had for that purpose opened and maintained an account in the name of "Leon Armstrong, special." The bank records show that deposits were made on six occasions, starting on July 19, 1937, and ending on September 7, 1937, in currency and checks and that the six deposits covered a total of $412.57.24 Against this total, the bank records further show that withdrawals of an equal amount were made by check between July 22 and October 1, 1937, when the account was closed. A detailed account of expenditures made from this fund is not to be found in the record, as Armstrong was the only person with an inti- mate knowledge of those details who testified. His testimony on this point is, however, incredible and the Trial Examiner so found. He testified that the account had been opened and maintained with hand- 24 Among the checks deposited were two drawn by the Ford Motor Company. One of them, dated August 20, 1937, was made out to R J. Johnson in the sum of $59 55 with the notation "Exp Repts 8-10-37 through 8-17-37"; it was endorsed by R J Johnson and carried the further endorsement "Leon Armstrong, Special." The other was made out to Earl Johnson in the sum of $38 25, bore a similar date and notation; and was endorsed by the payee and by "Leon Armstrong, Special " These two checks appear to have covered the expenses incurred by Bob and Earl Johnson in the course of their hiding out after the Baer assault A third check was drawn by the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and was identified as the R. L. Lancaster deposit refund received by Dill in connection with the Houston wire-tapping incident and given by him to Armstrong. It would thus appear that Abbott and Rutland attempted to reimburse the account for monies drawn against it for the purposes indicated on the checks. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fuls of various kinds of currency given him by Perry and Dill, which he did not count but which he merely deposited as an emissary on their behalf . He denied that Rutland or Abbott had any connection with these transactions and stated that he drew checks against the account from time to time at the request of Perry and Dill. As already indicated , Perry's testimony does not corroborate this part of Armstrong's story. Armstrong protested at the hearing that he had no direct concern with the fund and stated that it was his under- standing that the checks which he drew against it were used by Perry and Dill to buy flowers for ill or bereaved employees, to pay the rent of distressed employees, to pay the funeral expenses of deceased em- ployees, and to perform other services of a charitable nature. He could, however , recall no instance in which he had issued a check to a florist, or doctor, or landlord, or to any other possible source which supplied the various gratuities . In reply to a request of counsel for the Board , he professed an inability to produce vouchers , cancelled checks, or stubs, claiming that he had destroyed these as was his habit in connection with such items generally . It was not until the bank, upon request , produced the original deposit slips and an item- ized statement of the amounts withdrawn and the respondent, upon request, produced two cancelled checks made out to R. J. Johnson and Earl Johnson that Armstrong 's memory became somewhat clearer as to the purpose for which at least part of the funds had been used. In this connection he stated vaguely that he believed Earl Johnson had told him at one time that he had used some of the money in the account for his own purposes. He persisted , however, in stating that most of the money had been devoted to philanthropic causes of the kind already mentioned. We are entirely unconvinced by Armstrong's explanations and are compelled , under the circumstances , to disbelieve him and to find that the funds collected in the "pickle jar" were used to pay fines, attorney's fees, and bail bonds incurred on behalf of the outside squad . We find also that the respondent coerced its employees into making contributions toward this end by stationing at the jar members of the outside squad, known to the employees for their strong arm methods and intimidatory tactics, who commanded them to "hit the jar" upon pain of being suspected of harboring C. I. 0. sympathies and being subjected to the treatment given to fellow employees upon whom similar suspicion had fallen through other means. e. Dissolution of the outside squad; supineness of the inside squads The organized activities of the outside squad ended with the close of 1937. Perry testified that, from the time he and Worley had been delegated to general espionage and surveillance during the early part of the year and until the end of 1937 , he performed no regular work for the respondent . This entire period was devoted to "outside" FORD MOTOR COMPANY 373 work. In addition to the pay increases they had received upon recom- mendation of Abbott and the words of praise uttered by Rutland after particular successes achieved by the outside squad, the general accom- plishments of prominent members of the squad were recognized by Abbott in the same manner as those of departmental foremen who had devoted themselves to usual plant and production problems.' On December 24, 1937, Abbott, in his official capacity of plant superin- tendent, wrote identical letters of acknowledgement and greetings to all departmental foremen and to Perry, Bevill, and two other members of the outside squad'. The letter read' as follows: RING OUT THE OLD, RING IN THE NEW That statement covers a lot of territory,' and it means that you personally have taken many steps, so to speak, since last Decem- ber 25th. For your various steps toward better cooperation; a better understanding among your co-workers, and the best organiza- tion in the Company, I wish 'to express sincere appreciation from the writer and from the Company. I know that you have on many occasions tackled problems that seemed difficult to solve-but you made the grade. Though you may not have realized it, your efforts and ability to carry' on enabled the Dallas Branch to pass `another milestone and-hang up the sign "PRODUCTION NOT INTERRUPTED." That too covers a lot of territory. I thank you for your-genuine loyalty to 'the Company and for your individual accomplishments to maintain harmony and efficiency in YOUR Branch. You kept the Dallas Branch ahead another year, in more ways than one. LET'S CARRY ON. With best regards, and the Season's Greetings, I am Sincerely yours, s/ W. A. ABBOTT, Superintendent. By the beginning of 1938 the outside squad ceased functioning as a group and its members returned to ordinary work at the plant. It was not formally disbanded, however, until some time in 1938, when, according to Bailey who figured prominently in the drug store affray of June 23, 1937, which had brought the squad into being; Rutland assembled a group of about 15 members of the squad in his office. Although Bailey does not appear to have been one of Perry's regular attaches he was nevertheless present, as his testimony which we have no reason to disbelieve indicates. Rutland addressed the men and told them that "everything was just about over with," that everybody "was satisfied the way us boys handled ourselves," and that "you were paid for what you done." He then asked the group if any of 323429-42-vol 26-25 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them was dissatisfied with the manner in which he had been treated and heard no complaints or grievances. With this finale the outside squad was disbanded as an organized arm of the anti-union campaign at the Dallas plant. According to the testimony of Tucker, the inside squad organiza- tion continued to function actively through part of the year 1938, until "its usefulness was gone." "We kept it alive a good long time," he replied to a question of the Trial Examiner. It held no meetings during 1939 because, as Tucker explained further at the hearing, "We have had no occasion to have one." From evidence which we shall discuss in another part of the case it is clear that these groups were revived informally from time to time during 1939 25 At the meeting in 1938 which officially disbanded the outside squad Abbott and Rutland apparently believed that their obligations to those present had been fully discharged with the statement that they had been paid for their work and with their silence in the face of Rutland's question as to whether any of them was dissatisfied with the treatment he had received. No cause for dissatisfaction developed until about the middle of 1939 after Moseley had been removed by the respondent's main office from his position as head of the factory service department and Rutland had been elevated by that office to the vacancy thus created. The reason for the change in the personnel set-up, which was effected iri April or May 1939, was that the Dearborn office had learned of a wave of thefts of company property at the Dallas branch and, upon investigation, disapproved of the way in which Moseley had attempted to deal with that situation. As the new factory service foreman, Rutland, unlike his predecessor, worked closely and in apparent harmony with Abbott. That the debt which these two men owed the strong arm crew for their past services was considered by them as completely extinguished, first became evident when Longley and Tommy Lewis, another squad member, were discharged in May 1939. Thereafter Perry was in- volved in a dispute with Rutland and was discharged on August 9 or 10. As the leader of the strong arm activities who had been told by Abbott and Rutland during his assignment to that work that Weis- meyer had promised him and the others protection against hazards incidental to those activities, and security of tenure, Perry believed that his discharge was a violation of those representations. Con- sequently, shortly after the termination of his employment, he determined to confront Weismeyer and other important officials at the respondent's main office with the details of his work as leader of the squad and with the broken promise of protection and security, 25 See subsection B, infra. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 375 in the -hope that lie might be restored to employment. "I got a' dirty deal and I wanted to get it straightened out," he testified.' Toward that end he made three trips to Detroit and Dearborn during the months of August, September, and October. - He took with him a scrapbook he had compiled of newspaper clippings on the work of the squad, a list of the men assigned to him which had been typed by Abbott's secretary, and the congratulatory letter sent him by Abbott for Christmas of 1937. On two of these trips he was accom- panied by Jack George, one of his former strong arm aides. Although Perry's testimony as to all the assertions he made to the Dearborn officials 26 and as to which of the latter he saw on each of the trip's is not altogether consistent, his testimony as to all material state- ments made to these officials about the activities of the squad was uncontradicted and unimpeached. We consequently credit those material statements. The first official Perry sought out and with whom he had an audience was Everett Moore, first assistant to Harry Bennett in charge of the respondent's personnel affairs for all plants. When he explained to Moore the nature of his mission against the general background of the events of 1937 and showed him the papers he had brought with him, Moore replied, "Well, that is out of my line," and referred him to Weismeyer and Chuck Bernard, head of the respondent's branch factory service departments. Moore did, however, take. Perry's address and promise to investigate the situation in Dallas. There- upon, Perry visited Weismeyer and Bernard and laid his complaint before them. Perry mentioned Abbott's name and Rutland's name several times in talking about the squad's activities. When Bernard examined the data Perry had brought with him he inquired as to how Perry had obtained letters signed by Abbott, and Perry replied that Abbott had given them to him. The reply led Bernard to comment that, "I thought Rutland was in charge of it." Perry explained that he was in charge on the outside, while Rutland was in charge on the inside and also gave orders to the men on the outside. After Perry had related his story, Weismeyer's rejoinder was, "Well you got paid for it, haven't you?" When Perry indicated an affirmative response, Weismeycr continued, "Then, what do we owe you, then?" How- ever, Perry left Dearborn with the expectation that one of the three officials would visit Dallas and attempt to rectify the wrong lie be- lieved had been done him. ' The other visits were occasioned by the failure of the Dearborn officials to appear in Dallas, by Bevill's precipitate resignation of his 26 Some of the respondent's central officials have their offices in Detroit, while others are stationed in the adjoining town of Dearborn Since the respondent considers its principal offices to be located in Dearborn, we shall, for purposes of convenience, refer to the two places as Dearborn, using the term interchangeably. 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD job, and by an apparent plot laid by Rutland to have Perry killed.27 Bevill had resigned in a panic after hearing that the Federal Govern- ment was planning to investigate anti-labor activities at the Dallas plant. He had earlier served a term in the penitentiary and felt that "he couldn't stand another rap" if discovery of his strong arm activities should lead to his reincarceration. Thus on the third trip Perry was accompanied by Jack George, who had, according to Perry's testimony, been discharged because of his first visit to Dear- born with Perry, by Bevill, who wanted to be saved from another term at the penitentiary, and by one Cecil Worley, not related to Warren Worley, who had been designated by Rutland to lay a trap for Perry and "put him on the spot and kill him," according to Worley's testimony. Worley had made known to Perry Rutland's plans in this regard. - The group talked to Harry Bennett's secretary in the anteroom of Bennett's office after Worley had succeeded in arranging for an appointment with Bennett in advance of the visit. The secretary relayed statements made by the men to the occupant of an adjoining office, whom they did not see but whom Perry believed to be Bennett. During the course of this interview Bevill told Bennett's secretary, according to Perry's testimony, that "he was one of the strong arm men, and he would take men out and pistol whip them, and blackjack them, and kidnap them and all, and beat them to death, and kicked them out half dead." George joined in Bevill's account by stating that "he was in on some of it, and helped tar and feather a man." Perry, who had been announced to the person whom he, believed to be Bennett by the latter's secretary with the words "Fat Perry is here again," showed his scrapbook and the list of the strong arm men to the secretary. Finally the secretary emerged from the other office with a letter which he handed to Bevill for delivery to Moore. We find, as is reasonably implied by Perry's undenied testi- mony,, that the secretary served as an intermediary between Harry Bennett and the four visitors in the anteroom and that Bennett learned through his secretary the matters reported by those visitors. After leaving Bennett's secretary, the group went to see Moore, and Bevill handed him the letter. Moore again promised to go to Dallas but none of the group who talked with him in Dearborn thereafter saw him in Dallas. Perry stated at the hearing that during these visits he had recounted in great detail to one of the three officials whom he saw the history of the organization of the outside squad, including the first meeting with Rutland in the "dark room" on June 25; 1937. He could not, however, recall definitely to which of the three he had made these statements. 27 Since the plot, if any, is not material to the question of the unfair labor practices committed by the respondent but merely indicates the extent of the respondent's attempts to avoid prosecution for those prac- tices, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the testimony on this point and refer to it only to explain the motives underlying the third trip and to account for the constituency of the group which made that trip'. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 377 In December Perry and Bevill were transferred to the respondent's plant at Long Beach, California, and the respondent's records stated that the transfer in each case was "due to his health." Jack George, Cecil Worley, and Tommy Lewis, who had been: discharged together with Longley, were returned to their jobs at the Dallas plant: _ Longley, the first of the outside squad to be discharged, had in October 1939 sought out one of the Board's field examiners in Fort Worth, Texas, and told him the story of his connections - with the respondent's anti-union program of 1937. The Dallas News, a Dallas newspaper, had shortly before refused Longley's request to publish the story because it had allegedly lost its news value. 6. The respondent's defense to the testimony elicited at the hearing Although Abbott, superintendent of the Dallas plant during the period under consideration, and Rutland, general body foreman, were the officials directly associated by the witnesses with the initia- tion of the early program of general espionage and surveillance and with the integration and expansion of that program by the organiza- tion of the outside and inside squads, neither of them whs called by the respondent to testify. Abbott was at the time of ' the hearing serving as superintendent of the respondent's branch at Richmond, California, and Rutland was still at the Dallas plant in the capacity of factory service foreman but substituting temporarily as general body foreman. Moreover, none of the three Dearborn officials with whom Perry and his companions had talked at length in the course of their visits to the main office in 1939 testified at the hearing. Nor did any other Dearborn officials appear as witnesses. The events and circumstances hereinbefore set forth are clearly linked with the outside and inside squads and are, unless we have indicated other- wise, based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Perry, Bevill, Longley, Jack George, Richard Liston, Beck, and others who directed or participated in those events and upon the uncontroverted ,state- ments at the hearing by victims 'of the numerous outrages, acts of violence, and general lawlessness perpetrated by the outside and inside squads. The Trial Examiner found the testimony' of all these witnesses to be credible and we find similarly. The only person acting in an important official capacity at the Dallas branch during 1937 who was called by the respondent as 'a witness was C. B. Ostrander, the branch manager in charge of all operations at the plant and of production and maintenance personnel and directly concerned with the sale of the plant's products. Ostran- der testified that early in 1937 he had learned from the manager of the respondent's Kansas City branch about a sit-down strike and 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD acts of sabotage in which the Automobile Workers had engaged at that branch. Anxious to avert similar occurrences in Dallas and astute to prepare for such contingencies, he directed Abbott in about April 1937 to distribute a few men at various points in town to gather information with reference to a possible sit-down strike or antici- pated acts of sabotage at the Dallas plant. These instructions, he asserted at the hearing, were of the general nature described and did not include interference with labor organizers by acts of violence or by other means. He admitted, however, that at the time of the directions to Abbott he had no information as to organizational activities in the Dallas plant or as to plans to unionize it After the directions to Abbott, his testimony continued, the latter reported to him that he had stationed it few men in town. Then from time to time before the assault on De Louis and Guempelein Abbott informed him generally of the presence of some C. I. O. men in Dallas and specifically that he had been advised by an official at the Kansas City branch of the imminent arrival in Dallas of persons planning to organize the respondent's plant. Ostrander did not, further according to his testimony, require Abbott to advise him with par- ticularity about the manner in which he had carried out Ostrander's directions, leaving the details and the selection of the men to Abbott; nor did he inquire of Abbott whether he had chosen Rutland to assist him. He admitted, however, having known that Perry was one of the men Abbott had selected and that lie was acquainted with Perry "because be was of such a size and I had seen him at rodeos and different places " When the wave of violence hereinbefore described swept through Dallas during the summer and fall of 1937, Ostrander's testimony continued, he read accounts in the newspapers and heard rumors attributing the various manifestations of that violence to Ford em- ployees. On each occasion lie would summon Abbott and ask for information. Thus after the attack on De Louis and Guempelein which led to the formation of the outside squad he asked Abbott what he knew about that incident and Abbott replied that he had been informed that the persons assaulted were C. 1. O. men and that the "fight" had started after an argument between those men and Ford employees. Abbott explained to his superior that the employees were not on duty at the time and that he had no control over them under those circumstances. The witness thereupon cautioned his superintendent that "we didn't want any fights or violence around the branch or any place in the city" and directed him to station additional guards around the plant to protect company property. Thereafter whenever Ostrander read newspaper accounts or heard rumors of violence in which Ford employees were involved he would demand an explanation from Abbott who would reply that he had FORD MOTOR COMPANY 379 ' questioned several people but was unable to obtain an admission of guilt from any of them. The respondent's Dallas plant manager recalled specifically having read in the newspapers about the beating to which Houston had been subjected and about the arrest in that connection of Bob John- son, Earl Johnson, and Hill. Questioning of Abbott merely evoked the explanation that the men had already been interrogated-and that the bearing had occurred in self-defense while the attackers were not on duty. The account of the tarring and feathering of the motion picture projectionist on August 9 had "upset" Ostrander considerably and on his own initiative he called in a number of men in an effort to ascertain the identity of those responsible for that action but he was anable "to pin anything definite on any individual." Although the general tenor of Abbott's report to his superior on several occasions was that the Ford employees implicated in the acts of violence were off duty and had committed those acts in "personal fights" arising out of arguments about the C. I. 0., Ostrander's testimony proceeded, he issued a general warning to Abbott that failure on the part of any employee, including Abbott, to prevent "fights on the outside" would be punishable by dismissal. Ostrander repeated these warn- ings, stating to Abbott on one occasion that if he ever learned that Abbott had in any way encouraged these incidents or contravened his instructions he would run Abbott out of the Dallas branch. He was entirely satisfied, however, with the explanations Abbott gave him each time. Although Ostrander testified on direct examination that he had not heard the term "strong arm squad" during the summer and fall of 1937 and did not know at that time that a squad was operating in connection with the plant, he recalled on cross-examination an inci- dent of the summer of 1937 when he accidentally pushed the wrong buzzer to Moseley's office. The accident immediately brought Perry and two or three other squad members into Ostrander's office. That buzzer, he testified, was not a part of the panel on which all other buzzers to other departments were located. He stated further that if he were to open a new department or appoint a new department head he would have an additional buzzer installed on his desk. He could not recall when the device which unintentionally summoned, Perry and his aides was installed but stated that it might have been some time in 1937. The record does not show that a new factory department was created or a new department head was appointed at the Dallas plant during 1937 for the performance of ordinary work. We find that the buzzer was installed by Ostrander in recognition of the existence of the strong arm squad as an adjunct of the plant's operations. 380; DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In, response to questions about the "pickle jar," Ostrander testified that he had seen it in use on one occasion and that he thereafter talked to Abbott about it. When Abbott advised him that, "Well, the boys decided to put it up there and there is a sign on it `In case,"' Ostrander directed Abbott to remove it by saying, "Well, you'd better take its down." The receptacle and the attendant coercive solicitation of employees by men like Perry and his associates appear, from Ostrander's testimony, to have raised no suspicion in his mind as to the purposes for which the contributions were being exacted. .We are unable to find that Ostrander- remained ignorant of, and consequently unanswerable for, the machinations of his immediate subordinates and the organized activities of Perry and his assistants. His admission that he knew of no organizational plans affecting the employees under him when he directed Abbott to station men around Dallas, presumably to gather information on an impending sit-down strike at the plant, is sufficient to establish, and we so find, that those directions in fact were,for the conduct of general espionage and sur- veillance of the kind performed by Perry and Worley. This conchi- sion is further borne out by the vagueness of his testimony on the kind of reports Abbott made to him concerning compliance with those directions. A branch manager charged with the responsibility of protecting plant property and maintaining an uninterrupted output of the plant's product would not have relied solely on the unsupervised discretion of his superintendent when those vital functions were being threatened. We also consider unworthy of belief the testimony con- cerning his efforts to determine the possible implication of Ford em- ployees in the acts of violence which had been openly and widely perpetrated by the strong arm crew and which were made the subject of considerable newspaper publicity. It is incredible that, if Ostrander was,in fact seeking information about these serious matters, he would have been satisfied with Abbott's specious explanations or would not have suspected Abbott himself of implication and executed his threat of -dismissal. Had he warned Abbott on numerous occasions, as he testified that there was to be no violence at the plant or anywhere outside he would, after Abbott had failed, have taken measures on his own initiative,to prevent the acts which occurred in such profusion and reflected, unfavorably on him and on the respondent.28 - Moreover, the paucity of his testimony as to the "pickle jar" and his lack of curiosity as, to the purposes for which funds were being collected in that unusual manner indicate an awareness of those purposes, if his testimony concerning the colloquy he had with Abbott about that receptacle is to be believed at all. Installation of the buzzer which 28 Cf, however, Matter of Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No.641, and Ln,ted Packing House WorkcrsLoeal Industrial Ln:on No 300, 7 N L R. B 269, enf'd as mod., Swift & Co v. N. L. R B., 106 F. (2d) 87 (C C. A. 10), rehearing denied 106 F. (2d) 94. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 381 summoned Perry and his aides also points to Ostrander's knowledge !of the, -existence of the outside squad and of his 'recognition of their activities'as a new and separate aspect of the plant's operations.;,. For,-each of these reasons we find that.Ostrander authorized-and approved the action undertaken by Abbott and Rutland and executed by Perry and Worley and the others during 1937. 7. Conclusions as to, general espionage and surveillance and the outside and inside squads When the Act became effective on July 5, 1935, it invested' with legal' sanctions a prevailing public policy which recognized the exist- eiice'of• a disparity of bargaining power between employers and 'those whom they, employed. It declared that thenceforth-employees were free' to organize themselves into unions of their own choosing without `interference by their employer and imposed a corresponding duty' on employers to refrain from insinuating themselves in any way into''the organizational freedom of their employees. Just as employees: were • not 'privileged • and did not expect, merely because they' offered- their labor to those who, accepted it, to dictate or even suggest the 'pattern of organization 'or the terms of operation of their employer's business or the `nature of his business relationships,' employers were after the effective date of the Act correlatively restrained. The policy',thus enacted ' as, particularly applicable to large business, structures, in ,which the employer, by virtue of his outstandingly superior •economic power and bargaining strength, was in a position to override- the will of his 'employees as to any aspect of their 'personal lives. °'Iri this category stood employers like the respondent. Had Henry Ford, and his subordinates who executed and dii ected the personnel policy incident to the far-flung operations of the respond- ent,'been interested in conforming with the law, they' would have, if they had not done so earlier, assumed the simple obligation of'forbear- ance which the Act imposed upon them. Since•the respondent's opera- tions' and its general' policy emanate from its main office, the kind of inaction oil the part of employers which the 'At clearly contemplates '''could have been achieved with little effort throughout the respondent's system. • But the -policy makers did not choose this course. 'Instead, 'they determinedly sought to defy the law by formulating and sanction- ing a'highly integrated and amazingly far-reaching program 'of inter- ference, restraint; and coercion, referred to by Claud'Dill as'a "war," in an' 'orbit within which the Congress had declared, that employees were entitled to enjoy unhampered freedom. ` Iii 1937; when'the Automobile Workers showed signs of'attempting to extend its jurisdiction 'to'some of the respondent's plants and dem- onstrated tangible results by the, establishment of 'locals •'in' certain areas, the propitious moment for the practical application, of the. pro- 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -gram of opposition and of the personal predilections of Henry Ford, as' the latter are described in the respondent's answer to the complaint, had arrived. Literature embodying Henry Ford's attitude on union- ,ism, including the pamphlet "Ford,Gives Viewpoint on Labor," was widely distributed, as we have found in other cases involving the re- spondent,29 among all employees in a manner calculated to, impress them with the peril in which they placed their jobs if they deviated from the course clearly implied in the'printed words of their employer. In Dallas, as demonstrated by the acts of Ostrander, Abbott, and 1 Rutland, high-rapking, local, officials operating under the supervision of the Dearborn office, the program was in its early stages prophylactic in nature and aimed at maintaining the status quo of non-organization. Thus general espionage and surveillance of the kind exercised by Perry and Worley represented the initial aspects of the program. Until De Louis and Guempelein made their appearance in Dallas on, June 23, 1937,, and, threatened the stability of the status quo, no more was re- quired. Thereafter, however, more overt and drastic measures directed at instilling a deep-rooted fear in the hearts of the employees and cal- culated' to forbid entrance, into the territorial confines of Dallas to persons who might attempt to dissipate that fear became necessary. "O The need was met by the creation of the outside and inside squads ,whose, thoroughness and extravagance of method achieved a swift and decisive victory for the respondent in the "war" it had declared against the,Act,and against those who sought to avail themselves of its guar- •;, antees. , ,,;; The extreme and indiscriminate ruthlessness and organized gang- sterism characteristic of the anti-union program executed in Dallas and, its, concomitant interference with the right of freedom of speech and assembly,are dealt with at length in the Intermediate. Report and are.hereinbefoi;e,particularized to some extent. In its answer and its brief,the,respondent disclaims responsibility for this program. We do pot agree with this contention. The position in the plant's structural organization of the outside and, inside squads, which executed the prin- cipal, aspects of the program, is clear. When early in 1937 Perry was 1relieved ,of his duties as an ordinary employee and was assigned by ,,,Abbott and Rutland to work "on the outside" with Worley, who had ,,,arrived from Detroit for special non-production duties, the founda- tions,of a new department requiring new and different functions,had ,been laid at the Dallas'plant. Moseley's encouragement,of espionage ,.as head of the factory service department also pointed to the same development. The department became definitely established with the .,,formation of the outside squad and was recognized by Ostrander as ,an arm of the plant's operations. At its head stood Rutland who re- ; ceived his orders immediately from Abbott, whose operations in turn I' ' • ,11 Se I e' footnotes 8 and 9, supra. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 383. were approved by Ostrander. It was comprised of workers,whose;field; of duty was to'extend beyond the limits of the respondent's, property; whose requirements for the job were confined to physical stature'andp ' brute force; whose, working tools were produced ins the plant's main- tenance department' in the form of blackjacks; who,were,extendcd privileges at the plant not normally available to ordinary employees; who drew the prevailing rate of pay and became the recipients of general wage increases granted to all employees and of special!merit, increases warranted by the quality of their performance in'their,new , tasks; who evoked the praise of their superiors when any particular; assignment was successfully accomplished; and who were covered ,,by, - a rather crude form of insurance against the risks of apprehension at,-,; tendant upon their particular occupational, du ties. It is thus apparent' that all activities of the employees engaged in this new and different' work came, within the scope of their employment and were performed on behalf of the respondent. As an adjunct of this additional, depart- ment, Rutland established and maintained, the inside squads, whose functions were approved by Abbott and Ostrander as a, means of sup-, plementing the duties of their counterpart, the outside, squad. The respondent is consequently clearly answerable for the espionage ands surveillance engaged in by Perry and Worley, and others and for. the activities of the outside and inside squads, all of which were directed. by those who represented the respondent at the Dallas branch, and, its contention to the contrary alleged in the answer and dealt with•;in, the brief is hereby found to be wholly untenable.3o. The record indicates, in addition, a broader basis of responsibility and negatives the respondent's disclaimer of knowledge, and approval. by the central officials in Dearborn. Worley was transferred from.De- troit to Dallas and was almost immediately assigned to full-timei espionage work and later to the outside squad. As we have found, his, transfer was effected by Weismeyer of the respondent's, main -,,office for the purpose of his assignment to the work in which he engaged at. Dallas during 1937. These circumstances indicate plainly, , that Weismeyer knew in advance and formulated, or at least approved•'and helped to execute, the anti-union program about to be launched at Dallas. Again 'connecting this important official of the respondent, with the activities, of the outside squad is P,erry's. uncontroverted' testimony that Weismeyer was present in Dallas during the period of the squad's operations and conferred with Abbott and Rutland; 'through whom he promised protection to the members of the,squadti A less specific acquaintance of the main office with the carefully planned system of dealing with union activities in Dallas is evident from the statement made to Perry in Dearborn in 1939 by Chuck 10 Mnlter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No 469, 8 N. L. R . B. 621, enf'd. International Association of Mactimsts . v. N L R B, 110 F (2d) 29 (C. A. for D . C ), cert. granted, 60 S. Ct. 721. 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bernard, bead of all factory service operations performed by the re- spondent, -that he thought "Rutland was in charge of it." We have also found that the distribution of "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor" was directed by 'the respondent's main office and constituted 'a part of the anti-union program executed'in Dallas in 1937. Were'these significant elements of actual planning and approval by the Dearborn office absent from the record, we should nevertheless be compelled to find that the-respondent's ranking officials had knowledge of the far-flung and notorious performances of Perry and his assistants and of the connection of the respondent's Dallas officials with those performances. The record shows 'that all plants operate pursuant to a highly'centralized control exercised by the respondent's main office. Thus''in'1939 when a wave of•thefts,spread through' the Dallas plant, the-'central factory service department'in Dearborn learned of those conditions ' and dispatched special investigators to • Dallas., Their findings led to the displacement of Moseley as factory service foreman,. It is consequently hardly conceivable that the Dearborn'office did not, learn of the more serious acts performed by its Dallas employees, during' the year 1937, particularly since the press attributed those acts to Ford workers and since the respondent's good will was vitally affected., 'Had the respondent's principal officials in fact been entirely, ignorant of the Dallas procedure until Perry's visits to Dearborn in the summer and fall of 1939;' it' is not unreasonable to assume that, af'they dis- approved'of the extreme insubordination of the Dallas management,' they would have been outraged by Perry's story and would immedi- ately have initiated an investigation to be followed by the imposition of serious penalties upon the principal offenders. However, as of the date of the hearing Abbott was serving as branch superintendent' at' ,the Richmond, California, plant; Rutland had been elevated by Dearborn to the position of factory'service foreman; and Ostrander-still retained the office of branch manager. ' These facts indicate at least an unequiv- ocal ratification by the respondent's main office of the 'acts of: its im-' mediate subordinates in Dallas. • ' ' We consequently find, as did the Trial Examiner,' that the%respond-, ent formulated, directed, approved, had knowledge of, and ratified the plan of organized anti-unionism and its-manifold incidents preva- lent in Dallas during the period under consideration. We find also,'for these reasons and because of the' responsibility which it must, assume for' the' acts of those who represented' it among its Dallas ,employees, that the 'respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em= ployees' in the exercise of the rights guaranteed'in Section ,7 of the Act.31 . 31 See footnote 30, supra. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ,385 B. The discharges, 1. . Discrimination against William A. Humphries as to hire and tenure of employment Humphries was first employed-by the respondent at-Dallas-in July 1936 in connection with, an exhibit conducted by it on the fair grounds in that city. In March 1937 he was transferred, to the factory service department at the plant, working thereafter as helper on the trash truck, as relief watchman; and, as, first-aid attendant.. He was not a member of any labor organization, and no complaints -had 'at'any time been made to him about his work by •Moseley;'his immediate superior, or by any other official. On August 16, 1937, 'his wife, a member of the Millinery Workers and employed by one. of the Dallas millinery shops, participated in a strike called by the Millinery Workers against employers whose business was in no- way connected with the respondent. .' i , . When Humphries arrived for work on August 17, 1937, he found that his time card was missing from the rack and was informed-by the employment office that' Moseley wanted to see him., Moseley ex- plained the absence of the time card by stating that the-respondent was reducing its staff and that Humphries would therefore have to the 'laid off. Although Moseley did not promise Humphries: reemploy- ment, he told him to return to the plant in a few days and thatihe would make an effort to find some work fo'r Humphries., 'On- August 19 Humphries attempted, to return to the ' plant'. ' While he was standing on the sidewalk outside the plant, Bevill approached him and 'asked him what he was doing there. When Humphries replied that he had returned to see about reemployment, Bevill ordered him "to get the hell away" and to "stay away" from the plant. - Humphries -'asked Bevill the reason for the warning but Bevill did not explain. 'The following day Humphries again returned to the 'vicinity of-,the plant and stood across the street'. Bevill approached him again and said, "I thought I told you to'stay away from here." Humphries' protest that he was not on, Ford property and that he was therefore entitled to enjoy the right' of freedom of movement brought the further warning from Bevill that three members 'of the outside squad! whom he' pointed' out to, Humphries on' the street had. been ta'lking' about taking him to one of the whipping places but that Bevill Etd'dissuaded them. Bevill'added' that, since he did' not know how 'long 'he'could restrain the squad members, Humphries had better "get awayand "stay away" from the vicinity of -the plant. Humphries,•^again inquired as to the reason for his banishment and Bevill replied; "Well, if you weren't so damn dumb you would know why." 'When $um- phries protested that he' really di'd`not• know; Bevill enlightened''him 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the rhetorical question, "Well, your wife works at the milliners, don't she?" Believing that his wife's connection with the Millinery Workers had been the cause of the termination of his employment, Humphries requested his wife, to go to the office of that organization and ask that ,her,application'card be destroyed. His wife informed him later that ,she had -complied with his request and that she-had personally wit- nessed the tearing up of her card. Then Humphries himself went to the' office of the Millinery Workers and asked for a letter stating, that neither he nor his wife was affiliated with that organization. On November 11-, 1937, Arvil_Inge, Dallas representative of the Millinery Workers, wrote.and handed to Humphries a letter addressed to the ,latter stating that his wife, Evelyn Humphries, "is not a member of the Millinery Workers Union Local No. 57 of Dallas Texas". Hum- phries gave the letter to Moseley who said lie would show it to Abbott. Humphries was not at any time thereafter, restored to work. ',,, Moseley, testified as follows concerning Humphries' employment and its termination: Humphries had worked under the supervision of Moseley, who found him to be a satisfactory employee. On August 06 or, ,17, 1937, Rutland told Moseley that he had discussed with Abbott the fact that Humphries' wife "had something to do with union activities" of the Millinery, Workers and that Abbott had directed,the discharge of Humphries. Moseley's comment to Rutland was, that 'he had not known about Mrs. Humphries' union activities Saud that "if ,he [Humphries] was that kind of a rat I didn't want him." He promised Rutland "I will sure as hell take care of it" and then effected the removal of Humphries' time card from the rack. When -Humphries asked Moseley to explain the absence of his card, the latter ,,told him that it was necessary to lay off some employees and that Hum- phries 'was among those laid off. Moseley assured Humphries that there was nothing wrong, with his work and, in reply to Humphries' question as to the 'chances of his reemployment,, stated that he would be glad to have Humphries keep in touch with him. Thereafter, Humphries, brought Moseley the letter of the Millinery Workers and .Moseley gave it to Abbott. Moseley's testimony on this point, like that, of Humphries, was uncontradicted and we find it to be credible, as,did the Trial Examiner. The respondent's answer to the complaint alleged that Humphries ",was laid off for lawful reasons." Neither Rutland nor Abbott testified at the hearing: In purported, support of the answer and in an at- ,;tempted contradiction of the testimony of Humphries and Moseley, ,the respondent offered, in evidence a copy of the "Termination of „Service Record" of Humphries, which indicated that the original had been signed by Moseley and approved by Abbott. The reason for the FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 387-,:- termination of Humphries' employment was stated on the copy , to 'be.` "Reduction in Personnel ." The respondent's employment manager, who had not served in that capacity during 1937 , testified that. a check of the respondent 's records made by him before appearing ' as a witness revealed that four employees had been laid off'during the'week '' in'"' ` which Humphries' employment had been ended ,•that two of the Other : three had worked in the stock department and do the chassis''liiie; ' and that Humphries was the only • employee laid off in the factory service department . No explanation of the reason for the other ]tiy offs was given by the employment manager or by any other witnesses' •' called by the respondent and no attempt, other than the entry on',' Humphries' termination card, was made to establish the're'sp'ondent's claim that a reduction of personnel was in fact necessary in tlio'faetory service department. The employment manager testified further that employees who are laid off are customarily recalled to esch departnmcint in inverse order of their lay-offs.' , J ". ! i : , , 1t ` `, Ostrander testified that lie knew nothing of Rtitland 's'iiisti•iicti'oris't' to Moseley to discharge Humphries because of his wt f6'9 mcnihcrshij5 in the Millinery Workers; that Rutland was without' authority •'t& issue such instructions ; and that Moseley was similarly 'un,•itithortzed "" to comply with them. Had he learned, his testimony continued' that ' Humphries ' discharge was caused by his wife's union connections; lie" would have restored him to his job. It is thus apparent that apart from the entry on Humphries' ter' mination card , the respondent offered no persuasive proof 'in siipport of its defense to Humphries' discharge . We are unable to 'rely on the termination card alone in the face of the convincing and uncontriidicted testimony given by Humphries and Moseley and in view of the 'uni•o- liability of the respondent 's personnel records 'as established by the" false entry made on the transfer slips of Perry and Bevill . Ostrander's' • claim that the discharge of Humphries because of his wife's nibthber' ship in the Millinery Workers was unauthorized is'immaterial"to the' question of whether the discharge was discriminatory and was effcoted'' by a person in it position to bind the respondent. We find that Moseley and Rutland, clearly acted on behalf of the respondent wher'they'" brought about the termination of Humphries' employment. " ' '' We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent diseliarged'1 Humphries because of his wife's participation in the millineiy ' strike " of August 16 , 1937, and because of her 'other, activities on behalf ' of the Millinery Workers, thereby discriminating against Huthj ltrics'in `, regard to hire and tenure of employment, discouraging hembership in all labor organizations , and interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to then' in' Section 7 of the Act. ' if , , 388- , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. • Discrimination against H. C. - McGarity as to hire 'and tenure of employment McGarity ,was, first employed by the respondent at its Dallas plant in; Jhe fall , of, 1928 , in the capacity of,.maintenance electrician. In 1935 ,he was assigned in that capacity to the body shop and serviced , the equipment on the body line under the immediate supervision of C. P. Ragsdale , the chief electrician , and under the general supervision of WT. Schumacher, foreman of the maintenance department. He ,. worked continuously,, except for a day or two, as electrician •on the, • body line until September 11, 1939, and received several wage increases, during that period. - On June , 12, 1939, he joined Electrical Mechanics , Local Union, No. ,1, herein called Local No. 1, and thereafter attempted to interest some of the electricians at the plant in , following his example. He invited them to attend the meetings of that organization and made, no attempt to conceal his membership . Sometime after McGarity had joined, and before September 7, 1939, Rutland directed Bovill, a, former, member of the outside squad, to attend a union meeting of, electrical workers and to check on the presence of McGarity at that meeting. Rutland also questioned Curtis, an electrician at the ,plant, about.McGarity's union activities . There is also evidence which we believe that McKee, the respondent 's employment manager, directed Curtis to attend a meeting of Local No. 1 and report back to him. On September 7, 1939, Claud. Dill in the company of six other em- ployees, approached , McGarity during working hours and said, "Mac,,, I see, you have joined the union.' ,' , McGarity confirmed the statement, showed Dill,his membership card, and told him that he lid already informed several of the employees about his membership.. The confirmation provoked Dill to remind McGarity , "Don't, you know we, don't, like that out here?" McGarity replied that he had always been a "union man," to which ,Dill rejoined that lie would have ,to resign his position at the plant or withdraw from membership in Local No. • 1; McGarity indicated that he would choose the latter alternative and Dill gave him until the following evening to effectuate his choice . Late that afternoon McGarity talked to two of the,men who had accompanied Dill and told them that he was considering withdrawing from Local No. 1. One of them explained that this was, not the first occasion on which an employee had joined a union; that other ,employees whose membership had on other occasions become known , at • the plant were "run out" of the Dallas branch ; and that, McGarity : would have to be treated similarly. McGarity asked,his , informant whether it would be satisfactory if he resigned from Local No. 1 and received an affirmative reply. His conversation with the. other employees was of a similar vein except that no mention was made FORD MOTOR COMPANY 389'. of the treatment generally accorded employees whose membership became known in the plant. That, evening McGarity visited the, office Local No. 1 and submitted his resignation. • , ' The following day, while McGarity was at work and during general; working hours, one of the group -that had accompanied.Dill when. he issued the ultimatum to McGarity came up to the latter and asked him whether he had made up his mind.. McGarity, replied that he intended,. to, terminate his union membership. A few hours later, a second member of the group approached him with the advice that the' best -thing he could do under the circumstances was to "clear up,",a term used at,the plant to mean the turning in of tools upon leaving the respondent's employ. "If you don't," his adviser, cautioned him, "you will have to take the consequences." Shortly after this conver- sation McGarity told Schumacher, foreman of the maintenance department in which McGarity worked, about the occurrences of that, day and of the previous day and asked whether the foreman thought he "was getting a ,square deal." Schumacher replied that, he knew nothing about those occurrences and when McGarity asked whether he ought to see the plant superintendent, Schumacher stated that. it would be better if he saw McKee, the,employment manager. Mc- Garity testified that he went to McKee and told his story; that McKee, disclaimed knowledge and promised to investigate the matter, telling McGarity to return to his work. The conversation with McKee about which McGarity testified occurred on Friday ands McGarity did not have to. report for work until the following Monday. . , On Monday morning, September. 11, as McGarity approached the, employment entrance on his way to the time clock, Dill came up to him and said, "What are you doing out here now. I thought we told you to stay away from out here." McGarity's restatement of Dill's position a few days earlier that he could retain his employment if he left. Local No. 1 did not satisfy Dill, who contended that McGarity would still be a "union man" and' stated, "Well, I feel ,this way about; it, like, the man who said `once a thief always, a thief.' " ' Dill, then. warned. McGarity that if he entered the plant "these fellows will . throw•you in the grass and tear you,limb from limb." After,Dill had,, disappeared from sight, McGarity entered the plant by another door , and after telling his story to the chief clerk went 'on his advice to see' R. S. Harrison, the plant superintendent. McGarity testified, that when he reached Harrison's office he found McKee and a clerk there; that he told McKee he wanted to see Harrison; and that when McKee, asked him why he was not at work McGarity replied that he needed protection against his fellow-workers in order to' reach the time clock in safety, recounting his experience with Dill earlier that morning., Further, according to ,McGarity's testimony, McKee then directed 323429-42-vol 26-26 , 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him to wait in the main lobby until Harrison came in, at which time both officials would have McGarity paged. After McGarity had been sitting in the main lobby about 5 minutes, the large door opened and Dill entered with a group of 8 or 10 em- ployees, some of whom had participated in Dill's. first ultimatum to McGarity and most of whom worked on the body line which McGarity serviced. Work for the day had already started and those men would normally have been at their working stations. The men formed a circle around McGarity and Dill wanted to know how many times it was necessary to chase McGarity out of the plant. "We mean business and we are going to run you off," he explained to be the purpose of this encounter. The group stated that they preferred to have him leave of his own accord without trouble so that they would not have to compel his exit by physical force and violence. He acquiesced in their preference and left the plant. Neither McKee nor Harrison had sent for him. Late that afternoon he returned for his pay and related the circumstances of his treatment to the cashier who commented that he could not understand why McGarity wanted to join a union when he worked for the respondent. On September 13, McGarity testified, he returned to the plant and went to see McKee about his employee's badge which he thought he had left on the cash- ier's desk when he received his pay and for which employees were charged two dollars. He explained that he could not wait while McKee looked for the badge, as he had a permit for work elsewhere. His next trip to the plant was made on September 20, when he was stopped by the watchman with an inquiry as to what he wanted. McGarity replied that he wanted to collect the balance of his pay and to turn in his tools. Rutland who witnessed the colloquy directed the watchmen to permit him to turn in his tools. McGarity received a clearance for his tools and paid two dollars for-the badge. The foregoing account is based, unless otherwise indicated, on the testimony of McGarity and is substantially corroborated for the most part by other witnesses. For reasons hereinafter stated, we find McGarity's story to be credible, a finding also made by the Trial Examiner. Although Dill and several members of his group did not testify, others who were present at the first encounter with McGarity on September 7, or who talked with him on September 8, or who encircled him in the lobby on the morning of September 1 ] , were called as witnesses by the respondent and were questioned about other matters relating to the respondent's claim that it can not reinstate McGarity. On cross-examination of these witnesses by counsel for the Board, it developed that for several days prior to the morning of September 11 'there had been a great deal of talking among the men on the body line about McGarity's membership in a union; that employees left their stations at the line at various times FORD MOTOR COMPANY 391 to confer with one another and to confront McGarity; and that the upshot of their action was a decision not to work with McGarity. Who had first learned of McGarity's presence in the lobby on the morning of September 11 is not.established by these witnesses. It appears from their testimony that the word had spread as a "sort, of grapevine up and down the line" that McGarity was in the lobby and that they left their stations without asking permission and headed for that destination, passing openly along two production lines and in and out of doors. One of these witnesses testified that none of the employees involved "had any business running up' and down the line" but that "we made it our business." Two of the group testified that after their return from the lobby their superior, V. M. Whitworth, assistant body construction foreman, asked them where they had been and that they offered a false explanation for the unusually long absence from their stations. One of the witnesses had not been asked for any explana- tion. None of them was seriously reprimanded and all of them were paid for the time they spent in accosting, threatening, and banishing McGarity. Whitworth testified that he did not know how long the men had been gone from the line on the morning of September 11; that he did not miss them for a while because he was busy.in another department; and that when lie saw them returning gradually to the line from different points he questioned and scolded three or four of them, directing them to return to their work. Although McGarity was replaced that morning by another electrician, Whitworth testi- fied that he did not learn what had really happened to McGarity until 3 or 4 days later, when he heard a rumor up and down the line that the "boys had run McGarity off." ' Then he tried to get the men together in an attempt to ascertain who had been responsible for the treatment accorded McGarity and "really scolded" some of the culprits. The men explained to Whitworth that their action had been prompted by a desire to protect their jobs. He did not discipline any of them and did not report the matter to anyone in authority, according to his further testimony on the point. Julian Vera, the assistant foreman assigned to that part of the body line on which most of the men worked, testified that employees may leave their work without permission to go to the lavatory,or to the drinking fountain but that they are required to report to their foreman or assistant foreman if they desire to leave for any other purpose; that he did not notice the absence of any of his subordinates from their stations on the morning of September 11, explaining that he might have been at the front end of the line or in the general store during their absence; and that when he noticed that McGarity had been replaced by another-man, he made no inquiry as to the reason 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD for the change . Vera was not reprimanded by any of his superiors for the conduct of the men that morning. ' Ragsdale, McGarity's immediate superior , testified that he had heard rumors around the plant on the Friday preceding September 11 that McGarity would no longer work for the respondent because he was "a union man"; that when he failed to appear for work the following ' Monday Ragsdale surmised that the rumor had been well founded and replaced him with another electrician. Schumacher , foreman of the maintenance department in which McGarity worked, testified that" he had first learned of McGarity's difficulty with the men on the body line on September 8 when Mc- Garity told him about the ultimatum of Dill and his group and when the witness advised him to see McKee , the employment manager. Sometime during the morning of September 11 he acquired his earliest knowledge that McGarity had quit "or was run off," his testimony continued , when Ragsdale discussed with him the question of replacing McGarity . Although Ragsdale had told him no more than that McGarity was not at work, Schumacher thought of his conversation with McGarity 3' days earlier and assumed that his absence was explained by that conversation. The testimony of the plant superintendent is that McKee had reported to him one afternoon that the men on the body line had told McKee they did not want to work with McGarity and -that McKee had directed them to return to their stations. The only witness who controverted McGarity 's* testimony was McKee who denied that McGarity had told him on September 8 of Dill's ultimatum and that he saw or talked with McGarity on the morning of September 11 immediately after Dill had. prevented McGarity from punching the time clock. He testified that McGarity complained to him on 'September 13 that some of the men on the body line refused to work with him and that he directed McGarity," to, go on back to work." The following day, his testimony continued, McGarity came to see him again and stated that he wanted to quit his job and was planning to work for an electrical concern in Dallas. Thereupon, McKee' made out McGarity's termination slip. At the hearing ' McKee identified a copy of the termination slip which-be made out and which bore the notation "This man resigned to ,go to work for a • electrical co. He refused to give the name:" • The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that " On analysis , McKee's testimony and recollection of what took place does not fit into the accumulation of known and undisputed facts that surround McGarity 's termination of service with the respondent " and rejected , as do we, that testimony as incredible . As we have already indicated , Schumacher-corroborated McGarity's testimony that he had advised McGarity on September'8 to see McKee and tell him about Dill's ultimatum . McGarity's state- FORD MOTOR COMPANY 393 merit at the hearing that he had been told by the respondent's chief clerk on the morning of September 11 to talk with Harrison was-not denied by the chief clerk who appeared as a witness for the respondent but whom the respondent did not question on that point. The clerk who, McGarity testified, was present in Harrison's office with McKee on the morning of September 11 was not called as a witness., We are, furthermore, unable to discover any basis in the record for,a ,finding, that McGarity went of his own accord and on his own initiative to the lobby of the plant where he was accosted by Dill and the others. Moreover, in view of all the circumstances and of our earlier findings of falsification of personnel records, we reject as unreliable the entry on McGarity's, termination slip purporting to give, the reason for the severance of his employment. We conclude on the basis of the unrestricted freedom of action which Dill and his associates were permitted to enjoy in the execution of their plans as to McGarity and on the basis of the role played by Rutland and McKee, that the treatment of McGarity bears the earmarks of an inside. squad performance., Dill had, as we have already found, been extremely. active in the mside'squads as a special agent , of, Rutland. When McGarity's union membership became known after the espionage conducted by Rutland and McKee and in the face of McGarity's open pronouncements, it was comparatively easy to revive the technique of the inside squads through the leader- ship of Dill and thereby to compel McGarity, by threats of bodily harm, to leave the respondent's employ. 'That action of this kind would be taken against McGarity was anticipated by Ragsdale, his immediate superior. We find that Rutland and McKee, through the action of Dill and his group, planned and directed the banishment of McGarity from the respondent's employ and made his continued employment with the respondent impossible because of his membership in Local No. 1 and that such banishment was in fact, a discharge. The respondent is answerable for,, these acts. We,find also that, by compelling McGarity to leave the respondent's employ,and thereby bringing about his discharge, the respondent has discriminated against him in regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership, in Local No. 1 and interfering ,with, restraining, and coercing its employees in' the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. , , IV. THE EFFECT ' OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several 394' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 in a very serious manner and to a far-reaching degree engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom at its Dallas plant and elsewhere, as set forth hereinafter. In order to effectuate the purposes and' ;policies of the Act and as a means of removing and avoiding the consequences of the respondent's unfair labor practices, it is essential that-in aid of our cease and desist order the respondent be directed to take certain affirmative action, more particuarly described below. We have found that the respondent permitted its Dallas employees, employees from its other branches, and persons applying for employ- meiit at the Dallas plant to be removed from its Dallas plant for the purpose of intimidation and physical assault in order to interfere with the right of its employees to form, join, or assist the Automobile Workers or any other organization of their own choosing. We shall, therefore, order the respondent at all times to afford all its employees at the Dallas plant and all other persons lawfully present at the Dallas plant adequate protection at and about that plant from intimidation, physical assaults, or threats of violence directed at discouraging mem- bership in the Automobile Workers or in any other labor organiza- tion.32 It has also been found that, in connection with its anti-union campaign, the respondent authorized the manufacture of blackjacks at its plant and permitted its employees to remove from its premises and to carry blackjacks, pistols, and other dangerous weapons. We shall order the respondent to prohibit the manufacture and use in the Dallas plant and removal from the plant of such instruments for the purpose of discouraging membership in any labor organization. Although we have found that the respondent compelled. its Dallas employees to make financial contributions toward the maintenance of the outside squad and hence in support of the unfair labor practices committed by that squad on behalf of the respondent and while we consider it necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act that employees who made such contributions should be reimbursed therefor,33 we find it administratively impractical to do so and shall not therefore order such reimbursement. We shall, however, order the respondent to cease and desist from such action. We have found that the inside squads, organized for the purpose of interfering with the right of the Dallas employees to self-organization, 32 Cf Matter of General Motors Corporation and Delco-Remy Corporation and International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No 146, 14 N L R. B. 113 s3 Cf. Matter of The Western Union Telegraph Company and American Communications Association, 17 N. L R B 34, petition to review flied November 3, 1939 (C. C. ,A 2) FORD MOTOR COMPANY 395 were not effectively and affirmatively disbanded by the respondent; that the leadership and methods of those squads persisted as late as the date of the discharge of McGarity in September 1939; and that Tucker, a highly placed foreman responsible to a large extent for the progress of these groups, regarded the organization as of the date of the hearing as subject to revival. We find it necessary, therefore, in order to insure to the Dallas employees the freedom guaranteed to) them by the Act, to order the respondent formally and affirmatively to disestablish the inside, squad organization at its Dallas plant and to notify its employees that such squads are no longer in existence and will not be revived.34 We believe that further affirmative action must be undertaken by the respondent to dissipate the serious effects of the flagrant unfair labor practices we have found to have been perpetrated at the Dallas plant. The'record has shown that Ostrander, Rutland, and other su- pervisory officials, as well as members of the strong-arm squad, who directed or approved or executed those practices on behalf of, the respondent are still acting in an official capacity-at the plant or are otherwise employed there and have in no way been ordered by. their superiors to desist from their unlawful conduct. They are, therefore, still capable of persisting in such unlawful acts. Moreover,, they remain as symbols of the rsepondent's anti-union program and their continued presence at the plant in a position of authority or otherwise will undoubtedly serve to deter the Dallas employees from enjoying the freedom of which they have been deprived by, that program and its manifold manifestations. We consequently deem it imperative under the circumstances to require the respondent to release its employees from the restraint imposed upon them by the presence of these persons at the plant and we shall therefore older the respondent to make known to its Dallas employees its intention, and in fact to carry out such intention, to dismiss or otherwise penalize severely any official or supervisory employee who attempts in the future to interfere ,with the right of its employees to form, join, or assist any labor organization. In addition and toward the same end, we shall order the respondent to notify its Dallas employees that the outside squad is disestablished and will not be revived. The anti-union program executed in Dallas was, as we have found, formulated, directed, approved, and ratified by the respondent's principal officials at its main office in'Dearborn. It is consequently reasonable to assume that, unless the respondent is ordered to refrain from such action, the program will not only be reinstituted in Dallas 34 Cl Matter of Consolidated Edison Company et at. and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , 4 N L R H. 71, enf'd as mod , Consolidated Edison Co. v N L R. B., 305 U. S 197, aff'g. as mod , Consolidated Edison Co Iv N L R B , 95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C. A. 2). . ' 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD but may also be extended-to-all other branches throughout the country whenever the respondent chooses so to do. We therefore • deem it necessary that the respondent be deterred from repeating the unfair labor practices which occurred at Dallas and from proceeding with the -application at its other -branches, of its centrally devised anti-union program. We shall consequently. order' the respondent to 'cease • and desist from engaging at all its plants in 'the types of unfair labor practices which were perpetrated in Dallas. Moreover, in'view of the wide publicity given to the Dallas outrages by the newspapers and by reports which were undoubtedly made by employees from other branches who were victimized'by the outside -squad, it-is reasonable to assume that the respondent's employees throughout the country were inevitably compelled to abjure the rights '•guaianteed to them, by the Act. Furthermore, the presence of Abbott at the, Richmond, 'California, branch and of Perry and •Bevill at^ the Long Beach, California, branch and the possible transfer of other members of the outside squad to plants outside Dallas must 'not serve as^a symbol of continued coercion against the respondent's employees in, the exercise of their right, freely 4o organize. We, therefore deem it necessary, in'order to, release the, respondent's employees from 'the restraints to which they have been and would otherwise continue to be subjected, to order the respondent to post notices in all its branches publicizing 'its intention not 'to engage in the unfair labor. practices from which we shall hereinafter order it to cease'. and desist35 ^ We shall require in addition more specific notices to be posted at the Dallas branch to include also the affirmative -action which we 'shall herein- after order as to that branch. I > , In connection with the charges filed by Humphries and McGarity, we have-found that the respondent has discriminated against each • of 'them in regard to his hire and tenure of employment. The 're- spondent contended at the hearing that the complaint as to Humphries should be,dismissed for the reason among others that the unfair- labor practice charged was committed, if at all, too long before the filing of charges by Humphries and is therefore wiped out by lapse,of time. It' is true that Humphries first filed his charges with the Board 2 years and 5 months after his discharge. The Act does not limit the • Board's jurisdiction to entertain and proceed upon charges because of. the length of time which has elapsed, from the, date of the alleged i unfair labor practice.36 ' We`have,'however, under some circumstances, exercised our discretion as to the period for which an employee is 33 See N. L. R B v. Remington Rased, Inc , 94 F: (2d) 862 (C.C.A 2), enf'g. as mod . Matter of Reminlgton Rand, Inc. and Remington Rand Joint Protective Board of the District Council , Office Equipment Workers, 2 N L. R 'B. 626; cert. denied, 58 S . Ct 1046. 30 N L R. B. v. Crowe Coal Co, 104 F. (2d) 633 (C. C.A. 8), enf'g Matter of Crowe Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America , District No 14, 9 N L. R. B 1149, cert. denied, 308 U S. 584; Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N L. R B , 113 F. (2d) 202 (C. C. A. 2), enf'g as mod Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation and International Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers, Local No. 30, 19 N. L. R B., 547. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 397 entitled to back pay where no valid reason for the delay appears in the recold.37 The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent be required to reimburse Humphries only for such wages as he may have lost since the filing of the charge. We do not accept this rec- ommendation in view of the hesitancy which Humphries must reason- ably have had to institute any proceeding against the respondent while its vicious anti-union campaign was actively in operation and while the effects of that campaign persisted, particularly since he was, as we have found, threatened with bodily harm by members of the outside squad. With regard to McGarity, the respondent alleges in its answer and contends in its brief that it should not be required to reinstate him because it has learned since his discharge that he was not "an efficient, good workman." The evidence produced by the respondent in support of this contention does not establish its 'validity and we find that it has not been proved. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to determine whether, if it were established, we should nevertheless require his reinstatement in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall order the respondent to reinstate Humphries and McGarity to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. We shall also order the respondent to make each of them whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the discrimination against him from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.33 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, United Hatters, Cap, and Millinery Workers International Union, and Electrical Mechanics, Local Union No. 1, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By espionage upon and surveillance of union activities, by the 87 Matter of Inland Lime and Stone Company and Quarry Workers International Union of North America, Branch No . 259, 8 N. L 'R. B. 944. 38 By' net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation , room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working 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 performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are not considered 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 . See Matter of Republic Steel Corp and Steel Workers' Organizing Committee, 9 N L R B 219, enf'd, Republic Steel Corp v National Labor Relations Board, 107 F (2d) 472 (C. C. A 3), cert. denied , 60 S. Ct 806, order denying cert. vacated and rehearing and cert . granted, 60 S. Ct 1072 , 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dissemination among its employees of "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor,", by the formation and activities of the outside and inside squads, by coercing its employees to contribute to the support of the outside squad, and by otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is. engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. By discriminating agaainst William A. Humphries and I-1 C. McGarity in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in labor organizations, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair, labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not committed any unfair labor practices in connection with United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of the United States and Canada, Local 100. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond- ent, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: ' (a) Assaulting, beating, or otherwise engaging in physical violence, or inciting, encouraging, or assisting others to assault, beat, or other- wise engage in physical violence, for the purpose of discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, any labor organization of its employees; (b) Maintaining surveillance of, or employing any other means of espionage for the purpose of ascertaining or investigating, the activities of any labor organization or the activities of its' employees in connection with any labor organization; (c) Disrupting meetings or public gatherings for the purpose of interfering with the right of its employees to self-organization; (d) Compelling its employees to contribute financially toward the support of any anti-union campaign; (e) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its em- ployees by discharging or refusing to reinstate'any' of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of, employment or any term or condition of their em- ployment; FORD MOTOR COMPANY 399 (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Afford all its employees and other persons lawfully on its premises adequate' protection at all times at and about its.Dallas plant from intimidation, physical assaults, or threats of physical violence directed at discouraging membership in International Union of United Automobile Workers of America,- affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, in Electrical Mechanics, Local Union No. 1 or in any other labor organization; (b) Instruct in writing all its employees at its Dallas plant that they may not make, store, or carry in the plant blackjacks or other dangerous weapons of any nature or remove them from the plant for the purpose,of discouraging membership in International Union of United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization; and take effec- tive action to enforce this rule; (c) Instruct in writing all its employees at its Dallas plant that any official or supervisory employee may not in any manner, upon pain of dismissal or other severe penalty, interfere with the right of any employee at the plant to form, join, or assist any labor organiza- tion; and take effective action to enforce this rule; (d) Completely disestablish the inside squad organization at the Dallas plant;, (e) Offer to William A. Humphries and H. C. McGarity immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges; (f) Make whole William A. Humphries and H. C. McGarity for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer of rein- statement, less his net earnings during such period; deducting, how- ever, from the amount otherwise due each of these employees, monies received by him during the period between the date of his discharge and the date on which he is offered reinstatement for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and paying over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agency of the Federal , State, county, municipal or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects; (g) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its premises in Dallas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c ), (d), (e), and (f) of this Order; (3) that the outside and inside squads are disestablished and will not be revived ; and (4) that the respondent 's employees are free to become or remain members of International Union of United Auto- mobile Workers of America , affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, of Electrical Mechanics, Local Union No. 1, or of any -other labor organization , and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in any such organization; (h) Post immediately in conspicuous places in , all its plants in the United States outside the City of Dallas, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to the employees in each of these plants stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c ), (d), (e), and (f) of this Order; (i) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing 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 complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices involving United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of United States and Canada, Local 100.