Aluminum Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 1219 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM PRODUCTS COMPANY, METAL ROLLING
AND STAMPING COMPANY, LEMONT STAMPING CORPORATION, BAN-
NER STAMPING COMPANY, and STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS COM-
PANY and ALUMINUM WORKERS UNION No. 19064 and ALUMINUM
WORKERS UNION No. 19078
Case No. C-129.Decided June 08, 1938
Aluminum and Stainless Steel Household Utensils Manufacturing Industry-
Employer: corporations subje„t to same ownership and control and constituting
a single business enterprise-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: antiunion
statements ; discrediting union ; threats to abandon plant ; shut-down of plant
on opening days of hearing-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and in-
terference with formation and administration ; support ; activities of super-
visory employees ; activities on company time and property ; disestablished, as;
agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination: discharges, lay-offs, and re-
fusals to reinstate ; for union membership and activity ; for filing charges
under the Act ; charges of, not sustained as to four employees-Collective Bar-
gaining: charges of refusal to bargain collectively, not sustained-Strike-Con-
ciliation: efforts at, by United States Department of Labor-Agreement-Rein-
statement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded to employees discriminated against;
awarded to all employees for period of shut-down.
Mr. Harold A. Crane field, for the Board.
Mr. Arthur W. Sprague, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondents.
Mr. William A. Peterson, of La Grange, Ill., for the Utensil Makers.
Mr. William Schoenberg, of Chicago, Ill., for the Aluminum
Workers.
Mr. Lester Asher, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Aluminum Workers Union No. 19064
Aluminum Workers Union No. 19078, herein referred to collectively
as the Aluminum Workers, the National Labor Relatioi}s Board,
herein called the Board, by L. W. Beman, Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated
April 15, 1936, against Aluminum Products Company, Metal Rolling
1219
1220 -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Stamping Corporation,' Lemont Stamping Corporation, Banner
Stamping Company, and Stainless Steel Products Company, herein
referred to. collectively as the respondents, alleging that the respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, notice of hearing
thereon, and notice of continuance of hearing were duly served upon
the respondents and the Aluminum Workers.
Pursuant to the notices, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois,
commencing on April 30, 1936, before Leon M. Despres, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the outset of the hear-
ing, Utensil Makers Organization, herein called the Utensil Makers,
filed a petition for intervention in the proceeding. After denying
the prayer of certain paragraphs requesting an investigation and cer-
tification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and the issuance of a cease and desist order against the Aluminum
Workers, the Trial Examiner granted leave to intervene. Also at
the commencement of the hearing, the respondents filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction upon the grounds
that the Act is unconstitutional and that the respondents are not
engaged in interstate commerce. The Trial Examiner found the
motion to be without merit in so far as it raised constitutional issues,
reserved ruling at the hearing upon the contention that the respond-
ents are not engaged in interstate commerce, but denied the motion
in its entirety in his Intermediate Report subsequently filed with the
Board. Following the motion to dismiss, the respondents filed an
answer to the complaint denying the unfair labor practices charged,
alleging that the operations of the five corporations are intrastate
in character, but admitting that their activities constitute a single
business enterprise under the control and management of Aluminum
Products Company.
At the hearing the Board, the respondents, and the Utensil Makers
were represented by counsel, and the Aluminum Workers by a repre-
sentative of the American Federation of Labor. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the
hearing, on May 19, 1936, counsel for the Board moved for leave
to file amendments to the complaint alleging that the respondents
had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (4) of the Act, and on May 25, 1936, for leave to file, in lieu of the
original complaint, an amended complaint which omitted allegations
referring to certain acts of discrimination, but nevertheless alleged
'Erroneously referred to in the complaint as Metal Rolling and Stamping Company.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1221
that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), (4), and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Trial Examiner
granted these motions. It was thereupon stipulated by all the par-
ties that the motion to dismiss and the answer filed by the respond-
ents with reference to the original complaint stand as pleadings to
the amended complaint.
During the hearing the respondents moved to strike certain testi-
mony, and at the close of the Board's case and at the end of the
hearing, the respondents renewed their motion to dismiss the com-
plaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on these motions, but
subsequently denied them in his Intermediate Report. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on
other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On July 25, 1936, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port finding that the respondents had committed unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
(3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Exceptions
to the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the respondents.
On November 23, 1936, counsel for the Board and for the respond-
ents stipulated to amend the charges filed by the Aluminum Workers
to conform to the allegations of the amended complaint.
On October 25, 1937, the respondents filed motions requesting the
Board to reopen the record and receive further evidence, and pray-
ing for leave to offer oral argument and to file amended and supple-
mental exceptions and a written brief. The Board denied the motion
to reopen the record and receive further evidence, but granted the
remaining motions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
the Board on December 8, 1937, in Washington, for the purpose of
oral argument. The respondents were represented by counsel and
participated.
The respondents filed amended and supplemental exceptions and
second supplemental exceptions to the record and. to the Interme-
diate Report, and also an answer to the amended complaint. The
respondents also submitted a brief and supplemental brief in sup-
port of their exceptions. The Board has considered the exceptions
to the record and to the Intermediate Report, and in so far as they
are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
1222
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Aluminum Products Company, herein called Aluminum Products,
an Illinois corporation organized about 1911, has its principal office
at La Grange, Illinois. W. A. Hastings is its president and owns the
majority of its stock. Until the latter part of 1935, Aluminum Prod-
ucts engaged in the manufacture and sale of aluminum household
cooking utensils and equipment, and owned and operated an alumi-
num rolling mill together with an adjacent fabricating plant at La
Grange, and also another fabricating plant at Lemont, Illinois, 15
miles away. When in March 1935 the Lemont plant started to manu-
facture a small percentage of stainless steel household utensils in
addition to the regular line of aluminum ware, Stainless Steel Prod-
ucts Company, herein called Stainless Steel, was set up as an Illinois
corporation for the purpose of maintaining a sales organization for
stainless steel products. It is wholly owned by Aluminum Products
and its offices are in the same building in La Grange.'
During October 1935 Metal Rolling and Stamping Corporation,
herein called Metal Rolling, was incorporated in Illinois and acquired
the title to the two La Grange plants. Its stock is entirely owned by
W. A. Hastings. Also in October 1935 Banner Stamping Company,
herein called Banner, was organized as an Illinois corporation using
the same office as Aluminum Products and with all of its stock
owned by Aluminum Products. Metal Rolling is engaged solely in
the business of manufacturing aluminum household utensils, and its
finished products, which include aluminum kettles, pots, and pans,
are sold by the two sales organizations, Banner and Aluminum
Products.
Lemont Stamping Corporation, herein called Lemont Stamping,
was organized as an Illinois corporation on December 7, 1935, with
all of its stock owned by Aluminum Products. It acquired title to
the Lemont fabricating plant and abandoned the production of alu-
minum ware in favor of the manufacture of stainless steel pots, pans,
and household utensils and also picnic jugs. The sales of the stain-
less steel utensils are handled by Stainless Steel, while the picnic
jugs, which are part aluminum and part earthenware, are sold
through Banner.
The respondents concede that the five corporations are wholly
subject to the same ownership and control and constitute a single
business enterprise. Practically all of the raw materials used by the
respondents come from States other than Illinois. Aluminum ingot
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1223
is obtained in Tennessee or Pennsylvania , at least one carload being
received each month at the railroad siding which separates the La
Grange plants. The wood trimmings used in the manufacturing
processes come from Ohio, packing cases and various fittings and
trimmings from Wisconsin , and steel sheets from Indiana.
In 1934 Aluminum Products ranked third among the 14 manu-
facturers in the field on the basis of monthly shipments of finislied
products, and at the time of the hearing the respondents ranked
seventh or eighth. Approximately 50 per cent of the products of
the manufacturing plants of the respondents are shipped to points
outside the State of Illinois. The sales organizations maintain sales-
men in New York City, in California, and throughout the country.
The principal customers are wholesale distributors , mail-order
houses, and chain stores which place blanket orders for large quan-
tities of the respondents' manufactured products and then from time
to time issue instructions to the respondents for the shipment of
small amounts to various local outlets.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Aluminum Workers Union No. 19064, herein called the La Grange
local, and Aluminum Workers Union No. 19078, herein called the
Lemont local, are labor organizations affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L. The constitu-
tions of both organizations provide for the admission to membership,
of aluminum workers, including watchmen, janitors, truckers, and
shipping clerks, but excluding, supervisory and clerical employees.
The La Grange local limits its membership to eligible employees at
the La Grange plants of the respondents, while membership in the
Lemont local is open to eligible employees at the Lemont plant of
the respondents and at Illinois Pure Aluminum Company which is
also located in Lemont. Despite the fact that the Lemont plant has.
been engaged , practically entirely in the manufacture of stainless
steel products, the employees at the plant have retained their mem-
bership in the Lemont local. -
Utensil Makers Organization, originally named Aluminum Prod-
ucts Employees Protective Association # 1, is an unaffiliated labor
organization. It admits to membership employees at the La Grange
plant of the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of the unfair labor practices
In March 1935 a joint committee of the La Grange local and the
Lemont local commenced negotiations with W. A. Hastings , presi-,
1 0 6 1 91-3 8-vol vii-78
1224 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent of Aluminum Products, for the purpose of obtaining a col-
lective bargaining agreement. Each local had as its members practi-
cally all of the employees of the respective plants. Several confer-
ences were held during April and the draft of an agreement was left
with Hastings for submission to his attorneys. The joint committee
was unable to obtain any appointment with Hastings during the fol-
lowing month, and early in June the locals voted to strike if no
agreement was reached. On June 11 there occurred a lay-off of
about 63 workers out of the total of 180 employed at both plants.
Many employees possessing ]on- seniority records were included in
,the lay-off. Moreover, this lay-off was far more drastic than the
seasonal lay-offs in the past, which had been handled on a more
gradual basis with only four or five men being furloughed each week.
On June 13 the joint committee obtained a conference with Hast-
ings and requested the consummation of the draft agreement sub-
mitted to him in April. Hastings replied, "I can't do it, and you
can go out and strike right now if that is what you want." The
locals immediately called a strike, and from June 13 to July 29 the
plants at both La Grange and Lemont were closed.
The negotiations for an agreement continued throughout the pe-
riod of the strike, and finally on. July 27 the form of a written con-
tract was approved by the joint committee on behalf of both locals
and by Aluminum Products. Despite the fact that the contract pro-
vided that it was,to be in effect when signed, Hastings refused to
sign the instrument. A conciliator representing the Department of
Labor and the then Regional Director of the Board thereupon wrote
upon the last page of the document a statement certifying'that they
had read the instrument to the parties and that both sides has signi-
fied that it should constitute the basis of their relationship. On the
same day the strike was called off, and the picket lines were with-
drawn.
At Lemont the men were gradually called back to work, and most
of them were returned to the pay rolls by August 15. However, at
La Grange the fabricating plant ran with less than half of its former
force until September 1, and the rolling mill did not commence oper-
ations until about September 15.
B. Utensil Makers Organization
About August 15, Steve Snyder and Earl Wright, Jr., who had
been employed at the La Grange plants, started circulating a peti-
tion for the purpose of forming the Aluminum Products Employees
Protective Association # 1, herein called the Protective Association.
Snyder had heard rumors that resigning from the American Federa-
DECISIO\S AND ORDERS 1225
tion of Labor would help the nien in getting back to work. Other
leaders in the formation of the Protective Association also believed
that the formation of a new organization would hasten the opening
of the La Grange plants and the rehiring of nien.
It is not difficult to determine the source of these rumors and
beliefs. During August, Earl Wright, Sr., superintendent of the
La Grange rolling mill, told two employees who were applying for
reinstatement that there would not be any work available as long
as they were members of the A. F. of L. J. K. Matter, vice presi-
dent and general manager of Aluminum Products, on several occa-
sions told A. J. Abrams, general foreman of the Lemont plant, that
the management was trying to organize the men at La Grange into
a company union, independent of the A. F. of L., and that if the
men at Lemont did not go into it they `would be left out. Abrams
also had several conversations in which the superintendent of the
Lemont plant, James J. Lynch, declared that Aluminum Products
would never "go along with" the A. F. of L.
On the evening of August 26 the Protective Association held its
first meeting. Edward Westphal, the employee who opened the
meeting, and John Radke, who was named as the permanent pre-
siding officer, both stated that the management knew that the meet-
ing was being held and was expecting a representative of the new
organization to appear at the office the next morning. The original
petition which had been circulated was never used because it was
felt that some of the persons who signed it had been uncertain of
what was intended. At the meeting, therefore, two new proposed
statements were discussed, one to be presented to the management
and the other to go to the La Grange local. After a discussion of
what was to be included in the statements, the persons present at
the meeting signed two blank pieces of paper.
On the next day a petition was typed in above the 59 signatures
appearing on one of the sheets of paper. The petition stated that
the persons signing were dissatisfied with the July 27 agreement
negotiated by the Aluminum Workers; that the agreement had not
been submitted for their approval; that they were resigning from
the La Grange local; that they were forming the Protective Asso-
ciation; and that a committee composed of Radke, Stanley Godzik,
Adolph Fick, and Carl Do]gner had complete authority to negotiate
a new agreement regarding wages and working conditions. The
committee delivered their petition to Matter on the same day that it
was prepared.
Godzik testified that Matter took the petition and said, "That is
fine, now we can do some business"; that Matter also stated that he
would help the new organization obtain a new charter; and that in
1226 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
closing the conference Matter remarked , "Boys, I don't want you to
think I had anything to do with this. This is your own free act."
None of the testimony adduced by Godzik was specifically contro-
verted by the other representatives present at the meeting with
Matter. Steve Snyder testified that although he was not a member
of the committee he was asked to come along , but that he did not
remember what was discussed with Matter . •Dolgner testified that
Matter took the petition and said he would look into it further and
see what could be done. Radke testified that Matter told them that
the strike had caused the loss of many customers ; that Matter said
he was uncertain when the rolling mill would start operations, but
that it might be around September 10; and that the expression on
Matter's face showed that he did not care whether the men stayed in
the A. F. of L. or not. Radke's testimony is so completely contra-
dictory and confused that in several instances the Trial Examiner
found it to be untrue . We are of the opinion that belief in the testi-
mony of Godzik is more reasonable.
That evening , August 27 , both locals of the Aluminum Workers
held a joint meeting. Representatives of the Protective, Association
attended and presented the second list of signatures to which there
had been attached a preceding page setting forth the reasons
prompting those signing to resign from the La Grange local. The
dissatisfaction with the July 27 agreement and the failure of the
A. F. of L. to fulfill the promises which had been made prior to
the calling of the strike were listed as the chief reasons for the
resignation . Radke announced that a committee from the new Pro-
tective Association had met with Matter and that positions were
available for the workers when they dropped the A. F. of L. How-
ever, after several speakers had discussed the grievances set forth in
the letter of resignation, the representatives of the Protective Asso-
ciation joined in a vote pledging allegiance to the A. F. of L. and
decided not to resign.
On August 28 Matter sent a letter to Radke and a copy to the
Aluminum Workers in which he stated that since the petition of the
Protective Association carried the signatures of a clear majority of
the La Grange employees , Aluminum Products was granting recog-
nition to the new organization and was willing to negotiate a new
agreement with its committee.
The Protective Association held a meeting that night and in-
vited the members of the Aluminum Workers to be present. Again
a vote was taken which resulted in a reaflirmance of the decision to
continue as members of the A. F. of L . After this meeting Radke
and his committee conferred and decided to notify Matter that they
were not resigning from the La Grange local. When on the next
DECISION'S AND ORDERS 1227
morning Matter was so advised he suggested that Radke and the
committee see the then Regional Director of the Board, H. L. Mc-
Carthy. The meeting with the Regional Director on August 29 left
Radke's group convinced that the July 27 agreement was valid.
They determined to ask Matter to return the petition in which they
resigned from the A. F. of L.
When the committee saw Matter , that evening , he said, "Now,
Radke, if you are hinting that you boys want that petition back
again . . . why that would be a foolish thing for me to do, to open
up the safe and give it back to you boys." Radke's testimony estab-
lishes the fact that " it seemed like a joke to Mr. Matter, to tell him
that the ( July 27 ) agreement was valid ... He said, `I think I
will go down to Mr. McCarthy 's office with you boys.' . . . Right
then and there he made arrangements with Mr. McCarthy . . . for
'Saturday ( August 31)."
After Radke and his committee returned from the August 31 con-
ference at McCarthy 's office, in which Matter participated, they
were of the opinion that the agreement obtained by the A. F. of L.
was worthless and that their activities in connection with the forma-
tion of the Protective Association did not violate the provisions of
the Act. Yet McCarthy and N. W: Shefferman , a former Board
employee who joined in the conference , both offered testimony which
is more convincing and -which leads to the conclusion that the dis-
cussion centered around Radke's fear of going to jail because of his
activities in creating the new organization and that he was assured
that lie need have no fears of being sent to jail even though the
organization which he was heading seemed to be under company
domination.
Early in September many of the La Grange employees were called
back to work. Signatures for another petition of the Protective
Association , the contents of which neither Radke nor Dolgner were
able to describe at the hearing, were at this time obtained in the
-shops during working hours. On September 11 the Protective As-
sociation held a meeting and Matter , Luttringhaus , another official
of the respondents , and Lynch, superintendent of the Lemont plant,
attended . Prior to the meeting and in the company of Dolgner,
Joe \Tirtel , a foreman in the La Grange fabricating shop, told one
employee that it was to be a special meeting and that if he did
not attend he would be discharged . At the meeting Matter made a
speech in which he told the men that the July 27 agreement was
not what they thought it was and was not worth the paper it was
written on , and in which he declared , "All that the American Fed-
eration of Labor is looking for is their 35 cents Otherwise they
don't care about you."
1228 NATIONAL LABOR HEL_ATIO- S BOARD
While the meeting' was going on Jesse Greene, secretary of the La
Grange local, and George C. Boe, a member of the Lemont local
and of the joint negotiating committee, requested admission. Radke
turned to Matter and said, "Boe and Greene are out there, do you
want them in here?" Matter answered, "No."
During working hours on October 2, Radke, Dolgner, and Fick
left the La Grange shops and drove over to Lemont to explain to
the Lemont employees that the July 27 agreement was void.2 Dolg-
ner arranged with his superintendent, Perrott, for leaving his work
that afternoon and was paid for his time. Radke made his arrange-
ments with Matter who telephoned Lynch and authorized the clos-
ing clown of the Lemont plant during their speeches. To quote the
words of Radke, the events at Lemont were as follows : " . . . The
power was shut off and then everybody gathered up there at the
]lead end of the shop. Mr. Lynch told them what we come for .. .
He did not have to explain who we were .. . They knew we were
officers of the Protective Association . . . At this point Mickel
(president of the Lemont local) said, `Mr. Lynch, do we have to
listen to these fellows if we don't want to?' Lynch said, `Well, if you
don't want to, you don't have to.' And Mickel started walking out
of the door and the rest of them followed, and then when they got
15 or 20 feet away they started laughing and booing us. That was
the end of it . . . They went back to work . . . We went home . . .
We fooled along the road . . . We were not docked."
Various petitions and statements of the Protective Association
were circulated in the La Grange plants during October and No-
vember 1935, and signatures were solicited during working hours
and in the presence of supervisory employees. When Henry Ander-
son was called back to work on October 12, Virtel, the foreman, told
him to see Dolgner about signing one of the petitions, and subse-
quently Perrott, the superintendent asked Dolgner whether it had
been signed.
Near the end of November, Metal Rolling, the corporation then
operating the La Grange plants, entered into a collective bargain-
ing agreement with its employees. The brief filed by the respondents
contends that this agreement was reached between Metal Rolling and
the Protective Association. However the agreement itself contains
no reference to the Protective Association. Although Radke's testi-
mony concerning this agreement is entirely confused, when pieced
2 As more fully stated by Radke, the purpose of the trip to Lemont was as follows :
. . our investigation of the agreement showed there was no agreement We
thought it was as little as we could do to give this mfoi matron to the Lemont fellows
because they were kidding themselves up to this time and it seemed they wanted to con-
tinue to do that . . . They thought they had an agreement that was worth something
and according to the information we had it was valueless . . . It was a message of
brotherly love"
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1229
together it establishes that Matter obtained a copy of an agreement
between the Aluminum Company of America and its employees; that
this copy was posted on the shop bulletin board; that no negotiations
concerning any of the specific provisions ever took place; and that
the agreement was never submitted for approval by any meeting of
the Protective Association., Since the respondents place great em-
phasis upon the fact that the Protective Association was established
by its employees as a voluntary protest against-the failure of the
La Grange local to submit the July 27 agreement for approval by
its membership, the placid acceptance of the agreement sent down
by Matter is particularly significant of the independent spirit of
the new organization.
The testimony of Radke and Dolgner concerning the settlement
of grievances is equally indefinite and confused. Both referred very
vaguely to the fact that they had settled several cases with Matter,
but, we are persuaded that no regular machinery for presenting
grievances or obtaining appeals was ever established and that no
reports were ever made to the membership.
From September 11, 1935, the Protective Association held no meet-
ings until about May 1, 1936, at which time the hearing in this
proceeding had commenced. The notice of this May meeting was
posted on the bulletin boards within the plants.
During April 1936, at about the time the complaint was issued,
bylaws and clues cards were printed, and clues were collected for the
first time. At the May meeting the name, "Aluminum Products Em-
ployees Protective Association, #1," was abandoned in favor of
"Utensil Makers Organization."
We find that the respondents have dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Utensil Makers, and have
contributed support to it, and have thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. We
further find that, coupled with the illegal sponsorship of the Utensil
Makers, the respondents made clear their antagonism towards the
Aluminum Workers by the statements of Earl Wright, Sr. that no
work would be available at the La Grange plant to members of the
A. F. of L.; of Lynch that Aluminum Products would never "go
along with" the A. F. of L.; and of Matter that the A. F. of L. only
cared about "their 35 cents" and that the July 27 agreement was not
worth the paper it was written on. The respondents thereby inter-
3 Radke's own words confirm the method by which the agreement was approved by the
members of his organization : "I told them that our agreement was there , and that every-
body had it chance to look at it, and if there was anything there that did not suit them,
to let it be known , and nobody said anything , so we took it for granted that it was
satisfactory "
1230 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The strike during October
On October 7, Superintendent Lynch announced that the piece-
work rates at the Lemont plant were being reduced and would be
reset upon a 40 cents an hour basic rate. This was in violation of
the July 27 agreement, which provided that piece-work rates should
be based upon a minimum of 44 cents an hour. In protest against
this violation, the Lemont local went out on strike on October 7.
A picket line was maintained at Lemont from this date until Decem-
ber 3, and operations within the plant were entirely discontinued.
On October 12 a notice was posted at the La Grange plants an-
nouncing wage reductions which would bring the scale for many
operations down to 35 cents an hour. That day about seven em-
ployees went out on strike and, with the aid of the Lemont local
and of other members of the La Grange local who had never been
recalled to work, a picket line was maintained at La Grange until
December 3. However, the La Grange plants kept open and opera-
tions continued.
The respondents contend that the strike was illegal because the
Aluminum Workers failed to comply with the provision of the
July 27 agreement requiring submission of disputes to the Chicago
Regional Labor Board. Our findings, conclusions, and order, as
herein set forth, do not depend upon a determination of the ques-
tion whether the strike involved a breach of an agreement. If its
determination were relevant, it might well be questioned whether the
Aluminum Workers were still bound by the terms of the agreement
after its deliberate breach by the respondents in their reduction of
the piece-work rates. Moreover, after sponsoring a movement to have
their employees withdraw from the La Grange local on the pretext
that the agreement obtained for them by the A. F. of L. was worth-
less, the respondents would seem to be estopped from invoking the
terms of that agreement.
D. The respondents' campaign to break the strike
During the strike the respondents held many conferences with
representatives of the Aluminum Workers. Efforts at mediation
were also initiated by the United States Department of Labor.
However, throughout the period of these negotiations the respond-
ents engaged in activities designed to break the morale of the strikers
and to further discredit the A. F. of L.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1231
On October 23 Lynch presented to a meeting of the Lemont vil-
lage board and released to the newspapers a letter from W. A.
Hastings which contained the following statements :
Owing to most regrettable strikes and labor difficulties fer-
mented (sic), in our opinion, by outside professional labor or-
ganizers the Directors of the Aluminum Products Company
have decided to abandon all manufacturing activities at the
Lemont plant.
Machinery and equipment will be removed in due course and
contracts for such removal are now ready for signatures.
We are unfortunately convinced that we cannot operate our
Lemont plant successfully if workers are intimidated, coerced
and held under the domination and influence of professional agi-
tators who have neither interest nor understanding of community
relations.
Our La Grange plants are now being operated 19 hours daily.
The La Grange workers select their own conference commit-
tees and no outside organizers can influence the committees'
decisions.
Hastings at the same time wrote several letters to the Lemont
employees all of which announced that Aluminum Products had,
decided to abandon its manufacturing activities at Lemont and to
offer the plant for sale or lease. About November 7 the Lemont
newspapers 'carried the following advertisement as an announce-
ment by Stainless Steel:
The Stainless Steel Products Company being an Independent
Company and not a subsidiary are now negotiating for a lease
of the property on New Avenue vacated by the Aluminum Prod-
ucts Company.
The administration of this company will be handled in Lemont
and as, we have no agreement with any Union, we are ready to
receive applications for Employment through Mail at once.
The respondents were at this time forming Lemont Stamping
which, as we have shown above, is entirely owned by Aluminum
Products, as is Stainless Steel. When the strike ended Lemont
Stamping was the new subsidiary corporation which acquired title
to the Lemont plant and took over the manufacturing operations
there.
1232 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A mimeographed letter from Hastings to the Lemont strikers,
dated November 18, contained the following statement :
It seems to me that a well selected strike committee should con-
sist of one representative from each department in the plant.
Why should four members of an important strike committee
come from the shipping department ? How many representatives
have the men from the manufacturing departments? Is this
fair to the men in the manufacturing departments?
The following statements are included in a letter from Hastings
sent out to the Lemont employees on November 29:
Why should the LaGrange situation be allowed to keep the
Lemont plant closed? That 's for the Lemont men to answer
and no one else.
You were also told to expect 25% increase in wages. Did
your leaders get that increase for you? What promises to you
did they actually make good? Haven't you actually been
deceived with promises?
Do you want to stick to the July 27th agreement? If not,
why don't you say so?
I don't blame you for not wanting to stick to it because it was
and still is a "sour ball " for the workers and I mean by "workers"
the men who do the hard work on the machines-Spinners,
Buffers, Pressmen and Burnishers.
The threats to abandon all manufacturing activities at Lemont
because of the domination of the Lemont workers by "professional
agitators," the denunciation of the strike committee as not being
representative, and the disparaging remarks concerning the A. F.
of L. leadership and the July 27 agreement were all calculated to
bring the A. F. of L. into disrepute and to hamper the self-organi-
zation of the respondents' employees. We find that the above acts
of the respondents constitute additional interference with, restraint,
and coercion of their employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively
On December 3 the strike was called off in pursuance of several
telegrams from the respondents and a letter from the Aluminum
Workers, all directed to the conciliator representing the United States
Department of Labor. The picket lines were withdrawn , and the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1233
Lemont strikers returned to work. To certain members of the La
Grange local the respondents made a qualified offer of employment
at the Lemont plant which we will discuss in greater detail below.
The parties met at various times subsequent to the conclusion of
the strike, but were unable to arrive at an understanding of the
terms of the settlement contained in this correspondence of Decem-
ber 3. The evidence fails to sustain the allegations of the amended
complaint in this respect, and we therefore find that the respondents
did not refuse to bargain collectively with the Aluminum Workers.
The allegations contained in the amended complaint that the respond-
ents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act will therefore be dismissed.
F. The discriminatory refusals to reinstate and discharges
1. At La Grange
Harry Arthur Anderson and Christopher Courtley were laid off on
June 11, 1935, and thereafter participated in the strike which began
on June 13. Anderson was first employed by the respondents in
1917 and after several interruptions during the war period worked
continuously from 1923 on. He was employed the last 6 years as a
metal polisher. He was the financial secretary of the La Grange
local from the time of its organization in 1933. Courtley commenced
his employment with the respondents in July 1933 as a watchman and
janitor in the fabricating plant. He was one of the trustees of the
La Grange local.
The respondents concede that on June 11 the two men were not
discharged but were "laid off." In addition, Anderson was specifi-
cally told by his foreman that he would be recalled when work was
available. Since the respondents did not contradict testimony set-
ting forth the general custom which was followed, we conclude that
it was the practice for the management to take the initiative in re-
,calling employees temporarily laid off. Yet after the strike was
concluded neither of these men was ever recalled, despite the fact
that new employees were added to the pay rolls and that by October
1, 1935, there were a greater number of persons employed at the
La Grange plants than there had been at the time of the strike.
During October Courtley and Anderson, as two of the representa-
tives of the Aluminum Workers, attended a conference with the man-
agement concerning a settlement of the strikes. During the discus-
sions Courtley declared that his position had been taken over by a
new employee who was not a member of the La Grange local. The
response which this remark brought may best be set forth in Court-
i
1234 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ley's own words : "Mr. Lynch stated that it was too bad that I hacl
been on the first union committee, that if I had not he did not think
my troubles would have been as hard as they had been."
At the hearing the respondents offered no reasons for the refusals
to reinstate Anderson and Courtley. In their brief the respondents
contend that they offered work at the Lemont plant in December
1935 to all the La Grange employees named in the amended com-
plaint. During the negotiations designed to end the October strike
the respondents submitted many proposals concerning the possibility
of reinstating the La Grange employees at Lemont. These offers
were all conditioned upon a settlement of other issues and upon a
settlement of the entire strike. The respondents' telegram of Decem-
ber 3 contained the statement :
PROVIDING STRIKE IS CALLED OFF TODAY WE,
AGREE THAT ALL LA GRANGE WORKERS AFFILI-
ATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
UNIONS AND WHO WERE ON LA GRANGE PAY ROLLS
OCTOBER EIGHTH SHALL BE GIVEN EQUAL OPPOR-
TUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES TO WORK AS QUICKLY
AS POSSIBLE AT LEMONT PLANT ...
Anderson and Courtley do not come within the terms of this offer.
The language of the telegram further shows that it does not con-
stitute an actual offer of reinstatement. Even assuming that an
offer providing for immediate employment was made, we do not
concede that a position at the Lemont plant would constitute an
offer of reinstatement to an individual who had been employed at
the La Grange plants. We find this entire defense to be an admis-
sion of the respondents' desire to segregate at the Lemont plant all
employees retaining membership in the Aluminum Workers, in
order that the domination of the organization which had been
formed at La Grange could be continued without interference.
We find that on October 1, 1935, the respondents failed to rein-
state Harry Arthur Anderson and Christopher Courtley because of
their membership in the La Grange local and their activities in its
behalf.
Jesse Greene was employed by the respondents from September
1921 until April 1925 and from August 1932 until the commencement
of the strike on June 13, 1935. When the La Grange local was or-
ganized Greene became the recording secretary. He was a member
of the joint committee of the Aluminum Workers which carried on
negotiations with the management both prior to and during the
June strike. He was particularly active during the strike, the base-
ment of his house being used as the headquarters of the La Grange
local.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1235
When the strike was ended on July 27, he made several visits to
the plant and requested reinstatement . His requests for reinstate-
ment were refused. We are convinced by Greene 's uncontradicted testi-
mony that Wright, superintendent of the La Grange rolling mill, told
him "that as long as the men continued with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, they couldn't get back to work, they couldn 't be put
back to work."
We find that the respondents failed to reinstate Jesse Greene on
October 1, 1935, because of his membership in the La Grange local
and his activities in its behalf.
Lyman E. Perry was employed by the respondents from May 1924
until the beginning of the strike on June 13 , 1935. At his last job in
the rolling mill he was earning 57 cents an hour. During the strike he
was president of the La Grange local and the chairman of the joint
negotiating committee of the Aluminum Workers. Accompanied by
Greene he saw Superintendent Wright shortly after the strike ended.
Perry's uncontroverted testimony that, "We were informed that there
would not be any work as long as we were members of the American
Federation of Labor," is conclusive of the reason for the respondents'
failure to reinstate him.
Perry obtained a position with another concern on October 1, 1935,
and was at the time of the hearing receiving employment at 50 cents
an hour. He was retaining his membership in the La Grange local,
although he was no longer the president.
We find that the respondents failed to reinstate Lyman E. Perry
on October 1, 1935, because of his membership in the La Grange
local and his activities in its behalf.
John Kronaray was employed by the respondents from 1913 to
1923 , and from 1932 to June 13, 1935, when the strike began. He
was a member of the La Grange local and was on the picket line
during the strike. Although he applied for reinstatement on five or
six occasions , he was never called back to work.
The Trial Examiner found that insufficient evidence was introduced
to sustain the allegations of the amended complaint with respect to
John Kromray . To this finding no exceptions were filed by the
Aluminum Workers. Upon consideration of the evidence we are of
the opinion that the allegations of the amended complaint with re-
spect to John Kromray should be dismissed.
Stanley Witkowski was employed as a watchman and janitor in the
rolling mill from 1926 until he was laid off on June it , 1935. He
was at that time told that the respondents had too many watchmen
and were reducing their force . He was a member of the La Grange
local and participated in the June 13 strike . At the hearing there
was no testimony as to whether anyone else had been employed to take
over his position.
1236 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner found that although Witkowski's work was
satisfactory, his discharge came as an economy measure. We agree
with this finding and the allegations of the complaint with respect to
Stanley Witkowski will be dismissed.
Leo Kozlowski, Stanley Nickleski, and Frank Sniegowski were laid
off on October 4, 1935. Kozlowski was employed by the respondents
for 22 years, from September 1913 to June 13, 1935, and was recalled
to work on September 11. Nickleski and Sniegowski had each been
employed for 10 years, from 1925 to June 13, 1935, and had been re-
called, respectively, during August and on September 20. Although
all three of the men lived in Lemont, they were employed at the La
Grange plants, were members of the La Grange local, and had par-
ticipated in the strike and picketing at La Grange.
When Kozlowski was given his lay-off notice he was told by the
superintendent, Perrott, "My orders are to keep those working, nearest
the plant." Nickleski and Sniegowski were given no reasons for their
lay-off. The respondents contend that the three men were laid off
because they lived in Lemont, while it was the desire of the man-
agement to keep on the La Grange pay rolls those workers who
lived nearest the plant.
As we have stated above, the respondents were at this time add-
ing new workers at La Grange and were increasing their pay rolls
beyond the number employed prior to the strike. During the same
period there were being circulated at the La Grange plants petitions
to withdraw from the La Grange local and the A. F. of L. and to
participate instead in the formation of the Protective Association.
The foremen and superintendents had knowledge of and approved
the distribution of these petitions.
On September 24 a petition of the Protective Association was placed
on a box near the dressing room. One of the leaders in the organi-
zation which we have found to have been dominated by the re-
spondents indicated to Kozlowski that he had better sign the petition
in order to avoid being laid off. Kozlowski answered, "I worked here
22 year without signing anything. Why should I sign anything now?"
Five days later Kozlowski received his lay-off notice. When the
shop machinist asked Nickleski to sign a petition relating to the
formation of the new organization, he answered, "I have no time, I
can't be bothered."
Sniegowski was not asked to sign any petition signifying his with-
drawal from the La Grange local, and be never signed such a petition
and never attended any meeting of the Protective Association. When
he was laid off, Radke and Westphal, who had been active in circulat-
ing the petitions, came over and told him "that the fellows would have
to go their way, if they wanted to make their' bread and butter, or
else stay on relief."
DECJISIONS AND OItDEIiS 1237
The contention which is advanced by the respondents that these
three men were laid off solely because they lived in Lemont adds
strength to our conclusion that they were discharged at the La Grange
plants because of their affiliation with and refusal to abandon the
La Grange local. Kozlowski had lived in Lemont during his entire
period of employment at La Grange, and as for the other two men
there is no showing that they had suddenly moved to Lemont. The
Lemont employees at all times maintained their affiliation with the
American Federation of Labor, and we are persuaded that the re-
spondents desired to keep this affiliation restricted to the Lemont
plant.
None of the three men was ever called back to work at La Grange.
As we have found above, the respondents' contention concerning an
offer of employment at Lemont is without merit. We find that on
October 4, 1935, the respondents discharged Leo Kozlowski, Stanley
Nickleski, and Frank Sniegowski because of their membership in and
assistance to the La Grange local, and because of their refusal to
transfer allegiance to the Protective Association.
Henry Anderson was employed by the respondents from 1917 until
he was laid off on June 11, 1935. He lived in La Grange, was a mem-
ber of the La Grange local, and participated in the strike of June
13 On October 12 he was called back to work.
When Anderson arrived at the plant that day he saw Dolgner, who
asked him to sign a petition relating to the Protective Association.
He refused to sign the petition, and Dolgner said, "Well, then you
can't go to work." He next saw the foreman, Virtel, who told him to
go to work. He told Virtel that he belonged to the A. F. of L. and
"would not sign up the company union." Virtel said, "Go to see
Carl Dolgner."
Anderson found Dolgner with Perrott, the superintendent, in the
latter's office. Dolgner told Anderson that he could work if he signed
the petition. The superintendent then gave Anderson a time card
and told him to go to work. Anderson thereupon gave the time card
back to Dolgner and said, "I ain't going to work."
The respondents contend that Anderson's own testimony proves
that neither the foreman nor the superintendent indicated that he
was required to sign anything. However from the foreman's action
in sending him to Dolgner, from Dolgner's presence in the superin-
tendent's office, and from the superintendent's failure to offer any
assurance that Dolgner's statements were unauthorized, we are per-
suaded that it was reasonable for Anderson to assume that his offer
of employment was conditioned upon a transfer of- his allegiance
from the La Grange local to the Protective Association.
We find that on October 12, 1935, the respondents failed to re-
instate Henry Anderson because of his membership in the La Grange
1238 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
local and because of his refusal to transfer allegiance to the Protec-
tive Association.
Arnold Kling, Michael Snyder, Stanley Godzilc, and Stanley Janca
are referred to in the amended complaint in connection with the
allegation that they were refused reinstatement after their participa-
tion in the second strike at La Grange which lasted from October 12
to December 3, 1935. No testimony was offered concerning Arnold
Kling. The allegations of the amended complaint with respect to
Arnold Kling will therefore be dismissed.
Stanley Godzik was employed by the respondents from 1923 to
1925, from 1927 to 1929, from 1930 to 1931, and from August 1932
until June 13, 1935. He was called back to work during August
1935 and with the exception of a temporary lay-off of 3 weeks was
regularly employed until October 12 when he joined the La Grange
picket line. Stanley Janca was employed from 1924 until June 13,
1935. He was the first employee to be reinstated at the La Grange
plants after the first strike and he continued to be employed until
October 12, 1935, when he joined the strike. Michael Snyder was
employed from June 1932 until June 13, 1935. He was called back
to work on August 6, 1935, and was regularly employed until he
joined the picket line on October 12. Prior to their participation
in this second strike called by the Aluminum Workers, by which
,they reaffirmed their membership in the La Grange local, Janca and
'Snyder had signed petitions of the Protective Association, while
Godzik had not only signed petitions but, as stated above, had acted
-as a member of the representation committee of the new organization.
When the strike was concluded on December 3, 1935, the circum-
stances surrounding the settlement were such that Godzik, Janca,
and Snyder knew at once that they would not be reinstated at the
La Grange plants. The respondents in their telegram of December
3 recognized the desires of Goclzik, Janca, and Snyder to be re-
instated and included them within the terms of the offer of employ-
ment at Lemont. Our conclusions with reference to this alleged
offer of employment have been stated above.
We find that on December 4, 1935, the respondents failed to re-
instate Stanley Godzik, Stanley Janca, and Michael Snyder because
of their membership in and assistance to the La Grange local and
-because of their withdrawal of allegiance to the Protective Associa-
tion.
Harry Arthur Anderson, Courtley, Greene, Perry, Kozlowski,
Nickleski, Sniegowski, Henry Anderson, Janca, and Snyder had
failed to secure regular and substantially equivalent employment at
the time of the hearing. Goclzik had secured other employment and,
at the time of the hearing, was earning $1.20 an hour as compared to
About 50 cents, his wage rate when last employed by the respondents.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1239
By refusing to reinstate Harry Arthur Anderson , Christopher
Courtley, Jesse Greene, Lyman E. Perry, Henry Anderson, Stanley
Godzik, Stanley Janca, and Michael Snyder, and by discharging Leo
Kozlowski, Stanley Nickleski, and Frank Sniegowski the respondents
discouraged membership in the La Grange local and encouraged
membership in the Protective Association, and interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. At Lemont
Peter & iegowski was employed as a watchman at the Lemont
plant from October 1928 until June 13, 1935. He was a member of
the Lemont local and served on the picket line during the first strike.
He was recalled to work on March 4, 1936.
The amended complaint alleges that the failure to offer him re-
instatement until March 4, 1936, constituted an unfair labor prac-
tice. The Trial Examiner found that insufficient evidence was intro-
duced to sustain this allegation, and the Aluminum Workers failed
to except. We agree with the findings of the Trill Examiner and
the allegations of the amended complaint with respect to Peter
Sniegowski will be dismissed.
George C. Boe was employed in the shipping room at the Lemont
plant from January 25, 1933, to June 13, 193,5.' The amended com-
plaint alleges that the failure to reinstate him prior to December 9,
1935, and his subsequent discharge on April 8, 1936, constituted unfair
labor practices.
Boe was a member and the auditor of the Lemont local and the
secretary of the joint negotiating committee of the Aluminum Work-
ers. He participated in the conferences and negotiations in connec-
tion with the June and October 1935 strikes.
At the time of the October strike the number of employees at the
Lemont plant was smaller than the number employed prior to the
JLlne strike. No evidence was introduced as to whether anyone else
had been employed to take over Boe's position. The allegations of
the amended complaint with respect to the failure to reinstate George
C. Boe until December 9, 1935, will therefore be dismissed.
On March 24, 1936, Boe, as secretary of the Aluminum Workers'
negotiating committee, joined in signing the original charge filed
in this proceeding. On April 4 Superintendent Lynch handed Boe
a, notice that he would be laid off at the end of 4 days and, at the
same time, told Boe "that he had orders from Mr. Hastings to lay
(llim) off, due to the fact that there was not sufficient work for two
maintenance men, and (Hastings) asked to keep the most valuable of
those two maintenance men." Although most of Boe's work after
146 791-3S-vol Nn-79
1240 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 9 had been as a maintenance man, during April he was
employed in the shipping room at the duties which he had per-
forined for over 2 years prior to the June strike. In the light of
the entire record, we do not find that the reduction in the maintenance
force offers a convincing reason for Boe's lay-off from the shipping
room.
At the time of the hearing Boe had failed to secure regular em-
ployment. We find that the respondents laid off George C. Boe on
April 9, 1936, and thereafter failed to reinstate him because of his
membership in and activities on behalf of the Lemont local and
because he had filed charges under the Act. The respondents thereby
discriminated against him because he filed charges under the Act,
discouraged membership in the Lemont local by discriminating with
respect to his hire and tenure of employment, and interfered with,
restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
G. The shut-down p f the Lemont plant on April 30 and May 1, 1936
The amendedpcomplaint alleges that on April 30 4 and May 1, 1936,
the respondents closed the Lemont plant for the purpose of restrain-
ing and coercing their Lemont employees from testifying in this
proceeding and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (4) of the Act.
The hearing in this case began on Thursday, April 30, 1936. On
the day before, Kettman, a foreman at the Lemont plant, announced
that Bruce Hastings, son of W. A. Hastings, and Superintendent
Lynch had told him that they "would be tied up in this hearing,
and there would be nobody there to run the plant, so they were
going to close it down for that week." Thus the Lemont plant was
shut down on Thursday and Friday, April 30 and May 1. Opera-
tions appear to have been resumed during the following week. The
La Grange plants were not shut down for the hearing.
Neither Lynch nor Bruce Hastings participated in the hearing
until June 16, on which day they testified as witnesses for the re-
spondents. In their testimony they made no mention of the shut-
down of the Lemont plant nor offered any reason for it. We are
not impressed with the reason for the shut-down as announced to
the Lemont employees. Bruce Hastings never worked at the Lemont
plant until after the close of the second strike, and he was primarily
in charge of the shipping of the finished products. He and Super-
intendent Lynch were present at other sessions of the hearing. There
4 Erroneously referred to in the amended complaint as March 30 However the re-
spondents raised no question concerning this variance between the amended complaint and
the proof and finding of the Inteimediate Report
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1241
is no showing that the Lemont plant was closed down on June 16
when they both testified.
We believe that the Lemont plant was shut down on April 30 and
May 1, 1936, as a means of indicating to the Lemont employees, who
were practically all members of the Lemont local, the opposition of
the respondents to the activities of and the proceedings instituted by
the Aluminum Workers. This shut-down of the Lemont plant did
not constitute an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (4) of the Act. However, we find that the respondents thereby
-interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
H. The discriminations against Emanuel Mickel
Emanuel Mickel was first employed by the respondents in 1927
in the shipping department of the Lemont plant. He was laid off
in 1930, recalled to the same department in 1931, and was thereafter
employed until June 13, 1935. After the June strike he }vas recalled
to work about August 7.
He was the president of the Lemont local and a member of the
joint negotiating committee of the Aluminum Workers. As we have
stated above, when Radke, Dolgner, and Fick appeared at the Lemont
plant on October 2, Mickel raised the question of whether it was
necessary to listen to them and started to walk away after he re-
ceived Lynch's answer. Fifteen minutes later Mickel was. laid off
by his foreman who told him, that he did not know when he would
get back to work.
When Mickel called for his wages on October 4, the foreman asked
him why he had not come back to work, and told him to see the
superintendent. Lynch stated that the foreman had been excited and
was supposed to have told Mickel to return after a lay-off of 1 day.
Lynch asked Mickel to report for work on October 7. When Mickel
came to the plant on October 7 the wage reduction was announced
and the Lemont employees went out on strike.
We find that the respondents laid off Emanuel Mickel from Octo-
ber 2 until October 7, 1935, because of his membership in the Lemont
local and his activities in its behalf. By this lay-off the respond-
ents discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Lemont local, and inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
At the conclusion of the strike Mickel was reinstated on December
9. After the latter part of December he acted as shipping clerk and
made out and signed all bills of lading. Shipments of finished prod-
ucts from the Lemont plant were generally made out in the name of
1242 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
either Stainless Steel or Banner, as the consignor. Around March
1936 Mickel asked Bruce Hastings how to make out the bill of lading
for an order purchased by Great Northern Products Company, a
Chicago dealer, and being shipped to Canada. Mickel testified that
Hastings instructed him to designate Lemont Stamping as the con-
signor, and that he thereafter continued to make out the bills of
lading in this manner for all Great Northern Products Company
orders. Bruce Hastings denied that he had ever given Mickel such
instructions, but testified that he did not want to show his ignorance
concerning the handling of the Canadian order and that he there-
fore told Mickel to take up the problem with one of the girls in the
office. Hastings further stated that for some period of time he had
observed that the bills of lading were naming Lemont Stamping as
consignor, and that he told the owner of the trucking service which
handled some of the orders, "We will just let Mickel go ahead and
you change them in your office." We are of the opinion that belief
in the testimony of Mickel is more reasonable, and that Mickel's
method of handling the bills of lading was in pursuance of his in-
structions and was known to his superior for a period of several
months.
On March 24, 1936, Mickel joined in filing the original charge in
this proceeding which he signed as the president of the Lemont local.
On April 30 the hearing was started with evidence being adduced
with respect to the question of interstate commerce. On May 4
Lynch called Mickel into his house and said, "Mickel, the company
has a very serious charge against ydu. You may be pinched . . .
Bruce has told me that you changed some bills of lading down there,
in order to make your case all set on the interstate commerce. How-
ever Bruce has changed all these bills of lading, and I don't think
nothing will come of it myself." Lynch then stated that he had
orders to let Mickel stay home until after the hearing and that he
believed that neither Boe nor Mickel would ever get back to work
for the respondents. We interpret Lynch's final remark, which he
did not deny having made, to be a notification to Mickel of his
discharge.'
\Te are impressed by the fact that the conversation with respect
to Mickel's discharge includes a reference to Boe whose employment
had been terminated a month before, but whose activities appear to
have made a lasting impression in Lynch's mind. We find that
s The brief filed by the respondents contains this statement • "It seems that Lynch
volunteered his-own opinion on various matters to Mickel." Lynch was the superintendent
of the Lemont plant and the highest supervisory employee in connection with its opera-
tions. As such, the respondents are answerable for his statements.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1243
Emanuel Mickel was discharged on May 4, 1936, because he had filed
charges under the Act and because of his membership in the Lemont
local and his activities in its behalf. In discharging Emanuel Mickel
the respondents discriminated against him because he filed charges
under the Act, discouraged membership in the Lemont local by dis-
criminating with respect to his hire and tenure of employment, and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Inasmuch as we have found that the respondents have dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Utensil
Makers Organization and have contributed support to it, the re-
spondents must cease contributing financial or other support to it
and must withdraw all recognition from the Utensil Makers Organi-
zation as the representative of its employees, for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes, rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
Having found that the respondents by the refusals to reinstate and
the discharges discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of 13 employees, we shall order the reinstatement of all of
the employees who were discriminated against, with the exception
of Michael Snyder, with back pay from the dates of the discrimina-
tory acts, less any amounts earned by them in the meantime. At the
hearing Michael Snyder testified that he did not desire reinstate-
ment with the respondents.
Furthermore, we shall order the respondents to make whole all the
employees on the pay rolls of the Lemont plant on April 29, 1936,
for the losses of pay that they suffered in consequence of the re-
spondents' illegal conduct in shutting down the plant on April 30
and May 1, 1936. The amount to be paid each employees is to be
computed upon the basis of his average daily wage for the 1-week
period immediately prior to April 30.
1244 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aluminum Workers Union No. 19064, Aluminum Workers
Union No. 19078, and Utensil Makers Organization, are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Utensil Makers Organization, and contributing support
to it, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Harry Arthur Anderson, Christopher Courtley, Jesse Greene,
Lyman E. Perry, Leo Kozlowski, Stanley Nickleski, Frank Snie-
gowski, Henry Anderson, Stanley Godzik, Stanley Janca, Michael
Snyder, George C. Boe, and Emanuel Mickel, and each of them, and
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the re-
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against George C. Boe and Emanuel Mickel
because they had filed charges under the National Labor Relations
Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
7. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to John
Kromray, Stanley Witkowski, Arnold Kling, and Peter Sniegowski.
8. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, Aluminum Products Company, Metal Rolling and
Stamping Corporation, Lemont Stamping Corporation, Banner
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1245
Stamping Company , and Stainless Steel Products Company, and
their officers , agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Utensil Makers Organization , or the formation-or ad-
ministration of any ether labor organization of its employees, and
contributing support to Utensil Makers Organization , or to any other
labor organization of its employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of their
employees , by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their em-
ployees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their
employment;
(c) Discharging, refusing to reinstate , or otherwise discriminating
against an employee because he has filed charges under the National
Labor Relations Act;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , and co-
ercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion, to form , join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid and protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Utensil Makers Organization,
as representative of any of their employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondents concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work, and
completely disestablish Utensil Makers Organization as such repre-
sentative;
(b) Offer to Harry Arthur Anderson , Christopher Courtley, Jesse
Greene, Lyman E. Perry, Leo Kozlowski , Stanley Nickleski, Frank
Sniegowski , Henry Anderson , Stanley Godzik, Stanley Janca, George
C. Boe, and Emanuel Mickel immediate and full reinstatement, re-
spectively , to their former positions , without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Harry Arthur Anderson , Christopher Courtley,
Jesse Greene , Lyman E. Perry, Leo Kozlowski , Stanley Nickleski,
Frank Sniegowski, Henry Anderson , Stanley Godzik , Stanley Janca,
and George C. Boe, for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason
of the respondents ' discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment , by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which each would normally have earned as wages during the
1246 NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period, ,from the date of such discrimination against him to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less any amount earned by him.
during such period;
(d) Make whole Emanuel Mickel for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination in regard to his
hire and tenure of employment, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would -normally have earned as wages
during the period from October 2 to October 7, 1935, and during
the period from May 4, 1936, to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less any amount earned by him during such periods;
(e) Make whole all the Lemont employees who were employed
by the respondents on April 29, 1936, for the loss of pay they
suffered by reason of the closing of the Lemont plant on April 30
and May 1, 1936, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which each would have earned as wages during said
days, such sum to be calculated in the manner set forth in Section
V of this Decision, less any amount earned by each of them during
said days;
(f) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places where they
will be observed by the respondents' employees, and maintain such
notices for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days, stating
that the respondents will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid,
and that the respondents will withdraw all recognition from Utensil
Makers Organization as the representative of any of their employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
conditions of work-, and that Utensil Makers Organization is dis-
established as such representative;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the amended complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondents have
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act and within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
with respect to persons other than those referred to in paragraph
3 of the Conclusions of Law.