Automatic Screw Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 488 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY AND ERNEST
M. CARLSON, ESTHER CARLSON, ARTHUR ANDERSEN, AND MARTHA
ANDERSEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A AUTOMATIC
SCREW MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MA-
CHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1421, CIO
Case No. C-2686.-Decided September 7, 19413
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 27, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that they cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found and take certain affirmative action, as set out in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto, and that the com-
plaint be dismissed as to the remaining allegations. The respondents
filed no exceptions to the Intermediate Report and did not request
oral argument before the Board. The Board has considered the rul-
ings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the entire
Iecord in the case. Although some of the Trial Examiner's findings
are based largely upon factual inferences drawn from credible testi-
mony, in view of the record as a whole and particularly the significant
failure of the respondents to file exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port, we see no reason for disturbing his findings. Accordingly, upon
the entire record in the case, the Board hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, Automatic Screw Machine
Company and Ernest M. Carlson, Esther Carlson, Arthur Andersen,
and Martha Andersen, individually and as co-partners, doing busi-
ness as Automatic Screw Machine Company, Los Angeles, California,
and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
52 N. L. R B., No. 79.
4S8
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 489
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, or in any other labor
organization of their employees, by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of their employees, or by discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or-
condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
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) Offer to Raymond W. Martin immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Raymond W. Martin for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he-
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date
of his discharge to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement,.
less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their plants
in Los Angeles, California, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their em--
ployees stating : (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct
from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a),
and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondents will take the aftirma=
tive action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3)
that the respondents' employees are free to become and remain mem-
bers of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
Local 1421, CIO, and that the respondents will not discriminate against-
any employee because of his membership or activity in that organ-
ization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first 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 complaint, as amended, insofar
as it alleges that the respondents (1) engaged in surveillance of meet-
ings of the Union and interrogated 'employees in the vicinity of the
union hall, (2) referred to union members and officers in derogatory
and opprobrious terms, (3) required employees to sign statements.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
repudiating their former union activity as a condition of reemploy-
ment, and (4) granted leadmen power to prevent employees working
under them from receiving additional wage increases, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. George H. O'Brien, for the Board.
Mr. Oscar W. Houqe and Mr. Walter T. Spreckels, of Los Angeles, Calif., for
the respondents.
Mr. George M. Dodson, and Katz, Gallagher & Margolis, by Mr. Melton S.
Tyre, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon first amended charges filed on May 12, 1943, by United Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its com-
plaint dated May 12,.1943, against Automatic Screw Machine Company and
Ernest M. Carlson and Arthur Andersen. individually and as co-partners, doing
business as Automatic Screw Machine Company, Los Angeles, California, herein
called the respondents,' alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hear-
ing thereon, were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondents: (1) on or about November 21, 1942, discharged Raymond
W. Martin because of his membership and activities on behalf of the Union and
have since failed and refused to reinstate him, thereby discriminating in regard
to hire and tenure of employment within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act; and (2) since October 15, 1942, and thereafter, through various officials,
agents, and supervisory employees interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by
(a) revising the respondents' wage schedule and granting to ]eadmen authority
to prevent employees from receiving additional wage increases; (b) preparing'
a statement requiring respondents' employees to state that the signers thereof
would oppose any union in respondents' plant; (c) advising employees not to
join any union and stating to employees `that if the plant was organized wages
would he reduced; (d) referring to union members and officers in derogatory and
opprobrious terms: (e) instructing leadmen to ascertain the names of Union
members and to keep special watch on such employees; (f) warning employees
that respondents had discharged other employees for attempting to start a union ;
(g) spying upon and interrogating employees; and (h) requiring employees to
sign statements repudiating their former union activity as a condition of re-
employment.
I Upon motion of counsel for the respondents , granted by the undersigned , the complaint
and answer were amended at the hearing to designate the respondents as they appear in
the caption herein.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 491
On or about May 22, 1943, the respondents filed with the Regional Director
a motion for a bill of particulars, which was referred by the Regional Director
to the undersigned, Charles W. Schneider, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner, for disposition.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California on June 14
to 19, 1943, before the undersigned. The Board, the respondents; and the Union
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be beard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the bearing, the undersigned denied the respondents' mo-
tion for a bill of particulars. At the hearing the respondents filed an answer
admitting the allegations of the complaint with respect to the nature of their
business but denying that they had engaged in the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices. The answer averred that Raymond W. Martin was discharged for cause
on or about November 21. 1942. At the close of the hearing, upon motion of
counsel for the Board, the undersigned dismissed the allegations of the complaint
averring that the respondents' had referred to union members and officers in
derogatory and opprobrious terms; and that the respondents had required em-
ployees to sign statements repudiating their former union activity as a condition
of reemployment. A motion of counsel for the Board, not opposed, to amend
the complaint, answer and other formal documents to conform to the proof
with respect to names, dates and similar minor inaccuracies, was granted by
the undersigned. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties argued orally
before the 1Trial Examiner, but stated that they did not desire to submit briefs
to the undersigned.
On July 20, 1943, counsel for the Board and for the respondents entered into a
written stipulation for correction of the record. On July 26, 1943, the under-
signed issued an order correcting the record in accordance with the stipulation.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes, in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Automatic Screw Machine Company, is a co -partnership registered under the
laws of the State of California , and engaged in the business of manufacturing
screw machine products at Los Angeles , California . The partnership consists of
Ernest M Carlson , Esther Carlson , Arthur Andersen and Martha Andersen as
equal partners . In connection with their business the respondents operate two
plants known as plants Nos . 1 and 2 in the City of Los Angeles . In 1942 the
respondents purchased raw materials , consisting principally of steel, brass and
zamack No . 2, valued at approximately several million dollars, all of which was
shipped to the respondents from points outside the State of California. The
respondents sold in 1942 finished products valued at approximately five to six
million dollars of which about 75 percent was sold to the United States Govern-
ment. The respondents employ approximately 1,200 employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the respondents.
,492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNF-\IR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , restraint and coercion
1 Background
There is no evidence of any union activity among the respondents' employees
prior to October 13, 1942. On or about the latter date 2 George Black and Gunnar
Wenberg, employees of the respondents, called on Arthur Andersen, one of the
respondents, and Harry Smith, the general superintendent, and requested pay
,increases .3 Some discussion followed, but no understanding was reached which
was satisfactory to Black and Wenberg.
After that interview, and on the same day, Black and Wenberg called at the
,office of the Union, talked with George Dodson, field organizer for the Union, and
signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. Thereafter, during the lunch period and after work, Black,
Wenberg, and Raymond \V Martin distributed union authorization cards among
employees of the respondents The Union's first meeting was held on Monday,
,,October 26, in the C. I. 0 hall about 8 blocks from the plant. Thereafter other
meetings were held at intervals of from 3 days to a week during the period
.involved in these proceedings. ,
2 The supervisors' meetings and the wage increase's
By early November there was considerable union activity and discussion
going on in the plant. On the night of November 4, Andersen and Carlson
called a meeting of the night shift supervisory employees. Present at the meet-
ing were Andersen, Carlson, General Superintendent Smith, Foremen Roden-
-beck, and Starkey, Chief Night Inspector Major Overbeck, Head Leadman
Thomas Buck and Leaduren Hugh Stanley, Bob Edwards and Jay Rutherford"
The meeting was held about 9 p ni.'
The purpose of the meeting, according to the testimony of Buck, was "to
find out why the boys were dissatisfied ; there was a union drive going on at
the time." Buck testified that Rodenbeck "said something to the effect that
the boys were talking about joining a union because they weren't getting
-enough money . . . and they weren't being treated good enough by the man-
agement." Either Carlson, Andersen or Smith then suggested wage increases.
.After some discussion it was decided that employees should be given increases
and a 10 percent bonus for night work. In the cases of employees earning 85
-cents or more per hour, leadmen were given authority to recommend the amount
,of increase to be given the particular employee.'
Carlson denied generally that anything was said at the meeting respecting
union activities Rodenbeck was called as a witness for the respondent and
testified with respect to other occurrences at the meeting, but did not deny
2 The witnesses were unable to fix the exact date.
3 Black is no longer employed by the respondents . Wenberg ' s testimony indicates that
he is now a repairman or setup roan
4 Buck, Smith , and Rutherfoid were no longer employed by the respondents at the time
-of the hearing.
5 Most of the witnesses were unable to fix the exact date of this meeting . Carlson first
fixed it as November 9, but later stated that it could have been 2 or 3 days later or earlier.
Production Manager Haupt fixed the date as 3 or 4 days after a day shift meeting ( discussed
hereinafter ). The latter meeting he dated as about November 5. For reasons appearing
h ereinafter the undersigned finds that the meeting took place on the night of November 4.
It is evident from the grant of this authority and from other facts indicated hereinafter,
that leadmen were, at all times material herein, supervisory employees The undersigned
-so finds.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 493
making the statement attributed to him by Buck. Anderson, who was called
as a witness by the Board for cross-examination and by the respondent for direct
examination, and Overbeck who was called by the respondent, were not ques-
tioned regarding the incident . From his observation of the witnesses and after
consideration of the testimony on other aspects of the case, the undersigned
credits the testimony of Buck.'
Immediately after the meeting some of the night machine operators were
called into the office one by one, interviewed by Andersen, Carlson and Smith,
asked whether they were dissatisfied, and what their grievances were. Among
the employees called in were Black and Wenberg Black was promised a raise,
which was granted him on November 5. Wenberg stated that he wished to
become a setup man and was told that he would be assigned to assisting Ruther-
ford when new machines arrived 8 On November 5 Wenberg's wages were
raised from 80 cents to 90 cents per hour.
On or about November 5, a meeting was held of the day shift employees and
supervisors. Present were Andersen, Smith, Production Manager Haupt' lead-
nien and foremen of the day shift, and various clay shift operators. According
to the testimony of Haupt, the operators were given general wage increases
at this meeting because they were assuming additional duties. The increases
were made effective immediately and were reflected in the pay check of November
9, as was the case with the increases granted the night shift. Leadiaen were
also given authority at this meeting to recommend increases.
3. The petition in opposition to the Union
(a) The origin of the petition
On November 11 Union handbills were distributed at the plant gates for the
first time. On November 13 Wilkie C. Thacker, who at that time exercised sub-
stantial managerial authority for the respondents, and whose present title is
Head of Industrial Relations for the respondents,10 prepared the following pe-
tition :
' Carlson testified that Smith had been interfering with Night Superintendent Walters'
operation of the night shift, and that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the group
that Walters was to be obeyed. All the witnesses agreed, and the undersigned finds, that
grievances of the leadmen against Walters were in fact discussed From that fact and the
absence of Walters the undersigned concludes that discussion of his status was also one of
the purposes of the meeting. lloc ever, Carlson first testified that he had no recollection
that anything was said with regard to raises or bonuses But on cross-examination, he
testified that there probably was some discussion of wages but nothing of a definite nature.
Later lie stated that he could not say that there was a time in Novemter when a large
number of employees received raises However, Walters testified without contradiction that
he was instructed by Carlson on November 5 to give the employees increases, "according
to this meeting they had had the night previously .. Carlson told him that he "had
airived at a definite plan," whereby a previous arrangement under which operators had
been hired at $ 65 per hour , with automatic increases of $ 05 per hour every 30 days, was to
be discontnmed ; those earning less than $ 85 per hour were to be raised to that amount ;
those earning more were to be raised the amount recommended by the leadman in the specific
case . Walters was also instructed to ask each man, when informing him of the raise,
whether he was satisfied . In conjunction with the leadnien and foremen , Walters carried
otit these instructions It is not disputed that the raises were actually granted on Novem-
ber 5 Walters' testimony is credited
8 These findings are based on the testimony of Black and Wenberg, which is credited.
Carlson testified that following the November 4 meeting operators were called in individually
"to see how-what their understanding was, whether they were going to work for
Smith or Walters " I
' At that time Haupt was general foreman on the day shift
is Thacker testified that at the time of hearing he had been occupying this position
approximately 60 days.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petition
Dated : NOVEMBER 13, 1942.
We, the undersigned employees of the Automatic Screw Machine Co., do
hereby wish to go on record as opposing any and all efforts to unionize the
shop, as we are entirely satisfied with the hours, working conditions, and
wages. We feel that since the wage schedule is at the present time above
the union schedule, there is no advantage to be gained through joining any
Union.
This protest is entirely voluntary on the part of the undersigned em-
ployees and completely free of any coercion.
According to Thacker's testimony, Lester Simpson, a tool and cutter grinder
employed by the respondents, came to Thacker's office in the plant on November
13, and stated that "the boys want[ed] to get out a petition against organizing
the shop, against any union." Simpson attempted to dictate the petition to
Thacker's stenographer, but was unable to phrase it satisfactorily Thacker
then dictated the document after Simpson had told him roughly what he wanted.
The petition was then typed by Thacker's stenographer. Simpson took it and
left. An hour or 2 later Simpson returned, stated to Thacker that the employees
would not sign the petition "in its present condition" and requested that it be
changed. Thacker refused to alter the document," Simpson then left.'
(b) The circulation of the petition
Copies of the above petition were subsequently circulated in the plant and
signed by many of the respondents' employees.' The circulated petitions, how-
ever, differed from the one dictated by Thacker in one respect : the clause "as
we are entirely satisfied with the hours, working conditions and wages" was
crossed out.
As Walters entered the plant on November 13, employee Homer Brooks showed
him the petition and asked him to sign it and circulate it among the night shift.
Walters refused. Brooks then laid the petition on a bench in the plant. Later
that night Walters saw it in the tool crib, inspected it and found what pur-
ported to be his signature on the last page." Walters took no steps to halt the
circulation of the petition or to remove his name therefrom."
Overbeck, night chief inspector, whom the undersigned finds to be a super-
visory employee, signed one of the petitions, but subsequently removed his signa-
11 Thacker did not indicate in what manner Simpson wanted it revised.
12 The Board alleged in its complaint that at the time he drafted the petition Thacker was
the respondents' personnel manager. The respondents in their answer denied that at that
time Thacker was "the duly authorized Personnel Manager of the . . respondents," or
that her "in such capacity, or in any supervisory or executive capacity" prepared the petition
with the knowledge or assistance of the respondents. Thacker was hired by the respondents
in June 1942 and placed in charge of the guards and plant protection work. In addition
he performed miscellaneous duties He was responsible directly to Carlson and Andersen.
He had an office in the plant and a stenographer, interviewed applicants for employment,
consulted with General Superintendent Smith respecting applicants for employment and
hired new emloyees. It was understood when he was hired that when adequate space had
been acquired, Thacker would become personnel manager. Walters testified that in Septem-
ber hiring was being done by Thacker, whom Walters described as being "personnel or
employment manager." Gunnar Wenberg testified that he knew Thacker as employment
manager. The undersigned finds that Thacker exercised substantial managerial authority
at the time of the preparation of the petition, and that his activities in connection therewith
are attributable to the respondents
ii The copy in evidence bears 224 signatures.
14 These findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Walters.
13 Walters did not sign the petition.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 495
ture. Overbeck told Robert Garner, an inspector under Overbeck. that the peti-
tion was in the tool crib, and said "I can't advise you either way but just go
in and take a look." Later that night Garner found Overbeck sitting at a desk
in the tool crib inspecting the petition According to Garner, Overbeck "Couldn't
understand why the boys wanted a union." Garner replied that he was "in a
position that ihel couldn't talk either way . . . Overbeck then declared that
almost all the women in Plant No. 1 had signed the petition, and pushed it to-
ward Garner. Garner replied that he would not sign it, and walked away.1e '
William Lenew, Overbeck's superior on the day shift, attempted to persuade
inspectors to sign the petition, according to Overbeck's uncontradicted testimony.
Overbeck testified that he told his own foremen, in response to queries from
them as to what he thought of the petition and what he thought would happen
if they joined the Union, that he didn't know ; that it was up to them : that
the petition was in the tool crib for them to look at and sign if they wanted
to, and they could do as they pleased about it; that if the shop went on an eight
hour basis they might get a ten cent an hour raise, "but they would take an
awful cut in pay due to the decrease in hours."
Ollie Haupt, at that time general foreman, and later production manager,
signed the petition, as did Steward Schenck, leadman on Davenport automatic
machines. and Adolph Ebert. day shift head leadman. Schenck testified that the
petition circulated during working hours.'; Ebert and Employee Charles Mills,
son of Ellis Mills, night superintendent of Plant No. 1, testified that they signed
it during working hours.,
4. Other statements by Overbeck to Garner.
Garner testified that, sometime after his conversation with Overbeck relative
to the petition, Overbeck told Garner that Andersen had asked Overbeck whether
he had a man working for him named Garner; that when Overbeck replied
that he did, Andersen said, "I have been informed that Garner is active in
union work ;" that Overbeck then stated that Garner would not be interested
in the Union ; which reply seemed to satisfy Andersen.
Garner further testified, that, later in his conversation with Overbeck, the
latter stated that the Company had checked with Garner's former employer
and- had been informed that Garner was "a union agitator, and was fired' there
for trying to organize the shop." Garner told Overbeck "I don't know who told
you that, but whoever did is a liar."
In the same conversation Overbeck stated that the respondent had "let' good
men go because they was active in union work ; Stanley, for instance."
According to Garner, Overbeck "more than once" engaged Garner in talks
about the Union ; "wondered why the boys wanted a union in the shop;" stated
that "they would cut the hours, they would cut the rates to the union scale."
When Garner asked how he knew, Overbeck replied "I know by experience. I
have been in unions before."
Garner was not cross-examined by the respondent with respect to these
incidents. Overbeck was called as a witness by the respondent but was not
questioned on direct examination respecting the specific statements attributed
to him by Garner.18 Overbeck did not at any time specifically deny having
16 These findings are based on the testimony of Garner.
17 Schenck also testified that the petition in evidence contained the names of many
employees who were employed much later than the date of the petition.
18 Counsel for the respondent asked Overbeck whether Carlson or Andersen had ever
talked to him with respect to union activities, concerning whether anyone belonged to the
union, or had instructed him to take any action with regard to union men or activities.
Overbeck's answer was "No."
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made the statements. However, under cross examination by the union repre-
sentative, Overbeck was asked what statements he had made concerning unions.
He testified that his statements consisted of the declarations he had made to
his foremen, which have been related above. He denied having talked to Ander-
sen about Garner and testified that "Bill Lenew told me that Bob Garner was
filed oft his last job for being an agitator; he didn't mention union or otherwise,
he said he was an agitator; and it was strictly a tumor among the fellow
workers-themselves Bob's own friends were in the shop talking about it, and
there was a feeling about anybody that comes in on a blacklist."
The undersigned credits Garner's testimony."
5. Thacker's conversation with Rutherford
According to the testimony oli Rutherford, about a week or 2 after the November
4 meeting of night leadmen and foremen, Rutherford was summoned to Carlson's
office and questioned by Thacker The interview lasted an hour. Only Thacker
and Rutherford were present.
Rutherford testified that Thacker stated that the records of various employees
had been looked up, that he had noted that Rutherford had been in the army, and
that "there was no reason but to believe that [Rutherford] knew what every-
thing was all about." He then asked Rutherford if he knew which employees
were distributing union cards and engaging in organizational activity . Ruther-
ford at first refused to answer. Thacker then stated that Rutherford of all
people should be "patriotic" and "understand the conditions of the country and
the safety of war plants and employees of the Company [and should] tell the
names of these men just as a small patriotic duty." Rutherford still refused to
name anyone. Thacker then explained that he was investigating un-American
actin ities ; that whatever Rutherford said would be confidential and would not
be transmitted to the Company. After much persuasion Rutherford gave
Thacker the names of Raymond Martin, George Black, Bob Garner, and a fourth
man, whose name lie could not recall.20
Conclusions as to interference, restraint and coercion
Black and Wenberg were unable to arrive at a satisfactory understanding with
Andersen and Smith regarding wages prior to their visit to the union office.
During the following 2 to 3 weeks the organizing campaign started by Black and
Wenberg resulted in considerable union discussion and activity, as is evident
10 No finding is made as to the truth of the assertions in'Overbeck ' s statements to Garner
respecting ( 1) whether Overbeck discussed Garner with Andeisen ; ( 2) whether the respond-
ents had made inquiries at Garner 's former place of employment
11 Thacker' s testimony as to this incident was that there had been rumors of sabotage ;
that he thereupon interviewed (separately) Rutherford, Vance (an inspector) and Overbeck ;
that it was Rutherford who introduced the topic of union activity over Thacker ' s protests
that he was not interested in such matters ; that Rutheiford implied that there night be a
connection between the union activity and sabotage ; and that Rutherford then gave Thacker
the names of 3 persons, (whom Thacker did not identify) with the statement that they
would "bear watching " Thacker first testified that be asked Rutherford for the names ;
subsequently he testified that Rutherford volunteered the names . Later in the interview,
according . to Thacker, after Rutherford had sworn him to secrecy and received assurance
that the source of the information would be held "strictly confidential ," Rutherford "rather
reluctantly " gave Thacker a fourth name-that of Raymond Martin
The undersigned was not favorably impressed by Thacker 's testimony . Rutheiford was
direct and straightfoiward . From his observation of the witnesses , the undersigned credits
the testimony of, Rutherford. Corroborative of that conclusion is the unlikelihood that
Rutherford would volunteer Martin 's name to Thacker as a likely saboteur , while at about
the same time ( as appears in/)a) he was in effect asserting the contrary to Carlson.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 497
from the testimony of Walters . and Buck 's account of the meeting of November 4.
In the light of the circumstances under which it was made , the decision to raise
wages from a minimum of 65 cents to 85 cents and to give raises to those earning
85 cents or over in accordance with the leadmen 's recommendations , could only
have been motivated by the union activity discussed at the meeting ; a conclusion
supported by the action of Andersen , Carlson and Smith, in calling in employees
individually immediately after the meeting and in asking them to state their
grievances . Prominent among those interviewed and promised concessions were
Black and Wenberg . The undersigned concludes that the purpose of the respond-
ents in granting the wage increases of November 5 was to forestall further union
activity. In that connection , it is significant that a week thereafter , when the
Union's campaign became open and aggressive , some of the employees decided to,
oppose it affirmatively In articulating that opposition Thacker provided the
Union's opponents with their manifesto . Certain of the respondents ' supervisory
employees provided motive power for its dissemination by signing the petition
themselves ; and by permitting ( and in the case of Overbeck by actively facili-
tating ) its circulation on company time and property during working hours. The
undersigned therefore finds that by the wage increases of November 5 and by the
activities of Thacker in connection with the drafting of the petition opposing the
Unioh, by the activities of Haupt, Ebert, Schenck, Lenew , Overbeck and Walters 21
in connection with its circulation , by Thacker's requests to Rutherford to give
him the names of employees active in the Union , and by Overbeck's statements to
Garner and to other employees , the respondents have interfered with, restrained,
and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 'Z
of the Act 22
B. Alleged surveillance of union meetings
The complaint alleged that the respondents, through Carlson and Ellis Mills,
,spied upon and interrogated their employees near the entrance to the union hall
,when meetings were being held.
The respondents' plant is located at 800 East Gage Avenue in Los Angeles ;
the union hall at Slauson and Avalon.23 The plant is several blocks south and
bout eight blocks east of the hall. Carlson resides at 1136 Hauser Boulevard,
Fvhich is several miles north and west of Slauson and Avalon.
At about 6 p. m. on some evening in November on which a union meeting was
.^'eheduled for 6:15 p m., Carlson was seen by Dodson driving west on Gage
Avenue. At the intersection of Gage and Avalon, Carlson turned right into
Avalon and proceeded north in the direction of Slauson and the union hall.
'i,Dodson testified that Carlson's car slowed down as it approached the hall;
that Carlson looked across the street toward the hall, at the cars parked at the
curb, and directly into the face of Dodson, who was standing in the entrance
watching him. Carlson then drove one block beyond Slauson and turned right.
Later Dodson saw him drive west on Slauson through Avalon. A number of
the respondents' employees were in the building hallway ; others were'sitting
in parked cars. Carlson testified that on some evening in November on his way
21 The undersigned finds that Walters' action in permitting the petition to circulate
unimpeded on company time and property , and in allowing what purported to be his sig-
nature to remain thereon , warranted the inference by the employees that he approved the
petition.
22 The undersigned does not find , however, as alleged in the complaint , that leadmen were
given authority to recommend increases in order to prevent employees from receiving raises ;
and will recommend that that allegation be dismissed.
22 Gage and Slauson run east and west; Avalon north and south . Gage is several blocks
south of Slauson . The union hall is on the west side of Avalon.
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
home from the plant he had occasion to stop a block beyond Slauson to pick up
a check. He readily admitted having seen Dodson standing in the entrance
of the union hall on that occasion. He further testified that he customarily drives
by way of Gage, Avalon and Slauson in traveling between the plant and his
home. The undersigned has viewed the neighborhood of Slauson and Avalon.
Both streets are important arterial thoroughfares. The neighborhood is com-
mercial and industrial in character. Various business enterprises are located
in the vicinity, including a bank across the street from the Union hall.
In view of the geographical location of the plant, the hall, and Carlson's home,
the arterial nature of the thoroughfares and the character of the neighborhood,
Carlson's presence in the vicinity at the time in question is not surprising. His
explanation was plausible. The undersigned finds that there is no substantial
evidence to support the allegation that Carlson spied upon the respondents'
employees near the union hall, and will recommend that it be dismissed.
Clyde Sadler, a former employee of the respondent, testified that during the
month of October he was invited to attend a union meeting at the hall. As
Sadler was standing on the sidewalk across the street from the meeting place,
Ellis Mills, night superintendent of Plant No. 1,24 drove up and parked his car
directly in front of Sadler.
Mills said, "Hello, what are you doing here?" Sadler replied, "Trying to locate
me a doctor, for one thing."
"Well," Mills said, "I might take you to a doctor . .. I know an old one right
here on the corner. As soon as I go in the bank here, I will be back out here
after a while, I might take you to a doctor."
Sadler thanked Mills, but told him that he could locate a doctor himself.
Sadler did not go to the union meeting. He testified that he was afraid to.
Mills' action in parking his car across the street from the union hall and his
conversation with Sadler, do not impress the undersigned as the actions of a
person engaged in spying upon a union meeting or in illegitimate interrogation
,of employees. The undersigned finds that 'there is no substantial evidence to
support that allegation of the complaint, and will recommend that it be dismissed.
C. The discharge of Raymond W. Martin
Martin was hired on September 23, 1942, by Thacker, who assigned him to a
burring machine on the night shift in the No. 2 plant, where he worked one night.
On the next night he was transferred to Plant No. 1, operating a New Britain
'automatic screw machine.26 After one night on the New Britain Martin was
assigned to an Acme Gridley second operation automatic screw machine under
Rodenbeck, Buck and Rutherford.
When Black and Wenberg distributed authorization cards among the employees
Martin asked Wenberg for blank cards. Thereafter Martin signed a card himself,
talked to employees about the Union, distributed cards and secured signed
authorizations.
After Martin had worked on the second operation machine for 3 to 4 weeks,
Rutherford, with the approval of Buck, began to break him in as a leadman.28
Rutherford testified that he recommended Martin for that position because he
was "one of our best operators."
E4 At that time, Mills was general foreman.
25 Martin remained on the night shift throughout his entire period of employment. He
had had no previous machine experience prior to his employment by the respondents, a
fact of which he had informed Thacker.
^ Leadmen are also called linemen and setup men. The terms are synonymous.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACIUINE COMPANY 499
Martin worked only 2 nights as a trainee leadman. Ellis Mills at that time
needed an operator in the Davenport department and asked Walters to provide
one. Rodenbeck then spoke to Martin, told him that a man was needed on
the Davenports and asked whether he would be willing to work on them for
awhile. Martin said that he would try it 27 Martin was thereupon transferred
to a Davenport machine under Leadman Stewart Schenck, with Ellis Mills as
general foreman.28
About a week thereafter the Acme Gridley second operation machines were
moved from the No. 1 to the No. 2 plant. During the moving, which took
2 or 3 days, the second operation machines were shut down. At that time
Martin told Walters that he would like to return to second operation. Walters
asked him to remain on the Davenports until work on the Acme Gridley ma-
chines was resumed. When second operation work was begun in Plant No. 2
Walters spoke to Ellis Mills and told him that Martin wanted to return to the
Acme Gridleys. Mills, however, stated that he could not spare Martin. As a
consequence, Martin was retained on the Davenports 22
-The transfer to Plant No. 2
Several days later, about November 2 or 3, Martin had a conversation con-
cerning the Union with Charles Mills, son of Foreman Mills, and an operator
of a Davenport machine in the same department. Except with respect to how
the conversation began, the testimony of Martin and Charles Mills is in sub-
stantial agreement as to what was said.$0
As given by Martin, the conversation ran as follows : Mills declared that a
union would "ruin the shop." When Martin asked how, Mills stated, "they
would just call a strike." Martin replied that he did not think the Union would
call a strike in war time. Mills rejoined that there was no point in having a
union if it could not strike; that he did not like the Union and if 'the plant was
organized he would quit ; and that if there was a strike he would continue to
work. Martin quoted him as declaring that "If there is a picket line, I got
a knife about that long (indicating) at home, and I am going to bring it down,
and if anybody takes a swing at me they are going to get hurt."
The nest night Walters came to Martin and told him to get his clothes ; that
he was being transferred to Plant No. 2 The circumstances immediately pre-
ceding the transfer, according to Walters' credible testimony, are as follows :
Foreman Mills informed Walters that he wanted to discharge Martin ; that
Martin had been sitting with his feet propped up on a bench, reading a newspaper
and not attending to his job. Walters testified that he was surprised by the
request because it was "very unusual for a man wanting to fire somebody else's
man, and he had just refused him a transfer." He asked Mills whether he had
21 Rodenbeck , Buck and Rutherford discussed whether to send Callison , a leadman, or
Martin. Martin was chosen because he had less experience than Callison and could be more
easily spared.
29 Ellis Mills ' testimony as to how Martin was transferred was that Walters came to
him and said that he had no work for Martin and asked whether Mills could use him on the
Davenports, and that he (Mills) thereupon made a place for Martin The testimony of
Walters, Rodenbeck , Buck , Rutherford , Schenck, and Martin clearly establishes the contrary.
Ellis Mills ' testimony is therefore discredited . Except for this fact , the findings in the above
paragraph are undisputed.
29 These findings are based on Walters ' undisputed testimony.
80 Martin testified that he initiated the conversation by a joking remark ; Mills ' testimony,
with respect to how the conversation started was , "as to our exact words, I couldn't
remember them , but the body of it was that we were in a conversation regarding my signing
a union card , and he requested that I sign for the union , and I refused to sign the card
" The undersigned deems the conflict, if any, to be immaterial.
549875-44-vol. 52-33
500 DECISJONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a man to replace Martin. Mills said that he had. Upon further questioning
by Walters as to the reason for his sudden change of mind, Mills told Walters
that he had been advised that Martin had been talking to employees about the
Union3' Walters said that if that was the case, Martin must not be discharged,
but should be transferred to second operation, as he had requested32
In Plant No. 2 Walters turned Martin over to Rodenbeck. Rodenbeck recom-
mended that Martin be assigned to first operation or trained as a setup man;'
either of which would have been a promotion. Walters, however, told Roden-
beck that Martin was needed more as a second operator. Another employee
who had been there about the same length of time was assigned to the position
for which Rodenbeck preferred Martin. Walters testified that he did not
think that Martin had sufficient experience to be a setup man. Martin was then
put on second operation.
On the night he was transferred to Plant No. 2 Martin was given a company
rule book, along with a card, which he signed, certifying, that he had read the
book. Rule 3 of the General Shop Rules set out in the book stated that "em-
ployees must be at their machines at starting time and must remain at their
machines until quitting time." u
On the same night Walters told Rutherford that Martin had got into trouble
at Plant No. 1; that he had to prove himself by staying on the job and doing
good work ; and that Rutherford should keep Martin at his machine. Ruther-
ford then told Martin that he understood that Martin had been in trouble in
Plant No. 1 and that he should stay on the job and mind his own business 3`
11
Walters quoted Mills as saying, "Now, my son, didn't tell me. It didn't come from my
son, but I have got reports that [Martin] is peddling union news or cards or something."
Both Charles and Ellis Mills denied that Charles informed Ellis of Charles' talk with Martin
prior to Martin's discharge.
31
Walters testified : "Martin was a little on the spot with [sic] union activity . .. and
if it was going to be that kind of a bad deal, I figured q would take him back where be
belonged, and that would be the end of it."
Mills' testimony in substance was that any conversation he had with Walters concerning
union activity by Martin, was held after Martin's discharge ; he did not remember talking
with Walters about Martin on the night Martin was transferred, or telling him that Martin
was passing out union cards. Insofar as this testimony is in conflict, the undersigned
credits Walters. Around the same time, according to the testimony of Andersen, Mills
sought out Andersen, and told him he was going to discharge Martin. According to
Andersen the latter questioned Mills as to the reason and was told that Martin had been
sitting with his feet cocked up on a bench. Andersen then asked whether Mills had any
objection to transferring Martin, and when Mills said that he, did not, Martin was trans-
fei red to Plant No 2. Mills testified that he went to Andersen and asked whether he should
let Martin go and that Andersen suggested his transfer. According to Mills, however, all
he told Andersen was that Martin did not seem to take an interest in his work. The under-
signed finds it unnecessary to make any finding as to this conversation.
as Rodenbeck testified that he "needed setup men very badly," and that Martin was
qualified for the job
11 Carlson testified that the growth of the Company made a rule book necessary and that
its preparation was begun about 60 days prior to moving into Plant No. 2. All the men who
were tiansferred to Plant No. 2 were given copies of the book and cards like that signed by
Martin.
0 This finding is based on the testimony of Rutherford and Martin. Rutherford's testi-
mony was as follows :
I had no authority to tell him such, but I knew the conditions and knew he was
on the spot, and I knew he was an earnest worker, and I just figured that I should
take it upon myself to tell him.
• s • • r s
I told him that I had understood he got into some trouble over at the other shop-
of course, I didn't have to explain that to him ; he knew what it was all about-and
that if he came there on second operation, and be stayed on his job and minded his
own business, that he would have a job there as long as he wanted it.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY
The discharge
501,
Martin worked in Plant No. 2 for 2 or 3 weeks. In the meantime, he, along
with Black and Garner, had been named to Thacker by Rutherford as the leaders
of the attempt to organize the Union.
On the night of Thursday, November 19, 1942, Martin's machine became
"tight." Rutherford called over Buck to look at it. They inspected the machine,
checked the oil lines and other parts of the machine and found them in apparent
order. Being unable to find anything wrong, they decided, to let the machine
continue running, and Martin resumed operations. At about 2 a. m. Friday
morning the machine stopped operating, although the motor continued to run.
Martin shut off the motor and called Rutherford. They and Buck worked
on the machine the rest of the shift attempting' to ascertain the cause of the
breakdown. Walters came by several times and noticed that there was trouble
but paid no particular attention to it ' When the night shift went off duty
at 6 a. m. Friday, Rutherford told Leadman Ebert of the day shift that they
had been unable to find the source of the breakdown. Ebert and others on the
day shift spent all day Friday tearing down and examining various parts of the
machine. When the night shift came back to work at 6: 30,p. in. Friday, Ebert
told Rutherford and Walters that it was his opinion that the main shaft had
frozen. Walters told Ebert that he would look at the machine later in the
evening ; in the meantime Martin was put to work on a burring machine
Sometime later Friday night Walters inspected the machine and found that its
movement was free everywhere except at the extreme end of the machine.
Walters discovered that at that point the camshaft was frozen and would not
turn. In order to inspect the camshaft and the bearing, the night shift then
began to dismantle the casting which supported the shaft" They had difficulty
removing the fastenings holding the casting to the bed of the machine, and
in driving the casting from the shaft. By 6 a in. Saturday the casting was
about two-thirds removed. When the night shift left Saturday morning the
cause of the freezing had not yet been ascertained. The day shift completed
the job of dismantling on Saturday morning. They found a lump of metal
5AG" x 1/io," adhered to the shaft 7/18" from the extreme end. The bear-
ing was dry and badly "galled."
The day shift then repaired the machine. The shaft was dressed and the
bearing honed. By Saturday night the machine was reassembled and back
in operation.
At 6 p. in. Saturday Martin came to work. He was stopped at the plant gate
by the guard who told him that orders had been issued not to let Martin into
the plant; and that he had heard that Martin had been "fired." Shortly there-
after, Carlson and Walters appeared at the gate. Walters told Martin that
Andersen had ordered him discharged. Martin asked for what reason. Walters
told him because he had not filled the oil cup on the camshaft bearing. Martin
replied that he did not know that there was such a cup on the machine. Carl-
son tendered Martin his pay check, which had already been made out. After
some discussion concerning the amount of the check, Martin left. He has not
been reinstated.
The respondents' contentions as to the reasons for Martin's discharge
The respondents denied that Martin was discharged for union activity. Ander-
sen and Carlson testified that he was discharged for cause for the following
80 Walters testified that "we often have machines stick and I didn 't think much of it"
At its extreme end the camshaft turns in a cast iron bearing, 21/4" long, resting in an
iron casting.
502 DECISQONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasons: (1) his work on the Davenports was unsatisfactory; (2) he was
reported to have inserted a defective shell in a machine and burned out the
tooling; (3) he neglected to oil his machine, thereby causing its breakdown.
These incidents will be separately discussed.
(1) Martin's work on the Davenports
Foreman Mills testified that while Martin worked on the Davenports, Mills
saw him on two or three occasions over a period of 2 or 3 weeks, sitting on a
chair possibly 6 or 7 feet from his machine with his feet on a work bench, and
reading a newspaper. Mills further testified that Martin's leadman, Schenck,
reported that Martin was not taking an interest in his work. Finally, according
to Mills, he reported to Andersen that Martin was showing no interest and should
be discharged. Andersen suggested that he be transferred back to his original
job. While Mills testified to seeing Martin with his feet up and reading a news-
paper, and related that he instructed Schenck to caution Martin, he admitted
that there was nothing wrong with Martin's work except his "attitude."
The Davenport is an automatic machine. It must be stocked with material
about every 40 minutes. Between stock changes an operator will, according to
Mills, occasionally gauge the product, watch the oiling, and see to it that the
chips are cleaned out (an operation performed about twice a night). Mills
admitted that the machine may be watched as well sitting down as standing
up. Mills conceded that other operators read newspapers, but he stated that
Martin read them as if he were "in a library." Finally, Mills testified that he
could not say whether Martin's machine was running at the times in question.
Leadman Schenck" testified that Martin did not pay attention to instructions
and told Schenck that he was not interested in the work. Schenck also, accord-
ing to his testimony, reprimanded Martin two or three times about sitting down
and reading newspapers. However, the principal complaint voiced by Schenck
was that Martin did not learn to grind his tools.
Mills' testimony was that an operator could not properly attend a Davenport
without having his eyes constantly and uninterruptedly on the machine ; that
while an operator could sit down, he did not dare put his feet on a bench, be-
cause if the cooling line stopped functioning, the tools would burn out in two-
fifths of a second. On the other hand, Schneck testified that normally a Daven-
port operator takes care of two machines. Martin testified that during his stay
in the department he always operated two machines, and on one night three.
Schenck, when asked what would have happened to Martin's machine if he
had left it to grind tools, stated that he could turn it over to another operator,
who would then have three. Schenck went so far as to state that an operator
could, for a short time, watch as many as four machines 3B
Martin categorically denied that he was ever reprimanded or that his work
was criticized by Schenck or Mills. All of Martin's supervisors on the second
operation, namely, Walters, Rutherford, Buck, and Rodenbeck, testified that
his work was satisfactory and that no one had ever complained of him. Buck
declared that he was a "very good operator" who was entitled to promotion and
89 Schenck signed the petition opposing the Union.
8° Charles Mills also testified that an operator must keep a constant eye on his machine.
His testimony in substance was that an operator could watch two machines for possibly
30 minutes . He also testified that he saw Martin sitting on a stool or bench with his feet
up, and reading a newspaper, but could not say whether Martin's machine was running at
the time.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 503
that he (Buck) was reluctant to let Martin go on the Davenports ; Rutherford
characterized Martin as "one of our best operators." 90
In view of the high standard of Martin's work on the second operation machines
and the vague and unsubstantial nature of the charges of Mills and Schenck
respecting his work, the undersigned is not persuaded that Martin's performance
on the Davenports was unsatisfactory. When Walters asked Mills to let Martin
return to second operation Mills said that he could not spare him. Thus, what-
ever Martin's deficiencies as a Davenport operator may have been, until Mills
learned of Martin's union activity, he resisted the efforts of Walters and the
desire of Martin to effect his transfer from Mills' department. The undersigned
therefore finds that the standard of Martin's work on the Davenports could not
have been a factor in his transfer or his discharge.
(2) The defective shell incident
According to the undisputed testimony of Rutherford and Buck, in the spring
of 1942 an employee named Arthur Meese was, over his objection, shifted from
the Davenport machines to second operation. Meese did not like the second
operation work. While there he became involved in a scuffle with Max Garrett,
a lead man. After -2 or 3 nights he was transferred back to the Davenports.
About a week after his return to the Davenports, Meese told Rutherford that
while he was on second operation he had deliberately put a defective shell in
the machine and burned out the tools in order to avoid operating it 41
The next evening Rutherford related the incident to Buck who suggested that
it be reported to Superintendent Smith. Rutherford, however, persuaded Buck
to say nothing about it.42
Nothing further was said about the incident until the meeting of night lead-
men and foremen on November 4. At that meeting Carlson and Andersen asked
the leadmen to state any problems they had. Buck asked what should be done
to a man who deliberately put a defective shell on a machine in order to burn
out its tools. Carlson exclaimed, "Why, that is sabotage." Rutherford was
asked to give the man's name. He at first declined to do so. Carlson then
informed him that it was his duty as a leadman to report such matters for
investigation by the Navy Department. Up to that point the testimony of the
witnesses who were at the meeting is in agreement. As to what occurred there-
after, there is conflict.
Rutherford and Buck testified that Rutherford named "Art" or "Arthur" as
the employee ; 42 that he then related the incident and described Arthur as
being a leadman on the Davenports, and a slender man who wore glasses.
Andersen and Carlson, however, testified that Rutherford named Raymond
Martin 44 Carlson's testimony was that everyone at the meeting heard Ruther-
ford give Martin's name. Buck and Rutherford explicitly denied that Martin's
name was mentioned.
40 Overbeck, chief of second operation inspection , testified that Martin did not inspect the
work as it came from his machine. Overbeck also stated that about "once a night" he
reported Martin's laxity in self-inspection to Martin's leadmen. Overbeck' s testimony is so
completely at variance with the overwhelming testimony to the contrary, including that of
Garner , who inspected Martin's work, that the undersigned is unable to credit it.
41 The second operation machine performs six operations simultaneously. The operator
places a shell on the machine at its starting point. It is then shifted automatically through
six positions , in-each of which aseparate operation is performed. Each position has its own
tooling. A defective shell will burn out the tools, necessitating a shut down of 2 to 5 hours.
41 Rutherford testified that Meese had been doing good work on the Davenports, and in
view of the circumstances, he thought that the matter should be disregarded.
42 According to their testimony, Rutherford and Buck at that time did not know "Art's"
last name.
44 Martin is tall , of medium breadth and does not wear glasses.
504 DECLSIIONS OF NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
Of the other participants in the meeting, namely Superintendent Smith, Fore-
men Rodenbeck and Starkey, Chief Night Inspector Overbeck, and Leadmen
Edwards and Stanley, only Rodenbeck and Overbeck testified. Both were called
as witnesses by the respondent. Overbeck's -testimony did not relate to -the
meeting. Rodenbeck testified that he could not recall having heard any name
in particular mentioned. '
On the day after the meeting, according to Carlson's testimony, he gave Mar-
tin's name to Commander Arnold of the 11th Naval District, for investigation."
Sometime in January, according to Carlson, he received an oral report from the
Naval District to the effect that the investigation had disclosed nothing more
than horseplay.
Carlson further testified that, 1 or 2 weeks after the meeting, he met Ruther-
ford in the plant and asked him to point out Raymond Martin. Rutherford
then said, according to Carlson, that the name he had given was not Martin but
"Art somebody." Carlson, however, took no action with respect to either Meese
or Rutherford. Meese is still in the employ of the company as a leadman in the
Davenport department. He did not testify.
. Andersen's testimony was that he paid little attention to the discussion, about
Martin at the meeting; and that it was Carlson who pressed the subject. The
undersigned views such an attitude as incomprehensible, in view of: (1) the
nature of the offense; (2) the fact that Andersen was in charge of the shop; and
(3) the fact that the complaint, if made, was, according to Andersen's own asser-
tion, the second he had heard concerning Martin within the space of several
days. Carlson's action in not pursuing the question of identity any further
when, as he testified, Rutherford later denied that Martin was the individual
named, seems inexplicable when contrasted with the prompt action which he took
concerning Martin initially.48 Upon consideration of the-above facts and his
observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits the testimony of Buck and
Rutherford.
(3) Martin's failure to fill the oil cup
- The second operation machines are known as Acme Gridleys, Model RA. On
the end of the Acme Gridley, affixed to the casting supporting the camshaft, is
an oil cup 47 equipped with a feed which can be adjusted to drip at various speeds.
The cup oils the camshaft bearing which froze on Martin's machine. The bear-
ing'itself is cast iron ; the camshaft soft steel. The diameter of the shaft where
it passes•through the bearing is 21/4 inches. Clearance between the shaft and the
bearing, in which the shaft turns, is 3/1000 of an inch. The shaft makes one
complete revolution approximately every 71/2 seconds.
The respondents contended that Martin neglected to keep the oil cup filled ;
that the absence of oil was the cause of the freezing of the shaft ; and that Martin's
action in permitting the bearing to run dry was one of the reasons for his dis-
charge.
Considerable evidence was introduced with respect to the operation of the
machine and the necessity for oiling the camshaft. It is conceded that Martin
did not fill the oil cup.
4E The respondents ' contract with the government requires the reporting of incidents
savoring of sabotage. -
40 Carlson placed the date of the foremen's meeting as November 9 and the date he reported
Martin as November 10. It is noteworthy that Carlson testified that he called the Navy
2 or 3 weeks after the report to ask what was being done about it. In the meantime he
had had the conversation detailed above , but apparently made no attempt to report the
strange turn of events.
47 Approximately 1% inch long and 1^/4 inch in diameter.
r
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 505
While Production Manager Haupt and Leadman Ebert, of the day shift, testified
that the foremen, leadmen and operators on the day shift were instructed to fill
the camshaft oil cup on the Acme Gridley, the uncontradicted testimony is that
no such instructions were ever issued to any of the foremen, operators or leadmen
on the night shift, prior to Martin's discharge.'e
In addition, the majority of the night shift witnesses testified that they had
never put oil in the camshaft cup on'the Acme Gridley, had never seen anyone
else do it, or had ever seen oil in it. That testimony was likewise uncontra-
dicted.'D
Opinions differed widely as to the cause of the freezeup and the necessity for
oiling the camshaft cup. All witnesses agreed that they had never before known
a camshaft to freeze. Haupt, and Otto Bernhardt, a repairman who dressed the
shaft before it was replaced, testified that in their opinion the bearing froze
because of a lack of oil. Ebert and Rodenbeck indicated that they thought that
the shaft required some oiling, but expressed no opinion as to the cause of the
freezing. On the other hand Buck, who has had 17 years experience in the oper-
ation of automatic screw machines, stated positively that in his opinion the
camshaft turned so slowly and carried so small a load that if any lubrication were
needed, oil splashings from other parts of the machine were sufficient to provide
it ; 60 and that the cause of the breakdown may have been a bent spindle, or a
chip of steel entering the bearing.
Walters, while of the opinion that the bearing should be oiled, was also of the
opinion that the cause of the freezing was a strain thrown upon the shaft by
the insertion of an oversized shell, in combination with a tightly adjusted collet.
Such a result could follow, according to Walters, even though the shaft were
oiled.
James J. Graham, a designing engineer called as an expert witness by the
Board, testified that the camshaft turned too slowly to accumulate the friction
necessary for freezing ; and that in his opinion the shaft would not freeze from
lack of lubrication alone.61
The undersigned finds it unnecessary to make any finding as to the cause of the
breakdown, but believes that the conflict in opinion has bearing on whether there
was probable and reasonable cause for Martin's discharge for failure to fill the
cup.
Andersen testified that he decided to discharge Martin when he discovered the
alleged cause of the breakdown ; to-wit : Lack of oil. According to his testimony,
on Friday night, (November 20) between 6 and 7 p. m. and after the cause of the
breakdown had been ascertained, he talked to Walters and Martin, and asked the
.s Every witness who worked on the night shift in connection with the second operation
so testified ; Walters, Black, Wenberg, Martin, Rutherford, Buck and Rodenbeck. The in-
structions given to night shift operators with reference to lubrication were that they should
see that cutting oil was maintained at an adequate level and that lubricating oil was kept
in the gear case. Neither of those oiling systems has any connection with the camshaft
oil cup. Not until after Martin's discharge were orders issued to keep oil in that cup.
49 Rutherford did testify that he occasionally, perhaps once a month, went to the Daven-
port department, borrowed an oilcan and dropped oil in some of the cups, but stated that
he did that "more or less as something to do." The oil cup holds 2 to 3 ounces of oil and
will run dry in 2 or 3 hours. Rodenbeck testified that he oiled the cup when he was an
operator, but did not indicate how often or whether it occurred while he was employed
by the respondents.
60 The camshaft is supported by other bearings inside the frame of the machine. These
bearings carry the main load, and are lubricated from the gear case. According to Walters,
the end bearing furnishes no working support.
61 Graham corroborated Walters' assertion that the radial and thrust loads were carried
on bearings inside the machine and stated that the only purpose of the extended camshaft
was to provide outboard support.
506 DECISIfONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
latter why he "didn't oil the machine" ; and that Martin at first stated -that he
had oiled it, but later declared that he had never seen the oil cup. Immediately
thereafter, according to Andersen, he instructed Carlson to make out Martin's
check and to discharge him ; after which Andersen left the plant. Both Martin
and Walters denied having had any conversation with Andersen on Friday night.
It is clear from the overwhelming testimony that at the time the day shift left
on Friday shortly after 6 p. in. Ebert was of the opinion that the main shaft was
frozen inside the machine. It was not until later that night that Walter
diagnosed the trouble as being in the camshaft bearing at the end of the machine.
The night shift worked all Friday night dismantling the casting and by Saturday,
morning had the shaft only 23 removed. The job was finished by the day
shift. It is thus evident that at the time Andersen left the plant on Friday night
the source of the trouble had not yet been ascertained. Carlson testified that An-
dersen told him on Friday night to discharge Martin ; but that because the office
force had gone for the day he permitted Martin to work that night and gave
orders to the guard not to admit Martin on Saturday night. Martin was not
informed of the decision to discharge him until he came to work that night. -In
view of these facts, the discharge of Martin must have been decided upon before
the cause of the breakdown had been ascertained, or else, contrary to the as-
sertions of Andersen and Carlson, it was decided upon on Saturday." In either
event, Martin's and Walters' testimony that they did not speak with Andersen
on Friday night must be credited." The undersigned therefore cannot accept
the respondents' assertions that Martin's failure to fill the oil cup was a factor in
his discharge.
Conclusions as to Martin's discharge
It is apparent from the foregoing that the respondents' asserted reasons for
discharging Martin are not supported by the facts. The testimony of fellow
workmen and all his supervisors on the second operation discloses that his
work was satisfactory and that no complaints had ever been made against him.
His competence is further attested by the estimates given his work by Buck
and Rutherford, by his initial promotion to trainee leadman and by Rodenbeck's
recommendation, after the transfer to Plant No. 2, that he be trained as a setup-
man or put on first operation ; both tasks involving skill. That dissatisfaction
with his work on the Davenports was not the cause of Mills' decision to discharge
him is evident from Mills' reluctance to release him when Walters had requested
it 2 or 3 days before. More' persuasive than the calibre of Martin's work as the
reason for Mills' desire to be rid of Martin is Mills' statement to Walters on
the day of the transfer, to the effect that Martin had been "peddling union news
or cards." Whether or not Mills secured that information from his son, Charles, it
is unnecessary to determine. It is clear from Walters' testimony that he had
received it from some source. The undersigned therefore finds that Ellis Mills
determined upon Martin's discharge because of his union activity. It is further
found that Martin's transfer from the Davenports was the result of his union
activity.
63 The undersigned does not, however , regard as a material factor the actual time when
the decision to discharge Martin was made. The conclusion as to Martin 's case would be
the same irrespective of whether the decision was made on Friday or on Saturday.
" Walters' testimony was that on Saturday night when be arrived at the plant he went
immediately to Martin's machine to see whether the cause of the breakdown had been
ascertained during the day. He found the machine back in operation . Carlson was there.
He informed Walters that Andersen had instructed him (Carlson ) to discharge Martin
for letting the machine freeze up. Walters said that that would be a "bad thing," and
asked where Andersen was ; that he would "like to see Mr . Andersen and discourage him
from firing Mr. Martin." Carlson said that Andersen had left.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE COMPANY 507
It is clear from the testimony of Buck and Rutherford, which has been credited,
that, contrary to the assertions of Carlson and Andersen, it was Meese and not
Martin who was named at the November 4 meeting as the principal in the defective
shell incident. It is therefore apparent that other considerations motivated
Carlson • in reporting Martin's name to the Navy authorities for investigation.
The persuasive inference is that Martin was reported as a consequence of
Rutherford's naming him to Thacker as being active on behalf of the Union.
Irrespective of whether the camshaft oil cups required oil or did not ; whether
the cause of the breakdown was lack of oil or was not, it is evident that responsi-
bility for the delinquency, if any, was not Martin's. The overwhelming evidence
is that on the night shift instructions were never given to keep the cups oiled
until after Martin's discharge. Moreover, when Martin's machine became "tight"
on Thursday night Buck and Rutherford inspected it, could find nothing wrong,
and decided to let it continue operating. The decision to proceed therefore, was
not that of Martin's but of his superiors, a fact which investigation would have
revealed °' Finally, Andersen's testimony that the cause of the breakdown was
known on Friday before he left the plant, is contradicted by the evidence that not
even the location of the trouble, much less its cause, had been ascertained at
the time Andersen instructed Carlson (according to their testimony) to discharge
Martin.
In addition to its timing with relation to Rutherford's talks with Thacker,
the manner in which tjie discharge was effected was also unusual. Andersen
was .in charge of the shop. Yet, although he supposedly talked to Martin on
Friday night he said nothing to Martin about discharging him. Instead, he
delegated the job to Carlson, who also concealed it from Martin. No investigation
of any kind was made ; none of Martin's supervisors was consulted ; Martin was
given no opportunity to defend himself ; he was simply refused admission to the
plant on Saturday night and told that he was discharged.
The undersigned concludes and finds that Martin was transferred from the
Davenports to Plant No. 2, and subsequently discharged, because of his union
and concerted activities. It is further found that by discharging Martin, and
by failing and refusing to reinstate him after his discharge, the respondents
thereby discriminated 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
It is further found that by Walters' instructions to Rutherford to keep Martin
at his machine, and by Rutherford's warning to Martin to stay on the job and
mind his own business, the respondents have interfered with, restrained and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
"In this connection the testimony of Walters was that : " . . . [ Rutherford ] felt that
he was more responsible than Martin because he did not tell Martin . So I told Mr. Ruther-
ford . . . that maybe we had fired the wrong man, and he agreed that we did and, of
course, it was dropped right there, because of course, I didn 't want to fire anyone else."
O' Martin 's transfer from the Davenports was not alleged in the complaint as an unfair
labor practice.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and
• take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the respondents have discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Raymond W. Martin, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, it will be recommended that the respondents offer
Martin immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. It
will also be recommended that the respondents make whole Raymond W. Martin
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would
normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 66 during such period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONoIus1oNs OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Raymond W. Martin, thereby discouraging membership in the United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, the respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its 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 practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
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 respondents have not engaged in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, insofar as the complaint alleged that
they had engaged in surveillance of meetings of the Union and interrogated
their -employees in the vicinity of the union hall ; or by referring to Union
members and officers in derogatory and opprobrious terms ; or by requiring
employees to sign statements repudiating their former union activity as a con-
dition of reemployment;, or by granting leadmen power to prevent employees
working under them from receiving additional wage increases.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law , the under-
signed recommends that Automatic Screw Machine Company and Ernest M.
Carlson, Esther Carlson, Arthur Andersen , and Martha Andersen , individually
6e 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 else-
where 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 shall
be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
AUTOMATIC SCREW MACHINE 'COMPANY 509
and as co-partners, doing business as Automatic Screw Machine Company; and
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership In the United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, or any other labor organization of their
employees by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of their employees, or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their
employees in the exercise of the right, to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their 'own choosing and to engage in concerted 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Raymond W. Martin Immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Raymond W. Martin for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the respondents' discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have
earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings" during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their plants in Los
Angeles, California, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
clays from the date of posting, notices to their employees stating: (1) that the
respondents will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
they cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations;
(2) that the respondents will take th' affirmative action set forth in paragraph
2 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondents' em-
ployees are free to become and remain members of United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, CIO, and that the respondents will
r.ot discriminate against any employee because of his membership or activity
on behalf of that organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report,
what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondents notify said Regional Director
in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to take the action
aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it al-
leges that: the respondents engaged in surveillance of meetings of the Union
and interrogated employees in the vicinity of the union hall ; referred to union
members and officers in derogatory and opprobrious terms ; required employees
to sign statements repudiating their former union activity as a condition of re-
employment ; and granted leadmen power to prevent employees working under
them from receiving additional wage increases.
As provided in Section 33, of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
57 See footnote 56, supra.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942, any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant, to Section 32 of Article II
of the said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to this Intermediate Report or to any other part of
the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as
he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
'writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to
the Board.
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDEB
Triad Examiner
Dated July 27, 1943.