Boeing Airplane Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1025
ployees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer,
including stock handlers, but excluding outside erectors, office clerical
and plant clerical employees, draftsmen, guards, professional em-
ployees, the chief engineer, foremen, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The unit conforms to the stipulation of the parties.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS and
E. A. SPRINGER and RUDOLPH A. KARTESS and AERONAUTICAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS and EDWIN A. SANBORN and HOWARD J. BLOOMER and
MANNING I. HIRSCH and CHRISTINA M. NIELSEN and FRANK F.
PASSLER. Cases Nos. 19-CA-135,19-CA-136,19-CA-171,19-CA-
175,19-CA-176,19-CA-177, 19-CA-178,19-CA-3541, and 19-CA-
413. March 26, 1953
Decision and Order
On January 3, 1952, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in a copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other al-
leged unfair labor practices, and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed timely exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
103 NLRB No. 115.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,'
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,2 and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following additions, exceptions, and
modifications.
1. Contrary to the Trial Examiner , we find that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by adopting and enforcing the
following rules: (a) The rule applied by some supervisors which
prohibited union activity on nonworking time; (b) the rule pro-
hibiting employees from wearing steward and committeemen but-
tons; 3 and (c) the rule prohibiting employees from wearing "I am
loyal to 751" streamers.
It has long been recognized that rules such as the foregoing, which
clearly interfere with employee's concerted activity, are presumptively
invalid, in the absence of special circumstances which make them
necessary in order to maintain production and discipline.4 The Trial
Examiner here concluded that because of the tense situation existing
in the plants, following the conclusion of the strike, these rules were
necessary in order to prevent friction and clashes between adherents
of the rival unions. We agree, however, with the contention of the
General Counsel, that the rules here in question were neither neces-
sary to accomplish that objective nor reasonably related to that end.
The Respondent had adopted other rules, such as those prohibiting
name calling or derogatory remarks, which would accomplish the
same results. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the Respondent
permitted organizers for both unions to have unrestricted access to
contact employees during working hours at different times, a practice
plainly more likely to be productive of clashes and disruptive of pro-
duction than wearing insignia . Moreover, the rule prohibiting union
activity on nonworking time was not one of general application; and
although there is no evidence that the Respondent at any time repu-
diated the actions of some of its supervisors in enforcing such a rule,
it made no effort at the hearing to justify that rule as one which would
prevent friction and clashes. The Respondent also did not seek to jus-
tify the rule prohibiting steward and committeemen buttons on the
ground relied on by the Trial Examiner, but rather sought to justify
such a rule on the ground that there was no contract in existence be-
'The Intermediate Report contains certain inaccuracies which affect neither the Trial
Examiner 's nor our findings and conclusions . Except as otherwise set forth hereinafter,
we find it unnecessary to make specific correction thereof.
2 Member Murdock is not prepared to accept the Trial Examiner 's conclusions that
persons who refuse to cross a picket line are automatically tainted with the illegality of
the strike.
8 Although the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated the Act by dis-
charging Burrell for refusing to remove such a button, he did not find that the existence
of the rule independently violated the Act.
4 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. if. if., 324 U. S. 793 ( 1945).
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1027
tween the Respondent and Lodge 751 which provided for such posi-
tions. As such positions are a manifestation of employees' concerted
activity, and are not dependent for their existence upon a collective-
bargaining agreement, we find no merit in this contention.5 As for the
"I am loyal to 751" streamers, we find no reasonable basis in the record
upon which it can be said that they are any more inflammatory, or any
more likely to provoke clashes or other types of disorder, than any other
manifestation of union adherence, such as a membership button.
2. As Cinotto's 3-day suspension and Burrell's discharge resulted
from the enforcement of the above invalid rules, we find that such
suspension and discharge also violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of
the Act .6
3. In view of the other violations found herein we find, contrary
to the Trial Examiner, that Assistant Foreman Smith's remarks to
employees Scott and Crozier, to the effect that members of Teamster
Local 451 would have a better chance than others of retaining employ-
ment in an impending layoff, were not isolated. Accordingly, we find
that the Respondent thereby also violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
4. For the reasons set forth hereinafter we find, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that the discharge of Gerber, the layoffs of Haddix, Myrick,
and McDonald, and the demotion of Schott were discriminatory, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
(a) In finding that Gerber's discharge was not discriminatory, the
Trial Examiner relied on the credited testimony of Chief Timekeeper
Morrell that he reasonably believed Gerber to be guilty of making
threats to those who would not join Lodge 751. It is the Board's
policy to adopt the Trial Examiner's credibility findings, except where
the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that
the Trial Examiner's resolution was incorrect.7 Applying this test,
we find on the basis of the entire record that the Trial Examiner
erred in crediting Morrell's testimony concerning the part he played
in securing Gerber's discharge, and in finding solely on the basis of
Morrell's testimony that Gerber's discharge was not discriminatory.
In his testimony, which is not fully set forth in the Intermediate
Report, Morrell stated that he did not arrange for Gerber's discharge
until 2 or 3 days after he had secured written statements from 3 or 4
employees who had complained that they had been theatened by Ger-
ber. However, the Respondent's records, and the testimony on cross-
5 Republic Aviation Corporation V. N. L. R. B., supra.
Although the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated the Act by dis-
charging Burrell because he refused to remove a committeeman's button, he failed to
find that the Respondent also violated the Act by suspending Cinotto because she refused
to remove an "I am loyal to 751" streamer.
I Cf. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544.
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
examination of Assistant Labor Relations Manager Huleen, establish
that no written statements were secured in his case until about 9 days
after Gerber's discharge, and further establish that Morrell played no
part in securing such statements . In addition , Morrell testified he
believed he was present when the factory review board considered Ger-
ber's case, while Gerber testified that Morrell was not present; the
Respondent's records support Gerber's testimony in this respect.
Under these circumstances, we find that Morrell is not a credible wit-
ness. We further find that, in cases of conflict between the testimony
of Gerber and the testimony of Morrell, Gerber is entitled to credence,
and Morrell is not.
The record thus establishes, on the basis of Gerber's credited and
in most instances uncontradicted testimony, that about 3 weeks before
he was discharged on December 7, 1948, Gerber engaged in activity
designed to induce members of Teamster Local 451 to cancel their
dues-deduction authorizations and that he also handled a substantial
number of such cancellations during the period preceding his dis-
charge. It is clear that at least the latter aspect of his activity was
known to the Respondent. On the day of his discharge, and without
prior notice or warning, Gerber was handed a notice of termination
by Assistant Foreman Marx, who was not aware of the basis for the
action. The notice of termination contained the statement "Making
threats to fellow employees." On the following day Gerber denied
to Morrell that he had made any threats, and Morrell admitted he
placed no faith in the accusation; nevertheless, on the next day, Mor-
rell told Gerber that the decision stood. Subsequently, Gerber ap-
peared before a factory review board which heard his story; about a
week later he was advised by Morrell that the dismissal action re-
mained effective. His subsequent appeal to Huleen was unavailing.
In the meantime, following Gerber's appearance before the factory
review board, the Respondent, as established by other credible evi-
dence, had secured statements from four employees concerning Ger-
ber's alleged activities. Only one of these statements contained any-
thing which by any stretch of the imagination could be construed as a
threat. This alleged threat, moreover, was made by a rank-and-file
employee, and was merely to the effect that when Lodge 751 again
became the representative of the Respondent's employees, the other
employee would have to join Lodge 751 within 30 days in order to
retain his job.
The foregoing facts convince us, and we find, that Morrell was not
responsible for Gerber's discharge. We base this finding on the fact
that although at the hearing Morrell alone took responsibility for
initiating the discharge, his testimony concerning the circumstances
of the discharge, as found hereinbefore, is not entitled to credence.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1029
In addition, Morrell himself admitted, on the day following the dis-
charge, that he placed no faith in the accusation. Moreover, the cir-
cumstances surrounding the frustration by higher officials of the Re-
spondent of Morrell's efforts to promote Carrig,8 as found by the Trial
Examiner, fully establish that Morrell was not master in his own
house. Consequently, the fact that Morrell himself may have had no
anti-751 bias is immaterial. We further find, on the basis of the
efforts of the Respondent to bolster the case against Gerber after his
discharge and the insubstantiality of the alleged threat, that Gerber
was not discharged because of any alleged threat, and that such threat
was merely a pretext to disguise the true motive for Gerber's dis-
charge.
We believe that the true motive for Gerber's discharge may be found
in his successful efforts to induce members of Teamster Local 451 to
cancel their dues-deduction authorizations. We base our findings upon
the timing of the discharge, following closely upon the success of
Gerber's efforts; the absence of any credible assumption of authority
for Gerber's discharge; the Respondent's contemporaneous conduct
of giving assistance and support to Teamster Local 451, as found by
the Trial Examiner; and the Respondent's subsequent actions in trans-
ferring authority to process cancellations from the timekeepers to the
personnel department, and in agreeing to make Teamster Local 451
deduction authorizations irrevocable. We conclude, accordingly, that
Gerber's discharge constituted additional assistance and support for
Teamster Local 451 and also constituted discrimination to encourage
membership in Teamster Local 451, and to discourage membership in
Lodge 751.9
(b) The Trial Examiner credited Haddix's testimony that shortly
before her layoff she was told by Assistant Foreman Welling that
some workers would be laid off and that she belonged to the wrong
union; nevertheless he found that her layoff was not discriminatory.
Both Welling and General Foreman James testified that Haddix's lay-
off was occasioned by the cancellation of the B-54 contract. This con-
tract was canceled in April 1949, and resulted in layoffs during April
and May of that year; Haddix was not laid off, however, until October
21, 1949. Moreover, James was on vacation at the time of Haddix's
layoff. Under these circumstances, we can attach no weight to James'
and Welling's testimony concerning reasons for Haddix's selection.
We find, therefore, on the basis of the preponderance of the credible
evidence in the record, that Welling's statement was an accurate predic-
9 During January and February 1949 , Morrell attempted to promote Carrig, a striker,
to a supervisory position . At the behest of Teamster Local 451, the proposed promotion
was vetoed by Vice-President Logan, who was supported in his action by President Allen.
9 In view of our finding herein , we need not and do not pass on the question of whether
the alleged threat constituted protected activity.
257965-54-vol . 103-66
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of things to come, and that Haddix was selected for layoff because
of her membership in Lodge 751.
(c) With respect to Myrick, a committeeman for Lodge 751, the
record establishes, as found by the Trial Examiner, that he was laid
off within a few weeks after his conversation with Foreman Keene
concerning his actions as a committeeman should Lodge 751 win the
forthcoming election,"' and shortly after he had received a warning
from Foreman Burnham that his layoff was contemplated. Burn-
ham expressed the belief that Myrick's impending layoff was moti-
vated by his union activities. The record also contains Myrick's
uncontradicted testimony, which is not reflected in the Intermediate
Report, that at about the same time as his conversation with Foreman
Keene, Assistant Foreman Watling advised him in substance to forget
about the Union, and that at the time of his layoff he was unable to
secure any explanation as to the reason for his selection from either
Foreman Keene or Superintendent Fairbanks. Myrick's uncon-
tradicted testimony concerning his conversation with Superintendent
Fairbanks also establishes that his selection for layoff was determined
by higher echelons of management 11 Under these circumstances, we
find that Myrick was selected for layoff because of his position of
leadership in Lodge 751 and not because of any deficiencies in his work.
(d) With respect to McDonald, the record establishes that he was
laid off in a precipitous manner, almost immediately following his
conversation with Teamster Organizer Korth concerning the relative
merits of Teamster Local 451 and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, and Korth's subsequent conversation with Assistant
Foreman Dietz. Moreover, McDonald was given no reason for his
selection at the time of his layoff; none of his immediate supervisors
were called to testify concerning his case; and General Foreman Ran-
dall, who testified, had no personal knowledge of McDonald's quali-
fications. Nor did Randall have any personal knowledge as to the
reason for McDonald's selection. Under these circumstances, we find
that McDonald was laid off because of his expressed opposition to
Teamster Local 451, and his expressed preference for International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
(e) In view of Assistant Foreman Lawrence's statement, in com-
menting on Schott's demotion, to the effect that Schott belonged to the
wrong union, and in the absence of any explanation concerning the
reason for her selection, we find that Schott was demoted in April 1949,
because of her membership in Lodge 751.
10 In response to Keene's question as to what his attitude would be as shop committee-
man if, as appeared probable, Lodge 751 won the election, Myrick replied that he would
not overlook the violation at any contract terms.
"Fairbanks told Myrick, in substance , that Myrick's work was satisfactory ; that he
had discussed Myrick's layoff with a higher official , but the matter was out of his hands ;
and that he too had a job to keep.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1031
5. With respect to Nielsen the record establishes, as found by the
Trial Examiner, that after her layoff she was advised by the Respond-
ent that she would be recalled in normal course when the workload
permitted. However, after she had informed the Respondent that she
had filed a charge with the Board concerning her layoff, she was
advised that she was unsuitable for rehiring. The testimony of As-
sistant Superintendent Graue establishes that although Nielsen's work
was not of the best, it had improved before her layoff, and there was
nothing in her record to prevent her rehire. In view of these facts
we find that, beginning in September 1950 and thereafter, the Re-
spondent refused to rehire Nielsen, in violation of Section 8 (a) (4)
of the Act, because she had filed a charge with the Board and not
because of any deficiencies in her work.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices , we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Don J. Parezanin , Stanley Burrell , and Jack E . Haworth, 12
we shall order the Respondent to offer to each of them immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position ) 13
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the
discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement . Having
further found that the Respondent has discriminated with respect to
the hire and tenure of employment of Arthur C. Gerber, Madeline
Haddix, Claude C. Myrick, Clyde N. McDonald , and Christina M.
Nielsen, we shall order the Respondent to offer to each of them im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiv-
alent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges , and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as
the result of the discrimination by payment to each of a sum of money
equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of
the discrimination to January 3, 1952, the date of the Intermediate
Report herein, and from the date of this Decision and Order to the
12 Referred to in the Intermediate Report as Jack Hayworth.
13 The expression "former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean
"former position wherever possible , but if such position is no longer in existence, then a
substantially equivalent position ." The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch , 65 NLRB 827
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date of the offer of reinstatement-14 Having also found that the Re-
spondent has discriminated with respect to the terms and conditions of
employment of Dorothy V. Schott 16 and Doris Cinotto, we shall order
the Respondent to make each of them whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination by payment to each of a sum of
money equal to that which she would have earned as wages during
the period of the discrimination.
In each case, loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each sep-
arate calendar quarter or portion thereof.16 Such quarterly periods
shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October.
Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that
which each normally would have earned for each quarter or portion
thereof his net earnings,17 if any, in any other employment during
that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect
upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. We shall further
order that the Respondent upon reasonable request make available to
the Board and its agents all records pertinent to an analysis of the
amount due as back pay 18
The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and from any like or
related conduct. However, the Respondent's illegal activities, includ-
ing interference, restraint, and coercion, unlawful assistance and sup-
port to Teamster Local 451, and discrimination against various of its
employees, go to the very heart of the Act and indicate a purpose to
defeat self-organization of its employees. We are convinced that the
unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are potentially
related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that
the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the
Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat.
Accordingly, in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order
the Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights of employees guaranteed by the Act 19
14 This abatement of back pay for the period between the issuance of the Intermediate
Report and our Decision and Order follows Board practice in cases in which , as here, the
Trial Examiner did not recommend the reinstatement of these employees or the award of
back pay to them.
16 Sometimes referred to in the Intermediate Report as Dora Schott.
1e F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
17 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 the unlawful
discrimination and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere . Crossett
Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 . Monies received for work performed upon Federal,
State , county, municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings.
Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
18 F. W. Woolworth Company, supra.
19 Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, 546.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1033
Supplemental Conclusions of Law
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or the terms and conditions of employment, of Arthur C. Gerber,
Madeline Haddix, Claude C. Myrick, Clyde N. McDonald, Dorothy
IT. Schott, and Doris Cinotto, thereby discouraging membership in
Lodge 751 and in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
and encouraging membership in Teamster Local 451, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
inent of Christina M. Nielsen because she filed a charge with the Board,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act.
3. By such conduct and by otherwise interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Boeing Air-
plane Company, Seattle and Renton, Washington, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Aeronautical Industrial District
Lodge No. 751, International Association of Machinists, or in Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or any other labor organ-
ization of its employees, or encouraging membership in Aeronautical
Workers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local No. 451, by discrimi-
natorily discharging any of them or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any of its em-
ployees because they have filed charges with the National Labor Re-
lations Board.
(c) Assisting or supporting Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen,
and Helpers, Local No. 451, or any other labor organization.
(d) Promulgating or enforcing rules which prohibit union activity
on nonworking time, or which prohibit employees from wearing but-
tons or badges which indicate their position as stewards or commit-
teemen for any labor organization, or which prohibit employees from
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wearing streamers or any other insignia indicating their adherence
or loyalty to any labor organization.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Aeronautical Industrial District
Lodge No. 751, International Association of Machinists, or Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Don J. Parezanin, Stanley Burrell, Jack E. Haworth,
Arthur C. Gerber, Madeline Haddix, Claude C. Myrick, Clyde N.
McDonald, and Christina M. Nielsen immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
each of them and Dorothy V. Schott and Doris Cinotto whole in the
Inanner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll records, social-security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
(c) Post at its plants in Seattle and Renton, Washington, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 2D Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
20 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLoyEEs
1035
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in AERONAUTICAL INDUS-
TRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, or in INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, or any other labor organization of our employees, or
encourage membership in Aeronautical Workers, Warehouse-
men, and Helpers, Local No. 451, by discriminatorily discharg-
ing any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employement.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any
of our employees because they have filed charges with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT prefer for employment those referred to us by
Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local No.
451, or in any other manner lend assistance and support to that
organization.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce rules which prohibit union
activity on nonworking time, or which prohibit employees from
wearing buttons or badges which indicate their position as
stewards or committeemen for any labor organization, or which
prohibit employees from wearing streamers or any other insignia
indicating their adherence or loyalty to any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist AERONAUTICAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, or INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to each of the following named employees im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges :
DON J. PAREZANIN MADELINE HADDIX
STANLEY BURRELL CLAUDE C. MYRICK
JACK E. HAWORTH CLYDE N. MCDONALD
ARTHUR C. GERBER CHRISTINA M. NEILSEN
WE WILL make each of the foregoing named employees and
Dorothy V. Schott and Doris Cinotto whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All of our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the above-named unions or any
other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment against any employee
because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By---------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), was heard in Seattle, Washington, on various
dates from June 18 through September 11, 1951, before the undersigned Trial
Examiner pursuant to due notice to all parties. The amended consolidated
complaint, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
and based upon various charges filed by Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge
No. 751, International Association of Machinists, herein called Lodge 751, and
by the individual parties named in the caption, alleges that Boeing Airplane
Company, herein called the Respondent, committed various unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act, in that,
following a strike which ended September 13, 1948, the Respondent :
(1) Promulgated and thereafter enforced a discriminatory policy with respect
to the reemployment of supervisory employees who had not worked during the
strike period.
(2) Discriminatorily forbade production and maintenance employees to engage
in union activity upon Respondent's property.
(3) Forbade such employees to wear buttons or badges signifying that they
held positions in, were members of, or preferred Lodge 751.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1037
(4) Refused to assign jobs, to reinstate , or reemploy those who had expressed
an intention to file, or had filed , charges with the Board against the Respondent.
(5) Required , as a condition of job assignment , reinstatement , or reemploy-
ment , assurance from applicants that they would not engage in concerted or
union activities.
(6) Placed under surveillance employees engaged in activity favorable to
Lodge 751.
( 7) Made numerous intimidatory or coercive statements to employees.
(8) Refused to rehire and discharge 59 strikers because they were members
of Lodge 751 and had participated in concerted activities.
(9) Refused to reinstate or to hire John J . Sullivan because of his membership
in and activity in behalf of Lodge 751.
(10) Despite agreement to grant full reinstatement , assigned certain strikers
to jobs not substantially equivalent to those held before the strike and thereafter
laid off, suspended , or discharged them because of their membership in and
activities in behalf of Lodge 751 and their participation in concerted activities.
( 11) Despite agreement to grant her full reinstatement , assigned Etta B.
Rhodes Cummings , on October 18, 1948, to a job not the same as or substantially
equivalent to the job she held before the strike , laid her off for the period from
October 18 to December 9, 1948, hired her as a new employee on the latter date,
and laid her off on September 2, 1949 , and at all times since has refused to recall
her because of her membership in and activities in behalf of Lodge 751 and her
participation in concerted activities.
(12) Despite agreement , refused to assign work to Mary A . Kennedy on
November 17, 1948 , hired her as a new employee on or about November 80,
1948, in a position not the same as or substantially equivalent to the one which
she held before the strike, and on or about September 29, 1949, laid her off
and has since refused to recall her because of her membership in and activities
in behalf of Lodge 751 and her participation in concerted activities.
(13) Despite agreement , refused , about September 13, 1948 , to assign work
to Freda Rodgers , hired her as a new employee on December 5, 1948, in a
position not the same as or substantially equivalent to the one which she
held before the strike , laid her off on or about September 30, 1949, and has
since refused to recall her because of her membership in and activities in behalf
of Lodge 751 and her participation in concerted activities.
(14) On September 13, 1948, suspended Stanley Burrell and at all times
subsequent thereto refused to recall him because he wore in the Respondent's
plant, and declined to remove , a badge describing him as a committeeman for
Lodge 751.
(15) On September 14, 1948, suspended Doris Cinotto for 3 days because
she wore a badge bearing the name of Lodge 751 and, beginning in or about
August 1949 , following Cinotto's voluntary separation from her employment,
continuously refused to rehire her because of her membership in and activities
in behalf of Lodge 751 and because she was named in a charge filed against
the Respondent herein.
(16) On various stated dates in 1948 , 1949, and 1950, laid off or discharged
81 named employees , and since each such action has refused to recall or rein-
state any of them because of their membership in and activities in behalf of
Lodge 751 and their participation in concerted activities.
(17) Refused to hire as employees on various dates following the conclusion
of the strike 89 individuals who had prior to the strike been employed by the
Respondent as supervisors because of their concerted activities during the strike,
because of an anticipation that they would participate in concerted activities
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the future, and, in the case of some, because of their refusal to appear before
a board of Respondent 's supervisors for interrogation.
(18) Discharged during the period of the strike , and thereafter refused to
reinstate or reemploy , Rudolph A. Kartess, Edwin A. Sanborn , and Manning I.
Hirsch, and rehired Howard J. Bloomer on February 7, 1949, as a new em-
ployee without restoration of seniority or other rights and privileges and in
a position not the same as or substantially equivalent to the job he held before
the strike because of the participation of each in activities in behalf of Lodge
751, membership in that organization , and because they honored the picket
line established by Lodge 751 during the period of the strike.
(19) On or about March 3, 1950, laid off Christina M. Nielsen and since
refused to recall or reemploy her because of her membership in and activity
in behalf of Lodge 751 and because she filed a charge with the Board alleging
that her layoff was discriminatory.
(20) On February 10, 1949, downgraded Rahim A. Jallie and subsequently,
on February 25, suspended and discharged him and since has refused to recall
or reinstate him because of his membership in and activities in behalf of Lodge
751 and his participation in concerted activities.
(21) Despite agreement to grant her full reinstatement, refused to assign a
job to and discharged Rilla E. Hughes Samson on September 13, 1948, and, follow-
ing her hiring as a new employee on November 11, 1948, laid her off December 16,
1949, recalled her January 15, 1950, at a lower pay rate, laid her off on April 28,
1950, and at all times since has refused to recall or reinstate her because of her
membership in and activities in behalf of Lodge 751, because of her participation
in concerted activities, and because her name was included in a charge filed herein.
(22) Since specified dates has refused to recall or employ 36 named individuals
because their names were included in charges filed herein.
(23) On March 17, 1949, suspended Harriette McDaniel, and about April 15,
1949, laid her off or discharged her and has since refused to recall, reemploy, or
reinstate her because of her membership in and activities in behalf of Lodge 751
and her participation in concerted activities.
(24) First downgraded and then laid off or discharged Marie J. C. Ikerd, Helen
L. Kirk, and Anne L. Newman because of their membership in and activities in
behalf of Lodge 751 and their participation in concerted activities.
(25) Assigned William W. Simon, despite agreement, to a job not the same as
or substantially equivalent to the one which he held before the strike, downgraded
him, transferred him, and on or about January 6, 1950, suspended and discharged
him, and since has refused to reinstate or reemploy him because of his member-
ship in and activities in behalf of Lodge 751 and his participation in concerted
activities.
(26) On October 24, 1949, laid off Arla Myers for a period ending February
1951 because of her membership in and activities in behalf of Lodge 751 and her
participation in concerted activities.
(27) On November 17, 1948, transferred and downgraded Walter L. Cisski, on
April 15, 1949, laid off or discharged him, and since has refused to recall, rein-
state, or rehire him because of his membership in and activities in behalf of
Lodge 751 and his participation in concerted activities.
(28) On April 18, 1949, downgraded Dorothy Schott and since has declined to
upgrade her because of her membership in and activities in behalf of Lodge 751
and her participation in concerted activities.
(29) On October 17, 1949, temporarily laid off Pauline F. Mitchell, on October
24, next, downgraded her, and 4 days later on October 28 laid her off, and at all
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1039
times since has refused to recall or reinstate her because of her membership in
and activities in behalf of Lodge 751 and her participation in concerted activities.
(30) During the period of the strike and thereafter, unlawfully dominated,
assisted , sponsored, maintained, and contributed support to International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America,
AFL, and its affiliate Warehousemen's Union Local No. 117, herein jointly called
the Teamsters, and Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local
No. 451, herein called Teamster Local 451, by inviting the Teamsters to organize
its employees, causing and permitting the circulation of a petition favoring the
Teamsters in the plants during working hours, urging, persuading, threatening,
and coercing its employees for the purpose of gaining support for the Teamsters
or for Teamster Local 451 and to refrain from favoring Lodge 751, and in general
unlawfully rendering assistance and support to the Teamsters or Teamster Local
451.
Respondent's amended answer directed to the consolidated complaint as finally
amended, admits the jurisdictional allegations to the extent that they are prem-
ised upon commerce considerations, admits that it discharged the supervisors
who refused to continue their duties during the period of the strike and required
such supervisors who thereafter requested employment in production and main-
tenance jobs to obtain the approval of a supervisory personnel board which ques-
tioned them concerning their activities in connection with and in support of the
strike; admits that following the termination of the strike it refused to assign
jobs to or reemploy about 43 of the strikers named in paragraph 8 of the com-
plaint; admits that it refused to reemploy John J. Sullivan on or about Febru-
ary 2, 1949; admits that a number of individuals named in pargraph 10 of the
complaint were not reemployed following the strike in the same jobs they had
held before that incident ; and, in summary, admits that a number of individuals
failed to secure reemployment with the Respondent after the strike in the same
positions they had held before and that many of them were laid off and since
have not been recalled. Affirmatively, the answer asserts that all those who
participated in the strike lost the rights otherwise guaranteed them by Sections
8, 9, and 10 of the Act and that the Respondent was therefore with respect to
them under no legal obligation to afford them further employment ; asserts that
it had a right to establish by interrogation and otherwise those among the dis-
charged supervisors whom it would reemploy as hourly rated workers ; asserts
that John J. Sullivan was not in an employment relation to the company follow-
ing the beginning of the strike ; asserts that as it was under no legal obligation
to reinstate any of the strikers it could not have committed an unfair labor
practice by employing some of them in jobs different from those held before
the strike; asserts that those who were laid off following their reemployment
were laid off for valid cause and that those who have failed to obtain reem-
ployment after layoff were refused reemployment for good cause. Finally, the
answer denies that it contributed any unlawful support or assistance to the
Teamsters or to Teamster Local 451 and asserts that its conduct in respect to
the strikers, their sympathizers, and all those named in the complaint as indi-
viduals against whom discrimination has been practiced is validated by the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
an action stemming from a Board order in connection with the strike.'
During the hearing Respondent moved that certain of the allegations of the
complaint be dismissed because certain incidents therein alleged occurred more
1 Boeing Airplane Company, et at. V. N. L. R. B., 174 F. 2d 988, setting aside the Board's
order and finding that the strike both breached the collective- bargaining contract and
was in violation of Section 8 (d) of the Act.
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than 6 months prior to the filing of a charge adverting to them . On the ground
that the original charge filed by Lodge No . 751 in September 1948 in Case No.
19-CA-135 forms a sufficient predicate for the Issuance of the complaint as
finally amended , such motions were denied .2 During the course of the hearing I
granted Respondent 's motion to dismiss the allegations of paragraph 8 of the
complaint which alleged the refusal to rehire 59 strikers on the ground that the
strike was one in violation of Section 8 (d) ' of the Act and that therefore the
participants had lost their rights under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. None
of these strikers having actually been thereafter employed by the Respondent,
no rights stemming from those sections could successfully be asserted by them
or in their behalf.' I also granted further motions of the Respondent to dismiss
the allegations contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the complaint which, in
sum, asserted that about 89 erstwhile supervisors , all of whom had been dis-
charged for failure to report for work during the strike and for supporting the
strike , were discriminatorily refused employment at the termination of the
strike in nonsupervisory capacities . Some of these had made application for
hourly rated jobs and had been rejected ; others had failed to apply knowing that
they would be required to appear before a supervisory selection board for ques-
tioning concerning their reasons for respecting the picket line. Finding that the
supervisors had no independent dispute with the Respondent , that their unwill-
ingness to work during the strike could have been overcome only by the removal
of the picket lines, I concluded that the doctrine expressed by the Board in the
Granite City Steel case' was applicable , that the supervisors were engaged in
aiding an unlawful strike. In reaching this conclusion I have considered and
credited testimony of many of the supervisors that they had , indeed, interests
separate from those of the strikers most notably in the matter of tenure in the
event of economic layoff but the refusal of the supervisors to report for work
2 Consumers Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. 2d 88, 42 ( C. A. 6) ; Kansas Milling Co. v.
N. L. R. B ., 185 F. 2d 413, 415 (C . A. 10) ; I. B. S. Manufacturing Company, et at, 96;
NLRB 1263.
2 Which reads in pertinent part :
. .. That where there is in effect a collective -bargaining contract covering em-
ployees in an industry affecting commerce , the duty to bargain collectively shall also.
mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract , unless
the party desiring such termination or modification-
(1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the pro-
posed termination or modification sixty days prior to the expiration date thereof,
or in the event such contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to
the time it Is proposed to make such termination or modification ;
(3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty
days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simultaneously there-
with notifies any State or Territorial agency established to mediate and concil-
iate disputes within the State or Territory where the dispute occurred, pro-
vided no agreement has been reached by that time ; and
(4) continues in full force and effect , without resorting to strike or lockout,
all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days
after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract , which-
ever occurs later:
. . . Any employee who engages in a strike within the sixty -day period specified in
this subsection shall lose his status as an employee of the employer engaged in the
particular labor dispute , for the purposes of sections 8, 9, and 10 of this Act, as
amended, but such loss of status for such employee shall terminate if and when he
is reemployed by such employer.
4 Nothing short of reemployment could restore to these strikers rights which the Act
denied them.
6 Granite City Steel Company, 87 NLRB 894, 901.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1041
during the strike appears here to have been motivated principally by the tradi-
tional reluctance of a union member' to disregard a picket line established by his
own or another labor organization.
A motion to dismiss allegations that Rudolph A. Kartess, Edwin A. Sanborn,
Howard J. Bloomer, and Manning I. Hirsch were discriminatorily discharged,
that all but Bloomer were thereafter refused reinstatement, and that Bloomer
was rehired as a new employee to a job different from that which he previously
had held, was granted. Each of these before the strike was an employee of
Boeing but not in the unit represented by Lodge 751. Each refused to cross
the picket line and was discharged for that reason. As a group or as individuals
no dispute existed between them and Boeing so that there is no basis for a
finding that they acted in their own interests. The facts are clear that by re-
fusing to cross the picket line they were aiding the strike effort of Lodge 751.
By participating in an unlawful strike, they subjected themselves to discharge.
Being persuaded that the evidence adduced by the General Counsel did not
preponderantly support the complaint's allegations with respect to the dis-
charges of Milton R. Isaacson, Alexander Ross, Adolph Rud, Capitola Russell,
and Alfred J. Handel, I granted motions to dismiss directed to those cases
and also granted Respondent's motion to dismiss allegations that Respondent
violated the Act to the extent that it rehired some strikers in positions not
substantially equivalent to those held before the strike.
Subsequent to the close of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for the Respondent filed separate motions to correct the transcript. The
motions' are hereby granted, except that objections of the Respondent directed
to certain of the corrections sought by the General Counsel are sustained and
the motions and objections are hereby made a part of the record.
All parties were granted until November 1 for the filing of briefs. A brief
has been submitted by counsel for the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Boeing Airplane Company is a Delaware corporation having its principal
office in Seattle, Washington. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of
aircraft and aircraft parts at Wichita, Kansas, and Seattle and Renton, Wash-
ington. Only the operations in the State of Washington are directly involved
in these proceedings. In the course and conduct of its business at all times
herein pertinent the Respondent has purchased for use at its Washington plants
materials, supplies, and equipment originating at points outside the State of
Washington valued in excess of one million dollars annually and has manu-
factured at said plants and sold to agencies of the United States Government
and to operators of commercial airlines aircraft and aircraft parts valued in
excess of one million dollars annually.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Lodge No. 751, the Teamsters, and Teamster Local 451 are and at all times
material herein have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
Most, if not all, of the supervisors were members of Seattle Supervisor's Lodge No.
1750, an affiliate of the International Association of Machinists. Early in the strike
Lodge 1750 voted to respect the picket line.
i That of the General Counsel as modified by his withdrawal of two proposed corrections.
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
For a 10-year period beginning in 1938, Lodge 751 was recognized as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the mass of Respondent's employ-
ees at Seattle and Renton. Following the capitulation of Japan mass layoffs
occurred in September 1945. A payroll which had reached a peak of about
42,000 during the war years dropped then to little more than a maintenance
force. Desiring to provide work to the extent possible for its supervisory force,
the Respondent retained a number of foremen and other supervisors, apportion-
ing among them the small amount of work available in the plant. Lodge 751
protested this practice asserting that its contract prohibited the use of super-
visors to perform work customarily (lone by members of the Lodge. In conse-
quence, the Respondent was forced to discharge or reassign its supervisors and
replace them with Lodge 751 members. Business improved. Some contracts
for the construction of aircraft were obtained and the size of the payroll grad-
ually increased. Early in 1948 negotiations were in progress looking toward
the execution of a new bargaining agreement. Lodge 751 and the Respondent
arrived at an impasse with respect to wages and a seniority policy. On April
22, Lodge 751 called a strike at a time when approximately 14,000 workers were
employed. The Respondent immediately denounced the strike as in violation
of the contract, which had been extended, and in violation of Section 8 (d) of
the Act, a position which was sustained by a United States Court of Appeals
the following May. The strike continued until September 13, 1948, at which time
Lodge 751 offered unconditionally to return its members to work. Of the ap-
proximately 8,900 strikers who thereafter presented themselves for employ-
ment, all but a few were rehired. The unfair labor practices affecting tenure
hereinafter discussed concern only those who managed to return to the Respond-
ent's payroll!
During the summer of the strike, representatives of the Teamsters and Team-
ster Local 451 were permitted access to the plant for the purpose of organizing
employees during working hours. This practice continued following the end of
the strike and representatives of Lodge 751 also participated. The presence of
the Teamsters' representatives in the plant during the currency of the strike
and the favoritism allegedly shown to such representatives during and following
the strike period is asserted to constitute an unfair labor practice. On Novem-
ber 1, 1949, the Board conducted an election upon the petition of Lodge 751 among
Respondent's employees, which resulted in the certification of the petitioner.
Since then Lodge 751 and the Respondent have entered into collective-bargaining
agreements.
B. The discharges
Peter Pioli, a tool and die maker, was first employed by Respondent in 1938.
For many years Pioli occupied a prominent position in Lodge 751 and during
the strike was assistant to one of its business agents and in charge of the picket
line. At other times Pioli was a district councilman and district vice president,
and at the time of the hearing was serving his fifth term as president of a sub-
sidiary local in the Lodge. Pioli, of course, was a striker and returned to work
on October 8, 1948. On November 11 he obtained a permit to go to shop 102 to
check on some material, returned to his own shop, and then again went to 102
to have a press plane sheared. Upon his final return he learned that Assistant
8 Excepting the case of John J. Sullivan.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1043
Superintendent Hyman had accused him of engaging in union activity during
his visit to 102. Pioli approached Hyman and told him that he had gone to 102
on Respondent 's business . Hyman , according to Pioli, said , "God damn you,
Pioli , you know God damn well you were down there in 102 organizing ." Pioli
answered , "Hyman, you are a damn liar. That is something you are going to
have to prove ." Hyman retorted , "I don't have to prove anything . Right now
they will take my word for it and you are as good as out." Pioli shortly there-
after appeared before a factory review board and although he told the board
that Hyman was the first to use intemperate language was nonetheless terminated.
Hyman testified that Pioli approached him in an unfriendly and belligerent
manner, that Pioli used a good deal of profanity in protesting his innocence of
any infraction of the rule against union activity , and that Pioli called Hyman
a damned liar. Hyman asserted that he rarely used profanity of any sort, and
that he invariably refrained from such language when he was angered. Other
witnesses for the General Counsel, however , testified that Hyman was prone to
use violent , vulgar, and profane expressions , particularly at such times when
his anger was aroused . Pioli conceded that he was not the most mild-tempered
of men, but asserted that on the occasion in question the language he used was
provoked by Ilyman . I credit Pioli 's version of the incident.
Pioli's classification was that of the most highly skilled among the hourly
employees . No question of his competency was raised.
Joe F. Black , a milling -machine operator , returned to work after the strike on
September 14. He was not particularly outstanding in his activity in behalf of
Lodge 751 , but was a striker and performed a short stint of picket duty. In
1943, Black had instructed one Thurman Tyner in some practice or procedure
in connection with his trade and in late December or early January 1949 the
same Tyner was placed over Black as assistant foreman . On January 7 Blaek
was operating a large milling machine and had another employee working with
him in order that the latter might learn its operation . According to Black, there
was little for him to do while the machine was working out the job but to watch
it and to see that the student handled it properly . During that period of about
30 or 40 minutes Black became aware, he testified , that Tyner was staring at him.
Nettled by this , Black attempted to stare Tyner down In a few minutes Tyner
walked up to Black and asked Black if lie wanted to play "peep eye." Black
made an insulting rejoinder . Tyner and Black, according to the latter, then got
into a discussion concerning the strike in which Tyner sought to excuse his return
through the picket line . Black remarked that he found it hard to respect anyone
who would do so ; that he held such persons in contempt . Tyner replied that he
would fire Black in a moment if he thought he could get away with it. Black
observed that Tyner was the kind who would if he could. Within an hour or two
Black received a dismissal notice. Several days later Black appeared before a
factory review board where he was accused of calling employees degrading
names. He denied it. His suspension was continued and sometime in February
he received a notice of final termination.
Ray O . Bailey was first employed by Respondent in 1929, was a mechanic,
a member of Lodge 751 , a striker , a picket-line captain , and a committeeman.
He returned to work about October 15 and about 3 weeks later met an old friend,
Aubrey Jeremiah , who had abandoned the strike , had returned to work through
the picket line, and, subsequently , had been promoted to assistant foreman.
About 15 minutes before the shift began, according to Bailey, Jeremiah greeted
him in a friendly manner. Bailey coldly responded that he preferred not to
speak . Jeremiah persisted , however, according to Bailey , telling the latter a
"hard luck story" excusing his failure to stay out with the strikers . Bailey's
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only comment was, "Well, I still think you are a - heel." The next day
Bailey was called to his foreman's office and asked if he had entered into an
argument with Jeremiah. Bailey admitted that he had and that he had told
Jeremiah precisely what he thought of him. About a week later Bailey was
terminated for the stated reason using obscene language to a supervisor.
Earl M. Wylie was employed in 1939 as an expediter and production planner,
stayed out for the period of the strike during which he performed picket duty
for a day or two, and returned to work on September 20, 1948. On January 11,
1949, he and another mechanic were about to enter a ship to perform work
when Wylie spied a Teamster organizer there. Wylie turned to his companion
and asked if there was not an offensive smell in the air. He was called before
a factory review board, accused of making the remark, and admitted it. Glen
Dierst, head of the plant-protection force, recommended that Wylie be fired,
and he was. Wylie's foreman, Samples, said that Wylie was the best planner
in the shop and that if he ever needed a recommendation Samples would provide
it. In October 1948, Wylie had been suspended from work for a week for threat-
ening to punch an employee who had not joined in the strike. Wylie denied
that he had uttered such a threat.
Joseph M. Reeder, first employed in early 1941, was an instrumentmaker at
the time of the strike. He returned to work on September 14, 1948, and con-
tinued in his employment without incident until March 9, 1949. On the latter
date another employee in his department, reputedly a member of Teamster Local
451, suffered the amputation of a finger in operating his machine. Learning of
the accident, Reeder , according to the credited and undenied testimony of George
Fectzo, a former employee, remarked that it should happen to all the scabs.
Fectzo reported Reeder's observation to Foreman Bert McLaughlin. McLaugh-
lin in turn passed on the information to his superintendent and Reeder was
called to the latter's office where he was questioned in that connection. Reeder
said that he could not remember having made such a remark and he was there-
upon suspended and later discharged.
Roy S. Pulrang , a machinist, began work for the Respondent in March 1941,
stayed out for the period of the strike, and returned to work shortly after its
termination. Sometime in early January 1949 he engaged in some sort of argu-
ment with 10 or 12 Teamster Local 451 organizers who were present in the
department where he worked and was warned by Glen Dierst, head of the plant-
protection force, not to let it happen again . Dierst testified to receiving a com-
plaint that Pulrang remarked about another employee, "That is one of those
scabs S. O. B.'s." The employee referred to filed a complaint which reached
Dierst. After investigation, according to Dierst, it was determined that Pulrang
was the offender, Pulrang was called to Dierst's office, questioned about the
incident, and, although he denied any participation in or knowledge about it,
was discharged.
Walter Churchill was first employed in May 1940 and at the time of the strike
was the operator of an overhead crane and a committeeman for Lodge 751.
Following the strike, Churchill returned to work on October 18, 1948, and in
a short time was transferred from the day shift, which he customarily had
worked, to the swing shift, which required him to report for work at about
4 o'clock in the afternoon. On first reporting on the new shift, Churchill advised
his new foreman , Charles Linscott, that his religious convictions did not permit
him to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and for that reason
he would not report for work on Fridays or Saturdays. Linscott answered that
Churchill's assignment required him to work 6 days a week. On the following
Thursday Churchill reminded Linscott that he would not be in the next day
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1045
or on Saturday. Linscott said that he would attempt to get Churchill trans-
ferred and took the matter up with the general foreman, Shaw. Shaw told
Linscott that many employees desired transfers and that not all of them could
be satisfied. The next week Linscott told Shaw that Churchill was not of any
particular use to him since he would work only 4 days a week and that he wanted
either to have Churchill transferred or to insist that he work the entire week.
Shortly thereafter Churchill was terminated. According to Churchill on an
occasion in February 1949 when he was granted a hearing before a review,
board at the plant, Superintendent Nurse said, "I don't think we need you
at Boeings any place. You are willing to work but you were not willing to
come in during the strike.... I have waited 3 years for this." Nurse denied
making any such remark and Linscott, who testified he was present on the
occasion of the review action, denied that Nurse so expressed himself. I am
convinced, however, that Nurse did express himself in some such fashion on
that occasion and that Churchill's conviction that Nurse harbored a grudge
against him stemming from some damage to a cable in 1946 was well founded.
Myrna T. Dean and Eva Karnofsky, both members of I4odge 751 and both
strikers who were reemployed after the strike, were discharged on January 12,
1949, upon accusations that they had been organizing for Lodge 751 during
working hours in the plant. Both denied that they were guilty of such conduct
although each admitted that there was a considerable amount of discussion in
their department going on at all times concerning the merits of Lodge 751 in
contrast to Teamster Local 451. Dean denied that such union talk as she en-
gaged in interfered in any respect with her work and Karnofsky testified that
no members of Teamster Local 451 were disciplined for engaging in the same
conduct as she was discharged for. William S. Davis, an assistant general fore-
man under whose eventual supervision Karnofsky and Dean worked, testified
that the progress of work in the section where they were stationed was persist-
ently behind schedule. Davis investigated and learned, he testified, that some
of the workers were being bothered by Dean and Karnofsky in connection with
Lodge 751. On the basis of this information Karnofsky and Dean were called
to the superintendent's office and accused of organizational activities during
working hours. According to Davis, both admitted such activity and both were
discharged. Dean had worked on Davis' shift only 8 or 9 days.
Robert R. Ashley, a machinist, returned to work after the strike on September
14 and on January 10, 1949, was discharged. The incident which led to this
action occurred a few days before when three organizers for Teamster Local
451 were standing near a milling machine which Ashley was operating. While
there one of the organizers was showered with oily steel shavings which he con-
cluded had come from Ashley's machine. Report of this incident came to the
ears of Glen Dierst, who made inquiries . Ashley denied that he had deliberately
blown the shavings in the direction of the organizer, but conceded that they
might have come from his machine. In the belief, Dierst testified, that Ashley's
action was deliberate, Dierst fired him.
Philip S. McLaughlin, a mechanic, returned to work after the strike on Septem-
ber 15 and was discharged on February 21, 1949. On February 16 McLaughlin
and several others were told by Foreman Paul Higgins that they were being
transferred to another shop. The transfer was an undesirable one and Mc-
Laughlin remarked to Higgins that things would be different when "they got
a contract." The purport of his words being that when Lodge 751 again be-
came the recognized bargaining representative a seniority provision would pre-
vent such action on the part of the Respondent. According to McLaughlin and
Higgins, the latter said that it might be all right to think as McLaughlin did,
257905-54-vol. 108-67
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but that he should not give utterance to his thoughts. Higgins testified further
and McLaughlin denied that on the same occasion McLaughlin said that he
would drag Higgins through the inud. McLaughlin was suspended, given a hear-
ing in which he denied making the last remark, and discharged.
Don J. Parezanin was hired in May 1947, stayed out for the period of the
strike, and came back to work October 18, 1948. Two weeks later, on November
2, he was suspended for leaving his department without permission. A few
days later he was given a hearing on his suspension before Superintendent Moli-
tor and other supervisors. According to Parezanin, Molitor asked him if he was
loyal to the Respondent and if he was why had he not come to work during the
strike. Parezanin replied that he did not want to go through the picket line.
Molitor retorted that it was not a lawful strike and that as soon as Parezanin
learned that he should have returned to work. Molitor then went on to ask what
assurance Parezanin could give that he would be loyal to the Respondent should
he be reinstated and when Parezanin responded, "My word," Molitor said that
that would not be sufficient. Parezanin was terminated. Molitor testified that
he could not recall questioning Parezanin at any hearing and that Parezanin's
discharge resulted solely from his absence from his work station.
May Cummings, a striker, returned to work about October 1, 1948, and was
terminated on December 17. Foreman Hauser testified that the assistant fore-
man directly over Cummings complained that she frequently left her work area
without permission and that criticism of her conduct did not result in improve-
ment. The assistant foreman also asserted and Cummings admitted that she had
called a fellow worker a scab. Cummings was given a hearing before her final
termination at which Superintendent Nurse told her that she was charged with
exhibiting belligerence toward other employees and evidencing a lack of coopera-
tion towards some of the personnel. The essence of the complaint with reference
to belligerency and lack of cooperation was that this attitude was displayed to
members of Teamster Local 451. Cummings denied the accusations, although she
admitted the name-calling incident. Her termination was effective, according to
Nurse, because of her lack of cooperation and bad work attitude.
Arthur C. Gerber, a timekeeper, came back to work after the strike on October
25, 1948. Gerber testified that prior to the strike he had never been active in
Lodge 751 but in mid-November 1948 wrote an unsigned article which was pub-
lished in the weekly publication of Lodge 751 urging members of Teamster Local
451 to cancel dues-deduction authorizations to their organization, explaining
how they could do so, and recommending that Lodge 751 members assist them
to that end. Pleased at the sight of his composition in print, Gerber testified,
he identified himself as the author to several employees. Timekeepers were
supplied with forms by means of which employees could cancel any voluntary
deductions from their pay and following the appearance of Gerber's article, the
use of such forms increased greatly, 25 or 30 of them passing through Gerber's
hands to the payroll department. On no occasion, Gerber asserted, did he ask any
employee to make such a cancellation. Following the publication, according to
Gerber, the foremen in the shop to which he was assigned were noticeably less
friendly in their dealings with him.
On December 7, 1948, Gerber was handed a notice of termination without
explanation. The next day he managed to speak to Lynn Morrell, the chief time-
keeper, who said, according to Gerber, that the latter had been accused of threat-
ening members of Teamster Local 451 with loss of employment unless they
joined Lodge 751 within 30 days. Gerber denied that he had done anything of
the sort and Morrell admitted, according to Gerber, that he placed no faith in
the accusation. Morrell agreed, Gerber testified, to consider the matter further
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1047
and told Gerber to return the following day. Gerber did so but Morrell told
him that the decision to discharge him stood.
A few days later, Gerber appeared before a factory review board which lis-
tened to his denial of making any threats in connection with union member-
ship, heard him say that he had "put through" quite a few dues-deduction can-
cellations for Teamster members, and apparently sustained the discharge.
Gerber then appealed to Fred Huleen, assistant labor relations manager, and
suggested to him that his activity in promoting the cancellation of Teamster
dues might explain the discharge. Huleen, according to Gerber, consulted a
notebook and remarked that Gerber had "put through" 10 Teamster cancella-
tions. Huleen agreed to consider the case but a few days later told Gerber that
he would not change the action already taken.
Morrell testified that a supervisor in the shop to which Gerber was assigned
reported that some employees had complained to him regarding Gerber in that
the latter had threatened their job tenure if they did not join Lodge 751. Mor-
rell verified the report, he testified, by interviewing those who complained, con-
cluded that they were telling the truth, and arranged for Gerber's discharge.
He denied telling Gerber that he disbelieved the accusation.
Huleen testified that he, too, interviewed the complainants and convinced
himself of their veracity. Statements asserted to be those executed by the com-
plainants were produced at the hearing and inspected by the General Counsel.
According to Huleen, the assertion in one that "[Gerber] kept on insist on I
joining his outfit," and in another, "Mr. Gerber told me that 751 was going to
win the strike rights,' and that I wouldn't have a job after 30 days they took
over," convinced him that the discharge was justified.
Joseph G. Fay, a leadman and a Lodge 751 steward, returned to work after
the strike about September 15 and was discharged the following February 9.
On the latter date, according to the testimony of Fay, Assistant Foreman Don
Schaal complained that Fay was using too much time in doing a piece of work.
After characterizing this criticism in scatological terms and after Schaal re-
plied in kind, both went to the office of Foreman Hayworth, who inquired if
the dispute could not be amicably settled. Schaal said either Fay must be
discharged or he would leave. Fay then said that Schaal was a damned hypo-
crite and a little stuffed shirt. Fay was discharged.
Paul H. Hines, a mechanic, returned to work after the strike on September
29 and was terminated on the following October 30. On October 21, about 5
minutes before shift time, Hines was in the plant waiting to clock in, when a
Teamster Local 451 member carelessly stepped on Hines' toolbox, denting it.
Hines called the man a "God damn scab." A few minutes later Hines was sus-
pended and later discharged.
Floyd R. Fitch, a plumber, returned to work after the strike on October 5.
Three weeks later he was told that he was being downgraded because he could
not read blueprints. He refused to accept the demotion and the suspension
which resulted was later made permanent. His foreman, F. W. Kuvshinoff,
testified that he was dissatisfied with Fitch's work when the latter first came
under his supervision in the fall of 1948. When he complained to Fitch that
the latter appeared not to be following the blueprint requirements, Fitch ex-
plained that he was making installations in the same fashion as they were made
on other planes of the same type. Kuvshinoff testified that such a practice was
unsatisfactory because no two ships are precisely alike and the installation
9In December 1948, a decision of the Board (later set aside) required the Respondent to
bargain with Lodge 751.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon which Fitch was working might vary from plane to plane. Thereafter,
according to Kuvshinoff, he watched Fitch's work very closely and gave him
additional instruction. At the end of about 3 weeks Kuvshinoff complained
to the general foreman that Fitch was not doing his work properly and ap-
peared to be unable to read blueprints. Fitch was called to the office and, ac-
cording to Kuvshinoff, admitted his lack of ability in the latter particular.
Kuvshinoff recommended that Fitch be demoted to classification B from A until
he learned to read prints better. The general foreman concurred in Kuvshi-
noff's recommendation and Fitch was offered an opportunity to retain his job
in the lower classification. When he refused he was suspended and later termi-
nated. Fitch testified that he could read blueprints and had never admitted an
inability to do so.
George F. LeVea, a machinist, came back to work October 18. On the evening
of December 21 LeVea was turning a piece of metal in his machine when the
foreman approached, made some criticism about the manner in which LeVea
was doing his work, and touched one of the adjustments, permitting the piece
to fall from the machine. In making a grab for the falling metal, LeVea
injured his hand and left the plant for medical treatment. The next day he was
suspended, and a few days later was given a hearing before a supervisory board
during which one of the supervisors said, "Looks like you 751 guys are trying
to wreck the joint." A number of other inconsequential criticisms were leveled
at him during the hearing, according to LeVea, and be was then terminated.
Foreman Frank W. Dearborn testified that lie had received a number of reports
from assistant foremen that LeVea was a careless worker who spoiled more than
an excusable number of parts. Among the reports coming to him, Dearborn
testified, was one that on November 24, 1948, LeVea plunged a diamond into
a grinding wheel ruining both ; that on December 7 he did the same thing again ;
that on December 11 he spoiled 2 brass bushings by grinding them undersized ;
and that on December 20 he ground a part undersize resulting in the expendi-
ture of 5 hours' labor to make a new part. The final complaint was that on the
night of December 21 he ground 2 wheels undersize. LeVea admitted that he had
made some errors in his work, contended that the incidence of error was no
greater in his case than was normally to be expected, and denied that he had
ever ruined a grinding wheel or a diamond
George H. Graham, a mechanic, returned to work after the strike on October
13 and was discharged the following March 24. Graham's immediate super-
visor, Aubrey Jeremiah, had on a number of occasions, according to Graham,
expressed complete satisfaction with his work. On the day of his discharge
Graham was told that the action was demanded by the plant-protection depart-
ment. The next day, according to Graham, he called the chief investigator in
plant protection, Stanley Leith, to inquire the reason for his discharge. Graham
testified, and Leith denied, that the latter replied, "If you got canned it was your
union activities ." Later, according to Graham, he telephoned Glen Dierst, Leith's
superior, and was told by Dierst that Graham's supervisors reported him to be
an unsatisfactory worker. Jeremiah testified that in the spring of 1948 he
heard employees protest that Graham had said this was going to be a better
country when Russia came in to take over. Jeremiah then inquired of another
employee as to his opinion of Graham and learned that Graham was believed
to be a Communist. Glen Dierst testified that he had information from a source
which he considered to be reliable that Graham was a Communist or Communist
sympathizer and, although no request or suggestion had been made by any
Federal agency concerned with such problems that action be taken, decided that
Graham should be discharged. Leith testified that after the discharge, Graham
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1049
expressed admiration for the Russian government and the conviction that the
United States would be vanquished in a war with Russia.
Lenore Noland, a mechanic's helper, came back to work in October following
the strike. On March 16, 1949, seeing a Teamster Local 451 organizer sign up a
new employee in the shop, she spoke to the new member, telling him that he had
joined a "scab outfit." The organizer, hearing this, asked her why she "was
giving this boy a bad time." A little later General Foreman Nosich lectured her
about arguing union questions in the shop and told her that the union organizers
were permitted in the plant for that purpose. She was then indefinitely sus-
pended and 2 days later discharged. Noland testified that her machine was not
operating at the time she spoke to the employee, and neither his nor her work was
interrupted by her remarks, that the entire incident took no more than 5 or 6
minutes, and that about all she did was to "tease" the new member by chant-
ing, "shame, shame on you."
Russell A. Chaney in early April 1948 was promoted from a B to an A classifi-
cation. His foreman, Dahlberg, remarked on that occasion that Chaney's ability
did not justify such a promotion. Thereafter, still before the strike, Dahlberg,
according to Chaney, manifested a somewhat unfriendly attitude toward him.
Chaney returned to work on October 4 in the same classification he held at the
time the strike was called. Within a week Foreman Dahlberg told him that his
work was unsatisfactory. When Chaney injured the skin of a ship in removing
the heads from some rivets, Dahlberg said that any man with an A classification
should be able to do that job without causing any damage and recommended
that he be discharged. Chaney has been unable since to gain reemployment with
Boeing.
Ralph D. Theroux, a hand former specialist, returned after the strike on
October 11 and was discharged less than a month later on November 10. He had
held the office of shop committeeman and shop steward for Lodge 751. About
November 7, according to Theroux, while walking down an aisleway in the plant
he was jostled by Howard Lewis, a member of Teamster Local 451 whereupon
Lewis offered to fight him. According to Theroux, Lewis had on previous occa-
sions manifested an unfriendly and provocative attitude toward him. Theroux
reported this incident to his foreman, Hayworth. Lewis testified, however, to
a situation almost precisely contrary to the one described by Theroux. Accord-
ing to Lewis he had been the subject of derisive and unfriendly remarks from
Theroux and others whenever it became necessary for Lewis to walk through
the department where they were employed and on the occasion of the collision
it was Theroux who by refusing to leave room in the passageway precipitated
the first contact. The matter was brought to the attention of Glen Dierst, who
decided, he said, that Theroux had a chip on his shoulder against all members
of the Teamsters and that to achieve peaceable conditions in the shop, Theroux
must be discharged, and he was.
Vernon D. McCrory, a shop committeeman and steward for Local 751, returned
to work after the strike on October 20. He was discharged on March 24, 1949,
at the direction of the plant-protection department as an undesirable employee.
At the time of his discharge, Assistant Foreman Jeremiah told McCrory that he
was sorry to learn of this development and that there was nothing wrong with
his work. McCrory testified that he had a short time before been recommended
by his supervisor for a higher pay grade. On cross-examination, McCrory ad-
mitted that he had worked for Lodge 751 on company time and property, but
that he had never been warned against such a practice and that he did not engage
in it at any time to the detriment of the work of any employee.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James Esary , labor relations manager for the Respondent , testified that com-
plaints had come to him that McCrory was bothering employees on the job
trying to get them to sign up for Lodge 751; that he was rough and persistent
in his efforts to accomplish this goal . Consultation with higher supervision in
the shop where McCrory was employed confirmed this information according
to Esary, and he then ordered the discharge.
John W . Veness returned to work after the strike on October 8 and was
"discharged" April 30, 1949. According to Veness , each assembler , such as he,
was provided by the company with a certain number of checks , each of which
must be surrendered to the toolroom when tools of a particular type were taken
out for use. On the day of his discharge Veness was directed by another
assembler of a higher classification to secure certain tools from the toolroom on
Veness' checks for the other 's use. Veness refused to do so and according
to him was discharged for that reason . Veness' foreman , Fred West , testi-
fied that he knew nothing of the episode involving the tool checks until on
April 30 Veness came to him and resigned . Veness explained at the time,
according to West, that he objected to getting tools for someone else on his
own tool checks. West testified that it would have been improper for any
employee to demand that another have tools issued in that fashion and that it
was even beyond the authority of a foreman to order that it be done. Veness,
according to West, said that he was a high rigger and that he was going to
Pendleton to take a job in that work . West inquired , he testified , if Veness
was sure that he wanted to resign and asked if there was not something that
could be done to make his job more desirable . Still , according to West, Veness
persisted in his determination to quit. So, West testified , he asked a clerk to
make out a termination for Veness indicating that Veness was dissatisfied with
his job and Veness signed it. Veness offered no reasonable explanation at the
hearing for signing the resignation but insisted that he had been discharged.
Robert Lloyd , a tool grinder, returned to work after the strike on October 14,
at first to common labor , but on November 4 to the job he previously had
held . On November 8 he was called to the foreman 's office and told that his
work performance was unsatisfactory and that he could remain only by drop-
ping 4 pay grades. He refused to accept demotion and was terminated. Fore-
man Harry Kronick testified that he was a supervisor over Lloyd for a period
of 6 months before the strike and that Lloyd 's work was very poor ; that
although he represented himself to be experienced on the various machines in
the grinding department , he was not able to operate them satisfactorily . Kronick
admitted , however, that he at no time recommended that Lloyd be discharged.
Foreman Edmund Wolff testified that Lloyd came under his supervision after
the strike terminated Wolff testified that Lloyd burned a tool which Wolff
had given him to grind and that Lloyd demonstrated his inability to operate
a cutter-grinder . So, according to Wolff, he brought Lloyd to the office, ex-
plained to him that his work was unsatisfactory ; that he could not be left on
a machine where he was damaging tools consistently , but that there was an
opening as a drill grinder which he could have if he wanted it. When Lloyd
refused the demotion , Wolff terminated him.
Verne W. Crawford , a test mechanic, had been an assistant foreman during
the war years . During the strike he was in charge of the picket line at the
Renton plant. Crawford returned to work on September 27, 1948, and was
discharged on October 6, 1949 . On that day Crawford was applying an air
pressure test to a ship and, although the test had once successfully been made, on
the second occasion a door was blown off and damaged . Crawford was accused
of carelessly applying the pressure to the fuselage without ascertaining that
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1051
the door was securely locked in place and was discharged. Crawford testi-
fied that the door itself was defective and that he had taken all reasonable
precautions before applying the air pressure. Respondent's witnesses testified,
however, that the door could not have been blown off had it been properly
latched and that had Crawford made the proper inspection the accident would
not have happened. Several months after his discharge, Crawford reapplied
for work and was offered a job at a grade lower than the one from which he
had been discharged. He refused the offer.
Virgil M. Thacker, an inspector, returned to work at the conclusion of the
strike on September 13 and was laid off on September 30, 1949, ostensibly be-
cause of a reduction in force. Thacker testified that employees junior to him in
point of service were retained and that his many applications for reemployment
were without avail. During the course of the strike Thacker engaged in a fist
fight with a foreman then working in the plant. The altercation appears to have
had no particular connection with the strike. Glen Dierst testified that he had
assumed that Thacker had been refused reinstatement after the strike because
of this incident and that he first discovered that Thacker had been taken back
when he in some fashion learned of the layoff. Dierst then instructed the per-
sonnel division not to recall Thacker and to change his layoff to a discharge.
Frank G. Worthy began his employment with the Respondent in 1941 and was
a shop committeeman for Lodge 751 for a period of 4 years to the time of the
strike. He returned to work after the strike on September 15 and was discharged
on March 25, 1949. About a week before his discharge Worthy and another em-
ployee saw 2 members of Teamster Local 451 in a ship and Worthy remarked
that there was an unpleasant odor in there. When the 451 members indicated
resentment at the insinuation, Worthy told them not to be so self-conscious.
About an hour later he was transferred from that ship by his foreman who told
him that he should be more careful of his remarks. Sometime after the strike and
before his discharge Worthy heard an employee who had not struck say that
be was making $700 a month on the outside in addition to his earnings with the
Respondent. Worthy remarked that it was odd that a man with that much
income would scab. His termination slip indicates that the reason for his dis-
charge was that he was regarded as an undesirable employee by the plant-
protection department.
Fred Huleen, assistant labor relations manager, testified that he had received
reports that Worthy was needling employees in his shop, particularly those who
had come to work during the strike. The report originated with one of the Team-
ster organizers who asserted that Worthy called an employee a scab. Huleen
then asked for a written report from Foreman Paul Higgins, who related the
incident concerning the name-calling directed to the man who was making $700
a month in addition to his wages. Superintendent Hainesworth reported to
Huleen, the latter testified, that Worthy was hotheaded and had been warned
that he should not use vile language in the shop. Finally, Huleen learned about
the incident in the ship in which Worthy remarked about the impurity of the
air, and at that point Huleen decided to discharge him, and did so.
James F. Peterson began his employment in 1941 and was a mechanic at the
time of the strike. He had served Lodge 751 as a shop committeeman. After
the strike Peterson returned to work on October 18 and was discharged on October
17, 1949. On that day according to Peterson he was notified of his transfer to
another shop which necessitated checking out his toolbox. In anticipation of
this, Peterson testified, he put two "C" clamps which were his personal property
in his pocket and a box of dural aluminum stock, a roll of safety wire, a couple
of Phillips tips, and some drills in his overalls pockets. All but the "C" clamps
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were the property of the Respondent , but Peterson was taking them, he testified,
for the purpose of using them on his new assignment . He then turned over his
toolbox to the assistant foreman for inspection and sealing in preparation for
moving it to his new assignment . A few minutes later a plant-protection officer
asked him to reveal what he had in his pockets . Peterson did so and was taken
to the plant-protection office and later in the day suspended . Still later he
received a notice of termination.
The Respondent 's explanation of the discharge is that Peterson was removing
property of the Respondent from the shop without authorization . Chief In-
vestigator Leith testified that the penalty in such case was invariably discharge.
On cross-examination , however , he finally admitted that a suspension or lesser
penalty had been imposed in the past in some cases. Peterson has been unable
to secure reemployment with the company.
Stanley Burrell , a woodworker , had been a foreman during the war years, was
a striker , and returned to work at the conclusion of the strike on September 13.
In a very short time he was discharged for refusing on that day to remove a but-
ton on his clothing which indicated that he was a committeeman for Lodge 751.
Thomas Berrington , a clerical worker , began his employment with the Re-
spondent in 1940 , participated in the strike, and returned to work September
23 following its termination . Berrington had been on the district council of
Lodge 751, did organizing work, served on the grievance board as a representa-
tive of that organization , and was a shop committeeman from 1941 to 1948. For
a period of 2 or 3 weeks following his return to work , Berrington was occupied
with duties generally performed by beginners , but then on a Friday evening he
was informed by his foreman , Romberg, that on Monday he would be given
work consistent with his higher classification . On the following Monday Ber-
rington discovered that Romberg had been transferred and that he was now
under the supervision of John Sexton . Sexton assigned him to the task of segre-
gating rubber hose by sizes . An hour or two after he had finished this assign-
ment Sexton told him that Berrington should not have sent a requisition in
connection with the segregation to the records office and that his having done so
had caused Sexton hours of searching for it. Berrington protested that he had
followed routine practice and if Sexton had desired him to vary from the routine
he should have given him a written order. Sexton retorted that he would not
have any clerk of Berrington 's classification who could not do better work than
Berrington had done. At the close of the shift , according to Berrington , Sexton
gave him a notice of indefinite suspension . A short time later Berrington was
given a hearing before one of Respondent 's review boards and then terminated.
The letter accompanying his termination slip stated that he would not be rehired.
Sexton testified that Berrington was under his supervision for a period of about
2 months, that his job classification required him to lead and instruct a staff
of between 10 and 25 workers , but that Berrington was incapable of performing
that work. In consequence , Sexton testified , he assigned Berrington to simple
work, such as inventorying , and that even on this task his work was not satis-
factory ; that his percentage of error was about 40 percent . Sexton asserted
that he told Berrington of his deficiencies , but was unable to persuade Berrington
that there was anything wrong with his work and the errors continued . Sexton
then recommended to the general foreman , Don King, that Berrington be sus-
pended and after considering Berrington 's work record the final decision was
to discharge him.
Following the strike , Berrington worked for Boeing not more than 7 weeks and
for part of that period was not under Sexton 's supervision . Berrington said
that he worked under Romberg for 2 or 3 weeks before the latter was succeeded
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1053
by Sexton. I am convinced that Berrington remained under Sexton for no more
than 3 or 4 weeks-not the 2 months that Sexton asserted and, of course, much
longer than the 1 day that Berrington's testimony seems to stand for.
Fred Huleen testified that he suspended Berrington in February 1948 for
incompetence but because of the difficulty of accomplishing his dismissal (Ber-
rington then being a committeeman) under the restrictions of the contract with
Lodge 751, arranged a transfer for him in the same pay grade although the new
assignment did not justify the wage. In the fall of 1948, according to Huleen,
a personnel coordinator inquired if Huleen still insisted that Berrington be held
on work he was unable to perform. Huleen answered that he did not.
Boyd G. Kelso, a spray painter, a committeeman for Lodge 751, and a striker,
returned to work on October 18, 1948. He was terminated on April 13, 1949. A
week or two before the termination Kelso was interviewed by an agent of the
United States Air Force in connection with an investigation to determine if the
Respondent in the shop where Kelso was employed was charging man-hours to
the Air Force which actually were used in the performance of commercial work.
According to Kelso, he told the agent he was aware of no such practice and that
he believed his foreman, Hewitt, to be innocent of any wrongdoing in that con-
nection. Another employee, John J. Valiquette, was interviewed in the same
connection and was discharged on the same day. Valiquette, too, had been a
striker. Hewitt testified that Air Force investigators told him he had been
accused of defrauding the Government and that the charges had been made by
Kelso and Valiquette. Later the investigators told Hewitt that he had been
cleared. Hewitt said that he never discussed the matter with either Kelso or
Valiquette, but that when the time came to cut the number of employees in his
shop he recommended and the other supervisors agreed that Kelso and Valiquette
be discharged because, having made such charges, he regarded them as unde-
sirable employees.
Jack Hayworth, a punch press operator, returned to work after the strike in
September 1948 and was discharged on January 27, 1949. Shortly before his
discharge, he and some fellow members of Lodge 751 discussed the attitude of
supervisors toward returning strikers. According to Hayworth, Assistant Fore-
man Charles Pickett was standing within hearing distance of the conversations.
On January 27, according to Hayworth, he removed a job from his press, at the
instruction of a setup man, and substituted another. Shortly thereafter Pickett
criticized him for making the change without obtaining Pickett's permission.
Hayworth answered that he had followed the instruction of the setup man.
Pickett testified that he had had some difficulty in getting Hayworth to follow
directions; that on one occasion Hayworth had refused to run a job, saying that
it was not satisfactory, and on another occasion had refused to move from one
machine to another. On one of these occasions, according to Pickett, when he
remonstrated with Hayworth about removing work from his press, Hayworth
answered that he had pulled the job for Pickett's benefit and that Pickett would
have recognized this if he had not been so "damned thickheaded." On January
26, according to Pickett, Hayworth pulled a job from his press after he had been
instructed not to do so, and on January 27 refused to move from a form press to
a 21 Bliss press, although it would not have affected his pay classification.
Pickett reported these incidents to General Foreman Megorden, he testified, who
then arranged for Hayworth's suspension. Pickett recommended that Hayworth
be suspended 3 days. Megorden testified that he had a number of reports from
Pickett to the effect that Hayworth on occasion refused to carry out orders.
Megorden had Hayworth brought to his office and asked him if he had ever used
profane language toward Pickett. Hayworth said he had not and that he was
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
willing to cooperate . Megorden testified further that one report indicated that
Hayworth was very quick tempered and that he was very closely connected
with union activities going on in the plant. In consequence of all this , Megorden
had Hayworth discharged.
Hazel V . Robison , a clerk and a striker , returned to work October 22, 1948,
and was discharged on December 31 of that year . Robison had earlier been
discharged in 1944 , but her case went to arbitration under the union contract
then in effect and she was reinstated . Along with almost all of the employees
she was furloughed in September 1945 at the conclusion of the war and was
unable to find reemployment with Respondent until March of 1948. On one
of the occasions when she applied for work during that period she was told that
her record was "not too good ." Her foreman , Kaseburg , criticised her work
performance on several occasions in the fall of 1948 and on December 31 told
her that her work was unsatisfactory , that she was suspended , and that she
was not wanted in his shop or in any other . Robison appealed Kaseburg's
action to one of Respondent 's review boards. Kaseburg told the board that
Robison could not follow shop routine and appeared to be unable to comprehend
orders. Kaseburg testified that the inability of Robison satisfactorily to per-
form her duties was a source of puzzlement to him ; that he had made a sincere
and persistent effort to learn what her difficulty might be and that he had come
to the conclusion that she would never be a satisfactory worker in the classifica-
tion which she held . He denied that any consideration of union membership or
participation in concerted activity impelled his decision to seek her discharge.
Norma A. Vincent was hired in January 1948 as a toolroom attendant , stayed
out for the period of the strike , and returned to work on October 4, 1948. Some-
time during the summer of 1950 , Vincent suffered an injury which for several
months thereafter limited the use to which she could put her hand . Her foreman,
Griffin, was aware of this condition and up until December 26, 1950 , the day of
her discharge , supplied her with work assignments which did not require ex-
tensive use of her injured hand . On that date, however , he told her to sort
drills. Vincent protested that to do so would interrupt the healing of the injury
and that she was under a doctor's instruction not to do such work as drill sort-
ing involved . Griffin insisted that she follow his direction , however , and when
Vincent refused to do so secured her suspension which was later made permanent.
According to Vincent , Griffin had displayed resentment toward her on an earlier
occasion when in the fall of 1950 he sought to shorten her vacation after it had
been approved , and was angry when he failed in this attempt . He was critical
of her work, Vincent testified , up until the time of her suspension . Also, accord-
ing to Vincent , a few days before her suspension she had been reexamined by
her doctor and supplied by him with a letter indicating that her disability per-
sisted . Vincent testified that she exhibited this letter to Griffin when he insisted
that she take the drill -sorting assignment.
Griffin 's testimony that no such letter was shown him, coupled with the fact
that the letter is dated December 26 and presumably could not have been
obtained by Vincent until after the hour of her suspension , persuades me that
she is mistaken in her recollection that she showed Griffin the letter . Griffin
testified that he needed the services of Vincent on December 26 in drill sorting
and that he believed that sufficient time had elapsed since the injury to warrant
his insistence that Vincent be fully available for all work in her classification-
when Vincent refused to follow his direction , Griffin testified he sought and
obtained her suspension. A review board sustained the position of Griffin and
terminated Vincent 's employment.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1055
William W. Simon, a striker, returned to work on October 7, 1948, but was
not restored to his old classification of chief clerk . On February 11 he was
downgraded because, he was told, of a budget cut in the department where he
worked . The same reason was again given him when he was downgraded in
August of the same year. In late December or early January 1950, Simon, who
had such experience several years before, was assigned to work as a riveter.
On January 5, while operating a rivet hammer , he made some marks on an
aluminum skin which, it was alleged, were not repairable and was discharged
allegedly for that reason. Harry Fisler, a supervising instructor, testified that
he received Simon for training in late 1949 and learned from Simon's personnel
file that Simon himself had at one time been a riveting instructor for the com-
pany. Simon stayed in the training school for a period of about 21/2 weeks, not
for the purpose of training, according to Fisler, because it was assumed that he
was sufficiently skilled in riveting, but to await a suitable opening for him in
some department. Fisler testified that Simon's attitude was restless and "fatal-
istic"; that he appeared to feel that he was being mistreated. His work in the
riveting school, Fisler conceded, was good. Upon Fisler's recommendation,
Simon was assigned to a production department as a riveter.
Foreman Frank Murray testified that Simon then came under his supervision.
On the second day of work, according to Murray, Simon marked an aluminum
skin so badly that it had to be replaced. Murray then, he testified, reviewed
Simon's folder, discovered that Simon seemed to have been a problem in each
department where he had worked, and took him before a factory review board
to determine what action should be taken. The review board decided to dismiss
him.
Lewis Benson was first employed in December 1942 and at the time of the
strike was a shop clerk. A member of Lodge 751, Benson went out on strike,
did some picket duty, and returned to work on September 21. While on the
picket line, his one-time supervisor, William Hampel, passed by and said, ac-
cording to Benson, "When you come back, you are one of the boys that will get
it." Benson, upon his return, was for a period of a few weeks required to do
heavy manual labor. On October 19, allegedly upon the instruction of another
clerk, he mixed two lots of hose clamps which, it developed, were different sizes
so that resorting was necessary. On October 20 a man, unidentified in the record,
handed Benson a suspension slip saying that Benson had not been doing efficient
work . When Benson protested that he wanted to have a hearing and wanted
to speak to his foreman, he was told, "If you have any complaints to make, go on
back to your union." Supervisor Joseph Luttrell testified that Benson was
under his supervision for the period following the strike and that Benson's work
performance was not very satisfactory in that he would mix up and mismark
materials. The work was very simple, according to Luttrell, but merely calling
Benson's attention to his mistakes seemed to have no effect . Luttrell recom-
mended to Foreman Schwarz that Benson be terminated. Supervisor F. H.
Dickson testified that Benson was under his supervision before the strike and
that his work was unsatisfactory. William M. Hampel denied that he at any
time made the remark to Benson that the latter attributed to him.
Lyder Johnsen was first hired in May 1939 and was an assembler at the time
of the strike. Johnsen came back to work in October 1948 to the same work
he had left as a striker . In April 1949, along with others, Johnsen was told
that he must accept a transfer and a downgrading or be terminated . He accepted
the transfer . In February 1947, according to Johnsen , he suffered an injury at
work which made it painful for him to work in a standing position. About a
week before his termination, which occurred April 26, 1949, Johnsen requested
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the personnel office to find him a sedentary job. On April 26 Foreman Aatell
handed him his termination slip . Axtell remarked , according to Johnsen, that
his work had been satisfactory and that he did not understand why the company
would let him go merely because of his physical condition.
Foreman Don Axtell testified that on April 25, 1949, Johnsen told him he
was unable to perform work standing up and asked to be released early on that
day. General Foreman Clifford Imrie testified that he attempted to find other,
work for Johnsen due to Johnsen's inability to perform the work available in
Imrie's department and when he failed to do so arranged for Johnsen's dismissal.
Kathryn Grunewald was first hired in November 1942 and was a cementer
at the time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, she stayed out on strike and
returned to work on October 18. She was first assigned to a training school to
learn riveting and after a week was assigned to a production shop as a rivet
bucker. She was later transferred back to the same shop and the same job she
had held before the strike. On January 26, 1949, she was again transferred to
another shop and began to receive training in soldering. After a day and a half
Foreman Harry Oas handed her a termination slip which said that her work
was unsatisfactory. Grunewald testified that she did twice as much work as
the worker beside her. She attributed her discharge to a personal antipathy on
the part of Oas.
M. J. Boston, general foreman of the training shop, testified that Grunewald
was a very poor worker and had very little ability. Assistant Foreman Clifford
Jones testified that Grunewald's work was of the very poorest quality ; that on
one occasion her work was done so improperly that he and another man had
to work all night to redo it, and that she disturbed other employees by her dis-
position to talk inordinately, because of an alarming cough, and an offensive
body order. Jones testified that he recommended she be terminated from em-
ployment in his shop.
Andrew Feyko began his employment with Boeing in February 1940 and was
an experimental mechanic when the strike was called. According to Feyko his
work performance had never been the subject of criticism by his supervisors.
Feyko returned to work on September 15, 1948. On March 7, 1949, he was given
a reclassification to the highest pay rate in his category. On April 26 Feyko's
job was to work on the installation of ducts in connection with the air-condition-
ing equipment on a ship. Another employee was performing some task on the
same ship which had to be completed before Feyko could begin. In connection
with the work of the other employee an air-conditioning fan was operating and
according to Feyko he was told that when the fan stopped it would be all right
for him to proceed. The fan stopped and Feyko began his work. In a very
short time the fan again started to turn and created a suction so great as to
draw the unconnected ducts with which Feyko was concerned into the fan
blades, bending them. A foreman interviewed Feyko and the other employee
about the mishap and Feyko was called into the office of Superintendent Hurst
on the following day. Feyko gave his version of the circumstances surrounding
the incident and Asssitant Superintendent Olsen remarked that it appeared to be
attributable to Feyko's carelessness. A review board determined that Feyko
should be laid off for a week. One of those on the board remarked that it was
an odd case in that Feyko had nothing against him up to this point. The
suspension occurred on November 9, 1949. About a week later Superintendent
Hurst telephoned him to say that the suspension had been made permanent and
offered no reason for the change. Feyko learned in some fashion that the damage
occasioned by the accident would approximate $100. Feyko was a member of the
Lodge 751. His dues were being deducted by the Company, and he wore a 751
button.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1057
Glen Dierst, superintendent of plant protection, testified that information
had come to him that Feyko had been quite active in the Socialist Labor Party,
an organization to be distinguished from the Socialist Workers Party and one
which does not appear on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations.
In the opinion of Dierst, anyone who belonged to the Socialist Labor Party was
some sort of a subversive and as Feyko had been suspended for a week it was
Dierst's opinion that this was a good opportunity for Boeing to get rid of him.
That he was a member of a "marginal group" and was active in it, provided
the justification. So upon the recommendation of Dierst, the action of the
board of review was changed from suspension to termination. Dierst admitted
that no governmental agency had suggested that Feyko be terminated.
Charles F. Ankelen was first employed by Boeing in 1939 and was a molder
at the time of the strike. In 1943 Ankelen was a shop committeeman for Lodge
751 and during the strike performed some picket duty. In 1944 he engaged in
some sort of argument with his foreman, Otto Schmitt, during which Ankelen
told Schmitt to go to hell. Ankelen received a suspension of 4 days. He returned
after the strike on September 21, 1948. About 6 weeks before his discharge his
classification was changed from molder to bench mechanic. On April 6, Foreman
Schmitt told him and others that they were to be laid off and that it was possible
they might be rehired immediately. On April 11, when Ankelen came to the
shop, his timecard was not in the rack. He filled out a temporary card and
handed it to the timekeeper who said that Ankelen had been fired. Ankelen
then went to Schmitt who handed him a dismissal slip, saying that he had nothing
to say about it, adding, "Maybe you know as well as I do what is wrong."
Ankelen admitted that Schmitt had on several occasions criticized him for slow-
ness. His two applications, subsequent to discharge, for rehire were without
result. On cross-examination Ankelen admitted that he had developed a hernia
and that as a result he was at some period in 1949 relieved from work which
required the lifting of heavy objects. Ankelen further admitted that he and
Schmitt engaged in several arguments over work subsequent to the strike. About
6 weeks before his discharge Foreman Schmitt told Ankelen that he desired him
to work as a molder involving lead plates. Ankelen objected that because of his
hernia he would be unable to do such work. An examination by Boeing's doctor
confirmed Ankelen's diagnosis and as a result he was put on bench work.
Foreman Schmitt testified that Ankelen had a somewhat belligerent attitude
toward supervision and that he was a rather slow worker, but that he had no
part in the decision to discharge him. Glen Dierst testified that he received
information that Ankelen was active in the Socialist Workers Party, an organi-
zation appearing on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations.
When he had verified this information, according to Dierst, he recommended
that Ankelen be dropped from the payroll, with the result that Ankelen was
discharged on April 11. Dierst admitted that no governmental agency requested
the termination and that his personal decision in such cases was generally
effective.
Robert Matzdorf, first hired in September 1947, was a storekeeper at the time
of the strike. He returned to work in July 1948 upon representations that all
the employees in his shop had done so, but after staying for a few days left and
rejoined the strikers. He returned to work October 25, 1948, in a pay classifica-
tion lower than the one he had left before the strike, and on January 7, 1949,
was discharged. Foreman Luttrell remarked at the time, "We want men that
can go ahead." Matzdorf secured a hearing before a review board where he
was told that he was too slow and that the discharge would stick. Matzdorf
admitted that about 5 weeks before his termination Luttrell had been critical of
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his work, but asserted that another employee, Pyle, was subjected to at least as
much criticism. According to Matzdorf, Luttrell's attitude toward him changed
when he began wearing a Lodge 751 button ; that Luttrell then became more
critical and asked him how long he had been a member of that organization.
Harvey J. Schwarz, supervisor of storage and reclamation, testified that he
told Matzdorf the latter was incompetent and that he was being dismissed for
that reason. According to Schwarz, Matzdorf did not display the ability to do
even routine work. Foreman Luttrell testified that Matzdorf's work was of
very poor quality and that he appeared to be unable to absorb instruction.
His denial that he made any comment to Matzdorf concerning membership in
Lodge 751 is credited. Luttrell agreed that Pyle also was open to criticism in
his work performance and testified that he had dismissed Pyle a short time
after Matzdorf left. Luttrell asserted that he was unaware of any union mem-
bership that Matzorf may have held.
Alice A. Carlson was first employed in July 1942 as a beginner mechanic and
was an A mechanic at the time of the strike. She was a striker and worked on
a coffee detail during the strike period. On October 16 she returned to work
as a mechanic in a B classification. In late July 1949, according to Carlson,
a Teamster organizer solicited her to join Teamster Local 451 and when she
refused to do so the organizer immediately went to her foreman, Bill Jones,
and engaged him in conversation. Jones then came over to Carlson and gave her
what Carlson described as a dirty look, on which she commented, "If looks
would kill, I would be dead." Jones assertedly answered, "Yes, I guess you
would be." Within a few days Carlson took her vacation and when she returned
found herself under the supervision of a new foreman. Kluth. Kluth told her,
Carlson testified, that he had been going through the folders of the individual
workers to determine which of them were the most desirable employees because
there were too many employees in the shop, and that some of them would have
to go. Muth added that he preferred men in the work that Carlson was doing,
asked her, according to Carlson, if her husband was working, and when she re-
plied that he was, told her that he was assigning a man to replace her, and
asked her to initiate the new employee in the intricacies of the job. Muth
admitted, Carlson asserted, that there was nothing against her record, but added
rather cryptically that her work would be more acceptable outside of an air-
plane plant. About a week later she was sent to the office of Superintendent
Hurst, who told her that her foreman considered her no longer capable of per-
forming her work. Carlson retorted that she had been doing it for 7 years and
that she had passed a test to secure a blueprint certificate. Hurst answered
that apparently her best effort was no longer good enough ; that her husband
was employed ; and that there were just too many people in the shop, that some
of them would be terminated. Carlson asked if it was not possible to arrange
a transfer and Hurst replied that it was not. Carlson was then dismissed
and was not permitted to finish out the day. Carlson testified that she left
Hurst's office immediately behind Foreman Muth and that he, apparently un-
aware of her proximity, walked immediately to a Teamster organizer who was
standing outside the shop office and said, "Well, that is that." Carlson testi-
fied that she believed the reason for her discharge was that Boeing preferred
a man in the job. On redirect examination, however, she said it was her belief
that an additional reason for her discharge may have been her refusal to join
Teamster Local 451.
Foreman R. R. Kluth testified that Carlson came under his supervision shortly
before her discharge and that the quantity and quality of her work was not
satisfactory. Further, according to Kluth, Carlson was extremely friendly to
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1059
all men in the shop and some who worked in other sections of the plant, was
prone to wear gaudy jewelry, bracelets, earrings, and rings , contrary to company
rules, and her violation of safety precautions in this respect required him to
criticize her on more than one occasion. Carlson denied that this was so.
Kluth denied that he spoke to a Teamster organizer immediately after the dis-
charge or that he discussed her case with any Teamster representative. On cross-
examination, Kluth testified that he was a member of Lodge 751 at the time
of the strike ; that he became a striker but returned to work before the strike
terminated. During the strike he was promoted to his foreman position.
Foreman Glen Jones testified that Carlson was under his eventual supervision
from the termination of the strike to her discharge. According to Jones he
often observed Carlson loafing and talking on the job, as well as away from her
work station, and he instructed her immediate foreman to correct her. Jones
also testified that Carlson's habit of wearing long earrings constituted a hazard
to her and to the equipment. Reports reached Jones from the foreman im-
mediately over Carlson, he testified, that her attendance was poor and that she
was making an excessive number of errors in her work. Jones denied that he
had any conversation with Carlson in which she suggested that he was giving
her an unfriendly look. Jones recommended that Carlson be dismissed.
Rahim Ahmad Jallie was a member of Lodge 751, working as an assembler at
the time of the strike. He remained away from work for the strike's duration and
did some picketing. Jallie registered for employment with Boeing at the termina-
tion of the strike and kept applying at the employment office for work. On
October 4, not having been recalled, Jallie went to the office of Teamster Local
451, signed an application for membership and the dues-deduction authorization,
and received a reference from that organization to Boeing. Jallie took the
reference to the employment office, filed an application, and was recalled to work
on October 19. In January 1949, according to Jallie, his foreman, George Vick,
first manifested a critical attitude toward him. According to Jallie his work
had not varied, it had been passing inspection, and the critical attitude of Vick
appeared to be based upon some animus not stemming from the quality or quantity
of the work done. In consequence, according to Jallie, he asked the general
foreman, Eric Englund, for a transfer and, when this was unsuccessful, made
the same application to Boeing' s personnel office. On the 7th or 8th of February,
another foreman, Rassmussen, told Jallie, according to the latter's testimony, that
he must accept a downgrading or resign. The downgrade was effective Feb-
ruary 10, involving a pay decrease of 29 cents an hour. On February 25, Jallie
was suspended indefinitely and on the next day the suspension was made per-
manent. One month's dues, according to Jallie, were deducted from his pay for
a payment to Teamster Local 451 before he canceled the authorization.
Foreman George Vick testified that Jallie came under his supervision fol-
lowing the strike and that although Jallie had some ability as a mechanic, he
was not sufficiently skilled to fulfill the requirements of the classification he was
in. According to Vick, Jallie's knowledge of blueprints was vague and his work
not very satisfactory. Jallie's lack of experience or lack of understanding caused
him, according to Vick, substantially to monopolize the time of an instructor in
the shop who should have been working with people in lower pay classifications.
After about 3 months, Vick testified, he no longer permitted Jallie to benefit
from the advice of the instructor and from that point on Jallie's work suffered
greatly. In order to help Jallie, according to Vick, he lent him his personal
set of V blocks, which Jallie damaged. Jallie appeared to have a persecution
complex, Vick testified, and was constantly complaining that he couldn't work
with other individuals in the shop. In January, Jallie mislocated a junction
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
box installation and Vick gave him a written warning in that connection. In con-
sequence, Vick testified, he told Foreman Rassmussen that Jallie was incapable
of handling the job and suggested that another place be found for him. Jallie
was then transferred to other supervision.
Assistant Superintendent Richard Wolfram testified that he with other mem-
bers of supervision reviewed Jallie's work record in early February 1949 and
decided to demote him. Immediately after Jallie's transfer Wolfram testified he
spoiled an assembly by misdrilling a series of holes, and on February 24 it was
discovered that Jallie was plugging the holes so that they could be redrilled in
the proper location. According to Wolfram, such a practice could not be tol-
erated. Because of the last incident, Wolfram testified, Jallie was discharged.
Ralph E. Halaas came to the employment of Boeing in October 1943 as a clerk
and was a storekeeper at the time of the strike. Halaas testified that he was a
member of Lodge 75130 and that he participated in the strike, doing some picket
duty. He returned to work after the strike, but was sent to a different plant from
that in which he previously had worked. In a short time, according to Halaas,
lie could see that the department in which he worked was overstaffed. On Octo-
ber 19, 1948, he was discharged, his termination slip reading, "Inefficient. Un-
able to perform work assignments properly." According to Halaas, within 5 days
of his return, he complained that he was not supplied with adequate equipment
to do his work and that it was explained to him that he was given all that was
available. Halaas complained further to his foreman that he had been trans-
ferred with "all the scabs." The foreman replied, according to Halaas, "Well,
who did the work while you were on strike?" Halaas asserted, falsely or mis-
takenly I find, that at the time of his discharge he was still t member of Lodge
751 and wore a membership button openly. Halaas reapplied for employment,
but was unsuccessful.
Foreman Harvey G. Schwarz testified that Halaas worked in his department
and that Halaas' immediate supervisor, Henning, complained of Halaas' pro-
clivity to talk excessively while on the job. Schwarz then reviewed Halaas' work
record, he testified, and decided to dismiss him. The department was over-
staffed, Schwarz testified, and Halaas was the poorest employee there. Halaas
was handicapped also, according to Schwarz, by poor eyesight. Foreman Walter
Bridges testified that Halaas came under his direct supervision before the strike,
and that the quality of his work was acceptable, but the quantity was not up
to standard.
C. The layoffs; the unsuccessful attempts to secure reinstatement
Albert H. Reiland, Jr., assistant to Boeing's vice president of manufacturing,
has under his direction the placement, transfer, and termination of employees,
and the enforcement of company policy in respect to promotions and demotions.
Heiland testified that subsequent to the strike and up to the date of the hear-
ing, economic conditions necessitated reduction in personnel in April and August
1949, but that, although at other periods the absolute number of workers em-
ployed by Boeing was on an ascending curve, the situation would vary from
department to department. Thus, it frequently has happened, he testified, that
one operation in the plant would reach such a stage of completion as to require a
reduction in work force, while simultaneously another and perhaps contiguous
department would require additional personnel. One of the functions performed
by Heiland's office is, he testified, to act in such a situation as has just been de-
scribed so as to save for the Company those employees whose experience and
11 An assertion not borne out by the records of the Lodge.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1061
skills and general aptitudes were desirable for employment in some department
where they could be used rather than to terminate them permanently or tempo-
rarily. With respect to the layoff in April 1949, which it was testified was neces-
sitated by the cancellation of a Government contract, lower echelons of super-
vision made the initial selection of those who should be laid off, and, although
these supervisors were supposed to make the selection upon the basis of ability
and versatility, no hard and fast standards were given to the supervisors for
their guidance. A similar situation existed in August of that year, but large-
scale layoffs did not become necessary, the reduction being largely accomplished
by means of voluntary terminations. Heiland's office, he testified, considered the
recommendations of the general foreman, the foreman, and assistant foreman
as to which employee should be retained and which let go ; sometimes followed
the recommendations and sometimes did not ; and in still other cases would
accept the recommendation that a certain individual no longer be retained for
employment in the department where the cut was necessary, but arrange for his
transfer to another part of the plant where his services could be used. Nor-
mally, Heiland testified, those laid off were given preference for rehire if it
was felt they could do the work available as well as a new applicant. None of
the layoffs, he said, were intended to be permanent, that all depended upon the
Company's future requirements. No policy existed, according to Heiland, which
would require the elimination of female employees from jobs they had held before
the strike, but in a situation where skills were equal, men were favored for
employment. Furthermore, the Company has no maximum age limit above which
it will not hire, although all being equal, a younger person generally has a greater
opportunity of securing employment.
A. F. Lcean, vice president in charge of industrial relations, testified that at
the time of the hearing and for some time before that the Respondent has been
operating in a tight labor market ; that skilled workers are and have been diffi-
cult to secure. In consequence Boeing has been advertising for such workers
in the local newspapers and in any area of the United States where reasonable
hope exists of recruiting skilled workers in appreciable numbers. The recruit-
ing operations of Boeing in States other than Washington are directed to se-
curing skilled workers, but should an unskilled person apply for work any-
where in the United States and if it appeared to the interviewer that he prob-
ably would be acceptable, he would be encouraged to come to Seattle for em-
ployment. While the strike was in progress and for some time thereafter, Logan
testified, any likely source of labor was encouraged to refer applicants to the
Company including many of the employers in the Seattle area, as well as
Teamster Local 451. In the event of a layoff of any consequence, according to
Logan, foremen are required to submit lists of job titles and number of employees
to be affected without naming the individuals. It is the function of Heiland's
office then, he testified, to determine the individuals who are to be retained,
transferred, or laid off.
It is the contention of the General Counsel that subsequent to the termination
of the strike, the Respondent followed a policy of selecting for layoff when
economic conditions required those who had participated in the strike and
who manifested a continuing adherence to Lodge 751. This policy was further
implemented, the General Counsel contends, by another which prejudiced the
opportunity of such individuals to be rehired after layoff, the assertion in
effect being that strikers and Lodge 751 members were not rehired or reinstated,
as normally they might have expected to be as long as it was reasonably possi-
ble for the Respondent to recruit workers without such a background.
257965-54-vol . 103-68
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The facts surrounding the cases of those individuals adversely affected by
this alleged policy follow.
Rilla E. Hughes Samson, first employed in February 1943, worked only a
short time and returned again in December 1947 to remain until the occurrence
of the strike. Upon her application for reemployment in October 1948, she was
told that no work was available ; that she should seek employment elsewhere.
However, on a subsequent application she was hired on November 11. On De-
cember 16, 1949, she was laid off, allegedly for lack of work, but again called back
in January 1950. Finally, on April 28, 1950, she was again laid off, her fore-
man saying that she probably would be back in July. She never has been recalled
and her numerous applications to Boeing for any sort of work have been fruitless.
Edward Czebotar, a supervisor, testified that Samson had a slight physical
handicap in that she was under a doctor's care for treatment of her foot, with
the result that she had to be seated at her work. There was work in the fall
of 1949, according to Czebotar, which she was capable of doing and which
could be done in a seated position. Czebotar testified further that Samson
was a fair worker, although she did have a little difficulty on a new and un-
familiar assignment. In the fall of 1949, still according to Czebotar, the
workload in the shop was reduced due to the termination of a contract for the
construction of B-54 airplanes. Considering that Samson was only a fair
worker and not versatile and that after the cancellation there were fewer
Jobs which could be performed by a seated worker, he did not regard her as
desirable as those workers who were retained, hence her layoff.
R. H. Selden, employment manager, testified that due to Samson's age, 55,
her performance grading, which was only fair, and that she was restricted to
work which required no continuous standing, no heavy lifting, and no preci-
sion eye work, she was not regarded as a desirable worker to rehire. In the
same job classification from which Samson was laid off in April 1950, two others
were in the same status in August of that year. Both have since been rehired.
Walter L. Cisski was first employed in September 1942 as a bar box boy. Two
years later he was given an assignment as jig builder, which he held until Sep-
tember 1945 when the layoff following the conclusion of the war occurred. From
November 1946 to the calling of the strike, Cisski worked as a toolroom clerk.
A member of Lodge 751, he went out on strike, performed some picket and
clerical duty for the Union, and came back to work on October 18 to work
of the same character, but in a lower classification than he held before the
strike. About November 17 his foreman, Charles Griffin, and another foreman,
Ed Wolfe, told Cisski that they had been trying to find another place for him
in the labor grade that he held, but had been unsuccessful and that it was
necessary to demote him and send him to another shop. Cisski's pay dropped
19 cents an hour as a result. On April 15, 1949, his then foreman, Fred Smith,
gave him a termination slip indicating his layoff. Smith remarked at the time
that were it not for the job Cisski was holding he would have been laid off
earlier. Cisski since that date has made a number of applications for reemploy-
ment without success.
Foreman Charles Griffin testified that Cisski came under his supervision both
before and after the strike. Before the strike, according to Griffin, Cisski
worked in the B-17 hangar toolroom which was a very busy place. Due to an
arm and hand disability which Cisski subsequently suffered, he could not do
the work that was required of him and Griffin requested the personnel depart-
ment to find other work in the plant where Cisski's services could be utilized.
The personnel department reported that no such opening existed, according to
Griffin, so he then made a personal canvas throughout the plant and, finding
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1063
a place in the paint shop , arranged for Cisski 's transfer to it. Effective with
the transfer , about November 18, Cisski passed from Griffin's supervision.
Foreman Fred Smith testified that Cisski worked under him in the paint
shop and that he was not very efficient because of his physical handicap. When
It became necessary to lay off two workers upon the cancellation of the B-54
contract , Smith determined , he testified , that Cisski should be one of those to go.
R. H. Selden testified that Cisski offered a difficult problem in connection with
reemployment due to the limited use to which he could put his left hand and
arm and that it was doubtful under the existing condition of the labor market
that Cisski would find employment with the Company.
Madeline Haddix was first hired in June 1942 as a rivet bucker . At the time
of the strike she was employed on the "wash rack ." A member of Lodge 751
and a one-time shop stewardess for that organization , she went out on strike
and returned to work on September 13 to the same job she previously had held.
On this date her foreman , George James , told her that he was glad she had re-
turned and added , "From now on there will be no discussion of the union either
in or out of the plant while at work ." Haddix immediately fell into disfavor
with a woman under whose leadership she worked , with the result that in about
a week she was transferred to another point in the shop , Foreman James saying
at the time , "I would rather have it the other way." A few weeks before her
layoff, which occurred October 21, 1949, Assistant Foreman George Welling
remarked , according to Haddix , that some workers would be laid off, and turn-
ing to Haddix said, "The trouble with you is that you belong to the wrong union."
On October 21 another foreman, Lynn , handed her a suspension slip , saying that
the layoff was temporary and that she would be called back . Although no com-
plaints had been communicated to her concerning her work , Haddix testified she
has been unable to secure reemployment . In September 1950 she spoke to Fore-
man James about her difficulty and asked him if there was anything wrong with
her work . James replied , Haddix testified , that there was none. In June 1951
she was told at the employment office that it would be best if she sought work else-
where. Still , according to Haddix , Foreman Robert Smith submitted a requisition
to the employment office specifying that Haddix be sent to his department for
work, but she was not hired.
Foreman James testified that Haddix was under his indirect supervision and
that her work was satisfactory except for an inclination to be bossy and to cause
friction among the people working with her . According to James, Haddix was
laid off because they had 2 workers in her classification but needed only 1 and
only 1 such worker is now employed on each shift in the department.
Foreman Welling also agreed that Haddix 's work was satisfactory and also
asserted that she had difficulty in getting along with her fellows . With the
cancellation of the B-54 contract , Welling testified , only 1 worker in Haddix's
job was required and the 1 retained was the more desirable . Welling denied
that he suggested to Haddix that she belonged to the wrong union.
R. H. Selden testified that the Company 's records indicated Haddix to be a
good worker even though she had a little trouble in her relations with her fellow
employees , but that her history of three resignations after short periods of
employment militated against consideration for rehire . According to Selden,
Haddix worked from June 18, 1942, to her resignation in May 1943, rehired later
in the same month of 1943, and left again in June of that year . Was again
employed in April 1944 and left in the following September. Selden admitted
that Boeing had no definite policy in connection with individuals who appeared
to be prone to quit after working for short periods of time, but that a record of
three resignations indicates a lack of stability.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jesse K. Ericson began work for Boeing in January 1941 and worked in
various capacities as an electrician. Ericson performed picket duty during the
strike and was a union steward for most of the period of his employment. He
returned to work in early October 1948 and remained on the job until laid off
March 3, 1950. On the day of his return, according to Ericson, Foreman Swenson
told him and others that they were not permitted to engage in any union activity
while on Boeing's property. On another occasion Foreman Vincent Froula told
him, according to Ericson, that he could not wear more than one Lodge 751
button. Ericson protested that members of Teamsters Lodge 451 wore as many as
a dozen buttons. On still another occasion Froula told Ericson to keep his Lodge
751 committeeman's button out of sight. On another time unspecified, Froula sug-
gested that Ericson join a "good union," the A. F. of L. for example. Ericson
retorted that he preferred no union to a "scab outfit." According to Ericson, no
reason was given him for his layoff and he has been unable to learn why he was
selected. Others with a shorter employment history with Boeing were retained.
Foreman Froula testified that he never had a conversation with Ericson con-
cerning any union and that if Ericson ever had exhibited a committeeman's
button to him he would have brought Ericson to the office, presumably for
discipline. Froula conceded that it was possible he had told Ericson that he
could wear no more than one union button as it was Boeing's policy that no
more than one should be worn. According to Froula, a number of workers on
various occasions asked him if Ericson was a Communist and that he talked to
Ericson in that connection to discover if there was any basis for such a belief.
Froula came to the conclusion that Ericson was not a Communist and testified
that he was a very good worker. Froula had no connection with Ericson's
layoff. Glen Dierst testified he had received information in February or March
1950 that Ericson had been associated with Communists and the Independent
Socialist League, and concluding, Dierst testified, that this was a subversive
organization, he directed Ericson's discharge." Dierst admitted that no Gov-
ernment agency had made such a request.
Nannie S. Franklin entered the employment of Boeing in September 1946 and
was a factory clerk when the strike began. A member of Lodge 751, she par-
ticipated in the strike and returned to work on October 22 to a job substantially
the same as the one she left. On December 30, 1948, Franklin was laid off. Her
foreman, Sam Hastings, according to Franklin, was well aware that she was a
member of Lodge 751 and strongly opposed to Teamster Local 451. Her many
attempts to secure reemployment have been unsuccessful and, she testified, in
February 1951 she was told by someone in the personnel office that she would
not be rehired. In the same month she received a letter from the Respondent
advising her that she was not eligible for employment. Franklin denied that
she had been given any warnings in connection with her work, but admitted that
she had been told she was too slow and that she was not producing enough. On
one occasion Hastings told her that she was not doing enough work and that if
she gave occasion for further complaint she would be through. Foreman Harry
Oas testified that Franklin was under his indirect supervision and that Foreman
Hastings reported to him that Franklin was unable to do her work efficiently and
correctly. In consequence, Oas testified, he had Franklin moved to another job
to see if she could do better. The experiment was not successful, according to
Oas, as Franklin appeared to be unable to understand the new work. Other
than her inefficiency, the only complaint against her is that she spent an excessive
amount of time in the restroom. After she had made what Oas described as an
11 However, Ericson's termination slip indicates a layoff.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1065
excessive number of errors, he told her that her services could no longer be used
and that he had no other job in the shop for her. Her termination resulted.
According to Oas, the explanation of Franklin's inability to work efficiently on
the filing system probably could be found in her apparent inability to recite the
alphabet.
George Molitor, who presided at the review board which considered Franklin's
layoff, testified that Franklin asserted that she was doing her work in a satis-
factory manner, but nonetheless asked that she be given a transfer, saying, "I
think that there must be something else that I can do." According to Molitor,
Franklin admitted she did not like the work she was doing.
Mary Louise Anderson was employed by Boeing in December 1942 and was
working as a storekeeper at the time of the strike. As a member of Lodge
751 she participated in the strike and worked for the Union on coffee and mes-
senger details during the strike period. She returned to work on September 23
to the same job she had left. On December 16, 1949, she was handed a layoff slip
by Foreman Bill Long. Anderson told Long that she thought the layoff was
unjustified as she had more seniority than others who were not affected. She
was told to see Karl Merlino, apparently a supervisor of higher rank. She did
so and Merlino took her to the office of Frank Hapka in the personnel depart-
ment, who told her that a large layoff was impending, but, insofar as the testi-
mony of Anderson is concerned, offered no explanation for her selection. An-
derson testified that 5 other employees were doing the same work as she, that
none of them were laid off at the time she was, and that she had worked for
Boeing longer than 2 of them. For the last 14 months, Anderson testified, she
had been visiting Boeing's employment office weekly, but had been unsuccessful in
obtaining reemployment About 3 months following the termination of the
strike, Anderson testified credibly, Foreman John Sexton told another employee,
Ethel Rach, a member of Lodge 751, that she was wearing the wrong button. On
March 18, 1949, Anderson accepted a downgrade on the representation that un-
less she did so there would be no work for her. Anderson admitted that after
an illness in the spring of 1949 her doctor had recommended that she not do any
lifting or heavy work and that the recommendation was followed by her super-
visor at the plant. She asserted that the reason for the physical restriction no
longer exists. Foreman Orville Moellendorf testified that Anderson came under
his supervision for the last 6 months of her employment and that her ratio of
error to acceptable work was possibly a little higher than that normally to be
expected. Because of the medical restriction affecting her, Anderson was given
a job where she could remain seated throughout the shift. Moellendorf attended
a meeting, he said, with other supervisors in which Anderson was selected as
the least capable employee in her group and as a result became a candidate for
layoff. Moellendorf was under instruction, he said, to reduce the work force
and in most cases was able to accomplish it through attrition, but in the end a
small number had to be laid off. Moellendorf explained that an overhead de-
partment such as he supervised was required to maintain an established ratio
of workers to production employees.
Foreman John Sexton testified that Anderson was under his supervision for
about a year and a half until the summer of 1949. According to Sexton, Ander-
son had a miscarriage in the spring of that year and after that seemed unable
to carry out all of her job functions properly. According to Sexton, Anderson
got along pretty well with other employees and he was not aware that her physi-
cal restrictions limited the type of work that she could do. He did, however,
he testified, find it necessary to criticize her work occasionally and said that he
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
believed the necessity for criticism was attributable to her physical and mental
upset.
It. H. Selden testified that as recently as December 1950, the employment office
inquired of her former department in connection with rehiring her and was told
that Anderson was not considered qualified to return to work. Whether the-
basis for this rejection was the physical restriction earlier mentioned does not
appear.
Eleanor Bailey began work in October 1942 and was a general helper in the
spring of 1948. Because of an eye injury, Bailey had been on a leave of absence
which expired April 20 and had sought unsuccessfully to have it extended so that
on April 22, the date the strike started, she was not working for Boeing and
was not on leave of absence . Whether her relation to Boeing on April 22 was
that of employee, I believe it unnecessary to decide. Following the strike, she
returned to work on October 22, in the same classification she previously had held.
On April 14, 1949, she was laid off, ostensibly due to the cancellation of the B-54
contracts. The next day she returned to the plant and spoke to a foreman whom
she named as McClure. McClure told her, she testified, that there was no job
in the plant to which she could be transferred. According to Bailey, at least 6
workers who were members of Teamster Local 451 and who had worked for
Boeing a lesser time than she, were retained. About once a month since her
layoff she has made application for reemployment, asking for any sort of work„
without success. Bailey testified that she is now 60. In 1948 she had a cataract
removed from one eye which allegedly restored perfect vision.
Foreman George Welling testified that Bailey's eyesight was very bad, to the
extent that it impaired her ability to perform her work. Foreman George James
testified to the same effect, asserted that Bailey's age made it impossible for her
to perform a fair share of the work normally expected of one in her position and
concluded, he testified, that it was dangerous for Bailey to work in the factory.
Foreman John Lawrence testified that Bailey came under his supervision for a
period of 4 or 5 months and that Bailey was somewhat enfeebled and possessed
poor eyesight. Other employees complained, Lawrence said , that they had to
do part of Bailey's work. Lawrence reported to higher supervision that Bailey
was rapidly losing her value as an employee and actually was obstructing the
work of others.
R. H. Selden testified that it is extremely doubtful that Respondent would ever
rehire Bailey because of her age, because she can do no heavy lifting or pre-
cision eye work and thus cannot be moved from job to job without the specific
approval of the safety and the medical departments. In August 1950, according
to Selden, 250 other individuals were on layoff from the same job classification
as Bailey.
Mamie P. Fryrear began her employment with Boeing as a beginner mechanic
in September 1942 and at the time of the strike was working as a factory clerk.
A member of Lodge 751 and a striker, she returned to work on October 22, 1948,
in the same pay classification she held before the strike but was later down-
graded. On August 5, 1949, she was laid off although, according to Fryrear, at
least three workers who had been hired during the strike remained at work.
Her many applications for employment have been fruitless and on one occasion,
when she asserted that a job she once had held was open, she was told that a
man was preferred for that position. Foreman James Rassmussen testified that
Fryrear came under his supervision for the last 6 or 8 months of her employment
and that he participated in selecting her for layoff when a drop in production
necessitated a curtailment in the number of employees in his department. Ac-
cording to Rassmussen , Fryrear was a satisfactory worker but her age, about 55,
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1067
limited her usefulness in that she was not capable of moving weights which
sometimes reached 50 pounds. In a period when the work in the shop was
plentiful, according to Rassmussen , it was easily possible to keep Fryrear occu-
pied on less arduous tasks but when the volume of work lessened, it became more
important to retain employees of sufficient versatility and physical capacity to
perform any aspect of the work arising.
R. H. Selden, testifying from personnel records, said that Fryrear would be
considered for reemployment only on an accelerated work program because
her file indicated that her work capacity was considerably limited in that she
was able to do only relatively simple tasks.
Allen D. Richardson began his employment with Boeing in 1942 and at the
time of the strike was a janitor. A member of Lodge 751 and a striker, he re-
turned to work on October 8. On September 30, 1949, Richardson was laid off,
his foreman, Harry Cook, saying to him at the time that there was no com-
plaint about his work. Richardson has made a number of applications for
reemployment without result. Richardson admitted that he had failed to
punch his timecard on 3 occasions and when this last happened, was given a
disciplinary suspension for 3 days. He was about 73 at the time of his layoff.
According to Foreman Harry Cook, Richardson's ability to discharge the duties
of his job was considerably lessened by his poor eyesight and that this dis-
ability manifested itself in the difficulty Richardson had in locating all the
dirt and trash he was supposed to sweep. In the fall of 1949, according to Cook,
Richardson was suspended for failure to punch his timecard on 3 occasions in a
6-month period. Still, according to Cook, Richardson's explanation of this was
that he could not find his timecard and would in error pick up the card of an-
other employee and punch it. At the time that Richardson was laid off, Cook
testified, the force was cut about 50 percent. Richardson, not being one of the
better workers, was let go. Cook testified that he had been a member of Lodge
751, had gone out on strike with the others, and had returned to work on
September 22, 1948, after the strike was terminated.
Selden testified that Boeing's records indicated Richardson to have held a
fair rating at the time of his layoff, but that Richardson's age and his slight
physique made it extremely unlikely that he ever would be rehired as these
limitations made it impractical to use Richardson on the variety of work com-
ing under the maintenance department ; that Richardson could be used only on
jobs which did not require keen eyesight, physical strength, and versatility.
Leslie W. Hodson, first employed by Boeing in May 1942 as a janitor, was
working in the same job at the time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751,
Hodson joined the strikers and returned to work when the strike was over. On
October 28, 1949, Hodson was laid off by Foreman Gillis who said that there
was nothing against him in the Company's records. According to Hodson, sev-
eral janitors more recently hired than he were retained. He has been unable
to secure reemployment with the Company.
Foreman Lloyd E. Beckett testified that Hodson came under his supervision
and that Hodson's work was very poor ; that on several occasions it was neces-
sary to have Hodson redo work which he supposedly already had done ; and
that Hodson read newspapers and gadded about when he was supposed to be
working. According to Beckett, a number of others in the department were
laid off at the same time as Hodson because of a reduction in the workload.
Selden testified that the Company's records showed Hodson to be 58 years of
age and to have held a fair performance rating . According to Selden, 26 other
individuals were in layoff status from the same job held by Hodson as of
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 1950 and that no one has been rehired into that job prior to or sub-
sequent to that date.
Harriet B. McDaniel, first employed by Boeing as a beginner mechanic in
December 1942, was an assembler at the time the strike was called . A member
of Lodge 751, McDaniel went out on strike and returned to work for Boeing
on October 18, 1948. On March 17, 1949, McDaniel was suspended by Foreman
Don Axtell. According to McDaniel, the incident which led to her suspension
occurred in this fashion. An employee with whom she was unacquainted was
transferred to the crew which she was leading and, in the belief that he was
sufficiently experienced to work without constant supervision, she busied herself
on other jobs. Later in the day, she discovered that he had drilled a hole in
the wrong channel. McDaniel reported the error to her assistant foreman and
was suspended half an hour later. A factory review board considered the sus-
pension and concluded that McDaniel would be sufficiently punished by being
required to remain away from work for 1 week. McDaniel returned to work
on the 24th and had lunch that day with a foreman, Fred Smith, who was em-
ployed in another shop. Smith asked her if she knew why she had been sus-
pended, and McDaniel answered that she did, that she understood that as an
"A" mechanic she was responsible for everything that mechanics in lower classi-
fications working under her direction did. Smith answered that it was not
the error of drilling a hole in the wrong channel that caused her suspension,
but the belief on the part of supervision that McDaniel was organizing while
on the job. Smith warned that the next time she was caught doing so, she would
be fired for good. McDaniel was laid off ostensibly because of the cancellation
of the B-54 contract. She has not since been recalled. According to McDaniel,
26 others on her shift and 17 on the night shift were laid off at the same time.
Assistant Superintendent Sears told her, McDaniel testified, that when more
work came to the plant, she would be recalled. Within a month after her layoff,
McDaniel went to the personnel office to discover if there was some reason why
she had not been recalled. There, finally, she testified, she was referred to a
Mr. Ritchie, who examined her file and said that there was nothing for her,
that subassembly where she had been working was not busy. McDaniel replied
that she had worked in many other shops besides subassembly and Ritchie
answered that he was sorry there was nothing for her. McDaniel then asserted
that members of Teamster Local 451 were being hired in numbers ranging from
50 to 150 a day. Ritchie's only answer was that he was sorry, there was nothing
for McDaniel. On a later occasion, she was told at the personnel office that
Boeing had nothing for her. McDaniel persisted and finally a personnel repre-
sentative, Goodlowe, told her that the Company had nothing for her and would
have nothing in the future. McDaniel made a further application in the summer
of 1951 and was told that Boeing was hiring no more women, that they had too
many at the present time and didn't know what to do with them.
Foreman LeRoy Sumner testified that on March 15, 1949, he observed McDaniel
loitering for about 15 minutes at the start of the shift, and that due to the fact
that McDaniel's work performance was poor, he recommended that she be dis-
missed. The review board instead suspended her for 1 week. According to
Sumner, McDaniel had been criticized on several occasions in connection with
her work performance but she always had a ready excuse. Following McDaniel's
return from the layoff, he testified, he was shown some oversize holes which she
supposedly had drilled and, when it became necessary to cut down the size of
the work force on April 15, he recommended, considering her habit of leaving
her work station, loitering, and poor work performance, that she be included in
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1069
the layoff. Foreman Fred Smith denied that he ever told McDaniel that she
had been laid off because she had been organizing for Lodge 751.
Don Axtell, now a nonsupervisory jig builder, but in the spring of 1949 an
assistant foreman, testified that McDaniel was under his direct supervision at
the time of her layoff and termination and that on February 14, 1949, he placed
a written criticism in her file because of the mislocation of a hole in a pressure
bulkhead on a B-50 airplane. Again, on March 16, he placed another written
criticism in the file because she had assertedly drilled a quarter-inch hole on the
left side instead of the right side of a panel. Axtell admitted that McDaniel
did a pretty good job of work as a rule, and was pretty good at reading blueprints,
but she did take a lot of time to visit and talk with other employees. After the
suspension in March 1949 McDaniel was placed under other supervision.
Richard Wolfram, an assistant superintendent, testified that on two consecu-
tive nights in the spring of 1949 he saw McDaniel loitering at her work or near
her work and mentioned this to McDaniel's foreman. McDaniel denied the ac-
cusation, Wolfram testified, but then on the following day came to his office
and apologized for doing so, explaining that she had forgotten the circumstance
when she entered her denial and promised that she would stop wasting time.
R. H. Selden testified that McDaniel's folder is heavily loaded with poor work
memos to such an extent that she would not be considered for reemployment.
Arla Myers, first employed by Boeing in July 1942 as a beginner mechanic, was
a plastic fabricator at the time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, she joined
in the strike and returned to work on its termination, September 13. On October
24, 1949, Foreman Hokenson told Myers that she was laid off, that he had to lay
off 2 of 3 individuals and that Myers was selected, among other reasons, because
her husband was working. The one who was retained was also a member of
Lodge 751 but, Myers testified, junior to her in seniority. Every week following
her layoff Myers presented herself to the employment office seeking work, was
rehired on February 28, 1951, and was still working at the time of the hearing.
Foreman Hokenson testified that he participated in the decision to lay off
Myers in the fall of 1949 and the basis for his decision was the quality and
quantity of Myers' work in comparison with that of the other employees in the
division.
Mary Smith, first employed by Boeing in February 1943, was a riveter at the
time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she participated in the strike
and returned to work on October 13 of that year. With a number of others, she
was laid off on September 30, 1949. According to Smith, her work had never
been adversely criticized and on one occasion, when she was about to be trans-
ferred from her shop, her foreman arranged to keep her, saying that he needed
her services. Her many attempts to secure reemployment since her layoff have
been without success. In April 1951, she testified, an advertisement appeared in
the Seattle paper, indicating a need on the part of Boeing for riveters. Smith's
application was rejected.
Foreman Elwin Empens testified that Smith worked under his supervision for
a time and agreed that, on an occasion when she was slated for transfer to
another division, he arranged to have the transfer canceled. According to
Empens, the quality of Smith's work was good but she was a slow worker.
Foreman Antone Doerfiinger testified that about 20 others weer laid off at the
same time as Smith, because the work in his department was ahead of schedule.
Smith was selected to be among those laid off because her production was low.
R. H. Selden testified that the company record on Mary Smith indicates that
her age, 55, is an obstacle to her reemployment inasmuch as a riveter is some-
time required to climb about in an airplane and to work from scaffolds and the
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
like. Also, her attendance record, while fair, is marred by an excessively high
incidence of tardiness and her frequent visits to the medical unit indicate that
she may be chronically ill. On October 19, 1950, according to Selden , her name
and record were submitted to General Foreman Roy Towe to consider for em-
ployment, but were returned to the personnel office with the notation that Towe
was not interested in employing her.
Jennie C. Rich, first employed by Boeing in September 1942, was working as a
storekeeper at the time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, Rich participated
in the strike and returned to work September 17 after its termination. On
February 17, 1950, Rich was handed a layoff slip by her foreman, Bill Dodge,
who said that he did not understand why she was selected as she had always
followed instruction. A week or two later, she spoke to Frank Hapka in the
employment office, who told her that perhaps she had been laid off because of her
age. Her several attempts to secure reemployment have been unsuccessful.
Rich is about 55. Others, more recently hired than she but members of Teamster
Local 451, were, according to Rich, retained.
Foreman Orville Moellendorf testified that Rich was under his supervision up
to the time of her layoff. According to Moellendorf, a few months before that
date, a new procedure became effective with the merger of the stores and expedit-
ing departments into a parts control unit and that Rich seemed unable to under-
stand the work required by the change. She was given a trial period of
approximately 30 days during which she had daily assistance and advice. Prior
to this time, her work had been satisfactory, but the complexity of the new
procedure proved too much for her. In February it became necessary to reduce
the work force in his department, Moellendorf testified, and Rich was let go
upon the consideration that she was the least qualified of those working in her
department. On cross-examination, Moellendorf asserted that Rich was just
an average employee, was quite nervous, didn't hear well, and asked a lot of
unnecessary questions, even though on a simple, routine job. According to
Moellendorf, the employees now in his department are all superior in ability to
Rich.
Selden testified that Rich had a reasonably good work record, but that he
would assume from her age, 55, that she would not be readily adaptable to
other jobs or available for any work that would require her to be on her feet
for substantial periods of time. As of August 1950, according to Selden, 66
individuals were in layoff status from the same job classification as Rich, and
the labor market still enables Boeing to hire better-qualified individuals.
Jean Welch, first employed by Boeing in 1942, was a plastic fabricator at the
time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, she joined in the strike and returned
to work on October 22, 1948, to the same job she held the previous April. On
December 7, 1949, she was laid off. Her foreman told her at the time that the
reason was a lack of work ; that it was not due to any deficiency on her part.
Of 2 other individuals who were laid off at the same time, both members of
Lodge 751, 1 has since been rehired, according to Welch, and the other offered
reemployment, which she refused. Her efforts to gain reinstatement have been
unsuccessful.
Foreman Fred Hokenson testified that Welch came under his supervision and
that on one occasion he called Aria Myers, Welch, and two other employees
together to tell them they would have to stop arguing with each other, or one
of them would be laid off. Thereafter, he said, the bickering ceased. When
a reduction in the work force became necessary late in 1949, Hokenson recom-
mended that Aria Myers and Jean Welch be among those laid off. The rec-
ommendation was based upon considerations of quantity and quality of work.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1071
At the present time, according to Hokenson , there are five individuals now in
the same job classification as Myers, all of whom were in the employ of the Com-
pany at the time that Myers was laid off. One of those with whom both Myers
and Welch were frequently bickering , was employee Daciel Ness. Ness,
according to Hokenson , was also a striker and presumably not a member of
Teamster Lodge 451.
Selden testified that Welch had a fair performance rating . In September
1950 , according to Selden , the employment office inquired of her former foreman
regarding her possible reemployment . The foreman answered that Welch was
not qualified . Welch , according to Boeing 's records , has applied for reemploy-
ment on 27 occasions . None of the interviewers , it is contended, found her
qualified for the openings existing.
Barkley Weller , first employed by Boeing in September 1946 , was a pickling
tank operator at the time of the strike . A member of Lodge 751, Weller joined
the strikers and returned to work on September 1948 to the same job he had
left. On January 10, 1949, he was transferred to work as a spray painter and
held that classification until his layoff August 5, 1949 . About 2 weeks before
that date, Weller had been appointed shop committeeman for Lodge 751. When
new employees would come into his work area , Weller testified , he would talk
to them and ask them to join Lodge 751. Another employee , also a member of
Lodge 751, but possibly one whose membership was not known to Boeing and
who had been hired only about 6 months prior to Weller 's layoff , was retained
for the same work that Weller had been doing . Foreman Hewitt told him,
Weller testified , that there just was not enough work to keep Weller on the job.
His frequent applications for reemployment received the answer that there was
no opening for him.
Glen Dierst, head of Boeing 's plant-protection division , testified that late in
1948 or early 1949, he received information that Weller was active in the So-
cialist Workers Party, that he relayed the information to the office of the
vice president in charge of production and suggested that a -,vay be found to
remove Weller from the payroll . According to Dierst, the information about
Weller came to him from some Federal agent orally and he admitted that no
agency of the Federal Government said that Weller was regarded as a security
risk or requested that Weller be terminated . Dierst admitted that when such
information came to him from a source he considered reliable , he was un-
concerned whether the individual affected was actually a member of any sub-
versive organization , that in effect the accusation from a reliable source was
sufficiently persuasive to cause him to arrange the discharge.
Selden testified that classification by the plant-protection department of
Weller as undesirable precluded consideration for reemployment.
Helen L . Kirk , first employed by Boeing in June 1947 , was a factory clerk at
the time of the strike . As a member of Lodge 751, she joined the strikers and
returned to her employment on October 13 to the same job in a different shop. On
March 15, 1949, she was downgraded to a parts dispatcher , involving a cut in
pay, but no change in duties. On August 2, 1949, she was laid off. Her numerous
applications for reemployment since have uniformly been rejected . On one occa-
sion , Kirk testified , she asked an individual in the personnel office to look at her
file, in order to discover if some reason would appear there to explain her lack
of success in obtaining employment . She was told , she testified , that her file was
favorable and that it contained a notation "good for re-hire." On still another
occasion , according to Kirk , she went to the employment office in company with
other women, some of whom were hired , while she was told that women were
not being hired . Finally, learning that a foreman was going to request her
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assignment to his department, Kirk went to the employment office and was called
for interview by the foreman, Forrest Wood. According to Kirk, Wood said
her record appeared satisfactory and that as far as he was concerned, she was
hired, but that he must get the necessary requisition from the personnel depart-
ment. Shortly thereafter Wood returned, telling Kirk, according to her testi-
mony, that someone else had been sent to his office and that he had been
instructed to hire the other individual. Wood went on to say, still according to
Kirk, "I am very sorry. If it had not been for that, the job was yours."
Foreman Ted Vines testified that in the spring of 1949 it was his assignment
to coordinate the manpower for department 210, where Kirk was employed. The
purpose of the survey was to determine efficiency of the employees, to find out
who was doing the better job, and who should be laid off or transferred. On the
basis of reports from Kirk's supervisor, Albert, and from his personal observation,
Vines testified, he came to the conclusion that she had difficulty in her personal
relationships with other employees, in that she had a belligerent attitude which
encouraged a like response from others. In consequence, according to Vines, he
recommended that she be among those laid off in August of that year. Of the
17 factory clerks in Kirk's classification, 11 were retained after the August layoff
and only 7 remain today. According to Vines, Kirk was one of those with the
least company service when she was laid off.
Foreman Forrest Wood testified that he had a need for a factory clerk in 1951
and that his leadman, John Gooch, recommended that he hire Kirk. Wood agreed
to interview her. During the interview, according to Wood, he gained the im-
pression that Kirk appeared sure that her personnel file would indicate that
she should not be rehired but that she was in error. According to Wood, Kirk
evidenced an aggressive and belligerent manner to the extent that he came to
the conclusion he did not desire to hire her. On the same day, Wood admitted,
he hired a new applicant who is still in the Company's employ.
Selden testified that the personnel office on January 24, 1951, inquired of Fore-
man Emory, who last supervised her, concerning the possibility of reemploying
Kirk, and that Emory replied that Kirk was a troublemaker. On February 21,
according to Selden, Kirk was interviewed for employment by another foreman,
presumably Wood, and rejected because of her attitude. Selden testified that
Kirk probably would not be considered for employment at present.
James V. Richards, first employed by Boeing in February 1942, was an assem-
bler at the time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, he joined in the strike
and returned to work on October 22 to the same shop but in somewhat different
work. On November 28, 1949, along with 15 others, he was laid off. Richards
asked Foreman Floyd Nestegard for the reason and received the reply that
the layoff was upon orders from the main plant. His applications for reemploy-
ment have been fruitless. Richards admitted that in April 1949 his foreman
told him he had been loafing on the job and that a repetition of the offense would
not be tolerated, and that in the same month his foreman accused him of smoking
in an unauthorized area, an offense which once before the strike had earned him
a 2-day suspension. Sometime following the layoff, Richards was sent by the
personnel office to a maintenance foreman for employment. The foreman told
him his record was not good enough to merit consideration.
Foreman Robert S. LeBeaux testified that Richards was transferred to his
supervision in 1949, that he tried Richards on mechanical work but that he was
incapable of handling that job, that he was a slow worker, and occasioned an
uncommonly large number of rejections. In consequence , Richards was trans-
ferred to a wiring job, but the amount of his work which failed to pass inspection
was so great that retention was unwarranted. According to LeBeaux, criticism
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1073
of Richards generally ended in the person offering the criticism having his sym-
pathy enlisted on Richards' behalf. Richards said , LeBeaux testified on such
occasions, that he knew he was not as capable as others , but he just could not do
better. When an opportunity came to transfer Richards, LeBeaux testified, he
did so. After the layoff, Richards asked LeBeaux to help him gain employment
with the Company. LeBeaux agreed to do so, he testified, and in the presence of
Richards, told a Roger Beers at the employment office that Richards was in-
capable of handling mechanical work and that he should not be considered as a
mechanic, but that he would appreciate it if Beers could secure work for Richards
in maintenance or in one of the service departments. Selden testified that
Richards would not be rehired for a number of reasons , among them that his
attendance record was poor, that he had been found loafing on the job and
smoking in a restricted area, and that he was unstable in that he was hired in
1942, worked for 2 months and was taken off the payroll for extended absences,
rehired in the same year and resigned the next year; resigned in 1943 and has
been back on the active payroll on 3 separate occasions since then. Additionally,
Selden testified, the personnel folder indicates that Foreman LeBeaux considers
Richards to be an unreliable workman.
Ruth B. Prather, first hired in September 1942, was an assembler at the time
of the strike. She joined the strike, being n member of Lodge 751, and came back
to work on October 14 to the same job she had left. On April 15, 1949, she was
laid off, her termination slip reading, "Terminated without prejudice due to
cancellation of B-54 contract." Another member of Lodge 751, Peggy Martin,
was laid off at the same time. Others who had been hired during the strike or
since the strike were, according to Prather, retained. Her numerous applications
for reemployment have generally met the response that women were not being
hired . More recently, she has been told that there was no work available which
she was qualified to do. According to Prather, supervision in her department
appeared not to discriminate in any way between members of Lodge 751 and
members of Teamster Local 451. Later in her testimony, however, Prather
asserted that members of the Teamster Local were given first opportunity to work
overtime, and only if there was still need for additional workers were members of
Lodge 751 called.
George Haakons, now a template maker with Boeing, but in April 1949 an
assistant foreman over Prather, testified that her work was not up to standard,
that in April of 1949 upholstery work upon which Prather was occupied reached
a point of completion and it became necessary to lay off some employees. Accord-
ing to Haakons, two others doing the same work as Prather were laid off with
her and the layoffs were made on the basis of letting the least desirable employees
go. With respect to overtime, Haakons testified, there was no need for every
employee to work on Saturday and the shop rule was that no one was eligible to
work overtime unless he had worked the full 40 hours during that week.
Haakons recalled that Prather had lodged a complaint in this respect and that
her record was checked. The record evidenced, according to Haakons, that
Prather worked overtime on every Saturday for which she was eligible, except
on two occasions, and upon being shown this record, agreed that she had no
basis for her complaint.
Selden testified that Prather's chance of being reemployed is a slight one, due
to her age, 58, that in August 1950, 170 people were in layoff status from the
same job classification as she, and that since that date only 58 have been rehired.
Marie V. Ikerd, first employed in August 1946, was a factory clerk at the time
of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she joined in the strike and returned
to work on October 14. On March 15, 1949, she was downgraded and laid off on
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 2 of that year . Some of those retained after her layoff, according
to Ikerd , were individuals hired during the time the strike was in effect. Ikerd
testified that her foreman, Luithle, who gave her the notice of layoff, said that
he was sorry to see her go, that she was a good worker and would be recalled-
Her many requests for reemployment have been without successful result.
Foreman Ted Birkland testified that in the fall of 1949 there were 25 or 27
clerks in his shop doing work similar to that performed by Ikerd. According
to Birkland , Ikerd displayed an attitude of indifference toward her work and
was not too cooperative with other clerks or employees. A month or perhaps 6
weeks prior to the time that Ikerd was laid off, according to Birkland , the work
force was cut in half , with the clerical force suffering a similar reduction. When
a further layoff became necessary , Ikerd was let go . Birkland participated In
the decision that she be laid off. The complement of employees in the shop has
never since reached the number that were working there in the middle of 1949.
Selden testified that Ikerd's personnel folder indicated that she is acceptable
only on an accelerated work program. Her file contains a memo to the effect that
her work is unsatisfactory and there are 26 others in layoff status from the same
job that Ikerd held. Only 23 are now employed in that work.
Ethel J. Richards, first employed by Boeing in September 1942, was a rivet dis-
tributor at the time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she joined the strike
and came back to work on October 14. On August 22, 1949, she was downgraded
and on October 10 of that year, laid off. She was replaced, she testified, by an
employee who had been hired during the time the strike was in progress and
who was a member of Teamster Local 451. In October or November of 1950 and
again in April 1951, Richards made formal application for reemployment and
was told that she would be called if needed. She has not been recalled. Richards
admitted that she has impaired hearing, and is required to wear glasses. Rich-
ards at first denied and then, when a letter was exhibited to her, admitted that
during the period of the strike she had made written application to Boeing
for employment.
Foreman William B. Ryan testified that in October 1949 it became necessary
to lay off 150 workers in his shop, Richards among them. According to Ryan, a
more efficient worker was retained.
Selden testified that Richards' performance on her job was acceptable but
that at least up to the present time, better qualified workers are available for
employment in such work. Furthermore, still according to Selden, her weight,
180, in relation to her height, 5 feet 1 inch, limits the jobs on which she would
be usable.
Anne L. Newman, first employed by Boeing in April 1943, was a sewing ma-
chine operator at the time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she joined
in the strike and came back to work October 22. On December 20 of the same
year she was downgraded and on April 15, 1949, laid off. Two women, both mem-
bers of Local 451, and both hired since Newman, were, she testified, retained.
Her many applications for reemployment have been unsuccessful.
Foreman James W. Day testified that he discussed with Foreman Parsek the
layoff of Newman and that her age, almost 70, was a consideration . Foreman
John Peirone testified that Newman came under his direct supervision for about
18 months and that he recommended her layoff because of her lack of ability
and the poor quantity of the work she produced. According to Pierone, at one
time he suggested to Newman that she take a downgrade so that he could give
her lighter work, saying that he thought her not to be capable of doing the work
then available. Newman rejected the suggestion. When Pierone suggested that
he put her on making buttonholes, she protested that that would hurt her eyes.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1075
The buttonhole-making assignment was given to her anyway, but she got a
doctor's certificate in a short time to the effect that such work was beyond her
visual capacity with the result that she was put back as a power -machine oper-
ator . Three or four other operators were laid off at the same time as Newman,
according to Pierone.
Seldon testified that the reemployment of Newman was improbable because
of her age and because of the poor quality of her work.
Harriet M . Masters, Minnie A. Pace, and Eva M . Terpening were employees
of Boeing from, respectively, 1942, 1944, and 1942, until the time of the strike.
Each was a member of Lodge 751, joined in the strike and held, at one time or
another , the classification of seamstress and cementer . All three were re-
employed on October 18, 1948, and placed in the riveting school where for
2 weeks they were instructed in riveting work. None had previous experience in
riveting . It was then and perhaps still is the policy of Boeing to keep an em-
ployee in the riveting school for a period of 1 week and then to assign him to a
production department. None of the three, however, exhibited any talent for
riveting and they were kept an additional week in the hope, they were told, that
suitable work might be found for them. At the end of the second week they
were laid off, the foreman-instructor telling them they would be recalled when ap-
propriate work was available . Pace at that time was offered a job as a sweeper
which she refused. Terpening conceded that she was unable to do the riveting
work. Pace said that she felt herself to be unqualified for riveting and Masters
conceded that she had no bent for the work. All have applied on several occa-
sions for reemployment without success.
M. J. Boston, general foreman of the training shop, testified that Masters,
Pace, and Terpening came to the training shop after the strike had ended because
their old jobs were not available for them. According to Boston, all three were
placed in training as riveters' assistants. Pace and Masters, Boston testified,
asked if they might not take a layoff rather than go through the training, that
the work was too difficult physically. Boston checked, he said, on openings
throughout the plant to determine if a place might be found for them, but as they
were elderly women, as he put it, and not physically strong, he had no success.
Normally an individual remains 1 week in the rivet school, according to Boston,
but he kept the 3 on for an additional week in the hope that he might place
them. When he was unsuccessful, he recommended that they be laid off. He dis-
cussed with them the possibility of obtaining work for them as janitresses, but
according to Boston, none of them was interested in such an assignment.
Selden testified that in the case of Terpening , her age 68, the file indication that
she was a marginal worker at best with poor ability and poor quality, made it
unlikely that she would be rehired. As to Masters and Pace, aged respectively
59 and 56, both according to the files consulted by Selden had exhibited an indif-
ferent and disinterested attitude when the attempt was made to train them as
riveters ' assistants . Pace had complained that she was physically unable to
perform such work and that neither of them in all likelihood would ever again
be employed by Boeing.
Etta B. Cummings, first employed by Boeing in March 1942, was a transporta-
tion clerk at the time of the strike. For about 4 years to the date of the strike,
she was a shop steward for Lodge 751. After the strike Cummings was called
back to work on October 18 and assigned to the riveting school. Dissatisfied
with this at the conclusion of her shift, she requested a transfer and when the
foreman told her he could not accomplish this, she was laid off. On December
14 she was rehired as a coding operator, inspecting the work of 12 others, and on
September 2, 1949 , was laid off, her foreman , Deveraux , saying at the time that
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it was necessary to cut the work force. According to Cummings, all those
retained in the area or group in which she worked were those who had come to
work through the picket line and who wore the button of Teamster Local 451.
Cummings has made 23 applications for reemployment and has been told on
each occasion that there was no job open for which she was suited.
The job which Cummings held before the strike was filled by another striker
and a similar job which was created in early 1951 is now filled by a man. On
cross-examination, Cummings admitted that those retained in the coding machine
operations were more experienced than she in that particular work.
Dave Nurse, superintendent of transportation, testified that Cummings came
under his supervision before the strike and that her work performance was not
satisfactory. Her work at that time, according to Nurse, required her to travel
throughout the Boeing plant facilities and in her travels she wasted considerable
time in conversation not connected with her work. The same job was not filled
immediately after the strike and when it was reestablished, a previous occupant,
Anne Bettendorf, was given the assignment because Nurse felt she was a better
worker than Cummings. Foreman Robert Randall testified that after the strike
had ended, Cummings came under his supervision as a coding machine operator.
According to Randall, when it became necessary to reduce the number of opera-
tors, Cummings was selected because she was not up to the standard of many
of the others in speed and accuracy.
In August 1949 there were 38 operators, Randall testified, and that number
has been reduced now to 4. Selden testified that the Company's personnel records
indicate that in February 1949 Cummings had received a warning regarding
unnecessary visiting during working hours and that on each occasion when she
applied for reemployment there was no suitable work for her. On the particular
job from which she was laid off, according to Selden, 97 people are in the same
layoff status.
Freda F. Rodgers, first employed by Boeing in March 1943, was an assembler
at the time of the strike. In February 1948 Rodgers received a leave of absence
on account of illness and reported back for work on April 20. However, her
physical condition at the time was not satisfactory to Boeing, so she was then
put in a layoff status and was not actually at work when the strike began.
Rodgers participated in the strike and was reemployed on December 2, 1948,
at a pay grade below that which she previously had held. On September 30, 1949,
she was laid off, her foreman, Glenn Jones, saying at the time, Rodgers testified,
that all married women whose husbands were working were being laid off.
Some of those retained were individuals hired after Rodgers, she testified, and
since then she has made as many as 20 applications for reemployment in a
variety of jobs. Sometimes she was told there were no job openings, and on
other occasions, that no women were being hired.
Foreman Glenn Jones testified that Rodgers was an average worker, some-
what too prone to undue conversations with others. She was laid off, accord-
ing to Jones, because the department was overstaffed in relation to the work
to be done. Jones denied saying to Rodgers that the fact that she was married
and that her husband was working had anything to do with the layoff.
Selden testified that Rodgers' applications for reemployment indicate that she
does not want to work the second shift. Her employment history indicates, he
said, that her attendance and performance are only fair and, in view of her
desire to work only the first or third shift, it is unlikely that she will be recalled.
Adele J. Zimmerman, first employed in September 1942, was a factory clerk
at the time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she participated in the
strike and returned to work on October 20. On April 15, 1949, she was laid off.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1077
Her foreman , Morehouse, said at the time , according to Zimmerman , that the
cancellation of a contract made the layoff necessary. Other individuals who
had come to work during the strike were retained, Zimmerman testified. She
since has applied on several occasions for any kind of work and has consistently
been told that no work was available for her. One representative of Boeing
did, however, say that she was too old. Zimmerman was 63 at the time of the
hearing.
Foreman Elmer Swenson testified that Zimmerman was under his supervision
and that she tried exceedingly hard to do her work. She was, however, a nerv-
ous individual, according to Swenson, which manifested itself in a brusque at-
titude toward others, and in doing her work so hurriedly that a great number of
errors crept in. Zimmerman's layoff was occasioned by a reduction in the work
force stemming from the termination of the B-54 contract. Selden testified that
Zimmerman's age and her past work record made it improbable that she would
be reemployed as the labor market affords better-qualified individuals available
for hire.
Mary B. Lins, first employed in October 1942, was a bench mechanic at the
time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, she joined in the strike and came
back to work on October 14. On September 9, 1949, she was laid off. Her fore-
man, Floyd Shenander, said at the time that there was nothing against her
work, but that the work force was necessarily being reduced. Four or five others
were laid off at the same time. She has returned to the employment office regu-
larly since that time, but has been unable to secure reemployment. On one
occasion she was told that the Company was not hiring women. A short time
before she was laid off, according to Lins, Foreman Shenander told her she was
wearing the wrong button, an obvious reference, according to Lins, to her 751
button. Lins admitted that the medical department of Boeing had restricted
her to work which did not entail high climbing or precision eye work.
Foreman Shenander testified that Lins came under his supervision for a
period of about 6 months and that her work was good. Shenander testified that
there was not enough scribing work to keep Lins busy, so he had assigned her to
burring parts. With the cancellation of the B-54 contract, it became necessary
to lay off a number of workers, his crew being cut from 28 to 5 or 6. Lins' age,
then 57, and her sex, which limited her ability to lift heavy weights, was a factor
which was considered in arriving at the determination to include Lins among
those let go. He denied saying that Lins was wearing the wrong button.
Selden testified that her age makes it unlikely that she would be rehired as the
openings available can be filled by better, more qualified applicants.
Erhard M. Larson, first employed by Boeing in August 1939, was an engine
mechanic at the time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, he joined the
strikers and was reemployed on October 14. For a period of 7 years, continuing
to the time of the strike, Larson was a shop committeeman for Lodge 751. He
was laid off April 13, 1949, his termination slip reading, "Terminated without
prejudice due to B-54 contract cancellation." Larson was a skilled worker,
receiving what is nearly the top rate, $1.85 an hour. In advising Larson of his
layoff, Foreman Earl Deane said that it was necessary to lay him off, but if
the B-54 contract was reinstated, Larson would be his "A" man. Deane went
on to say that supervision had discussed the layoffs for a long time and that
Larson had a lot of union activity against him. Larson has not applied for
reemployment.
Foreman Earl Deane testified that Larson came under his direct supervision.
With the cancellation of the B-54 contract, according to Deane, half of the shop
personnel was laid off immediately and within 2 weeks the entire department
257965-54-vol. 103-69
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disintegrated , the personnel being transferred or laid off. Deane denied that
he told Larson that union activity was a consideration leading to Larson's
layoff, but recalled that Larson had asked if that was not a reason . Deane said
that he regarded Larson as an average grade 2 man , 2 being the highest classifi-
cation for a mechanic . Selden testified that to the best of the Company's in-
formation , Larson has not made himself available for reemployment , there being
no record of an application from him. In view of his record , Selden testified,
it is likely that were he to apply , he would receive serious consideration.
Faith E. Larson, first employed by Boeing in January 1944, was working in
sheet metal at the time of the strike . As a member of Lodge 751, she joined
the strikers and returned to work on October 19 . On September 2, 1949, she
was laid off . Her foreman , Joe Marks , said that it was necessary to reduce the
force and asked if she would consider staying on at a lower wage. Larson
answered that she saw no reason to do that . She has applied regularly for
reemployment , but consistently has been told that no work was available for her.
Finally, Larson inquired if her age made it impossible for her to be hired and
was told that it did not. She has offered to take any sort of job and at a lower
pay classification than she held before the layoff.
Joseph P. Marks testified that Larson came under his supervision for a period
of about 6 months and that she was laid off in a reduction in force. According
to Marks, all of the employees doing the work which Larson performed are now
men. Since September of 1949 no women have been employed regularly as
scribers.
Selden testified that Larson has lessened the possibility of her return to work
by insisting that she work only in one of the plants . According to Selden, her
former foreman indicated in her personnel file that her qualifications were
marginal and that she should not be reemployed except on an accelerated work
program.
Mary Kennedy, first employed by Boeing in June 1942 , was an assembler
installer at the time of the strike . A member of Lodge 751 , she remained out
throughout the strike and returned to work on November 30, 1948. On September
29, 1949, she was laid off. Others were laid off at the same time , but some with
less experience than she were retained . Since August of 1950, she has made a
number of attempts to secure reemployment . On one occasion she was told
that there was nothing for her at the time and that there would not be in the
future.
Foreman Reiland Kluth testified that Kennedy came under his supervision
for the last month of her employment . According to Kluth , Kennedy was of
such slight stature that she had difficulty in closing clamps which were placed
about bundles of electrical wiring and then attached to the structure of the air-
plane. A failure properly to close the clamp might lead , Kluth testified, to a
pinched wire, which could cause failure of the aircraft in flight . As a result of
his observation concerning Kennedy, he recommended , he testified , that she be
transferred to a job more suitable to her physical stature.
F. G. Huleen testified that, upon her return to work in the fall of 1948, Ken-
nedy took certain tests prescribed for new employees , given for the purpose of
discovering work aptitude or hidden skills and that her showing in the test was
such that he would not consider her for reemployment . Of course , the fact is
that Kennedy was rehired immediately after taking the test, but according
to Huleen , she displayed such a lack of awareness about the nature of the work
she had been doing prior to the strike that he would not regard her as a likely
candidate for reemployment.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1079
Joseph A. Pepin first found employment with Boeing in December 1940 as a
timekeeper. In September 1945 he was laid off at the conclusion of the war and
was recalled about a year later. At the time of the strike he was working as a
timekeeper, and being a member of Lodge 751, joined in the strike. Pepin was
elected as a shop committeeman for Lodge 751 in 1944 and held that office until
his layoff in October 1949. During that period he participated in about 52
grievances with Boeing. He returned to work after the strike October 23, 1948,
and on October 28, 1949, was laid off. Some time after May of 1950, he registered
his name with Lodge 751 as an individual desiring reemployment as a time-
keeper. The collective-bargaining contract then in effect between Boeing and
Lodge 751 provided such an arrangement for members of that organization who
desired reemployment. Still later in 1950, he testified that he asked Assistant
General Timekeeper Don Dean why it was that new hires had been placed in
timekeeping positions while he remained unemployed. Dean answered, accord-
ing to Pepin, that the Company had resolved not to rehire any of the old time-
keepers, including Pepin, Al Bass, Jim Hoatson, and Pearson. Since then, ac-
cording to Pepin, Pearson and Hoatson have, however, been taken back.
On the day that he returned to work following the conclusion of the strike,
Pepin testified, Lynn Morrell, the chief timekeeper, told him that timekeepers
could not engage in any union activities on the company premises and the least
infraction of this instruction would mean immediate dismissal. Despite this
instruction, according to Pepin, another timekeeper who had worked during the
strike, Albert Carney, a member of Teamsters Lodge 451, kept literature and
application blanks for that organization openly on his desk at all times. For a
time following the strike, according to Pepin, timekeepers were permitted to
accept cancellation of dues-deduction authorizations. However, a memo from
the Boeing office directed that future cancellations be handled by the personnel
department alone. According to Pepin, he remarked to Don Dean that it was
strange that another timekeeper, Gerber, had been laid off supposedly for union
activity, when Carney was carrying on an organizational campaign openly.
Pepin testified that Dean's reply was, "That is just one of those things."
Chief Timekeeper Morrell testified that Pepin was under his supervision for
the entire period of his employment. According to Morrell, Pepin, on one oc-
casion, overstayed his lunch period playing poker on the company premises, and
on another occasion was caught by a guard going through the Company's mail.
There was an arrangement with timekeepers, Morrell testified, whereby they
were to come in 6 minutes before the beginning of their shift, in order to watch
the other employees clock in and to give them whatever help might be necessary.
Under the union agreement (this was before the strike, Morrell testified), any
person working as much as 4 minutes in addition to his regular shift was entitled
to 6 minutes' pay. Pepin, Morrell testified, took advantage of this and always
checked in just 4 minutes before his shift began in order to collect pay for 6
minutes. When Morrell refused to approve payment for the 6 minutes not
actually worked, Pepin protested. As a result, according to Morrell, he did not
permit Pepin to work overtime at all. Morrell participated in the decision to
lay off Pepin. The poker-playing incident occurred before the strike, as did that
concerning the mail. As to the latter, Morrell testified, he recommended that
Pepin be dismissed, but he escaped with a 2 weeks' suspension.
Of the timekeepers laid off at the same time as Pepin, all but one, in addition
to Pepin, have been recalled. Selden testified that there was no recent appli-
cation from Pepin, that in June 1950, when he did apply, there was no job open
for him, and that currently, 21 others are on layoff status as timekeepers. A
total of 13 have been rehired in that classification.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inez Ventoza , first employed in November 1942 as a sewing-machine operator,
remained in that work for practically all of her employment . For a short
period in 1945 she worked as a solderer . A member of Lodge 751 , she par-
ticipated in the strike and returned to work October 22 and was laid off a year
later. Others laid off at the same time, according to Ventoza , were members of
Lodge 751, members of Teamster Local 451 being retained . She has made a
number of applications for reemployment in sewing work, wiring, or soldering.
Foreman Thomas Brown testified that the shop in which Ventoza was employed
was reduced in number from 400 to 125 and is now back to about 200. Foreman
John Peirone testified that Ventoza was under his supervision for a period dur-
ing the war , that the quality and quantity of her work was very poor as was her
attendance. Foreman James Day testified that when it became necessary to
reduce the work force in the fall of 1949, he discussed with Foreman Parsek the
capacities and performance records of the employees working in the shop. Ac-
cording to Day, Ventoza was one of the poorer workers and for that reason was
selected for layoff . Selden testified that Ventoza had a fair performance rating
at her job but that her work record was spotty , in that she had on 3 occasions
either failed to return after a leave of absence or resigned , and for that reason
she would not be a good candidate for employment in the present labor market.
According to Selden , 16 individuals currently are in layoff status from the job
that Ventoza held.
Mary Weibel began her employment in June 1942 and was a sewing -machine
operator at the time of the strike . As a member of Lodge 751 , she joined the
strikers, returned to work after the strike , and in October 1949 was laid off.
She has been unable to gain reemployment and at the time of her layoff had
worked for the Company , she testified , longer than others who were retained.
Weibel worked in the same division as Ventoza and the testimony of Foreman
Brown as to the extent of the reduction in force in that department has already
been set forth.
Foreman James Day testified that Weibel was very nervous, which probably
affected her work performance which, he asserted , was below average. Selden
testified that although Weibel had a fair performance rating in her job , she has
a serious medical problem which necessitated her being off work from 1945
through 1947 . Considering that she is a medical risk , it is unlikely that she will
be reemployed.
Ruby Spaulding , first employed by Boeing in October 1943, was a cutter at the
time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751 , she joined the strikers , returned
to work on October 22, and was laid off July 10, 1950, her foreman saying that
there was not enough work to keep all of the women busy, but that it was probable
she would be able to get back in 6 or 8 weeks . No others were laid off at that
time. She was replaced by another member of Lodge 751 who had 25 years'
service with the Company . In January 1951 , she was sent by the Washington
State Employment Office to Boeing for work as a cutter, but was told there that
no such opening existed and she would be called if any developed. She has not
been called.
Foreman Thomas Brown testified that there was a sharp cut in the size of the
working force in the department in which Spaulding worked. Foreman James
Day testified that only 2 employees were retained doing the same work as
Spaulding and that both of them had longer service than she. Selden testified
that 6 others are in layoff status from the same job as Spaulding , and that
the labor market still affords better-qualified applicants than she.
Alfred Bass was first employed in July 1941 as a timekeeper and was working
in that classification at the time of the strike . As a member of Lodge 751, he
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1081
joined the strikers and returned to work on October 7. A few months later he
was made relief timekeeper and at about the same time John Marsh, the chief
timekeeper for the second shift, said, according to Bass, that the latter was the
best timekeeper on the shift. On October 21, 1949, he was laid off, his supervisor
saying at the time, according to Bass, that he could not understand it. There-
after, he made application for employment at the Boeing Personnel Office and
registered with Lodge 751 under the contract provisions, without success.
Chief Timekeeper Lynn Morrell testified that there was a surplus of time-
keepers in October 1949, and that 10 or 12 were then laid off. In the spring of
1950 some of these were rehired. Selden testified that the Company's records
indicate Bass to be a submarginal worker, lacking job interest, that Bass has
made no application for employment since his layoff, and that 21 individuals
were in layoff status from that job at the time he testified. Selden further
testified that as Bass has not applied, no occasion has arisen whereby Boeing
was called upon to make a determination concerning his rehire.
Leon Day began work for Boeing in July 1940 and after working up through
a number of classifications in mechanical work, including engine maintenance
mechanic, structural assembler, airplane and engine mechanic, became a co-
ordinator and was in that classification at the time of the strike. Day was a
shop committeeman for Lodge 751 from 1943 through 1949 and a district repre-
sentative for that organization in 1945. Day was, of course, one of the strikers
and returned to work on October 8. On April 18, 1949, Day was laid off in
what Boeing asserts was a reduction in force. Others hired since Day were,
however, he testified, retained. On the day of his layoff, a supervisor in an area
other than the one in which Day was employed, learning of Day's layoff, told him
that inspectors were needed in his department and that he would try to arrange
the transfer, but nothing came of it. At some time during his employment
following the strike, Foreman Verne Olson told Day that the latter was not
permitted to wear a badge indicating he was a committeeman for Lodge 751.
Despite several applications, Day has not been rehired. In March 1951, accord-
ing to Day, a Boeing supervisor whose name he could not recall told him that
he appeared to be qualified for a job then open, but that he must first review
Day's personnel folder. In accordance with instructions, Day returned the fol-
lowing morning and was told that the job would not be given to him. In
September 1949, several months after the layoff, Day made some sort of claim
against Boeing, alleging injury on the job.
Foreman George F. Lansing testified that Day came under his supervision for
a period of 3 or 4 months in 1949. According to Lansing, he found it necessary
to criticize Day on one occasion for wasting time on the job and testified
further that from his observation and from reports made to him, he concluded
that Day was one who frequently wasted time by engaging in conversation with
other employees in connection with matters alien to his work. Still according
to Lansing, in the spring of 1949, the cancellation of the B-54 contract made it
necessary to cut the personnel in Lansing's department very sharply, that among
those laid off were coordinators and Day was chosen to be one of those let go
because he was the poorest producer and the least cooperative of them. Selden
testified that principally because Day's personnel folder contained a memo from
Foreman Lansing to the effect that Day habitually wandered about the plant
and did no more than a minor portion of his job and was a constant troublemaker,
Day would not be rehired.
James E. Beale, first hired in August 1947, was a riveter at the time of the
strike. As a member of Lodge 751, he joined the strikers and returned to work
on September 14. After a short time, because of ear trouble, Beale went to a
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
doctor who recommended that he be given lighter work in a less noisy area.
Accordingly , Beale was transferred to another shop and eventually , on October
28, 1949, was laid off, his foreman telling him that the work force was being
reduced . His applications for reemployment have been unsuccessful. Beale
admitted that he had been criticized for taking too much time off from the job;
that he had been absent from work on a number of occasions.
Foreman George Storgel testified that neither the quality nor quantity of work
produced by Beale was good . When Beale complained that the noise of the
rivet gun affected his ears, a transfer was arranged to another assignment, but
his work was so slow on the new job that he was transferred back to riveting.
Further , according to Storgel , Beale habitually took considerable time off from
his job.
Foreman Ralph Peterson testified that Beale came under his supervision for
a period following the strike and that the quality and quantity of his work was
fair. However, Peterson testified , in December 1948 he gave Beale a written
criticism when Beale suffered an eye injury due to his failure to wear goggles on
the job . In June 1949, Peterson gave Beale another written memorandum
charging that for the first 6 months of 1949 Beale had been absent on 5 occa-
sions without reporting , on 5 other occasions which had been reported, and
tardy 9 times. Selden testified that inasmuch as Beale cannot do work in a
noisy area , he could not be placed in a job as a riveter . Also, according to his
file he made very frequent visits to the Company 's medical department which,
according to Selden , indicated that he was a careless employee or used that
service to escape work . These considerations and his poor record for attend-
ance made it likely that he would be considered for employment , according to
Selden, only on an accelerated work program.
Dora Samuels , first employed by Boeing in December 1940 , at the time of the
strike , was working as a coding-machine-operator instructor . As a member of
Lodge 751 , she joined the strikers and returned to work on October 22 to the
same job. In July 1949, she was reclassified as a clerk and on August 10, 1949,
laid off. Her applications for work since have been without success.
Foreman R. W. Randall testified that Samuels came under his supervision and
that within a period of 30 days during which her layoff occurred approximately
200 employees in his department were terminated . The 1 person retained had
considerably more experience than Samuels and was more efficient . Selden
testified that records in the personnel office indicate Samuels to be a marginal
worker who would be considered for rehire only on an accelerated work pro-
gram.
Paul E. Ek, hired in January 1942 as a janitor , was a maintenance plumber
at the time of the strike . As a member of Lodge 751 , he joined the strikers,
did some picket duty, and returned to work on October 4. On September 30,
1949, he was laid off. Some of the plumbers retained , according to Ek, were
hired since he, and some were members of Teamster Local 451 . His several
applications for reemployment have been fruitless.
Foreman Willard E Burnham testified that Ek came under his supervision.
According to Burnham , Ek was not much of a mechanic , but a hard worker, his
quantity excellent but quality poor. Due to Ek's lack of mechanical aptitude,
according to Burnham , his usefulness was limited and when it became necessary
to reduce the force , the quality of Ek 's work was a consideration which caused
him to be the first of the plumbers to go. Foreman Thomas Keene testified that
Ek was not a good mechanic , that he was a very rough worker, but that one
thing which preserved Ek's job so long was the fact that he could do any job
in a hurry . As Ek was not capable of performing all of the work in the de-
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1083
partment , when a reduction in work force became necessary he was selected
to go. Selden testified that his records show Ek's work performance rating as
poor, that he is not qualified to do finished work , and that Foreman Keene be-
lieves better candidates are available, hence it is unlikely that Bk will be
reemployed.
Christina M. Nielsen, first employed in September 1942, was a shop clerk at
the time of the strike. A member of Lodge 751, she joined the strikers, did
picket duty, helped plan a radio program in connection with the strike, ap-
peared on the program, and returned to work on September 30. On March 3,
1950, when she was laid off, she protested to Foreman Graue that neither her
workmanship nor seniority justified such action. Graue answered that there
was no complaint about the quality of her work but that the quantity was not
entirely satisfactory. According to Nielsen, a clerk on the second shift doing
the same work as she, Beatrice Wentzell, who had been hired in June 1948 during
the strike, remained. A week or two after her layoff, she applied to Ray Cottet
in the personnel office for rehire. Cottet told her, Nielsen testified, that she
would be recalled in a routine manner when the workload made it possible. In
September 1950 she filed a charge against Boeing, alleging that her layoff in
March had been discriminatory. She then returned to the employment office and
told Cottet that she had done so. In a day or two she heard from Labor Re-
lations Manager Huleen that she was marked undesirable for rehire because of
a poor work record.
Foreman Frank Harris testified that Nielsen came under his supervision for
a period of 6 or 8 months and that her principal task was to make out materiel
requisitions for the steel and material used in shop 701. According to Harris,
Nielsen was not writing enough requisitions, and as a result, the men on the
first shift sometimes were hard put to find work to do. Harris, he testified,
watched Nielsen for a period of 8 or 10 days and discovered that she was doing
a great deal of unnecessary talking and told her so. Harris also discovered, he
testified, that Nielsen was doing the work of another department in locating steel
and other material for use in 701. He told Nielsen that this was not part of
her job and that she should discontinue doing it. Nielsen admitted receiving
this instruction and also admitted that on some occasions she violated it.
Superintendent George Graue testified that many complaints came to him from
supervision to the effect that Nielsen was not interested in her job, was con-
tinually talking, and did a very small amount of work. Thereupon, Graue in-
structed Nielsen's immediate supervisor, he testified, to keep a daily count of
the number of requisitions that she wrote. The count averaged, according to
Graue, about 26 a day although the girl on the other shift averaged from 180 to
185. Thereafter Nielsen's production improved. It was no part of Nielsen's job,
according to Graue, to locate material or to question the requests that were
made. In March 1950, according to Graue, between 100 and 125 workers in his
department were either laid off or transferred. A list showing only the number
of employees by job titles which were surplus was sent to Heiland's office and the
selection of those to be laid off made there.
Fred Huleen testified that inquiry was made of him concerning the possibility
of rehiring Nielsen, that he checked her record and discovered that she had a low
performance rating and that the folder indicated she was prone to disregard
plant rules. Huleen telephoned Nielsen, he testified, and told her there were
other people better qualified for the openings available.
Pauline Mitchell, hired in April 1943 at the time of the strike, was a bench
mechanic. As a member of Lodge 751, she joined the strikers and returned to
work on October 18. In August 1949 she was downgraded and in October of
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that year, laid off in a reduction in force. Five days later, she was brought
back to work at a lower wage and again 5 days after that, terminated. No
one else was terminated at the same time, according to Mitchell, and she protested
to her foreman that there was plenty of work and she could not understand
why she should not be given an opportunity to do it. Just a few days before her
layoff, according to Mitchell, her foreman, Floyd Shenander, told her that she
was stupid to remain a member of Lodge 751, as that organization would never
be the bargaining representative of the employees. Mitchell has made at least
27 applications for reemployment without success.
Foreman Floyd Shenander testified that there was a reduction in the work
force at the time Mitchell was finally laid off and that he recommended she be
included in the layoff, as the least qualified of the employees remaining, consider-
ing her age, strength, working ability, and skill. Shenander denied telling
Mitchell that she was stupid to remain a member of Lodge 751.
Selden testified that Mitchell's age, 64, and a medical restriction to the effect
that she could not be used on precision eye work, makes her acceptable only on
an accelerated work program. The only performance grading given her during
her period of employment was fair.
Dorothy Schott, first employed in June 1942, was a spot welder operator at the
time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she joined the strikers and re-
turned to work on October 18. In April 1949, Schott was downgraded and as-
signed to doing work on the wash rack, work generally done by beginners.
Shortly after this last demotion, according to Schott, she saw her one-time fore-
man, Lawrence. Lawrence remarked upon her demotion and, seeing her Lodge
751 button, said, according to Schott, "Well, Holy God, you have got the wrong
button." Due to the illness of an acquaintance, Schott took a leave of absence
in July 1949. When her request that the leave be renewed was denied, she told
her foreman, George James, that she could not come back to work and was
terminated. Later, she applied for work and was told that she would be sent
for when needed but has never been called. Schott had earlier been on leave of
absence status from January 10 to March 11, 1949.
Foreman George James testified that Schott was downgraded in April 1949
because there was a surplus of welders in the classification she then held and
it was a question of accepting a downgrade or taking a layoff. Foreman John
Lawrence testified that Schott came under his supervision from time to time
as the shifts changed and denied that he had ever commented in any respect about
any union button worn by Schott.
Hilda Carver, first employed in November 1942, was a bench mechanic at the
time of the strike. As a member of Lodge 751, she joined the strikers, returned
to work October 14, and nearly a year later, on September 2, 1949, was laid
off. Since that time she has made a number of applications for reemployment,
without success.
Foreman Joseph Marks testified that Carver came under his supervision for
the last 5 or 6 months of her employment. Her work, according to Marks,
was satisfactory, and her layoff was occasioned by the fact that 2 of the shaper
men had to be downgraded because of a drop in production. The shaper men
took the place of 2 handsaw men who took the place of Carver and Faith Lar-
son, the result being that Carver and Larson were laid off. There are now 5
scribers in Marks' department, but none of them are women and no woman has
been employed in that department as a scriber since September of 1949.
Selden testified that Carver's personnel folder indicates that her supervision
believes her to be acceptable for reemployment only on an accelerated work
program.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1085
Elizabeth Schneider was employed by Boeing for 3 months in 1942, and in
January 1948 was again hired as a clerk . At the time of the strike she was
a tool clerk and, as a member of Lodge 751, joined the strikers . She returned
to work on October 22, 1948, went to rivet school for a time , and then returned
to her job as tool clerk . She was laid off October 21, 1949. She has made
a number of applications for reemployment since that date without success.
Foreman Louis J. Inkster testified that Schneider came under his super-
vision , that a cut in the production schedule required a lessening of the number
of employees in the shop , and that the toolroom attendants were cut from 2 to 1,
Schneider being let go. The one retained was in a higher pay classification than
Schneider and had worked in the toolroom longer than she.
Selden testified that the reemployment is extremely doubtful in that she is
restricted from working near chemical irritants , can do no heavy lifting or
dusty work . This practically precludes placing her in a toolroom where she
would be handling solvents and things of that nature . As of August 1950,
according to Selden , 18 individuals including Schneider were in layoff status
from the job that she held. Only 1 person has been rehired since that date for
that job.
Doris Cinotto, first employed in January 1945, was a clerk at the time of the
strike. As a member of Lodge 751 , she joined the strikers and returned to work
on September 13. On March 22, 1949, she resigned , her supervisors, Charles
McClintock, Harvey Iverson, and Ralph Ladic, telling her at the time that she was
one of the best employees they had and they would be glad to have her return.
About 4 months later she applied for reemployment but was told that no jobs
were open and that no women were being hired. Thereafter , she made about 18
attempts to be rehired and agreed to take any shift. On one occasion, she, along
with her mother, made an application. Her mother was hired. Cinotto was not.
When she returned to work following the strike, Cinotto testified, she wore
a badge which read, "I was loyal to 751." Foreman McClintock told her to
remove it, as did Superintendent Day, and when she failed to comply promptly
with this instruction , she received a suspension for 3 days. Further , according
to Cinotto, Foreman McClintock and Ladic told the employees at this time,
Cinotto among them, that they might not talk about any union on the Com-
pany's premises . None of the supervisors concerning whom Cinotto testified
was called as a witness , and her testimony stands undenied in the record.
Selden testified that Cinotto 's personnel folder shows her to have been either
absent or tardy on 14 occasions during the first 3 months of 1949, that her super-
visor has reported her as unwilling to cooperate , that on the occasion of her
first employment , she resigned at the expiration of 2 months , only to return about
10 days later to work for another period of about 3 weeks. She came back
again in October 1946, remaining to the end of February 1947, returned again
in June 1947, and resigned again in March 1949. She would not be considered
for reemployment , according to Selden , because of such unstable work history.
Selden confirmed Cinotto's testimony to the extent that he agreed her mother,
Rose Jacobson, was hired and explained that Jacobson appeared to have steady
work habits and has since been promoted.
Claude C. Myrick, a sheet-metal worker in the top classification for that job
and a committeeman for Lodge 751, returned to work after the strike on Sep-
tember 14. Recognizing his position of leadership among the adherents to Lodge
751, a group of supervisors in the shop asked him to cooperate to the end that
the hostility between the returning strikers and those who had not struck or
had been employed during the strike not lead to any incidents in the shop. He
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was also told that he might not wear a button identifying him as a Lodge 751
committeeman ; that if he insisted upon doing so he might be discharged.
In the fall of 1948 Myrick and another employee, Roy Smith, engaged in a
discussion concerning the relative merits of Lodge 751 and a sheet-metal workers'
union. Myrick was warned that such conduct might cause his dismissal.
In March 1949, Assistant Foreman Watling complained to General Foreman
Fite that Myrick refused to respect his orders. In consequence, Myrick was placed
on probation for 30 or 60 days and told that such orders must be followed.
In October 1949, according to Myrick's credited testimony, Foreman Keene
remarked that the representation election would soon take place, that Lodge 751
would probably win, and inquired what Myrick's attitude would be if he again
became shop committeeman" Myrick answered that he would not overlook the
violation of any contract terms. A week or two later, on October 21, he was
laid off and since has been unable to obtain reemployment. Shortly before the
layoff, Foreman Burnham, who was employed in another shop but who main-
tained a friendly relationship with Myrick, warned that such action was con-
templated and said he felt it was motivated by Myrick union activity."
Foreman Watling testified that Myrick's skill was good but that he was a slow
worker and given to unnecessary conversations interrupting not only his own
work but also that of others. Further, according to Watling, Myrick increased
the cost of the work assigned him by being unnecessarily painstaking in its
performance and resented any criticism or suggestions in connection with his
work.
Foreman Keene testified that he was aware of Myrick's virtues and faults ;
that, on balance, he considered Myrick in the fall of 1949 to be the least desirable
worker in the shop. When it became necessary for economic reasons to reduce
the number of workers in maintenance, he arranged for Myrick's layoff.
The evidence is that the complement of workers in the shop was reduced
over a period of several months from summer 1949 to January 1950 from about
40 to 21. Several were laid off or quit before Myrick and several after.
Selden testified that notations in Myrick's file as to slowness in work per-
formance, reluctance to accept instructions, and proclivity to talk to others to
the detriment of production explains his failure to gain reemployment.
Emily Billette, first hired in June 1943, was working as a seamstress at the
time of the strike. Billette returned to work after participating in the strike on
October 18, 1948, as a rivet bucker. After 4 or 5 weeks in this work she secured
a certificate from a doctor to the effect that working in riveting so affected her
ears that she should have other employment. She gave the certificate to her as-
sistant foreman, who about an hour later laid her off. She has never been re-
called and her frequent applications have been without result. At the time of
the hearing Billette was 62 and testified that her ears had troubled her for sev-
eral years.
Selden testified that Billette was precluded from employment with Boeing
because of physical restrictions ; that she could not work in a noisy area, could
not do heavy lifting or climbing, and had impaired hearing in both ears.
Clyde N. McDonald, first employed by the Respondent in March 1948, went
out on strike, and returned to work in January 1949. Al Korth, an organizer
for Teamster Local 451, had been talking to employees in the shop where Mc-
Donald worked on a number of occasions in connection with joining the or-
ganization which he represented, and on August 5 McDonald told Korth that if
any American Federation of Labor union was to obtain jurisdiction in Re-
is Keene's partial denial is not credited.
is Burnham's denial that he made this observation is not credited.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1087
spondent 's plant it should be the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers. According to McDonald , Korth examined McDonald 's badge which showed
his name and department number and then had a conversation with the shop
foreman , Bill Dietz , during which both men looked at McDonald . An hour
later Dietz handed McDonald a layoff slip , saying, "Get your stuff together and
clear out."
Robert Randall , general foreman of the department in which McDonald was
employed, testified that on August 2, 1949, 3 days before McDonald's discharge
or layoff, there were 422 electricians and that on November 11 of the same year
the number had dropped to 195. The classification in which McDonald was
employed dropped from 152 to 124 and many of the 124 remaining had been
downgraded from a higher classification. On the day of McDonald's layoff 2
others left with him. According to Randall, layoffs were made on considera-
tions of ability to accomplish a work assignment and that although he had no
recollection of McDonald as an individual , he was not laid off for any rea-
son other than the fact that he was a recently hired employee and that others
more capable were available for retention.
Selden testified that his records showed McDonald to be blind in the left eye
and that he would not be rehired unless better-qualified applicants became fewer
in number.
Beryl Bowles and Cleo Price were employed by Boeing in January 1942 and
May 1941, respectively. Both occupied factory clerical positions at the time of
the strike, were members of Lodge 751, and stayed out for the duration of the
strike. They returned to work on October 18 and 20, respectively, in the same
pay classification they previously had held. In January 1950 both were work-
ing in the same shop . During the month each was given 2 weeks ' notice of
impending layoff.
Bowles last worked on January 31 and Price on February 8. The notices
of layoff stated that every effort would be made to search for other job openings
for which they might qualify. Of the 8 or 9 employees in her classification
remaining after her layoff Bowles testified all but 1 had been hired subsequent
to her. Price testified that only 1 individual in her job classification had worked
for the Company longer than she. Both made efforts to find other work in the
plant before the effective date of the layoff without success, and thereafter made
frequent applications to the personnel office for reemployment. Bowles admitted
that subsequent to the strike she had received 1 written criticism from super-
vision in connection with her failure to order a sufficient quantity of a certain
part. Both were among the highest paid female employees in the shop.
General Foreman Elmer Swenson testified that he conferred with Foremen
Walker and McRae in regard to Price shortly before her layoff and arrived at
the conclusion that as a reduction in force had to be made, she, considering her
work performance record, was selected as one to go. Price told him, Swenson
testified, that the people with whom she worked appeared to manifest an un-
friendly attitude toward her and that she seemed to be excluded from any par-
ticipation with the group . Swenson testified further that both Bowles and
Price had been a source of difficulty earlier, protesting if one was given a work
assignment not in the same general area as the other or on a different shift.
Also, that when one was absent, the other would fail to appear, or if one re-
quested permission to leave earlier, the other was sure to seek the same per-
mission . Other employees , especially women, according to Swenson , commented
upon the peculiarities of Bowles and Price. Swenson went on to testify that
for a short period following the strike Price and Bowles were separated in their
work stations by about 75 feet, but unless they were constantly watched would
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
soon be seated at the same desk. Neither would agree to accept overtime, Swen-
son testified, unless she was assured that the other was also to work. Lumping
all these criteria, Swenson testified he came to the belief that both Bowles and
Price were somewhat abnormal. Swenson participated in the decision to lay
them off.
Selden testified that the personnel records of Bowles and Price include memo-
randums from Anna Truedson, supervisor of women, indicating that they should
not be rehired.
John J. Sullivan, after a short period of work for Boeing, beginning in 1939
took office as business representative for Lodge 751. As such he was granted a
leave of absence January 1, 1944, which, by successive renewals, was in effect April
22, 1948, when the strike began. Sullivan, as a representative of Lodge 751, took
part in directing the strike and in aiding its prosecution. At the expiration
of his leave of absence in January 1949, Sullivan sought to be returned to Boeing's
payroll. He was told that he was no longer considered to be an employee and
that no job was available for him.
The General Counsel contends that Sullivan's leave of absence kept him in an
employee status for its entire period and that he was entitled to return at its
expiration. The Respondent asserts that, as the leave of absence was granted
in accordance with the terms of a contract which existed only up to the moment
the strike was called, when the contract terminated the leave of absence expired
with it. Although I am unable to agree with the Respondent's contention in
this particular, it being my opinion that once the leave of absence was granted
it could not be terminated without some specific action directed particularly to
it, I am convinced that Sullivan's situation is precisely that of the other employees
who engaged in the strike and were refused reemployment. As an employee on
leave of absence he participated in a strike in violation of Section 8 (d), thereby
losing his status as an employee for the purposes of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the
Act, and has not been reemployed.
D. Domination of, interference with, and support to the Teamsters and Teamster
Local 451
Vice-President Logan testified in sum that the Respondent sincerely desired
the replacement of Lodge 751 by the Teamsters ; that he considered the latter
organization to offer a reasonable hope of the establishment of a bargaining
relationship in which Respondent's problems would find intelligent understand-
ing. Thus, after an unhappy experience with Lodge 751, Logan welcomed the
appearance of the Teamsters on the scene, hoped that the employees would
switch their allegiance, and believed that such a development would redound to
the benefit of all.
Albert Carney, a timekeeper, testified that when the strike was called he
and others who remained at work considered seeking other representation and
hit upon the Teamsters. Without encouragement from Respondent, according
to Carney, he conferred with Teamster representatives and thus started that
organizational effort. Carney became the chairman of the executive board of
Teamster Local 451, when it was formed early in the strike, and held that office
at the time of the hearing. He was a member of Lodge 751 when the strike was
called but for a long period he, and others, had been dissatisfied with the repre-
sentation afforded them and disapproved the strike.
After the Teamsters had agreed to undertake the task of organizing the
employees, according to Carney, Teamster petitions were circulated in the
plant during nonwork periods and nearly 5,000 signatures were obtained. Carney
denied that he took part in soliciting employees to join Local 451 at any time
4
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY' 1089
out recalled that he once was accused by Assistant Superintendent Wolfram of
threatening an employee in connection with union membership. According to
Carney, the charge was baseless. Nothing came of it.
Logan testified that the Teamsters claimed to represent about 2,000 of the
employees in the plant sometime early in the strike and requested recognition.
The request was denied but Teamster organizers were thereafter permitted to
enter the plant for purposes of solicitation. When the strike ended, representa-
tives of both Teamsters Local 451 and Lodge 751 were permitted to organize in
the plant until mid-October 1949, when the practice was discontinued.
When the strikers began their return to work, on and after September 13, many
if not most were told that they must not discuss unions during working hours.
There is substantial evidence that some supervisors extended the prohibition to
Boeing's premises. The wearing of ribbons proclaiming, "I was loyal to 751"
was forbidden as was the display of insignia describing the wearer as a com-
mitteeman for 751.
Logan testified that during and following the strike Boeing sought employees
from any likely source, and that other employers in the area as well as Teamster
Local 451 were encouraged to refer applicants to Boeing. Teamster Local 451
established a hiring hall and advertised in the Seattle papers that it was in a
position to find employment for those who applied to it. Many did so, were sent
to the Boeing employment office, and were hired. There is evidence that those
referred from Teamster Local 451 secured favored treatment at Boeing's em-
ployment office. William Klein testified that he applied to Boeing for work in
January 1949,14 was told that he might be called later, and, learning of the Team-
ster hiring hall, joined Local 451, obtained a referral dated February 3, made
application to Boeing on February 4, and was put to work on February 8.
The evidence is that Anthony Brody and Charles Courtier were unsuccessful
when they first applied for work but were hired when they returned with refer-
rals from Teamster Local 451. Lurenda Courtier testified that the entire trans-
action was completed in 1 day ; that Boeing's interviewer in rejecting the first
applications suggested that the men obtain referral slips without specifying
from whom, and that later in the day upon presentation to Boeing of the referrals,
both were hired.
Ray Cottet, assistant employment manager, testified that Boeing's records
show that Charles Courtier was a former employee who applied for work on
September 20, 1948, and that his application bears the notation "no hiring."
Courtier returned on October 12 with a referral from Local 451 and, according to
employment records, a reference from the foreman of department 908. Courtier
was hired for work in department 908 and reported October 14. Cottet testified
that for a short period following the conclusion of the strike, Boeing's facilities
were so taxed by the task of returning the strikers to the payroll that new appli-
cants were told that Respondent was not hiring. Courtier was not a striker al-
though a former employee. I assume that Brody was not a striker and had not
before worked for Boeing. Respondent's records show that in September 1948,
4,656 persons were hired, 748 of them for the first time. In October the cor-
responding figures are 4,869 and 780.
Clair Boitnott, a former employee, applied for work on February 1, 1949, and
was told to return the next day. When he did so he was informed that no jobs
were open. He, too, went to Teamster Local 451, signed an application for
membership, received a referral slip, presented it to Boeing, and was hired
immediately.
14 Boeing 's records do not reflect such an application . I credit Klein's testimony however.
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carolyn Scott testified credibly that Assistant Foreman Fred Smith told her
and another employee, Dora Crozier, in early August 1949 that a big layoff was
coming and that members of the Teamsters would have a better chance of retain-
ing employment than others. Smith went on to say that they were foolish to pay
dues to Lodge 751 as it would never be able to help them. Crozier corroborated
Scott's testimony.
Edwin J. Carrig, a relief timekeeper at the time of the strike, came back to
work after the strike of September 13 to his same position. In December 1948
Lynn Morrell, chief timekeeper, asked Carrig if he would consider promotion to
a supervisory job. Carrig answered that considering the premium pay he was
receiving at the time a promotion would mean a reduction in pay, but that he
would accept any assignment that Morrell desired him to take. Morrell answered
that Carrig was the one capable man that he had in mind for promotion. Finally,
it was agreed that Carrig would return to his current assignment at Moses Lake
several hundred miles from Seattle and return on January 15 as a supervisor
in the time department. About January 10 Morrell wrote Carrig to hold his move
in abeyance. About January 25 Morrell came to Moses Lake and told Carrig that
his promotion had been stopped by Vice-President Logan because of a complaint
by the Teamsters. Morrell went on to say that he would make a further attempt
to complete the promotion by sending it up through different channels so that
Logan would not have an opportunity to interpose a veto. In accordance with
this arrangement, another timekeeper was sent to Moses Lake on February 12
to relieve Carrig. Thirty minutes before Carrig was to leave for Seattle he
received a phone call to await the arrival of Morrell. Morrell told him that Logan
had again stopped the promotion, that Logan's action had been appealed to the
treasurer of the Company, and that President Allen had finally been brought into
the dispute, and supported the decision of Logan, and the transfer was not to go
through. Morrell told Carrig that Logan's opposition to the promotion was based
on Carrig's activity in behalf of Lodge 751, particularly by the fact that Carrig
had been a striker, had performed a certain amount of picket duty, and had done
some talking on a public address system near the plant in support of the strike.
Morrell went on to say that the Teamsters had found out again that Carrig was
about to be promoted and had appealed to Logan to stop it. Morrell related that
Bowman, Boeing's treasurer, had remarked when the case came before him that
it appeared that Logan was in bed with the Teamsters and there was nothing to
be done about it5
Ruby Heston, a former employee though not a striker, testified that she applied
for work in October 1947 and renewed her application in October 1948. During
the latter month she made four visits to Boeing's personnel office but was told
that no work was available for her ; that no women were being hired. On October
28, according to Heston, she joined Teamster Local 451, secured a referral, pre-
sented it to Boeing, was accepted for employment, and began work on November 1.
Cottet testified that Heston had made application for employment in October
1947, January, March, and October, 1948 and that she was hired on October 28
to report November 1.
In another portion of this report, I have set forth the testimony of Rahim
Jallie that he was called back to work following the strike, shortly after he sub-
mitted an application to Boeing along with a Local 451 referral. According to
Jallie, the experience of another striker, Jose M. Soto, was the same.
35 The findings in this paragraph are based upon Carrig's credited and uncontradicted
testimony.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1091
Cottet testified that Boeing's files do not show that either Jallie or Soto were
referred by Local 451 but that they indicate both were returned to work in the
same fashion as other strikers.
Klein testified further that after 1 month's dues had been deducted from his
wages for payment of Local 451, he attempted to cancel the authorization. I
credit his undenied testimony that he was then told he could not do so ; that the
authorization to Local 451 was irrevocable for 1 year. Boeing's rules and regu-
lations published for the guidance of employees provided at the time that all
employees not covered by a bargaining agreement could cancel any such with-
holding when they chose.
E. Conclusions
A substantial part of the General Counsel's case is bottomed upon the theory
that the discharges and layoffs of which complaint is made and the failure of
those laid off subsequently to secure reemployment is explained in most instances
by the fact that all the affected individuals were strikers. Thus consideration
must first be given to the validity of the theory-would it have been an unfair
labor practice in the circumstances here related for Boeing to have taken into con-
sideration the participation of these individuals in that strike as affecting their
opportunity for continued employment or reemployment? The Act seems clear on
one mint at ]east, that Boeing was under no legal obligation to rehire any of
the strikers at the close of the strike. It is incontestably true that the strike was
an unlawful one from its inception. Recently in the Mackay case," the Board
considered a complaint alleging that an employer had violated Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act by refusing to reemploy certain individual strikers at the conclusion
of a strike called for what the Board found to be an unlawful objective. In dis-
missing the complaint the Board said , "Such a strike, to compel the Respondents
to violate a clear Congressional mandate, as expressed in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, was a strike which, if ACA had been a respondent, we would have found
to violate Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act; the strike was therefore unlawful from
its inception. By participating in such a strike, the strikers forfeited their rights
to the protection of the Act. . . . We do not believe that the principle of con-
donation should be applied in this case to the strikers who, as we have held, par-
ticipated in a strike which was unlawful from its inception, and not merely un-
protected. . . . The strike in this case not only adversely affected the interests
of the Respondents, but from its inception also contravened the public policy, as
expressed in the Act of Congress, against conduct by unions and their agents such
as is proscribed by Section 8 (b) (2). It is the task of the Board to enforce this
public policy ; and even though the Respondents in this case may have condoned
conduct violative of such policy, the Board itself has no license to overlook such
conduct. . . . We are unable to perceive how it will effectuate the Act's policies
to give relief to employees who have engaged in conduct violative of those poli-
cies." The Board expressly refrained from deciding if an employer might, after
returning such a striker to its payroll, thereafter discharge or otherwise change
his status of employment because of the employee's participation in the unlawful
strike.
Certain of the criteria examined by the Board in the Mackay case are present
here. The strike of April 1948 was an unlawful one from its inception. By
operation of Section 8 (d) of the Act the participants in the strike lost their
status as employees for the purposes of Section 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. Lodge
751 lost its status as bargaining representative. When the strike terminated, the
28 Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, Inc ., 96 NLRB 740.
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent under the Act had a free hand with respect to the strikers . It could
have refused , as it did, to reinstate some of them . It could, as it did , take others
into its employ with the status of new hires and in jobs other than those held
before the strike began . It could , as it did , refuse to recognize Lodge 751 as
bargaining representative . All these actions seem clearly to be permitted by the
statute and constitute , in effect, a sort of penalty against those who disregard
the requirements of Section 8 (d). Quite apart from that section, as the strike
was one in breach of a contract provision , decisional law permitted the Respond-
ent to select those of the strikers whom it chose for reinstatement and to keep
others of its choosing out of its employ . In the latter situation , however, the
Board has held with the approval of the courts that once participation in a
strike breaching a contract has been condoned by an employer that particular
act of the employees may not later be used as a basis for discriminating against
any of them.
The unlawful character of the strike derives from the failure to follow the
notice provisions of the statute and the no-strike agreement , not from its objec-
tives. The strikers were seeking by means of economic pressure to extract from
Boeing an agreement to pay wages and to observe seniority conditions more
favorable to Lodge 751 and its members than the Respondent was willing to
grant, and thus was for objectives almost traditional in labor history. The point
is important because in my opinion here is a material distinction between the
fact situation in the Boeing strike and the one in Mackay. In the latter case the
Board withheld a remedy in order to implement the purposes of the Act.
For the fact situation of the Boeing strike , the Act prescribes a specific remedy
by setting forth the disabilities incurred by participants in a strike in disregard
of the provisions of Section 8 (d). The employees lose their status as such for
purposes of Sections 8, 9, and 10. By breaching a no-strike contract , a labor
organization may lose its status as bargaining representative . The labor organi-
zation may regain its exclusive agency by subsequent Board certification. Lodge
751 has since been so certified . The strikers may regain their status as em-
ployees for the purposes of the named sections only when the employer rehires
them. Every individual with whom this report is now concerned has been re-
hired by Boeing. Congress having prescribed the remedy , nothing is left for
improvisation . I conclude and find that those who were reemployed by Boeing
after participation in the strike thereby regained their rights as employees for
the purposes of Section 8, 9, and 10 of the Act and that , thereafter , any dis-
crimination against them , based upon their participation in the strike , would be
in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
With respect to all of the violations of the Act alleged in the complaint which
remain for disposition , I have given consideration to such underlying factors as
the temper of the employees-strikers and nonstrikers-during the period fol-
lowing the strike's conclusion ; the probable reaction of supervision to that
condition ; the admission of Vice-President Logan that , assuming the equality of
all factors other than length of service , he would prefer , in the case of necessary
layoff, a nonstriker for retention over a striker ; the message of President Allen
publicized to all Boeing employees in September 1948, asking them to forget
the hard feelings engendered by the strike and assuring them that management
would do so; and that Boeing 's policy, prior to the strike at least, has been to
prefer qualified , laid-off employees for rehire . I also have been mindful that
with respect to the layoffs , this report is concerned with only a small fraction
of the number of employees laid off following the end of the strike and that
this circumstance must be accorded weight. Another factor of more speculative
character is that before the strike terminated a Trial Examiner for the Board had
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1093
found Boeing to have unlawfully refused to bargain with Lodge 751 and the
strike then in progress to have been prolonged by unfair labor practices. On
November 22, 1948, the Board issued its order in substantial agreement with
the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations. Until this order was set
aside in May 1949, the Respondent, even though convinced as it appears to have
been of the legality of its conduct, must have considered it possible that the
Board's order would be enforced. The General Counsel has advanced the theory
that the existence of this possibility impelled the Respondent to rehire sub-
stantially all of the strikers and later to contrive the discharge or layoff of many
of them.
With all this in mind, now to consider the discharges.
Respondent was of course aware of Pioli's prominent position in Lodge 751 and
of his activity during the strike. Hyman's suspicion that Pioli was absent from
his department on union business , though mistaken, was not entirely unreason-
able. I find that Hyman profanely accused Pioli of organizing in department 102
and that Pioli called Hyman a damned liar. I suppose that the discharge which
followed could have been the planned result of a contrived situation but I do
not believe that the evidence supports such a finding. I will recommend that
the complaint as to Pioli be dismissed.
Black's discharge appears to have been occasioned by his insulting remark to
his foreman. He was not in any position of leadership in Lodge 751 and his
discharge, I find, has not been shown to stem from any unlawful motivation.
Ray O. Bailey, more closely identified with Lodge 751 than Black, had been
a picket-line captain during the strike and a committeeman. But Bailey per-
mitted his personal feelings toward one whom he considered to be a strike-
breaker and a scab to speak to Jeremiah, now an assistant foreman, in such an
insulting and provocative fashion as certainly to justify the discharge. I find
no unlawful discrimination here.
The case of Earl M. Wylie brings into focus another factor. After nearly 5
months of striking, tempers were frayed and judgments clouded. The return of
the strikers to work, which resulted in more than doubling the Respondent's
payroll, created a situation in which the Respondent might well have felt, as
its representative says it did, that trouble could quickly arise. Many of the
strikers held a deep resentment against those who had come to work during the
strike. It may be supposed that those who had come to work in that period
feared reprisals from the strikers and, although assurance to the contrary had
been given them by representatives of Respondent , perhaps were unsure of the
security of their employment. The Respondent asserts that it found it necessary
in such a potentially dangerous situation to impose restrictions upon employee
conduct that at another time might not have been necessary. Thus, it instructed
the returning strikers that it would tolerate no arguments with respect to the
competing unions and discouraged participation by any employee in a dispute
with a member of a rival faction. It will be recalled that Wylie's discharge
followed his utterance of an insulting remark concerning an organizer for a
Teamster organization. In some circumstances no doubt this would appear to
have been a manifestation of an extremely protective attitude on the part of
Boeing toward the Teamsters and certainly there is other evidence earlier
adverted to that the Teamsters did constitute in the eyes of Boeing an attractive
alternative to Lodge 751. Of course the discharge of an employee for making
a depreciatory remark about the Teamsters constituted in a sense support or
assistance to that organization, but I am convinced that it is not unlawful for
that reason . If the evidence showed a protective attitude toward the Teamsters
and the contrary toward Lodge 751, the case might appear in a different light.
257965-54-vol. 103-70
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is true that the record speaks of no incident wherein an employee was dis-
ciplined for any hostile remark made to an organizer for Lodge 751 but this
circumstance is not proof that Teamster adherents were permitted without
discipline to make verbal attacks upon Lodge 751 organizers . Considering that a
few months earlier Wylie had been suspended for threatening to punch a non-
striker and that the remark he made to the Teamster organizer was of such a
character as to provoke reprisal, I am not convinced that the motivation for
Wylie's termination is to be found elsewhere and I will recommend that the
complaint as to him be dismissed.
I find that Joseph Reeder did comment, in connection with the accident in the
shop, as Fectzo testified and that Reeder's discharge was occasioned by his
remark. I will recommend that the complaint with respect to him be dismissed.
Roy Pulrang was reasonably believed by Glen Dierst to have engaged in some
name-calling at a time when the atmosphere in the plant was sufficiently tense
to justify Respondent in adopting stringent rules to curtail any activity which
might lead to violence. I will recommend that the complaint as to Pulrang be
dismissed.
I find that Walter Churchill was discharged because he refused to make him-
self available to work a full week on his shift-a problem which appears to have
first arisen at the end of the strike. I do, however, credit Churchill's testimony
that in February 1949, on the occasion of a hearing stemming from his discharge,
Superintendent Nurse commented that Churchill was now willing to work, but
had a different attitude during the strike. However, I do not believe that Nurse's
attitude, as illuminated by this expression, proximately caused Churchill's failure
to secure reemployment. Churchill still was unwilling to work a full week on the
second shift.
Myra T. Dean and Eva Karnofsky, although working in the same area,
were at different work stations. I credit their testimony that they were not re-
sponsible for any difficulty in connection with the work schedule and that they
were unaware of any investigation being made in that particular. I do find, how-
ever, as they implicitly admitted, that they were engaged in organizational activi-
ties in behalf of Lodge 751 and their discharge for that reason was not in
violation of the Act.
I find that Robert R. Ashley deliberately cleaned his milling machine in such
a fashion as to shower shavings on a Teamster organizer. I find no unfair
labor practice in his discharge.
I find that Philip McLaughlin on February 16, 1949, did make a threatening
and provocative remark to Foreman Paul Higgins, as the latter testified, and that
his discharge was caused by it.
Although I find that Don J. Parezanin was absent from his department without
permission and that the suspension he received on November 2 was given for a
nondiscriminatory reason, I further find that the questioning by Molitor on the
occasion of his hearing a few days later establishes that Parezanin would have
been reinstated to his job at that time were it not for the fact that he had
failed to work during the strike. Respondent's opportunity, as has been ex-
plained, to refuse employment to strikers, had passed so far as Parezanin was
concerned and the subsequent discrimination was unlawful. I find that by
failing to reinstate Parezanin on the occasion of his hearing before Molitor
Respondent discriminated against him because of his participation in the strike
and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
The admission by May Cummings that she had called another employee a scab
lends support to the contention of Respondent that she exhibited belligerency
toward members of Teamster Local 451. The evidence does not preponderantly
support the allegation of the complaint that Cummings' discharge was dis-
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1095
-criminatory and I will recommend that the complaint with respect to her
be dismissed.
With respect to Arthur C. Gerber, I credit the testimony of Lynn Morrell that
he reasonably believed Gerber to be guilty of making threats to those who would
not join Lodge 751. This conclusion is supported by other evidence, particularly
in the case of Edward Carrig, which leads me to the conclusion that Morrell
was not disposed to discriminate against strikers . I will recommend that the
complaint with respect to Gerber be dismissed.
Joseph G. Fay and Paul H. Hines both were involved in incidents which con-
stituted valid grounds for discharge and I find no violation of the Act in con-
nection with them.
The evidence does not establish that the discharge of Floyd R. Fitch was for
any reason other than his inability to perform the work of a plumber in the
classification which he held. Respondent's offer of a job to him in a lower
classification convinces me that no unlawful discrimination was practiced
against him.
The discharge of George F. LeVea appears to have been occasioned by his faulty
workmanship. I find no violation of the Act in his dismissal.
I do not credit the testimony of George H. Graham that Stanley Leith told
him his discharge was caused by his union activity. I believe that Dierst had
information that Graham was a Communist or Communist sympathizer and
that this constituted the basis for his discharge. Considering Graham' s remarks
about the Russian government, as testified to by Foreman Jeremiah, Dierst's
belief cannot be said to be unreasonable. I find no violation of the Act in the
discharge.
Lenore Noland admittedly spent 5 or 6 minutes during a working shift to
"tease" a newly signed member of Teamster Local 451. Respondent's strict
rules against such conduct were not unreasonable and I find that her discharge
did not violate the Act.
I find that the discharge of Russell A. Chaney was caused by the belief of
Foreman Dahlberg that Chaney was not competent and that the Act was not
violated in this connection.
I believe the testimony of Howard Lewis that Ralph D. Theroux deliberately
sought to provoke an incident with Lewis because the latter was a member of
Teamster Local 451. The discharge was not discriminatory.
I find that James Esary discharged Vernon D. McCrory because the latter was
engaged in activity in behalf of Lodge 751 on company time. The discharge
was not unlawful.
I find that John W. Veness resigned his job on April 30 and was not discharged.
I find that Robert Lloyd did not perform his work in a satisfactory manner
and was lawfully terminated when he refused to accept a demotion.
I find that the discharge of Verne W. Crawford was occasioned by his negli-
gence in failing to lock a door securely before applying air pressure to a fuselage.
I find that Virgil M. Thacker was discharged because he engaged in a fist
fight with a foreman during the strike. As the fight appears to have no con-
nection with the strike there was no unfair labor practice committed by dis-
charging him.
I find that Frank G. Worthy did make insulting and provocative remarks in
the plant about members of Teamster Local 451 and that these remarks caused
his discharge. The Act was not thereby violated.
The testimony of James F. Peterson in explanation of his reasons for re-
taining on his person certain property of Respondent when he was transferred
to another department does not convince me that he was acting reasonably or
in good faith. Although the penalty imposed upon him may have been greater
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than that given in some other such cases, I do not agree that it was so harsh as
to indicate that another factor may have motivated the action. I find no viola-
tion of the Act in connection with the discharge.
I have accepted as believable and reasonable Respondent's explanation that
the atmosphere in the plant for a period following the end of the strike was
sufficiently tense and unfriendly as to require the Respondent to impose strict
rules of conduct upon employees to avert possible violence and I have con-
sidered the case of Stanley Burrell in this light. However, I am unable to
agree with the contention of the Respondent that its action in discharging
Burrell was reasonably related to the accomplishment of this result. I do not
understand how it could be that the wearing of a badge indicating an individual
to be a committeeman for a labor organization, even though such office lacked
any sanction from the Respondent, was such a manifestation of union adherence
as would probably provoke dispute. I find that Stanley Burrell had a right to
wear a badge indicating that he had been designated by Lodge 751 as a com-
mitteeman and that Respondent's discharge of hint when he refused to remove
it discouraged membership in and activity on behalf of Lodge 751 and that the
Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
The evidence convinces me that Thomas Berrington did not perform his work,
following his return after the strike, in a satisfactory manner and that his
discharge was not unlawfully motivated.
I find that Boyd G. Kelso and George J. Valiquette were discharged because
of Respondent's belief that they had accused Foreman Hewitt of improperly and
unlawfully charging work time to the United States Air Force. I will recom-
mend that the complaint as to them be dismissed.
I find that Jack Hayworth, after his return to employment, exhibited a some-
what hostile attitude toward Foreman Pickett and on an occasion immediately
preceding his discharge described Pickett as "damned thickheaded." I believe
Pickett's testimony that because of this incident and the other occasions in which
Hayworth appeared to flout Pickett's authority, the latter recommended that
Hayworth be laid off for 3 days. General Foreman Megorden, I find, went be-
yond what seems to have been a reasonable recommendation and arranged for
Hayworth's discharge because the latter, according to Megorden, was very quick
tempered and very closely connected with union activities going on in the plant.
Of course an employee may not be discriminated against because of his partici-
pation in union activities in the plant or out of it unless it appears that such
activity is of such a character or is carried on at times and places as to interfere
with the employer's operations. It is not evident here that Hayworth' s union
activities overstepped the bounds of reasonableness and I find therefore that by
changing Pickett's recommendation of a 3-day layoff to a discharge, Megorden,
and thus the Respondent, discouraged membership in and activity in behalf of
a labor organization and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
I believe the testimony of Foreman Kaseburg that he was unable to obtain
satisfactory work performance from Hazel V. Robison and that her discharge
resulted directly from this circumstance. I will recommend that the complaint
as to her be dismissed.
I find that Norma A. Vincent was discharged in December 1949 because she
refused to accept a work assignment. I find no violation of the Act in connection
with her dismissal.
I find William W. Simon was downgraded on two occasions for economic
reasons and was discharged for failing to perform his job properly. I will
recommend that the complaint as to him be dismissed.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1097
I find that Lewis Benson was discharged for failure to perform his work
properly and will recommend that the complaint as to him be dismissed.
I find that Lyder Johnson was dismissed because his physical condition did not
permit him to do the work available. The Respondent did not thereby violate
the Act.
I do not find that the evidence establishes the discharge of Grunewald to
have been discriminatory. I credit the testimony of Foreman Jones concerning
his appraisal of her desirability as a worker.
The fact that Andrew Feyko had been upgraded in March lends support to
my conviction that he was not discriminated against because of his membership
in Lodge 751 or his participation in the strike. I believe that Glenn Dierst
viewed anyone whose political inclinations were other than strictly orthodox to
constitute a threat to security and that the discharge of Feyko is to be attributed
to Dierst's feeling in that regard.
Charles F. Ankelen was not prominent as a member of Lodge 751 or as a
striker, and I believe that the reason for his discharge may be traced to the
conviction on the part of Dierst that as a member of the Socialist Workers
Party, Ankelen should be classified as a threat to security.
I find that the testimony concerning the lack of competence of Robert Matz-
dorf is sufficient to meet any presumption that his discharge may be traced to his
membership in Lodge 751 or his participation in the strike.
Only by inference that Respondent was disposed to discriminate against a
striker and a member of Lodge 751 may any evidence be found to support the
allegation that such discrimination was practiced against Alice Carlson. One
curious aspect of the case is that what apparently was first intended to be a
layoff to effectuate a necessary reduction in force developed into an instantane-
ous discharge, Carlson not being permitted or required to complete her shift
hours. Just why this was so, I am unable to glean from the record. The temper
of the participants in the conversations which culminated in her discharge leads
me to believe that Carlson had in some fashion fallen into such disfavor with
Superintendent Hurst and Foreman Jones that her discharge may be explained
by an active personal dislike. I do not find the evidence sufficient to establish
that this animus derived from any consideration of union membership or activity.
A somewhat similar thread runs through the evidence relating to the dis-
charge of Rahim Jallie. The testimony of both Jallie and Foreman Vick in-
dicates the existence of an antipathy between them which led, I find, to Jallie's
demotion and transfer. I credit Wolfram's testimony that Jallie attempted to
conceal a mistake by plugging misdrilled holes and that this practice was in
disregard of instruction. Considering that Wolfram had before him adverse
reports by Foreman Vick in addition to the plugging incident, I find no
discrimination in the discharge.
Apparently Ralph Halaus was never a member of Lodge 751 but he did
participate in the strike. The testimony concerning his efficiency is confused
and contradictory, but I find that in the opinion of Foremen Schwarz and
Bridges, Halaas was the least efficient of the workers under them and I find
that the testimony he was dismissed for that reason is sufficient to overcome
any presumption that his participation in the strike may have been the cause.
Some of the considerations affecting those laid off and not rehired have
general application. I believe that most of the witnesses produced by the Gen-
eral Counsel in this connection did not engage in substantial exaggerations or
deliberate misstatements in their testimony, but I have given little weight to
subjective self-appraisals concerning their efficiency and ability. I recognize, too,
that those who participated in the selection of those to be laid off might tend on
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the witness stand to exaggerate faults and minimize virtues so as to vindicate
their actions. I have also been aware that the brief appearance of a witness on
the stand does not, in most instances, afford a sufficient opportunity for anyone
to form a fair judgment as to whether the witness is such a person as an employer
would normally desire to retain on his payroll. It is undoubtedly true that
those who were laid off feel that they were unfairly treated; that a more per-
ceptive employer would have kept them and let others go. The same is true
about their unsuccessful attempts to be rehired. And, of course, they may be
right. But we are not trying the good judgment of Boeing, or its compassion.
And it may not be forgotten that an employer may hire, fire, or lay off as he
chooses until he uses an unlawful standard in arriving at such decisions.
So we have situations where the one-time employee says, I was the better
worker and I had the longer service but I was laid off and others, members
of a favorable labor organization, were not. Of course the suggested explana-
tion is unlawful discrimination. The foreman who made the choice says that
he retained the better workers and denies that any consideration of union mem-
bership or strike activity affected his decision. Now, of course, both of them
cannot be reciting truth in the absolute sense and perhaps neither is . But it is
entirely possible that each is giving as truthful a version of the facts as memory,
mind, and personality permit. More reliable guides would certainly be helpful.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 39, purporting to reflect the experience of returned
strikers in matters of layoff and rehire, shows that for the period September 13
through December 31, 1948, the navies of 8,095 returned strikers and 13,205
others appeared for some period on Boeing's payroll and that 59 percent of the
strikers and 37 percent of the nonstrikers remained in Boeing's employ on April
1, 1951. It further appears that during the period to April 1, 15.57 percent of
the strikers were laid off though only 8.72 percent of the nonstrikers suffered a
similar fate. Only 25 percent of the strikers resigned during that period but 64
percent of the nonstrikers did so. Twenty-two percent of the strikers were re-
hired after layoff or discharge, but only 16 percent of the nonstrikers were.
Another exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit No. 37, purports to compare the em-
ployment experience of Lodge 751 and Local 451 members from January 1, 1949,
through March 31, 1951, and shows that of the members of those groups in Boe-
ing's employ on the initial date, 16 percent of Lodge 751 members and 9 percent
of Local 451 members were at some time during the period laid off. Thirty-six
percent of the Lodge 751 group and 27 percent of those in Local 451 were rehired.
Still another exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit No. 38, shows numbers and per-
centages with respect to the incidence of layoffs by months from November 1948
through December 1950 as affecting Lodge 751 members, Local 451 members,
and members of neither organization.
It is possible to read the percentages as indicating a disproportionate layoff
among members of Lodge 751 but there is evidence that employees sometimes
resigned in anticipation of layoff. It is entirely possible that the greater in-
cidence of resignations among Local 451 members can thus be explained. So,
if one finds another job in the belief that he will be laid off, should he be placed
statistically in the same category as one who waited until the ax fell? I be-
lieve that he should. What might arguably be a disproportion in the percentage
of Lodge 751 members rehired after layoff loses significance when the number
rehired is not related to the number applying for reinstatement. I do not con-
sider these exhibits reliably to support the claim of discrimination or to negate
it. The fact is that a great number of layoffs, more than 5,000," took place dur-
14 Some individuals were laid off more than once . Perhaps no more than 3,360 persons
were involved.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1099
ing the period with which this report is concerned. In 2,200 instances those
affected were members of Lodge 751 who, in 1,200 cases, had been strikers. The
evidence here concerns about 50 people in the latter group. Now, I do not un-
derstand the General Counsel to contend that each time a Lodge 751 member or
a striker was laid off or failed to be rehired that the Act was violated, but he
does say that Boeing followed a discriminatory policy with respect to such work-
ers and that , in result , some were laid off who on a nondiscriminatory basis would
not have been and some were refused rehire who, absent such bias, would have
been put back on the payroll. I am not convinced that such a general policy
existed. It seems most improbable that in an organization as large as Boeing,
with such a diffusion of responsibility for layoffs, a policy of discrimination
could be established without direct evidence of it becoming available to the
General Counsel. The same is true concerning the refusals to rehire.
As the evidence does not establish that the Respondent followed a generally
discriminatory policy in making selections for layoff or in determining who
would not be rehired, as I find that economic reasons appear to account for the
fact that layoffs were made, and as there is no substantial evidence proving that
the layoffs and refusals to rehire of Rilla Samson, Walter Cisski, Nannie Frank-
lin, Mary Louise Anderson, Eleanor Bailey, Mamie Fryrear, Allen Richardson,
Leslie Hodson, Aria Myers, Mary Smith, Jennie Rich, Jean Welch, Helen Kirk,
James Richards, Ruth Prather, Marie Ikerd, Ethel Richards, Anne Newman,
Harriet Masters, Minnie Pace, Eva Terpening, Etta Cummings, Freda Rodgers,
Adele Zimmerman, Mary Lins, Faith Larson, Mary Kennedy, Inez Ventoza,
Mary Weibel, Ruby Spaulding, Alfred Bass, James Beale, Dora Samuels, Paul
Ek, Christina Nielsen, Pauline Mitchell, Dorothy Schott, Hilda Carver, Elizabeth
Schneider, Doris Cinotto, Emily Billette, Clyde McDonald, Beryl Bowles, and
Cleo Price, were discriminatorily motivated, I will recommend the dismissal of
the complaint as to them. In arriving at this conclusion I do not intend to indi-
cate that the reasons advanced by the Respondent for its actions are in all
cases persuasive or necessarily believable. As to some the refusal to afford
further employment seems curious and perhaps would justify a speculation that
unlawful motivation did exist. As to others the testimony of the individual
affected would appear to disclose reasons why he or she would not be regarded
as a particularly desirable worker. But in all the cases, I find, the evidence con-
sidered separately or as a whole does no more than raise a suspicion that the Act
may have been violated and does not preponderate in favor of such a finding.
Although I credit the testimony of Madeline Haddix that shortly before her
layoff Foreman Welling told her that she belonged to the wrong union, the
evidence does not persuade that this was a consideration affecting her continua-
tion of employment. Selden's testimony concerning her applications for rehire
is pure speculation. I find that no credible explanation of the rejection of her
applications has been offered but neither is it shown that the rejections were
discriminatorily motivated. I will recommend that the complaint as to Haddix
be dismissed.
I believe, and find, that the layoff of Jesse Ericson is to be explained by the
determination of Dierst that no one suspected of Communist associations or
membership in any unorthodox political group be continued in Boeing's employ.
I credit the testimony of Harriet McDaniel that a foreman, Fred Smith, told
her that her suspension was caused by Respondent's belief that she was or-
ganizing for Lodge 751 on Boeing 's time. Of course McDaniel 's testimony does
not establish that this was so and if it did the Act would not have been violated
by disciplining her for the infraction of the rule against such activity. I find
that McDaniel was laid off for economic reasons and has not been rehired
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of adverse reports in her file from her supervisors . I find no substan-
tial evidence that these reports were motivated by her membership in Lodge
751 or her participation in the strike.
Barkley Weller was a shop committeeman for Lodge 751 at the time of his
layoff and senior in point of service to the man who was retained. My convic-
tion that Dierst was unceasingly active in arranging the discharge of anyone
whose political interests included the Socialist Workers Party leads me to con-
clude that the reason for the layoff and refusal to rehire is to be found in Dierst's
belief that Weller was a member of that organization.
I credit the testimony of Foreman Deane that the layoff of Erhard Larson
was caused by the practical abolition of the department in which he worked
and Deane 's denial that he suggested union activity as a reason for Larson's
selection.
I credit the testimony of Lynn Morrell concerning the layoff of Joseph Pepin.
I also believe , as Morrell testified , that Pepin did not work the overtime at the
beginning of his shift to Morrell 's satisfaction . I find no unlawful discrimina-
tion in the layoff or failure to rehire.
Leon Day was a Lodge 751 committeeman when he was laid off and I credit
his testimony that others with less service with Boeing were retained at that
time. Against the background of all the evidence I do not find that the selection
of Day for layoff was for any reason other than the one advanced by Foreman
Lansing, that Day was prone to waste time on the job in unnecessary conver-
sations.
I find that Foreman Keene recognized Claude Myrick 's status as a leader among
the members of Lodge 751 in the maintenance shop and I credit Myrick 's testi-
mony that Keene asked what his attitude would be in the event Lodge 751 won
the impending election . I also credit the testimony of Foreman Watling that
he complained of Myrick 's attitude toward orders from supervision and it is of
course undenied that Myrick was placed on probation in that connection. Burn-
ham's opinion that Myrick's layoff was threatened because of the latter's ac-
tivity as a shop committeeman does not constitute evidence that such a con-
sideration was involved . Considering all the evidence relating to Myrick, I am
not convinced , and do not find, that his layoff and failure to be rehired is to
be traced to his membership in Lodge 751 , his position of leadership in that
organization , or his participation in the strike.
I will recommend that the complaint be dismissed with respect to all the
individuals discussed in subsection C of this report.
I do not consider the fact that organizers for the Teamsters were permitted
to solicit members for their organization in the plant during the time that the
strike was in progress to constitute unlawful support for the Teamsters . Repre-
sentatives of Lodge 751 did not seek similar permission , so it cannot reasonably
be said that the Teamsters were granted an advantage denied to Lodge 751.
The evidence is that after the strike ended, both organizations were placed upon
the same footing in that connection . Further, I do not consider the Respondent's
use of Local 451 in recruiting employees to constitute unlawful support. Boeing
was entitled to search for workers wherever it chose and Local 451 provided a
likely source. The evidence is persuasive , however, that for a time individuals
referred by Local 451 were preferred for employment over those without such
reference . The testimony concerning William Klein, Anthony Brody, Charles
Courtier , Clair Boitnott , and Ruby Reston persuades me to this conclusion. I
credit Klein's testimony that he was not permitted to cancel his dues-deduction
authorization in favor of Teamsters Local 451 because , assertedly, he had given
that organization authority for a period of 1 year to collect dues from his pay.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 1101
There was no contract between Boeing and Local 451 and Boeing's rules per-
taining to employees provided that such a deduction might be canceled upon
written notice. The testimony of Edwin J . Carrig is completely credited and
constitutes clear evidence , treating the remarks attributed to Lynn Morrell as an
admission by the Respondent , that in January 1949 Local 451 was assisted by
being permitted to veto a promotion.
Based upon the credited evidence establishing that in some cases , at least,
those referred by Local 451 were given preference in employment, that Klein
was forced to continue paying dues to that organization by means of payroll
deduction , and that Carrig was denied a promotion when Local 451 opposed it,
I find that the Respondent assisted and supported Local 451. I find no evidence
that the Respondent dominated that organization.
I find that the Respondent did not violate the Act by forbidding employees to
wear such insignia as, "I was loyal to 751." Considering the temper of the
employees at the time that these ribbons appeared , I am persuaded that Re-
spondent 's belief that such slogans were provocative and would tend to lead to
disorder was a reasonable one. Consequently I find no violation of the Act in
the suspension of Doris Cinotto. Further, to the extent that it did so, I find no
unfair labor practice and no unreasonable restriction upon union activity in the
rule which some supervisors enforced forbidding the discussion of union matters
on Respondent 's premises . I believe that such a rule for a period of months
following the conclusion of the strike was reasonably related to the Respondent's
interest in preserving peace between the competing factions so that production
might go on , unhindered by extraneous matters. There is also evidence , which is
believed, that Foreman Shenander on more than one occasion told employees
that the Lodge 751 button was the wrong one to wear. I do not find this to be
an unfair labor practice as it contains no element of coercion.
I credit the testimony of Dora Schott that Foreman Lawrence commented, in
effect, that her demotion was caused by the fact that she wore a Lodge 751 button.
I also credit the testimony of Carolyn Scott and Dora Crozier that, in August
1949, Foreman Fred Smith said that members of Teamster Local 451 would have
the better chance of retaining employment in an impending layoff. These ob-
servations , no doubt, amount to technical violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act as they constitute, impliedly at least, threats to employment tenure based
upon considerations of union preference or membership . However, in view of
their isolated character and that they were uttered by minor supervisors, I make
no such finding here . I find no substantial evidence that the employment oppor-
tunity of anyone named in the complaint was affected because he filed a charge
with the Board.
I find that the discharges of Don J. Parezanin , Stanley Burrell , and Jack
Hayworth discouraged membership in and activity in behalf of Lodge 751 in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. I also find that by assisting
and supporting Teamster Local 451 the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2)
and (1) of the Act.
I will recommend that the complaint in all other respects be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the
Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Don J. Parezanin, Stanley Burrell, and Jack Hayworth, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent offer to them immediate and full reinstatement
each to his former or substantially equivalent position,18 and make each of them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination by payment
to each of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement. Loss
of pay will be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion
thereof during the period from the first day of January, April, July, and October.
Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which
he normally would have earned for each quarter or portion thereof his net
earnings,39 if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one
particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other
quarter 20 It will further be recommended that the Respondent upon reasonable
request make available to the Board and its agents all records pertinent to an
analysis of the amount due as back pay.
Having found that the Respondent has assisted and lent support to Teamster
Local 451, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom.
As the record does not indicate a general disposition to violate the Act, a broad
cease-and-desist order will not be recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, International Association
of Machinists, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men, and Helpers of America, AFL, and Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen,
and Helpers, Local No. 451, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Don
J. Parezanin, Stanley Burrell, and Jack Hayworth, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in Lodge 751, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By assisting and supporting Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen, and
Helpers, Local No. 451, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. By such conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
is The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rwo, Branch, &5
NLRB 827.
19 Crossett Lumber Company, 8, NLRB 440.
20 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 280.