Certified Casting & Engineering, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 572 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON
LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, LocAL 916, AFL-CIO AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
OWEN LANGSTON
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT physically assault employees or threaten them with physical
assault when they exercise their right to refrain from joining in a strike.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in any other manner in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, except as a condition of employment as provided for in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse and pay Lester Utley, Tommy Belcher, and Homer Ward
all expenditures or monetary obligations they incurred as a result of treatment
for the injuries they received on May 9, 1962, because of the union-sponsored
physical assault upon them.
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND
COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA,
LocAL 916, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4459
Federal Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. Main
1-8100, Extension 2142, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Certified Casting & Engineering , Inc. and Local 243, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Ind. Case No. 7-CA-4079. De-
ceinber 21, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 13, 1963, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, 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 the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and -a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
145 NLRB No. 59.
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 573
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted.'
ORDER2
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications :
Delete paragraph 2(b) and substitute therefor the following :
Offer to Joseph C. Amason immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against him, from February 9, 1963,
the date on which Amason made an unconditional offer to return
to work, until the date of Respondent's unconditional offer of rein-
statement to him, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum, in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
I As the complaint does not allege that Respondent discharged employee Shawver in vio-
lation of the Act, and as the General Counsel does not urge that this discharge was viola-
tive of the Act, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Shawver•s discharge
violated the Act
The Trial Examiner found that employee Amason was discharged on January 28, 1963,
in violation of Section 8(a) (3), and recommended that he be awarded backpay from that
date The complaint alleges , and the record shows, that Amason concertedly withheld his
services on that date because of Respondent's refusal to reemploy other discharged em-
ployees Amason thus became a striker who was entitled to reinstatement upon his un-
conditional offer to return to work and whose entitlement to backpay vested on the date
of such offer. As Amason unconditionally offered to return on February 9, 1963, and
Respondent refused to reinstate him, Amason became entitled to backpay commencing on
February 9, 1963, rather than on January 28, 1963, as the Trial Examiner found. We
shall therefore modify the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order accordingly
2 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the fist paragraph
therein, the following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent, Certified Casting & Engineering, Inc, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall*
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge, as amended, duly filed by Local 243, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein
called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
through the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, issued a complaint, dated
March 29, 1963, against Certified Casting & Engineering, Inc., herein called the
Respondent or the Company, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), herein
called the Act. The answer and supplement thereto admit certain allegations of the
complaint but deny the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton
at Detroit, Michigan, on May 27 and 28, 1963. All parties were present and repre-
sented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce
relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. About July 1, 1963,
I received a brief from the General Counsel which I have fully considered.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon consideration of the entire record, and upon my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS
The Company, a Michigan corporation, maintains its office and place of business
in Warren, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of prototype and experimental nonferrous castings. During the year 1962, the
Company manufactured and sold products valued in excess of $80,000, of which
products valued in excess of $50,000 were furnished to Michigan enterprises, each
of which annually ships goods, valued at more than $50,000, directly to places
outside the State of Michigan.
The Company concedes, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The pleadings
In brief, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company refused to bargain with
the Union on and after January 25, 1963; (2) on and after about January 25, the
Company, through its president, unlawfully interrogated its employees concerning
their union membership or activities, discriminatorily discharged three employees,
and refused to reinstate one employee because he had engaged in and was engaging
in protected concerted activities; and (3) the Company through its president and its
attorney unlawfully caused two employees to file unfair labor practice charges against
the Union, all in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act. The
answer generally denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The complaint alleges as an appropriate unit•
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Company at its
Warren, Michigan, plant, excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical
employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
At the hearing the Company conceded the appropriateness of the unit. However,
the Company in its answer neither admits nor denies the allegation of the com-
plaint that since January 24, the Union has been the statutory representative of all
the employees in the above unit. In its supplemental answer filed at the outset of
the hearing the Company states that due to a complete change of personnel at the
plant subsequent to the issuance of the complaint, it denies that a majority of the
employees in the unit ever designated the Union as their bargaining representative
and that the employees do not now wish to be represented by the Union
B. Preliminary statement
Eugene J. Kurty, president, stated the Company was incorporated on January 29,
1962, and had its first sales the following March. In October 1962 Stanley
Shawver was made plant manager and in the period December 1962 to January 14,
1963, the Company employed nine men in its shop, including Shawver. Kurty as-
serted the Company lost about $16,000 by the end of 1962, which he attributed in
part to lack of trained personnel and, apparently, lack of responsibility of working
foremen in carrying out their duties. These factors, plus the fact that Shawver
complained that his responsibilities were too great, prompted Kurty to make some
changes in the plant organizational setup. Accordingly, Kurty, on January 14,
1963,1 informed all the men that in order to lessen Shawver's duties, he was setting
up three departments, each under a foreman, and thereafter the men would report
directly to the foreman rather than to Shawver. Kurty announced Hans Grundmann
would be foreman of the molding department and Joseph Amason would be in
charge of the casting department. He further stated Harry Fryckland, the only
employee in the rubber department, would report directly to Shawver, the same as
Grundmann and Amason. According to Kurty, James Keel, Gerald Zupan, and
I All dates refer to 1963, unless otherwise stated.
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 575
Bruce Strevett worked under Amason. While Kurty did not name the employees
in the molding department, the record shows that Earl Nelson and Martin Zoller
were employed in that department.
This situation continued until about January 22, when Kurty called a meeting
of all the employees to announce that, as of that date, Anton [Tony] Palovick
was the new plant manager and that Shawver was foreman of the rubber department.
The Employment Status of Shawver and Amason
The Company contends that Shawver and Amason were employed in a supervisory
status and, as they engaged in organization activities on January 24, it is ap-
propriate to discuss their employment status as of that date.
Shawver was first employed about April 5, 1962, as general all-around shopman and
performed all operations, such as molding, setup, metal pouring, and finishing, for
which he was paid $175 per week. When Shawver was promoted to plant manager
in October 1962, he was paid a salary of $190 per week. While Shawver's pay was
not reduced simultaneously with his replacement by Palovick on January 22, other
benefits were eliminated at that time. Thus, Kurty said Shawver lost his car allowance
and his eligibility for bonuses, and payment for his Blue Cross insurance, which the
Company paid in full while he was plant manager, was reduced to payment of one-
half the premium, the same as other employees.
When Palovick assumed his duties as plant manager he did not assign Shawver
to any particular operation but he spent most of his time on setup and molding.
Usually Shawver worked on his own while molding, but at times he would help
Fryckland in the rubber department as well as other employees in the molding depart-
ment. Shawver gave no directions or orders to employees and if there was any
question concerning their work Shawver told them to see Palovick.
Kurty did not describe Shawver's duties after Palovick was made plant manager
other than to say he was foreman of the rubber department.
Amason, a metal pour leader with some 17 years' experience, was employed by
Kurty in August 1962, in that capacity, at a salary of $180 a week for a 40-hour
week. While there is some question as to how long Amason received $180 a week
plus overtime, it is clear that for sometime prior to January, he was paid a straight
salary of $175 per week. According to Amason, metal pouring requires experience
and careful watching of temperatures and cleanliness of the material in order to obtain
a proper casting. Usually the pouring is performed by a crew of two or three
men with the crew leader being responsible for the pouring.
Amason stated that about January 15 or 16 he was placed in charge of the metal
or casting department, which consisted of three other men. Amason continued in
this capacity until about January 21 or 22, when Palovick became plant manager,
at which time he was assigned to clamping up and pouring, that is, melting the metal
and pouring it into the mold and cleaning out the dirt. Amason performed these
duties alone, without the aid of any other employees, and directly under Palovick.
Kurty did not outline Amason's duties other than to say that on January 15
be became foreman of the casting department, and that Keel, Zupan, and Strevett
worked under him. Kurty further stated that on January 25 Amason was pouring
metal.
Strevett, a company witness, testified he was hired about November 11, 1962, and
worked in the casting department. Strevett had no prior experience in this type of
work and received his training from Shawver while he was plant manager. During
this period Strevett worked with Amason, the department leader, who instructed him
how to perform the various jobs. Strevett testified that after Palovick became plant
manager, Shawver "was just an ordinary employee" and that Palovick was his "boss"
and Amason his "co-worker."
I am convinced from the foregoing testimony that neither Shawver nor Amason,
on and after January 21 or 22, possessed the authority to act in the interest of the
Company in the matters and in the manner specified in Section 2(11) of the Act,
defining the term "supervisor." I, therefore, conclude and find that Shawver and
Amason were not employed as supervisors on nand after the above date.
C. Organizational activities
Fryckland testified that following the hiring of three new men in the latter
part of November and December 1962, some of the older men expressed concern
about their jobs but nothing was done in that respect until Wednesday, January 23,
when Fryckland, Zupan, and Shawver decided they should have a union at the plant.
Fryckland thereupon made arrangements for a meeting with Francis H. Meyers,
business agent for the Union, at his home the next evening.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On Thursday , January 24, the meeting was held as scheduled with six of the nine
employees in attendance , namely, Fryckland , Keel, Nelson , Zupan, Shawver, and
Amason . Meyers, in outlining organizational procedures , stated he had to have
authorization cards signed by 51 percent of the employees in order to represent
them in bargaining negotiations with the Company , or in the event the Company
requested an election to determine whether the Union represented a majority of
the employees . The six employees then signed union authorization cards for Meyers.
After some discussion covering the type of work performed by the men, their seniority,
job classifications, and other topics pertaining to their employment, the meeting ended
with Meyers stating he would send an appropriate telegram to the Company the next
day.
D. The events occurring on Friday, January 25
It is undisputed that about 3 p.m. on Friday , January 25 , Kurty called Shawver
to his office to inform him that conditions were bad and he would have to take him
off as a salaried employee, at $ 190 a week , and put him on an hourly rate of $3 per
hour. Shawver said he would have to think it over and the conversation ended.
Kurty then called Amason to his office and had substantially the same conversation
with him, that Amason would be taken off his weekly salary of $175 and put on an
hourly rate of $3 an hour. Amason replied he could not afford to take such a cut and
that he would think it over.
Kurty also called Zupan to the office about 3:30, quitting time, and discharged
him for "acting up" in the shop and failing to perform his duties despite previous
reprimands and warnings.
Meyers, in line with his promise to the employees , sent a telegram to Kurty on the
about date , stating that the Union had been designated by a majority of the employees
as their bargaining representative and requested a meeting for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement with the Company . Meyers concluded with a caution
against any discriminatory treatment of the employees and for an early reply to his
request. Joan Koroleski , Kurty 's secretary , said she received the telegram about 3:45
that afternoon and immediately gave it to Kurty.
1. The interrogation of Nelson and Amason; the discharge of Nelson
Kurty stated that after reading the telegram he asked Koroleski if any of the
employees were around and she said Nelson was probably still in the plant. Nelson
was then summoned to the office where Kurty inquired if he knew anything about the
Union and Nelson replied he did not. Kurty, who said he was under nervous
tension , thereupon discharged Nelson because he refused to answer his inquiry.
Nelson stated when Kurty questioned him about the Union he answered he was
sorry but he could not tell him anything about the Union. Kurty then declared he
would find out who signed the union cards and when Nelson still refused to give
him any information concerning the Union , Kurty discharged him.
Koroleski testified that after Nelson left the office she and Kurty had some dis-
cussion concerning the identity of the employees who favored the Union which
concluded with Kurty saying he was not certain who was for the Union, while
Koroleski expressed the opinion it was the six old employees.
Kurty said he then went into the shop to discuss a private matter with Amason
(the purchase of some equipment from Amason ), but he could not remember if
he had any conversation with Amason regarding the Union.
Amason testified that Kurty came into the shop around 5 o 'clock and asked if
he had known of the union activities and Amason answered yes. Kurty then asked
why Amason had not advised him of such activities and Amason said he did not
want to meddle in Kurty's business nor discuss the matter with him. Kurty
thereupon inquired of Amason 's attitude and feelings toward the Union and why
the men , if they wanted a union, had not come to him in the first place . Amason
made no reply to Kurty's inquiries but asked, "Am I fired?" and Kurty told him
he "didn't know ." The conversation then ended.
Meyers, upon learning of Nelson's discharge , telephoned Kurty that evening and
asked Kurty if he had received his telegram and Kurty admitted that he had
Meyers then asked Kurty if he thought it was proper to discharge Nelson in view
of the Union 's telegram and Kurty said he would consult with his attorney
Kurty's version of the conversation was that Meyers called about 5:30 to com-
plain of Nelson 's discharge and Kurty told him , "As far as I was concerned there
was no union in the shop , and no one had shown me any proof that there was a
union in the shop." Meyers said he would see Kurty on Monday and show him
the Union was in the shop.
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 577
Meyers, on rebuttal , testified that Kurty never raised any question as to whether
the Union represented a majority of the employees nor did Kurty ever request proof
of the Union's majority status.
2. The mass discharge
Around 6:15 that evening , Kurty sent telegrams to Nelson, Fryckland, Keel,
Zupan, Shawver, and Amason advising each that he was being discharged as of
January 25 , "because your work performance does not meet our standards."
Later the same evening , Kurty sent a second telegram to Shawver and Amason
notifying each that the first telegram had been erroneously sent and to report for
work on Monday , January 28.
Fryckland informed Meyers of the discharges that night or the next day.
E. Subsequent events
On Saturday , January 26 , Amason telephoned Shawver regarding the second
telegram they had received and they agreed that since they had joined the Union,
Meyers should handle the matter for them. Amason also stated Kurty called
him that day to ask if he would report for work and Amason told him all the
employees would be at the plant Monday morning.
Meyers, with a Mr. Metcalf , a union representative , and the six men, arrived at
the plant early Monday morning . Meyers and Metcalf met with Kurty in the plant
office at which time Meyers complained of Kurty's action in discharging the six
employees, all of whom had signed union cards , immediately upon receipt of his
telegram requesting recognition and bargaining . Kurty said he discharged the men
because their work was not satisfactory and that he had put Shawver and Amason
on an hourly rate for economic reasons. Meyers asked Kurty to reinstate the men
and then sit down and discuss matters with him . Kurty refused his request, so
Meyers stated he had no alternative but to file unfair labor practice charges The
meeting then ended.
Kurty said he reaffirmed the position he had expressed to Meyers in their tele-
phone conversation the previous Friday, namely, that as far as he was concerned he
had no proof of any union being in the shop and there was nothing for them to
discuss. Meyers remarked he would have to file unfair labor practice charges and
the meeting ended.
The Union filed the present charges the same morning.
About 1 o'clock that afternoon the six men returned to the plant to pick up their
checks. At that time Kurty called Shawver and Amason to the office and asked
them if they were returning to work. When Shawver and Amason indicated they
were not coming back, admittedly they did not say they were quitting, Kurty stated,
"Under those circumstances , since you refuse to come back to work, we have to
terminate your employment as of January 28 ." Kurty thereupon terminated their
employment.
Shawver related Kurty said he was trying to keep the plant operating and he could
not understand why he and Amason felt the way they did. Shawver stated he
could not take a wage cut and besides he had signed a union card and two of the
employees had been discharged . Shawver had no intention of returning to work
at his new hourly rate , although he did not express his intention to Kurty.
Amason's account of the conversation was that when Kurty asked if they were
returning to work, Shawver stated they would return when all the men were rein-
stated and the Company had signed a contract with the Union.
That afternoon Kurty conferred with his attorney , Dee Edwards, and as a result
thereof he sent telegrams the following day to Nelson , Fryckland , Keel, and Zupan
requesting them to report for work on Wednesday, January 30. The four men,
after notifying the Union of the offers , reported for work as requested and were paid
for Monday and Tuesday.
The parties stipulated that the Company, through Edwards, filed a representation
petition, Case No. 7-RM-437, on February 7, which was dismissed by the Regional
Director about March 25.
Meyers testified he had one or two telephone conversations with Kurty a week
or so after the reinstatement of the four employees in the course of which he asked
for a meeting for the purpose of negotiating an agreement and to discuss the rein-
statement of Shawver and Amason. Kurty told Meyers he was acting on the
advice of his attorney, or that his attorney was handling the matter for him. How-
ever, Kurty did not reveal the name of his attorney.
734-070-64-vol 145-38
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kurty recalled having a telephone conversation with Meyers sometime after
January 28, in which Meyers requested a meeting to discuss contract terms and
other matters and that he told Meyers to consult with his attorney.
About 1 week after the filing of the RM petition, Meyers telephoned Edwards
and in the course of his conversation he referred to the pending charge filed against
the Company, and the Company's petition, and requested that a meeting be held
for the purpose of discussing these matters. Edwards abruptly ended the conver-
sation by stating she never voluntarily contacted any Teamsters' business agent,
and if he had anything to say concerning a negotiating meeting to put it in writing.
In view of Edwards' position, plus the pending unfair labor practice charges,
Meyers made no further attempts, either orally or in writing, to meet with Kurty
or Edwards.
On February 9, Shawver sent a telegram to the Company offering to return to
work "at my old rate of pay," and Amason also sent a telegram offering to return
to work "at rate of pay offered when I left the shop." Kurty ignored their offers
because he did not need them. About 1 week later Shawver and Amason went
to the plant and picked up their tools.
The Plant Personnel as of May 27
Kurty testified that of the four employees reinstated on January 30, only one,
Zupan, was still working, the other three (Nelson, Fryckland, and Keel) having
voluntarily quit their employment at various times in April and May. Apparently,
Grundmann also left the Company sometime in April. Kurty further stated that
in the interval January 30 to May 27, only one new employee was hired, John
Ivanski (a learner in the rubber department), and that the Company presently had
but five employees in its plant.2
F. The filing of unfair labor practice charges against the Union; the
withdrawals from the Union
The complaint alleges that about February 28, Kurty and Edwards coercively
caused Fryckland and Zupan to file unfair labor practice charges against the Union
and to revoke their union authorization cards, in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of
the Act
Fryckland said that sometime after he and Zupan had signed union cards they
discussed the organizational situation at the shop, which he described as follows:
Well, the way things were going in the shop-I mean it didn't look too good on
either side. If we withdrew that way we might save our jobs from that point
too. We didn't know what the union would do to Mr. Kurty, put him out of
business or what.
Accordingly, on February 22, Fryckland and Zupan sent a letter to the Regional
Director asking to withdraw their "complaint that was charged against" the Company
and to withdraw their union cards.
Although Fryckland was not certain whether he spoke to Kurty about the fore-
going letter, he did subsequently ask Kurty, on three or four occasions, what he
and Zupan could do to withdraw from the Union. As a result of these conversations,
Kurty made arrangements for Fryckland and Zupan to meet with Attorney Edwards
at her office the afternoon of February 28. Kurty permitted Fryckland and Zupan
to leave the plant around 2:30 that afternoon, without any loss of pay.
Concerning the meeting with Edwards, Fryckland stated that after discussing
unions she asked why they had signed union cards and he told her "because of the
other boys coming in there from the other shop and we were under a lot of
pressure and didn't have the stuff to work with." Edwards then handed Fryckland
a book and told them "to pick out a clause or paragraph which had to do with
us," so they selected one they believed closest to their situation. Edwards there-
upon had a formal charge typed out, which was different from the clause they had
selected, which they signed. The purpose of the visit of Fryckland and Zupan to
Edwards, as well as the result thereof, was plainly demonstrated in her cross-
examination of Fryckland, as follows:
Q. (By Miss EDWARDS.) All right, let's put it the other way then. Did
you come down for .the purpose of preparing and filing that charge as a result
of your conversation with Gerald Zupan?
A. When I came down, I figured when we came down here, we figured what
we were going to do, just have our cards withdrawn. I mean at the time, I
2 Seemingly, Palovick, Zupan, Strevett, Zoller, and Ivanski.
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 579
really didn't know what this was. I knew you had typed it up and we read it
and signed it but as far as-I didn't think it was an unfair labor practice charge
against the union.
Q. You didn't understand that?
A. No.
Q. And you didn't read the thing before you signed it?
A. I read this, yes, but it doesn't explain what it is.
Again, the cross-examination of Fryckland concerning the allegation contained in
the charge, "We feel our signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and want the
cards cancelled," was as follows:
Q. Is that a fair statement of what you told me with reference to your
reasons for wanting to withdraw?
A. Well, I don't feel our signatures were obtained by misrepresentation.
Q. Were they obtained in the belief that you would have an election before
the Union became the bargaining agent?
A. We felt we would have an election, yes.
Q. And then when you came to my office had you found out differently, that
there was not to be an election?
A. Yes, we found that out.
Zupan said they told Edwards they wanted to withdraw from the Union and she
had a form typed up which they signed. Zupan did not inform Edwards of his
reasons for signing the union card nor did he tell her why he wanted to withdraw
from the Union.
On March 1, the charge, alleging violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) was filed with
the Regional Office, Case No. 7-CB-1034. In substance the charge alleges the
cards of Fryckland and Zupan were obtained through misrepresentation since the
Union had told them it would not become their bargaining representative until a
secret election had been held.
Fryckland said he did not file the charge with the Regional Office and Zupan
was not questioned on that point.
Kurty was not examined on this phase of the case and Edwards did not testify
at the hearing. However, in her motion to dismiss this allegation of the complaint,
made at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Edwards admitted the evidence
proved assistance on her part to Fryckland and Zupan in withdrawing from the
Union, but not coercion.
By letter dated April 4, the Regional Director explained to Fryckland and Zupan
that he was without authority to grant the requests contained in their letter of
February 22, other than to permit them to waive at the hearing any benefits which
may accrue to them upon final determination of the matter and, at the request
of the Union, he had approved withdrawal of that portion of the charge pertaining
to Zupan's alleged discriminatory discharge on January 25. The Regional Director
further stated that the charge filed by them against the Union on March 1 had been
investigated and he had approved their request to withdraw the same on March 28
The letter concluded with a statement that Fryckland and Zupan would be served
with subpenas calling for their attendance as Government witnesses at the hearing
scheduled for May 13.
Concluding Findings
It is, of course, well settled that an employer is under statutory obligation to
bargain in good faith with the representative selected by a majority of his employees
in an appropriate unit and the duty to bargain arises when the employees' majority
representative requests the employer to recognize it and negotiate about matters
which are subject to bargaining under the Act. It is equally well settled that an
employer may in good faith insist on a Board election as proof of the union's
majority but that it "unlawfully refuses to bargain if its insistence on such an election
is motivated, not by any bona fide doubt as to the Union's majority, but rather a
rejection of the collective bargaining principle or by a desire to gain time within
which to undermine the Union." 3
Here, Kurty responded to the Union's request of January 25 for recognition and
negotiations with swift, retaliatory action against the employees in flagrant violation
of the Company's statutory duty to bargain with the Union and the rights guaranteed
the employees under the Act. Admittedly, Kurty's first move was to forthwith
3 Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd. 185 F. 2d 732 (CA D.C.) ; Arts & Crafts
Distributors, Inc., 132 NLRB 166,169; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Louisville,
Inc, 143 NLRB 848.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
summon Nelson to his office where he unlawfully interrogated Nelson concerning his
union activities and when he did not secure the information he desired, he summarily
fired Nelson. Kurty then discussed possible union suspects among the employees
with Koroleski. Kurty thereupon questioned Amason, according to Amason's un-
denied testimony, regarding organizational activities at the plant, Amason's attitude
and feeling toward the Union, and complained of the employees' failure to discuss
the subject of organization with him before contacting the Union. The interrogation
ended when Amason asked, "Am I fired?" and Kurty answered he "didn't know."
The testimony is clear that Meyers telephoned Kurty around 5:30 the evening of
January 25, to complain of Nelson's discharge and concluded by saying he would
see Kurty the morning of January 28. However, Kurty claimed he also told Meyers
that "as far as he was concerned there was no union in the shop, and no one had
shown him proof that there was a union in the shop." On the other hand, Meyers
denied Kurty ever questioned the Union's majority status or ever requested evidence
of its majority. (This discrepancy in the testimony is discussed below.)
It is undisputed that shortly after the above conversation, about 6:15, Kurty sent
telegrams to the six employees discharging them allegedly for poor work perform-
ance. It is also undisputed Shawver and Amason were notified later that night to
report for work on January 28.
On the morning of January 28, Meyers and Metcalf met with Kurty at the plant
office. Meyers complained of the quick discharge of the employees immediately
following his request for recognition, all of whom had signed union cards, and
requested Kurty to reinstate the men and engage in bargaining negotiations. Kurty
said the men were discharged for unsatisfactory work, that Shawver and Amason
had been put on an hourly rate for economic reasons, and refused to reinstate the
men or to engage in bargaining negotiations. Kurty's version of the meeting was
that he reaffirmed the position he expressed to Meyers in their telephone conversa-
tion the preceding Friday, and there was nothing for them to discuss. Concededly,
the meeting ended with Meyers stating he would file unfair labor practice charges
against the Company, and he did so that morning.
I have no difficulty in finding that the Company, through Kurty's interrogation of
Nelson and Amason, concurrent with his discharge of Nelson, and in the context
of other unlawful conduct, thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.4
I am also convinced from the record that Kurty knew, or believed, the six old
employees were union adherents and that he discharged them within a few hours
after receiving the Union's request for recognition and bargaining in order to destroy
the Union's majority status and to avoid his responsibility to recognize and negotate
with the Union. But, assuming Kurty was unaware of their union membership, the
result would be the same for, by the simple expedient of discharging six of the
nine employees, he thereby effectively dissipated the Union's majority, if not the unit
itself. Moreover, Kurty did not attempt to defend the discriminatory character of
the discharges. It is true he later rescinded the discharge of Shawver and Amason
and subsequently, on January 30, reemployed the remaining four employees, without
any loss of earnings to them. While this action eliminates the necessity for certain
remedial relief, it does not obliterate or lessen the unlawful motivation which
prompted the discharges on January 25. I, therefore, find that by discharging the six
employees in the manner found herein, the Company violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.5
Again, the evidence fully demonstrates that the Company, through Kurty, com-
pletely rejected the principle of collective bargaining and simply refused to recognize
and bargain with the Union, in clear violation of its statutory duty. As found above,
the Company's answer to the Union's request for recognition and bargaining was
the unlawful interrogation and dismissal of its employees. At the hearing, Kurty
attempted to show that he raised some question concerning the Union's majority
status on January 25 and 28. Manifestly, if Kurty entertained any doubt concern-
ing the Union's majority status, he should have expressed that doubt to Meyers
in clear and unmistakable language. However, he did not do so. Indeed, Kurty
admitted he did not ask Meyers to produce any union cards and the best Kurty could
come up with on this subject was that on Friday he told Meyers there was no union
in the shop, that no one had shown him any proof there was a union in the shop,
and Meyers replied he would see him Monday and show him the Union was in the
shop. Oddly enough, when Kurty met with Meyers on Monday, he did not request
4Vincent J Miller and Ferdinand Leards d/b/a Biltwell Trailer Company, 122 NLRB
606, 611 ; Arts & Crafts Distributors, Inc, supra; Byrd's Manufacturing Corp , 140
NLRB 147
5 Vincent J Miller and Ferdinand Leardi d/b/a Biltwell Trailer Company, supra
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 581
Meyers to produce any evidence showing the Union represented a majority of the
employees. Meyers emphatically denied that Kurty ever raised any question regard-
ing the Union's majority or that he requested proof of its majority status. Thus,
there is a conflict in the testimony as to whether the Union's majority status was
questioned even in the manner claimed by Kurty. Based on my observation of Kurty
and Meyers while testifying in the case, I reject Kurty's testimony and find, in
accordance with the credible testimony of Meyers, that Kurty did not question the
Union's majority status or ask for proof thereof on January 25 or 28, or at any time
thereafter.
But, assuming that Kurty requested the Union prove its majority by means of an
election or card check the result would be the same for he immediately engaged in
the unlawful course of conduct found above, which plainly demonstrates that his
request was not motivated by any good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority, but
rather a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle and in order to gain time
within which to destroy the Union's majority status .6
The evidence further discloses that sometime after January 28, Meyers requested
a meeting with Kurty for the purpose of discussing contract terms and Kurty referred
Meyers to Attorney Edwards. Meyers then called Edwards who stated she did not
voluntarily meet with Teamsters' business agents and if he had anything to say to
put it in writing. On February 7 the Company filed an RM petition, which was
nothing more than a tactical maneuver, which was subsequently dismissed.
I find that all times material herein, the Union had been designated by a majority
of the employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and,
therefore, was and is the exclusive statutory representative of all the employees
in the bargaining unit.
I further find that the Company, on and after January 25, refused to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
In its supplemental answer the Company states that due to circumstances beyond
its control there has been almost a complete change of personnel at the plant in
the period from about April 12 to May 27, therefore, it believes a majority of the
employees never designated the Union as their bargaining representative and do not
now wish to be represented by the Union. As already noted (supra), the Company,
as of May 27, had only five employees in the shop, including Palovick. Seemingly,
the import of the supplemental answer is the Company is now under no obligation
to bargain with the Union since it does not currently represent a majority of the
employees. The Board and the courts have held that where, as here, the Union's
loss of majority is alleged to have occurred after the employer had refused to
bargain with the Union and thereafter undertook to dissipate the Union's majority
through acts of interference, restraint, and coercion, the employer cannot rely on
subsequent changes in personnel to relieve him of his obligation to bargain with the
Union which had a majority of the employees prior to the employer's unlawful course
of action.? I conclude the matters set forth in the supplemental answer do not con-
stitute a legal defense to the Company's refusal to bargain with the Union.
The Termination of Shawver and Amason
There is no serious factual dispute as the manner in which Shawver and Amason
were terminated. On the afternoon of January 25, Shawver and Amason were
informed by Kurty their pay status was being changed from a salary basis to an
hourly rate, which meant a loss in earnings for them. Shawver and Amason said
they would think it over, which was satisfactory to Kurty. The next word from
Kurty was a telegram that evening notifying them of their dismissal for unsatis-
factory work, followed by.a second telegram telling them to report for work on
January 28. The same night, or the next day, Shawver and Amason learned that
four other employees had been fired. They agreed, since they had joined the Union,
that Meyers should handle the matter for them. Moreover, when Kurty telephoned
Amason, on Saturday, to ask if he would report for work on Monday, Amason told
6 joy Silk Mills, Inc, supra; 4rts & Crafts Distributors, Inc, supra; George Groh and
Sons, 141 NLRB 931
a Franks Bros Company v N L R B, 321 U S 702 ; N L R B v Armco Drainage &
Metal Products, Inc, Fabricating Division, 220 F 2d 573, 577 (C A. 6) ; N L R B. v
John S Swift Company, Inc, 302 F 2d 342, 345-346 (C.A. 7) ; Balton Insulation, Inc v
N L R B , 297 F 2d 141, 144-145 (C A 4). The Hamilton Plastic Molding Company,
135 NLRB 371, enforcement of bargaining provisions of order denied on other grounds
312 F. 2d 723 (CA. 6).
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him all the employees in the unit would be at the plant Monday morning It is not
necessary to reiterate the events of Monday morning. That afternoon Kurty asked
Shawver and Amason if they were returning to work and when they indicated they
were not, Kurty discharged them. The testimony of Shawver and Amason differs
somewhat from that of Kurty, the gist of it being that Shawver stated they had
joined the Union and would not return to work unless the other dischargees were
returned and the Company signed an agreement with the Union. Kurty did not
specifically deny this testimony. I am satisfied Shawver did answer Kurty in the
manner stated, but I do not attach too much importance to this testimony for the
reason that Kurty already knew Shawver and Amason were union adherents and
Amason had made it clear to Kurty, the preceding Saturday, that their return to
work was a matter to be discussed Monday morning along with the discriminatory
discharge of the other employees. Further, Kurty was fully aware of Meyer's
demand for recognition and his protest of Nelson's discharge and that he was com-
ing to the plant Monday morning to meet with him. Of course, Kurty's adamant
antiunion position foreclosed any worthwhile discussion of these subjects, or any
other subjects, at the Monday morning meeting.
In this situation, Kurty inquired of Shawver and Amason if they were returning
to work and when they indicated they were not, he immediately discharged them.
It may well be that under conditions prevailing at the plant early Friday afternoon,
Kurty may have been fully justified in terminating Shawver and Amason, but he
did not do so. Certainly, it cannot be said that normal conditions existed at the
plant on Monday in view of the unlawful course of conduct pursued by Kurty
following receipt of the Union's demand for recognition. Consequently, Kurty's
discharge of Shawver and Amason allegedly for their failure to return to work im-
mediately at reduced wages, occurring at a time when they were engaging in pro-
tected activities and concurrent with Kurty's outright refusal to bargain, plus the
illegal firing of other employees, convinces me that their dismissal was merely an
integral part of Kurty's plan to eliminate the Union and all its adherents from the
plant, not for the flimsy reason advanced by Kurty. Under all the circumstances, in-
cluding the Company's demonstration of hostility to organization, I find that Shawver
and Amason were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1)
of the Act.8
Since the complaint does not allege any discriminatory treatment of Shawver,
and the General Counsel made it clear he was not seeking any relief for him, I will
not recommend any remedial relief insofar as Shawver is concerned.
The Withdrawals From the Union; the Filing of Unfair Labor Practice
Charges Against the Union
I am fully satisfied from the undenied testimony of Fryckland and Zupan that
their decision to withdraw their union cards was directly attributable to the unlaw-
ful treatment accorded the Union and the antiunion campaign conducted against the
employees. Having created this situation and having supplied the impetus for
abandoning the Union, I have no difficulty in further finding that Kurty encouraged,
supported, and aided Fryckland and Zupan in effectuating their decision to with-
draw from the Union by making an appointment for them to confer with Edwards
and by permitting them to confer with her during working hours without any loss
of pay. Edwards, who had been involved in the matter since January 28, willingly
met with Fryckland and Zupan on February 28, and, as a result of her interroga-
tion, advice, and encouragement, Fryckland and Zupan signed unfair labor practice
charges against the Union.
8 The charge and amended charge allege that Amason, Shawver, and three other em-
ployees were discriminatorily discharged about January 25 in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. The complaint alleges that about January 28, Shawver and Amason
concertedly withheld their services because of reductions in their pay and the Company's
discharge of other employees and refusal to bargain with the Union The complaint fur-
ther alleges the Company refused to reemploy Amason, upon application, on February 9,
because of the foregoing activities, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. In
its answer the Company alleged Amason was terminated in January "at his own election,"
and that it did not accept his offer of February 9 for the reason it did not need any addi-
tional employees. I have found Amason was discriminatorily discharged on January 28,
because the circumstances under which he was dismissed were fully litigated at the hearing
by counsel for both parties and his discharge was plainly within the issues as framed by
the complaint and answer, as well as the charges. As Attorney Edwards waived oral
argument and did not file a brief, I cannot state her position on this point.
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 583
Neither Kurty nor Edwards offered any testimony on this phase of the case.
However, Edwards, in argument on her motion to dismiss this allegation of the
complaint, attempted to justify their conduct on the grounds that Kurty did not
compel Fryckland and Zupan to meet with her and she did not force them to sign
the unfair labor practice charges. Thus, while Edwards concedes aid and assistance
to Fryckland and Zupan, she claims the absence of physical force directed against
them negates the coercive character of their conduct . I find no merit whatever in
this argument . Accordingly , I find that by encouraging, aiding, and advising Fryck-
land and Zupan to renounce their membership in the Union , occurring in the con-
text of other unlawful conduct designed to discourage membership in the Union,
Kurty and Edwards thereby restrained and coerced Fryckland and Zupan in clear
violation of their statutory rights.
The Board and the courts , in numerous cases involving facts far less compelling
than here, have held that an employer by aiding or assisting employees in the
preparation or circulation of petitions to withdraw from a union or for decertifica-
tion of a union , thereby interfered with , restrained , and coerced his employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a)(1) thereof.9
The record conclusively proves that Fryckland and Zupan went to Edwards' office
for the sole purpose of obtaining her advice and aid in withdrawing their union
cards and that they were ignorant of the means by which they could withdraw from
the Union or of procedures before the Board . Edwards thereupon interrogated
Fryckland , in the manner set forth above , and there is nothing in his testimony
which remotely suggests that he, or any of the other employees , signed the cards
as a result of any coercion or misrepresentation on the part of Meyers . Indeed,
the best Edwards could come up with, after all her interrogation, was Fryckland's
remark , "We felt we would have an election ." Of course , the probability of an
election was discussed by Meyers and the employees when they signed the cards
of January 24, but there is no testimony that the employees signed up with the
express or implied understanding that an election was a prerequisite to the Union's
acting as their statutory bargaining representative . Certainly , Edwards knew that
Kurty's actions of January 25, followed by the filing of unfair labor practice charges
against the Company on January 28, precluded the holding of any election until
some disposition had been made of the charge.
Nor did Edwards restrict her activities to merely advising Fryckland and Zupan
concerning their right to withdraw as members of the Union , or even the preparation
of an ordinary withdrawal petition addressed to the Union . Instead , Edwards seized
upon Fryckland 's mere belief an election would be held and prepared a charge
alleging the Union had obtained the employees ' signatures to the cards by misrepre-
sentation in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act, which she presented to
Fryckland and Zupan for signature , and which they signed . Fryckland 's testimony
proves that neither he nor Zupan understood that by signing the document they were
filing unfair labor practice charges against the Union . On the contrary , since they
had made it clear to Edwards they simply wanted to withdraw their cards, and the
charge contains language to that effect , they had every reason to believe the docu-
ment handed to them was nothing more than an appropriate method of withdraw-
ing from the Union . Surely, there is nothing in the record indicating Edwards
explained the full import and meaning of the charge . Moreover , the record also
shows the charge was utterly baseless from both a factual and legal standpoint.
Accordingly , I find that the execution of the charge under these circumstances, con-
sidered in the context of other unfair labor practices , was the result of Edwards'
unlawful inducement and encouragement of Fryckland and Zupan to withdraw from
the Union . Further, motivation for Edwards ' conduct and action is supplied from
her expressed hostility to the Teamsters Union and its representatives as demonstrated
by the manner in which she curtly rejected Meyers ' request for recognition and
bargaining. Consequently, the only purpose in having Fryckland and Zupan ex-
ecute the charge, and the filing thereof , was to harass and embarass the Union and
9 N L R B v Avondale Mills, 357 U:S 362; N.L.R.B. v J. A. Booker, dlb/a Atlantic
Stages, 180 F. 2d 727 (CA. 5), N.L.RB. v. Jack Smith Beverages , Inc, 202 F. 2d 100
(C A. 6) ; N.L.R B v Charles R. Krimm Lumber Company, and Northern Pine Corpora-
tion, 203 F . 2d 194 (C A. 2) ; N L R.B. v. Louisville Container Corporation, 209 F. 2d 654
(C.A 6) ; N.L R B v. Cambria Clay Products Company, 215 F. 2d 48 , 51 (CA. 6) ;
N L R.B. v. Birmingham Publishing Company, 262 F. 2d 2 (C A. 5) ; N L.R.B v Overnight
Transportation Co., 308 F . 2d 279 ( CA. 4) ; Trumbull Asphalt Co . of Delaware v N.L R.B.,
314 F. 2d 382 (C.A 7) ; Southern Block and Pipe Corporation , 90 NLRB 590 ; Cactus
Petroleum , Inc, 134 NLRB 1254 ; Kit Manufacturing Company, Inc., 142 NLRB 957
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to impede, obstruct, and delay the Board in its investigation of the pending unfair
labor practice charges against the Company. In these circumstances the filing of
the charge was a plain abuse of the processes of the Board. Whether the execu-
tion of the charge may have been in violation of the U S. Criminal Code is, of
course, a matter for decision by other authority. Again, whether Edwards' con-
duct was of such a character as might warrant disciplinary action is a matter for
consideration by the Board.
Having found that Edwards advised, induced, and encouraged Fryckland and
Zupan to sign unfair labor practice charges against the Union, I further find the
Company thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced Fryckland and Zupan in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing
on and after January 25, 1963, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with
the Union and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by interrogat-
ing and discharging its employees, by aiding, assisting, and encouraging employees
to withdraw their support of the Union, and by advising, inducing, and encouraging
its employees to withdraw from the Union by the signing and filing of baseless
unfair labor practice charges against the Union, I shall recommend that the Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom or from in any other manner infringing upon
the rights of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by discharg-
ing Joseph C. Amason on January 28, 1963, I shall recommend that the Respondent
offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges,10 and make
him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against him. Backpay, with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum, shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Certified Casting & Engineering, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 243, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at
its Warren, Michigan, plant, excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical em-
ployees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Union at all times material herein has been, and now is, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
10 As Amason is 56 years of age, and his chances of being called into the service are
rather remote , I will omit the usual paragraph contained in the notice advising employees
serving in the Armed Forces of their rights to reinstatement under the Selective Service
Act of 1948
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC . 585
5. By refusing, on and after January 25, 1963, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By interrogating and discharging its employees; by aiding, assisting, and en-
couraging employees to withdraw their support of the Union; and by advising,
inducing, and encouraging its employees to execute and file baseless unfair practice
charges against the Union, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
7. By discharging Joseph C. Amason on January 28, 1963, the Respondent engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
8. By engaging in the foregoing unfair labor practices the Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent, Certified
Casting & Engineering, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment with Local 243, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Ind., as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its
Warren, Michigan, plant, excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical
employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(b) Aiding, assisting, or encouraging employees to withdraw their support of the
above-named Union, or any other labor organization of its employees.
(c) Advising, inducing, or encouraging employees to withdraw from the above-
named Union by the execution and filing of baseless unfair labor practice charges
against the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization of its employees.
(d) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, or
sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(e) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of ,the above-named Union,
or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging Joseph C. Amason,
or otherwise discriminating against him, or any of its employees, in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except as
permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, 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 National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment with Local 243, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the above-described unit, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Offer to Joseph C. Amason immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, together with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records,
time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under
the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." iI Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a
period of 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.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.I2
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, the Respondent notifies
the said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the above recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring it to take
such action.
"If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order."
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Local 243, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., as
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respond-
ent at its Warren, Michigan, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
plant clerical employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT aid, assist, or encourage our employees to withdraw their sup-
port of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT advise, induce, or encourage our employees to withdraw from
the above-named Union through the execution or filing of baseless unfair labor
practice charges against the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union member-
ship, activities, or sympathies in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against
our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Joseph C. Amason to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, refrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
CRANE COMPANY 587
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become and remain or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of the above -named Union or any other union.
CERTIFIED CASTING & ENGINEERING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------- -----
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No. 226-3200,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Crane Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 26-CA-1441. December 24, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 7, 1963, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, only insofar as they are consistent
with the following : 1
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's discharges of
Maynard, Box, and Spence on December 14, 1962, were not motivated
by discriminatory considerations. He concluded that the discharges,
the first two of which assertedly were for leadership in a production
1 As we cannot say that the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions were clearly
erroneous , we agree with him, for reasons stated in his Intermediate Report , that the
speech of Foreman Spicer of the polishing and buffing department to the employees in the
department on the day preceding the election did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
145 NLRB No. 56.