Columbian Iron Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 73 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the 'Matter of COLOMBIAN IRON WORKS and STEEL WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-2168-Decided August 13, 1942
Jurisdiction : ordnance manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General: findings of fact based upon Trial. Examiners Intermediate Report
and stipulation.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: fhreatened cessation of operations; ad-
vance announcement of refusal to agree to possible collective bargaining
requests.
Discrin',ination: discharges because of union membership and activity ; assign-
ment of unconvincing reasons such as violation of rules against smoking and
alleged inefficiency and unsatisfactory work.
Remedial Orders : based upon stipulation and record requiring employer to cease
and desist unfair labor practices and to offer reinstatement and award back
pay,to"discriminated employees.
Mr. John C. MeRee and Mr. Dan M. Byrd,, Jr., for the Board.
Mr. T. Pope Shepherd and Mr. Clifford Curry, of Chattanooga,
Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. 0. S. Baxter, of Chattanooga., Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. George J. Hadjinoff, of counsel to the -Board. -
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASK, `
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing
Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director for. the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint, dated Feb-
ruary 13, 1942, against Columbian Iron Works, Chattanooga, Tennes-
see, herein called the respondent, alleging that the, respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
,2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
43,N. L . R. B., No. 7.
73,
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called the Act . Copies of the complaint and notices of hear-
ing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union..
In relation to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent discharged Fred E. Exum on or
about November 22, 1941, and Lloyd T. Sliger on or about November
25, 1941, and at all times since said dates has refused to reinstate
them because of their union membership and activities , and (2) at
various times since September 1, 1941, the respondent , through its
officers, agents , and supervisory employees , has interfered with, 're-
strained , and- coerced its employees in the exercise of, the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the, Act, by warning employees not to
.become or 'remain members of the UniOn, and by discharging em-
ployees because of their union membership and activities.
Pursuant , to permission granted; the respondent, on or about March
2, 1942, filed its answer in, which it admitted certain allegations of
the complaint but denied that it had engaged in unfair labor. prat
tices and affirmatively alleged certain reasons for discharging.Exum
and Sliger. , .
Pursuant to. an amended notice. of hearing, duly served upon all
the parties , a hearing. was held in Chattanooga,,Tennessee , on March
9 and 10,, 1942, before Joseph A. Wickes, the Trial Examiner dilly
designated by the Chief Trial , Examiner. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel , the Union by a duly desig,
nated representative ; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the
conclusion of the hearing , a motion by counsel for the Board to
amend the complaint to conform to the proof was granted without.
objection.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence.. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no. prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. Subsequent to the hearing counsel for the Board
and for the respondent filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
On April 22, 1942, the Trial. Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were served upon the parties. ' He found
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and, (3 ) ' and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate
affirmative action.
On April 23 , 1942, the Board issued an order transferring the case
to the Board. On June 29 ,,1942, the respondent ,' the Union , and the
COLOMBIAN' IRON WORKS 7,5
=Board entered into a,stipul'atioi in settlement of the case. The; Stip=
ulation provides as follows
The duly . designated Trial Examiner for the National Labor '
Relations Board (hereinafter called the Board) on April 22,;1942,
having issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled, mat-
ter, and it being the desire of the parties to conclude all proceed-
ings before the Board in this case,
It is Hereby Stipulated and. Agreed by and between the'parties
hereto : '
(I) ' That the findings of fact made by the Trial Examiner in his
Intermediate Report may be adopted by the Board as its findings
of fact.
(II) That, without further and, other procedure before the
Board to which the parties may be entitled under the National
Labor Relations Act, or the Rules and Regulations of the Board,
the Board may, upon the basis of the entire record in the case and
this stipulation make findings. of fact and enter the following
order:
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and stipulation,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) 'of the National Labor Relations
Act,. the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Columbian Iron Works, its officers, agents, successors and assigns,
shall :
1: Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging nieinbership in Steel Workers Organizing
Committee or any other labor . organization of its employees by
discharging any of its employees or in any other manner discrim-
inating 'in regard to their hire and tenure of 'employment, or any
tern! or condition of employment;
(b-) In any, other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain 'col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage, in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-.
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed 'in _Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2., Mike the following affirmative action to effectuate the,pol-
icies.of the Act:
(a) Offer to Fred E. Exum immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the said Fred E. Exum for any loss of, pay
he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimniiiation
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIO'N°.S BOARD
in regard to his hire and tenure of employment ,. by payment to him
of the sum of Four Hundred ($400.00 ) 'Dollars;
( c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant No.
2 at Chattanooga , Tennessee , and Iiiaintain for a period of at
least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices
to its employees stating : ( 1) that the respondent will not engage
in the conduct from which it is ordered that it cease and desist
in paragraphs 1 (a) and ( b) of this ' Order; (2) that the re-
spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs
2 (a) and (b) of this'Order ; (3) that the respondent 's employees
are free to become or remain members of Steel Workers Organiz-
ing Committee , affiliated with the . Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations; or any other labor organization' ; and that the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of that organization or any other
labor organization; _
(d) Notify the Regional.Director for the Tenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date.of the receipt of this
Order what steps the respondent.has taken to comply herewith.
(III) That the parties hereby, consent to* the entry by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
upon application by the Board, of a, decree enforcing the Order
of the Board as above set forth,.without further notice of said
application. .
(IV) That the execution of this stipulation and entry of said
decree shall conclude all proceedings before the Board in. the
above-entitled case.
(V) That the entire agreement is contained within the terms '
,of this stipulation and that there is no verbal agreement of any
kind which varies, alters or adds •to thi§ stipulation.
(VI) That this stipulation is subject to the approval of the
Board and shall become effective . immediately upon the grant-
ing of such approval.
On July, 27, 1942, the Board issued an order approving the Stipu-
lation and making it -a part of the record in' the case.
Upon the above Stipulation and the entire record in the case, in-
cluding the Intermediate Report, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS of FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Columbian Iron Works,'is a Tennessee corporation
having its principal office and place of business in Chattanooga,
Tennessee. It owns and operates two plants in'- Chattanooga, one
of which is known as plant No. 1 and - the other as - plant No, 2.
.COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS. 77
All of the capital stock of the respondent is owned by. Mueller Com-
pany, a corporation having its principal office and place of business
in Decatur , Illinois . Mueller Company also owns and operates plants
in Decatur, Los Angeles,. California, and the Province of .Ontario,
Canada.
The respondent's plant No. 2 in Chattanooga, Tennessee, is the only
plant involved in this proceeding. This plant since about May 1,
1941, has been engaged, and is now engaged, in processing shells for
the Ordnance Department of *the United States Army. In the opera-
tion of the plant the respondent receives rough forgings from ' the
Quartermaster's Department of the Army, and performs certain ma.
chine processes upon these forgings, which are then shipped under
orders from the Ordnance Department of the Army. All rough
forgings which are to be processed at the plant are shipped to it from,
points outside the State of Tennessee, and all shells which have been
processed or finished at the plant are shipped to points outside the.
State of Tennessee.
For the purposes of this proceeding the respondent admits that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 19, 1941, a number
of the employees happened to be in the dressing room at plant No. 2
and were there discussing working conditions. There had been no
Union activity or 'discussion about joining any union among the
employees at the plant before that time: Several of the men com-
plained about the fact that some of the new machinery and equip-
ment which had recently been installed was breaking down and that
production was thereby interfered with, so that they were deprived
of all opportunity to work regularly, whereby their earnings were
being reduced;, since most of them were paid by the hour.. Among
those present in the dressing room on this occasion were Fred E.
Exum and Lloyd T. Sliger, both of whom were then employed as
inspectors.
As a result of a suggestion made by Exum that the proper thing
for the men to do was to join a union, it was agreed that Exum, who
had formerly been a member of a union affiliated with the C. I. 0.',
0
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would communicate with a representative of that organization.
Exum, through an acquaintance, got in touch with William H. Hen-
a representative of the Union, and, made an appointment to
meet him that evening. Exum and three of the other employees met
with Henderson that evening and discussed with him; the matter of,
joining the Union. It was agreed at that, time that a meeting ' would
he held on the following Friday evening, November 21, at the C. I. O.
Labor Hall in Chattanooga. ' Exuin, and his wife wrote upon some
union pamphlets which Henderson gave him the time and place of'
the meeting which- had been agreed. upon. Exum. took these
pamphlets' to the -respondent's plant with him when he A'A ent to work
on Thursday, Noveriiber 20, 1941, and left them in the locker room."..
About 12 or 14 of the employees attended the meeting held on
November 21, and approximately 10 of these men,' including Exum
and Sliger, signed application cards for membership,. paid their dues
for the current month, and' were admitted to -membership in the
Union. Those who joined received buttons, upon which appeared
the names of the Union and of the C. I. O. and which recited that
their union dues had been paid for the month of November 1941.
They wore these buttons while working at the plant on the following
day, November 22, 1941. About 10: 30 a. in. on that day Exum was
discharged. The circumstances attending his discharge are set forth
'fully herein in Section III B 1.
L. W.. Mueller is vice president and general manager of the .re-
spondent 'and is an executive officer of Mueller Company, the cor-
poration which owns all of the-respondent's capital stock. His home
is in Decatur, Illinois, and he is in charge of all plants of the re-
spondent-and of Mueller Company. On Monday morning, November
24, 1941, Mueller arrived at the respondent's plant No. 2 after an
absence from Chattanooga of a week or 10 days. Immediately upon
his arrival he was informed by.F. A. March, the superintendent of
the plant, that some of the employees were wearing C. I. O. buttons
and that these buttons had first appeared during the preceding week.
On the same morning Paul G. Jacka, the plant manager, turned over,
to Mueller an anonymous letter which he had just received by mail.
The envelope containing this letter was postmarked -"Chattanooga,
Tenn., Nov. 23, 1941," and the letter purported to come from an uni-'
'dentified employee at the plant. It was stated in'the letter, among
other ,things, that the men' were dissatisfied because of the low wage
I Evidence was introduced that certain anti-C. I. 0. statements were made by one C.'P.
Tallent, a son of Foreman C. A. Tallent, to Exum at the plant on November- 21, ,1941.
The. record fails to show that at the time these statements were made C. P. Tallent•was
a supervisory 'employee of the respondent. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
C. P. Tallent was not a supervisory employee at that time and that Exum had no reason
to believe that his remarks represented the, attitude of the respondent.
0
COLUMBIAN IRON 'WORKS 79-
. scale prevailing at the plant and because they were allowed no rest
period. The letter also contained a statement that 80 percent of the
employees were members of the C. I. 0.'. and that Jacka should:not
think, because he did not see a union button on a man, that the man
did 'not have, one: About 3 o'clock on the afternoon of that day, the
hour when the first shift went off duty and the second shift came on,
Mueller ordered all of the machinery shut down and addressed a
meeting of the employees who worked on both shifts . There is no
substantial conflict in the testimony as to what Mueller said on that
occasion . His own testimony about the speech is accepted as correct,
with the exception that he did not testify that in the course of his
speech he promised the employees an, increase in wages. - However,
he did not deny having made such • a. 'statement , and was not ques-
tioned about it while he was on the stand. Sliger, H. C. Young, and
H. M. Powell testified without contradiction that Mueller stated in
substance on this occasion that the respondent had lost money in
getting the plant started , and that, if the employees would be patient,
they would all receive more money when the plant reached its full
productive capacity: We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Muel-
ler made in substance the statement which they attributed to him.
As indicated above, the remainder of Mueller's speech is correctly.
reflected in his own testimony . He testified that he first referred to
the anonymous letter -which Jacka had received, and stated that he
was interested in it not as a threat but from the standpoint of the
welfare of the employees . The following excerpts from Mueller's
testimony indicate the substance of what he said on .this occasion :
I told them that we had been in a terrible confusion, we had
been working under a terrific handicap, that I knew that condi-
tions were bad; I knew that working conditions were bad, and ,I
said that now we were getting straightened out and that I wanted
to do many things that I thought would help them make their
working conditions pleasant.,
I told them , I said, "I can make a decision two or three dif-
ferent ways , but I would rather make it the way to suit you best.
If you people want to meet with me as a committee , or as indi-
viduals, or if you want me to meet with a committee of outside
organization , I ani perfectly willing to meet with you on-that
basis," and- I said, We will discuss those things which are to
your welfare."
I .discussed this letter, and I said, "I frankly don't under.
stand what they mean by a rest period, and I don't understand,
some of the other statements about wages," and I explained the
Walsh-Healy Act; and I also explained about the federal deter-
mination bf wages , and what the minimum wage was, and went
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
all through that. I said I couldn't understand some of these
things. If they, would come to me and explain, I would be
pleased to death to know what they were.
Then I explained in this meeting further that they had the
right to organize as they saw fit, if they wanted to belong to
the C. I. O. or the A. F. of L., or any other organization, that
was their business, and I had nothing to say about it, that I
was in no-man's land, I was out. I was perfectly willing to
accept their wishes:
I told them that I would say this, that the Constitution of the
United- States guaranteed every man civil liberty and the pur-
suit of happiness, and to' me that meant an open shop, and I
would not agree to a closed shop, and if it closed- the factory,
then .it closed -the factory, that they might as well know my
position then as any other time. Outside of that, I had no
objection to the union. That, I think, is the gist of the meeting.
It is argued by the respondent that these statement by Muellei
were in effect simply a declaration of the terms of the Act and the
policy of the respondent with respect to collective bargaining. Un-'
doubtedly some of the statements made by Mueller, standing alone,
,are innocent enough. However, his speech must be looked at .as 'a
whole, and must be considered in the light of the circumstances then
existing at the plant. It must be borne in mind that union` activity
had commenced there only a few days before, that no demand for
collective bargaining had been. made upon the respondent, and that
Mueller had just learned of this activity through the report made
by March. to him about the appearance of the union buttons in the
plant, and the receipt of the anonymous letter addressed to Jacka.
It requires no extended argument to convince one that the remarks
made by Mueller were designed, and had a natural tendency, to
discourage membership in the Union by pointing out to the employees
that certain benefits which are normally achieved by collective bar-
gaining, such as a redress of grievances, an.improvement in working
conditions, and an increase in wages, would be received by them
whether or, not the demands for these benefits were presented by a
union, and that another benefit which might flow from collective
bargaining, i. e., the closed shop, would be denied them, even if
they engaged in union activity and collective bargaining, and even
at the cost of closing the entire 'plant. "Statements such as this,
made in advance of any demands by the Union, and at a time when
the Union is first seeking to establish itself as a bargaining agent,
constitute an anticipatory' denial of possible advantages to be derived
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS - 81
, from collective bargaining , and are obstructive of the employee's right.
to self-organization." 2
On, the following morning,. Tuesday, November 25, 1941, Sliger
was discharged. The. circumstances attending his discharge are set
forth fully herein in Section III B 2. As indicated above, both Sliger
and Exum were employed as inspectors at the times of their dis-
charges. Rufus L. McKinney was also employed as an inspector at
the plant and was a member of the Union at these times. On the
morning of November 25, 1941, after Sliger.had been discharged; Mc
Kinney noticed that Sliger was absent from the place where, he usually
worked. He asked J. C. McCormack, the chief inspector, where Sliger
Was and McCormack replied that "they had let Mr. Sliger go" and
that "it looked like we was all going to lose our jobs over this union
business." McCormack also said that "the Government didn't need
them shells, and they would just close the shop down." McKinney then
told McCormack that there was another job that he could get and
that he did not want to get into any trouble at the plant or be dis-
charged.' He further told McCormack that, if lie could obtain a satis-
factory separation slip 3 from the management, he would leave the:
respondent's employ at .any time that they were willing for him to.
go. McCormack said "all right" and left McKinney. A short time
later McCormack returned andsaid to McKinney, "Well, we can make
out a satisfactory slip, or you can work a ten-day notice, or you can
quit now, or any time." Whereupon McKinney told McCormack that,,
if it were satisfactory with him, he would quit at noon. Accordingly,
McKinney left the, respondent's employ on that day. This incident
was testified to by McKinney, and is not contradicted by any evidence
in the record. McCormack did not testify at the hearing. As did_
the Trial. Examiner , we credit McKinney's testimony and find that
the incident occurred substantially as related by McKinney.
The respondent takes the position that McCormack at the time of-
this conversation was not a supervisory employee and, therefore, that
it is not responsible for the statement made by him. Mueller testified.
that at this time McCormack had no supervision over any of the men,,
but was a mere instructor; that his duties were to instruct the inspec-
tors and to check in detail everything they did, to see that their work.
was satisfactory; that usually McCormack himself. did no actual
inspection work, such its was done by the inspectors generally; that,.
2 Matter of J. Allen Smith cf Company, Inc., and Flour Drill 111orkers ' Union, Local No.
22074, 27 N. L . R. B. 1386 ; Matter of . Roberti Brothers , Inc. and. Furniture 1Vor1.ers-
Union, Local ' 1561, 8 N. L. R . B. 925; Matter of Bemis Bro. Bag Company and Textile
Workers Union of America , 28 N. L . R. B. 430.
1 In testifying about the separation slip the witness was referring to the separation
notice, signed by the employer, which the Tennessee Unemployment Compensation Division
requires an employee who is discharged or who lea' es his employment for any cause to file.
with it.
481039-42-vcl.43 6
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in addition to ordinary inspectors and the chief inspector, the respond-
ent employed head inspectors ; and that the chief . inspector occupiedt
a higher position than a head inspector . He also testified that "a head
inspector might have a head over one or two machines, or might
have been a head over a unit or part of a unit that is designated to do
the checking of certain operations previously done." At the time of
this conversation above referred , to, McKinney was a head inspector. -
He testified that he considered McCormack to be his boss and that
he took orders from him. McKinney further testified that all the
inspectors, of Nvhoin'there were about 10 or 12, were under McCormack's
charge at this time. Exum , who, as noted above, was also an inspector,
testified that prior to this time McCormack had been placed in full
.charge of the inspectors , who were told by the management that, if
they had any complaints or if anything-went wrong, they were to go
to McCormack about the matter. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that at the time of the conversation between McKinney and McCor-
mack, the latter was a supervisory employee of the respondent and as
such had the power to bind the respondent by the statement which he
made to McKinney. It is apparent that this statement was calculated
to discourage membership in the Union. That McKinney took the
statement seriously as an authorized expression made by a responsible
supervisory employee of,the respondent , rather than as a passing per-
sonal remark without meaning or effect, which the respondent contends
that it was , is made evident by the fact that he gave up his job because
of what McCormack had told him.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by Mueller 's speech and by
McCormack 's statement to McKinney , the respondent has interfered
with; restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B:'The discharges
1. Fred E. Exum
Fred ' E. Exuin began to work at the respondent's plant as an
inspector on or about October 15, 1941, and continued to work in
that capacity until November 22, 1941, when he was discharged. His
discharge occurred on the morning following the meeting at which,
he and about 9 other employees of the respondent joined the Union.
Exum worked on the first shift, beginning work at 7 a. in.. On the
morning in question Exum punched the time clock between 6: 45 and
6:50 a. in., and then went to the dressing room and put on his work
clothes. He reached his place of work a few minutes after 7 o'clock.
A number of the employees were a few minutes late in reporting to
work-that morning . About 7: 30 a. in. Exum observed Jacka, the
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS 83
plant manager, and March, the'superintendent of the plant, standing
near him, watching him work. Exum testified.that at this time March
came. over to where"he was working and chided him for .haying come
to work a. few minutes late. Jacka testified that it was he who talked
to Exum on this occasion and chided. hint for his tardiness. It is
a Smatter of little importance whether it was Jacka or March who
'talked.to Exum, but it appears from the evidence that one or the other
or perhaps both of, them did speak to 'him about his having been
few minutes late in reaching his place of ii,-6A:. ' Exum worked
without interruption from that time until about. 10: 30 t. m., at
which time lie asked Joe Peters, the. inspector who worked next to
hint, to take care of his shells for a few minutes, and, upon Peters'
agreeing to do this,,he walked directly to the rear platform of the
building in which the respondent conducts its operations. This plat-
form is constructed of concrete with steel reinforcing, and there is
-a metal roof above it, but the sides are open like a porch. The rear
platform is approximately 200 feet from the place where Exum was
accustomed to' work. While Exum was walking towards the rear
platform, he' passed C. A. Tallent, the foreman, of the, first shift.
As soon as Exum reached the rear platform he took a cigarette and
some matches from his pocket, and was standing on the platform
with them in his hands, but had not lighted either of them, when
Tallent came through the back door to the platform. Tallent asked
him whether he was smoking, and Exum told him that he was not
smoking, but that it had been his intention to do so.. Tallen't took
Exum to March's office, where March explained to Exum that he
had orders from Jacka to discharge anyone who was caught smoking.
While. Exum remained in March's private office, March went to a
telephone in his outer office, and there 'telephoned Jacka, who was
not at the plant at ' the time. Exum did not hear this telephone
conversation. • March then returned to his private, office, and. told
Exum that Jacka had told him that he would have to discharge" him.
Accordingly, March discharged- him at that time. On, the following
Monday, November 24, 1941, Exum went to Jacka's office and obtained
from him a 'separation notice so that he'might file it with the Ten-
nessee Unemployment Compensation Division in accordance with the
laws of that State.. The separation notice was signed for the respond-
ent by Jacka,, and recited that "this man was away from place. of
work, on rear platform, with intention, . as admitted to foreman, to
violate Company smoking rule."
The contention of the respondent as. to the reason for Exum's
discharge is•set forth in the following excerpt from its answer:
The employee Fred E. Exumi was discharged November 22,
1941, because he left his machine during working hours and
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went to the back end of the plant for the purpose of smoking,
which , was definitely against the rules of the Company and
against the rules of the government inspectors . On the same
date he came to-work a few minutes after the work whistle had
blown, and he was then advised by the Manager that he must
be -on his job on time . Later in the same day he left his ma-
chine and was in the act of: smoking , and it was thought he
was an unsatisfactory employee as .he.had violated the rules and
neglected his duties and he was therefore discharged.
As pointed out above , Exum came from the dressing room to his • place-
of work a.few minutes late on the day that he was discharged, and
was reprimanded for this by Jacka or March or both of them. How-
ever, it appears from the undisputed evidence that several of the em-
ployees reported a few minutes late that morning and that this inci-
dent had nothing whatever to- do with, Exum's discharge . Jacka
testified that Exum's being late in coming from the dressing irooin that
morning had'nothing to do with the decision to discharge him, and,
March testified that the only reason for his discharge was his violation
of the rule igainst- smoking.
It is not clear from the above -quoted excerpt from the respondent's.
answer whether it is sought to be alleged that Exuni was absent from
his place of work during Avorking hours on more than one occasion
oil the day of his discharge . However, the undisputed evidence shows
that he was absent from his place of \vork on only one occasion after
reporting to work that morning and prior to his discharge , i. e. the
occasion on which C . A. Tallest found him on the rear platform with
an unlighted cigarette and matches in his hands. The respondent
contended that the mere absence of Exum from his place of work on
this occasion , irrespective of whether or not he intended to smoke, was
a serious breach of the rules of the respondent and afforded some justi-
fication for his discharge . However, it appears conclusively from the
record that it was customary and permissible for eniployees ..toleave
their , places of work occasionally during working hours . It is obvious
that there are occasions when an employee must leave ' his place of
work, and no employer could expect his employees to work without
interruption for a period of many hours. Tallent testified that, when
it was necessary for, an 'inspector to' leave his place of work during
working hours , he was not required to obtain permission from. anyone,
and that it was customary and permissible under such circumstances
for him to ask the inspector who worked next to him to attend to his
work during his absence.. - This testimony was corroborated by Exum,
.who further testified that, when he left his place of work and went to
the rear platform , he requested Joe Peters , the inspector who worked
next to him , to attend to his .work during his absence , and that Peters
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS. 85
agreed to do so: The undisputed evidence shows that 'on this occasion
Exuni'had been absent from his place of work for only a few minutes
when Tallent went io the rear platform and found him there. That
the absence of an employee for a few minutes did not seriously affect
the operations of the respondent is evident from the testimony that,
employees customarily and necessarily absented themselves from their
places of work for brief periods of time.. In this connection March-
testified that an employee's absence from his place of work for a few
minutes would do no harni. At the time of E*tim's discharge March
did not mention his brief absence front his place of work as a reason
for the discharge. In the light of all this evidence, we fiiid, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the absence of Exum from his place of work on
the. day of his discharge was not a factor in his discharge.,
As appears from the above quoted excerpt from the respondent's
answer, it was alleged therein that' "it was thought he was an unsatis-
factory employee as he had violated the rules and neglected his duties
and lie was therefore discharged." . There is no evidence in the record
that Exum had violated the rules of the respondent or had neglected
his duties on any occasion prior to.the day of his discharge. All of
the respondent's witnesses, including Exum's foreman, the superin-
tendent of the plant, the plant manager, and the respondent's vice pres-
ident and general manager, testified that Exum was a good worker
and an able man.
It is apparent,, therefore, that the only serious reason which the
respondent advances for discharging Exum is that he violated the
rule against smoking. - It is alleged in the respondent's answer that .
his conduct was agairist the rules of the Government inspectors,
but no evidence' as to any rules laid down by the Government in-
spectors was introduced The plant. of the respondent which is
involved in this proceeding consists of one large brick building with
concrete floors. Much of the interior of the building is constructed
of wood, and it is not a fireproof building. The respondent does not
produce completed shells. Its operations are confined to processing
the metal parts of the shells. No explosives are used in connection
with the respondent's operations, and none are stored at the plant.
At the time when Exum started to work for the respondent he was
given a copy of a -pamphlet containing rules and regulations govern-
ing the conduct of the employees at the plant. It was the custom
of the respondent to give a copy of this pamphlet to all of its new.
employees. Among the rules which appear in the pamphlet are the
-following : -
Stay in your department. Don't leave it without your Fore-
inan's permission . . . Don't smoke during working hours or
any time in places where "No Smoking" signs are placed. When
leaving work do not light up before reaching the street door.
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL! LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There were number of "no.smoking" signs posted at various points
in the interior of the building. There, is a conflict in the testimony
as to whether any such sign had been posted on or near the rear
platform at the time when Exum was discharged. Exum,. Sliger,
and McKinney testified. that there was no such sign on or near the
rear platform at this time, while Hale, Powell, Tauber, and C. A.
Tallent' testified that at this time "no smoking" signs had been'
posted there. Upon the entire record and from his observation of
the witnesses, the Trial Examiner found that such signs had been
posted on the rear platform for several months prior to. Exum'E
discharge. We concur with the Trial Examiner in this finding. The
undisputed evidence shows that the signs which.were posted bore
the words "no smoking" and nothing more. Notwithstanding the
"no smoking" signs and the rule with reference to smoking con-
tained in the pamphlet distributed to the employees, the evidence is
undisputed that smoking was a daily occurrence among the employees
at the plant and that the rule against smoking was flagrantly and
openly violated for a period of many months after the respondent
commenced processing shells at the plant about May 1, 1941. 'During
this time no serious effort was made to enforce the rule. For a period -
of about 3 weeks beginning during the latter part of October or
early in November 1941, the plant underwent a -thorough reorganiza-
tion. New machinery was installed and a number of new employees
were hired. During this period Mueller, Jacka, and March decided-
that the rules with reference to smoking should be more strictly
enforced. March testified that he instructed Foreman Tallent to
inform, all the employees that the rule. against smoking was to be
strictly enforced and that the penalty for disobedience would be dis-
charge. He'further testified that Tallent later reported to him that
he had so notified all the' employees and that this occurred before the
date when Exum was discharged. Tallent corroborated the testimony
.which March gave as to the instructions which were given to him,
,and testified that he had personally notified all the employees of these;
instructions. Some of the employees testified that Tallent had told
.them about the instructions with reference to smoking, but Exum
and -others testified that neither Tallent nor any other supervisory
employee ever told them that the rule against smoking was to be
enforced.. The Trial Examiner found, as do we, that at no time
did Tallent notify Exum that the rule against smoking was to be
.strictly enforced or that the penalty for a violation of it would be
discharge. Moreover, there is no . evidence in the record that any
other supervisor or officer of the respondent at anytime told Exum
about the new instructions which had been given with reference to'
this matter. .
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS ..87
'. ,'. It appears.that Exum was the only employee who was discharged
for au alleged violation of the rule against smoking. It is difficult
to believe. that this was the real reason for his discharge. During
.the period . of. reorganization the plant was wholly or partially shut
down. New machinery was being installed, and great confusion
reigned. It, is not clear from the record during exactly what period
of time this reorganization occurred. Mueller testified that it was
between October 27 and' November 17, 1941. March'testified that it
began about. November 1, 1941, and lasted for approximately 3 weeks.
J n any event it would seem that the period of reorganization had
expired only a few days before Exwn was discharged. If those who
were responsible for the respondent's policy in this matter had en-
tertained any serious intention of discharging an employee.for violat-
ing a rule which had been so flagrantly and openly violated in the
past, it: is difficult to understand why they did not take steps to
make certain that all employees were notified of the new policy. In
this connection it is to be noted that the pamphlet containing rules
and regulations governing the conduct of respondent's employees,
which was introduced in evidence, contains the following statements :
Rules and factory practices are subject to change from time
to time.
Employees should get the habit of watching the bulletin
boards.
The bulletin.boards in the factory and office are the official
means of communication with employees. Hereon are posted
from time to time notices regarding any change in our rules or
practices or new information, and are of concern to every one
who works here. 'It is therefore highly important that, you read
each notice. .
It was through the medium of a posted notice on the bulletin board'
that the respondent notified' its employees on or about December 1,
1941,. of the new detailed instructions with reference to the times and
places that. smoking would be allowed which were put into effect at
that time. However, this medium of communication with the em-
ployees was not utilized in connection with the rule against smoking
which; according to the testimony of the respondent's witnesses, was
put into effect during the period of reorganization.. The only mode,
of communication adopted at this time was oral communication with
the employees, through C. A: Tallent, whose testimony -that he com-
municated the change in policy to all the employees has riot been
credited.
The old prohibition against smoking contained in the respondent's
pamphlet of- rules and regulations- and reflected in the "no smoking"'
signs posted at the plant was rendered nugatory. by its widespread.
:88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and open violation. Moreover, there was no actual violation by
Exum of the rule against, smoking. His , testimony and that of
Tal.lent show that he was merely holding an unlighted cigarette and
.some matches in his hands at the time when Tallent. found him on
the rear platform. The respondent in effect claims that this man
was discharged for a mere intention to violate the rule' against
smoking. -
Exum was a leader in the union movement among the employees
at the plant. He was apparently. the only one of the employees who
had formerly been a member of a union affiliated with. the C I. 0.,
.and he was the first to suggest to the other employees that they
join a union. It was he who first made contact with a union repre-
sentative and arranged for the meetings of November 19 and 21.
,He was among the four employees who attended the meeting with
this representative on November 19, and obtained from him some
pamphlets, which he took to his home and upon which with the aid
of his wife he wrote the time and place of the meeting. He left
these pamphlets in the locker room at the plant on November 20.
He was among those who attended the meeting on the evening of
November, 21 and joined the Union on that occasion. His discharge
occurred on the following morning.
.It . is. clear that the respondent and a number of its- supervisory
employees. knew at the time when Exum was discharged that he
was a member' of. the Union acid active in the organization of the,
men at the plant. It appears that a number of the men who. had
joined the Union wore union buttons on their vork clothes at the
plant on' the morning when Exum was discharged. Sliger testified
that, after he had been -working about an hour that morning, R. H.
Tauber came over to where he was working, inspected his union
button, and "kidded" him about wearing it. It'will be recalled that
'Sliger worked on the shift which commenced work at 7 a. in., so
that this incident occurred several hours before, Exum's discharge,
which took place about 10: 30 that - morning. Tauber corroborated
Sliger's testimony about the incident. , At this time Tauber was a
tool engineer and' instructor it the plant and was in charge of in-
stalling the new machinery. He was an engineer by profession and
,occupied a responsible position with the respondent. He was appar'
.ently on close terms with March and the other, supervisory employees
at'the plant, and was in March's office when Exum was discharged.
Exum testified that Tauber approached him that morning before he
was discharged, inspected the union button that he was wearing, and
.asked him what it was, and that he then informed Tauber that it was
a dues button of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. Tauber
was' questioned on the, stand 'as to whether Exum wore a button that
COLUMBIAN IRON. WORKS '89
morning, and testified that he did not remember having seen one on
Exum. Exum's testimony about this incident ig accepted as true.
Jacka, March, and C. A. Tallent testified that they did not see
a union button on Exum on the morning when he was discharged.
However, they did not positively deny that he wore a button at that
time, and he testified that he wore a button during all the time that
he was in the plant that morning. The undisputed evidence shows
that some of the. employees wore union buttons that morning, and
March and C. A. Tallent testified that they saw some of these but-
tons on the men at the plant that day. Since Exum was a leader
in the union movement, and since there is no dispute about the fact
that some of the men wore union buttons that morning, it is most
unlikely that Exum did not wear one, and it is found that he did
wear a uniory button that morning. As has been indicated above,
Jacka, March, and C. A. Tallent talked to Exum at close range prior
to' his discharge that morning. Jacka testified that he was about
2 feet from Exum when he talked to him shortly after 7 o'clock that
morning and chided him about having reported late to work. March
testified that he saw union buttons on some of the employees that
morning, and. Mueller testified that, when he arrived at the plant on
Monday, November 24, after an absence of a week or 10 days, March
reported to him that he had seen'some of the employees wearing
C. I. 0. buttons at the plant during the previous week. In view
of all this testimony, it does not appear likely that these men who
talked at close range with Exum that morning did not observe the
union button which he was then wearing. We find, therefore, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Jacka,, March, and C. A. Tallent observed
the union button, which Exum was ' wearing that morning, and from'
their observation of it and of the other matters which ' had been
brought to their attention, knew that Exum was a member of the
union at the time when he was discharged. It is inconceivable that
the, respondent would have discharged an ' employee with a good
record as a worker merely because he intended to violate a rule which
had been openly violated for months,.where no effective means had
been taken to notify him that the. rule was to be. enforced strictly in
the future. We concur with the Trial Examiner in finding that the
real reason for Exum's discharge was not his violation or intended
violation of the smoking rule'nor any of the other reasons alleged
in the respondent's answer. In the light of all the testimony, and
in view of the circumstances' attending his discharge, we find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent discharged Exum be-
cause of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent has dis-
criminated in regard to hire and-tenure of employment of. Fred E.
Exum, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and inter-
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the - exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Lloyd T. Sliger.
Sliger began working for the respondent as an inspector during
the early part of September 1941, and continued to work in that
capacity until he was discharged on November 25, 1941. When he
reported for work shortly before 7 o'clock on the morning of that
day, the watchman stopped him at the door of the plant, and told
him to wait until March, the. superintendent, arrived, -since March
wanted the see him before he. went to work. When March. arrived,
he informed Sliger that he was going to have to discharge him.
:Sliger testified that he asked' March why. he- was being discharged,
and that March at first informed him that it was because he had
.Smoked. at the plant. March testified that he told Sliger at this
time that he had been smoking and that he was also unsatisfactory,
but later testified that the true reason for the' discharge was that
Sliger was an unsatisfactory employee and that smoking really had
nothing to do with the decision to discharge him. After some further.
-conversation with March and after discussing the matter with Mueller
and Jacka, Sliger rode. with the -latter in his automobile to his office
.at - the respondent's plant No.. 1 in Chattanooga, where Jacka gave
him a separation notice, reciting the following reason "for his- dis-
charge : - "Unsatisfactory.' Not suited to -work available at our plant.
Believe would be satisfactory in other type of work." This separa-
tion notice was- signed.by Jacka in behalf of the respondent. ,
As indicated above, the respondent contends that it discharged
Sliger because he was an inefficient and unsatisfactory employee.
:C. A. Tallent testified, that Sliger did not stay on the job, but roamed
about the plant and took no interest in his work. He further testified
that, on two occasions, he went to Sliger and told him that, he would -
have to stay on the job and get his. shells inspected. Sliger denied
that Tallent or anyone else had ever complained to him about his
work. Tallent further testified that he reported Sliger's conduct
to March on two' occasions, both of which occurred before the re-
organization of the plant which commenced during the latter part of
October or early in November 1941; and that he made a similar
report to Jacka during the period of reorganization. March testi-
fied that Sliger was accustomed to let defective shells pass. his -in-
spection and that McCormack, the chief inspector, reported that
:Sliger did not get -along well. with him. March testified further
that on two occasions he found, S'liger in the back yard of the plant
during working hours and told him to go back to his work. March
and Jacka testified that. they recommended to Mueller. that Sliger
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS 91
'not be retained in the respondent's - employ after the period of re-
organization, and Mueller corroborated their, testimony. However,
Sliger was retained, although the uncontradicted testimony of March,
Jacka, and Mueller shows that during this period the less efficient
men were dropped from the employ of the Company, while the- more
efficient, men were retained, and a number of new men were employed.
March testified that' during the period of reorganization Mueller
looked at Sliger's record and thought that he had a good one, and
therefore wanted to give him another chance. Mueller corroborated
this testimony.
Rufus L. McKinney, who was a head inspector and as such had
occasion to reinspect shells which had been inspected and approved by
Sliger, testified that Sliger's work was satisfactory and that he never
detected any defective shells that had been approved by him. He
further testified that Sliger was a hard .worker and did not loaf on..
the job.
The testimony of Mueller, Jacka; and March is to the effect that
Sliger was retained in the respondent's. employ during and after
the period of reorganization, although the less efficient employees
were not retained after this time, and in spite of Jacka's, March's,
and C. A. Tallent's recommendations .that he be discharged, because
Mueller 'interceded in his behalf and stated that he would like to
see him given another chance. Mueller testified that he told Jacka,
March, and Tallent that he would personally watch Sliger,. and
that'he did watch him work every day, most of the day, during the
3 weeks' period of reorganization, which, according to Mueller, lasted
from October 27 to November 17, 1941. It is difficult to reconcile
this testimony of Mueller with his testimony and that of March that
the plant'. was shut down totally during part of this period and
ptirtially shut down at other times during the period. 'During this
time new machinery was installed, it number of new employees were
hired,..a.nd all of the employees had to be instructed in the use of the
new machinery. There was much confusion during this period, and
Mueller and the other officers ,and supervisors were busily engaged
in getting the plant to operate smoothly under the new arrangement.
Mueller's testimony also shows that he was absent from Chattanooga
from November 15 to' November 24, and that ,on the day' of his
return to the plant he gave March instructions to discharge Sliger.
It would seem; therefore, that' Mueller had little opportunity to ob-
serve, Sliger's work from the beginning of the period of reorganiza-
tion up to the time of his return. to the plant on the morning of
November 24, 1941. Mueller testified that Sliger was "re-employed"
on probation after the shut-down, but.,no one told- Sliger about this,
or warned him that he was in danger of being discharged. if his work
or his attitude did not change. .
92 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the morning of November,24, 1941, the incident occurred which,
according to, the respondent's contention, was directly responsible
for Sliger's discharge. H. D. Young ,'an inspector who had formerly
worked with Sliger at his. bench, was moved to another. part of the
plant,, and an inexperienced, man was' assigned to assist Sliger in his
inspection work.. Mueller's version of this incident is reflected in
the following excerpt from his testimony : .
That morning; I walked by Sliger's bench and shells were
piled up with this second inspector assisting him, and Mr. Sliger
said to me, "Mr. Mueller, didn't you give us instructions that the
operators 'of these machines were not to produce shells faster
than we could inspect them?" And I* said, "Yes, that is,exactly
what I said," because we were just starting and I didn't. want
any rejects to get accumulated in inventory, and he said, "Well,
now, look, there they are piled up against' that' man, and he, can't
inspect them."
I said "Well, Sliger, what ' are you doing?" And he said,
"`Nothing."- I said, "Well, why in the deuce don't you help him?"
And he said, "Well I, suppose I could," and I said, "By God,
you had better." I was getting pretty hot under the collar about
that time, so I walked away:
I watched him for the next two or three hours. I: watched
him until almost noon, as I circulated among the machines, and
he still made, no effort to cooperate, and still the shells piled
up, and so that night I made up my mind, I said to Mr. March,.
"Discharge the, man, I don't want him," I said, "You all were
,right in your opinion of him and I was wrong." So I dis-
charged him, I was entirely responsible.
Mueller's testimony is corroborated in part by that of March, who
testified that the new man who, was working with Sliger could not'
keep up with- his part of the work, and that Sliger would not. help
him. He further testified that Mueller went over to Sliger's bench
and asked him 'if he couldn't help the new man, and that Sliger
said, "Well, I guess I can." IvIarch, according to his testimony, left
at that point in the conversation, and did not hear the remainder of
it, but he testified that Mueller that night instructed him to discharge
Sliger on the ground that Sliger was not satisfactory. .On direct
examination Sliger testified about this incident as follows :
Q. During your conversation, now, what, if anything, was
,ever said by Mr. Jacka or Mr. March about your work and about
the reason for your being fired?'
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS 93
A. Well, they didn't say anything. Mr. Mueller came up, he
sent a new man over there for me to teach to inspect. Let's see,'
it, was the day before I 'got fired, I believe, and the shells were
coming through so fast, I couldn't. teach him, and they moved
Mr. Young over to another table, and I didn't have time to
teach him. -
Q. Whowa.sthe new man he sent over?
A. I don't know', he sent a farmer boy who had never seen
a shell or a machine shop before, he told -me, and when I would
get ready to show him a part of the operation, he would ask
me a dozen,.'questions about it and then wouldn't understand it,
then, you see, so a man, of that type, I knew 1, couldn't teach
him, so, I did the work myself rather than be bothered with him.
On cross-examination he gave the following testimony
Q. Why, didn't you and Mr. Mueller have an argument the
day you were, fired?
A. The day I was fired?
Q. The day you were discharged, he came to your machine
and you' were standing there doing nothing and he got after
you and sort of fussed with you for standing. there and not
working? S
A. At my- machine ? I wasn't even working on a machine, I
was working on a table.
Q. You were standing there next-to the machine where your
inspection table is?
A. Mr. Mueller came around to me and asked me,, he says,
"Mr. Sliger, if it comes through too fast for you," he says, "I
will. give you more help," and I says, "All right, if its gets to
coming through faster than I can handle it, I will let you know."
Q. Didn't Mr. Mueller come down there and say, when you
complained about the machine delivering them too fast to you,
didn't Mr. Mueller tell you, "Why don't you 'go to work, you
are standing there doing nothing?"
A. No, sir, he didn't tell me that.
Q. Expecting that green boy to do all the work?
A. The green boy, how could he do a particular operation like
that, when he didn't know beans from rice?
Q. You deny that you were standing there and doing nothing?
A. At that particular time?
Q. Yes, and Mueller got after you and that is what you were
fired about? -
A: There weren't three minutes that day' that I wasn't going
like a racehorse, because I 'had to do both jobs, they took Mr.
Young away .from me.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
We accept, as', did the Trial Examiner, Sliger's version of this oc-
currence--as substantially correct, and find that on the day preceding
his discharge Sliger did not loaf and did not refuse to assist the new
man who had been assigned to work with him, but, on the contrary,.
performed his own duties as. an inspector and helped the new man
to the best of his ability.
Sliger was a leader 'of the employees who started the'union move-
ment at the plant. They approached him in the dressing room on
November 19, 1941, and requested him as their spokesman to call on '
Mueller in an attempt to obtain' better working conditions. He was
among the group of men who accompanied Exum when the first at-
tempt was made to get in touch with a representative of the Union.
He attended the meeting of November 21, 1941, and was among those
who joined the Union on that occasion. No chairman or officers were
elected by those present at this meeting, but the other men requested
him to act as their spokesman at the meeting in discussing with Hen-
derson the matter of affiliation with the Union, and he did so. Sliger '
was one of the men who wore a union button while he was working
at the plant on November '22 and 24, 1941. 'He testified that on No-
vember 22 Tauber inspected the button that he was wearing and
joked with him about it. . Tauber-corroborated his testimony about
this matter. March testified that he observed that Sliger was wear-
ing a union button on November 22, and Mueller's testimony shows
that, when he arrived at the plant on the morning of November 24,
1941, March immediately informed him that some of the' employees
were wearing union.buttons at the plant, and that these buttons had
first made their 'appearance during the previous week: Mueller testi-
fied that he did not kno)v that Sliger was .a member of the Union at
the time' when he ordered that he be discharged, but leis denial is not
credited in view of the circumstances and the testimony of the other
witnesses, in the case. March apparently was greatly interested ,in
the appearance of the union buttons at the plant, and mentioned it to
Mueller at the earliest ' possible moment. It is likely that he, told
Mueller the names of the. employees upon whom he had observed these
buttons. It is undisputed that Mueller watched.Sliger work for sev-
oral hours that morning, and engaged him in conversation.: He could
hardly. have avoided 'noticing the union button which Sliger wore at
that time. Moreover, about noon on that day Jacka turned.over to,
Mueller. th -,.'anonymous letter which he. had received, and in, which
it was stated that 80 percent of the employees were members. of the
C. I. 0.. `All of these things; occurred before, Mueller ordered. March
to discharge Sliger. We find therefore, as did the Trial Examiner,
that at"the time when "Mueller ordered March to discharge`,Sliger
and', a.t the time.when. March: `discharged Sliger, both Mueller` and
March knew that Sliger was a member of the Union.-
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS. 95
Mueller was apparently greatly concerned at this time about the
union activity at the plant. Jacka and March had discussed the
matter with him, and he was sufficiently. interested to call a meeting
of the employees on the same day that he ordered March to discharge
Sliger, at which he attempted in a'subtle manner to discourage mem-.
bership in, the. Union; as, has been found in Section III A. Exum
had. been 'discharged 2 days before, because of his union membership
and activities, and by these actions. the attitude of the respondent'
and its officers towards the Union had been clearly' manifested.
Against this background, Sliger was discharged, and the only rea-
son which the respondent advances for his discharge is that he was
an inefficient and unsatisfactory employee. It has been found that
on November 24, 1941, Sliger did not loaf or refuse to assist the new.
inspector, but performed his own work and helped the new man to
the best of his ability. Under all the circumstances it is obvious' that
the respondent's contention that Sliger was discharged- :because he
was inefficient 'and unsatisfactory is not borne out by the record; and
that the incident of November 24 was the occasion but not the real
reason for the discharge of Sliger. This being true, the only plau-
sible explanation of Sliger's discharge is that the respondent and its
officers were motivated in discharging him by a desire to. get rid of
one of the. most' active members of the Union and thereby to dis-
courage membership in the Union.
We 'find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent has dis-
criminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Lloyd T.'
Sliger, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above Stipulation, findings of fact, and the
entire record in the case,case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that -the respondent, Columbian Iron Works, Chatta-
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nooga, Tennessee , and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Steel Workers Organizing Com-
mittee or any other labor organization of its employees by discharging
any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire. and tenure of employment, 'or any term or, condition of
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to.
form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities for the' purpose. of collective bargaining or, other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies
of the Act :
(a) Offer to Fred E. Exum iminediate and full reinstatement to
his former . or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights, and privileges;
(b)' Make whole the said Fred E. Exuin for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination in
regard to his hire and tenure of employment, by payment to him of
the sum . of Four Hundred ($400.00 ) Dollars ;
'(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant No. 2 at
Chattanooga, Tennessee, and maintain ,for a period of at least'sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to- its em-
ployees stating: (1), that the respondent will not' engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered that it cease and desist in para-
graphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of
this Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become
or remain members of - Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations ; or any other
labor organization ; and that the respondent will not discriminate
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of,that organization or any other labor organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region 'in'writing
within ten ( 10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken' .to comply herewith.