Columbian Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 883 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL.
MOLDERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL No. 53
Case No. C-1J,59.Decided June 21,- 19410
Fire hydrants , gate valves and water works products manufacturing-Inter-
ference, Restraint , and Coercion : . anti-union statements by supervisory em-
ployees ; discouraging membership in union ; threat to close and move plant;:
threat to discharge for union activity-Discrimination : charges of , dismissed.
Mr.. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr. and Mr. Arthur C. O'Connor, for
the Board.
Mr. Herbert. G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn:, for the I. M. U.
Mr. T. Pope Shepherd and Mr. Robert-H. Caldwell, of Chattanooga,
Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. Richard A. Williams, of counsel to the Board-.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Molders' Union of North America, Local No. 53, herein called the
I. Al. U., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth Region
(Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint, dated March 27, 1939, alleging
that Columbian Iron Works, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee, herein
called 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 Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint,
accompanied by notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent
and the I. M. U.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that since on or about January
1, 1936, the respondent urged, persuaded, and warned its employees
to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the I. M. U. and
threatened them with discharge and other reprisals unless they did so
refrain; that on or about June 1, 1937, the respondent instituted and
24 N. L. R. B., No.93.. •
883
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continued a system of individual contracts with its employees covering
their wages , hours, and conditions of employment ; that the respondent
discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
four named employees by discharging and refusing to reinstate them
because they joined and assisted the I . M. T. a pd engaged in other .con-
certed activities for their mutual aid and protection ; and that by these
and by other acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act., On April 6, 1939, the respondent filed an answer
denying the allegations relative to the unfair labor practices in the
complaint and making certain allegations by way of an affirmative
defense thereto .' Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in
Chattanooga , Tennessee , on April " 6,. 7, and 8, 1939 , inclusive , before
Albert Lohm, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board, the respondent , and the I. M. U. were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-'
ing upon the issues was afforded all parties .. During the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on various motions and
objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has.reviewed the
Trial Examiner 's rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 8, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that
the respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
He further found that the allegations in the complaint of discrimina-
tion by the respondent against the four named employees, within the
meaning of Section' 8 (3) of the Act, were not substantiated by the
evidence . He recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices and that the allegations of the com-
plaint in respect to discrimination of the "respondent against the four
named employees be dismissed. Thereafter the respondent and the
I. M. U. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
On February 27, .1940, pursuant to notice served on the parties, a
hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held. The respondent
was represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The
Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and of the
I. M. U. and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Counsel for the respondent and'counsel for the I . M. U. filed briefs for
the consideration of the Board.
On March 29, 1939, the Regional Director granted the respondent an extension of. time
until April 6, 1939, in which to file an answer.
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS, INC. 885
Upon. the entire record in the case,'the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Columbian Iron Works, Inc., a Tennessee corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place' of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee, is en-
gaged in the production of fire hydrants, gate valves, and "water
Works products." It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mueller Com-
pany Ltd., of Decatur, Illinois, which operates - plants in Illinois,
California, and Canada., The raw materials used by the respondent in
its operations include pig iron, scrap iron, scrap steel, red brass, and
manganese bronze, a large portion of which is shipped to the respond-
ent's plant from sources outside the State of Tennessee. The products
sold by the respondent annually amount to 5,173,414 pounds in vol-
ume and to $510,627 in value. More than 97 per cent of these products
are sold and shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee. The
respondent makes these sales through Mueller Company, Ltd. It
admits in its answer that it is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
There are about 160 persons employed at the respondent's plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Molders' Union of North America, Local No. 53, is
a labor. organization affiliated with the American Federation of. Labor,
admitting to its membership workers engaged in the production . of
castings, including employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Prior to 1933 the respondent operated under a closed-shop agree-
ment with the I. M. U. About December 15, 1933, following the
purchase of the respondent's plant by the Mueller interests, Adolph
Mueller, president of both the respondent and of the Mueller inter-
ests, addressed a meeting of the respondent's employees and informed
them that the closed-shop policy was being abandoned in favor of
an open shop.'
2 Thereafter the respondent reconditioned its plant and installed some $400,000 worth of
"labor saving" -machinery . Many employees were displaced at this time by colored workers
who were not I . M. U. members . As a consequence of this reorganization the respondent
became involved in a proceeding before the old National Labor Relations Board, and on
November 8, 1934 , the old Board issued a decision ordering the respondent to bargain
collectively with the I. M. U. but holding that the evidence did not warrant a finding that
the respondent had discriminated against I . M. U. members by displacing them with "labor
saving" devices . Matter of Columbian Iron Works Company and International Molders'
Un4on of North America, Local No . 53, 1 N. L . R. B. (old) 152.
283035-42-vol. 24-57
'886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 1, 1935, the I. M. U. asked the respondent to sign a con-
tract covering its foundry workers including those in the core room.
At this time, the respondent explained that it "didn't think a con-
tract was necessary" and asked that the new policy of "open shop" be
given a "chance." The I. M. U. acquiesced in this.
B. Interference, restraint, and. coercion
As we noted above, the I. M. U. had some organization in the
respondent's plant at the time the Act became effective, although the
extent of this organization is not clear from the record. Thereafter,
according to substantially undisputed evidence, the respondent's
supervisory and executive officials made numerous anti-union -state-
ments on various occasions designed to discourage membership in and
activity on behalf of the I., M. U.3 In September 1936, Joseph Guffey,
one of the respondent's employees, who had been temporarily sus-
pended from the I. M. U., had a conversation with Plant Manager
Paul G. Jacka, in the latter's office,4 which in substance was as..follows:
Jacka asked Guffey how he happened to be "suspended from the
organization J. M. U.)." Guffey explained that he was suspended
for non-payment of dues. To Jacka's question "Do you have any
intention of reinstatement?" Guffey replied affirmatively. Jacka
then asked "What way do you think it is going to benefit -you to
belong to any labor organization?" and he added that, before the
respondent would permit a "bunch of men around here" to' dictate
to it, it would "close the doors down" and move the plant. During
this same conversation Jacka also emphasized the fact that the,
respondent's policy was and would continue to be one of "open shop."
Thereafter Jacka said to Guffey, in another conversation, "You said
you were not . a member-of the organization J. M. U.)." Guffey
replied, "I told you I had been. a member of the organization but I
was not at the time you were talking to me. I said I was a reinstate-
ment (sic).", Jacka then stated "It has come to me pretty straight
you were trying to stir up trouble . . . and you are still at it." , Later
Guffey had a third conversation with Jacka, who warned, "Guffey,
you better watch your step down there. The trouble is still going
on. If you want to hold your job you better watch your step." About
the same time the I. M. U. was carrying on a new organizational drive
in the respondent's plant. Guffey and three other employees, Robert
E. Dooley, Maurice Lee, and Arthur E. Hancock, took a-leading part
in these organizational activities, which reached a peak in' June of.
3In this connection we note that the respondent made no effort to'disavow'the statements
of its supervisory and executive officials.
' Guffey' s presence in Jacka's office originally resulted from another matter with which we
.are not here concerned.
I
COLUMBIAN IRON. WORKS, INC. 887
1937. We find that. Jacka's remarks relative to the "trouble" for
which Guffey allegedly was responsible, had reference to Guffey's
I. M. U. activity. The threat of discharge contained in Jacka's re-
mark to Guffey "If. you want to hold your job you better watch your
step" is clear.
About January 1, 1937, Plant Manager Jacka approached Hancock
and stated; "I don't know whether you belong to the union (I. M. U.)
or not" but "when you fellows down there get to where you can tell
us how to run this shop we will close her down and move her ..."
Some • time later, Assistant Foreman Howard Morton approached
Dooley, and informed him that there was "too much talk" of the
I. M. U. "going around the shop" and that if it did-not "quiet down"
there • would be "steps taken by the management." About the same
time Oscar Black, one of the respondent's employees, who had joined
the I. M.. U. the previous evening at Guffey's solicitation, was ap-
proached by Foreman Donald Andrews, who stated, "I heard you
went up and joined the union last night;" and continued, "Well, that
is all right;; you have just as much, right to join the union as anybody
else. I, am not going to fire you for joining and I am not going to
fire you for not joining, but what good is it going to do you?" The
same day Plant Manager Jacka also inquired of Black, "Do you
think you are going to get any good out of what you did last night?"
Asked what he meant, Jacka replied, "`joining the union. I will tell
you now you are not going to do any good. at it." Jacka then asked
Black if he -vas "going up there (to the I. M. U. hall) again" and
Black. replied- "No."
In July of 1937, L. W. Mueller, the respondent's vice president,
during a conference with an employee committee from the core room,
informed the committee that he "understood that they were organiz-
ing," that he did not object to the employees "belonging to an organi-
zation" but that "if conditions developed in this plant" as had existed
in another plant he would "close the plant down." Mueller made
similar statements to various individual employees on other occasions.
Under the circumstances of this case; it is clear that Mueller intended
to warn the employees that he would shut down the plant if the
1. M. U. succeeded, in its organizational campaign and then proceeded
to make any bargaining demands which did not meet with Mueller's
approval. At the hearing Mueller admitted making the statements
attributed to him and stated that he "meant just that too." He ex-
plained that he so addressed himself to his employees in a "spirit of
advising." It is clear, however, that his remarks were intended to
have, and did have,.the effect of discouraging I. M. U. activities by
the. employees. .
Although the record establishes that Mueller, Jacka, Andrews, and
Martin' are supervisory, employees, the respondent disclaims responsi-
888 DECISIONS Or" NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bility for their above-mentioned statements on the ground that such
statements were made in violation of its rules. It is clear, however,
that the foregoing activities of its supervisory officials'are attributable
to the respondent under the Act.'
We find that the respondent by questioning its employees relative
to their I. M. U. activity, by disparaging the I. M. U., by threatening
its employees with discharge, by threatening to close down or move
its plant unless they refrained from activity on behalf of the I. M. U.,
and by stressing to its employees the fact that it was maintaining an
"open shop" interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in:
the exercise of the rights. guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint alleges that the respondent, on or about June. 1, 1937;
instituted and continued a system of individual contracts with its
employees in violation of the Act. The record shows that following
some conferences with certain of its employees relative to their wages,
the respondent installed a system of cards in its plant. On the face
of these cards was provision for the employee's name, his wage rate,
and the date on which he was entitled to a wage, increase. On the
other side of the card, above space for a- signature, appeared the
following wording :
I, the undersigned, understand that my wages will be in ac-
cordance with the schedule of wage rates shown on the face of
this card, for the, time that this schedule is in effect and that my
wage increases-will be based upon actual hours worked..
The duration of the schedule was indefinite and the testimony relative
to the nature of the understanding embodied in these cards was
conflicting. Only part of the respondent's employees, including -Guf-
fey, Dooley, and Hancock, were asked to sign one of these cards, and
the system was not installed in any of the respondent's other plants.
The respondent denies that these cards were intended to be contracts
and ' contends that. they were simply "company records, showing the
date- of employment and base wage of an employee, and a statement
of dates upon which the employees would receive a ,scheduled advance
in wages." In addition, it does not appear that these cards in. any
way were intended to, or did, constitute a bar to future bargaining
negotiations between the respondent and its employees or the I. M.. U.
In view of all the circumstances surrounding this incident we do not
believe the evidence sustains the allegation in the complaint that the
respondent instituted a system of individual contracts with its em-
ployees, in violation of the Act.
The respondent also lays considerable stress upon the fact that it had repeatedly
informed its employees that they were free to join any organization they wished with
impunity . Such assu rances, however, become meaningless when accompanied , as here, by
threats to move the plant , warnings. to the employees to "watch your step" if they wished
to hold their jobs , and other forms of intimidation and coercion.
COLUMBIAN IRON. WORKS, INC. 889
O. The allleged discriminatory discharges
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged and refused
to reinstate Joseph Guffey, Robert E. Dooley, Maurice Lee, and
Arthur E. Hancock. The respondent, in its answer, denied dis-
criminating against the men named in. the complaint and averred
affirmatively that, they were "laid off" because of a business recession
and that they were not reemployed because of the installation of
labor-saving machinery which could be operated by unskilled labor.
Guftey, Dooley. Lee, and Hancock were employed on August 28,
1934, January 23, 1935, August 28. 1934, and August 23, 1934,respec-
tively, in the respondent's core room at 32 cents an hour. When their
employment by the respondent ceased they were earning 621/2 cents,
571/z cents: 75 cents, and 65 cents an hour, respectively. Guffey and
Dooley were laid off on October 25, 1937, and Lee and Hancock were
laid off on February 15, 1938. By virtue of the respondent's rules,
these employees were no longer considered employees after a 3-
month lay, -off. All four men were active I. M. U. members and took
a leading part in the I. M. U. drive from January to June 1937. As
noted above Guffey, Dooley, and Hancock were among "those em-
ployees subjected to repeated threats and warnings by the respondent
because of their activity on behalf of the I. M. U. There is no con-
tention by the respondent that the work of the four employees was
unsatisfactory. ,
In June of 1937 the respondent encountered a business recession
and in July five employees over whom the four employees here in-
volved had seniority, were transferred from the core room to mainte-
nance work. On September 15 one of the five employees was laid off
and by December 26 all of these five -employees had been laid off.
Thus by February 15, 1938, the employment .of nine persons in the
core room, including the four here involved, was terminated. ' There-
after, four skilled employees, all of whom had seniority over the'nine
employees laid off, remained in the core room. Subsequently the four
employees here involved requested reinstatement on several occasions.
This request was refused on the ground that the respondent had
installed labor-saving machinery which was operated by unskilled
labor.
It appears that the respondent commenced purchasing the labor-
-saying machinery in question in January 1937, when it acquired a
small core-making machine. In late 1937 it acquired a large core-
making machine and thereafter three small machines. By July 1938
all five of these machines were being operated by seven unskilled
employees hired at various times after May 23, 1938. The new men
were paid 30 cents an hour. On several occasions Guffey, Dooley,
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lee, and Hancock requested employment as machine operators at the
30-cent wage, but the respondent refused this request allegedly on the
ground that it did not think the four employees would be satisfied
to work at reduced pay. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial
Examiner found that there had been no discrimination against
Guffey, Lee, Dooley, and Hancock. In view of the fact that the-
lay-offs of `these men were substantially in accordance with their senior-
ity, we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that there was
no discrimination in their lay-offs.
There remains, however, the question of whether the refusal to
reinstate Guffey, Dooley, Hancock, and Lee at the 30-cent -hourly
wage, was discriminatory. As already noted the respondent bases its
refusal to reemploy the four employees on its belief that they would
not be satisfied to work at the reduced pay. Although the four- em-
ployees testified that they were-willing to work at the reduced-wages,
the important issue here is. whether or not the respondent honestly
believed that their dissatisfaction' with the lower wage would render
them less desirable' than new employees. In view of the respondent's
clear hostility to the union activity carried on by the four men, there
is considerable doubt on the latter point. Since there is no other
clear evidence tending to impugn the respondent's motives, however,
the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the respond-
eiit denied reinstatement to the four men because of its belief that
they would be dissatisfied with the 30 cents an hour wage.
We find that the respondent in laying off and denying reinstate-
ment to Guffey, Lee, Dooley, and Hancock did not discriminate
against them in violation of Section 8 (3) 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease
and desist from such interference,, restraint, and coercion,. and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
COLUMBIAN IRON WORKS, INC. 891
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, .and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONOLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Molders' Union of North America, Local No. 53,
is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in.the exercise of the rights guaranteed, in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of,
the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings - of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent , Columbian Iron Works, Inc., its officers , agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1.` Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing; or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join; or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to"
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate.-the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places at its Chatta=
nooga, Tennessee, plant, and maintain them for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will not
engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist as
aforesaid, and
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has. engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MR. EDWIN S . SMITH , dissenting:
I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that there
was no unlawful discrimination against Guffev, Lee, Dooley, and
Hancock.
These four men were leaders in the I. M. U. organizational activity
which reached a peak in June of 1937. It is abundantly clear that
such union activity met with the respondent 's disapproval and pro=
vided a powerful motive for the respondent to discriminate against
leading participants therein. Moreover , it appears that each of the
four men here involved was, on one or more occasions , singled out by
the respondent's supervisory officials and warned or advised against
a continuance of union activity. Under these circumstances, the re-
spondent 's explanation for its subsequent denial of employment to
these men must be subjected to close scrutiny.
While it appears that a business recession was the true cause for
the lay-offs of Guffey, Lee, Dooley, and- Hancock, the important
question here is why the four men were denied reinstatement there-
after. The labor -saving machinery subsequently installed by' the
respondent to do work formerly done by the four employees was
operated by unskilled laborers . Since the four men clearly could have
operated the machines, it is noteworthy that the respondent failed..
to offer any * of them employment as machine operators , but hired
,new employees instead. Thereafter the respondent also denied
specific requests of the employees for employment as machine oper-
ators, allegedly on the ground that they tiyoi ld not be "satisfied" with
such menial work at a lower wage. The respondent did not at any
time offer to' try the employees out as machine operators to determine
if they would be satisfactory in such positions . The four employees
at all times have indicated their willingness to accept employment
as machine operators . Under these circumstances, I am unable to
find that the respondent honestly believed that the employees would
not be satisfied with such work. In view of the prior clearly ex-
pressed hostility of the respondent to the I. M. U., and the fact that
the four,men each had been singled out by supervisory officials and
advised against further I. M. U. activity , I am convinced that the
respondent seized upon the installation of labor -saving machinery as
an opportunity to rid itself of four leading union members.