Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 732 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and UNITED AuTOMOBII E
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 440
Case No. C-398.-Decided January 20, 1940
Automobile Manu facturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion:
distributing anti-union literature to employees ; questioning , advising , warning,
and threatening employees with respect to the union and disparaging the effec-
tiveness of the union as a bargaining agent; reporting union leader to
immigration authorities in order to raise obstacles to his continued union
activities ; maintaining surveillance of a union meeting ; charges of interference
with distribution of union circulars , not sustained-Discrimination : charges of,
as to 23 employees , not sustained.
Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board.
Putnam, Bell, Dittch d Santry, by Mr. Arthur J. Santry, Mr.
Charles F. Dutch, and Mr. Roscoe Cross, of Boston, Mass., and
Cravath, DeGersdorff, Swaine do Wood, by Mr. Frederick H. Wood
and Mr. Alfred McCormack, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Samuel Angoff, of Boston, Mass., and Davidow & Davidow, by
Mr. Larry S. Davidow, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Theodore W. Kneel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been filed by United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local 440,1 herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by A.
Howard Myers, Regional Director for the First Region (Boston,
Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated September 3, 1937, against
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent, at its Somerville, Massachu-
setts, plant, 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, herein called the Act.
1 The second amended charge was filed by the United Automobile Workers of America.
19 N. L. R. B., No. 79.
732
FORD M'OTOR COMPANY 733
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as
amended, alleged that the respondent (1). distributed among its em-
ployees pamphlets and circulars disparaging labor organizations and
advising them not to join such organizations, thereby discouraging
their membership in the Union; (2) warned its employees, through
supervisory officials, not to join the Union; (3) maintained surveil-
lance over union meetings in order to discourage attendance of em-
ployees; (4) discriminatorily discharged 23 employees because of
their membership in the Union; and (5) forcibly prevented the
distribution of union circulars in the vicinity of its plant. On
September 13, 1937, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint,
denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
therein or that such alleged unfair labor practices affect commerce,
within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Boston, Massachusetts,
from September .13 to 20, 1937, before James C. Batton, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond-
ent, and the Union were represented by counsel and 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 opening of the hearing, counsel for
the respondent moved to dismiss paragraph 7 of the complaint, which
alleged that the respondent distributed pamphlets and circulars criti-
cizing and disparaging labor organizations for the purpose of dis-
couraging membership in the Union, on the ground that the Board is
without jurisdiction to pass upon the respondent's circulation and
distribution of such pamphlets in the exercise of its constitutional
guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. The Trial Exam-
iner denied this motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner ruled on other motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 3, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on all the parties, finding
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act, by distributing pamphlets and circulars among its
employees discouraging membership in the Union, by maintaining
surveillance of a union meeting, and by warning employees, through
supervisory officials, to refrain from joining the Union. He accord-
ingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist from engag-
ing in these activities. The Trial Examiner further found that the
evidence did not sustain the allegations in the complaint that the
respondent forcibly prevented the distribution of union circulars in
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the vicinity of its plant or that it discriminatorily discharged the
23 employees. He recommended that the former allegation be dis-
missed. As to the latter allegation, he recommended that a further
hearing should be held if an investigation subsequent to the resump-
tion of normal production operations disclosed the respondent's
failure to reinstate the 23 employees.
On February 14, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to various
rulings of the Trial Examiner and to the Intermediate Report and
on April 14, 1938, filed a brief in support of its exceptions. On the
following day, pursuant to notice, the respondent and the Union par-
ticipated in a hearing before the Board for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. At the same time, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss
the charge and complaint, and, in the alternative, a petition for leave
to adduce additional evidence and for leave to object, except, and
argue to any other or further findings, report, or memorandum to be
considered by the Board prior to the issuance of a decision herein.
The Board has considered the motion and the petition and finds them
to be without merit. The motion and petition are hereby denied.2
The Board has also considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and the brief submitted in support thereof, and, in so far as
the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 3
Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation having its principal
executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan, is engaged in the manufac-
ture, assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles, automobile:
The respondent seeks in its petition leave to adduce, inter alia, additional evidence with
respect to the "lawless activities " of the Committee for Industrial Organization and the
Union throughout the United States at the time of the events set forth in the complaint. In
International Association of Machinists , Tool and Die Makers Lodge No. 35, affiliated with
the International Association of Machinists , and Production Lodge No. 1200, affiliated with
the International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 29 (C. A. for
D. C.), enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. • L. R. B. 621, the respondent advanced
a similar defense in its answer . The Court of Appeals disposed of that defense as follows :
The final and conclusive evidence of the company 's adamant purpose under no
circumstances to recognize U. A. W. is found in the answer filed by it in this pro-
ceeding. Portions of it charged that C. I. 0. (and U. A. W. ) was engaged in a
nation-wide illegal conspiracy to seize plants in various parts of the country, in-
cluding the Muncie plant , under the guise of collective bargaining activity. Prop-
erly stricken for the purpose of preventing introduction of testimony to sustain
them, they cannot be stripped from the record as admissions of the company's fixed
purpose.
$ The facts hereunder are derived from a stipulation entered into between the Board and
the respondent and from findings contained in the Board 's decision of August 9, 1939,
Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, 14 N. L. R. B. 346.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 735,
trucks, and various automobile parts and accessories. The respond-
ent owns, operates, or maintains manufacturing or assembly plants in.
many States throughout the country and operates sales and service
branches in practically every major city in the United States.
Foreign subsidiaries of the respondent operate in a similar fashion
throughout the world.
This case is concerned with the respondent's plant in Somerville,
Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, assembly,
sale, and distribution of automobiles and trucks, automobile parts,
equipment, and accessories. This plant sells and distributes its prod-
ucts to dealers in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Connecticut. Approximately 90 per cent of, all
the parts, equipment, and materials used in the manufacture and
assembling of Ford automobiles and trucks at this plant are shipped
to it from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Dur-
ing the 18 months' period ending June 30, 1937, the plant assembled
77,875 automobiles and trucks. Forty per cent of the automobiles
and trucks assembled and 20 per cent of the parts, equipment, and
accessories manufactured during this period were sold and shipped to
places outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Automobile Workers of America., Local 440, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion,4 admitting to its membership employees of the respondent at
the Somerville plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Distribution of anti-union literature
Early in May 1937, a group of the respondent's employees dis-
cussed during their lunch hour the desirability of organizing a
union. Alfred J. Soper, an employee in the trim department, offered
to undertake the initial steps and shortly thereafter procured union
membership application cards, which he.distributed among the re-
spondent's employees. The Union held its firstmeeting on Saturday
afternoon, May 8, at the Knights of Pythias Hall in Somerville. A.
second meeting was held on May 22, at the same hall.
Between the first meeting of the Union on May 8, and its next meet-
ing on May 22, the respondent distributed pamphlets to its employees
entitled "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor," a reprint of a newspaper
6 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR IIELATIONS BOARD
interview. The employees were also given cards termed "Fordisms,"
containing excerpts from various statements by Henry Ford attack-
ing labor organizations. These "Fordisms," which also appear on
the first page of the pamphlet, read as follows :
FORDISMS
Monopoly of JOBS in this country is just as bad as a monopoly
of BREAD !
Our men ought to consider whether it is necessary for them to
Pay Some Outsider Every Month for the Privilege, of Working
at Ford's.5
What was the result of these strikes-merely that numbers of
men put their necks into an Iron Collar. I'm only Trying to
Show Who Owns the Collar.
Figure it out for yourself. If you go into a union they have
Got You-but what have You Got?
We have always made a better bargain for our men than an
outsider Could. We have never had to bargain against our men
and we don't expect to begin now.
There is no mystery about the connection between Corporation
Control and Labor Control. They are the Two Ends of the Same
Rope. A- little group of those who Control Both Capital and
Labor will sit down in New York and settle Prices, Dividends-
and Wages.
The pamphlet "Ford Gives Viewpoint on Labor," subtitled
"Cautious Workers on Organization," contains a bitter attack on'
labor organizations. The following are some of the viewpoints on
labor attributed therein to Henry Ford :
But, now along comes another group that says : "There are
100,000 jobs out at Ford's. If you want one of them, pay us
a registration fee, and so much every month, and we will pass
you in, and you can work as long as you pay us." This group
is asking us to sit still while it sells our men the jobs that have
always been free. If we agreed to this, they would have complete
control of American labor, a control no one has ever before
had.
I have never sought to prevent our men from joining any
association-religious, racial, political, or social. No one who
In place of this "Fordism ," the pamphlet contains tht; following :
This group ( the union organizers ) Is asking is to sit still while it Sells our
men the jobs That Have Always Been Free.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 737
believes in American freedom would do that. When our menu
ask about unions, I give them the same advice as when they ask
about any of the other schemes that are always aimed at work-
ing men's wages. I say to them : "First, figure out for yourself
what you are going to get out of it. If you go into a union,.
they have got you, but what have you got?"
We think our men ought to consider whether it is necessary
for them to pay some outsider every month for the privilege of
working at Ford's. Or, whether any union can do more for
them than we are doing.
If union leaders think that they can manage an automobile
factory better than we can, and pay better wages under better
working conditions than we can, why don't they build a factory
of their own and show us up? They have the capital-they have
all the money they need and a lot more. The country is big;
they have the men; and think.of all the union customers they
would have!
If the union leaders are sincere, they should go- into business
themselves. If they have thought out a better way to manage
business, let them demonstrate what it is. If they can't do that,,
why do they pretend they can?
Of course, the financial interests that use strikes as a way
to build up unions, would not permit them to build new fac-
tories-big progressive factories with everything in them that
union leaders now demand. They don't want that. They want,
control. I have always made a better bargain for our men than
an outsider could. We have never had to bargain against our
men, and we don't expect to begin now.
There is no mystery about the connection between corporation
control and labor control. They are simply the two ends of
the same rope. To have one, you have got to have the other.
You may say as emphatically as you like, that all this does not
disturb me in the least. I know the scheme is wrong, and it will
not work.
The pamphlets and cards clearly express the respondent's open
and active hostility to labor organizations. Following closely in
the wake of union activity at the Somerville plant, the distribution
of these pamphlets and cards served notice upon employees that the
respondent would view their membership in the Union with disfavor.
We find that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained,
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights, guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act .6
The respondent argues, nonetheless, that "any order based thereon
[circulation of the pamphlets and cards] would be beyond any au-
thority conferred upon the Board by the Act, or which could, be con-
stitutionally conferred upon it, and would constitute a denial of the
right of free speech contrary to the First Amendment to the Consti-
tution of the United States." The respondent urged the same argu-
ment in the preceding Ford case.? In answer to this argument we
stated therein, and this statement is equally applicable to this case,
as follows :
We do not believe that the foregoing finding unconstitution-
ally abridges the respondent's freedom of speech and of the
press. Freedom of speech is a qualified, not an absolute right.
The Act requires the employer to refrain from acts that interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
to self-organization and collective bargaining. The guarantee
of such rights to the employees would indeed be wholly ineffective
if the employer, under the guise of exercising his constitutional
right of free speech, were free to coerce them into refraining
from exercising the rights vouchsafed them in the Act. The con-
tention that coercive statements made by supervisory officials to
employees are protected by the First Amendment has been re-
jected in several cases arising under the Act.8 We think the
principle thus established is no less applicable to the circulation
of literature having a like coercive effect.
B. Intimidation by supervisory employees
The respondent's opposition to the Union found further expression
6 In Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, Railway Employees Department of
the American Federation of Labor et at., 84 F. ( 2d) 641 ( C. C. A. 4, 1936 ) ; affirmed,
300 U. S. 515 (1937), the court said :
It must be remembered in this connection , however, that any sort of influence
exerted by an employer upon an employee , dependent upon his employment for
means of livelihood, may very easily become undue in that it will coerce the em-
ployee's will in favor of what the employer desires against his better j udgment as
to what is really in the best interest of himself and his fellow employees.
And in National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation , 102 F . ( 2d) 383 (C. C.
A. 7, 1939 ), enf'g Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
.Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N. L. R . B. 654, the court said :.
The position of the employer, where, as here, there is present genuine and sincere
respect and regard, carries such weight and influence that his words may be coer-
cive when they would not be so if the relation of master and servant did not exist.
v 14 N. L. R. B. 346.
8National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation , 102 F . ( 2d) 383 ; Virginia
Jerry Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 101 F. (2d) 103; National Labor
.Relations Board v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 99 F. ( 2d) 153, 179.
r'ORD MOTOR COMPANY 739
in the anti-union statements of its supervisory officials. With the
inception of union activity in the plant, several of the respondent's
foremen and inspectors undertook to advise, warn, and threaten
employees against joining or continuing their membership in the
Union and to disparage the Union and its effectiveness as a bargaining
agent.
During the week following the first meeting of the Union, Michael
Spatola, the respondent's chief inspector, approached Walter J.
Curdo, an employee in the upholstering department, and began a
conversation with him about the Union. Curdo testified that Spatola
said to him, "I hear that you belong to, are interested in the United
Automobile Workers of America?" When Curdo replied that he was
interested, Spatola then asked, "What do you fellows expect to get
out of it? What the hell are you looking for more money? Are you
looking for shorter hours?" s Spatola would have us believe that
after Curdo answered his question by stating that he was seeking
"seniority of rating," Spatola permitted the conversation to drift into
and end with a discussion of Curdo's seniority problems. Curdo
maintained that Spatola supplemented his question "What do you
fellows expect to get out of it?" with the inquiry "ain't you satisfied
with the way things are going on here?" and the statement, "I don't
see what you are going to gain by it. You know Henry Ford will
never give in to the union. He will close the plants down first and
we will all be out of a job."
We are satisfied that Curdo's account of this conversation corre-
sponds more accurately and completely with the facts, and we find,
accordingly, that the conversation occurred substantially as Curdo has
related. We do not believe that Spatola asked "what do you fellows
expect to get out of it?" because he was genuinely interested in ob-
taining an answer to his question, but rather that he desired to pre-
sent his arguments against membership and activity in the Union.
He first broached the topic of the union meeting with Curdo and
then raised the merits of union membership with the rhetorical ques-
tion "what do you fellows expect to get out of it?" He thereupon
proceeded to advance reasons to Curdo against membership and
activity in the Union.
On the same day that the conversation described above occurred,
an employee known in the plant as "Pop-Eye" D'Annunzio, asked
Spatola if it was true that the men would lose their jobs if they
9 According to Spatola , he had "heard that this fellow [Curdo] here had spoke up in the
hall in the meeting, so I said, 'well, I hear you are getting to be quite an orator .' I said,
'I heard you gave quite a speech the other day.'" 5patola then inquired, "what are you
organizing for? More money ? Are you looking for less work or less hours , rather?"
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
joined the Union . According to Curdo, Spatola responded, "Yes,
that is right." Curdo 's version of this incident was corroborated by
Antone Amerald and Soper, both of whom testified that they were
present.
Spatola denied that the conversation occurred as these three wit-
nesses testified . He claimed that D'Annunzio asked him about some
phase of -his work and, while he was answering, Curdo approached
them and inquired "are you talking union ?" D'Annunzio was not
called upon to testify . We credit Curdo's testimony in view of the
corroboration it received and Spatola 's expressed hostility to the
Union.
Leo N. Fallon , an assistant foreman in the trim department who
joined the Union and attended the meetings on May 8 and 22, 1937,
testified that Spatola inquired shortly after the first meeting "how
our union was making out." When Fallon replied that "it was com-
ing along all right, " Spatola asked "what we were going to get out of
it."' He then added "What do you want to do, pay a couple of dollars
a week to the little Jew boys that smoke cigars up there while you
work your heads off to supply them with them?" Soper testified
to a similar conversation with Spatola.
Although Spatola denied both conversations, we cannot credit his
denial. These conversations fit into the pattern of anti -union state-
ments which Spatola addressed to employees interested or active in
the Union. The Trial Examiner, who had an opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the witnesses, accepted Soper's account of his con-
versation with Spatola. We find, in view of the above circumstances,
that Spatola spoke to Fallon and Soper substantially as they have
related.
Carl Anderson, assistant chief inspector to Spatola, joined with
him in discouraging membership in the Union. Shortly after the
first union meeting, Anderson called Ora L. Smith from his work
and questioned him about the Union. Smith related the conversation
as follows :
. . . he wanted to know what the dissatisfaction, and why
all this union talk and activity. He said if we had any fault
to find, or any complaints , we could take them to the superin-
tendent, and that he would listen to our story and give us a fair
deal.
According to , Smith, Anderson then took a union application card
from his pocket, said that the Union was just trying to "rope us in;"
and advised him that the employees would be foolish to join. He
also asked Smith whether he knew who had started the Union, and
observed that "the fellow would get his hair l lulled down."
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 741
. Anderson admitted having had a conversation with Smith, but
denied that he had denounced the Union. He testified that he ques-
tioned Smith about his unsatisfactory work, and when Smith asked
for more assistance in his work, "pulled out the card and applica-
tion-union application-from my pocket, and I showed him. I
said, `Do you know anything about this?' And he says `yes.'
`Well,' I said, `if you got time to put these cards in the body, you
must have time to spray them right'." Anderson also testified that
Smith had told him that he would not join the Union unless it was'
incorporated. He gave the following testimony on cross-examina-
tion concerning this phase of his conversation with Smith :
Q. You said Mr. Smith told you that he wouldn't join the
union unless it was incorporated?
A. That is right.
Q. What else did he say? What was the entire conversation?'
A. That is all. I asked him about the card, that's all. He
didn't know anything about it.
Q. Did you ask him if he was going to join?
A. No, I did not.
Q. How did he happen [sic] say then to you that he wasn't.
going to unless it was incorporated?
A. We didn't have any conversation to. that effect at all.
Q. You said that Smith told you that he wouldn't join -
A. That's right.
Q. Unless that union was incorporated?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask him whether he would join?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you talking about the union?
A. No, sir.
Q. That is; he just made this statement out of a clear sky?'
A. That's all.
We cannot accept Anderson's contention that Smith said, "out.
of a clear sky," that he would not join the Union unless it was
incorporated. Obviously, that statement was made in response to
an inquiry about the Union. Under the circumstances, we credit
Smith's account of their conversation.
Anderson's antagonism was likewise directed against Soper and his.
efforts to organize the employees. A few days after Soper had begun
his union activities, Baxter Marsh, a fellow employee, informed him,
that "I have been talking to two foremen [Anderson and one Eddie-
Cowan] in the plant, and those two foremen have already told me:
283030-41-vol. l f0-48
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that if you don't lay off your union activities they are going to have
you deported." About 2 weeks thereafter, Soper, who is an alien.
was summoned to the Immigration Office of the United States De- .
partment of Labor at East Boston and questioned regarding his
entry into this country. Anderson admitted that he had asked
Marsh, in Cowan's presence, if Soper was a citizen. Concerning his
interest in Soper's citizenship, Anderson testified :
Q. Why did you ask Baxter [Marsh], as you call him, about
Mr. Soper as a citizen?
A. Well, I just wanted to know for my own reason, that is all.
Q. What was your own reason?
A. Well, if this country is good enough to earn your own
living in, it is good enough to become a citizen, and if they don't
like the condition of the country, why don't they go back?
Anderson did not conceal his opposition to Soper's union activity.
On the Monday following the first meeting of the Union, he ap-
proached Maurice D. Mahoney, an employee, and said to him : "Hello
fish eater. How are you and all the herrings making out with that
union of yours? You ought to be ashamed of being with that bunch.
Why, that fellow Soper isn't even a citizen. I think we, can take
care of Soper. We ought to have him deported."
In concluding that Anderson spoke to Mahoney as set forth above,
we are impressed by Anderson's failure to deny this testimony
although he denied other anti-union statements attributed to him.
And our finding that Anderson asserted that Soper "isn't even a citi-
zen" and that "We ought to have him deported" is corroborated by
and explains Anderson's interest in Soper's citizenship. In view of
these facts and Anderson's anti-union basis, it is reasonable to infer,
and we find, that Anderson sought to raise obstacle to Soper's con-
tinued union activities by reporting him to the Immigration
authorities.
Albert G. Humphrey and Anthony Champi, foremen employed by
the respondent, assisted in the campaign to discourage membership
in the Union. Humphrey admitted that he asked William F. Fay
and James Joseph Cunningham, employees, "what do you think of
the union. Do you think it will amount to much?" When Fay
responded "I think it will if they get enough in it," Humphrey re-
torted, "I don't think it will amount to a damn" and walked off.
According to Gerald Stares, an employee, Humphrey offered him
a raise and urged him to discourage the men from joining the Union,
saying that the respondent would close the plant if the employees
organized. Stares' version of this incident was corroborated by
Forman Ross, another employee, who overheard the conversation.
FORD IIOTOR COMPANY 743
With respect to this conversation, Humphrey testified that he spoke
to Stares as follows :
"You know this job you are on doesn't call for a skilled work-
man and it doesn't call for a raise." "Well," he said, "I have
been here a long time and I think I should have got a raise with
the rest of them. If we had a union we would have got a raise."
I said, "Do you approve of unions?" He said, "Yes." I said,
"I don't, Jerry." But I said, "That is my opinion. You have
your opinion and I have mine," and I left him.
Humphrey's testimony reveals that he discussed the questions of
raises and unions with Stares. In view of his admitted hostility to
the Union and the fact that Ross corroborated Stares' testimony, we
credit Stares' version of this conversation. Despite Humphrey's
denial, we also find, in light of his active opposition to the Union,
that Humphrey asked Fallon if he was going to the meeting (May
22, 1937), and warned him, "Well, if I was you, I wouldn't go. It
might mean something later on. You are a married man and got a
family. This job means something to you."
Herman C. Maddows, who worked as a sprayer under Champi's
supervision, testified that Champi asked him whether he had at-
tended the meeting on May 8. When Maddows told him that he
had attended, Champi replied, "You will be a sorry man if you
continue to do so." After the second union meeting, Champi indi-
cated to Maddows that he knew he had attended. A few days later
Champi complained to Martin, the assistant superintendent, about
the work of both Maddows and James P. Kehoe,10 another sprayer
under Champi. Although Champi denied these activities, the Trial
Examiner credited Maddows' version of the incidents. We are
satisfied and find that he spoke to Maddows as related above.
The respondent argues that since it did not authorize its super-
visory employees to make the foregoing statements, it is not, in any
event, bound by them. We cannot agree that the anti-union state-
ments of Spatola, the chief inspector ; Anderson, the assistant chief
inspector,; and Foremen Humphrey and Champi are not binding
upon the respondent. As chief inspector, Spatola is responsible for
the inspection of all automobiles and trucks produced at the plant.
His job is higher in rank than that of a foreman. He testified that
he was "foreman in the Chassis Department until 1933 and then I
was promoted to chief inspector." Spatola has only one assistant
chief inspector, Anderson, and both have under them approximately
25 inspectors who assist in the work. Humphrey, as foreman in the
trim department, has from 150 to 160 men under him, and Champi,
11 Sometimes referred to as Keough.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as foreman in the paint department, supervises approximately 130,
men. Both possess the power to hire and discharge. In the light
of the duties and functions of the foregoing supervisory officials, we-
find that the anti-union statements made by them are binding on
the respondent.")
' We find that the respondent has, through the activities of Spatola,.
Anderson, Humphrey, and Champi, in questioning, warning, and
threatening employees with respect to the Union, in disparaging the
Union and its officials, and in reporting Soper to the Immigration.
authorities to hamper his efforts on behalf of the Union, interfered.
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights.
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Surveillance of union meetings
As we have mentioned above, the Union was organized in the early
part of May 1937 and held its first meeting on May 8,. 1937, at the)-
Knights of Pythias Hall in Somerville. Notices or "flyers" adver-
tising this meeting were widely circulated and had come to the atten-
tion of some of the respondent's supervisory employees. William J..
Rose, general body foreman, admitted that "It was pretty well known.
through the plant that there was to be a meeting on May 8."
Soper, who was largely instrumental in starting the Union, testified
that he arrived at the hall at about 1: 30 p. in. and remained in front
of the building until 2: 45, when the meeting began. During this.
period he observed Champi drive past several times, so slowly "that.
other automobiles were tooting their horns to get by him." According
to Soper, each time Champi passed the entrance he "put his head out
11 Cf. Swift & Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10),.
enf'g Matter of Swift f Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Lodge No. 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial'
Union No . 300, 7 N. L. R . B. 269 , where the court said :
Furthermore , with respect to the acts of the supervisory foremen , the doctrine of
respondeat superior applies, and petitioner is responsible for the actions of its super-
visory foremen , even though it had no actual participation therein.
See also International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers, Lodge No. 35,.
Affiliated with the International Association of Machinists , and Production Lodge No. 1200,
Affiliated with the International Association of Machinists v. National Labor Relations-
Board, 110 F . ( 2d) 29 ( C. A. for D . C.), enf 'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and'
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America , Local No . 459, 8 N . L. It. B.
621, where the court said :
The statute , we think purposely , does not define the particular methods or agents
by which the employer may Intermeddle unlawfully . Had it done so, easy escape,
would have been opened from the Act's provisions . Nothing in it requires that
such representation be limited to officials having any particular kind or degree of
authority , such as "hiring and firing," "disciplinary power" or even "supervisory
capacity."
And see also Virginia Ferry Corp . v. National Labor Relations Board, 97 F . ( 2d) 1010'
(C. C. A. 4), enf'g as mod. Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates and,
Pilots of America . No. 9, et al ., 8 N. L. R . B. 730.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 745
.of the window and practically came to a stop " and stared in the direc-
tion of the hall. Soper also saw Humphrey standing across the street,
-40 or 50 feet beyond the hall, watching the entrance . Leo M . Fallon,
another employee who attended the meeting , testified that he, too,
saw Humphrey . He greeted Humphrey who asked him whether
Harry Conti , another employee , was attending the meeting . Fallon
entered the hall, and not seeing Conti , returned and told Humphrey
that he was not present . According to Fallon, Humphrey also asked
him how many men were attending the meeting . "He lingered around
there for , I should say , a half-hour and then went away." Mark
Francis Quigley, another union member, likewise saw Champi and
also observed Humphrey and Fallon engaged in a conversation. As
:Stares approached the hall, he noticed Alfred J. Brunini , an assistant
foreman, seated in an automobile across the street, looking in his direc-
tion. Stares testified that Brunini waved to him as he passed.
Champi, Humphrey , and Brunini admitted that they had been in
the vicinity of the Knights of Pythias Hall that afternoon , but denied
that they were there for the purpose of observing the employees who
attended the meeting . Each one asserted that he lived in the neigh-
borhood and merely passed by while engaged in his own affairs.
Humphrey testified that he worked that morning, and it was neces-
sary to pass the hall. in order to reach the street on which he lived.
On his way home he met Brunini who told him that he had seen Mrs.
Humphrey. Humphrey accepted Brunini's offer to drive him to Mrs.
Humphrey whom they overtook near the hall . After they had con-
ferred with Mrs. Humphrey , Brunini drove Humphrey to his home.
At about 4 : 30 Humphrey again passed the meeting place on his way
to a barber shop. Returning from the barber shop, he again passed
the hall . This time he met Fallon , who he claimed was intoxicated.
He suggested to Fallon that Conti take care of him and thereupon
left. Brunini corroborated Humphrey's testimony with respect to
their meeting . He testified that he had visited a barber shop early in
the afternoon - and then drove to and parked his car in front of a4
theatre directly across the street from the hall. He expected to find
some of his "gang" since the "fellows usually hang around there."
"I didn't notice any of the gang there ... So I went in a drug store
and got a package of cigarettes ." When Brunini returned to his car,
he met Mrs. Humphrey and spoke to her for about 5 or 10 minutes.
Brunini then set out for his home and met Humphrey on the way.
Together they drove back , caught up with Mrs. Humphrey near the
hall, and "stopped talking to her there ." Since Mrs. Humphrey re-
ported that she had not completed her shopping , Brunini drove
Humphrey "back up past the hall" to hin home. Brunini "came back
then right by the hall and swung down and went down to Bustie's"
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[car repair man]. Bustie did not have the car Brunini wanted to see
"so I came back home," presumably passing the hall again.
Champi testified that he took his family for a drive to Revere
Beach early in the afternoon and passed the hall on his way there.
"So when we got near the beach it started to rain so my wife said
`we better turn back before it rains hard' so on the way back we had
to come back through Broadway. That would have been around two
or a little after two, so when we got near the hall there was traffic
lights there, and we had to stop and while we were waiting for the
lights I turned around to see who was around there."
When Champi arrived home, his mother informed him that his
sister's child was sick, "so she asked me to go down and see what
was the matter and when I did go down there I had to go by the
same way." In returning home, Champi again passed the hall.
In all, Humphrey, Brunini, and Champi admittedly passed the
hall a total' of 12 times on the afternoon of the meeting. Each also
admitted that he knew about the meeting. Humphrey testified that
"Practically everyone was speaking about it." Following the meet-
ing, Humphrey, Champi, and other supervisory employees of the
respondent repeatedly made anti-union statements to employees who
were members of the Union and had attended the meeting. The
circumstances confirm the testimony of union members that
Humphrey, Champi, and Brunini were present near the Knights
of Pythias Hall in order to keep the meeting under surveillance, and
by their very presence, to discourage the respondent's employees from
attending. The Union held one other meeting at that hall on May 22,
but thereafter conducted its meetings elsewhere.
We find that by maintaining surveillance of a union meeting, the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
.D. The discharges
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent discharged
23 employees because of their activities on behalf of the Union.
The Trial Examiner concluded in his Intermediate Report that the
respondent had not discriminated against these employees and rec-
ommended that the allegations contained in the complaint in their
behalf be dismissed. The Union has not filed exceptions to these
recommendations of the Trial Examiner. Upon an examination of
the record, we find that it does not support the allegations of the
complaint that these employees were discriminated against because
of their union membership and activity. The complaint, therefore,
in so far as it alleges the discriminatory discharges of these ' em-
ployees, will be dismissed.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 747
E. Prevention of distribution of union circulars
The complaint alleges that on August 11, 1937, the respondent,
through one of its "service men," assaulted one union organizer and
threatened others who were attempting to distribute union circulars
at the entrance to the plant. The Trial Examiner found in his Inter-
mediate Report that the record did not support these allegations and
recommended that they be dismissed from the complaint. The Union
has not filed exceptions to those recommendations. Upon an exam-
ination of the record, we find that it does not sustain these allega-
tions and they will be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of 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.
THE REMEDY
The respondent having engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that, by directly distributing the anti-union litera-
ture consisting of the "Fordisms," and the pamphlet entitled "Ford
Gives Viewpoint on Labor," by the anti-union statements and activi-
ties of supervisory employees, and by maintaining surveillance of a
union meeting, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We shall, therefore, order the
respondent to refrain from such interference, restraint, and coercion.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile Workers of America, Local 440, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 16 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Ford Motor Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by circulat-
ing, distributing, or otherwise disseminating among its employees
statements or propaganda which disparages or criticizes labor organi-
zations or which advises its employees not to join such organizations,
or by maintaining surveillance of union meetings;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, 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, or 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 National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout all de-
partments of its plant in Somerville, Massachusetts, and maintain for
a period of at least sixty, (60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease
and desist in the manner aforesaid;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and the
same hereby are, dismissed.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 749
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in so far
as it alleges that the respondent through one of its "service men"
assaulted one union organizer and threatened others who were at-
tempting to distribute union circulars at the entrance to the plant.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEIsERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision- and Order.