Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 548 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNrrED AuTomoBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 425
Cage No. C-8778.-Decided May 7, 1940
Automobile Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion:
espionage at union meetings ; surveillance of union members in the plant ; 'em-
ployment of servicemen to spy on union activities ; destruction of a banner
announcing a union meeting ; distributing literature disparaging labor unions ;
interrogating , advising, warning, and threatening employees with respect to
their union membership and activities-Discrimination : discharge and refusal
to reinstate employees following an annual shut-down ; charges of, sustained as
to 38 employees ; charges of , dismissed as to 31 employees-Reinstatement
Ordered: employees discriminatorily discharged and discriminatorily refused
reinstatement-Back Pay: awarded to employees discriminated against.
Mr. Edward D. Flaherty and Mr. Peter J. Crotty, for the Board.
Mr. Ulysses S. Thomas, Mr. James F. Kelly, Mr. Paul W. Lapey,
all of Buffalo, N. Y.; Mr. Louis J. Colombo, of Detroit, Mich.; Cravath,
de Gersdorff, Swaim & Wood, by Mr. Frederick H. Wood, Mr. Alfred
McCormack, and Mr. George B. Turner, of New York City, for the
respondent.
Mr. Daniel B. Shortal and Mr. Herman F. Kohn, of Buffalo, N. Y.,
and Davidow c Davidow, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Lewis M. Gill and Mr. Roscoe L. Barrow, of counsel to the
Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 425, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo,
New York), issued its complaint and notice of hearing dated December
30, 1937, against Ford Motor Company, Buffalo, New York, 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, herein called the Act.
23 N. L. R. B., No. 46.
548
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 549
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, through its
supervisory officials and "servicemen" at its Buffalo plant, had en-
gaged in espionage and had in other specified respects interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees; had discharged 16 named em-
ployees and thereafter refused to reinstate them, because they had
joined and assisted in the activities of the Union; and had discriminated
against 31 other named employees by failing to reemploy or rein-
state them. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Buffalo, New York,
beginning January 11, 1938, and ending February 4, 1938, before
Francis M. Shea, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by coun-
sel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
After the hearing had begun, the respondent filed a written answer
to the complaint, pursuant to an extension of time granted for that
purpose by the Trial Examiner. In substance, the answer denied all
of the allegations of the complaint except certain allegations con-
cerning the nature of the respondent's business. During the course
of the hearing and pursuant to leave duly granted by the Trial
Examiner, an amended complaint dated January 18, 1938, was duly
issued and served upon the respondent and the Union. The only
new allegations consisted of the addition of the names of 2 employees
to the list of those alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged,
and the addition of the names of 20 employees to the list of those
allegedly discriminated against in regard to reemployment or rein-
statement. Following an adjournment granted by the Trial Exam-
iner, the respondent filed an answer to the amended complaint,
denying in substance the allegations of the amended complaint except
for those concerning the nature of the respondent's business. At the
close of the hearing, the complaint was amended, without objection,
to conform to the proof as to dates and spelling of names.
During the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings
on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
After the hearing the respondent filed with the Trial Examiner
a written brief. Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter-
mediate Report, dated July 25, 1938, in which he found that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6)
283034-41-vol 23-36
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and (7) of the Act. More particularly, he found that the respondent
had distributed written attacks on the Union; had made ,warnings
and threats to the employees against their activities in the. Union;,
had engaged in espionage; had caused the destruction of a 'union
banner displayed across the street from the plant; and had discrimi-
nated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of 50 of the
employees listed in the complaint and amended complaint. He also,
found that the respondent had not discriminated against 12 other
employees. As to certain other employees, he dismissed the.allega-
tions of the complaint and amended complaint, inasmuch as no evi-
dence had been introduced relating to them. He recommended that
the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, offer
reinstatement and back pay to the employees found to have been'
discriminated against, and take certain other action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial
Examiner also made rulings on certain motions and objections on
which he had reserved ruling at the hearing. We have reviewed
these rulings and find that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued an Amended and Supple-
mental Intermediate Report, dated September 6, 1938, in which he
made findings as to certain offers of reemployment, as to which evi-
dence had been adduced at the hearing, but which he had not
discussed in his Intermediate Report. He concluded that the recom-
mendations of the Intermediate Report should remain 'unchanged.
The Intermediate Report and Amended and Supplemental Interme-
diate Report were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
Pursuant to an extension of time duly granted to the respondent
for filing its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Amended
and Supplemental Intermediate Report, the respondent filed such
exceptions on September 16, 1938. '
Pursuant to a* request by the respondent, the Board scheduled a
hearing for the purpose of oral argument in Washington, D. C., on
November 1, 1938. Subsequently, upon a further request by the
respondent, the date for oral argument was postponed until Novem-
ber 9, 1938, and the time allotted the respondent'for argument was
increased. '
On October 29, 1938, the respondent filed with' the Board' a motion
that the Board appiove,'adopt,'and make part of the record a•certain
stipulation and an affidavit, 'or,' in the alternative, `grant leave to
adduce additional ' evidence.' The` motion also requested -that` the
Board • grant to the 'respondent leave to object, except,' and argue
to 'any other or further` findings, report, or memorandum 'furnished
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 551'
the Board in connection with- the proceedings. . The stipulation re-
lated to certain relevant factual matters on which the record made
at-the hearing was incomplete, and was signed by counsel for the
respondent, counsel for ^the -Union, and counsel ' for • the Board. On
November 2, 1938, the Board issued an order' directing that the stipu-
lation be approved and made a part of the record, and that the
respondent's motion be in other respects denied.
Oral argument was had before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
on November 9, 1938. The respondent and the Union were repre-
sented by counsel and participated. The respondent at that time
submitted a written brief in support of its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and the Amended and Supplemental Intermediate
Report.
On April 19, 22, 25, and 29, counsel for all the parties executed
a stipulation that certain exhibits might be withdrawn from evidence
and copies thereof substituted for such exhibits. It was further
stipulated that the substituted exhibits should be considered a part of
the record in the case.
We have considered the respondent's exceptions and brief and, to
the extent that they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, find 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 1
The respondent is a Delaware corporation having its main offices
at Dearborn, Michigan. It is engaged in the manufacture, assembly,
sale, and distribution of automobiles, automobile trucks, tractors, and
automobile parts and accessories. It has numerous assembly plants
and sales branches located throughout the United States. It also
has associated companies with manufacturing plants, assembly
plants, and offices in a large number of foreign countries.
The only plant involved in this proceeding is the assembly plant
at Buffalo, New York. Most of the materials used in this plant are
parts and accessories, sent by rail, truck, and boat from Michigan.
Between July 1936 and July 1937 materials valued at approximately
$24,600,000 were received at the Buffalo plant. During the same
period, approximately 47 per cent of the finished cars and accessories
which were assembled at the Buffalo plant were distributed to points
outside the State of New York.
I The international character of the respondent 's business is more fully described in
Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, 14 N. L. R. B. 346.
< :. 552 --DECISIONS ' OF.,NATIONAL, LABOR aRELATIONS . WARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local 425, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization.2
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Espionage at union meetings
Organizational activity among the employees in the respondent's
Buffalo plant began early in May 1937. Irwin F. Kohn, an organizer
for the Union, was in charge of the drive, and the first employees
of the respondent undertaking to assist him were Walter Sredzinski,
Andrew Sredzinski, Leo Krzyzykowski, Martin Socenski, and Alfred
Kupkowski. The first meeting of the Union was held on May 8,
1937, at the Root Building, which is located on West Chippewa
Street in Buffalo. In addition to a front entrance facing on the street,
this building has a rear entrance which can be reached through a
parking lot situated behind the building. Two "servicemen" of the
respondent, J. D. Sullivan, Jr., and George Maeder, and the respond-
ent's employment clerk, John Maroone, appeared outside the build-
ing before the meeting began. Certain employees who arrived for the
meeting did not go in when they saw Maroone and the servicemen
on the scene. Maroone asked at least two of the employees what they
were doing there. Sullivan and Maroone not only watched the front
entrance, but went back into the parking lot in the rear. In general,
the testimony of the employee witnesses is convincing that Maroone
and the servicemen were engaged in active and thorough surveillance
of those undertaking to attend the meeting. The same is true as to
the next meeting of the Union, which was held on May 15, 1937, at
Broadway and Ash Streets in Buffalo. Maroone and Sullivan drove
back and forth past this meeting place in a car, watching the men
as they arrived. They left the vicinity only upon the request of
Father John P. Boland, then Regional Director for the Board.
In explanation of these occurrences, James E. Malone, head of
the factory service department, testified that he had investigated and
learned that Maroone, Sullivan, and Maeder were en route to a ball
game on May 8, and happened to lunch near the Root Building.
Their presence in the parking lot at the rear he explained by saying
that Sullivan's car was parked there. Maeder, he stated, was sta-
tioned across the street from the front entrance for the purpose of
getting his shoes shined. Malone also testified that he had learned
2 Now Congress of Industrial Organizations
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 553
that Maroone's presence at the scene of the second meeting at Broad-
way and Ash Streets was occasioned by his desire to purchase, in
that Vicinity, some uniforms for a baseball -team -in, which he was
interested. Maroon testified, and merely stated, that on May 8
and May 15, the dates on which the meetings were held, he was not
engaged on company business. He admitted speaking to two of
the employees near the Root Building. Time cards introduced into
evidence purported to show that Maroone, Sullivan, and Maeder
were not paid for the afternoons on which these events occurred.
We do not regard this evidence as establishing that the three men
were not carrying out their duties in the respondent's employ at
these times. At the oral argument, counsel for the respondent con-
ceded that the three men "were presumably curious about what was
going on at the first meeting of the Union,` and they just-..went in
there to see what was going on."
Maroone is referred to by the respondent merely as "employment
clerk." The record shows, however, that he has much more responsi-
bility than is normally associated with the term "clerk." It is true
that Maroone has a number of clerical duties, but he has more
responsible functions as well. When a foreman desires to have a
man laid off or discharged, it is Maroone who hears the foreman's
story and, separately, the employee's story. Maroone then reports
on the case to Edward C. Miller, the superintendent of the plant, who
makes the decision. It is thus clear that in dealing with the respond-
ent's personnel, Maroone is an ' important , representative of the
management.
On the basis of all the evidence, we find that Maroone, Sullivan,
and Maeder were engaged on the respondent's behalf in surveillance
of the union meetings on May 8 and May 15. In view of Maroone's
position, and under the circumstances of this case, set forth below, we
find that the respondent stands responsible for the actions of Ma-
roone and the servicemen in spying on the union meetings of May 8
and May 15. At the hearing Superintendent Miller testified to the
effect that the presence of these men at the union meetings could not
have had any coercive effect on the workers. It is clear from the
evidence, however, that their presence and actions not only could
have had,3 but actually did have, the effect of interfering with, re-
8 In Virginian By Co. v. System Federation No. 40 , Railway Employees Department of
the American Federation of Labor et al, 84 F ( 2d) 641, 643 ( 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 employee's
will in favor of what the employer desires against his better judgment as to what is
really in the best interest of himself and his fellow employees.
Cf. Matter of Mexia Textile Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 11 N L
R. B 1167 , 1171 , enf'd Mexaa Textile Mills v National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d)
S65 (C. C. A. 5).
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
straining, and coercing the employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization.
2. The banner incident
On May 14,_1937, Irwin Kohn and Otis Mosier , organizers for the
Union, secured permission from the manager of a gasoline station
to exhibit at the station a banner announcing a meeting to be held by
the Union. The gasoline station was located across the street from
the respondent's plant and about 300 yards distant. About 3: 30
p_ m. on that day, the time for the change of shifts in the plant,
Mosier and Kohn attached the banner to the ends of two sticks and
held it up so that employees entering and leaving the plant could see
it. The banner read : "United Auto Workers Meeting C. I. O. Ford
Employees, Saturday, May 15, at 3:00 o'clock p. m., Marr's Hall,
272 Broadway, Corner of Ash." George A. Laird, Jr., a reporter
for the Buffalo. Evening News, was present when the banner was
displayed: A short while after they had set up the banner, a group
of about nine men emerged from the plant and approached the scene.
As they arrived, one of them remarked : "What in hell are you guys
pulling off ?" The group from the plant immediately proceeded to
tear the banner from the sticks and rip it to pieces. They then re-
turned to the plant. Mosier, Kohn, and Laird departed after Laird
had telephoned, the story to his paper.
At the oral argument, counsel for the respondent conceded that
"we do not claim to have the right to tear down union banners," but
asserted that the foregoing evidence failed to reveal that the respond=
ent was responsible for the incident, and characterized the affair as
",wholly trivial" in any event. We do not agree that the incident
may be brushed aside as trivial; the important question, to which we
now address ourselves, is whether the respondent was responsible for
its occurrence.
Kohn identified Maroone, the respondent's "employment clerk,"
as one of the group from the plant. Maroone had been pointed out
to him at the Root Building meeting on May 8 by one of the em=
ployees, and he knew him by sight. Laird did not know the men
from the plant. Mosier was also unacquainted with them, but noticed
a gun sticking out through the front of the coat of one of them.
Edmund Bines, an employee of the respondent, testified that on May
14 he arrived at work about 3: 05 or 3: 10 p. m. with one Frank
Crystal, another employee. As they entered the plant and punched
in, Maroone and Casey Moran, an employee, intercepted them.
According to Bines' testimony, Maroone said to Crystal : "Frank, you
had better come along with me." Crystal joined Maroone and Moran
and proceeded toward the time clock, while Bines went in to work.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 555
Lawrence Lawler, another employee, testified that on May 14, shortly
after 3 p. in., he arrived at the plant and noticed Maroone, Crystal,
Bruno, Luczak, and Eddie Klump, assistant head of the service
'department, standing together in the plant office, which he could see
'clearly through glass partitions. He was absolutely certain that'he
saw 'Crystal there with the others. ^ Bernard Beck, an employee who
was quite friendly with Crystal, testified that as he was going to
the plant to work that afternoon, he passed a group coming out of
the plant. In the group were Luczak, Moran, Maeder (a serviceman
who had spied on the Root Building meeting), a few other servicemen
whose names he did not specify, and Crystal. He testified that he
admonished Crystal : "Frank, you are going the wrong way." Crystal
said nothing. Frank Snyder, another employee, testified that he
also saw the group of men going out of the plant as he was entering
that afternoon. He identified Maroone, Klump, Moran, Luczak, and
Crystal as being included in the group. He saw the group proceed
to the gas station and destroy the banner.
. Other testimony by Board witnesses fills in the story. Snyder
testified that later that afternoon in the plant he asked Luczak why
they had torn down the banner, and that" during the conversation
which followed, Luczak informed him that a serviceman had stopped
him as he was coming in the plant and had told him to go upstairs
and sign some sort of paper to the effect that if he was hurt there
would be compensation. Edward Czarnecki, another employee, tes-
tified that Crystal told him that Malone had picked out eight or
nine of the men and instructed them to go along with Maroone and
Klump on the occasion of the banner incident. Bines testified that
at about 8: 00 p, m. on the evening of May 14, as he and Crystal were
lunching together in the plant, Crystal remarked : "Gee, I think the
boys think I am a rat. I went out with the rest of the factory
service men, me and Bruno and some others, and I only stayed there
while they tore down the sign. I don't know what to do about it.
I might quit the job." On the following Monday, May 17, Bines
heard Maroone tell Crystal to see Malone. Later in the day, Bines
testified Crystal informed him that Malone had said : "If we ever
get called in Court on account of that sign, I want you to go and
say that you didn't work, or something like that, see." Bernard
Beck, another employee, testified to a conversation which he had
with Crystal after the incident, and ascribed the following remark to
Crystal: "I was picked. I didn't know where I was going, and if I
wouldn't go with him, I probably lose my job." It appears elsewhere
in the record that Casey Moran, Bruno Luczak, and Frank Crystal
are wrestlers during their spare time.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Crystal testified that on May 14, as he was riding to work with
Bines and John Ott, a subforeman or pusher,4 he saw the banner.
According to his testimony, when he reached the plant he heard a
lot of talk about the sign and' decided' to go out and Tsee it again. He
said that he then went out alone, walked along the street on the
plant side, and when he came to cross over at the point where the
sign had been, noticed the sign lying at the curb with no one around.
He testified that he then started back toward the plant, met Maroone
and Klump coming from the plant, and was asked by Maroone :
"What the hell are you doing here?" He said he did not remember
whether he had talked with Bines about the banner, but later changed
this to a flat denial.
Maroone testified that he left the plant on May 14 without au-
thority, that he had not been requested by any superior to perform
any special duties that day, and that Miller subsequently told" him'
that if he left the plant again during working hours without per-
mission there would be a new. "employment clerk." He was not
asked about the details of his conduct in the incident, except that
counsel for the Union asked him what appeared on the banner, to
which Maroone replied : "I never saw the banner." Maroone's testi-
mony on the point is vague and unconvincing, and we find that he
did participate in the incident in the manner described by the other
witnesses. Malone testified that he heard of the incident on the
afternoon of May 14, but did nothing about it once he learned that
no time passes had been issued and that it had occurred off company
property. He also testified that Klump reported to him concerning
the incident. Upon being asked whether or not his investigation
of the incident showed that Klump and Maroone went to the scene
of the banner display out of curiosity, he replied : "I found that
Maroone went there for curiosity." William L. Yule, manager of
the Buffalo plant, testified that he was out of the city on May 14,
and read an account of the incident in the newspaper upon his re-
turn the following Monday. He sent for Malone and asked him
about it. He further testified : "Well, as soon as I found out the
incident happened across the street outside of the plant I didn't
consider it was anything involving the Ford Motor Company and
made no further investigation." Luczak, Moran, Klump, and
Maeder did not testify.
A consideration of all the testimony convinces us that Crystal and
Maroone testified falsely. We find that the facts are substantially
as related by Kohn, Mosier, Laird, Bines, Lawler, Beck, Snyder,
4 The terms apparently are synonymous. In at least one department there are pushers
or subforemen, an assistant foreman, and a foreman.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 557
and Czarnecki and that the destruction of the banner was instigated
by Maroone and Klump and later condoned by Malone and Yule.
Maroone's important position in the employment office and Klump's
status as assistant head of the service department 5 attach to the
respondent responsibility for their actions. Malone and Yule are
the principal officials in the plant. We further find that the de-
struction of the banner served to signify to employees the respond-
ents hostility to the Union and constituted interference with,
restraint, and coercion of the employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of he Act.
3. The role of the servicemen
We have already described the important participation of certain
servicemen in the banner incident and the espionage at the early
meetings of the Union. These events, together with numerous other
activities of servicemen to be discussed presently, raise the question
of the respondent's responsibility for the actions of these men, a mat-
ter requiring discussion in some detail.
The head of the service department is Malone, who is responsible
directly to Yule, the plant manager. Malone testified that the men
in his department have a variety of functions, such as inspecting fire
equipment, keeping the aisles and passageways clear, and so forth.
The men who patrol the plant make hourly reports from various
telephone stations in the plant. By staggering, the shifts of the men,
the plant is kept under their surveillance 24 hours a day. In the
event of damage to equipment, the servicemen in the plant undertake
to track down those responsible for it. In April 1937 there were
46 men in all in the factory-service department, of whom 23 were
designated as "watchmen" and were assigned to patrol the plant.
Sometime in April 1937 the respondent added 11 servicemen to its
staff. Yule explained that this was due to current reports of an
impending attempt to organize a union at the plant. He stated that
extra men were deemed necessary "to protect,our property" and "to
prepare ourselves for whatever might arise." Most of these extra
men were former railroad police, sent to Malone by a friend of his
who was Captain of Police at the Pennsylvania Railroad.
There is considerable testimony in the record as to interference by
these servicemen with the organizational efforts of the employees.
Without setting forth all of it, several examples in addition to the
banner incident and the espionage at union meetings are worth noting.
Numerous witnesses testified that during May 1937 the servicemen
became very active, keeping the employees under close surveillance.
Q Klump acts as head of the service department in Malone's absence
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
One witness testified that shortly after he joined the Union in June,
"they kept spying-on me and they watched me as I would eat during
lunch." He continued : "Some worked and they walked and some
sweeped five to ten yards up and back, and back and forth, and some
kept on gazing and watching." • Another witness testified that the
servicemen gathered around the men when they were eating lunch,
and otherwise would "just stand around and keep behind the boxes
and spying on the men." Another witness stated : "Well, they would
be walking up and down the line and probably two of them would
get together and say something, get behind the stock bins and just
watch back and forth and if they could see two or three men that
were talking together, sort of listen to the conversation." The men
often discussed unionization during the lunch periods. One of the
witnesses , referring to the influx of new servicemen after the decisions
of the United States Supreme Court in April 1937 sustaining the
constitutionality of the Act, testified : "I noticed there were at least
three strangers parading up and down the line in the body shop.
When I first noticed, I thought someone had got away from the
guide. It was total strangers." Another witness, who had joined
the Union, on one occasion had a 'serviceman sitting on either side of
him as he ate lunch. - There was other testimony that servicemen
stood around the fountains'- when' the men would go -for a drink,
followed members of the Union into the lavatory, and accompanied
the men when they went outside to-smoke. - - -
• Another witness testified that "they would stand there and watch
the fellows and when they talked they would come right up behind
them." Another observed : "Never saw them do any work but I saw
them do plenty of spying on the men." It is evident from the whole
record that John Clark, one of the employees, voiced the sentiments
of the employees generally when he testified : "That is a known fact;
the conditions out there of the service men are just a police de-
partment."
. It is clear from the above testimony, which was corroborated by
many other witnesses, that the servicemen were engaged in keeping
the employees at the plant under close surveillance. That this was
in substantial part for the purpose of ascertaining who were members
of the Union and was also directed toward ridding the plant of
union men is indicated by other testimony. Vincent Lipira, a union
member who was subsequently discharged, was accosted at his bench
one day late in June by a serviceman who attempted to draw him out
on the, subject. of a strike then in progress in Detroit. • Lipira parried
the questions of• the serviceman, however,, and 'did not admit any
sympathy for the strikers. Otto Otte, another union member, also
successfully withstood an attempt by a serviceman to draw him into
a conversation about a sit-down strike.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 559
Lawrence Lawler, an employee, had attended the union meeting
on May 15 at Marrs Hall at Broadway and Ash Streets in Buffalo.
A week or two thereafter, Klump,, assistant head of the service de-
partment, came to the cushion department where Lawler worked
and, together with Foreman Maue of the department, passed among
the men looking at the badges of some-of them. Passing up sev-
eral, of the men, they stopped and_ looked. at the badge of Harry
Strash, who had been at the union meeting on May •15. Skipping
another man, they came to Lawler and looked at his badge, after
which they left. As set forth below, both' Strash and Lawler sub-
sequently were discharged.
Frank Snyder, an employee who had attended the first union
meeting at the Root Building on May 8, worked on the trim line.
Snyder is somewhat lame. ' Previous,to,Snyder's;discharge,, discussed
below, a serviceman approached Joseph Malecki, a subforeman, and
said, referring to Snyder : "There is a lame man working on the
trim line. I would like to get something on him." However;
Malecki refused to cooperate in this endeavor.
William Kalman, an employee, testified that during August 1937
Malecki, ' accompanied by a serviceman, obtained his number:
Malecki testified that the serviceman ordered him to obtain the
number and that the serviceman then told him, "Get him [Kalman]
out."
About the middle of May 1937 Bernard Czarnecki, an employee
in the trim department, had some-tickets to a dance, and undertook
to sell a few 'during his lunch hour. He was talking to some of
the men on the matter and upon removing the tickets from his
pocket heard a noise overhead. He looked up and saw a serviceman
watching him through a "transom." Seeing the tickets, the service-
man "almost fell' out of the transom." He immediately came down
and demanded to know of Czarnecki, "What have you got?" Czar-
necki testified further: "He thought I was signing up members'and
I told him I got tickets to a dance." In view of the activities of
servicemen shown by' the whole record, it is plain to, us, and we
find, that the serviceman here was attempting to catch Czarnecki in
the act of distributing union cards.
During June or July 1937 Weldon Farnish, an employee in the
body shop, was asked by his foreman, one Holden, "Who is passing
out these'cards 'out here?" Farnish replied: "What kind of cards
do you mean?" Holden explained: "Union cards are being passed
out. Factory service know they are in here." Upon - Farnish's as-
sertion that he knew nothing about it, Holden said: "You should.
I understand you are in it."
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alexander McMullen, an employee in the enamel department, tes-
tified that his pusher, Reno, told him that Klump had asked Reno
to "do a guy a favor" and let him know "if you have anything about
the Union or know anybody belongs to it." As previously noted,
Klump is assistant head of the service department. McMullen's tes-
timony was uncontradicted; neither Reno nor Klump was called by
the respondent. to testify. We find that Klump made the above re-
quest of Reno. This is corroborated by the undenied testimony of
another employee, Ruckie. Ruckie was talking with Klump, one
Saturday evening following the September lay-offs, discussed below,
and inquired why the older men, such as himself, were not being
taken back to work. Klump asked: "Were you doing any talking?"
and added that his [Klump's] job was "to find out who is doing all
the talking in the shop." In the light of the record as a whole, we
find that Klump was referring to "talking" about the Union.
All the above facts take on added significance when considered
in the light of the discharges and other discrimination against union
members, treated below. On the whole record, we find that the
servicemen by their activities described above were actively engaged
in identifying union members and combatting union activities, that
the activities of the servicemen had the sanction of Klump, assistant
head of the department, that the respondent made no effort to prevent
such activities, and that the respondent through its officials, pursued
a consistent course of anti-union action, which paralleled closely the
activity of the servicemen. The respondent, having hired the service-
men as representatives of the management to engage in general sur-
veillance of the plant, stood responsible when the actions of the serv-
icemen took the form of unlawful interference with organizational
activities." In addition, in view of the above facts and on the whole
record, we are convinced that at least one of the purposes for which
the servicemen were employed was to effectuate the prevention of or-
ganization at the plant, and we so find.7
6 See N. L. R. B. v. A . S. Abell Co ., 97 F. (2d ) 951 (C C . A. 4), modifying and enfg
Matter of The A S. Abell Company, a corporation and International Printing and Press-
men's Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No . 31, 5 N. L. R. B_
644, where the Court said :
The doctrine of respondent -superior applies and the management must assume
responsibility for the actions of its supervisory officials even though it had no actual
participation therein.
See also Swift & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F. ( 2d) 87 ( C. C. A. 10),
enfg Matter of Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Lodge No 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industriar
Union No. 300, 7 N. L R B. 269
7 See Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, 14 N. I R. B. 346
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 561
4. Coercive conduct of the respondent's supervisory employees
Each department in the plant is supervised by a foreman. The
foremen are assisted by subforemen or "pushers." It is clear that
the pushers, as well 'as the foremen; have supervisory duties. Joseph
Malecki, a pusher in the body shop from 1930 until his discharge on
October 18, 1937, described his duties as follows : ". . . to check
in the men in the morning . . ., supply them with the stock that
they needed, see that the machinery was in good condition and see
that my production was done." Toward the end of his employment
he was in, charge of 22 men. At times the pushers had from 40
to 44 men assigned to them. Joseph Jaworski, a pusher from 1934
to 1937, had about 65 men working under him. Vincent Lipira, a
pusher for approximately 11/2 years, described his duties as follows :
"To carry out the orders of my superiors, such as keeping the men
at work and seeing that I got my work in quality, as well as having
to keep the men on the job and seeing that I got out all the work
that was necessary for the hour or day." When more help is needed,
the pushers sometimes recommend employees for reinstatement.
Events discussed hereinafter clearly show that the respondent en-
listed some pushers 8 in its plan to restrain its employees from joining
the Union or participating in its activities, and that to this end
these, as well as other pushers who were in all probability likewise
enlisted, questioned the employees concerning their union activities
and warned the employees that should they engage in union activities
they would be discharged. We find that the pushers are supervisory
employees .9
The activities of the servicemen were supplemented by similar in-
terference on the part of the respondent's supervisory employees.
Much of the evidence of this sort has a direct bearing on certain of
the individual cases of discrimination discussed later, but may be
mentioned briefly here to indicate the full scope of the respondent's
anti-union campaign.
We have already noted the espionage at the union meetings of May 8
and May 15. That the information so obtained by the respondent was
8 The respondent is obviously responsible for the anti -union activities of the pushers
so enlisted , since they were acting upon the respondent 's direct orders.
9 In Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No 406, 18 N. L. R. B 167, we did not attribute to the
respondent responsibility for the activities of certain "assistant working foremen" in
circulating a petition opposed to the formation in the plant of a national labor organiza-
tion In the same case, however, we attributed to the respondent responsibility for
certain anti-union statements made by an "assistant foreman." In the instant case, the
pushers, foremen , and servicemen were clearly linked in a common design to curtail union
activities. Under these circumstances the two cases are clearly distinguishable. See
Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No.
325, 23 N L. R. B 342 See also footnote 13, infra
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
put to use is shown not only by the fact that a large proportion of the
men attending these. meetings were subsequently discharged, but also
by certain direct eyidence on the point. Thus on the Monday immedi-
ately ' following the May 8 meeting at the Root Building, Alfred
Kupkowski, an, employee, saw'Maroone and Jenners Edgecomb, a fore-
man, walk by the line and engage his pusher, known as "Mike," in
conversation.', Following the conversation, which Kupkowski did not
hear, the pusher came over, to Kupkowski, who had attended the meet-
ing, and told him : "You had better watch your job, they will be laying
for you, they have got you spotted for that meeting you attended
last- Skurday." On the same day, Andrew Sredzinski, who had also
attended the meeting on. May 8, was warned by Mike Bekovitch, his
pusher, that "they got you spotted" for joining the Union. About a
week after the same meeting, another employee, Walter Sredzinski,
who had attended, saw Maroone and Edgecomb nearby conversing
excitedly and pointing at him.
Another employee, Edward Rich, started out to attend the Root
Building meeting, but did not' go in when he saw Maroon and some
servicemen lurking in the vicinity. Nevertheless, on the following
Monday, when he came to work, his foreman, one Ostrom, greeted
hlin as "Mr. Lewis, )110 and subsequently complained to him,: "Why
did you want to join the UnionV You are making plenty of money."
There are other instances showing that the respondent was bent on
hampering organization at the plant. Bill "Peanuts" Fretas,ll fore-
man on the body line, on one occasion remarked to Edward Kania, an
employee working under him: "I heard you belonged to the Union
... Never mind who told me." Kania did not admit it openly, and
Fretas enjoined him to answer "Yes or no." Kania responded:
"Well, yes or no." Fretas warned him : "You better not join it; it
will be better for you."
Sometime in July, William Fiorito, the body-construction foreman,
approached William Kalman, an employee in his department, and said :
"Bill, I hear you joined the union." Kalman purported not to have
heard him due to the noise, but Fiorito repeated the observation, and
Kalman finally admitted that he was a member, asking Fiorito who
told him. Fiorito explained : "I got good information." Kalman
then asked whether he could work if he was in the Union, and Fiorito
replied : "For my part you can but there is somebody else in this plant,
not only me, and you better watch your step.7'
10 The transcript of the record has the name spelled "Louis" at this point. However, the
surrounding circumstances make it clear that Ostrom was applying, to Rich the name of
the head of the C. I. 0, John L. Lewis, and we so find.
n This foreman is referred to as Fretas, Fredus, and Fredo in the record. It is clear
that all these references are to the same foreman.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 563
Otto Otte, an employee: in the hood department, joined the Union
about the middle of May. Shortly thereafter he was told by one
"Steve," an assistant foreman : "There is one thing I want to tell you,
we are going to get a raise pretty soon, that means we are going to
get ten dollars a day. You can believe that, but there is one thing that
I want to tell you, stay away from the union and never mention any-
thing about union in this shop; and you are going to get $10 a day."
On other occasions Foreman Ostrom told groups of employees that
"Ford would pay ten dollars a day before they would ever let it [the
Union] into the plant."
Kasimer Czerwinski, who worked on the trim line, was asked by his
pusher, one "Louis," if he knew of anyone that belonged to the Union.
The pusher added that "anybody belongs to the union is crazy." John
Wurzer, a metal finisher, was advised by Andy Reno, a pusher, that
"If they find out you are a Union' man, they will throw you out
through the window." Anton Agoston, an employee on the cabriolet
line, was told by George Hathaway, a pusher : "Be careful what you
are talking about. They are firing fellows for talking about the
union and joining the union. A couple of fellows just got fired."
Whitey Malecki, another pusher, warned Andrew Learch, an em-
ployee on the body line : "Watch your step, and don't talk anything
about union, because you will lose your job." Malecki also cautioned
Frank Snyder, another employee : "Don't talk union at all or they
will fire you."
The activities of two particular supervisors , Foreman Ostrom and
Subforeman John Ott, are worthy of special attention . About May
5 - Ott summoned a number of employees to'a meeting with Ostrom,
who is foreman of the trim department . Ostrom told the men that
they should cut.out talking about the Union , that the Union could
do nothing for them that the respondent could not do , and that
they should forget about it and go out and have a beer. Ott, evi-
dently deeming that Ostrom 's remarks were insufficiently clear,
added : "I want you boys to cut this out about this God damned
union , or you will be God damned sorry; I am warning you." Ostrom
'in, no way indicated that ,Ott's sentiments were different from his
own: -About the middle of May, Bernard Czarnecki , an employee
in the trim department , overheard Ostrom and some pusher convers-
ing near his bench . Ostrom said to the pusher : "We will give the
old men the works. Get 'rid of them somewhere . There are too
many union men. Organize , to organize , all you hear is talk about
union , union , by those men , and we have 'to get rid of them.' Edward
Lyczynski , another employee on the trim line, had two . encounters
-with Subforeman Ott in July or August 1937 . On the first occasion,
Ott came over to him at the plant ' one' night and 'asked : "Say, what
is the color of the union card? " Lyczynski feigned ignorance, asking
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what Ott was talking about. Ott retorted : "You know God damned
well what I am talking about," and walked away. The next day
Ott admonished Lyczynski : "You and plenty others like you that
are fooling around with the union will get a grand screwing." Ly-
czynski asked him what he meant. Ott explained : "You will find
out when we change the models."
All the above statements by foremen, subforemen, or pushers, are
undenied; the supervisors to whom the statements are attributed
were not produced to testify. In its brief, the respondent asserts
that the statements of these supervisory employees were not in any
way coercive and were merely the "personal views" of the foremen and
subforemen and were understood as such. In view of the nature of
the statements as set forth above, this argument is plainly without
merit. Another contention advanced in the brief is that the respond-
ent is not responsible for the activities of its foremen, subforemen, or
pushers. It is argued that any anti-union activities on the part
of the respondent's supervisory employees were unauthorized digres-
sions from the respondent's alleged policy of noninterference with
organizational matters. It is clear, however, that the acts of a super-
visory employee are the acts of the employer.12 The respondent
nonetheless contends that it is not responsible for the acts of its
supervisory employees because they had no authority to hire or dis-
charge employees. Nothing in the Act, however, limits an employer's
responsibility for the anti-union activity of its supervisory employees,
to employees having the power to hire or discharge 1$ On the basis
of the record in this case, it is entirely clear that the respondent is
responsible for the anti-union activities of its foremen, assistant
foremen, and subforemen, or pushers.
5. The publication and dissemination of anti-union literature
The Ford Almanac is a publication sent out about once a month
by the respondent's Dearborn office for distribution to Ford em-
12 See footnote 6, supra
12 See International Association of Machinists , Tool and Die Makers, Lodge No. 85,
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 Corpora.
tion and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459,
8 N. L. R 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 repre-
sentation 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, 101 F. (2d) 103
(C. C. A. 4) enf'g as mod. Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates and
Pilots of America, No. 9, et at., 8 N . L. R B. 730.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 565
ployees. At the Buffalo plant, copies of the Almanac are placed
near the plant entrance for employees to pick up. A copy of the
Almanac for the month of July 1937 contains two attacks upon
labor unions . One is entitled "Mr. and Mrs. Watkins Learn Some-,
thing about Wealth." Among the disparaging references to labor
unions in this article is the following :
I'm giving you the STRAIGHT TRUTH OF THIS WHOLE
MATTER. Didn't you read in the papers last week how all
the other big automobile manufacturers whose shops have been
taken over by the labor organizers, had a meeting in New York
TO STANDARDIZE WAGES? Know what that means? It
means putting the WORKMAN in exactly the same position
as the manufacturer. He will no longer have the right to say
what HE will work for. His organization will say to him :
"This is the price we have agreed on with the manufacturers
for this job in ALL automobile plants. YOU'LL take it and
LIKE IT-OR YOU WON'T WORK." That's what they'll
tell him. They can't make it stick yet. They haven't yet got
FORD in the bag. But should the time ever come when the finan-
ciers grab control of the labor situation at Ford's, as they have
at all these plants, I'm telling you-and I mean it from the
bottom of my heart-THAT WILL BE THE GREATEST
BLOW HIGH AMERICAN WAGES HAVE EVER BEEN
DEALT.
The second attack on unionism contained in the Ford Almanac
appeared under the title of "Musings of Smoke-Stack Joe." The
following statements are taken therefrom :
SHILLBERG-HA HA ! I'll bet when he hears Ma's gone
he'll be over to the house •tryin' to join me up to this labor
racket. None of THAT FOR ME, either. Why should I pay
money to a gang FOR NOTHING? They can't give me a
single thing MORE'N I ALREADY GOT. Never had to pay
to work before-why start NOW. 'Specially when they won't
show me the books and let me see what they do with MY
MONEY. IF I PAY money for groceries, I GET GRO-
CERIES in return. If I pay money for a suit, I GET A SUIT
IN RETURN. Why should I pay money to this crowd FOR
NOTHING? And look who's asking-all these fellows who
got their labor movement education in RUSSIA . . . It all
looks and smells like COMMUNISM to me ... They say
they've got 200,000 members, 24 hundred thousand -2 million,
4 hundred thousand dollars a year. Ha-that's where all the
big cars, airplanes, swell offices, big salaries and all the rest of
it comes from . They don't DARE give the members a financial
283034-41-vol. 23-37
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accounting . If you ask for one you get BEATEN. Darned
if I join a RACKET LIKE THAT.
A reprint from the Detroit News of April 29, 1937, entitled "Ford
Gives his Viewpoint on Labor-Cautions Workers on Organization,"
was similarly received from the main office at Dearborn and dis-
tributed in pamphlet form to the employees at the Buffalo plant.
This pamphlet contains the following statements :
A monopoly of jobs in this country is just as bad as a monop-
oly of bread . Sometimes we catch people here in Detroit "sell-
ing" jobs at the Ford Motor Co. by making ignorant persons
believe they have a "pull" with us . . . This was done by
crooks and they were properly dealt with.
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 com-
plete control of American labor, a control no one has ever before
had.
... What was the great result of those strikes? Merely
that numbers of men have put their neck into an iron collar. I
am only trying to show them who owns the collar .. .
A little group of those who control both capital and
labor will sit down in New York, and they will settle prices, and
they will settle dividends, and they will settle wages .. .
The Wagner Act is just one of these things that helps to
fasten control upon the necks of labor. Labor doesn 't see that
yet. It thinks the Wagner Act helps it. All you have to do is
to wait and see how it works. It fits perfectly the plans to get
control of labor.
I have never sought to prevent our men from joining any
association-religious , racial , political or social . . . No one
who believes in American freedom would do that. When our
men ask about unions, I give them the same advice as when
they ask about any of the other schemes that are always being
aimed at 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?"
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 567
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 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 factories-
big, progressive factories with everything in them that union
leaders now demand. They don't want that. They want con-
trol. '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 respondent denies that its distribution of this literature consti-
tutes unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. The
question presented is whether this literature, expressing as it did the
policy of the respondent, was calculated under the circumstances to
arouse in the employees' minds a fear that membership or activity in
the Union would•result in discrimination against them by the respond-
ent. In order to determine this question, we must consider not only
the bare words of the literature, but also the accompanying events
which provide the setting for the statements and reveal their full
import. In this case, the distribution of the literature was accom-
panied by warnings against union activity made by supervisors, by
espionage within and without the plant, by the destruction of a banner
announcing a union meeting, and, as we find below, by discharges
based on union membership and activity. The record as a whole
reveals a broad attack by the respondent on union organization. As
part of this attack the respondent distributed the literature in ques-
tion, upbraiding the Union as a "racket" which "looks and smells like
Q
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
COMMUNISM," warning the workers that their dues provide "big
cars, airplanes, swell offices, big salaries," and asserting that if they
asked for an accounting of union funds they would be beaten. Atop
the whole campaign stand the pronouncements of Henry Ford himself,
urging the workers to shun unions. We find that, under these circum-
stances, the statements contained in the documents were intended to,
and did, have the effect of interfering with, restraining, and coercing
the respondent's employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization and collective bargaining.14
As to the foregoing literature, the respondent contends in sub-
stance: (1) that in the circulation of the Almanac and pamphlet it
was exercising the right of free speech guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and (2) that the legislative
history of Section 8 (1) of the Act indicates that Congress purposely
left employers free to influence their employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 as long as employers did not
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of such
right.
We have considered these defenses and, in the light of the facts
presented, find them to be without merit. The respondent's right to
freedom of speech and of press does not sanction its use of speech
or press as a means of employing its economic superiority to inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by the Act 15 By its distribution of the Almanac
14 We previously have fully considered the problem here presented . In Matter of Ford
Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 325, 23 N. L. R. B.
342, we said :
Whether the words or actions of an employer constitute interference, restraint,
or coercion, within the meaning of the Act, must be judged, not as an abstract
proposition, but in the light of the economic realities of the employer-employee rela-
tionship . It need hardly be stressed that the dominant position of an employer,
who exercises the power of economic life and death over his employees, gives to an
employer 's statements , whether or not ostensibly couched as argument or advice, an
immediate and compelling effect that they would not possess if addressed to economic
equals. As the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has said , "The voice
of authority may . . . provoke fear and awe quite as readily as it may bespeak
fatherly advice. The position of the employer . . . carries such weight and influence
that his words can be coercive when they would not be so if the relation of master
and servant did not exist ." (Citing N. L R B v Falk Corp , 102 F. (2d) 383 (C C. A.
7), aff'd 308 U S 453) In the Virginian Railway case the Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit made the same observation :
"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 employee's will
in favor of what the employer desires against his better judgment as to what is really
in the best interest of himself and his fellow employees (Citing Virginian By Co v.
(Citing Virginian Rif Co v. System Federation No 40, 84 F. ( 2d) 641 (C. C. A.
System Federation No 40, 84 F (2d) 641 (C. C. A. 4), aff'd 300 U. S. 515)."
The views which we expressed in the above-cited case, involving the respondent, are
equally applicable in the instant case.
15 See N L. it. B. v. Falk Corporation, 102 F. ( 2d) 383 (C. C. A. 7), aff'd in 308 U. S.
453, N L. R. B. v. Colton, 105 F. (2d) 179 (C. C. A 6) ; N. L. R B v. Hopwood Re-
tinning Co ., 98 F. (2d ) 97 (C. C. A. 2) ; Virginia Ferry Cafp . v. N. L. R. B., 101 F. (2d)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 569
and pamphlet to the plant employees, the respondent was not ad-
dressing or attempting to influence the public at large; nor was the
respondent addressing an argument to the intellect of its employees
which they were free to accept or reject without compulsion. The
respondent was not attempting to engage in the "free trade in
ideas . . . in the competition of the market." 16 On the contrary it
was issuing a stern warning that it was bitterly opposed to the
Union and that it would throw the weight of its economic power
against the efforts of its employees to form or carry on such an
organization. The respondent's right so to interfere with, restrain,
and coerce its employees is not sanctioned by the First Amendment.
As to the respondent's contention that the Act does not prohibit
an employer from influencing his employees, it is clear, for the
reasons already stated, that the respondent's actions here constitute
not mere influence but interference, restraint, and coercion, expressly
forbidden by the Act.
B. The discharges and the refusal to recall certain employees upon
the reopening of the plant after the shut-down in September 1937
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent, discrimi-
natorily discharged 18 employees and discriminatorily refused to
recall 51 employees upon the reopening of its plant following a
seasonal shut-down in September 1937. The respondent denies these
allegations.
1. The discharges
We have already noted the espionage activities of the respondent's
servicemen and supervisory employees, the coercive statements of the
respondent's supervisory employees, and the publication and dis-
semination among the respondent's employees of anti-union litera-
ture. The alleged discharges must be considered in the light of this
background of anti-union practices. In addition, other important
circumstances here present indicate the existence of a policy of dis-
criminating against employees engaging in union activity. Thus it
appears that of the approximately 21 employees who attended the
first union meeting, which was subjected to surveillance, at least 18
103 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. Stachpole Carbon Co., 105 F. (2d) 167 (C. C. A. 3),
cert. den. 60 Sup. Ct. 142; N. L. R B. v. Nebel Knitting Company, 103 F. (2d) 594
(C. C A. 4) ; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. if. B., 107 F. (2d) 472 (C C A. 3),
cert. den. April 8, 1940; Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. N. L. R B, 107 F (2d) 555,
558-9 (C. C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining Company, April 3, 1940 (C C. A 9).
16 See Holmes, J., dissenting in Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S 616, 624, 630 (1919).
Compare the language of the Court in Thornhill v. Alabama (310 U. S. 88, decided April
22, 1940) ; "Abridgment of the liberty of such discussion can be justified only where the
clear danger of substantive evils arises under circumstances affording no opportunity to
test the merits of ideas by competition for acceptance in the market of public opinion."
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were subsequently eliminated from the respondent's employ.17 Like-
wise, it is an important fact that substantially all of the leaders of
the union were discharged.
From May 1937, when union activity began, to August 9, 1937, the
date of the last discriminatory discharges occurring prior to the
general lay-off,18 the respondent laid off between 150 and 200 em-
ployees. The respondent contends that as the alleged discriminatory
discharges constitute a low percentage of the total lay-offs during
this period, there is a failure to prove a policy of discriminating
against members of the Union. Clearly this is a factor which should
be considered in determining whether or not the respondent has
discriminatorily discharged employees, and it is a circumstance which
the Board has considered in all of the discharges discussed here-
inafter. We do not feel, however, that this circumstance outweighs
all of the other factors involved in the discharges. The large num-
ber of lay-offs indicate that the ordinary labor turnover is large and
that a large number of the lay-offs were proper. It does not follow
that all of the lay-offs were proper.
The respondent further maintains that the alleged discriminatory
discharges were, in fact, lay-offs. On the employment cards of these
employees, however, causes for the termination of employment were
assigned. We conclude that the employees in question were dis-
charged and not laid off.
As already noted, the complaint alleged that 18 employees were
discharged because of their union activities. One of these employees,
Edward Sherman, did not testify at the hearing, and there was
insufficient evidence to support the allegations as to him. Two others,
Guy Testa and Frank Kornowicz, are more appropriately considered
with the group which was not recalled upon the reopening of the
plant following the September lay-off. The case of Frank Kandrat
alleged in the complaint to have been refused recall by the respond-
ent, is more appropriately considered here since he was laid off or
discharged prior to the general lay-off in September 1937. There
thus are 16 discharges now to be considered. We will take up
seriatim the circumstances surrounding the discharge of each
individual.
Frank Snyder was employed by the respondent in 1929. He worked
in the trim department. Until he joined the Union his work never
17 Harry Strash, who attended the union meeting at the Root Building, testified that on
the following Monday, which was pay day, Maroone walked up and down the line of
employees, picked out those who had attended the meeting, and wrote down their badge
numbers . Thereafter he and others who had attended the union meeting were placed
under strict surveillance by the servicemen
18 Bean and Lawler were discharged after August 9; however , the allegations that they
-were discriminatorily discharged are not supported by the record , and the complaint as
to them is hereinafter dismissed.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 571
had been criticized. On May 8, 1937, he attended the Root Building
meeting, and was spoken to by Maroone as he left the building. He
did not join the Union until May 28. He was discharged on July
8, 1937, his termination of service card reading : "This employee
warned on several occasions as to poor workmanship, nevertheless
employee continued to do careless work." Snyder testified and we
find that no such warnings had been communicated to him. On July
8 John Ott, a subforeman, approached him at work and asked him
what he had done. Snyder responded that he had done nothing. Ott
said: "Well, Vincent told me to take you out." As he was being
taken out, Snyder saw Norbert Vincent, a foreman, and asked him
what was wrong. lie was told that his work was poor-nothing
more specific.
A few days previous to this, Snyder had met Joseph Malecki, a
subforeman, outside the plant, and was told by Malecki that he
(Snyder) was on the spot and should not talk about the Union at
all or he would be fired. A serviceman had previously told Malecki
that he would like to "get something" on Snyder.
We have no doubt from the above facts, taken in connection with
the whole record, that Snyder was discharged because of his union
membership and activity, and we so find.
Stanley S. Fielkowski was employed by the respondent in February
1934, and assigned to the cushion department. Subsequently he was
made an instructor of new men, and for a period he was an inspector.
In February 1937 he was returned to his ordinary duties. He joined
the Union on May 6, 1937, and attended the meeting which was held
at the Root Building on May 8. He saw Maroone, Maeder, and
Sullivan in the vicinity. Although he felt ill, on Monday, May 10,
he reported for work and got his pay at the regular time. He later
informed his foreman that he felt ill and went to see the company
doctor, who, after seeing that he received a pass from the first-aid
man, sent him home. The next day he reported for work only to find
his time card missing from the rack. The timekeeper told him to see
Maroone. Maroone first conferred with Malone, and then referred
Fielkowski to the latter. Malone told Fielkowski that he had broken
it rule by leaving the plant on the previous day, and added, "We
thought highly of you." Malone then told him he was through.
When Fielkowski sought to discuss the matter further, Malone would
have none of it, and instructed Maeder, a serviceman, to accompany
Fielkowski while he turned in his tools and got his badge. Fiel-
kowski returned with the badge and again sought to explain the
matter further. The doctor happened by at that moment and was
called over by Fielkowski. He confirmed Fielkowski's story and told
Malone that Fielkowski had had a bad cold and inflammation of the
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stomach the day before and was in no condition to work. Malone
then told Fielkowski : "Well, give me the badge and keep going, you
are through." Although Malone testified, he did not offer his version
of the above events. Maroone testified, and, although his testimony
was generally confused as to the circumstances surrounding this dis-
charge, he denied that Fielkowski told him about being ill. We credit
Fielkowski's testimony rather than Maroone's on this point. Ed-
ward Miller, superintendent of the plant, testified as to Fielkowski,
"He was a mighty good worker." Miller claimed that sometime
thereafter he talked to Dr. Brylski who attended Fielkowski, and
that although Brylski did not deny it, he did not "seem to recall"
treating Fielkowski.
An analysis of all the testimony convinces us that Fielkowski's dis-
charge was due to his affiliation with the Union rather than to the
failure to report to his foreman before leaving the plant. He had
attended the meeting at the Root Building where Maroone and the
servicemen were present; he had reported to his foreman that he was
feeling ill; Maroone had spoken with Malone just before Malone told
Fielkowski he was through ; Malone, at least, knew that the doctor
had found Fielkowski actually ill the day before. We find it difficult
to believe that a man who had been a competent workman for over
three years was discharged summarily under these circumstances
merely for failing to report' back to the foreman after seeing the
doctor and before leaving the plant. We find that Fielkowski was
discharged because of his union membership and activities.
Anthony Miskowiak worked in the trim department, doing up-
holstery work. He had been with the company for about 4 years
prior to his discharge, and had had previous experience in similar
work with other firms. He had on occasion been assigned to work on
cars destined for special display in show rooms. Miller conceded
that he was a good workman, but averred that he had suddenly begun
doing poor work just before his discharge. There had been no criti-
cism of Miskowiak's work prior to his discharge on May 10, 1937.
Yet his termination of service record states : "This employee neg-
lected his operation. Foreman warned employee as to poor work-
manship, however employee continued to produce poor work."
The facts surrounding his discharge are as follows : About 7: 00 p. m.
on May 10, Foreman Ostrom or Subforeman Ott came to the line on
which Miskowiak was working and took off the other man who was
doing the same operation as he. All that evening Sullivan, a service-
man, kept a close watch on Miskowiak. Later in the evening Ott
instructed him to see Ostrom concerning a defective job. Ostrom said:
"Tony, this is your job and this is a rotten job, I am going to let you
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 573
go." It appeared that a window cord had been either put in improp-
erly or ripped out after proper installation. Miskowiak replied,
"Well, I cannot stop you from doing that, but this job is not mine,
and you know it." Sullivan was standing by, and Ostrom turned to
him and said : "Take him out." The respondent did not call Ostrom,
Ott, or Sullivan to testify.
On May 5, after Miskowiak was through work, Ott had called him
and several other men over near the tool crib where Ostrom had spoken
to them, as noted above, saying that he understood they were talking
about unions in the shop, and that he was warning them to "cut it out."
Ott had supplemented Ostrom's remarks by saying : "I want you boys
to cut this out about this God damned union or you will be God damned
sorry; I am warning you." Miskowiak had attended the meeting at
the Root Building on May 8.
A review of all the evidence convinces us that Miskowiak was dis-
charged because of his membership and activities in the Union. We
are convinced that the defective job was not in fact Miskowiak's fault.
There is ample reason to suppose that Ostrom, whose hostility to the
Union is clearly shown in this as well as in other parts of the record,
either fabricated, or procured the fabrication of, the charge that
Miskowiak had been at fault. Even if we assume, however; that
Miskowiak had erred, it seems incredible that this excellent workman
of long standing should be abruptly discharged for one mistake under
such circumstances. It is to be noted that the claim on his termination
of service record that he had previously been warned by his foreman
as to poor workmanship, is in no way borne out by the record, and is
in fact negatived by Miskowiak's undenied testimony. We have no
doubt, and we find, that Miskowiak was discriminated against as a
result of his union activity.1°
Martin Socenski was employed by the respondent in February 1934,
and worked on the trim line. He joined the Union early in May and
became its vice president. He was at the Root Building meeting on
May 8. A few days thereafter one Hathaway, a subforeman, remarked
to Socenski that he understood him to be "an organizer here," averring
that "it is all over the shop." On June 30 Foreman Edgecomb accused
him of doing a particular job defectively. Socenski established that the
job referred to was done by the man working behind him. Edgecomb
said, "Well, forget about it." Later in the day Edgecomb reappeared,
made a similiar allegation , and again Socenski established that the
19 The respondent in Its brief raises the objection that the evidence does not clearly
show that Miskowlak joined the Union before his discharge. It is immaterial whether
or' n6t Miskowiak actually had joined the Union before his discharge . He had attended
the Root ' Building meeting, and it is clear that even were his discharge merely the result
of supposed union membership It would constitute an unfair labor practice under the facts
of this case.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job was not his. In each of these instances, Edgecomb's charge was
that a screw had not been properly tightened. Later in the same day,
Edgecomb sent a pusher to summon Socenski to another defective job.
As Socenski arrived, Edgecomb stated, "Here is your job, you can't
bluff me now." This time it was Socenski's job-a loose screw.
Socenski asserted, "You are trying to fire me." Socenski testified that
lie had been unusually careful in tightening the screws that day, and
that he was convinced this one had been loosened by someone after he
had finished. Edgecomb 20 then sent him to the employment office
and he was discharged.
Socenski testified that there had never been any criticism of his
work prior to the day of his discharge. In fact, he had on occasion
been assigned to special jobs requiring the best workmen. Socenski's
termination of service record stated : "This employee warned on
several occasions as to poor workmanship. Nevertheless employee
continued to do poor work.1'
The only testimony brought forward by the respondent on
Socenski's case was that of Maroone and Miller. Maroone did not
remember anything about the case except that the regular procedure
was followed; Socenski was sent to him by the foreman and told his
story; Maroone then saw the foreman and presented both stories to
Superintendent Miller, who decided to discharge Socenski. Maroone
did not recall what Socenski's story was. Miller conceded that
Socenski was an exceptional workman and said he could not under-
stand how he happened to produce a string of bad work all at once.
This was not the only instance in which Edgecomb made persistent
efforts to unearth some deficiency in a union man's work. It appears
from the uncontradicted testimony of Weldon Farnish, another com-
plainant, that some time in June Edgecomb stood and watched him
for several minutes and then alleged that Farnish was not fitting
the windshield wipers properly. A check with a gauge revealed that
nothing was wrong. Edgecomb went away shaking his head, saying,
"God damn, can't get nothing on him." We are convinced that Edge-
comb deliberately set out to find some excuse to use as a basis for
getting rid of Socenski. The motive is apparent from Socenski's
prominent union activity. Although we find that Socenski actually
was not responsible for the alleged defective work finally pointed
to by Edgecomb; whether he was or not, it would still be clear, and
we find, that his union membership and activity, and not the alleged
single mistake made by him, was the cause of his discharge.
20 The record at this point gives the foreman's name as Ostrom, but it is clear from the
surrounding testimony that this was an inadvertent error and that Edgecomb was the
foreman involved.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 575
Joseph E. Nowicki worked in the chassis department. He was
employed by the respondent in 1930. Later he served a 3-year period
in the army. After this absence, he returned to the respondent's
employ. He worked at several different jobs in the plant from time
to time, and there is no evidence of any complaint concerning his
work. In fact, on one occasion when it was proposed that he be
transferred to a job as factory serviceman, his foreman protested
against losing so valuable a man and the transfer was not made.
Nowicki joined the Union about June 6, 1937, and became active
in enrolling other members. On the afternoon of July 7, as he was
leaving the plant, a man whom he had never seen before stepped up
to him and slugged him over the left eye. Nowicki noticed two
servicemen standing within a few feet of him at the time. He re-
turned to the plant and had the first-aid man repair the cut over his
eye. Maroone was in the room at the time and Nowicki told him
what had happened. Maroone asked him if he knew the man who
had attacked him; Nowicki said he did not. The next day Nowicki's
time card was out of the rack when he arrived for work, and he was
directed to Malone. He explained the occurrence to Malone, who
said, "Those things can't go on any further." Malone went on to ask
him if he belonged to any organization. Nowicki said he did not.
Finally, Malone told him he could not resume work until he identified
his assailant and brought him in. Nowicki was thereupon
discharged.
Three months later Nowicki recognized his assailant on the street
in Buffalo and Nowicki's father managed to find out his name. He
was Steve Pietrowski, a professional wrestler.
The respondent has a rule that employees fighting on company
property are discharged. Miller testified concerning the application
of the rule in Nowicki's case as follows: "We had in mind Nowicki
may have had some personal grievances with men in the plant and
sooner or later it may pop out in the plant, and we would be responsi-
ble as far as compensation is concerned. You know, under the Com-
pensation Law, if you have any fight or get injured in the property,
we have to pay you compensation, until such a time we could prove,
Nowicki could prove there was nobody in the plant he had personal
grievances with, we let him go." He went on to testify that the
management had tried without success to discover who was responsi-
ble for the incident. Maroone also testified on the point and said
that Nowicki told him "that he was fighting out on the company prop-
erty." As to this, we believe Nowicki's testimony that he told
Maroone the full circumstances. It is inconceivable that a man fresh
from an unprovoked attack under such circumstances would merely
report to Maroone that he was "fighting." Maroone inscribed on the
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
termination of service record : "This employee caused disturbance
with other employees in parking lot." He was unable to testify as
to how he reached such a conclusion, and he did nothing to find out
who the "other employees" were in any event. The first-aid report,
which Nowicki signed at the time he was given treatment, reads:
"Injured in a fight outside of company property and after working
hours." We do not think that signing a routine report under circum-
stances which were not conducive to calm reflection shows any admis-
sion of guilt such as might be implied from the description of the
occurrence in the report as a "fight." We find that Nowicki was the
victim of an unprovoked attack and that that fact was known to the
respondent.
In its brief the respondent describes the assault as "a complete
mystery," and urges that no finding of an anti-union motive for the
discharge can properly be found. There is no doubt that the above
facts leave a great deal to be explained, but we are of the opinion
that other evidence in the record throws sufficient light on the matter
to warrant a finding as to what actually happened. As noted above,
Nowicki finally identified his assailant as one Steve Pietrowski, a
professional wrestler. Pietrowski was subpoenaed by the Board and
testified in the case. A reluctant witness at best, he nevertheless
provided some information which we deem credible. He testified
that he was acquainted with Bruno Luczac and Casey Moran, who
were also professional wrestlers. He added that he also knew Frank
Crystal, likewise a wrestler. During the period when he was alleged
to have assaulted Nowicki, he claimed to have been employed at a
freight house directly across the street from the Ford plant. At
that time he used to go riding occasionally in the evening with
Moran and Luczac. As to the Nowicki incident, he denied ever
having seen Nowicki, much less having struck him. As between
Nowicki's straightforward story and this testimony, we have no
hesitation in accepting Nowicki's version. As a matter of fact, im-
mediately after Pietrowski testified, Nowicki was recalled to the stand
and positively identified Pietrowski, then in the room, as the man
who had hit him.
Further light is thrown on the incident by the testimony of Bernard
Czarnecki who testified that he lived in the neighborhood in which
Pietrowski lived and that he had known Pietrowski for about 2 years.
He testified that before he came into the hearing room to testify,
he met Pietrowski on the street; that Pietrowski told him that he
had been subpoenaed to testify and that he was "mad" about it;
that he had hit somebody ; and that he had seen someone from Detroit
at a local hotel relative to the matter on which he was to testify.
He told Czarnecki that "if this thing will go through" he was to get
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 577
paid. Czarnecki asked Pietrowski whether or not it was Malone who
intended to pay him, and Pietrowski replied that it was not Malone
and that he would not reveal the person's name. Pietrowski admitted
that he stood and talked with Czarnecki for 3 to 5 minutes but
contended that he said nothing more than "hello" or "good morning"
to him. It appears at another point in the record that one Moore,
an official of the Ford Company, was present at this time in Buffalo
in regard to the present proceeding, and further that Moore was
staying at the hotel to which Pietrowski referred, the Statler. Yule.,
the factory manager, denied that in his conferences with Moore at
the Statler, he had seen Pietrowski. We conclude that Pietrowski
did consult with someone from Detroit at the Statler Hotel relative
to his testimony in the case.
The circumstances irresistibly lead to the conclusion, and we find,
that Luczak, Moran, and Crystal, who were intimate associates of
Pietrowski, arranged to have Pietrowski assault Nowicki to provide
a pretext for the latter's discharge. No other explanation of the
bizarre course of events seems plausible to us. Here was a man
with a long record of excellent service, who walked out of the plant
one day and was slugged by a professional wrestler, until then un-
known to him, and without any provocation. He was then forth-
with discharged, allegedly for "fighting," despite his explanation of
the true circumstances to his superiors. As a condition of reinstate-
ment the respondent required that he "prove there was nobody in
the plant he had personal grievances with"-an amazing burden of
proof to put on a man under any circumstances, much less those shown
here. It is significant that he had joined the Union a short while
before, and had been active in soliciting new members. Furthermore,
during the same period of time in which he was discharged, other
union members were being discriminated against and harassed in
the plant. Upon the entire record, we are convinced that Nowicki
was the victim of discrimination by the respondent because of his
membership and activity in the Union, and we so find.
Joseph Kaiser worked on the trim line. He had been with the re-
spondent since 1929 or 1930, and there had never been complaints con-
cerning his work. On May 8, 1937, he joined the Union. Just before
the union meeting on that day, John Ott, the subforeman whose ac-
tivities against the Union are shown to be widespread, asked him
when the meeting was going to be held. Kaiser replied, "Sometime
this week."
Kaiser's job was to put on the regulator and hinges for the wind-
shield. He worked on the night shift commencing at 3: 30 p. m.
On May 12, 1937, when he came in to work, the man whom he was
relieving told him that there were two jobs' on the line on which
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.he, had not .tightened up the, bolts on the regulators. Kaiser advised
him to finish the job, and the other man said he would go back and
tighten them up. Kaiser assumed that he did so, and did not
check up. About two hours later, the approximate time required
for a car to get from that part of the line to the finish line, Ostrom,
the general foreman, called Kaiser to the finish line and showed him
two regulators with loose bolts. Kaiser explained to Ostrom that
those were undoubtedly the jobs the other man had let through.
Ostrom said, "All right, let it go; see that it doesn't happen again."
At about 10: 30 Ostrom sent for him again and accused him of letting
other cars go through with loose bolts. Kaiser insisted he did not
let jobs like that go'through, but tightened the bolts Ostrom pointed
out to him, and then at Ostrom's orders checked, every car back to'
his point on the line. All the bolts were tight. A half hour later
Ostrom called him over again and averred he had found another
,loose one. Kaiser tightened it, and together he and Ostrom checked
back again and found no other loose bolts. Presently Ostrom ap-
peared with Sullivan, a serviceman, and directed him to take Kaiser
out. Kaiser was escorted to the employment office and let out. His
termination of service record reads : "Although warned by foreman
on several occasions re-neglecting workmanship on his operation, this
employee continued to do poor work." Miller, the superintendent,
testified as follows concerning Kaiser's case :
"Kayser (sic) knew how to put them in and knew how to do
a good job. That is the sad part of it. He was a capable man
to do a good job. He has always been a good worker. Well,
'at' a time when we were' laying off men ' Kaiser would either con-
ciously or unconsciously let screws come loose or do inferior work
at that particular time. I don't know. I can't explain it as to
why a man worked good for years and is a good dependable
worker, and he was a good worker, and still is."
Neither Ott nor Ostrom was called to contradict Kaiser's testimony.
It appears from his testimony that the respondent's supervisory em-
ployees knew of his union activities, and that there was a systematic
attempt on the day of his discharge to detect deficiencies in Kaiser's
work. We are convinced, moreover, and find, that, the'klleged de-
ficiencies in his work were fabricated by Ostrom, save for the defects
which were traceable to the employee on the earlier shift. It is
significant that the respondent did not attempt to establish any prior
instances of defective work, which according to the termination of
service record were the reason for discharging Kaiser. We find that
the respondent discharged Kaiser because of his membership and
activities in the Union.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 579
Andreiv-Sredainski was in the respondent's employ during 1930 and
again from 1933 down to the date of his discharge. He distributed
materials to the trim line. In 1932 and 1933, when production at
the respondent's plant was slack, he was not among those retained
for work.
He joined the Union on May 8 and attended the meeting that day
at the Root Building. He testified that thereafter he was watched
at work by Edgecomb, Maeder, and Maroone. On Tuesday, May 11,
his pusher, Mike Bekovitch, said to him : "You had better watch your
step. You are going out. They got you spotted." Sredzinski asked
why, and Bekovitch asked him if he had joined the Union. Sred-
zinski said that he had. Bekovitch said, "That is the thing. You are
going to get it, so be careful and send the material on the line with-
out any mistakes." Later in the day Maeder summoned Sredzinski
to see Edgecomb and, in Edgecomb's presence, accused him of spitting
tobacco on the floor, talking to the men, and walking around the
factory. Sredzinski called Maeder a "God damned liar," and Maeder,
a considerably larger man, dealt him several heavy blows in the
face. Edgecomb then intervened and instructed Maeder to take
Sredzinski to the employment office. There Malone laid him off,
according to Sredzinski's testimony.
Sredzinski's testimony was corroborated by John Clark, an em-
ployee. Clark testified as follows: "I heard Andy (Sredzinski)
holler out `That is a damn lie' or `You are a damn liar', and this
factory serviceman hauled off and hit Andy about four or five times
in the jaw. He swung his arms, his left and his right, and knocked
him into me." Alphonse Ruckie in further corroboration of
Sredzinski's testimony testified that, "Andy (Sredzinski) said some-
thing and this factory serviceman must have hit him three or four
times and knocked him down...."
As stated above, Sredzinski testified that Malone discharged him.
There is some confusion on this point in the record, as Maroone testi-
fied that Sredzinski reported to him at the employment office, and
that he (Maroone) reported both Sredzinski's story and that of the
foreman to Miller, ' who decided on the lay-off. Maroone did not
recall what Sredzinski's story was, but the foreman's story, which he
noted on the termination of service card, was : "This employee con-
tinuously leaving his department without knowledge of his foreman."
The circumstances surrounding the incident are highly suspicious.
Since Sredzinski did not chew tobacco at all, and no mention of this
alleged shortcoming is made on his termination of service card,
Maeder's charge that he was spitting tobacco on the floor is obviously
untrue. Sredzinski testified that his work required him to be up
and down the line in his capacity as stockman supplying the line
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with materials. It seems highly doubtful that, following Bekovitch's
warning that he was in danger of discharge for joining the Union,
Sredzinski would have embarked on a campaign of loafing and gen-
eral inattention to his duties. Thus, we credit his testimony that
he was particularly careful to do his work thoroughly that day,
heeding Bekovitch's admonition. The respondent did not produce
Maeder or Bekovitch as witnesses. However we might resolve the
responsibility for the encounter between Maeder and Sredzinski, we
feel that this encounter did not occasion Sredzinski's discharge, nor
does the respondent assign it as a reason for such discharge. More-
over, contrary to the respondent's alleged policy of discharging em-
ployees engaging in fights at or near the plant, the respondent did.
not discharge Maeder. We are convinced from all the facts that
Maeder and Edgecomb had known of Sredzinski's activity in the
Union, and that such was the real reason for his discharge.
Walter Sredzinski was first employed by the respondent for a few
months during 1930. In December 1936 the respondent employed
him as operator of a table which transferred cars from one line to
another. During April or May 1937 he was transferred from one
job to another in rapid succession. He was finally assigned to
spraying bolts on the chassis line.
Sredzinski testified that he sprayed one side of the chassis, while
another employee sprayed the other side. He stated that his fore-
man, Kennedy, told him to touch up the bolts and nuts which had
not been sprayed when the chassis reached him. On June 8, the
second day after he had been assigned to this work, the chief in-
spector, Rayfield, complained to him that he was not spraying the
bolts in the front of the chassis. Sredzinski averred that he had
sprayed the parts in question. That same afternoon Rayfield came
around again and complained that Sredzinski was neglecting the
bolts underneath the chassis. Sredzinski told him that he had never
seen anyone spray them. Sredzinski carefully followed these suc-
cessive instructions. Later that same day Kennedy told Sredzinski
that he wanted to see him. Sredzinski remarked, "Well, I believe I
am going to get my pay now for union activities." Kennedy replied,
"I am not supposed to know anything about that." After a short
interval, he added, "I think I will have to let you go because you
did not spray those nuts underneath those springs." Sredzinski was
thereupon discharged, his termination of service record stating that
he had done careless work despite several warnings.
Neither Rayfield nor Kennedy was called to testify. Miller testi-
fied that Sredzinski was transferred to several jobs because he was
unable to do the jobs to which he was assigned, and that they finally
put him on the spraying job because it was a simple operation
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 581
Sredzinski claims that the jobs to which he was transferred were
difficult.
Sredzinski was a key figure in the Union. As we have noted
previously, he was the one who first started organizational efforts
among the respondent's employees. He was an active organizer for
the Union, and was elected temporary financial secretary. He at-
tended both the May 8 and May 15 meetings, at which the above-
described espionage was practiced. Subsequently, while at work in
the plant, he saw Maroone and Edgecomb talking excitedly and
pointing at him. Sredzinski testified that a pusher named Larry
asked him if he had attended any union meetings recently and that
he replied that he had attended some and that they were "packing
the hall." Sredzinski further testified that servicemen watched him
even while he was eating lunch, and that on one occasion there was
a serviceman eating lunch on either side of him.
In a number of cases considered herein, e. g., Lawler, Kaiser,
Miskowiak, Bean, Salley, and Socenski, we found incidents where
employees with good service records were allegedly found, after
their union activities became apparent, to be doing defective work.
We feel that there was a systematic endeavor in Sredzinski's case to
detect some deficiency in his work upon which the respondent might
base a•discharge. Sredzinski was an important figure in the Union.
The ground for discharge in this case appears to have been trifling.
The Trial Examiner found that Sredzinski was discharged because
of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union. We
agree with the Trial Examiner's finding.
Patrick Curtin was employed by the respondent in 1929 and was
continuously employed until June 23, 1937, when he was discharged.
Curtin joined the Union on May 23, 1937, and attended the meetings
of the Union thereafter. On May 30, 1937, he was elected to the
office of recording secretary of the Union. Curtin testified that he
was under the surveillance of factory servicemen constantly there-
after.
Curtin worked in the body department. Soldering was among his
operations. Curtin testified that during June 1937 his pusher, Frank,
told him that he had orders to see that every man on the line wore a
respirator and that after finishing the job which he was then doing,
he, Curtin, should get one and wear it. Curtin stated that after
finishing that job he started for the tool crib where the respirators
were kept, but he was stopped by the pusher (Frank) who inquired
where be was going. When Curtin said he was going to the tool
crib for a respirator the pusher "got all excited and told me that
I couldn't go down there, that he would have to shut the line down
if I went down there, that I would have to do this job and that job
283034-41-vol. 23-38
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
befoi. etcould get it. I got : that job-done that h&assigndd -me to, and
when I got that done he took me to a job on the floor. There was
a job on the floor that he wanted to put on the line . When I was
working at it the factory serviceman came and handed me a leaving
factory slip."
Curtin testified that two days later he returned to the plant for
his pay and while there saw Miller, whom he asked why he had
been discharged . Curtin stated that Miller, having no knowledge
of the reason for his discharge , offered to see Curtin 's foreman and
to ascertain the reason for the discharge. After contacting the fore-
man Miller told Curtin that while he could overlook the respirator
incident , he understood that Curtin had used profane language to
his-foren an . ;Miller. said that he was ,,unable to overlook - the Matter
offense. This was the first Curtin had heard of any alleged , profanity
on his part . Miller admitted that he had a conversation with Curtin
after Curtin 's discharge , but did not testify concerning the substance
of the conversation. We find that Miller made the statements at-
tributed to him. Curtin 's termination of service card states : "Em-
ployee warned on several occasions as to his poor workmanship.
Nevertheless employee continued to do poor work."
The testimony of the respondent 's witnesses fails to explain the
reason for Curtin's discharge . The foreman was not called to
testify concerning the "poor workmanship" referred to in the termi-
nation of service card . Curtin had been in the respondent's em-
ploy since 1929, and there is no evidence that his work was not satis-
factory. The action of the , pusher in- - giving Curtin conflicting
orders indicated that the respondent was attempting to secure a pre-
text for discharging Curtin. The haste with which the leaving
factory slip was issued supports this view . This incident was not a
reasonable ground for discharge, and Miller , appreciating this, as-
signed as the reason for his refusal to return Curtin to his job that
Curtin had used profane language in speaking to his foreman. The
foreman was not called to testify concerning the alleged profanity.
We do not feel that either of the reasons alleged as grounds for the
discharge was in fact the true reason. Curtin was an official of the
Union. In view of the espionage of the respondent 's servicemen we
find that this was known to the respondent. Curtin had been under
surveillance even when going to the toilet . We find that Curtin was
discharged because of his membership and activities in the Union.
Vincent Lipira was first employed by the respondent in March
1933. Except for periods when the plant was closed because of a lack
of materials or because of a change in models, he was continuously
employed until June 28, 1937, when he was discharged . Lipira testi-
fied that his work during this time had never been criticized; the
respondent offered no testimony to rebut this statement.
FORD . MOTOR: COMPANY 583
"',Either: late in May or 'early in, June . of 1937•' Lipira j oiiied- the
Union. Shortly thereafter he noticed that the servicemen were keep-
ing him under surveillance. On the Thursday preceding June 28 a
serviceman approached him while lie was working and engaged him
in a conversation concerning a strike then in progress at Detroit.
According to Lipira, the serviceman asked him his opinion on the
strike and he did not profess any sympathy for it; the serviceman
then said, "Well, I don't know what they would gain . . . If they
don't watch themselves they are going to get into serious trouble.
They won't have any work." Lipira replied, "It is true. I think every
man should do his job as long as he has got a job." While the service-
man was not identified, in view of the activities of the servicemen,
which we have previously discussed, we find that Lipira di&have a
conversation substantially as is related above, with a serviceman.
On the following day, according to Lipira's testimony, Frank Smith,
a foreman, called him over and said, "Now, you watch your step."
Lipira asked, "Well, what is the matter?" and Smith walked away
saying, "Never mind." After lunch Smith returned and Lipira asked
him whether or not his work was satisfactory. According to Lipira,
Smith answered, "Well, your work is all right, but be careful as to
what you say." Smith was not called to the stand. Although Smith's
statement does not literally warn Lipira to "be careful as to what you
say about unions," we feel, in the absence of any explanation of the
meaning of the statement "be careful as to what you say," and in
view of the anti-union campaign which the respondent directed
through its servicemen and supervisory employees,',that',such was the
intended warning.
On June 28 Lipira was not feeling well. He arrived for work about
two hours late and discovered that his time card had been taken
from the rack. Lipira testified that he asked Malone where his card
was; that Malone suggested that he see the timekeeper about it; that
the timekeeper had it and advised him to take it in to Malone, who
wanted to see him ; that Malone, after looking through some notes said,
"Well, I am sorry. We had to lay off some meri and we didn't know
who to lay off and we thought we would lay off the men that were
late ... ' Well, we will yet you (know) when' to come back." Malone
denied that he possessed authority to employ or discharge men and
testified that he had never talked with any of the Board's witnesses
concerning their discharge and the possibility of calling them back.
We find that Malone made the statement attributed to him above.
The respondent contends that Lipira's coming to work two hours
late was a ,reasonable ground for discharge. We do not find it neces-
sary to decide this issue, since we do not believe that Lipira's tardiness
on this single occasion provided the real reason for his discharge. In
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
view of the respondent's surveillance of Lipira, the conversation which
Lipira had with the serviceman, the foreman's warning to Lipira,
Lipira's discharge for arriving at work two hours late although he
had a long service record during which his work was not criticized,
and the respondent's general attitude toward the Union during this
period, we find that Lipira was discharged because of his membership
in and activities in behalf of the Union. 21
Alfred Kupkowski began work for, the respondent in 1932 and
worked steadily, except during lay-offs for changes of models, until
his discharge in June 1937. There were no complaints about his
work. The reason given on his termination of service record for his
discharge is: "This employee having considerable trouble with fellow
workmen."
Kupkowski joined the Union on May 8, 1937, and attended the
meeting which was held at the Root Building on that day. Maroons
spoke to him as he was standing outside the building. On Monday,
May 10, Maroone and Edgecomb came over and spoke to Kup=
kowski's pusher, Mike. Afterwards, Mike told Kupkowski, "You
had better watch your job, they will be laying for you, they have
got you spotted for that meeting you attended last Saturday." Kup-
kowski also attended the meeting- on May 15 at Marr's Hall, and
noted Maroone and Sullivan riding up and down in front of the
hall.
On the Tuesday immediately preceding Memorial Day one of the
pushers told Kupkowski that one Joe Fino had not come in to work.
Kupkowski said he had just seen Fino come into the parking lot
outside, and observed that he would no doubt be a few minutes late.
Later that day one of Fino's friends berated Kupkowski for telling
the pusher that Fino was outside. Two days later, as Kupkowski
was leaving work, Fino and one Jerry Fascilino pounced on Kup-
kowski as he was,leaving the plant and gave him a severe beating.
Kupkowski returned to the plant, had his eye treated, and told
21 On the front of the termination of service card Lipira's discharge is dated as of
June 28. On the back of the card there is a reference to a two weeks' absence from the
plant as the ground for the discharge . Maroone testified that Lipira was discharged
because he had been absent from the plant without permission for five days, such absence
being a ground for discharge under the respondent' s plant rules . The Trial Examiner
interpreted the conflict in the two statements on the termination of service card to mean
that the respondent was contending that Lipira had been absent from the plant for two
weeks prior to June 28, a contention which it had not proved by its employment records.
In its brief the respondent states that "no one has ever disputed" that Lipira worked
until June 28, and suggests that the statement on the card that Lipira was a "five day
quit" is probably a mistake on the part of the employment office. While the Trial
Examiner's interpretation is rational, we shall not adopt it since the respondent does
not now contend that Lipira was discharged because of absence from the plant for over
five days. The fact that "tardiness" is not designated the reason for discharge on the
termination of service card, however, is significant as to the respondent 's good faith in
assigning tardiness as the reason for the discharge.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 585
Maeder what had happened. Maeder said the other two men would
be fired. Kupkowski returned to work after Memorial Day, but he
was stopped by Maeder who told him to see Malone before he began
working. He then saw Malone who informed him that "We can't
have nothing like this going on around here ... I have got to get
rid of three of you men." Kupkowski was accordingly discharged.
Maroone testified that Malone reported Kupkowski's case to him,
but that he did not mention Fino or Fascilino in the report. He
said lie did not know that Fino and Fascilino were involved in the
incident; that no slips stating that Fino and Fascilino were involved
in the incident were received by his office. Maroone wrote Malone's
conclusion concerning the incident on the termination of service cards,
but as Malone did not report who the "other workmen" with whom
Kupkowski was having "considerable trouble" were, he did not inves-
tigate the conduct of the other workmen. At the time Maroone tes-
tified, February 3, 1938, he was not certain whether or not Fino and
Fascilino were in the respondent's employ.
It is clearly established that the respondent has a rule against
fighting in the plant. However, the application of this rule to a
union member and the failure to investigate the other workmen
involved who, it appears, were not members of the Union, indicates
a. discriminatory application of the rule. It is to be noted that
Kupkowski attended both of the union meetings at which it has been
established that espionage took place. He had been warned by his
pusher that "They have got you spotted for that meeting you
attended ..." We find that Kupkowski was discharged because of
his union membership and activities.
Frank Kandrat joined the Union on July 2 and attended its meet-
ings thereafter. He was employed by the respondent in 1935 and
worked on the trim line. There is no evidence that his work was
unsatisfactory, and during 1937 he received two raises. His termi-
nation of service record, dated August 9, 1937, states that Kandrat
resigned. This is explained by a notation reading : "This employee
made no report of his absence after shut-down. Five day quit."
Kandrat testified that he was laid off on July 15 22 and was told
to report again for work on August 9. He stated that he returned
on August 9, as directed, and that Maroone refused to take him back.
While Maroone was called to testify, no testimony relating to this
refusal was elicited from him. According to Kandrat, he was told
by Joe Gall, an inspector, that he (Gall) had talked to Miller about
taking him back and that Miller did not want to take him on because
the office had something against him. Gall did not testify. Miller
22 The last two weeks in July are a vacation period, during which the plant is closed.
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified, but no testimony concerning Kandrat was elicited from him.
We find that Kandrat reported for work on August 9, and that he
was refused employment.
The reason for the discharge is clearly not that stated on the termi-
nation of service card, Kandrat's testimony that he was told to return
on August 9 being uncontradicted. We find that Kandrat was dis-
charged because of his union membership and activity.
Stephen S. Salley was first employed by the respondent in 1930,
He joined the Union on May 18, 1937, and was discharged the follow-
ing July 9. Salley and his foreman, Fredo, had ridden to work in
the same car for a time, during which Salley freely expressed his
views on the Union.
Salley first served as an inspector in the body shop. His work
there was criticized on only one occasion. On June 28, 1937, Salley
was transferred to the commercial shop. Salley was criticized for
his work in the commercial department on the second day after he
started there. Foreman Vincent complained that certain scratches
on the body of a car had not been sufficiently covered by the buffing
operation, and warned him to be on his toes or he would not have a
job there. On July 9 Salley saw Vincent and Lee Halden, Salley's
foreman, engaging in a spirited conversation at the end of the line
on which he was working: He went down to where they were, and
as he got there Vincent said to Halden, "Get this man out, fire him,
he is no good. These are all his jobs from there on down the line,
get him out of here." Salley testified that they did not show him
the specific jobs, although it appears to us that Vincent had fairly
well identified the cars in question. Salley further testified that the
reason he went down to the end of the line when he saw them talking
was that "I wanted to see what was wrong . . . I thought possibly
I let something slip."
Miller testified that Salley "could have done a good job if he wanted
to." Salley's termination of service record shows : "This employee's
work not satisfactory as an inspector."
While there is some evidence that Salley was transferred to his
new position, where he was likely to err, in order to get a pretext,
such as defective work, for discharging him, we do not feel that the
record clearly establishes that the transfer was made for such a
purpose. It appears that Salley's inspection did fail to detect some
defects. We find that Salley was discharged for reasons other than
membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Lawrence Lawler worked in the cushion department. He originally
began work for the respondent in 1923 or 1924, but left and returned
several times. His last period of employment began in December
1936. He joined the Union on May 6, 1937. On May 8 he went to the
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 587
vicinity of the Root Building for the purpose of attending the meet-
ing, but upon seeing Maroone and Sullivan standing outside the build-
ing, decided not to go in. On May 15 he attended the union meeting
at Broadway and Ash. As he went in he saw Andy Marlenki, who
worked in the paint shop, sitting in a parked car across the street.
About 2 weeks later Eddie Klump, assistant to the head of the
service department, and Marlenki came into the cushion department
together and looked around. After Marlenki left, Klump and Maue,
the foreman of the department, went up and down the tables and
looked at the badge numbers of about four of the men, including
Lawler and Strash, who had also attended the meeting on May 15.
In August Maue began to make frequent complaints to Lawler con-
cerning his work; Lawler testified that sometimes the matters com-
plained of were trivial, sometimes not actually relating to his work.
Maue made a practice of sending one Haft, another employee, ^ to
summon Lawler on these occasions, and Haft warned Lawler to keep
his mouth shut because Maue was after him.
On September 1, while Lawler was waiting for some stock to arrive,
Maue came up and admonished him to get to work. Upon Lawler's
protesting that he had no stock, Maue said lie would put him on the
assembly line. Lawler said: "Maybe you will." Maue retorted :
"By God, I will put you on the line," and called in Ostrom, who told
Lawler to get his tools and come along. As they were walking
toward the line, Lawler made some protest about working on the
line, and Ostrom then told him he was fired. Ostrom wrote out some
sort of a slip, and called a factory serviceman, who escorted Lawler to
the employment office. Lawler reported the ' incident to Maroone,
who merely said "0. K." Lawler's termination of service card reads :
"This employee resigned rather than work on an operation assigned
to him by cushion foreman." Miller testified that Lawler had quit,
apparently interpreting his unwillingness to work on the line as a
resignation. We find that Lawler did not quit, but was discharged.
In the absence of any evidence that the work on the assembly line
was inferior to the work in the cushion department, either in the
nature of the work or in the wages paid for the respective jobs, we
do not find that the attempted transfer of Lawler was discriminatory.
It is admitted that Lawler protested the transfer and this appears
to have been the reason for his discharge. We find that Lawler was
discharged for reasons other than union membership and activity.
Cameron Bean was employed by the respondent in 1939. He oper-
ated the hoist which changes motors from one motor line to another.
Early in June 1937 Bean joined the Union. In July 1937 he had
quit the respondent's employ because a requested raise was not forth=
coming. A few days later he was promised a raise, and he returned
to work. Later the promised raise was granted.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 11, 1937, Bean's employment was terminated. He
testified that he was discharged, but the termination of service record
reads as follows : "This employee transferring motors from storage
conveyor to line, did not follow set schedule as to order motors were
to be placed on line, resulting in general foreman, Mr. Vincent, call-
ing his attention to same. Bean stated that he would `quit' before he
would take any `crap' from Mr. Vincent." Bean's version of the
incident on August 11 is as follows : Vincent came up to him and
accused Bean of calling him certain names in conversations with
other men of the plant. Vincent also mentioned a mix-up of the
motors in the line. Such a mix-up might or might not have been
Bean's fault. There ensued a heated argument concerning Bean's
alleged derogatory remarks about Vincent, and Vincent finally told
Bean to get out, and saw to it that he got his check at the employment
office and left.
Although Vincent did not testify, we do not think that the evidence
warrants the conclusion that Bean was discharged because of union
membership or activity. While he had joined the Union about two
months before, there is no showing that he attended any of the meet-
ings which were spied upon. As to the incident of August 11, we
think it unnecessary to decide whether Bean resigned or was dis-
charged. There may be some doubt, from Bean's testimony, as to
whether he was treated fairly by Vincent, but we are not convinced
that his union membership or activity was the cause of his unfair
treatment, if any.
Joseph Malecki was employed by the respondent in June 1929. In
1930 he became a subforeman in the body shop. He was not a mem-
ber of the Union. He worked in the plant during the shut-down for
change'of models in the fall of 1937. On October 28, 1937, he found
his time card missing from the rack as he was about to punch out.
He testified that he then saw Malone, and that Malone accused him
of being "in there in the gin mill up there on Genesee and Wilson,
and riding in the car and hollering and all that." He testified that
Malone also told him, "Your Polack friends . . . I told you before,
they give it to you." Malecki went on to indicate that the Union
held their meetings at the "gin mill" in question. He said that he
denied the charges made by Malone, but that Malone, after "going
up around the bush on that," finally took his badge and handed him
his check. Malone denied having had any such conversation with
Malecki. Malecki testified further that he succeeded in getting an-
other interview with Malone on December 13, 1937, when he sought a
satisfactory answer as to his dismissal. He stated that on this occa-
sion Malone accused him of "showing partiality," apparently in
regard to a pool which had been running in the plant. Malecki con-
ceded that he had participated in a "sort of poker" the men played
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 589
with their pay checks, with the winner getting $5, but he said that
he had stopped this practice after having received a warning from
Malone. He also testified that he believed one fellow had complained
to the office that Malecki was favoring those playing in this pool as
against those who did not. He denied the charges to Malone on
December 13, but Malone asked him, "Why don't you just admit it?"
He was unable to secure reinstatement, and left.
Malecki's termination of service card reads : "This employee has
been running a pool and selling tickets to men in his charge. Nu-
merous warnings given him and charges made by numerous letters in
file. See employment record." The letters referred to were appar-
ently anonymous, and were not produced at the hearing; the Trial
Examiner had indicated that he did not want to hear testimony based
on anonymous letters.
Malecki had refused to cooperate when other supervisors indicated
that they would like to get rid of members of the Union. While this
evidence is relevant, not only to Malecki's case, but to the cases of
individuals toward whom the other supervisors had so shown an
intention to discriminate, we are not satisfied that the evidence war-
rants the finding that Malecki was discharged because of a real or
supposed sympathy toward the Union.
2. Employees not recalled following the resumption of operations
after the plant shut-down in September 1937
In mid-September of 1937, there occurred the customary lay-off
during the shut-down of the plant for the annual change in models.
Of the 1664 men working at the plant prior to the shut-down, about
1403 were laid off at this time, only a skeleton crew being retained to
man the plant during the change in machinery. Production was re-
sumed beginning about the middle of October, and by December 10,
1937, about 1050 of those laid off had been recalled to work. Pro-
duction was at a lower level than in previous years, due to business
conditions, and this was the peak figure from October until the time
of the hearing. Thus, about 353 men were not called back to work.
Some 52 23 individuals are named in the complaint and amended com-
plaint as having been discriminated against by being so laid off in
September and subsequently not recalled. There is, however, no
basis in the record for any finding that they were discriminated
against by being laid off, since it was a general shut-down for the
legitimate purpose of changing models. The issue here is whether
there was discrimination in the selection of those recalled for work.
Y' The complaint alleged that 51 employees were discriminatorily refused reinstatement.
The case of one of these, Kandrat, was considered above as a discharge . Two others,
Testa and Kornowicz , who, the complaint alleged, were discriminatorily discharged, are
included here, making a total of 52.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On this issue, the Trial Examiner found that 33 of such complainants
had been discriminated against in that they were excluded from the
group recalled because of their membership and activity in the Union.
Superintendent Miller testified as follows, on direct examination
by counsel for the respondent, as to the procedure in selecting the
men to call back to work :
Q. When you are about to get into production, how do you
call the men back to work?
A. I have a list of all available men in the superintendent's
office, and I consult with the foremen.
Q. Do you go over that list with the foremen?
A. I do.
Q. After the list is made up what do you do?
A. I authorize it and send it down to the employment clerk.
Q. What instructions has he after he gets the list?
A. To contact these men and employ them in the department
specified on the list.
* * * * * *
Q. In making up this list of men how do you go about it after
talking with the various foremen?
A. We consider the man's ability to do more than one opera-
tion in starting a job, and at the same time we consider the
length of service he has been in the company.
Q. Is the matter of ability to begin operations quickly and
efficiently something that is considered?
A. In starting up an operation it is very important that you
.,have men on the job who can do more than one operation in order
to get production started, and bring the other men back as fast
as possible.
Miller went on to explain that often recommendations of foremen
must be disregarded to some extent. Thus, prior to the shut-down in
September 1937, the plant was operating on a two-shift basis, with fore-
men and subforemen on both shifts, whereas following the shut-down
only one shift was employed. In submitting recommendations for men
to be taken back, foremen would try to have their own men called back,
and if all of those recommended, were not needed, Miller would have
to choose such as were needed from among them.
The criteria used by the respondent in selecting men for recall thus
appear to be twofold : versatility (at least in the case of men called
back during the early stages of resuming production) and length of
service. Other considerations which may have been important were
ability to learn new operations quickly, ability to reach maximum
efficiency in a short time, and, in isolated cases, special appeals on the
basis of family need. There is no information in the record, however,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 591
as to the comparative ability of those who were, and those who were
not, recalled. It does appear from the testimony of many of the com-
plainants that they had been satisfactory workmen, and there is in
evidence data on the length of service in the whole plant of men
recalled, following the shut-down, in three departments-trim, paint,
and enamel. From this data it appears that the proportions of newer
to older men in point of service were about the same shortly after the
shut-down as they were before.24 The Trial Examiner, however, found
that there had been discrimination when the particular complainant
had more seniority than the great majority of those called back in his
department, and was identified with the Union. Grouping the em-
ployees 25 according to seniority, it appears that in each seniority group
there were employees other than the complainants who were not re-
,called. Some of those alleged to have been discriminated against were
not in the highest seniority group. It thus follows that there were
some employees, having greater seniority than some of the com-
plainants, who were not recalled. The respondent in its brief, urges
that under these circumstances the relative seniorities of the com-
plainants and employees recalled are not a factor which the Trial
Examiner should have considered in determining whether or not the
refusal to reinstate certain employees was discriminatory. We agree
that seniority should not be the controlling factor in determining
whether discrimination took place. Insofar as the Trial Examiner's
ultimate findings are inconsistent with this conclusion, we shall over-
rule them.
We reach this conclusion with some hesitancy, because of certain
indications in the record that the discrimination practiced was more
widespread that we have felt justified in affirmatively finding. Thus,
as noted above, Subforeman John Ott remarked to Edward Lyczyn-
ski, one of the complainants : "You and plenty others like you that
are fooling around with the Union will get a grand screwing."
When Lyczynski asked what he meant, Ott elaborated : "You will
find out when we change the models." This clearly amounts to a
prediction by the subforeman that discrimination was to be prac-
ticed in recalling men after the shut-down. Nonetheless, we do not
24 Months of service________________________ 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89
September 14,1937_______________________ 63 175 58 97 70 25 25 33 26
January 6,1938__________ 40 115 41 65 50 15 15 20 25
Months of service________________________ 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 140-149 150-159
September 14, 1937_______________________ 18 6 6 5 3 2 5
January 6, 1938___________________________ 14 5 6 5 2 2 5
Months of service________________________ 160-169 170-179 180-189 190-199 200-209 210-219
September 14, 1937_______________________ 1 1 1 0 1 1
January 6, 1938___ ____ _ 1 0 0 0 0 0
Months of service__ 220-219 230-239 240-249 250-259 260-269 270-279
September 14, 1937 ____ 3 2 0 1 0 1
January 6,1938_____________________ ____ 0 2 0 0 0 0
25 Data for the trim, paint, and enamel sections only are available.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
feel that this type of evidence is sufficient to warrant broad findings
of discrimination in the absence of special circumstances indicating
that specific employees were not recalled to work because of their
union activities.
There are a number of factors to be considered in connection with
the specific cases of alleged discrimination following the lay-off.
Thus where a union member testified without contradiction that in
previous years he had been among the first to be recalled to work
following a shut-down, this evidence is sufficient to establish that
the employee in the past had measured up to the respondent's stand-
ards of versatility and seniority, and should have been recalled to
work following the September 1937 shut-down, even though not all
of the employees were recalled .2' Again, where a union member
with substantial seniority was not recalled to work and there is some
special circumstance indicating that such individual's union activi-
ties were brought to the respondent's attention, the sum of the cir-
cumstances may justify the conclusion that he had been discrim-
inated against for this reason. Moreover, as already indicated above,
if the man attended the union meeting at the Root Building, this
is particularly significant. Only about 20 men attended that meet-
ing, which was spied upon by the respondent's agents, and at least
18 of these subsequently were discharged or refused reinstatement
after the shut-down.27 Similarly, a showing that the respondent
was seeking a pretext upon which to base the discharge of a par-
ticular union member may be a circumstance which, combined with
the other facts, will require the conclusion that the man in question
was discriminated against when he subsequently was denied rein-
statement.
In its brief the respondent contends that its employees were
"discharged" when the plant closed in September 1937, and that
they were no longer employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3)
of the Act.28 We are convinced that the employees were temporarily
laid off and not discharged. The plant is shut down annually dur-
ing the change of models. When production is resumed substan-
tially the same staff is customarily recalled to work. When such a
shut-down is utilized to oust members of a union from their jobs
because of their union affiliation, the employer is guilty of unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act.29
26 As pointed out above , 353 of the employees laid off in September 1937 had not been
recalled by December 10, 1937.
27 See footnote 17, supra.
28 It is interesting to note that as to those employees who were alleged in the complaint
to have been discharged , the respondent contended that they were merely laid off and
not discharged.
29 Matter of The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company and United Rubber Wog kers of America,
6 N. L. It. B. 325; Matter of Algonquin Printing Company and United Textile Workers of
America, Local No. 1044, 1 N. L. R B. 264
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 593
John Pensky was employed by the respondent in 1934. His work
was in the trim department. He attended the Root Building meeting
on May 8, 1937. During the following week, as he and some of his
fellow workers were talking with one another as they worked, Sub-
foreman John Ott came upon them and asked : "What the hell are
you fellows talking, union again?" Pensky replied : "No, nothing in
particular." Ott responded: "Oh, don't tell me that; I can point
my finger and fire those fellows that are talking union." Pensky had
been one of the first to join the Union, doing so on May 6, 1937, and
was treasurer of the local. He had been one of the group summoned
to hear Ostrom and Ott warn against union activity. After the
general lay-off in September 1937, he was not called back. Despite
numerous efforts to regain his job, he still had not been recalled
until just before the hearing, when he received one of the letters
discussed below.
Since 1934 Pensky had been among the very first men called back
to work after general lay-offs. He testified, without contradiction :
"Yes, I was the first man before even production was started, I was
called back and I worked until the car was finished in the fall."
There is no explanation by the respondent as to why this man, who
was among the first to be recalled in previous years, was on this occa-
sion not recalled. Upon all the evidence, we are convinced that the
reason for the failure to recall Pensky was his union membership and
activities, and we so find.
Ernest P. Johnson worked for the respondent for about 20 years.
His operation was working on the trim line. He joined the Union
on May 8, 1937, and set out to attend the meeting at the Root Building
on that day. He did not enter the building, however, due to the
presence there of Maroone and the servicemen.
After the general lay-off in September, Johnson made repeated
efforts to get back to work, but to no avail. Several telephone calls
to Maroone produced a stock answer : "When we need you, we will
send for you." In previous years, Johnson was one of the first men
on the trim line to be recalled after shut-downs. Superintendent
Miller testified that the particular job on which Johnson had been
working before the shut-down was that of putting on door panels, that
whereas two men had been doing this operation before the shut-down,
only one was so employed thereafter because of curtailed production,
and that one Forrest, who did this work after the shut-down, was
versed in several operations. Miller conceded that Johnson was a good
workman, and did not claim that he was unable to do other operations.
Forrest had been with the respondent for 1 year; Johnson for 20.
Miller's explanation of the failure to recall Johnson is not persuasive.
We are convinced that had it not been for Johnson's, affiliation with
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union he would have been recalled promptly upon the resumption
of production, and we so find.
John Truchon began working for the respondent in 1923, coming to
Buffalo from the Detroit plant in 1930. He worked in the trim depart-
ment. The exact date on which he joined the Union does not appear, but
he attended at least two of the union meetings, including the one at
Broadway and Ash Streets, on May 15. As previously noted, Maroone
and a serviceman spied on that meeting.
Following the September shut-down, Truchon was recalled to work
and reported to Maroone on November 15. Maroone sent him to the
doctor for the regular physical examination. Truchon passed the
examination, and was told to come in the following morning to start
work. He arrived at the plant at the appointed time but the re-
spondent's men at the gate refused to admit him until his number was
called out. It was never called. Truchon went back to the plant
daily, but could not get in to see Maroone. '
Truchon had in previous years been among the first to be called
back. During the week following his abortive recall in November,
93 other men were recalled to work in his department, and 79 were
put to work the week after that. In the absence of any satisfactory
explanation by the respondent of the treatment of Truchon, we find
that his inability to get back to work resulted from his membership
in the Union.
Frank Kornowicz was first employed by the respondent in 1934.
He was assigned to an operation on the body line. He joined the
Union in July. At the time of the general lay-off in September
1937, he was told by his superior 30 that "we would be called back,"
in about 2 or 3 weeks.
When production resumed, Kornowicz received a telegram instruct-
ing him to report for work. He did so, passed the physical examina-
tion, had his time card filled out, and was about to ring in at the
time clock when Maroone halted him, saying, "Wait a minute. " Come
back here." Maroone had just completed a conversation' with, a serv-
iceman when he thus averted Kornowicz's return to' work. He
then took Kornowicz's time card from him and after a lengthy delay
sent him home with instructions to come in the next day. The next
2 weeks were spent by Kornowicz in futile efforts to get past the gate
and into the plant; he was never returned to his job.
Kornowicz's work had never been criticized. In previous years he
had .been,,the `•firstsor second man to be called in" following shut-
80 Kornowicz did not specifically identify the person who told him this. He testified :
it come the last day, and he lust naturally laid me off He said in about 2 or 3
weeks they would be called back, that we would be called back ." It is evident, and we
find, that the person giving him this information was in a position of supervisory authority
with the respondent
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 595
downs. His failure to get back at all this time, particularly in view
of the peculiar incident after he was notified to return, prima facie,
indicates that lie was the victim of discrimination growing out of
his union activity. The respondent has furnished no explanation of
the refusal to give Kornowicz work. We find that Kornowicz was
unable to get his job back because of his union membership and
activity.
Otto Otte began to work for the respondent in 1929 and remained
in the respondent's employ until his discharge on November 17, 1937.
His work, including service in the enamel department and the hood
department. had occasioned no complaints. He joined the Union in
the middle of May 1937. In the early part of September, a subfore-
man named Reno remarked to Wiirzer, one of the complainants, that
he was certain of the union, membership of four employees. He
named Otte as one of them.
Otte worked until the general lay-off for change of models in the
middle of September. On November 17, 1937, he was called back to
work by telegram. He reported for work, was examined by the
company doctor, was given a time card and a badge, and worked
all that day. When he undertook to punch out at the end of the
day, he found that his time card had been pulled out of the rack.
A factory serviceman standing nearby told him to see Marooiie, which
he did. His time card was lying on Maroone's desk. Maroone asked
him for his number, and inquired as to when he had come in to work.
Otte told him "this morning," and Maroone instructed him to wait
for Malone, who wanted to see him. After a considerable wait
Otte pointed out that he was tired and hungry and did not want
to wait any longer unless it was absolutely necessary. He testified
that Maroone then said, "I think they don't want any union men
around here." Maroone then gave him his time card and told him
to punch out. Just as Otte was leaving Malone came in, asked for
Otte's time card, and told Otte to see, him, in the_ morning before
starting work. The next morning Malone asked Otte how long he
had been working there and what operation he was doing. Accord-
ing to Otte, after he had given this information, Malone gave him
his check for 1 day's work and said, "We have got to discharge you."
Maroone by implication denied that he had said that the respond-
ent did not want any union men around, and testified that Otte had
told him he was dissatisfied with the job he was given on November
17 and wanted to go back to the work, he was doing formerly, and
that he had been, let go because the requisition for the department
in which Otte formerly worked was full. Maroone denied that he
had told Otte that Malone wanted to see him. Malone testified
that he did not recall any conversation with Otte at the time he
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was let out. Otte's termination of service card stated : "This em-
ployee refused to do operation as instructed by foreman." Except
for Maroone's statement above, there is no evidence whatsoever tend-
ing to substantiate this charge. The foreman, Edgecomb, did not
testify. We do not give credence to the testimony of Maroone and
Malone. We find that Otte was discharged because of his affiliation
with the Union.
Joseph Di Agostino was employed by the respondent in 1930, and
assigned to the trim line. He joined the Union in June 1937. Prior
to that time he had set out to attend the Root Building meeting on
May 8, but had fled the scene when he saw Maroone and a service-
man there. He attended all the meetings thereafter.
Following the shut-down in September, Di Agostino was not
recalled to work. He had on one occasion presided at a union
meeting, which fact was recorded in the local newspaper. In Novem-
ber he called the employment office to inquire about reemployment.
Subforeman John Ott answered the phone, asked for Di Agostino's
number, and then stated : "Wait a minute. You are Di Agostino my
good old friend. I see you got your name in the paper." We find
that this was a reference to the item concerning Di Agostino's
presiding at the union meeting.
In prior years, Di Agostino had been among the first to be recalled
after shut-downs. On all the evidence we find that the respondent
failed to recall Di Agostino because of his union membership and
activities.
Anthony Caparella was employed by the respondent in 1929. At
the time of the September lay-off, he worked in the commercial shop.
He joined the Union in the latter part of July.
When production resumed after the shut-down, Caparella was not
recalled. His immediate superior, Assistant Foreman Tony Gerafa,
informed him upon inquiry that he had sent Caparella's number,
to the office twice in efforts to get him recalled, but that he had
been instructed not to send it in any more. Gerafa added : "It must
be that you had something to do with the Union."
In previous years Caparella had always been recalled to work
"the first day the commercial body went into production." We
find that Caparella's failure to regain his job was because of his
union membership and activities.
Charles Goldenbaum was first employed by the respondent during
1934. He was engaged in an operation on the trim line. Goldenbaum
was among the last to be laid off and among the first to be recalled
in the general lay-offs prior to September 1937. He was among those
laid off in September 1937 and was not recalled when the plant
reopened. His work had not been criticized.
I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 597
Goldenbaum attended the meeting held at the Root Building, the
meeting held at Broadway and Ash Streets, and several other union
meetings. He saw the servicemen at the Root Building meeting.
When he was not recalled after production commenced he talked
with Subforeman John Ott several times concerning the respondent's
failure to recall him. During the latter part of October he had one
such conversation with Ott and Ott said, "I can't see why you are
not in . . . I put your name' in two or three times . . . I don't
know what is the matter." Goldenbaum further testified that Ott
"practically told me, `I think it is about the union that you can't get
it."' While this latter testimony is somewhat indefinite, in the
absence of any testimony by Ott we find that Ott indicated to Gold-
enbaum that his union activities were responsible for the failure to
recall him.
As noted above, Goldenbaum had previously been among the last
to be laid off and among the first to be recalled. We find that
Goldenbaum was refused reinstatement because he had engaged in
union activities.
John Wurzer was employed by the respondent in 1929. Thereafter
he was continuously employed except during periods when the plant
was closed. He was employed in the enamel department where he
had performed a number of operations, the last of which was metal
finishing. Prior to the September lay-off he was made a pusher and
he always had been among the first to be recalled when production
commenced. Wurzer was laid off on September 16 and when pro-
duction recommenced was not recalled.
Wurzer joined the Union in May 1937, and attended several of
its meetings. After Wurzer was made a pusher, Andy Reno, another
pusher, told him that "If they find out you are a union man, they
will throw you out through the window.'' Reno also told him that
he knew four employees who belonged to the Union, naming Wurzer,
Kosin,. McMullen, and Otto Otte.
As noted above, Wurzer was able to do several operations, and
in previous years had been among the first to be recalled. We find,
on the whole record, that Wurzer was refused reinstatement because
of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Leo Krzyzykowski was first employed by the respondent in 1929.
His work was on the trim line. He was continuously employed
except during periods when the plant was shut down, and prior to
the shut-down in September 1937 was always among the first to be
recalled when production commenced. He received raises during
1937, and his work never was criticized. Krzyzykowski was among
those laid off in September 1937. When production was resumed he
returned to the plant to try to regain his job. On one occasion, the
283034-41-vol 23-39
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gateman found his number among the numbers of those who were to
be admitted to the plant. He was admitted to the plant, and a
serviceman asked him to wait outside the employment office.
Presently Maroone asked him how he got into the plant and he an-
swered that the gateman had his number. Maroone then conferred
with Malone and returned and told Krzyzykowski that they would
send for him when they wanted him. Krzyzykowski was not notified
to return.s1
Krzyzykowski attended the meeting held in the Root Building,
joined the Union while there, later attended all of the meetings of
the Union, and became a member of its executive board. At lunch
time he and other members of the executive board often discussed
union problems. Krzyzykowski testified that Arthur Forrest, who
was later made a pusher, listened in on some of their discussion and
then left to talk to either Hathaway or Edgecomb, foremen. Forrest,
Hathaway, and Edgecomb were not called to testify, and we accept
Krzyzykowski's testimony in this regard.
As noted above, Krzyzykowski in previous years had been among
the first to be recalled. The respondent has not satisfactorily ex-,
plained its different treatment of him on this occasion. We find
that Krzyzykowski was refused reinstatement because of his mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Edward Kania was first employed by the respondent in 1930. His
operation was touching up bodies on the body line. When produc-
tion was resumed following the September 1937 lay-off, Kania was
not recalled. His work had not been criticized. After lay-offs in
prior years, Kania had been among the first to be recalled.
Kania joined the Union in May 1937. He testified that he did
not attend the first and second union meetings because some of the
members of the Union told him before the first meeting was held
that they were being spied upon by the servicemen. He attended the
meetings which were held thereafter. Fredo, his foreman, on one
occasion said he had heard that Kania belonged to the Union, and he
asked Kania if it was true. Kania did not give a definite answer
and Fredo then said, "You better not join it; it will be better for
you." There is no explanation by the respondent of the failure to
reemploy Kania. On the whole record we find that Dania was not
reemployed because of his membership in and activities in behalf of
the Union.
Frank Meger was employed by the respondent in 1930. His opera-
tion was putting in "wind cord." There are four employees engaged
in this operation on each shift. Meger had the longest service of
31 Except for the notice discussed below, which was given immediately prior to the
hearing
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 599
any of the four on his shift. Meger testified that in prior years he
was the first wind-cord man to be recalled when production was re-
sumed after a lay-off . He has never had any complaint about his
work. In past years he instructed new men who were learning to do
the work. When production was resumed after the September 1937
shut -down Meger was not recalled . Meger joined the Union May 8,
1937, attended the meeting which was held at the Root Building, and
saw two servicemen near the building . We find that Meger was re-
fused reemployment because of his membership in and activities in
behalf of the Union.
Weldon Famish was employed by the respondent in 1925 and
worked in the body department . He was not recalled following the
September 1937 lay-off . On previous occasions when the plant had
been closed he was recalled when operations were resumed.
Farnish joined the Union in May 1937. He went out to the Broad-
way and Ash Streets meeting of the Union but, seeing Maroone drive
past in a car , decided that he would not attend. Farnish testified
that during June or July 1937 he noticed that his foreman , Friend,
and Malone were watching him. Malone and Friend then came down
and looked at his work. Later in the day when Farnish obtained a
tool order from Friend, Farnish was surprised to note that Friend
knew his number and was able to write it on the order . Farnish
asked Friend how he knew the number and Friend replied, "I got
you. I know your number." Two or three days later Edgecomb
came by and asked Farnish who had fitted certain windshield arms.
Farnish said that he had fitted them . According to Farnish, Edge-
comb then said, "I have been watching you 10 or 15 minutes and I
never see you do one yet." Edgecomb told him to get a gauge and
bring it up. Farnish did so, and they fitted the jobs. There was
nothing wrong with them. Edgecomb went away shaking his head
and saying , "God damn, can't get nothing on him." We find on the
whole record that Farnish was refused reinstatement because of his
membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Guy Testa was first employed by the respondent during Novem-
ber 1928. He worked in the enamel department . In past years he
was the first in the enamel department to be called back when pro-
duction was resumed. On November 17, 1937, following the Sep-
tember lay -off, he received a telegram notifying him that he was
to report for work on the following morning, and went to the plant
at the designated time. His name and number were called out and
he was sent in for a physical examination . He passed the exam-
ination and was given a temporary badge. He then reported to
Franz, his foreman, for work. Reno, a pusher , was near that part
of the floor where Testa was to work . Reno said to Testa, "Guy, I
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thought you had been out to organize this time. You come back to
work." Testa replied, "Andy, you can't do organizing on the out-
side. You have to do it on the inside." Testa was put to work by
his foreman, but after he had been working for about 25 minutes
some servicemen came up and the foreman told him to go with them.
He was then checked out in the usual manner. When he asked
Maroone why he was being let out, Maroone said that nothing was
wrong and that Testa would be recalled when needed. As Testa
left the office he stopped to talk with three men who also worked
in the enamel department and who were waiting for work, but
Maroone came out of his office and told Testa to go home. Super-
intendent Miller testified that Testa was called back for 30 minutes
but that they could not employ him because he was involved in I
compensation, case. However, Miller admitted that this reason did
not appear on the termination of service card, that Testa was
eligible for reinstatement at any time, and that he is not disabled
in any way. After giving the above testimony Miller further said
that Testa's "skin broke out on him, and we didn't deem it advisable
to put him back on this operation until it was cleared up." Miller
did not know whether or not Testa was drawing compensation. No
effort was made to put Testa on some other operation.
Testa had belonged to a union for 20 years before he was em-
ployed by the respondent. On a number of occasions he talked to
other employees in the plant expressing to them his approval of
unions. He had also expressed his sentiments in regard to unions
to Andy Reno, a pusher, and Reno had seen his union card. Miller's
explanation for dismissing Testa after he was recalled does not ring
true. It does not appear that Testa was receiving compensation.
He passed the respondent's examination, was given his badge, and
was put to work. Miller admitted that Testa was not disabled and
that he was eligible for reinstatement at any time. On the whole
record we find that Testa was dismissed because of his union
activities.
John Clark was employed by the respondent in late 1929 or early
1930. He has been employed at a number of different operations in
the plant. At the time of the general lay-off in September 1937 he
was working in the trim department. He was not recalled after the
plant resumed operation. In prior years he was one of the last to
be laid off and among the first to be recalled. Clark testified that he
asked Tommy, his pusher, why he was not recalled and that Tommy
told him that he had recommended that Clark be recalled, that he,
Tommy, had talked to Foreman Hathaway about it, and that Hath-
away had said, "I can't do a thing for you, you have to go in to
the factory service." Neither the pusher nor Hathaway was produced
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 601
to testify. Miller testified that he consulted the foremen concerning
the employees to be recalled before preparing a list of such employees.
The only explanation offered by Miller for the failure to recall Clark
was that while they had previously used two body droppers, one on
each shift, they only needed one body dropper when they, resumed
operations, and that the other body dropper was recalled in prefer-
ence to Clark. Miller did not know the other employee's name.
He testified that "he would not say" that the body dropper recalled
was more efficient than Clark. As we have stated above, Clark had
performed a number of operations in the plant besides body drop-
ping. We are not convinced by the respondent's explanation of its
failure to reinstate Clark.
Clark joined the Union on May 10, 1937. He attended a number
of union meetings. Among them were the meetings held at the Root
Building and at Broadway and Ash Streets, at both of which espion-
age took place. He was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal assault
case against Maeder, the serviceman which grew out of the beating
administered Sredzinski in the plant by Maeder. Clark testified that
as he approached the court house he met Edgecomb and Malone, that
Edgecomb asked, "What the hell did you want to get mixed up in
this for," that he answered, "I have a subpoena," and that Malone
and Edgecomb looked at it and walked away. He testified that he
then started to go into the court house again when Sutton, a service-
man, came up to him and told him that he was "supposed to go to
York at 2: 30" and that he should "forget about the whole thing."
According to Clark, Malone and Edgecomb then drove up by the
curb and Malone said, "If you have got a subpoena, you will have to
appear." Sutton and Edgecomb were not called to testify. Malone
testified, but no testimony concerning this incident was elicited from
him. We find that Clark was refused reemployment because of his
membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Edward Rich was originally employed by the respondent in 1929,
and worked on the trim line. He had been laid off in prior years
when the plant was closed during the change of models, but he was
always recalled when the production was resumed. There was never
any complaint about his work. He was not recalled after the
September 1937 shut-down.
Rich started to attend the union meeting which was held in the
Root Building, but upon approaching the building he recognized
Maroone and Maeder standing nearby and decided that he would not
attend. On the following morning and on several mornings there=
after, Ostrom, his foreman, greeted Rich by saying, "Good morning,
Mr. Lewis." 32 Ostrom later said to him, "Why did you want to
= See footnote 10, supra.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
join the Union? You are making plenty of money." Rich attended
several union meetings thereafter.
The above testimony indicates that the respondent knew of Rich's
union activities. Rich had long seniority, and by the respondent's
test he should have been among the first to be recalled. We find
that Rich was refused reemployment because of his membership in
and activities in behalf of the Union.
William Scott was employed by the respondent in 1929 or 1930.
He worked in the paint department as a striper and touch-up man.
Of the 15 men employed at this operation, only one had more sen-
iority then Scott, who often had instructed new men in the work.
He has been continuously employed except when the plant was closed
during the changes in models. He was not recalled following the
September 1937 lay-off. Scott testified that after production was,
resumed Sam Ciccio, an employee, came to his house and told him
that Scott's boss wanted him to report for work on the following
day, that he went to the plant as directed, and that Walsh, his fore-
man, told Bill O'Keefe, a gateman, "send this man upstairs, we need
him right away." When O'Keefe did not send him up Scott asked
to be sent up to the paint department and O'Keefe said, "The boss
ain't got a God damned thing to do about this. It has to come
through the front office."
Scott attended every meeting of the Union. He saw Sullivan and
Maroone driving by the Union's meeting place at Broadway and Ash
Streets on the evening that the Union held its meeting there. During
June he made a speech at a union meeting which was held at Genesee
and Wilson Streets. Scott testified that when he went to work on
the following morning servicemen kept him under surveillance even
when he was going to the toilet. On the day following a sit-down
strike in the Fisher Body plant in Buffalo, Scott had a conversation
with a pusher named Blackie. Scott testified that he said to Blackie,
"Too God damned bad this place wouldn't sit-down on a strike," and
that Blackie replied, "When I came to the Ford Motor Company I
asked for work . . . The first man or any of my men I see sit-
'down I will kick his God damn brains out." Blackie was not called
to testify.
Scott had high seniority and he should have been among the first
recalled to work. His foreman recommended him for work. There
is no satisfactory explanation by the respondent-of its denial of
employment to him. We find that Scott was refused reemployment
because of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
William Kalman was employed by the respondent in 1935 as a metal
finisher in the body department. He was not recalled following the
September 1937 lay-off.
I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 603
Kalman joined the Union on May 10. He attended several meetings
of the Union, including the meeting which was held at Broadway and
Ash Streets, which was subjected to espionage. During August Kal-
man noticed that he was being kept under close surveillance. Later
Malecki, his pusher, while accompanied by a serviceman, obtained
Kalman's number. Malecki testified that he obtained the number at
the serviceman's order, and that the serviceman told him, "Get him
(Kalman) out." Malecki testified that Bill Fredo, a foreman, came
along at that time, and that he told Fredo that he was not going to
assume the responsibility of getting Kalman out and that he (Fredo)
would have to take the responsibility. Fredo did not testify. Kalman
testified that later Bill Fiorito, the line foreman, said to him, "Bill,
I hear you joined the union"; that he asked Fiorito, "What have you
against it if I did join the union"; that Fiorito answered, "Nothing,
but I want you to work for me"; that he asked Fiorito, "Can't I work
for you if I am in the Union"; and that Fiorito then replied, "For
my part you can, but there is somebody else in this plant, not only me,
and you better watch your step." Thereafter Kalman was successively
transferred to the test house, the commercial department, and finally,
back to his old job. There was close inspection of his work on the
new jobs, but his work apparently was not defective and no pretext
for his discharge was found prior to the general lay-off. We find that
Kalman was refused reinstatement because of his union activities.
Edward Lyczynski was employed by the respondent in 1935. He
worked in the trim department where he installed door handles.
'There is no evidence of any complaint concerning his work. He was
not recalled following the September 1937 lay-off.
Lyczynski joined the Union in July 1937. He attended several of
its meetings. According to Lyczynski, during August 1937 his fore-
man, Ott, asked him, "Say, what is the color of the union card"; he
replied "What are you talking about? What union card"; and Ott
replied, "You know God damned well what I am talking about."
Lyczynski further testified that on the following day Ott said to him,
"You and plenty others like you that are fooling around with the
union will get a grand screwing"; he asked, "What do you mean"; and
Ott replied, "You will find out when we change the models." Ott was
not called to deny this. We find that Ott made the statements
attributed to him above. In view of Ott's threat to Lyczynski and on
the whole record, we find that Lyczynski was refused reemployment
because of his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Bernard Beck, employed by the respondent for 3 years, worked on
the trim line. He was not recalled when work commenced following
the September 1937 shut-down. In prior years he was rehired as soon
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as production commenced. There had been no complaint concerning
his work. After production was resumed Beck met Ott, his foreman,
on the street and Ott said to him, "I put in your number and I don't
understand why you don't get called ... I would rather have you
working here than this fellow that is working on your job now."
Beck joined the Union around June 15, 1937. Prior to joining the
Union he had attended the meeting which was held at Broadway and
Ash Streets. We find that Beck was refused reemployment because of
his membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Frank Godzich, employed in the trim department for 21 years, had
more experience than any other employee doing his line of work. He
instructed new employees in the trim department. He was not recalled
when production was resumed in the fall of 1937, although in prior
years he had been recalled as soon as work on the new model was
begun. Godzich joined the Union on May 28, 1937, and attended some
of its meetings.
We find that the respondent failed to recall Godzich because he was
a member of the Union.
Tony Kosin was employed by the respondent for 8 years. He worked
in the enamel department. He was not recalled following the Septem-
ber 1937 lay-off. In prior years, he was called back to work soon after
production was resumed. Kosin joined the Union in May 1937 and
attended all of its meetings.
We find that the respondent failed to recall Kosin because of his
membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
William Petrocy was employed by the respondent in 1929, worked
on the trim line, and was not recalled following the September 1937
lay-off. There had been no complaint as to his work. In prior years
he was laid off when the models were changed. When production was
resumed in the preceding year he was one of the first five called back
on the line. Petrocy joined the Union at the meeting held at the Root
Building and attended several union meetings thereafter.
We find that Petrocy was refused employment because of his mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Joseph Jaworski was in the respondent's employ for 9 years, and
from 1934 to 1937 was a pusher. He was not recalled when production
was resumed in the fall of 1937 although in prior years he was one of
the first to be put on the job. Superintendent Miller conceded that
Jaworski was an exceptionally good worker. Jaworski attended every
union meeting and solicited membership among the other employees.
We find that Jaworski was refused reemployment because of his
membership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Harry Strash was in the respondent's employ for 4 years. During
the first 3 years he worked in the trim line and during the last year he
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 605
worked in the cushion department. There was no complaint as to his
work, and during previous lay-offs, he was retained the full time.
Following the September 1937 lay-off he was not recalled.
Strash attended the union meetings in the Root Building, and there
saw Maroone and Sullivan. Strash testified that on the following
Monday when the employees lined up to receive their wages, Maroone
walked up and down the line and took down his badge number and
the badge numbers of others who had attended the meeting. As previ-
ously noted, substantially all who attended the meeting at the Root
Building were later discharged or were not recalled following the
September 1937 lay-off.
We find that Strash was refused reemployment because of his mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
James George has had experience in several automobile plants. He
was employed by the respondent in 1929 and was assigned to the trim
line. George joined the Union during May 1937, and attended a num-
ber of union meetings. He set out to attend the Root Building meet-
ing, but on seeing Sullivan, Maeder, and Maroone, did not attend.
Following the 1936 lay-off, George was recalled when only a few
employees had been recalled and the lines were only half filled with
cars. He was not recalled following the September 1937 lay-off.
We find that George was refused reinstatement because of his mem-
bership in and activities in behalf of the Union.
Alexander McMullen,, Ignatius Lodyga, Edward Czarnecki, Joseph
Krajewski, Charles Brawn, Julian Bolewicki, Joseph Wiatrowski,
Frank Maturzak, Alphonse Rucki, Andrew Learch, Casimir Czer-
winski, Alfred Krajewski, Joseph Zavodny, Walter Szezuelewski,
John Slawa, Max Zdral, Theodore Szczepankiewiez, Anton Agoston,
and Anthony Jarosz.
All of these men were included in the general lay-off in September
and none were recalled thereafter, except that some received the
letters of January 7, 1938, discussed below. Although they were all
union members, there is no evidence that any of them had been in
prior years among the first to be recalled after shut-down, nor are
there any other special circumstances in their cases to support a find-
ing of discrimination. While the record as a whole gives rise to
considerable suspicion that they may have been among the victims
of the respondent's general design to rid the plant of union men, we
do not think the charges have been sustained as to them in view of
the considerations discussed at the beginning of this section. Accor-
dingly, the allegations of the complaint in regard to these employees
will be dismissed.
Edward Sherman, Andrew Bienek, Frank Rueinski, Thomas R.
Saia, Frank Karaszewski, Stephen Karaszewski, and Stanley
Slajkowski.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
None of these complainants testified at the hearing, and there is not
sufficient evidence in the record to support the allegations of the
complaint as to them.
We find that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of the employees named in Appendix A
and Appendix B, attached hereto, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of the employees named in Appendix
C, attached hereto.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, and our order will be designed to restore, as nearly
as possible, the status quo existing before the commission of the un-
lawful acts. The respondent will be ordered to cease and desist from
its unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which
we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As found above, the respondent has illegally discriminated against
38 of the individuals named in the complaint and amended complaint.
The normal remedy for such discrimination is to order the employees
reinstated with back pay.
The respondent asserts that none of the complainants can be rein-
stated unless the record affirmatively shows that he has not rejected
opportunities for substantially equivalent employment elsewhere fol-
lowing the discrimination against him. To hold otherwise, urges the
respondent, would "allow an individual to refuse offers of other regu-
lar and substantially equivalent employment and to live . . . `the life
of Riley' at a former employer's expense." 33 We are of the opinion
that the Board's power to direct the reinstatement of employees is
not conditioned on a showing that the employees in question have not
rejected any offers of substantially equivalent employment.
Respondent 's brief, p. 130.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 607
Finally; the respondent asserts that many of those alleged to have
been discriminated against should not be reinstated because prior to
the hearing they refused offers of employment by the respondent.
The hearing in this proceeding was scheduled to begin, and did begin,
on January 11, 1938. On January 7, 1938, the respondent sent letters
to 75 individuals, including all of those mentioned in the original
complaint,34 notifying them to return ready for work on January
10.35 Approximately all of the employees mentioned in the original
complaint received the letter.36 Thereupon these employees consulted
counsel for the Union and counsel for the Board. Counsel for the
Union then prepared a letter reading as follows :
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Fuhrnzan Drive, Buffalo, New. York.
GENTLEMEN : In response to your recent letter, I hereby report
for Work and demand my back pay for the time that I was un-
employed. In the event that the back pay is not paid by the Ford
Motor Company, in accepting the position I in no way waive or
relinquish my right to back wages.
Copies of this letter were mailed to the respondent by 41 of the
individuals named in the original complaint. Most, if not all, of
these letters had been received by the respondent by January 12. The
men did not appear at the plant personally on January 10. In the
meantime the hearing proceeded until February 4, 1938, and was
attended from time to time by the complainants in question. On
January 16 a committee representing the complainants went to the
plant to request actual reinstatement for the complainants. Klump
then told them, however, that since the men had not returned on the
exact day specified in the letter they would have to apply for employ-
ment in the usual way. On the following day the men accordingly
sent individual, written requests for employment to the respondent,
stating in substance that in returning to work the complainants did
34
These employees are : Bean, Clark , Curtin, Fielkowski , Kaiser , Kupkowski , Lawler,
Lipira, Miskowiak , Salley, Sherman , Snyder, Andrew 'Sredzinski , Walter Sredzinski,
Nowicki , Socenski , Agoston, Beck , Czarnecki , Czerwinski , Caparella, Di Agostino , George,
Goldenbaum , Jarosz, Johnson, Kandrat , Kania, Kosin, Krzyzykowski, Lodyga , Lyczynski,
McMullen , Otte, Pensky , George Petrocy , William Petrocy , Rucinski, Rucki, Sala , Strash,
Scott , Truchon , Wurzer , Rich , Alfred Krajewski , and Joseph Krajewski
81 The letter read as follows :
JANUARY 7, 1938.
DEAR SIR: Please report to the employment office, Monday , January 10th, at 7 . 30 A. M,
ready for work
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
(SGD) J. J. MAROONE,
Employment Dept
88 Snyder , Walter Sredzinski , and Curtin did not receive the letters. The letter was
received by Otte and Rich on January 10 and by Lipira on January 11, too late for them
to accept the "offer" of work.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not relinquish their rights to back pay or the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
One of the complainants, Thomas R. Saia, and 22 of the individ-
uals other than those mentioned in the original complaint and to
whom the offer of reinstatement was made, returned to work on
January 10, 1938, and were employed until a reduction in the pro-
duction schedule necessitated further lay-offs on or about February
16, 1938.
The respondent now contends that since the 41 complainants who
sent in the letters mentioned above did not appear in person at the
plant on January 10, they rejected a valid offer of employment and
hence cannot be reinstated 37 A careful consideration of the facts,
however, leads us to the conclusion that the men should be ordered
reinstated. We note at the outset that the respondent cannot prop-
erly assert any lack of power in the Board to order the reinstate-
ment of an employee merely because he has received a prior offer
of reinstatement. Section 10 (c) of the Act empowers the Board,
upon finding that a person has engaged in an unfair labor practice,
to order such person ". . . to take such affirmative action, including
reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as it finds
will effectuate the policies of this Act." In exercising our discre-
tion under this provision, however, it is true that we have in several
cases 38 declined to order the reinstatement of workers, unlawfully
discriminated against, where they have rejected a prior offer of re-
instatement. In these cases the employer's offer of reinstatement
was unequivocally rejected by the employee. In the present case,
it is noteworthy that the men did not respond to the offer with an
assertion that they did not want their jobs back. On the contrary,
they made it plain that they were desirous of returning to work.
While they may have been ill-advised in not reporting for work on
January 10, the letters which they mailed to the respondent signified
their desire to resume employment provided some understanding was'
reached as to the back pay to which they were entitled. The hear-
ing was to begin on the next day ; the men were evidently laboring
under the impression that by actually returning to work they would
be prejudicing their important rights at issue in the pending pro-
ceeding. Furthermore, they doubtless wished to be present during
the hearing, which was of vital importance to them, and at which
37This contention obviously is without application to those employees who never
received the letter and to the three employees who did not receive the letter until after
the time they were instructed to report at the plant.
e" Cf. Matter of Precision Castinos Company, Inc . and Iron Molders Union of North
America, Local 80, 8 N. L. R. B. 879; Matter of Harter Corporation and International
Ass'n of Machinists, 8 N. L. It . B. 391.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 609
they testified. We cannot believe that the men, by not reporting to
work, in any way intended to indicate that they were not desirous
of further employment by the respondent.39 Under the circum-
stances, Ave see nothing unreasonable about their failure to report
for work on January 10.
The facts strongly indicate, moreover, that the respondent' s "offer"
of employment was merely a tactical move' in connection with the
hearing in this case. We note particularly that when the complain-
ants failed to report on January 10, the respondent did not replace
them with other men,40 and it had not done so a week later when
they applied for work and were rejected.- The record shows, and
we find, that the respondent was just as able to take the complainants
back on January 16 as it was on January 10. Had the respondent
been honestly desirous of restoring the men to their jobs, we are
convinced that it would have employed them on January 16 42
To sum up, we find that the complainants were anxious to be
restored to their jobs, that this was known to the respondent, that
the men's failure to report on January 10 was born of a confusion
raised by the imminence of the hearing, and that when they unsuc-
cessfully attempted to go back to work a week later, the respondent's
refusal to take them back was not based on any inability to do so.
It is clear that, far from having any honest desire to reinstate the
employees, the respondent took advantage of their confusion to pro-
vide it with a technical defense that the "offer" discharged its obliga-
tion to reinstate the men .43 In view of all these facts, it is our judg-
ment that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by ordering
reinstated those complainants against whom the respondent unlaw-
fully discriminated. In addition, we shall order the respondent to
make whole the employees discriminated against for any loss of pay
they have suffered by reason of such discrimination by payment to
each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against
89 On January 11, 12 , and 13, Snyder , Nowicki , Andrew Sredzinsld , Miskowiak , Socenski,
Fielkowski , Bean , Salley, Kaiser, Lawler, Lipira , Johnson, Otte , Clark, Rich, Strash,
Pensky, Lyczynski , Di Agostino , Caparella , Beck, Goldenbaum , Truchon, Wurzer , Krzyzy-
kowski , Scott, George Petrocy, George , Agoston, McMullen , and Jarosz testified that they
desired reinstatement.
40 while 23 employees were employed on January 10, they had received offers at the
same time the complainants were offered employment and did not receive jobs which
would have been given to the complainants if they had been present It is to be noted,
moreover , that those who were given employment were again laid off on February 16, 1938-
41 Two employees were employed between January 10 and January 16
r^ Under the circumstances of this case , it may be doubted whether the employees were
granted sufficient time within which to return to work
43 On February 16, 1938 , approximately 34 days after the offer of reinstatement, the
respondent laid off 235 employees Those employees who accepted the offer and returned
to work on January 10 were included in the lay -off. In all probability , the complainants,
if they had returned to work, would have received the saine treatment we are convinced
that a lay -off of such magnitude was foreseen when the offers of reemployment were made,
and that no period of extended employment was intended -
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him" to the date of reinstatement pursuant to our order, less his
net earnings 45
As to those employees who were discharged prior to the general
lay-off, the date of the discriminatory discharge is the date from
which the back pay will begin.46 When the plant resumed produc-
tion, following the September 1937 lay-off, Otte and Testa were called
back to work and subsequently discriminatorily discharged. Their
back pay will begin from the dates of their respective discharges 47
Truchon also was called back, given a physical examination, and told
to report on the following day. He was refused admission to the
plant, however, when he returned. Truchon's back pay will date
from the refusal to admit him to the plant .411 Kornowicz similarly
was given a physical examination and a time card was issued to
him, and as he was about to ring in, his time card was taken from
him. The exact date on which this occurred, however, is not clear
from the record. We therefore determine the date of the discrimina-
tion as to him in the same way that the date of the discrimination as
to the remainder of the discriminatory lay-offs is determined. The re-
mainder of the employees who were discriminatorily laid off testi-
fied that in prior years during the general lay-off they were retained,
were the first employees doing their type of work to be recalled,
were among the first employees to be recalled, or were recalled when
production was resumed. Under ordinary circumstances, these em-
ployees should have been among the first employees recalled following
the September 1937 lay-off. In view of the substantial reduction in
the respondent's production schedule in 1937, however, we shall not
order the back pay of the employees discriminatorily refused rein-
statement to begin as of the first day on which jobs which they were
capable of doing were filled. Upon the resumption of production
in 1937, the respondent recalled 449 employees during the first 5
weeks of production, and during the 6th week recalled 444 employees.
All of the employees found to have been' discriminated against in-
dicated that in previous years they had been among the earliest em-
44 The applicable date for each employee is set forth opposite his name in the appendices
attached hereto.
4513y "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brothe,hood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2.i90, 8 N. L R. B.
440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or
other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the
Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be
paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects
46 See Appendix A, attached hereto
47 See Appendix B, attached hereto.
48 Ibid.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 611
ployees recalled following shut-downs. By the end of the 6th week
following the shut-down during September 1937, approximately 1154
men were employed. Immediately prior to the shut-down approxi-
mately 1664 men were employed. On the basis of their past experi-
ence, we find that all of the employees who were discriminatorily
refused reinstatement should have been recalled by the end of the
6th week at the latest. Accordingly, the back pay of the remainder
of the employees who were discriminatorily refused reinstatement
shall begin as of November 26, 1937.49
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. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local 425, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the employees named in Appendix A and
Appendix B, attached hereto, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the employees named in Appendix C, attached
hereto.
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,
Ford Motor Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local 425, or any other Labor organization
of its employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its em-
ployees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment
49 See Appendix B, attached hereto.
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their membership in, activity in behalf of, or sympathy
toward any such labor organization ;
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or intimidating,
directly or indirectly, members of International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local 425, or any other labor organization
of its employees displaying notices of union meetings or otherwise
disseminating union literature in the vicinity of its Buffalo plant;
(c) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by circulating,
distributing, or otherwise disseminating among its employees state-
ments or propaganda which disparages or criticizes labor organizations
or which advises its employees not to join such organizations;
(d) Engaging in any manner of espionage or surveillance or en-
gaging the services of any agency or individuals for the purpose of
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organi-
zations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right 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 purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees named in Appendix A and Appendix
B, attached hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges;
(b) Make whole the employees named in Appendix A and Ap-
pendix B, attached hereto, for any loss of pay they have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, by payment to them, respectively, of a
sum of money equal to that which each would have earned as wages
during the period from the date of such discrimination against him
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, pursuant to this Order,
less his net earnings during that period; deducting, however, from the
amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received
by said employee during said period for work performed upon Fed-
eral, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and
pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency
of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 613
governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout all depart-
ments of its plant in Buffalo, New York, and maintain 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 to cease and desist in
paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Order; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action *set forth in paragraphs 2
(a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees
are free to become or remain members of International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, Local 425, and the respond-
ent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership
or activity in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Third 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 discriminated in regard to hire and tenure
of employment of the employees named in Appendix C, attached
hereto, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
Employees discriminatorily discharged prior to the September 1937
lay-off and the dates on which the discrimination as to them began :
Patrick Curtin, June 23, 1937
Stanley S. Fielkowski, May 11, 1937 50
Joseph Kaiser, May 12, 1937
Frank Kandrat, August 9, 1937
Alfred Kupkowski, June 1, 1937
Vincent Lipira, June 28, 1937
Anthony Miskowiak, May 10, 1937 50
Joseph E. Nowicki, July 8, 1937
Frank Snyder, July 8, 1937
Andrew Sredzinski, May 11, 1937 60
Walter Sredzinski, June 8, 1937 50
Martin Socenski, July 10, 1937 51
so The dates on the termination -of-service cards of Fielkowski, Miskowiak , Andrew Sred•
zinski and Walter Sredzinsl: i are from 1 to 3 days later than the dates on which their
respective discharges took place according to their testimony . It is not clear that the
termination -of-service cards are always made out on the same day that given employees
are discharged . Accordingly, we have adopted the testimony of the four individuals as
correctly setting forth the dates of their respective discharges
61 Socenshi 's termination-of-service card Is dated July 10, although lie testified that
he was discharged on June 30 We do not believe that had his discharge actually taken
place on June 30 there would have'been such a lapse of time between the discharge and
the filling out of his termination-of-service card Accordingly, we adopt the date appearing
on the card as more nearly setting forth the true date of Socenski's discharge
283034-41-vol 23-40
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
Employees discriminatorily discharged or discriminatorily refused
reinstatement after the resumption of production in October 1937,
and the dates on which the discrimination as to them began :
1. Employees as to whom discrimination is deemed to have com-
menced on November 26, 1937:
Bernard Beck Frank Kornowicz
Anthony Caparella Tony Kosin
John Clark Leo Krzyzykowski
Joseph Di Agostino Edward Lyczynski
Weldon Farnish Frank Meger
James George John Pensky
Frank Godzich William Petrocy
Charles Goldenbaum Edward Rich
Joseph Jaworski William Scott
Ernest P. Johnson Harry Strash
William Kalman John Wurzer
Edward Kania
2. Employees as to whom discrimination began on other dates:
Otto Otte, November 17, 1937
Guy Testa, November 17, 1937
John Truchon, November 16, 1937
APPENDIX C
Employees as to whom the complaint is dismissed :
1. Those who did not testify:
Andrew Bienek Thomas R. Saia
Frank Karaszewski Edward Sherman
Stephen Karaszewski Stanley Slajkowski
Frank Rucinski
2. Those found not to have been discriminated against:
Anton Agoston Alfred Krajewski
Cameron Bean Joseph Krajewski
Julian Bolewicki Lawrence Lawler
Charles Brawn Andrew Learch
Edward Czarnecki Ignatius Lodyga
Casimir Czerwinski Alexander McMullen
Anthony Jarosz Joseph Malecki
I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 615
Frank Maturzak Theodore Szczepankiewicz
George Petrocy Walter Szczuelewski
Alphonse Rucki Joseph Wiatrowski
Stephen S. Salley Joseph Zavodny
John Slawa Max Zdral
MR. WILLIAM M. LEIsnRsoN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.