Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY (RIVER ROUGE PLANT) and
UNITED PROTECTIVE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 7-C-1168.-Decided March 31, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a complaint issued pursuant to charges filed by United
Protective Workers of America, herein called the U. P. W. A.,
against Ford Motor Company (River Rouge Plant), Dearborn,
Michigan, herein called the respondent, a hearing was held before
a Trial Examiner in Detroit, Michigan, from November 4 to 20,,
1943, in which the Board, the respondent, U. P. W. A., and the
Plant Protection Association, herein called the Association, partici-
pated by their representatives. The Board has reviewed the Trial
Examiner's rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 18, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found that
the respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint. Thereafter, U. P. W. A. and counsel for the
Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Oral argument
was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on March 7, 1944,
and was participated in only by counsel for the Association.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the excep-
tions, and the entire record, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the
additions noted below.
While we agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence is
insufficient to support the allegations of the complaint that the re-
spondent dominated or interfered with the formation or administra-
tion of, or contributed support to, the Association, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act, we take notice of our findings and
conclusions in a prior proceeding 1 that the respondent discharged
' Matter of Ford Motor Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 534.
55 N. L. R. B, No. 161.
578129-44-vol. 55-58 897
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain employees because of their membership and activity in U. P.
W. A. and otherwise manifested its hostility toward the latter or-
ganization. Under these circumstances, it would probably be ad-
visable for the respondent, in order to avoid any possible future
charge of unfair labor practices, not to recognize, or bargain or
enter into a contract with, any labor organization as the representa-
tive of its plant-protection employees unless and until such organi-
zation is certified as such representative by the Board.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein against Ford
Motor Company (River Rouge Plant), Dearborn, Michigan, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Frederick P. Mett, for the Board.
Messrs. I. A. Capizzi and Malcolm L. Denise, of Detroit, Mich., for the
respondent.
Mr. Frank N. MacLean, of Detroit, Mich., for the UPWA
Mr. Herbert E. Munro, of Detroit, Mich., for the Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge filed September 15, 1943, by United Protective
Workers of America, herein called the UPWA, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Seventh
Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint, dated September 15, 1943,
against Ford Motor Company (River Rouge Plant), herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were
duly served upon the respondent, the UPWA, and the Plant Protection Associa-
tion, herein called the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance:
(1) that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Association and has contributed financial and other support
to it by (a) urging its plant protection employees to create an organization to
oppose the UPWA, (b) securing the services of counsel for the Association, (c)
making arrangements for an participating in membership meetings of the Asso-
ciation, (d) holding office in the Association, (3) permitting members of the
Association to collect dues and engage in other Association activities in the
plant during working hours but denying similar privileges to the UPWA ; and
(2) that by these acts the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of
the Act.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 899
On September 23, 1943, the Regional Director of the Seventh Region granted
a Petition to Intervene submitted by the Association. Thereafter the respondent
and the Association filed separate answers to the complaint ; both answers denied
that the respondent had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The
Association also filed a Request for Bill of Particulars, which was referred by
the Regional Director to the Chief Trial Examiner. Having been duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner as the Trial Examiner in these proceedings,
the undersigned issued an order granting certain parts of the Request for
Bill of Particulars.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Detroit, Michigan, from November 4
to November 20, 1943, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The Board, the
respondent, the UPWA and the Association were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded all parties.
At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a joint motion by
counsel for the Board, the respondent, and the Association to conform the plead-
ings to the proof in minor particulars. Ruling was reserved upon a joint motion
by counsel for the respondent and for the Association for dismissal of the com-
plaint ; disposition of said motion is made hereinafter.
Also at the close of the hearing counsel for the Board, the respondent and the
Association argued orally before the Trial Examiner. The argument appears
in the official transcript of the proceedings. Opportunity was afforded to all
parties to file briefs with the Trial Examiner. No briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation, having its principal
executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. It owns, operates and maintains manu-
facturing and assembly plants in many States throughout the United States.
Before February 1942, the respondent was principally engaged in the manufac-
ture, assembly, sale and distribution of automobiles, automobile trucks and
various types of automobile parts and accessories. Since February 1942 the
respondent has been principally engaged at its plants in Detroit and vicinity, In
the manufacture and assembly of ordnance and other materials for the armed
forces of the United States.
Not less than 10 percent, and varying as high as 80 percent in value of its
raw materials, the total value of which exceeds $1,000,000 monthly, is shipped
to the above-mentioned plants from points outside the State of Michigan.
These proceedings are concerned with the respondent's River Rouge plant at
Dearborn, Michigan. The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1
The United Protective Workers of America and the Plant Protection Associa-
tion are unaffiliated labor organizations admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
1 The findings in Section I and II above, are based upon stipulations entered into by the
-parties at the hearing.
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; organization of the UPWA; discriminatory discharges of its-
leaders; Board's Decision and Order in Case No. C-1016; failure of the
respondent to comply with Board's order.2
Plant protection employees, with whom these proceedings are concerned, were
excluded from the bargaining unit in the contract entered into by the responden'
and the UAW-CIO in June 1941. During the following month the UPWA was
organized to serve as the bargaining representative of plant protection employees.
In the latter part of 1941 the UPWA conducted a membership campaign among
the respondent's employees in this department at its River Rouge unit Prospec-
tive members were advised by UPWA leaders that it was planned to merge this
organization with the UAW-CIO The campaign met with the respondent's
immediate and open hostility. An organizing leader, George R Jounard, was-
laid off in November because of his union activity. He returned to work in
December following an agreement between counsel for the UPWA and the re-
spondent. In April 1942, however, Jonnard was discharged because of his con-
tinued UPWA activity. In May three UPWA stewards were likewise discharged
discriminatorily In July the UPWA filed charges with the Board. A hearing
was held in January 1943, and on June 16, 1943, the Board issued a Decision and
Order in which it ordered, among other things, that the respondent reinstate the-
above-mentioned employees arid that it cease and desist from discouraging
membership in the UPWA and from other conduct which had been found to be
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
At the time of the hearing in the present proceedings, the respondent had not
complied with the provisions of the above-mentioned Decision and Order of the
Board.
B. The Association; its tormation and administration
1. Formation of the Association
(a) Surrounding circumstances; revival of UPWA activity at the River Rouge
plant; election victory of UPWA at another nearby Ford plant
Following the discharge of some of its active leaders, as above described, the
I]PWA organizational drive at the River Rouge plant "took a . . . nose dive,"
according to the testimony of John Dickshott , acting president of the local unit.
Efforts were made to revive activity at this plant in September 1942, when
Dickshott was appointed to office In November the UPWA won an election con-
ducted by the Board among the respondent 's plant protection employees at the
engineering laboratory and airport of its Dearborn plant .' On December 7 the
UPWA filed a petition for an Investigation and Certification of Representatives
covering plant protection employees at the River Rouge plant.'
(b) Early organizing meetings of the Association
Before the UPWA filed its petition on December 7, a few of the plant protec-
tion employees, some of whom had previously joined the UPWA, met at taverns
Y Although some evidence Ras adduced in these proceedings relating to the organization
of the UPWA and the respondent' s conduct designed to discourage membership in it, the
findings in this section are mainly in accordance with the Board's findings in Case No.
C-1016
Board case No. R-4162.
s Board case No. R-4759. The Board dismissed the petition because the unit sought was
inappropriate.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 901
outside the plant to discuss the forming of another organization ° On December
11, 14 and 21, and on January 3, 1943, mass meetings of employees were held at
social club quarters also outside the plant. A temporary chairman and sec-
retary were selected, and minutes of these mass meetings were kept by the
latter. Expenses of hiring the meeting halls were met by "passing the hat"
.among those present.
After the business session of the second mass meeting , the employees went
into a private "tap room" adjacent to the meeting hall. Beer was served.
'Two members of the respondent's supervisory staff-Supervisor Harold J. Crout,
and Foreman John Connolly, dropped in on the post-meeting party and shared
in the drinking of beer, having previously been invited by employees of the
.service department.
At the third mass meeting membership applications were distributed and
signed ° At the same meeting proposed bylaws were accepted by the attending
employees. At the meeting of January 3 plans were laid for an election of
-officers to be held January 21.
(c) Stated purposes of the Association during its organizing period
The record permits no doubt that the prime objective of the employees who
assumed leadership in forming the Association was to defeat the UPWA.
Charles Roth, who served as acting and later as permanent secretary, testified
that the "idea" of forming the Association was his own and that of a few
others, and that although he had first signed up with the UPWA lie believed
that it was connected with the CIO rind so wanted an organization to combat
it. According to the minutes of the first mass meeting, employee John Silvi
suggested that they form :
. . . not a Ford Motor Company Union, but only a social organization
or Club towards our own personal interests.
In oral argument counsel for the Board contended that the "first step" In organizing
the Association was taken on December 9, when Jack (F. C.) Giel, a leader, told employee
'Daniel A. Caton and others, according to Caton's testimony, "that lie had heard from a very
good source that Jimmy Biady ( an official in the respondent 's personnel department) had
said lie hoped the seivice men would not throw the company over for a union . . . (and)
that on that basis it would be necessary to start some sort of a unit to combat the union."
,Giel was not it witness; the identity of the "very good source" is not revealed by the record.
The Trial Examiner considers Caton 's testimony on this point , although undisputed, as in-
sufficient evidence upon which to base a finding that Brady instigated the forming of the
Association. Counsel for the Board furtli"r contends that Giel, at the time of his conver-
sation with Caton, was "a clearly supervisory employee" As discussed at gieater length
hereinafter , leadeis such as Giel do not possess supervisory poweis of a nature or to a
degree causing the employees reasonably to believe that their statements bear the authority
of management . Therefore the Trial Examiner finds that the evidence does not support
the contention that the respondent is responsible for the foregoing statement of Giel. The
above findings as to initial steps taken in forming the Association are based upon the undis-
puted testimony of other witnesses also called by the Board ,-notably Leon Hill and
Charles Roth.
° The text of the application blanks was as follows
PLANT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
Rouge Division
I hereby apply for membership in the Plant Protection Association, Rouge Division.
I have read or have heard read the Charter and By-Laws of the Association, and I
hereby subscribe to them and agree to abide by them and all amendments thereto
as long as I am a member of the Association. I am not now a member of any group
or organization whose aims , puiposes , and objects are in conflict with the aims and
purposes of this Association, and I pledge myself not to loin any other group without
,first resigning from this Association.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the second mass meeting Silvi read from a statement, previously prepared
by himself, in which he set forth the course which he suggested the organization
should follow. Excerpts from this statement follow :
I have come to the conclusion that most of the Ford Motor Co.
plant protection men would like some sort of organization. By that I
do not mean that the men want a union affiliated with the C. I. O. or
A. F. of L. or X. Y. Z. or, what have you. Nor do I mean that the
men feel that organization is absolutely necessary. I mean simply this-
the men are of the opinion that an organization of some kind might
possibly benefit them. Now, you all know, and I know that, in a
general sense, the Ford Motor Co. has treated it's plant protection men
wonderfully. Our department has always been the pet of the company.
At the present time, if everything is taken into consideration our de-
partment is the best treated plant protection dept. in the United States.
There is no need for me to go into detail and I'm sure you men all
agree with me on that score. But-there is nothing in this world that is
absolutely perfect. There is nothing that could not in some small way-
be improved upon. So it is with the relationship that exists between
the Ford Motor Co. and it's plant protection department. Although that
relationship is excellent-it can be improved upon. And-it is that
small improvement that the men have in mind when they say they would
like some sort of organization.
... we must face the fact that sometime, some outside interests, whose
aims be purely selfish, may attempt to create an organization within
our group for the sole purpose of advancing their own ends, and without
any regard for the welfare of our men. Therefore, our course is very clear.
If there is to be an organization in our department-let it be one created
by our men, run by our men for the benefit of our men, and not for some
outside interest.
Also at the second mass meeting John Dickshott, previously identified as acting
head of the River Rouge unit of the UPWA, asked from the floor whether or not
a labor organization was being formed. He was answered in the negative, also
from the floor, by W. D. Gabbard, a leader, who further advised Dickshott to
"wait and see."
According to the bylaws adopted by the Association :
This Association is a voluntary unincorporated association formed for the
purpose of mutual aid, cooperation, exchange and interchange of informa-
tion and to promote the general welfare, protection and well being of plant
protection employees of various manufactories, branches, subdivisions,
plants or divisions of the Ford Motor Company and all other similar and
allied occupations, trades and professions and further to protect the welfare
of all its members.
The "Preamble" of the bylaws states :
WHEREAS, the various members of the Plant Protection Department of
the Ford Motor Company have been informed that there is a movement
on foot to cause the formation of a union and various bargaining powers
to be exercised on their behalf by said union, and
WHEREAS, the members have been informed that an application is now
pending for an election to require bargaining powers to be exercised on
their behalf with the National Labor Relations Board of the United States,
and
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 903
WHEREAS, the various and sundry members are fearful that they may
be forced to either join a union or other Association and be forced to dele-
gate their individual bargaining rights and the conditions of their employ-
ment to some group whose interests might be antagonistic and
WHEREAS, the plant protection employees desire to formulate an organ-
ization of their own which will serve to protect them against any compul-
sion to join any union or other organization that might not fully represent
the interest of their members because in the daily execution of their duties
they act in some measures and to some extent as police officers policing
and protecting the men and the plant, and
THEREFORE, they desire to remain as a distinct, separate entity not
responsible to or beholden to any other group, association or union.
(d) Employment of Herbert E. Munro as attorney for the Association
The above-described Association bylaws were drawn tip by Herbert E. Munro,
a Detroit attorney who, since May 7, 1942, has been employed by the respondent
as a part-time plant protection guard at the River Rouge unit.' Munro first be-
came connected with the Association, so far as the rccord reveals, after the second
mass meeting of the plant protection employees. He was then approached by
Leon Hill, temporary chairman of the Association, who asked him to assist in
drawing up articles and bylaws. Munro agreed and thereafter became counsel
for the Association.
(e) Activity of "leaders" in organizing the Association
Among plant protection employees assuming a leading part in forming the As-
sociation were Leon Hill and John Silvi. Both attended the tavern meetings;
Hill became temporary chairman, and Silvi's remarks at one of the mass meetings
have been quoted above.
Counsel for the Board contended in oral argument that Hill and Silvi were
"basically supervisory officials of the Ford Motor Company." Hill is a leader
assigned to the tool and die building , while Silvi is an assistant leader whose usual
post is at the employment office.
The record contains much testimony about leaders , both in general and relating
to certain individuals . Among the 850 plant protection employees at River Rouge
about 75 are classified as "leaders " or "assistant leaders ." Unclassified employees
receive $200 a month ; assistant leaders $210 ; and leaders $215. The duties of
leaders and assistant leaders are the same . All plant protection men, including
leaders, "ring in" before each shift , and at the time clocks are assigned, by an
assistant foreman in the office , to certain gates , buildings , or to roving or "free
lance" duties . At some gates and in some buildings several employees are thus
assigned . It is the duty of the leader or leaders at such points ar areas to make
sure that all posts are covered . In the event that a man requires a relief, the
leader may arrange for such relief or take the post himself . Leaders are re-
sponsible to the assistant foreman of the plant protection department . They have
7Munro's testimony is undisputed that sometime before May 1942, be received a circular
letter sent out by the Detroit Bar Association, urging lawyers to obtain part-time work in
war plants if possible. Responding to the request, Munro went to the Bar Association
office, offered his services, and was sent first to a tool manufacturing plant. The work
available there was too fine for his eyes, and he returned to the Bar Association office for
other suggestions. This time he was sent to the Ford Motor Company, and at the employ-
ment office was hired as a guard Munro has practiced law for about 32 years and some
years ago, while in the Prosecutor's office, had as an assistant I. A. Capizzi, now one of
the respondent 's counsel.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no power to discharge or to discipline employees assigned to their area. If a leader
observes a plant protection man breaking rules he must obtain authority from
the foreman before sending him to the office. In some cases a leader may be the
-only employee at a gate, and at other gates or posts he may have several men
under him. Leaders wear no distinguishing uniform, badges or insignia. No list
of leaders has ever been posted by management; many witnesses at the hearing
testified that they had no idea who among them had been so classified. Leaders
are paid the same as "free lance" men, conceded by counsel for the Board to be
non-supervisory. They are paid their classification salary, whether they have sev-
eral men under them or are assigned alone to a post.
Early in the hearing counsel for the Board contended that leaders are agents
of the respondent because they have supervisory powers. At another point
he stated, "I take the position that they (leaders) are not proper members
of an Association of plant protection . . . emlpoyees," and that under the
circumstances,-the respondent's open hostility towards the UPWA,-the mem-
bership and activity of leaders in the Association constituted support by the
respondent of that organization. The Trial Examiner does not consider that the
respondent's hostility toward the UPWA has any bearing upon the question
of the supervisory status of leaders.
According to a statement of counsel for the Board, read into the record
after examining the membership lists of both the UPWA and the Association,
it appears that at least 17 leaders and 23 assistant leaders have been or still
are members of both organizations. John Dickshott, present head of the
UPWA, is an assistant leader. The UPWA has never excluded leaders from
membership, and this classification is included in the present contract between
the respondent and the UPWA covering plant protection employees at the
Dearborn engineering laboratory. Since their membership in both organiza-
tions is or has been general, such membership and activity cannot be held
to be a determinant factor in deciding whether or not the respondent domi-
nated or interfered with the organization or administration of the Association.8
In oral argument counsel for the Board implied that Hill, Silvi, Gabbard
and Giel possessed authority greater than other leaders and that actually they
were "clearly supervisory officials." As to Giel, his name appears on the mem-
bership lists of both organizations His supervisory status, therefore, is ir-
relevant to the issues before the Trial Examiner. Hill, as noted above, is a
leader in the tool and die building where from 9 to 11 other guards are as-
signed. While it is his duty to see that more posts are covered than some
other leaders, there is no evidence that his authority over them is greater or
of a different nature than that of a leader with only one man under him. As
to Gabbard, at the time the Association was oiganizing9 he was a leader with
8 Counsel for the Board similarly contended that certain classifications in the fire depart-
ment-members of which are eligible to mr-mbership in both the UPWA and the Associa-
tion-are "supervisory." The same membership records, however, revealed that many
employees in such classifications have been or still are members of both organizations. In
view of this fact, the Trial Examiner believes it unnecessary to determine the question of
supervisory authority of firemen in the classifications cited by counsel for the Board.
9 Gabbard was piomoted to assistant foreman February 1, 1943. This pioniotion was
made as a result of a request by a resident iepresentative of the Aimy Air Forces, for
reasons unrelated to the issues in this case. Gabbard has retained his membership in the
Association, but he holds no office and there is no evidence of his activity in its behalf since
his promotion. While Chailes Bernard, head of the plant protection department, testified
that he had never inquired whether or not Gabbard belonged to the Association, he stated
that he did tell another foreman,-Hupke, that because of his position lie "didn't belong
in any organization." The Association records show that Hupke stopped paying dues in
the Association after July 1943. Hupke's payment of dues, so far as the recoid shows,
was his only Association activity.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 905 ,
14 guards to post, as above described, but with the same duties as other
leaders As to Silvi, his usual station is at the employment office, and as an
assistant leader posts from 4 to 7 guards. His duties are similar to others
in the same classification. The Trial Examiner can attach no special signifi-
cance to the fact that Silvi's regular post was at the employment office, since
Dickshott, at the time he was leading the UPWA membership drive in the fall
of 1942, was an assistant leader regularly assigned to the plant protection
office.
The Trial Examiner finds that the evidence does not support the conten-
tions of counsel for the Board that the four employees above-named were
"supervisory officials."
2. Administration of the Association
(a) The election of January 14, 1913
On January 14, 1943, Association members elected permanent officers. The
election was conducted by secret ballot and under the supervision of a former
employee of the Detroit Election Commission. On the same ballot appeared the
following referendum :
Do you want the Plant Protection Association to demand representation
rights before the NLRB as your independent employee organization and
bargaining representative?
Thereafter the Association sought investigation and certification by the Board.
The UPWA filed its original charge in these proceedings on April 19, 1943, and
no hearing has been held on the Association's petition.
(b) Demand for recognition by the respondent
On February 18, 1943, counsel for the Association sent a letter to Harry Ben-
nett, personnel director, asking for recognition by the respondent of the Associa-
tion as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the plant protec-
tion division. No reply to this demand was received, and the respondent has
not recognized the Association as the bargaining unit at its River Rouge plant.
3. Alleged disparity of treatment by the respondent between the Association and
the UPWA
(a) Distribution of literature and campaigning on company time and property
Undisputed evidence establishes that Association members campaigned on coin.
parry time and property. Undisputed evidence establishes that UPWA members
did likewise. It appears that both organizations have not observed to the letter
the respondent's rule that :
Soliciting or collecting contributions for any purpose whatsoever on Com-
pany time is prohibited unless authorized by the management.
There is no evidence that special permission was given to either organization,
or that the rule was invoked as to one and not the other. In totality of inci-
dents concerning which evidence was adduced, it appears that the Association
has violated the rule on a greater number of occasions than the UPWA, but this
fact is tenuous ground for basing a finding that discrimination was exercised
by the respondent. There is also evidence that one plant protection employee,
who worked nights in the office tending the switch-board, occasionally ran off
"906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association notices during his spare time on one of the respondent's duplicating
machines, using some of the respondent's paper for the purpose. He was never
instructed not to do this, and there is no direct evidence that his superiors were
aware of it While the surrounding circumstances warrant an inference that
his superiors had knowledge of his conduct in this respect, and while their failure
'to forbid it might be construed as indirectly supporting the Association, the Trial
Examiner does not consider such support as sufficient to mark the Association
as company dominated or assisted.
(b) The sandwich incident
For the past two years Mike Savage, one of the plant protection employees,
has been assigned to a lunchroom near the respondent's property. Guards are
posted regularly at this and similar lunchrooms to inspect food and its con-
tainers which are brought into the plant for employees On a Sunday eve-
ning in April 1943, while on duty at this lunchroom, Savage helped a restaurant
employee make sandwiches which were to be used the following night at an
Association "party." There is no evidence that management officials knew
,of the incident, which the Trial Examiner considers as too trivial to deserve
further comment.
(c) The Evranian incident
In January 1943, while actively soliciting memberships for the UPWA
Manoog Evranian, an employee of the respondent's fire department, was in-
structed by the fire chief that there "would be no union activities on Company
time." Thereafter a written notice to this effect, but mentioning neither
organization, was circulated among other members of the department Evran-
ian dropped his UPWA activity, according to his testimony, because "of the
Chief's attitude and because the UPWA became inactive " A few months later
lie joined the Association and solicited memberships in that organization as
he previously had for the UPWA. He became a director of the Association
and in July was discharged by the department chief following a dispute in
which Evranian endeavored to defend another employee who was being sent
home. Evranian promptly consulted Walter Hogue, another officer of the
Association, who was stationed as a guard at a parking lot. Without obtaining
permission from his superiors Hogue left his post and with Evranian drove
into Detroit to confer with Munro. Hogue returned to the plant but did not,
report his absence, and there is no evidence that the respondent's officials
knew he had left the parking lot Munro filed charges against the respondent
with the Board's Regional Office for Evranian, who was advised by a Board
representative to seek reinstatement. At Evranian's request, Mike Savage,
vice-president of the Association, interceded on his behalf with Bernard, and
the latter arranged for his re-employment as a plant protection guard, a posi-
tion which he continued to hold at the tune of the hearing.
The Trial Examiner is unable to conclude that any of the above facts, or all
of them, establish either disparity of treatment or support of the Association
Neither the Chief's admonition to Evranian in January nor the circulated
notice specified either the Association or the UPWA, although both were then
organizing. Nor do the circumstances warrant attaching significance to the
fact that Mike Savage interceded for Evranian. Bernard testified that Savage,
in speaking for Evranian, did not represent himself as an Association officer.
Savage and Bernard are friends of long standing,-both having played on the
same university football team.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
C. Conclusions
907
In Case No . 0-1016 the Board found that the respondent discharged UPWA
leaders and otherwise discouraged membership in that organization . Similar
'treatment has not been accorded to the Association or its leaders. A contrast
in conduct on the part of the respondent has thus been created.
Such contrast obviously did not materialize until after the Association came
into being . and therefore cannot be held to have been the cause of its formation.
There is no evidence in the record that any of the respondent ' s officials affirm-
atively urged or advised organization of the Association.
The contrast in treatment has been noted, unquestionably , by plant protec-
tion employees . It may well have prompted many of them to withdraw from
an organization which had received the respondent 's positive disapproval and
to join an organization which was being permitted to function without inter-
ference or discouragement If such contrast be construed as assistance to or
support of the Association , however, it appears that equalization would require
either compliance with the Board 's order in the above -mentioned case or the
,discharge of Association leaders. The Trial Examiner hesitates to recommend
the latter alternative.
Counsel for the Board argues that the purposes voiced by Silvi and others
active in forming the Association as well as those contained in the preamble
of its by-laws are "masterpieces of company unionism ." The Trial Examiner
,considers them to be indicia, no ,more, and like other signs to be believed only
if they lead to the alleged destination . In this case there is no evidence of
company domination or interference with the Association 's administration.
The Association is plainly functioning as a labor organization . Since the
organization of its River Rouge unit, the Association has been certified by the
Board at the respondent's Highland Park and Lincoln plants. Negotiations
led to the signing of contracts with the Association at these two plants, as
negotiations resulted in a similar agreement with the UPWA covering plant
protection employees at the Dearborn Engineering laboratory.
In summary , it is the opinion of the Trial Examiner that the plant protec-
tion employees at River Rouge are being deprived , by the respondent 's failure
to comply with the Board 's order in Case No . C-1016, of their rights freely to
select a bargaining agent of their own choosing . As to these proceedings,
however, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the evidence does not
support the allegations of the complaint , and it will be recommended that the
complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF Lxw
1. United Protective Workers of America and Plant Protection Association
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The operations of the respondent occur in commerce, within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not dominated or interfered with the formation or
administration of the Association and, insofar as the allegations in the complaint
are concerned, has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 26, 1943, any
party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of
the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D C., an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any
other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions
or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a
brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefore must be
made in writing within ten (10) days from the (late of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
C W. WIIrrTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated December 13, 1943.