Hawkeye Steel Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 815 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of E. DALE NASON AND MARTIN H. LORENZEN, CO-
PARTNERS , D. B. A. HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY and UNITED
FARM EQUIPMENT & METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 18-C-1165.-Decided April 26, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 8, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings and conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
iner. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions,
we are particularly persuaded by employee Gilda Moyer's uncontra-
dicted testimony, which reveals that Superintendent Lorenzen and
Foreman Trost expressed their opposition to the Union and engaged
in conduct interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees
in the exercise of their self -organizational rights, and by her further
uncontradicted testimony that Superintendent Lorenzen had made
known the respondents' intention of discharging employees Draheim
and Stykoff because of their activities in behalf of the Union. Super-
intendent Lorenzen and Foreman Trost were not called as witnesses
at the hearing before the Trial Examiner, and no showing or claim
was made that they were unavailable.
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, E. Dale Nason and Martin
H. Lorenzen, d. b. a. Hawkeye Steel Products Company, Waterloo,
Iowa, and their officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
67 N. L. R. B, No. 106.
815
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Farm Equipment & Metal
Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any
of their employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition
of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Farm Equipment
& Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John Draheim and Gilda Moyer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole John Draheim, Tony Stykoff, and Gilda Moyer,
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ents' discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount which he or she normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the respondents' discrimination
against each to the date of his or her reinstatement or the respondents'
offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings during said period;
(c) Post at their plant in Waterloo, Iowa, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 1 Copies
of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eight-
eenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondents, be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply therewith.
i Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words , "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substi-
tut3ng in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 817
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Pike, Si as & Butler , by Mr. George E. Pike, of Waterloo, Iowa , for the respond-
ents.
Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Irving Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed by United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers
of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region
(Minneapolis , Minnesota), issued its complaint dated January 2, 1946, against
E. Dale Nason and Martin H. Lorenzen, co-partners doing business as Hawkeye
Steel Products Company, Waterloo, Iowa, herein called the respondents. The
complaint alleged that the respondents had engaged and were 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. Copies of the complaint, amended charge, and notice of
hearing were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
(1) that from on or about July 1, 1945, to the date of the issuance of the com-
plaint, the respondents, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, warned and
discouraged employees against union membership and activities, threatened dis-
crimination against employees prominent in the Union, and made derogatory
statements about unions and union leaders; and (2) that the respondents, on
specified dates in August 1945, and in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of
the Act, laid off or discharged employees John Draheim, Tony Stykoff, and
Regilda Moyer; and have since failed and refused to reemploy John Draheim and
Regilda Moyer, in each case because the employee in question joined and assisted
the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
The respondents filed an answer in which they denied the allegations of the
complaint concerning the unfair labor practices. The respondents also asserted
in their answer that John Draheim and Regilda Moyer were discharged, and
Tony Stykoff was laid off, in each case for reasons other than their union mem-
bership or activities or their participation in concerted activities.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Waterloo, Iowa, on January 15, 1946,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Ex-
aminer. The Board, the respondents, and the Union were represented by counsel,
participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. At the end of the Board's case, an unopposed motion to amend the
complaint to conform to the proof in minor matters of form (such as dates and
misspelling of names) was granted. At the end of the hearing, the parties waived
oral argument . Thereafter, pursuant to leave granted to all parties at the
hearing, the respondents filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
1I.n her testimony , Moyer gave her name as "Gilds Moyer ." As hereinafter noted, the
complaint was amended to correct misspellings of names.
692148-46-vol. 67-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents, E. Dale Nason and Martin H. Lorenzen, doing business as
Hawkeye Steel Products Company, have been engaged as copartners since Febru-
ary 1, 1944, in the manufacture of war products and in the manufacture and sale
of farm equipment at their plant in Waterloo, Iowa. During the first 10 months of
1945, the respondents purchased raw materials of an approximate value of $200,-
000, of which approximately 95 percent was purchased at. and shipped from
points outside the State of Iowa During the same period, the respondents sold
finished products of an approximate value of $525,000, of which approximately
25 percent constituted sales and shipments to points outside the State of Iowa.
In their answer, the respondents admitted the allegation of the complaint that
they have continuously caused large quantities of their finished products to be
sold and transported in interstate commerce from their plant at Waterloo, Iowa,
to and through States other than the State of Iowa.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In the beginning of June 1945, a number of respondents' employees joined the
Union, began wearing union buttons at work, and solicited the memberships of
their fellow employees. Among those active in this solicitation were John
Draheim and Tony Stykoff, both of whom worked in the foundry as moulders,
and Gilda Moyer,' the only employee in the office of Foundry Superintendent
Richard Lorenzen.' Draheim and Stykoff distributed the Union's membership
application cards among the employees. Some of the girls employed in the
hand grenade department handed their membership applications to Moyer, who
then asked Superintendent Lorenzen whether she should deliver these cards to the
Union's solicitors. After a slight hesitation, the superintendent told her she
should do so and added "I want the Union in here." Thereupon, Moyer turned
in to the Union her own application for membership as well as those of the other
girls.
Notwithstanding Superintendent Lorenzen's statement to Moyer, the respond-
ents were apparently made uneasy from the outset by the organizational activi-
ties of their employees. Draheim had been hired on May 28, 1945, and a few
days later asked the respondent Nason for an advance against his wages.
Nason granted the request but having seen Draheim pass out cards to the other
employees, he asked Draheim why the latter had started organizing. When
Draheim denied any connection with the Union's activities, Nason remarked that
he did not care whether the Union "got in" but wanted the employees to make
up their own minds.4
On June 28, 1945, a union committee, including Draheim, met with both of the
s Referred to in the complaint as "Regilda Moyer." See footnote 1, supra.
Superintendent Richard Lorenzen is the brother of the respondent , Martin Lorenzen.
The findings concerning Nason's statements to Draheim are based not only upon Dra-
helm's testimony but also upon Nason's admission that, although he never spoke to Dra-
heim about the Union , he asked Draheim "why it was that be wanted to organize ." Accord-
ing to Nason , he was "just interested "
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 819
respondents and a Field Examiner of the Board at the office of the respondents'
attorney. Stykoff was also present although he was apparently not a formally
designated member of the union committee. In the course of this conference,
the Union and the respondents entered into an agreement to hold an election
among the employees to determine whether or not they wanted to be represented
by the Union The election was held on July 10, with Draheiin and Moyer acting
as observers for the Union. Seventy votes were cast against, and 27 for, repre-
sentation by the Union. So far as the record discloses, there has been no union
activity in the respondents' plant since that time.
Both before and after the election, however, the respondent Martin Lorenzen,
Foundry Superintendent Richard Lorenzen, and Foundry Foreman Fred Trost
made it plain by their frank statements to, or in the presence of Moyer, whose
testimony was uncontradicted, not only that the respondents opposed the eni-
ployees' attempts to secure representation by the Uifion but that they intended
to discharge Draheim and Stykoff because of their leadership of the union
movement. Thus, a week before the election, Foreman Trost, noting that Moyer
wore a union button, laughed and asked her, "What good do you think that will
do you?" At about the same time, Superintendent Lorenzen told Moyer that the
Union would not get an election because both of the respondents and Manager
Fergemann "don't want any union in here." Several times during this general pe-
riod, the respondent Lorenzen and Superintendent Lorenzen also frankly discussed
in Moyer's presence their intention to dismiss employees "unfavorable" to them
when the war ended. On one such occasion after the election, Superintendent
Lorenzen told Moyer that when the war was over, the respondents "could get rid
o C these men" ; that they "wouldn't have to put up with a lot of things" ; and
that John Draheiin "wouldn't be here long." When asked by Moyer why he had
hired Draheiin, the superintendent replied with obvious reference to Draheim's
union activities, "Well, I knew they wouldn't get any place anyway." Finally,
on August 17 or 18, 1945, immediately after the announcement of the cessation of
hostilities, Superintendent Lorenzen told the respondent Lorenzen, again in
Moyer's presence, "now we can get rid of our agitators like Tony [Stykoff] and
John Draheiin. The C. I. 0. picked the dumbest people to represent them," to
which tie respondent Lorenzen replied, "Yes, that's right"
From the foregoing facts shown by the uncontradicted testimony of the Board's
witnesses it is clear (1) that the respondents, through Nason, questioned Draheim
concerning his union activity and, though disclaiming any intent to discourage
such activity or union membership, did in fact attempt to do so and (2) that
the iespciuients through the statements made by the respondent Martin Lorenzen,
Superintendent Richard Lorenzen, and Foreman Trost directly to, or in the
presence of, Regilda Moyer, who was known to them as a leader of the Union, not
only ridiculed the Union and its leadership, but also threatened the union leaders
with discharge. The undersigned therefore finds that by these acts the respondents
interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby committing unfair labor prac-
tice, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) thereof.
B. Discrimination
1. The discharge of John Draheiin
John Draheim was employed by the respondent as a moulder from May 28, 1945
until his discharge on August 210,194V He joined the Union in the early part of
b Draheiin had been previously employed by Hawkeye Steel Products Company for 5 or
6 months beginning in January 1936, when the respondent Martin Lorenzen was the sole
proprietor of the business
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
June 1945, and signed up between 35 and 40 union members among the respondent's
employees not only in the foundry but in the rest of the plant as well. As already
noted, he was questioned by the respondent Nason as to why he had begun organiz-
ing the employees ; he served on the union committee which met with the respond-
ents on June 28; and he also acted as an observer for the Union at the election
held on July 10. As has also been noted, Superintendent Lorenzen, with a clear
allusion to Draheim's union activities, told Moyer that "John Draheim [won't] be
here long" and shortly thereafter also referred to him as an "agitator" whom the
end of the war would permit the respondents to discharge. On Monday, August
20, 1945, less than a week after the announcement of the Japanese surrender and
the cessation of hostilities, Foundry Foreman Eastman told Draheim he had
been instructed by Superintendent Lorenzen to discharge Draheim but did not
know the reason therefor. When Draheim asked the superintendent, the latter
answered, "For being absent."
The respondent Nason, the only witness produced by the respondents, testified
that he himself, without consulting Superintendent Lorenzen or the foundry
foreman, had made the decision to discharge not only John Draheinb but also
Tony Stykoff and Gilda Moyer, and had instructed Superintendent Lorenzen to
do so. According to his testimony, Nason, as one of the partner-proprietors of the
business, is primarily concerned with decisions of policy and with the handling
of financial details and some of the personnel and production problems. Although
he is in touch with the production departments, with "general supervision" over
them, he admitted that he has "very little" actual contact with the production
end of the business and the superintendent "ordinarily" initiated discharges.
While Nason added that "sometimes" lie discharged employees, he was able to
cite as examples only the discharges of Draheim, Stykoll, and Moyer and the
subsequent discharges of two other employees Thus, from tiason's testimony,
it is apparent not merely that it was unusual for him to order discharges but that
the three union leaders involved in the present case were the hr,t euiplovecs
whom he had ever discharged.
Nason testified that his decision to discharge Diaheim was Based upon Dra-
heim's inefficiency and repeated absences from work in spite of warms ge, and
not upon his known activity as a member of the Union. keeordiug to the sub-
stance of his testimony, his examination of the respondents' records had shown
that, during the entire period of Draheim's employment consisting of 07 uorkiwg
days, Draheim had worked only about 75 percent of the time or 4081;2 hours out
of 540 hours ; ° that he had worked only one complete week without loss of any
time; and that he had been absent 12 entire working days and fractions of about
11 other working days varying from 1% to 6% hours each. Furthermore, accord-
ing to the respondents' records, Draheim turned out 6,824 hand grenades between
July 23 and August 8, 1945, of which 1,521 or 22.3 percent were defective or scrap
due to his fault. For purposes of comparison, Nason also submitted the records of
Carl Finger, another employee who, unlike Draheim, had no experience as a
moulder before he was hired by the respondents on approximately July 23, 1945.
According to these records, Finger had not been absent at all from that date
until August 20 and, on the same days worked by Draheim during that period,
had turned out 7,680 hand grenades, only 736 or 9.5 percent of which were scrap
attributable to his fault.
A complete and fair appraisal of Draheim's work record and efficiency, how-
ever, requires consideration of certain facts not reflected by these attendance
"Nason testified that Draheim worked 4001A hours or 74 percent of the working time
during the period of his employment. Nason's detailed testimony, week by week, however,
indicates that Draheim worked 408% hours.
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 821
and production figures. Thus, Nason admitted that Finger, although a new
employee, had the best record of all the moulders of hand grenades in the re-
spondent's employ, but stated that the highest scrap percentage of any other
moulder was at least 3 percent less than that of Draheim. Furthermore, it is not
clear from the evidence just how, and by whom, it was determined whether scrap
in the case of hand grenades was caused by the moulders. Nor is it clear how
reliable was this determination. For, although most of the moulders worked
on a piece-work basis and were not to be paid for scrap for which they were
responsible, it appears that no scrap was ever in fact charged against the hand
grenade moulders as it was against the others. In addition, for some reason
not satisfactorily explained, records of the scrap in the case of the hand grenades
were discontinued after August 8.
With respect to Draheim's poor attendance record, there is no dispute that he
had been frequently absent from work ; that he had been individually warned
by Nason in the latter part of July concerning his absences ; and that about 10
days before his discharge, the foundry foreman had told the moulders as a
group that future unexcused absences would result in disbharge. On the other
hand, Draheim attributed his absences to illnesses from stomach ulcers and it
does not appear, either from the respondent's records or other evidence in the
evidence in the case, whether he was excused by the respondents. Moreover, there
was uncontradicted testimony that five other moulders were absent as fre-
quently as Draheim but were not discharged. Drabeim also testified without
contradiction that after the foundry foreman's warning to all the moulders, he
was not absent unless he was first excused.
Draheim's poor record, even if most favorably viewed in the light of the fore.
going considerations, would have constituted fair grounds for his discharge.
Thus, were it not for the strong evidence that the respondents had marked
Draheim for discharge because of his union leadership, their contention that he
was discharged because of his record would be credible. But, of course, the
problem is not whether Draheim might fairly have been discharged because
of his work and attendance record but whether, under the circumstances of the
case, it appears that he was in fact discharged therefor or for his union mem-
bership and activities . In the present case, the latter conclusion is clearly im-
pelled by the record . For the respondents were obviously aroused by Draheim's
union activities to the point where the superintendent and the respondent
Lorenzen had definitely decided to discharge him as a union "agitator." And
Superintendent Lorenzen, with remarkable frankness, told Moyer, another
known union leader, that Draheim would be discharged at the end of the war,
as in fact he was. Nason 's attempt to assume responsibility for the discharge
does not refute this conclusion . Even aside from the fact that he, too, had inter-
fered with Draheim 's union solicitation , his unusual assumption of the function
of discharging the three union leaders, including Draheim, must be regarded,
under the circumstances of the case, as indicating a consciousness that the dis-
charges would appear to be discriminatory and a desire to divert responsibility
from his less discreet partner and foundry superintendent.
Upon the foregoing considerations the undersigned finds that the respondents
discharged John Draheim because of his union membership and activities, thereby
discriminating against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment and
discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (1)
and (3 ) of the Act.
2. The lay-off of Tony Stykoff
Tony Stykoff has been employed by the Hawkeye Steel Products Company for
approximately 5 years, starting work for it when Martin Lorenzen was the sole
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proprietor. A moulder for the last 37 years, he has performed all types of
moulding. For about 6 or 7 months prior to his lay-off on August 20, 1945, he
bad been floor-moulding a series of manifolds which the respondents were mak-
ing for the Heisler Company. Shortly before his lay-off, the Heisler Company
asked the respondents temporarily to discontinue this work pending a contem-
plated change in design. For the next few days, Stykoff was put on other jobs
but on August 20, 1945, he and Jake Shaffer, his partner, were discharged by
Superintendent Lorenzen. On the same day, however, the respondent, Martin
Lorenzen, told Stykoff he was not discharged but merely laid off. And as a
matter of fact, he was recalled on October 9, 1945, to resume his work on the
Heisler manifold job.
As already noted, Stykoff joined the Union in the. first part of June, 1945, so-
licited union memberships from his fellow-eniplovees, accompanied the union
committee when it conferred with the respondents on June 28, and was specif-
ically named by Superintendent Lorenzen, in his conversation with the respondent
Lorenzen, as one of the "agitators" who would be discharged with the expected
termination of the war. Furthermore, upon Stykoff's being laid off, he re-
marked to Superintendent Lorenzen, "Oh, you don't want us to organize." The
superintendent replied that Stykoff's union activities had nothing to do with his
lay-off but added, "Why don't you get a union that is a union?"
Nason testified that, as in the case of Draheim, he decided to discharge Stykoff
and so instructed Superintendent Lorenzen, but that, contrary to his instruc-
tions, Stykoff was merely laid off. Denying any intent to discriminate although
he knew of Stykoff's union activity, Nason further testified that his decision
to dismiss Stykoff was based (1) upon a desire to reduce the pay roll, (2) upon
Stykoff's unwillingness to work on anything but the Heisler job and his intention
to take a vacation when that was completed, (3) upon the protests of the other
employees against working with Stykoff because of his vile language; and (4)
upon Stykoff's high percentage of scrap.
With the exception of the last given reason, none of these asserted grounds
for Stykoff's discharge seem to have any firm basis in fact. Contrary to the
suggestion that the respondents were generally reducing their pay roll, Stykoff
testified without contradiction that there was plenty of work; that junior
moulders, including a man broken in by him the previous week, were not laid off ;
and that about 12 new men were hired during the period of lay-off. Concerning
his alleged unwillingness to work at anything but the manifold job, Stykoff testi-
fied, again without contradiction, that a few clays before he was laid off, Super-
intendent Lorenzen had spoken to him of the possibility of a lay-off and he had
then not only accepted the proffered alternative of work on another moulding
job in the plant, but had twice shifted to different jobs at the superintendent's
request immediately before his lay-off. With reference to his intention to take a
vacation, Stykoff admitted that he had already drawn a week's vacation pay.
But he had not been absent from work for an entire year and his request for a
week off most certainly would not ordinarily justify the extended lay-off actually
imposed upon him much less the discharge which Nason had decided upon.
Nor was Nason convincing in his testimony that his decision to discharge
Stykoff was in part based upon the objections of fellow employees to his vile
language . In this connection Nason testified that in October, 1944, Stykoff's
profanity had provoked an assault upon him in the plant by Steve Balibon, a
fellow moulder ; that Stykoff had Balibon arrested, that immediately thereafter,
other employees had objected to Stykoff's language ; that Nason had reprimanded
Stykoff; that the protesting employees, Stykoff and Balibon, had continuecj to
work together ; that Stykoff's language had improved ; and that no further pro-
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 823
tests had been made to Nason about Stykoff until the spring of 1945. Nason's
testimony does not disclose when the last of these protests was made, except
that none came to his notice within the three weeks immediately prior to Sty-
koff's lay-off. Upon his testimony, the undersigned is not convinced that Stykoff s
language or the protests of his fellow employees were a live issue at the time of
Stykoff's lay-off, or that in fact they played any role in Nason's decision to
discharge him.
Thus in the opinion of the undersigned, the only reason assigned by Nason
for Stykoff's discharge which had any colorable basis in fact was Stykof's high
percentage of scrap. While, as in the case of Draheim, this might reasonably have
led an employer to discharge him or to lay him off, the evidence of the respond-
ents' settled decision to discharge him because of his union activities is so strong
that the undersigned concludes that this was in fact the motivating basis.
Upon the foregoing facts the undersigned finds that the respondents laid off
Tony Stykoff from August 20, 1945 until October 9, 1945, because of his union
membership and activities, thereby discriminating against him in regard to his
hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. The discharge of Gilda Moyer
Gilda Moyer was employed by the Hawkeye Steel Products Company from
February 7, 1943' until her discharge on August 25, 1945. For the first year,
she worked in the valve department as a machine operator. After February 18,
1944, she was employed as the only employee in the office of Foundry Superin-
tendent Lorenzen, for whom she kept the foundry records and did stenographic
work As already noted, she joined the Union in June, 1945, served as one of its
observers in the consent election held on July 10, 1945, and was known by the
respondents to be one of the Union's leaders.
From the beginning of March, 1945, Moyer repeatedly requested Superintendent
Lorenzen to furnish her with an assistant because of the amount of her work.
Though relieved of her time-keeping duties for a short period, Superintendent
Lorenzen told her on April 18, 1945, that she was to resume these duties and to
assume other new tasks as well, but that she would get no raise. According to
her testimony, she objected and then, when the superintendent asked her if she
wanted to quit, she did so immediately, returning to her work, however, on the
following Monday, April 23, when the superintendent visited her at her home and
asked her to come back.
Thereafter, Superintendent Lorenzen first promised Moyer to provide her
with the assistance of Evangeline Lorenzen, daughter-in-law of the respondent
Lorenzen, who was then working as an inspector in the hand grenade depart-
ment. But, shortly before Moyer was discharged, he informed her that this was
impossible because Evangeline Lorenzen was needed to fill a vacancy which
would occur in the shipping department on September 1.
On August 23, 1945, Superintendent Lorenzen told Moyer she was being dis-
charged on August 25, the end of the week, because "orders . . . from Washing-
ton" required the respondent "to get rid of all our married women" and that
Evangeline Lorenzen would take her place. On the following day, when Moyer
learned that there was no such Federal rule, she asked the superintendent who
had ordered her discharge. His reply was, "I won't say, it came from the other
office Now that the war is over, we can hire and fire as we please."
7 As in the case of Stykoff her employment by the Company began before , and continued
after , the formation of the respondents ' present partnership.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,Pursuant to her discharge, Moyer's work for the respondents ceased on
August 25. Evangeline Lorenzen took her place and was provided with an
assistant. Moreover, contrary to the Superintendent 's original explanation of
Moyer's discharge, 44 or 5 other married women were retained as employees and
one was hired in October.
Again, as in the case of Draheim and Stykoff, Nason stated at the hearing that
he had made the decision to discharge Moyer, without consulting Superintendent
Lorenzen. He testified that Evangeline Lorenzen wanted an office job; that this
necessitated the discharge either of Moyer or of one of the four girls employed
in the main office ; that of these five girls, only Moyer, by her "walk-out" the
preceding spring, had ever caused the respondents any trouble; and that he there-
fore instructed Superintendent Lorenzen to discharge Moyer with this explana-
tion, learning only later that the superintendent had told Moyer she was dis-
charged because she was a married woman. Nason admitted that several of
the four girls in the main office had worked for the respondents a shorter time
than had Moyer and he did not deny that a new girl was hired to assist Evange-
line Lorenzen in the foundry office after Moyer's discharge
Upon this testimony, the undersigned is convinced that the respondents dis-
charged Moyer because of her union activities, as they had discharged Draheim
and laid off Stykoff a few days previously, and not for the reasons assigned by
Nason in his testimony. Superintendent Lorenzen's explanation of the discharge
to Moyer at the time was obviously a lame attempt to conceal the real reason.
If, as Nason testified, the superintendent had been instructed by Nason to tell
Moyer that she was being discharged to make a place for the wife of the super-
intendent's nephew, and that Moyer had been chosen for discharge rather than
the other office girls because of the incident the preceding spring, the superin-
tendent no doubt would not have hesitated to tell Moyer that was the case.
Moreover, since the respondents hired another girl to work with Evangeline in the
office, Moyer's discharge was clearly not necessary to attain the objective stated
by Nason.
The undersigned therefore finds that the respondents discharged Gilda Moyer
on August 25, 1945, because of her union membership and activities thereby dis-
criminating against her in regard to her hire and tenure of employment and
discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
In connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I,
above, have a close, Intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor prac-
x}c es within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, the undersigned
will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
acttou In order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The unfair labor practices found by the undersigned represent an attempt by
the respondents to defeat self-organization among their employees by a course
of unlawful conduct based upon discrimination which "goes to the very heart
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 825
of the Act,"' and constitutes the grossest form of violation of the rights guar-
anteed by Section 7, and generally protected by Section 8 (1) of the Act. That
an employer has deliberately resorted to discrimination, as have the respondents
in the present case, indicates not merely his disposition to commit similar acts
of discrimination in the future but also (1) his broader and basic "attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees gener-
ally," ° and (2) the consequent likelihood of his resorting to the lesser acts of
interference , restraint, and coercion with these rights as guaranteed by Section
7 and protected by Section 8 (1) of the Act1° The preventive purposes of the
Act will be thwarted unless the Board's order is coextensive with this threat.
In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section
7, to prevent industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus
to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the
respondents cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned has found that by discharging John Draheim and Gilda
Moyer and by laying off Tony Stykoff between August 20, 1945 and October 9,
1945, the respondents discriminated against them in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
it will be recommended (1) that the respondents offer John Draheim and Gilda
Moyer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(2) that the respondents make John Draheim and Gilda Moyer whole for any
loss of earnings suffered by them by reason of their discriminatory discharges
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his or her discriminatory
discharge, to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his or her net earnings,"
during that period; and (3) that the respondents make Tony Stykoff whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discriminatory lay-off by
payment to him of a suin of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages between August 20, 1945 and October 9, 1945, less his net earnings
during that period. It will also be recommended that the respondents post
appropriate notices.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the undersigned makes the
following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America, C. I 0, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John
Draheim, Gilda Moyer, and Tony Stykoff and thereby discouraging membership
in United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0., the respondents
have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
8N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co, 120 F. (2d) 532, 536 (C. C. A 4) See
also N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Go, 116 F. (2d) 350, 353 (C. C. A. 7).
0 May Department Stores Company v. N. L R. B, 323 U. S. 376
10 See N. L. R. B. v. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426, 437.
11 By "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 respondents, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have
engaged in and are 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed hereby recommends that the respondents, E. Dale Nason and Martin H.
Lorenzen, co-partners doing business as Hawkeye Steel Products Company, Water-
loo, Iowa, their agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers
of America, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of their employees, by dis-
criminatorily discharging or ]riving off employees, or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America,
C. I. 0, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will eftec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to John Draheim and Gilda Moyer immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any
loss of pay he or she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, by payment to him or her of a sum of money equal to that which he or she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of his or her discriminatory
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings
during the period.
(b) Make Tony Stykoff whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of his discriminatory lay-off by payment to him of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned as wages between August 20, 1945
and October 9, 1945, less his net earnings during that period.
(c) Post at their plant in Waterloo, Iowa copies of the notice attached hereto.
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall , after being duly signed by the respond-
ents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the respondents to insure that said notices are not altered. defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the respondents have taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondents have notified
said Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 827
recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring
the respondents to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 27, 1945, as
amended , 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, Ro-
chambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a state-
ment 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 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 therefor must be made
in writing to the Board within, ten (10) days from the date of the order trans-
ferring the case to the Board.
WILLIAM F. SCISARNIrow,
Trial Examiner.
Dated February 8, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEF.s
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist United Farm Equipment & Metal Workers of America,
C I 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to John Draheim and Gilda Moyer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and will make John Draheim, Gilda Moyer, and Tony Stykoff whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
E. DALE NASDN AND MARTIN H. LOR-
ENZEN , CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS
HAWKEYE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY
Dated ------------------------ By --------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above -named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the selective service act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.