Hudson Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1941

34 N.L.R.B. 815 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS QP AMERICA, A. F. L.
Case No. C-1680.Decided August 23, 1941
Jurisdiction : automobile manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: statements of supervisory employees
favoring one of two rival organizations ; permitting representatives of one
organization to engage in union activities during working hours while
denying such right to adherents of rival organization.
Discrimination: evictions of dissident co-workers by members of rival-favored
union.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay ordered.
Mr. Harry N. Casselman , for the,Board.
Mr. Alber E. Meder and Mr. Yates S . Smith, of Detroit , Mich.,
for the respondent.
Mr. J. L . Busby, of Detroit , Mich ., for the U. A. W.-A. F. L.
Miss Ann Landy, 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, A. F. L., herein
called the U. A. W.-A. F. L., the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated April 17,
1940, against Hudson Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, 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. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleged in substance (1 that on September 8, 12, 13, and
14, and October 10, 1939, the respondent discouraged membership
in Local 154 of the U. A. W.-A. F. L., herein called Local 154-
A. F. L., and encouraged membership in Local 154 of International,
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein
34 N. L. R. B., No. 100.
815
816 DFOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RFLAPIONS BOARD
called Local 154-C. I. 0., by discrimination in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of 11 named employees,'. in that on those
dates the respondent suffered, permitted, condoned, and tacitly en-
couraged their forceful eviction from its plant by a group of
stewards, officers, agents, and members of Local 154-C. 1. 0., for
the reason that they had joined and assisted Local 154-A. F. L. and
refused to join Local 154-C. I. 0., and (2) that thereby, by per-
mitting and assisting officers, agents, and members of Local 154-
C. I. 0., on and after May 1, 1939, to coerce and intimidate employees
of the respondent in an attempt to force them to disaffiliate from
Local 154-A. F. L. and join Local 154-C. I. 0., and by assisting
Local 154-C. I. O. by various acts, the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its' employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the respondent and the U. A. W.-A. F. L. On April 29, 1940,
the respondent filed an answer to the complaint. The answer ad-
mitted certain allegations in the complaint as to the nature of the
respondent's business, denied the alleged unfair labor practices, and
asserted certain affirmative defenses, which are hereinafter discussed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, from
May 7 to 13, and from June 3 to 11, 1940, before Earl S. Bellman,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner.
The Board, the respondent, and the U. A. W.-A. F. L. were repre-
sented 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. During
the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled upon numerous
motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On September 21, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent has not engaged in
the alleged unfair practices and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed.
Thereafter the U. A. W.-A. F. L. filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. Pursuant to request therefor by the U. A. W.'_
A. F. L. and upon notice to all parties, a hearing was held before the
Board in Washington, D. C., on November 14, 1940, for the purpose
of oral argument. The U. A. W.-A. F. L. and the respondent ap-
peared and presented argument. The Board has considered the
1 Clifton Jones, James Gordon Wilson, James O'Neill, William McDonald, Arthur Blower,
George Gallant , James Brown, Zoley Morgan ,, Leonard Sullivan , Percival Denesha, and
Frank Sipple.
HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 817
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and finds them meritorious
in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board
makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Michigan corporation having its principal
offices and plants located in Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobiles and automo-
bile parts. During 1939 the respondent purchased raw materials
and supplies worth approximately $37,000,000, and manufactured
products worth approximately $53,000,000. The respondent obtained
approximately 60 per cent of such materials and supplies from out-
side the State of Michigan, and shipped about 92 per cent of its
products to States other than Michigan, and to foreign countries.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Workers of America,
A. F. L., is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor. Through its Local 154 it admits to membership
employees of the respondent.
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
C. I. 0., is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organization's, similarly admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondent through its Local 154.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In July 1936, International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, issued a charter to a labor organization of the respond-
ent's employees, known as Hudson Local No. 154, herein called Local
154. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America
originally was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
but in July 1936, it affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization, and 2' months thereafter it was suspended by the
American Federation of Labor. When, on November 16, 1938, the
Committee for Industrial Organization became the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, it granted a charter to the International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America.
In April 1937, the respondent and Local 154 entered into written
agreements terminating a strike and recognizing the latter as
bargaining agent for its members. $
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In March 1938, prior to the expiration of the 1937 agreements,
the respondent and Local 154 began negotiations for a new agree-
ment. Local 154 renewed its demand for recognition as the sole
bargaining agency, which demand had not been granted in the 1937
agreements. Negotiations were deadlocked.
On April 11, 1938, Local 154 filed with the Board a petition for
investigation and certification. Thereafter, on September 14, 1938,
following a hearing, the Board issued its decision and certification
of representatives, certifying Local 154 as the exclusive bargaining
agency in a unit composed of all hourly rate employees of the
respondent, excluding supervisory officials, foremen, assistant
foremen, straw bosses, and all other salaried employees.2
In November 1938, subsequent to this certification by the Board,
Local 154 and the respondent entered into an agreement for a year.
While the term "sole collective bargaining agency" was not used
in the agreement, it did "recognize the International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 154, for the purposes of
collective bargaining in disputes which may arise concerning hours,
wages, or working conditions." The agreement also contained the
provision that "any bargaining in connection with the wages, hours,
or working conditions,' shall be done by the chief shop steward."
Robert G. Waldron, the respondent's personnel director, in charge
of labor relations, testified that the demand of Local 154 for sole
bargaining agency was granted in the 1938 agreement. We agree
with the finding of the Trial Examiner "that the respondent, pur-
suant to the Board's certification, intended to and, in- fact, did grant
sole recognition to a labor organization which was` then affiliated
with the C. I. 0." The 1938 agreement which was in effect during
the occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practices hereinafter
discussed, did not contain a closed-shop provision.
A schism occurred in the International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, in January 1939, and had repercussions in
Local 154. One faction adhered to the C. I. O., the other affiliating
with the A. F. L. The factional fight first occurred within the
organization in the form of a contest for its control. In February
1939, Local 154 went on record as supporting the convention called
by that faction of the International Union which remained affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Those favoring the
Congress of Industrial Organizations gained control of Local 154
during the factional struggle early in 1939, and the labor organiza-
tion herein referred to as Local 154-C. I. 0., was and is, in fact,
Local 154. The respondent recognized Local 154-C. I. O. as the
2 Matter of Hudson Motor Car Company and Local 154, International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, C. I. C. affiliate, 8 N. L. R. B. 1080.
I3UDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 819
contracting party to the November 1938 agreement, and dealt with
the officers and stewards of that organization as the representatives
of its employees. Local 154-A. F. L. protested the respondent's
decision to recognize the C. I. 0. stewards and attempted, without
success, to get an agreement whereby, in the departments where the
A. F. L. represented the majority of the employees, the A. F. L.
stewards would be recognized. There is no allegation in the com-
plaint attacking the validity of the respondent's continued recog-
nition of Local 154-C. I. 0. as the proper party to the November
1938 agreement. At the hearing, counsel for the Board repeatedly
stated that no such question was being raised.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The conflict between the two factions of Local 154 mounted in in-
tensity during the spring and summer of 1939. Prior to the shut-
down for change of models about the first of July 1939, officials of
Local 154-C. I. 0. met with Personnel Manager Waldron, and threat-
ened to refuse to work if eight employees, leaders among the A. F. L.
adherents, were allowed to return to work on the next model.3 Wal-
dron refused to agree to discharge those men; however, he testified
that he did consent at the end of the meeting to instruct the eight
men named by the C. I. 0. officials "to refrain from carrying on any
activity that would aggrevate the situation" and that he did not want
"any literature passed or things of that nature done." Accordingly,
Waldron called into his office each of the eight men individually as
each returned to work on the new model. Six of the eight men testi-
fied and the record contains ample evidence of the instructions they
received from Waldron. They testified, without contradiction, that
Waldron told them that the C. I. 0. had threatened refusal to work
with them and warned them not to carry on any union activities,
such as passing out union literature or union buttons and collecting
dues. Waldron testified that he told the C. I. 0. officials that their
activities against the A. F. L. faction would have to stop also. It is
evident, however, from the events related below, that he made no
attempt to enforce that instruction.
The uncontradicted testimony of the employees whose eviction is
alleged in the complaint establishes that during the period from May
to September representatives of Local 154-C. I. 0. openly solicited
members during working hours, interrupted the work of employees,
and threatened A. F. L. adherents with physical violence and ejection
from the plant, without interference by the respondent, whose super-
visory officials were aware of these occurrences. Thus George Gal-
The first list presented to Waldron by the C. I. 0 contained the names of Hagen,
Sullivan , Blower, and Brown, but before the end of the conference the names of Wilson,
Mutart, O'Neill and Denesha were also added.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lant testified that during the month following his return to work on
the new model in August 1939, stewards of Local 154-C. I. O. ap-
proached him for dues four times. On one such occasion, Germain,
the vice president of Local 154-C. I. 0., talked to Gallant for about
45 minutes, during working hours, in an effort to persuade Gallant
to pay dues. On September 12 one of the assistant stewards of
Local 154-C. I. O. told Gallant that he was going to be thrown out
of the plant if he did not pay his dues. Gallant complained to his
department foreman. The foreman said that he could do nothing
about it, but gave Gallant permission to leave the department to see
Tholl, assistant director of personnel. Tholl told Gallant that he
did not think that the threat would be carried out and advised him
to go back to work. Gallant was evicted from the plant by C. I. O.
adherents on the same day.
Employees Sullivan and Jones also testified, without contradiction,
that stewards of Local 154-C. I. O. frequently interfered with their
work in attempts to persuade them to join Local 154-C. I. O. On
one such occasion a steward got hold of Jones by the collar, called
him names, and shut off his machine. On another occasion `he was
threatened with being thrown out of a window. When Sullivan and
Jones complained to their supervisors they were told that the super-
visors were unable to do anything about it, having orders not to
interfere. Most of the other employees who were later evicted by
C. I. O. members testified to having been similarly ' interfered with
and threatened while solicited by stewards and officials of Local
154-C. I. O.
The case of Hagen illustrates the difference between the leniency
the respondent accorded the stewards of Local 154-C. I. O. in their
campaign against the A. F. L. faction and the respondent's strict
enforcement of its instruction to the A. F. L. adherents. Hagen was
one of the eight men warned by Waldron against engaging in union
activities. Shortly thereafter the respondent discharged Hagen "for
engaging in union activities which were of such nature that they
could not be permitted, and, it was the company's position that he
engaged in them in direct violation of the company's instructions to
him and to others." 4
The respondent relies upon its contract with Local 154-C. I. O. as
a defense to the allegation of interference, restraint, and coercion.
Such privileges as the contract accorded the Local included permit-
ting shop stewards to leave their places of work on union matters,
and permitted the collection of dues in the plant as long as work was
A Counsel for the respondent made the above statement at the hearing . Hagen filed a
charge of unfair labor practice with the Board . The case was disposed of subsequently
by stipulation.
HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 821
not interrupted thereby. However, officials of Local 154-C. I. O.
went well beyond the privileges granted to them in the contract.
They extensively,interfered with the work of employees who refused
to join that organization. The respondent knew of their activities
but took no action against them. At the same time the respondent
prohibited the leaders of Local 154-A. F. L. from engaging in union
activities in the plant, and discharged one of them for persisting in,
such activities.
The Trial Examiner found that it was reasonable to infer that
Local 154-C. I. O. took the position that those favoring the A. F. L.
were members of Local 154-C. I. O. who were failing to pay their
dues, and that therefore the respondent, in light of its contract, did
not violate the Act by permitting and condoning the activities of
Local 154-C. I. 0., while denying the same to Local 154-A. F. L. The
record contains no facts to support the inference drawn by the Trial
Examiner.
We find that by permitting stewards of Local 154-C. I. O. to en-
gage in union activities in the plant during working hours to the
extent of interfering with the work of employees, while denying
adherents of Local 154-A. F. L. the right -to engage in any union
activities, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
In,August 1939, shortly after the resumption of operations on the
new model, James Gordon Wilson had a conversation with Jack
Richie, who at this time was a millwright leader and in that capacity
transmitted instructions from the foreman to the other millwrights.
After ascertaining his name, Richie told Wilson that he understood
that the latter belonged to the A. F. L. Wilson admitted this.
Richie then said : "I believe you are making a mistake, the large
majority of the men will go with the other group and your job is
in danger. There is no use trying to resist these fellows, because
they will be like an avalanche, they will snow you under, and you
will eventually find yourself outside without a job." On the fol-
lowing day Richie explained to Wilson his reason for speaking to
him was merely that he-"was trying to do [Wilson] a favor."5
On September 12, during the eviction of two of the men named
in the complaint, as hereinafter discussed, an altercation occurred
between Frank Sipple and another employee. Assistant Foreman
Bill Lampman 6 and Employee Howard French took hold of Sipple
5 Richie had a similar conversation with Clifton K. Jones, in May 1939, at which time,
however , he was a millwright without supervisory authority. He told Jones that if he
would sign up with the C. I. 0. he would be all right and if he did not "get in," he
would be out of a job.
"Lampman is an assistant foreman only when plant production reaches 60 cars per
hour. At other times he is employed as an hourly paid repairman . Thus, he was
451269-42-vol. 34-53
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and led him away from the scuffle, and Lampman told Sipple that
he should not be there "monkeying around," and that Sipple was a
"darn fool." Two days later, Lampman spoke to Sipple and advised
him to go over to the C. I. O. office and pay his dues and eliminate
all the trouble. On the same day Lampman spoke to Leonard Sul-
livan and told him : "Why don't you get in line? The C. I. O. is
,all right. You are in the wrong group."
Neither Richie nor Lampman was called to testify and the above
findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Wilson, Sul-
livan, and Sipple.
In May 1939, P. R. Denesha was asked by his foreman, Powell
Elrod, "how come [Denesha] wasn't going with the boys." Elrod
is admittedly a foreman. He was not called to testify.
We find that Elrod is, a supervisory employee; that Lampman was
a supervisory employee at the time of his remarks to Sipple and Sul-
livan, and that Ritchie was a supervisory employee at the time of his
conversation with Wilson.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent was not chargeable
with the statements and conduct attributed to Ritchie and Lampman
because their supervisory authority was limited, they belonged to a
foremen's union affiliated with the C. I. O., and they acted contrary
to the respondent's instructions to remain neutral. The Trial Ex-
aminer further found that Elrod's questioning of Denesha was moti-
vated by curiosity or friendly interest and was not intended or
received as a threat or as solicitation. We cannot agree. The effect
of these remarks, occurring at a time of factional conflict among the
employees of the respondent, must be considered in the context of
the favoritism which the respondent showed to Local 154-C. I. O.
and its contrasting prohibition of activities of Local 154-A. F. L.
Upon the entire record we find that the respondent by the afore-
said remarks of its supervisory employees interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The evictions
The Trial Examiner summarized the circumstances of each indi-
vidual eviction and also made general findings covering all of them.
The Trial Examiner's subsidiary findings of facts are, for the most
part, not contested.7 We agree with those findings and shall not
restate his summaries of the individual evictions. The essential facts
are as follows :
assistant foreman from October 16, 1938 , to February 16, 1939, and again from August
25, 1939 , until sometime after the unfair labor practices herein alleged occurred, and we
find that the respondent is answerable for his conduct above set forth.
7 Counsel for the respondent stated at the oral argument before the Board : "I think
first of all that the Board in any examination of the record will be struck with the fact
HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 823
During September 11 employees, all adherents of Local 154-A. F. L.,
were evicted from the plant, Wilson and Jones, on September 8; Mc-
Donald, Gallant, Blower, and O'Neill, on September 12; Brown, on
September 13; and Denesha, Morgan, Sullivan, and Sipple, on Sep-
tember 14. While there was no evidence that any supervisory official
of the respondent took part in any of the evictions, most, if not all
the evictions were watched either by supervisory officials or by plant-
protection employees, or by both. The supervisory officials and plant-
protection employees were under specific instructions to remain neu-
tral except in so far as their intervention was necessary to prevent
violence and actual bloodshed. While there was some pushing and
scuffling in connection with some of the evictions, there is no evi-
dence that any of the evicted employees sustained any physical injury.
Personnel Director Robert G. Waldron was out of the city from
September 2 to 18, 1939, within which period these evictions took
place. During his absence William E. Tholl, Waldron's assistant,
was in charge of the respondent's labor relations. After the first
three evictions, which occurred on September 8, Tholl met with the
C. I. O. officials, who stated that they would not work with the evicted
men under any condition and that if the respondent were to insti-
tute any disciplinary measure it would mean closing down the plant.
On September 11 the three employees who had been evicted on Sep-
tember 8 returned to the employment office to see Tholl according to
the instructions they received from him immediately after the evic-
tion. Tholl ushered the men into another office where shortly after-
wards a number of representatives of Local 154-C. I. O. joined
them. Tholl was present for only a few minutes and did not par-
ticipate in the ensuing meeting where the union representatives urged
the evicted men to join Local 154-C. I. O. After the meeting the
evicted men left the plant without having had an opportunity to
discuss their difficulties with Tholl.8
that there are but one or two contested questions of fact, and not one of these questions
is one which might be considered contested-or in our minds are of any real importance
in the determination of the issues."
"The Trial Examiner found that two inferences might be drawn from the testimony
concerning the foregoing incident , either that the respondent permitted or arranged a
meeting between the evicted employees and the representatives of Local 154 -C. I. 0 on
company time and property or that the meeting with the complainants was taken out
of Tholl's hands unexpectedly . The Trial Examiner found that it was unnecessary to
resolve the conflict, inasmuch as he was of the opinion that whichever inference was
drawn the testimony did not establish a violation of the Act . We cannot agree with his
conclusions . Acceptance of the first inference as fact would require the finding that
the respondent was assisting Local 154-C I. O. in overcoming the resistance of these
men to its demand that they join it. Such assistance would constitute interference with
self-organization . Tholl never sought to resume the conference which the men had re-
quested. Thus , the alternative inference , that the conference was taken out of Tholl's
hands, would place the respondent in the position of failing , on request , to remedy the
evictions which, we hereinafter find, it unlawfully condoned . Such failure , in our view,
constitutes a refusal to reinstate.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 12, 13, and 14, the evictions continued. On Sep-
tember 15, the evicted employees secured a , temporary injunction
in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, in Chancery, against
some 45 named individuals, all of whom were officers, stewards,
and members of Local 154-C. I•. 0., and against the Local itself.
The Court's restraining order of September 15, 1939, restrained
the defendants
from annoying, harassing, molesting or disturbing plaintiffs,
from inflicting or threatening to inflict physical violence upon
them, from demanding that they become members of Local
No. 154, and from demanding of Hudson Motor Car Company
that plaintiffs be discharged from employment, and from doing
any act or thing intended or calculated or which might, either
by threats, intimidation or actual physical violence, molest,
disturb or interfere with plaintiffs in the pursuit of their occu-
pation as employees of Hudson Motor Car' Company, and from
threatening to or inflicting physical violence 'upon plaintiffs
or members of their families.°
Waldron returned to `the plant on September 18, to resume his
responsibilities as personnel director. He talked with Tholl, T. B.
Swegles, the respondent's vice president in charge of manufacturing,
and C. D. Sterling, the respondent's secretary, concerning the events
which happened during his absence and the position taken by the
respondent. The respondent's position with respect to the Sep-
tember evictions is stated in the testimony of Waldron :
Q. What, was the position the company had taken?
A. We discussed the matter and the company's position at
that time was that we could do nothing about it. If we brought
them back we would have a strike, and if we disciplined any-
body on it we would have a strike also. It was a "situation that
had been accumulating a lot of heat, and it was a factional
disturbance not of our making and we couldn't see anything that
we could do.
Q. What was your position as far as the status of these men,
or the company, is concerned?
A. We all agreed in the management that they had their
jobs available there, that we didn't wish or we didn't break
their seniority; we felt that they had not separated themselves
as far as breaking their record is concerned. In other words,
it wasn't a discharge and it wasn't considered as such.
O The restraining order remained in effect until December 11, 1939, when it was dis-
missed upon motion by the defendants . The "Order Dismissing Cause" recites that the
motion to dismiss had been filed October 18, 1939 ; that hearings on the motion had been
adjourned five times ; and that on the last return date, on December 8, 1939, plaintiffs'
attorney failed to appear.
HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 825
At no time did the respondent raise any question as to the efficiency
of the evicted men or as to their desirability as employees. Concern-
ing their cessation of work in September, the employment record
of each contains a notation as to the reason for his not being em-
ployed. It reads : "Told to leave the Plant by a number of U. A. W.-
C. I. O. men."
On September 25 a number of the evicted employees called at
the employment office seeking information about the situation at
the plant, ready to go to work if feasible. They met with Waldron
and after considerable discussion it was agreed that they better wait
"until things cooled off a little bit."
On October 9, 10 of the evicted employees again called on Waldron
at the employment office. ready to return to work. Waldron, after
consultation with other officials of the respondent, told the men that
they could start on the following morning inasmuch as he needed
a day in which to arrange for their return. Accordingly, these 10
employees returned to work on October 10, but as they were about
to resume their operations, the other employees in their respective
departments stopped working, apparently on orders from the stewards
of Local 154-C. I. O. Thereupon the men were again evicted by
adherents of that union. Thereafter they once more discussed the
situation with Waldron. Waldron took the position that the re-
spondent's business was that, of building automobiles and not that
of settling union disputes. He also reiterated that the jobs of the
evicted employees were still open to them and that they had not
been discharged by the respondent. He did nothing to restore the
men to their jobs.
There is no evidence that any of the evicted men ever attempted
to return to work at the plant after October 10, 1939. So far as
the record shows, the respondent's position since then has been that
the jobs of the 11 employees were available to them whenever they
wished to return to work, and that each of them has retained his
seniority.
Conclusions concerning the evictions
Eleven of the respondent's employees, members of Local 154-
A. F. L., were evicted from the plant by employees who belonged
to Local 154-C. I. O., the organization which represents the majority
of the respondent's employees. The respondent's defense is that it
was powerless to prevent the evictions because if it had intervened
Local 154-C. I. O. would have called a strike.
The Trial Examiner found with respect to the evictions that
the respondent did not violate Section 8 (3) of the Act. He dis-
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinguished the Star Publishing 10 and Cape Cod Trawler " cases on
the ground that the respondent herein has not acted affirmatively,
that is, it has not actually discharged the complainants. Having
found that the evictions were not the direct result of the respondent's
acts, and were not affirmatively encouraged by it, the Trial Examiner
distinguished the Board's decision in the Riverside Manufacturing
Company case i2 on that ground and concluded that the respondent
did not owe the duty of providing its employees with "adequate
protection" in their employment.
We cannot agree with the conclusions of the Trial Examiner.
We have found that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, both by permitting stewards of Local 154-
C. I. 0. to engage in union-activities in the plant during working
hours to the extent of interfering with the work of employees,
while denying adherents of Local 154-A. F. L. the right to engage
in any union activities, and by the pro-C. I. 0., anti-A. F. L. state-
ments of certain of'its supervisory employees. We-are of the opin-
ion, and find, that the respondent's favoritism toward Local 154-
C. I. 0., demonstrated in those unfair labor practices, contributed
materially to the state of mind oft the C. I. 0. adherents in their
determination to evict their dissident co-workers.13 The respondent
therefore owed the affirmative duty of reinstating and safeguarding
evicted employees.14 Furthermore, as we have held, even where
no other unfair labor practice is committed, an employer who
takes no action to prevent the ejection of his employees by
members of a rival union, is himself responsible for the ejection,
such ejection being tantamount to a discharge.-
In conclusion we find that the 11 employees were evicted because
of their activity and membership in Local 154-A. F. L. and their
'° Matter of Star Publishing Company and Seattle Newspaper Guild, 4 N. L. R . B. 498,
enforced National Labor Relations Board v. Star Publishing Company, 97 F. (2d) 464,
465 (C. C. A 9, 1938).
n Matter of Cape Cod Trawling Corporation , Booth Fisheries Corporation and Massa-
chusetts Trawling Co. and American Communications Association,, (CIO), 23 N. L. R B.
208.
'Matter of Riverside Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
Amerwa, 20 N. L. R. B. 394, mod. and enf'd N. L. R. B. v. Riverside Mfg. Co, 119 F. (2d)
302 (C. C. A. 5).
zs We note in this connection that the contract in effect between the respondent and
Local 154-C. I. O. at the time of the evictions provided , inter alia:
The Union agrees that neither the Union nor its members will intimidate or
coerce employees, and also agrees not to solicit membership or dues on Company time
or plant property * * *
The respondent does not contend that it invoked this clause against the action of C. I. O.
adherents in evicting their rival unionists . Its failure to do so contributes to our con-
clusion that the respondent failed of its obligations toward the evicted employees.
14 Matter of Riverside Manufacturing Company, supra , and cases cited therein.
16 Matter of Isthmian Steamship Company, 22 N. L. R B 689.
HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 827
refusal to join Local 154-C. I. 0., and that the respondent by taking
no action to prevent their eviction has discriminatorily discharged
them. Even though induced by Local 154-C. I. 0., such discrim-
ination was unlawful because it was not required by any valid
closed-shop contract between the respondent and Local 154-C. I. O.
within the meaning of the proviso to Section 8 (3).16
We find that the respondent, by discharging Wilson and Jones
on September 8, McDonald, Gallant, Blower, and O'Neill on Sep-
tember 12, Brown on September 13, and Denesha, Morgan, and
Sullivan on September 14, 1939, discriminated against them in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging mem-
bership in Local 154-C. I. O. and discouraging membership in
Local 154-A. F. L., and that by the above described conduct the
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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
respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and with foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce. -
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of James Gordon Wilson, Clifton
K. Jones, William McDonald, George Gallant, Arthur E. Blower,
James O'Neill, James Henry Brown, Percival Joseph Denesha,
Zoley Morgan, Leonard Sullivan, and Frank Sipple. In order to
effectuate the policies of the Act we shall require the respondent
to offer to each of these men immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position without 'prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have
19 The proviso to Section 8 (3) of the Act is as follows : Provided, That nothing in
this Act, ... shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organ-
ization ( not established , maintained , or assisted by any action defined in this Act as an
unfair labor practice ) to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if
such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in Section 9 (a),
in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination
against him to September 21, 1940, the date of the Trial Examiner's
Intermediate Report, and from the date of this Decision to the date
on which the respondent offers him reinstatement pursuant to this
Order, less his net earnings 17 during said periods. Inasmuch as
the Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint, the
respondent will not be required to pay back pay from September
21, 1940, the date of the Intermediate Report, to the date of this
Decision 18
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 154, affiliated, with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local 154, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are
labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of James Gordon Wilson, Clifton K. Jones, William
McDonald, George Gallant, Arthur E. Blower, James O'Neill, James
Henry Brown, Percival Joseph Denesha, Zoley Morgan, Leonard
Sullivan, and Frank Sipple and thereby encouraging membership
in the International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local 154, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and discouraging membership in the International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local 154, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, the respondent 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 prac-
tices, 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.
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
elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlaw-
ful discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment
elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2 590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440.
18 Matter of E. R. Haffelfinger, Inc. and United Wall Paper Crafts of North America,
Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R. B. 760, and subsequent cases.
HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 829
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, Hudson Motor Car Company, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Au-
tomobile Workers of America, Local 154, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization of its
employees, or by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any terms or conditions of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their 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 Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to James Gordon Wilson, Clifton K. Jones, William
McDonald, George Gallant, Arthur E. Blower, James O'Neill, James
Henry Brown, Percival Joseph Denesha, Zoley Morgan, Leonard
Sullivan, and Frank Sipple immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole James Gordon Wilson, Clifton K. Jones, William
McDonald, George Gallant, Arthur E. Blower, James O'Neill, James
Henry Brown, Percival Joseph Denesha, Zoley Morgan, Leonard
Sullivan, and Frank Sipple for any loss of pay they have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them by payment to each of
them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he would
normally have received as wages during the period from the date
of the respondent's discrimination against him to September 21, 1940,
the date of the Intermediate Report, and from the date of this Order
to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings,19 if any, during said period;
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in its plant at Detroit,
Michigan, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
19 See footnote 17, supra.
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which it is ordered tocease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)
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,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and that the re-
spondent will not discriminate against any employees because of
membership or activity in that- organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.