Ideal Brass Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 11, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

E.
In the Matter of WRIGIIT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, AND BERT QUINN,'
INDIVIDUALLY AND DOTNG BUSINESS AS IDEAL BRASS WORKS and
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL #1142, C. I. O.
Ca-se C-223.9.-Decided iVoveinber 11, 194112
Jurisdiction : hardware manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, anal (Joeicion: anti-union state)nents; threats of dis-
charge of union employee, interference with choice of representative at
consent election
Disc) intimation : discharge of two employees for union membership and activ-
ities.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and
back pay awarded with special provision for employee in military service.
Mr. Harry Brownstein, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Board.
Elmquist, Felhaber and Elmquist, by Mr. R. S. Feihaber, of St.
Paul, Minn., for the respondent.
-Helstein and Hall, by Mr. Douglas Hall, of Minneapolis, Minn.,
for'the Union.
Mr. William F. Scharnikow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
On a third amended charge duly filed by United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, 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 May 14, 1942,
against Wright Products, Incorporated, and Bert Quinn, individ-
ually andydoing business as Ideal Brass Works, herein called the
respondents,' alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were
r Incoriectly named in the original pleadings as "Burt" Quinn
Individually refeired to hereinafter as Wright and Quinn, respectively.
45N.L It B. No 75.
509
11
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, accompanied by notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that since approximately June 1, 1941, the employees of
Wright and Quinn have been subject to the joint and separate super-
vision, direction, and control of both the respondents; that on or
about July 1, 1941, the respondents urged their employees not to
join the Union, promised them wage increases if they refrained from
joining, and threatened them with discharge or curtailment of op
erations with resultant loss of employment if they did join the
Union; that on or about July 21, 1941, the respondents told their
employees that a wage increase would be granted those employees
who did not join the Union and again urged them not to join the
Union; that, on the eve of a consent election to determine the bar-
gaining representative of the employees, the respondents threatened
to discontinue operations or move to a different locality if the Union
should win the election, and urged the employees to vote against the
Union; and that the respondents discharged or laid off employees
John Elwood on July 14, 1941, George Lutz on August 11, 1941, and
Donald Hovelsrud on August 18, 1941, and thereafter refused to re-
instate them, because of their union membership and activities. The
answer of the respondents, ,filed on, May 26, 1942, denied the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on
May 26 and 27, 1942, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly
appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Union, and
the respondents were represented by counsel, participated in the hear-
ing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the conclusion of the' Board's 'case, the' Trial Examiner
granted a motion by counsel for the Board to dismiss the complaint
insofar as it alleged the discriminatory discharge of John Elwood.
Counsel for the Board then moved to conform the pleadings to the
proof as to Haines, dates, and other formal matters. This motion was
granted without objection from any of the parties. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The hoard has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion
of the hearing, counsel for all the parties presented oral argument to
the Trial Examiner. None of the parties requested leave to file briefs
with the Trial ExamiIicr.
WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 511,-
On June 23, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in which
he found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of See-,
tion 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended-that the respondents cease and desist therefrom, and that they
take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
None, of the parties, has filed a brief, exceptions,.' or request for -oral
argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Wright Products, Incorporated, is a Minnesota corporation with its
principal office and place of business at St. Paul Park, Minnesota,
wheie`it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of builders' hardware,
consisting of door latches, storm window adjusters, door knobs, and
other siriiilar items. During 1941, Wright purchased metals of various
kinds of a value in excess of $66,000, of which approximately 75 percent
by value was purchased and shipped from sources outside the State of
Minnesota. During the same year Wright sold products of a value in
excess of $100,000, of which 90 percent by value represented sales and
shipments to points outside the State of Minnesota.
Bert Quinn does business individually under the name of Ideal Brass
Works, with his principal office and place of business in the plant of
the respondent, Wright, in St. Paul Park, Minnesota. He manufac-
tures and sells builders' hardware of the same general character as that
made and sold by Wright. During 1941 he bought metals of the ap-
proximate value of $40,000, of which 75 percent by value represented
metals purchased and shipped from sources outside the State, of Minne-
sota. In the same year he sold products of the approximate value of
$50,000, approximately 75 percent of which by valise were sold and
shipped to points outside the State of Minnesota.
Both respondents admit, that they are engaged in commerce, within
the meaning of the Act.
If. THE ORGANIZ-\'I'ION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
#1142, is a labor 'organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of both'
respondents.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFA IR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The relation, of the respondents to each other
Wright and Quinn were originally competitors with separate plants
in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, respectively. Prior to June-
1941 they settled a dispute arising from conflicting patent applica-
tions by executing cross-assignments of manufacturing rights under
the patents involved. They then decided to move their plants- into.
a single building, preserving their separate businesses but permitting
Quinn to supervise Wright's production and to use certain equipment
of Wright's which Quinn did not have. On April 13, 1941, as a result
of the efforts of Quinn in furtherance of this plan, the Village of
St. Paul Park, Minnesota, conveyed an unoccupied 3-story tannery
building in St. Paul Park to Wright, upon condition that Wright
recondition it as •a -factory and pay the taxes and assessments on the
property for the following 5 years. Pursuant to an oral understand-
ing with Wright, Quinn then reconditioned the factory building using,
as far as possible, employees from his St. Paul plant. Five of Quinn's
employees thus started to work on the St. Paul Park building prior to
June 1, 1941, and when, on approximately that date, Wright moved
into the building and began operations, they were transferred to its
pay roll. Of the cost of reconditioning, Wright paid approximately
$10,000 and Quinn advanced a sum between $2,000 and $3,800.
On or about June 1, 1941, Wright moved its equipment from its
Minneapolis plant to the St. Paul Park factory and, as soon as the
equipment was installed, began production under an arrangement with
Quinn whereby the latter superintended all the manufacturing opera-
tions, including the hire and discharge of employees. Quinn con-
tinued his business in St. Paul until he finally completed the removal
of his equipment to St. Paul Park in the middle,of August 1941.
Wright occupies the entire building at St. Paul Park, except a por-
tion of the second floor in which Quinn's equipment has been installed,
and an apartment on the third floor which is occupied by Quinn as his
living quarters. The businesses of the respondents are conducted
separately. When, as occasionally happens, either of the respondents
uses employees of the other to supplement his or its personnel, or
Quinn uses Wright's equipment, the user is billed by the other re-
spondent for actual cost. F. J. Wellmerling, president of Wright,
manages all of Wright's business other than production. Quinn, in
addition to managing his own business, acts as Wright's factory
superintendent, with complete authority over Wright's employees.
For this he receives as compensation the free use of the space occu-
pied by his equipment and the apartment on the third floor, and the
WRIGHT PRODUCTS , ' INCORPORATEID 513
use at cost of Wright's personnel and equipment when necessary to
supplement his own. -
We find that Quinn, in his capacity as superintendent for Wright,,
is an employer of Wright 's employees , within the meaning of Section
2 (2) ofthe Act.
B. Interference, coercion, and restraint
The Union began organizing Wright's employees in the second or
third week of June 1941 . Earlier in the month , a substantial num-
ber of the employees who had been transferred from 'Minneapolis
'to St . Paul Park had made separate written applications for a wage
increase of 15 cents per hour, but had individually , accepted a promise
from President Wellmerling of increases varying,from 5, cents. per
hour to 10 cents per hour. At approximately the same time , Wright
hired a number of new employees from St. Paul Park at its minimuu
wage rate , with the understanding that the men , would receive an
increase of 10 cents per hour and the women an increase of 5 cents
per hour after they had worked two full pay periods .. The wage
increase promised to the old employees was made effective on June
15, the next regular semi-monthly pay day. On July 15, when the
Union's organizational campaign was in progress and on the eve of
a consent election conducted by the Board to determine , the bargain-
ing representative of Wright's employees , the new employees were
given their agreed raise, although some of them had been on the pay
roll a few days less than two pay periods . Since the raises to the
old employees were granted and the raises to the new employees were
promised prior to the advent of the Union , we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Wright, by gTanting these raises , did not attempt to
influence the employees in the selection of their bargaining agent or
otherwise interfere with, restrain , or coerce them in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
By the middle of 'June 1941 , as a result of the Union 's campaign
for members and of a rumor that, by agreement between Wright
and the Village, only residents of St. Paul Park would eventually
be employed , 15 of Wright 's employees joined the Union to protect
their jobs . On or about June 28 or 30, 1941 , the business agent of
the Union submitted to Wellmerlirig a form of contract providing
for a 15-cent per hour increase . On July 2, 1941, Wright and the
Union entered into an agreement that an election be held under the
supervision of the Board's Regional Director to determine the bar-
gaining representative of Wright's employees and that the Board
might certify the Union as such representative if it were successful
in the election . In the meantime , however, the International Asso-
433503-43-vol 45-33
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ciation of Machinists , a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor and herein called the I . A. M., had also begun
organizing the employees . On July 19, therefore , Wright, the Union,
and the I. A. M. executed a new agreement for a consent election to
be held on July 22, 1941, in which the Union and the I . A. M. would
appear on the ballot . In this election , 67 ballots were cast , 1 of which
was challenged . Of the remaining 66 ballots , 33 were cast for the
Union, 3 for the I . A. M., and 30 for neither union . The Union filed
objections to the Regional Director 's Election Report, and the I. A. M.
withdrew from that proceeding . The election was then set aside.
The members of the Union made no secret of their affiliation. They
wore their union buttons openly, and designated a chief shop steward
and an assistant shop steward who habitually wore their official badges
or buttons . On the other hand, neither Wellmerling nor Quinn con-
cealed his disapproval of the Union . On or about July 2, 1941, when
the first election agreement was signed, Wellmerling and Quinn sum-
moned William D. Perkins , foreman of the punch press operators, and
his wife, Kathryn Perkins ; an assembly worker, to the office. In the
course of this meeting, according to the Perkins ' testimony , Wellmer-
ling and Quinn discussed general conditions in the shop and ascribed
a lag in production and a reduction in efficiency to union discussions
among the employees during working hours . Referring generally to
the union activity in the ,plant, they inquired whether Mr. and Mrs.
Perkins would work with them to discourage affiliation with the Union.
When the Perkins agreed to do so, Mrs. Perkins was promoted to the
position of forelady of a group of women workers and was given It
wage increase . William and Kathryn Perkins testified that Wellmer-
ling and Quinn then instructed them to talk against the Union to the
employees and to tell the employees that, if the Union were successful,
the respondents would shut down the plant or eliminate the union men
one by one , but that "if everything went right with the Union," the
employees would again receive their annual bonus . At one point in
his testimony , Wellmerling categorically denied asking the Perkins to
talk to the employees about the Union . However, both Wellmerling
and Quinn admitted in their testimony that, in requesting Mr. and
Mrs. Perkins to increase production , they stressed the fact that the
employees' inefficiency was due to their continual discussion during
working hours of whether or not they should join the Union; and
Quinn also testified that Perkins and his wife were instructed to tell
the employees to eliminate conversation during working hours, "espe-
cially about union activities ." We credit the testimony of William
and Kathryn Perkins as to the substance of their interview with Well-
merling and Quinn, as did the Trial Examiner.
WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 515
Pursuant to their instructions, both Mr. and Mrs. Perkins told a
number of the employees working under them to stay out of the Union.
Clarence Westermeyer, a member of the Union who wore the white
button of an assistant shop steward, was one of those to whom Perkins
spoke. In substance, Perkins told Westermeyer that organization of
the employees should be deferred until the business had gotten a good
start, and that, if things were not satisfactory, the employees could
then bring in the A. F. of L. or some other union.
According to the testimony of Robert Cook, a maintenance man
who was opposed to the C. I. O. but who later joined the A. F. of L.,
Quinn told him shortly after the Union began its activities that, if
the C. I. O. came into the plant, Quinn would not move his equipment
to St. Paul Park. In a later, conversation, Quinn, in the presence of
Perkins, told Cook, who had expressed fear for his job because of his
opposition to the Union, not to worry, because "we will get rid of those
union guys, one by one." Perkins corroborated Cook as to this last
conversation. Quinn denied having made any such remark as that
attributed to him by Cook and Perkins, but said that Cook might have
overheard him tell Perkins of the necessity for "getting rid" of mice
which bad overrun the plant. We credit the testimony of Cook and
Perkins, as did the Trial Examiner. About a week before the consent
election of July 22, 1941, Cook called a meeting of the employees one
evening to discuss the question of whether there should be any union
in the plant. He arranged to have the mayor of St. Paul Park speak
against unions in general, and invited Declan O'Brien, chief steward of
the Union, to speak in favor of union organization. Just before the
meeting, Cook telephoned Wellmerling and told him that he was hold-
ing an "anti-union" meeting and desired the attendance of Perkins and
another employee, Nollett O'Boyle, both of whom were on the night
shift. Wellmerling told Cook that he was behind him 100 percent,.
and released Perkins and O'Boyle to attend the meeting without mak-
ing any deduction from their salaries for loss of time. Wellmerling
testified that at the request of Cook he released two men to attend a
meeting of employees, but denied that he knew the purpose of the
meeting. We credit the testimony of Cook, as did the Trial Examiner.
Neither Quinn nor Wellmerling attempted to conceal his dis-
approval of the union discussions in the shop. Both attributed the
alleged lack of efficiency of the employees to these discussions and
freely admitted having mentioned it to several employees. According
to the testimony of several of the employees, however, Quinn's and
Wellmerling's comments clearly indicated general disapproval of the
Union and the employeees' activities on its behalf. Thus, Quinn, on
one occasion, chided O'Brien, the Union's chief shop steward, in the
presence of three or four other employees, about his union affiliation,
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after O'Brien had said that the Union would provide him with job
security. Quinn asked O'Brien whether he did not feel that he was
man enough to hold a job without the help of a union, and said that,
if the Union should get into the plant, Quinn would not move the
Ideal Brass Works to St. Paul Park. On another occasion, Glenn
Westerheim, one of the assistant shop stewards, was confused by some
remarks addressed to him by Welhnerling and asked Welhnerling
whether his work was satisfactory. Welimerling replied that West-
erheim's work was satisfactory, but that he did not like the way Wester-
heim was going around "talking things up" and that something had
to be done about it. Wellmerling admitted having spoken to Wester-
heim and having known that Westerheim had been talking about the
Union, but claimed that he had not mentioned union activities. We
credit the testimony of Westerheim, as did the Trial Examiner.
We are of the opinion, as 'vas the Trial Examiner, that the re
spondents, by the above-described course of conduct, clearly indicated
to their employees their antagonism to the Union, and sought to dis-
courage affiliation with the Union and to defeat the Union in the
consent election of July 22, 1941. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the respondents thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
-C. The discharges
George Lutz was first employed by Wright at its Minneapolis plant
in April 1940; his employment continued after the move to St. Paul
Park and until his discharge on August 11, 1941. He joined the Union
shortly after the establishment of the plant in St. Paul Park, and
early in August 1941, he was made one -of the shop stewards, charged
with the responsibility of organizing the women employees in the
plant. During the period between his appointment as shop steward
and his discharge on August 11, he obtained membership applications
from several of them. Lutz wore his steward 's button at all times
and was well known as an active union member . His activities on
behalf of the Union just prior to his discharge were admittedly dis-
tasteful to Quinn, who had full control over the hiring and discharge
of employees.
Lutz, although primarily employed in the shipping and receiving
department , worked at various times in other departments of the plant
when the shipping and receiving department was not busy . On Aug-
ust 11, 1941, the day of his discharge , Lutz, while spraying display
models, complained to Gosrud , a new and inexperienced employee,
that the paint was not spreading as it should. In keeping with his
reputation as a prankster , he asked Gosrud to get a "paper stretcher,",
i
WRIGHT PRODUCTS , INCORPORATED 517
to make the paint go further , from the foreman of one of the other
departments . Gosrud, being unable to find the foreman to whom he
had been sent , told Quinn of the errand Lutz had given him. Quinn
thereupon went into Wellmerling 's office, where he and Wellmerling
decided to discharge Lutz, and then told Lutz that he was discharged.
Lutz immediately went to Wellmerling and asked if he had been dis-
charged for the "paper stretcher" incident . Wellmerling admitted at
the hearing that he told Lutz at the time that he was being ,discharged
for that and other reasons. Lutz testified that Wellmerling also said
that he had to start some place, and that there were others who were
"going." Lutz received his pay and has not since been employed by
the respondent.
Prior to the move to St . Paul Park, while Wright was still in
Minneapolis , employee discipline was at a low ebb. It was not un-
common for employees to engage in water fights during working hours,
to throw cloth buffer wheels from one end of the shop to the other,
and to engage generally in pranks and horseplay when they should
have been working. Their foremen in Minneapolis made no effort
to stop such conduct but , on the contrary , permitted it, so that the
employees could "get it out of their system ." When the plant moved
to St. Paul Park, Wellmerling , who has never taken an active part
in production , instructed Quinn to take whatever steps were necessary
to stop the horseplay . The rumor that employment would be restricted
to residents of St. Paul Park, and the fact that most of the old Minne-
apolis employees had joined the Union , appear to have had a sobering
effect upon many of them , with the result that horseplay diminished,
although there is evidence that it did not entirely disappear.
In contrast to the decision of the respondents to discharge Lutz for
his harmless prank was the attitude taken by Quinn toward a bit of
horseplay which came to his attention a short time before. Wester-
heim testified that the employees had imprisoned one of their coworkers
in a plant dumb -waiter between floors, where the noise of his shouts
was muffled . According to Quinn 's testimony , he saw two employees
get out of the dumb-waiter on that occasion , and merely "went over
and told both of them that they couldn 't use the dumb -waiter for a
sport like that, because of insurance reasons." When questioned by
the Trial Examiner as to his attitude toward pranks generally, and
the prank played by Lutz in particular , Quinn said , "I feel there are
instances where things of that nature are excusable ; but I didn't feel
it was in this [Lutz 's] case."
Both Wellmerling and Quinn denied that Lutz's union activities
had anything to do ' with his discharge . On cross-examination how-
ever, Quinn stated that Lutz wore his union button; that Lutz had
been doing a lot of "talking " which Quinn presumed was about the
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union ; and"that , while Lutz was discharged because of the "paper
stretcher" incident , his "talking" had some influence in the decision
to discharge him. Wellmerling testified that he had instructed Quinn
to stop the horseplay and that they had agreed to watch operations
in the plant and , as an example to the others , to discharge the first
man who engaged in any pranks . They did not , however, say any-
thing to the employees about mending their ways , nor did they -post
notices warning the employees against horseplay or other objectionable
conduct. Wellmerling further testified that he had heard of Lutz's
'horseplay in the plant , but he was unable to give any examples of
it except one instance when he had seen Lutz talking and laughing
with the man working on either side of him. This was not inter-
fering with Lutz's work , however. Wellmerling first testified that
he told Lutz on this occasion that he could not be kept on the job
unless he attended to business , but on further examination Wellmerling
admitted that he merely told Lutz to "attend to business ." We find,
as did the Trial Examiner , that this , in fact, was the extent of the
only admonition given to Lutz on the subject . We further find, as
did the Trial Examiner , that, although horseplay had been prevalent
among Wright's employees while they worked in Minneapolis , neither
Lutz nor any of the other employees was ever warned, either in Min-
neapolis or in St. Paul Park , tliat the penalty for such conduct would
be discharge.
We have found , above , that the respondents interfered with the em-
ployees in their choice of a representative at the election held on July
22, 1941, that the respondents were openly antagonistic to the Union,
and that they threatened the discharge of union members. It also
appears that Lutz, shortly before his discharge , had been designated
shop steward, with the special assignment of organizing the women
employees , several of whom joined at his solicitation ; that Quinn ad-
mitted that his knowledge of Lutz's doing a lot of talking , presumably
about the Union was a factor in the decision to discharge him; that
the respondents had not warned the employees that the horseplay
prevalent in the plant must be discontinued ; and that the prank for
which Lutz was ostensibly discharged was at best as harmless as other
horseplay which Quinn had witnessed a short time before without tak-
ing any disciplinary action . We are convinced and we find , as did the
Trial Examiner, that Lutz was in fact discharged because of his union
activities and membership . By thus ' discharging Lutz, the respond-
ents discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with,
restraining , and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WRTGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 519
Donald H1ovelsr^ud,3 was hired in Minneapolis in August 1939, and
worked continuously for Wright there and in St. Paul Park until his
discharge on August 18, 1941. For the major portion of this time, he
was employed in what was known as the "model room," a department
in which display models were made by mounting samples of the hard-
ware upon sections of windows and doors. In March 1940, Hovelsrud
became the chief operator in this department, in which, at that time,
two other persons were regularly employed. When Wright moved
its plant from Minneapolis to St. Paul Park, the work in the model
room was reduced and the two other employees, Knutson and Ander-
son, were transferred, at their own requests, to regular employment
on the punch presses.
. In June 1941, Hovelsrud joined the Union, and thereafter he openly
solicited memberships, actively participated in all union matters, and
represented the Union as an official observer at the election of July 22,
1941. After the election, he was a member of the group which exam-
ined Wright's employment records in an inquiry as to the status of the
employee whose vote had been challenged, and he protested vigorously
to Wellmerling against Wright's challenge of the disputed ballot. On
the following day, June 23, 1941, Wellmerling told Hovelsrud that
Wright intended to discontinue the model room and would have to
dispense with his services. According to Hovelsrud, he asked Well-
merling "What about my seniority?" to which Wellmerling replied,
"Well. you know the real reason. We have peculiar laws in this coun-
try which my lawyer says do not permit me to tell you what I would
like to." Wellmerling added that he was not going to have anyone run
his business for him. In answer to an inquiry by Hovelsrud, Wellmer-
ling told him that his work had, been satisfactory, but said, "If you
had played ball with me, you could have been working here as long
as you cared to."
This conversation took place shortly before Hovelsrud would nor-
mally have begun his vacation. He therefore suggested to Wellmer=
ling that he (Hovelsrud) take a 3-week vacation, 1 week with pay and
2 weeks without pay, and that, upon his return, they talk further-
about his lay-off. Hovelsrud's version of subsequent events was sub-
stantially the following : On Friday, August 15, when he returned from
his vacation, Wellmerling again assigned him to the model room,
where he found a former employee of Quinn working with Edward
LaBathe, a union member who had been regularly employed in the
model room for some time. On the following Monday morning,
9 A written statement by Hovelsrud , who was unavailable as a «itness , was read into the
record upon The stipulation of all parties that , if called , he would so testify. In the discus-
sion which preceded this stipulation, the Trial Examiner reminded counsel for the respond-
ents that such a stipulation would necessarily involve a waiver of the right of cross-
examination.
520 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 18, 1941, Wellinerling told Hovelsrud that he had definitely
decided to discontinue the model room and would ' have to let Hovelsrud
go immediately . He further remarked, "You are wasting your talents
here." Hovelsrud again asked about his seniority and was told that
lie had been laid off once and rehired and that the performance was
not going to be repeated . In reply to Hovelskud 's request for a letter
of recommendation, Wellmerling said that he would give Hovelsrud
such a letter if Hovelsrud would hand in his resignation, but not
otherwise. Refusing to do this, Hovelsrud left the plant. On the
next evening, August 19, Hovelsrud went to Wellmerling's home and
repeated his application for reinstatement. During the conversation,
he told Wellmerling that he had joined the Union in order to protect
his job. Wellmerling's comment was "Between you and me, the real
reason is your union affiliation. You have been influencing others to
join. You know I don't like the Union, especially the C. I. O. with
its Communistic ideas. I prefer the A. F. L. to other unions, but
I don't like any unions. I want to run my own business. Thus is still
a free country." Hovelsrud then asked whether he might be put 1 o
work on a, punch press as had the other nien who had formerly worked
in the model room, or whether he might have any other type of work
in, the plant. Wellmerling agreed to consult Quinn concerning this
possibility and then to give Hovelsrud his answer. Having received
no word from Wellmerling, Hovelsrud telephoned Wellmerling on
Thursday, August 21, to ascertain what had been decided about his job.
Wellmerling said that he had not yet talked with Quinn, and asked
whether Hovelsrud would care to undertake to do the model work at
home under a contract, and whether lie had the equipment for the
purpose. When Hovelsrucl said he had no equipment, Wellmerling
suggested that they might be able to sell him their equipment and
promised to get in touclri with Hovelsrucl again. On August 25,
Hovelsrud took Declan O'Brien, who had been the Union's shop stew-
ard, to see Wellmerling and Quinn. O'Brien, who by that time was
no longer employed by the respondents, said be was there as a, repre-
sentative of the Union to see whether Hovelsrud might have his job
again, to which Wellmerling replied, "Oh, in that case, no, he,can't."
Hovelsrud referred to the fact that the other employees who head been
working in the model room were his juniors in service', and asked
Quinn whether these men were also to be laid off. Quinn replied that
they would find work for these men elsewhere in the shop. A short
time later the respondents mhde an arrangement with a former part-
time employee to do the model work under contract and to lend rather
than sell him all the equipment necessary for the purpose . On April
20, 1942, Hovelsrud enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, and
since that time he has been , and he now is, in the military service of
the United States.
WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 521
The statements attributed by Hovelsrud to Wellmerling and Quinn
were not squarely denied by either of them. Both denied having used.
the explicit language ascribed to them, but admitted conversations
on the general subjects. However, their explanations were indefinite
and, as the Trial Examiner found, not as plausible as the stipulated
testimony of Hovelsrud, particularly in view of the open antagonism
of both respondents to the Union and of Well merling's testimony
that Hovelsrud's work was entirely satisfactory. We credit, as did
the Trial Examiner, the stipulated testimony of Hovelsrud concerning
the statements made by Wellmerling and Quinn.
At the time of Hovelsrud's discharge, LaBathe, the only other
regular employee in the model room, was also a member of the Union
and openly wore his union button. When the model room was closed
on August 18, LaBathe was dismissed along with Hovelsrud, the
equipment was disassembled, and no further work was done in that
department. No charge has been made that the dismissal of LaBathe
was discriminatory, nor is there substantial evidence that the model
room was closed for the purpose of dispensing with the services of
Hovelsrud and LaBathe because of their union activities. It is not
disputed that operation of the model room was discontinued for pur-
poses of economy.
However, no satisfactory explanation hiss been given for the refusal
under the circumstances to transfer Hovelsrud to other work in the
plant. When Wellmerling first notified Hovelsrud of his impending
lay-off in spite of his satisfactory work, he supplemented the notice
with a curt statement that Hovelsrud might have continued to work
were it not for his refusal "to play ball"-a clear reference to Hovels-
rud's union activities. Again, on August 19, when Hovelsrud visited
him at his home, Wellmerling expressed his antagonism to unions,
particularly the C. I. 0., and stated bluntly that the real reasons for
Hovelsrud's lay-off were his union affiliation and his influencing others
to join. Nevertheless, Wellmerling agreed to talk to Quinn about
giving Hovelsrud other work in the plant. However, on August 25,
when O'Brien, the union representative, pressed Hovelsrud's appli-
cation for reinstatement, Wellmerling's and Quinn's adverse reaction
was immediate and was obviously based upon the Union's connection
with the application. It is apparent and we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that, were it not for Hovelsrud's union affiliation and ac-
tivities, he would have continued in Wright's employ despite the dis-
continuance of the model room, and that the respondents refused to
continue his employment elsewhere in the plant as a penalty for, and
as a precaution against the renewal of, his activities on behalf of the
Union among their employees. The respondents- thereby in effect
discharged Hovelsrud on August 18, 1941, and they have since refused
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to employ him, because of his union membership and activities. By
'thus discharging and refusing to employ Hovelsrud, the respondents
discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents, and each of them,
set forth in Section III B and C 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. TIIE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist there-
from and to take affirmative action which we find necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondents discriminatorily discharged
George Lutz and Donald Hovelsrud because of their membership in,
and activities on behalf of, the Union. We shall order that George
Lutz be offered full and immediate reinstatement to his former or a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges and that he be made whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
would normally have earned as wages during the period from August
11, 1941, the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings 4 during such period. We shall further
order that Donald Hovelsrud, upon application within forty (40)
days after his discharge from the armed forces of the United States,
be offered reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges and that he be made whole for any loss of-pay he may have
4 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 respondent , Wright , 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 and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Worheis Union , Local 2i90, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies
received for wok 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.
WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 523
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned as wages during the periods : (1) between the date of his
discharge and the date of his entry into the armed forces of the
United States, April 20, 1942; and (2) between a date 5 days after
Hovelsrud's timely application for reinstatement and the date of the
offer of reinstatement by the respondent, Wright, less his net earn-
ings 5 during those periods .6 Since Lutz and Hovelsrud were on the
pay roll of Wright, we shall issue these affirmative orders only against
Wright.,
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local #1142, C.' I. 0., is a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, Bert Quinn, is an employer of the persons em-
ployed by the respondent, Wright Products, Incorporated, within
the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of George Lutz and Donald Hovelsrud and thereby discour-
aging membership in United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, Local #1142, 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.
4. 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 prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
hffecting commerce, within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
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:
5 See footnote 4, above.
6 See Matter of John David Brock, an individual doing business as John D. Brock, et at.,
and International Jewelry Workers Local No. 9, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, 42 N. L. R B 457. The fact that Hovelsrud may, under our Order, become
entitled to further back pay following his timely application for reinstatement upon his
discharge from the armed forces of the United States shall not be regarded as affecting
the obligation to pay him immediately whatever amount is due him for the period from the
date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of his induction into the armed forces of
the United States ,
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT 'IONIS BOARD
1. That the respondents, Wright Products, Incorporated, St. Paul
Park, Minnesota, and Bert Quinn, individually and doing business
as Ideal Brass Works, St. Paul, Park, Minnesota, and their respective
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall cease and desist- from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, Local #1142, C. I. 0., or in any
other labor organization of their employees, by discriminating in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any terms or con-
ditions thereof;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives 'of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. That the respondent, Wright Products, Incorporated, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, take the following affirmative
action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to George Lutz immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole George Lutz for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge, by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have
earned as wages from August 11, 1941, the date of the discharge, to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
such period ;
(c) Upon application by Donald Hovelsrud within forty (40) days
after his discharge from the armed forces of the United States offer
him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges;
(d) Make whole Donald Hovelsrud for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally
have earned as wages during the periods: (1) between the date of his
discharge, August 18, 1941, and the date of his enlistment, April 20,
1942; and (2) between a date five (5) days after Hovelsrud's timely-
application for reinstatement and the date of the offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during those periods. .
3. That the respondents, Wright Products, Incorporated, and Bert
Quinn, individually and doing business as Ideal Brass Works, and
their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall each :
WRIGHT PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 525
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the plant
of the respondents at St. Paul Park, Minnesota, and maintain for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of post-
ing; notices to their employees stating : (1) that the respondents, an'd
each of them, will not engage in the conduct from which they are
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order;
(2) that the respondent, Wright Products, Incorporated, will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d)
of this Order; and (3) that the employees of the respolidehts are free
to become or remain members of United Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers of America, Local #1142, C. I. 0., and that the re-
spondents, and each of them, will not discriminate against any em-
ployee because of membership in or activities on behalf of that
organization ; -
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondents and each of them have taken to comply herewith. '
AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it
alleges that the respondents discriminated,in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of John Elwood, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN M1 LIs -took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.