Johnson Steel & Wire Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 1051 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of JoHNsoN STEEL & WIRE COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE (C I O )
Case No C-2082 -Decided July 30, 194,2
Jurisdiction : wire products industry
Unfair Labor Practices
Interfcieue, Restraint and Coercion statement revealing union animus;
employer not responsible-foi surveillance activity of non-supervisory employee
not acting on its behalf -
Discrimination transfer to less desirable work and subsequent lay-oft and re-
fusal to reinstate one employee, and lai-off and refusal to reinstate two other
employees, because of union actiN sties , explanations by employer found not
convincing
Remedial Order : reinstatement and back-pay, 5-month delay in filing charge
held no reason for abatement of back pay otherwise due
Mr Walliani S Gordon, for the Board
Mr Ernest L Anderson, of Worcester, Mass, for the respondent.
Mr. Samuel E Angoff, of Boston, Mass, for the Union.
Mr Gilbert V Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board
4
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon a chaige and amended charges 1 duly filed by Steel Workers
Organizing Committee (C I O ), herein 'called the Union, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its
complaint dated October 1, 1941, against Johnson Steel & Wire Com-
pany, Worcester, Massachusetts, herein called the iespondent. The
complaint, as thereafter amended, alleged that the respondent had
engaged in and was eiigaging 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
1 The original charge was filed on March 29,, 1941 Amended charges were filed on
April 14, May 8, June 19, and October 2, 1941
42NLRB,No195
1051
1052 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the Act Copies of the complaint and the amendment thereto,
and of notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended
alleged in substance (1) that the respondent discouraged member-
ship in the Union by transfei ring and demoting Philip Ferland 2 oii
March 24, 1941, to a less desirable position at lower pay, by dis-
charging or laying off Feiland, Thomas Dyson, and John Cox on
March 27, 1941, and by theieaftei refusing to reinstate them, because
they had joined and assisted the Union and had engaged in other con-
certed activity; and (2) that, by the foiegoing acts, by anti-union
statements, by attempting to dissuade its employees from becoming or
remaining members of the Union, and by engaging in surveillance of
union activities, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act
The respondent filed its answer to the complaint on October 10, 1941,
and its answer to the amendment to the complaint on October 18,
1941 At the close of the hearing on November 3, 1941. the iespondent
moved to amend its prior answers The Trial Examiner reserved
decision on this motion, and dater granted it in his Intermediate
Report In its answer, as amended, the i espondent admitted being
engaged in' commerce, but denied the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and made certain affirmative allegations which are
considered below
Pursuant to notice,3 a heating was held at Worcester, Massachu-
setts, from October 20 to November 3, 1941,4 before Charles E Persons,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Ti ial Examiner The
Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to con-
form the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters During the
course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings
on other` motions and on the admissibility of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed
On January 30, 1942, after submission of a brief by the respondent,
the Trial Examiner/ filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which
2 This is the name carried on the respondent's pay roll Ferland 's correct name is
Phillippe Joseph Louis Feiland
3 The original notice scheduled the hearing for October 16, 1941 When the amended
complaint was ser'ed on the parties , the hearing was postponed to October 20
During this period the hearing was in recess from October 25 to 28, inclusne, at the
request of the respondent
1
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY ' 1053
were duly served upon the parties, in which he found that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, (1) and (3) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act He recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and that it reinstate
Ferland, Dyson, and Cox, with back pay On February 27, 1942, the
respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a brief in
support of the exceptions
Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondent, a hearing
was held before the Board at Washington, D C , on March 19, 1942,
for the purpose of oral argument The respondent and the Union
were represented by counsel and participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Inter-
mediate, Report and the brief in support thereof and, insofar as the
exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order
set forth below, finds them to be without merit
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Johnson Steel & Wire Company, a Massachusetts corporation with
its principal office' at Worcester, Massachusetts, operates plants in
Worcester, Massachusetts, Akron, Ohio, and Los Angeles, California.
The present proceeding is concerned only with its plant at Worcester,
Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,,and dis-
tribution of wire products
The iespondent purchases annually for use at its Worcester plant
raw materials, consisting principally of steel rods, valued at more than
$250,000, of which more than 30 percent are obtained from' points
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts The respondent manu-
factures annually at its Worcester plant wire products valued at more
than $2,500,000, of which more than 30 percent by value are slipped
to buyers in States other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commei ce, within the,
-meaning of the Act
',II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affil-
iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees in the respondent's plant at Worcester,
Massachusetts
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Union activity at the plant; the' lay-off of Joseph Kempesty
Prior to January 1941, there had been no union activity among the
employees of the respondent. At that time, employee Philip Ferland,
after conferring with officers of the Union, staited an organizing
campaign at the respondent's plant, distributed applications for mem-
bership, and solicited many of the employees to join the Union His
organizing activities continued thereafter unabated,' but until
shortly before his lay-off on March 27, 1941, they were carried on
secretly. About Sunday, March 23, 1941, Feiland began openly to
talk about the Union to employees both in and outside of the plant
and during and after his working hours, and began openly to bring
union literature into the plant with him Also active in the organiz-
ing campaign were employees Dyson and Cox, who solicited other
employees to join the Union and frequently met with Ferland at the
change of shifts to exchange leads on union prospects
Dyson, who had previously been a member of the Union at Buffalo,
New York, rejoined it on March 12, 1941, when he was in the respond-
ent's employ but while he was temporarily not working About 5
days later, upon his return to the plant, Dyson began taking an
active part in the organizing campaign. He discussed unionism with
about 50 employees at the plant and solicited a number of them to
join the Union Cox also joined the Union on March 12, 1941, and,
both before and after joining, he spoke freely in the plant about the
Union and urged many of his fellow employees to join.
Ferland, Dyson, and Cox were the only employees of the respond-
ent who were particularly active in behalf of the Union That their
activity was known to the respondent is clear from the record. On
March 24, 1941, Roy A Wahlstrom, a supervisory employee, saw
Dyson and Ferland reading an article in Steel Labor News; copies
of which Ferland had brought to the plant for distribution , Later
that day, as hereinafter described, Ferland was'transferred to a less
desirable and less remunerative job Three days later, on March 27,
1941, Ferland, Dyson, and Cox were laid off.
On March 28, 1941, employee Joseph Kempesty was laid off The
complaint does not allege that the respondent engaged in any unfair
labor practice by laying Kempesty off, but the circumstances attending
his lay-off are relevant to our consideration, below, of the lay-offs
of Ferland, Dyson, and Cox
8 Ferland testified at the hearing that he "spoke at any chance I had in the mill or
going out of the mill or going into the mill
6 The official publication of the Union
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY 1055
Kempesty was first employed by the respondent in January 1939,
and was one of the four regular operators on frame 47 7 from its in-
stallation in August 1940 until 'its temporary discontinuance about
January 25, 1941. On March 27L 1941, Kempesty worked aas an oper-
ator on frame 40, and at the close of the shift he went to the locker
loom to change his clothes Ferland, who was preparing to leave
the plant after having been laid off for union activities, as found be-
low, came into the locker room at about the same time and spoke to
Kempesty as well as to other employees in the room. However,
Kempesty was the only employee among those present who responded
to Ferland or otherwise engaged him in conversation Several of the
respondent's officials, including Roy A Wahlstrom, then foreman of
the tinning and galvanizing department," and Alex N. Westling,
superintendent of the plant, wet e pi esent in the locker room and
heard the exchange of greetings between Kempesty and Ferland.
About noon of the next day, March 28, Kempesty found a slip on
his time card reading "No work until further notice" He com-
pleted the day's work and then spoke to Wahlstrom about the reason
for his lay-off, stating
I don't understand why I got laid off It seemed funny seeing
Philip [Ferland] got laid off and I was sort of used to talk with
him a lot and it looked as if I got laid off on account of having
uniowactivities.
Wahlstrom replied that he did not know why Kempesty had been laid
off, and he suggested that Kempesty see Superintendent Westling
Kempesty left the plant that afternoon in the company of John
J Izyk, another employee of the respondent, whom he told of his
lay-off and of his suspicion that the lay-off was due to the respondent's
belief that he had engaged in union activities Izyk said that he
would see Wahlstrom and Westling and assure them that Kempesty
had not engaged in union activities, and he suggested that Kempesty
also speak-xwith Westling
The next day, March 29, Izyk spoke separately with Wahlstrom and
Westling about Kempesty's lay-off Wahlstrom again disclaimed
any knowledge of the reason for Kempesty's lay-off Izyk told West-
ling that Kempesty had not engaged in union activity and that, if
he had been laid off for that reason, he was being penalized for some-
' A frame is a'aire drawing machine The plant operated continuously on a three-shift
daily basis Each of the four regular operators on frame 47 normally Rorked five 8-hour
shifts each week, and the twenty-first shift was taken care of by other operators specially
assigned Thiee of the regular operators worked 5 consecutive days, so staggered that
the fourth operator-on the "Jumper shift"-could fill out the remaining shifts in a
week for each in turn The shifts changed at 7 a in , 3 p in , and 11 p in each day
A At the time of the hearing Wahlstrom had been promoted to the position of assistant
superintendent of the plant
1056, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
thing he had not done Westling thereupon said that he would see
Kempesty when he came to the plant and would then consult with
Bernard Johnson, the respondent's treasurer Later that day
Kempesty visited the plant and spoke with Westhng, reitei ati ng his
suspicion that he had 'been laid off because he "was talking union "
Westlmg replied that that was-not,the reason, but that Kempesty had
been laid off because of his low production and because of lack of work.
Kempesty then again assuied Westling that he was not a union mem-
ber or officer. That evening, after a loss of only 1 day's work,
Kempesty was reemployed, and 'sithin a week he was back on his
regular frame
Concerning the reason for Kempesty's lay-off, Westling and Wahl-
strom testified at the hearing that, on the morning of March 28,,194t,
they and Bernard Johnson had made a routine inspection of the plant
find had found Kempesty operating his machine at less than half its
capacity, and that Johnson had instructed Wahlstrom to lay off
Kempesty. Wahlstrom added that Kempesty had been "a little negli-
gent in his work for a few days" prior to his lay-off. The explanation
of Kempesty's summary lay-off is not convincing Wahlstrom's
statements shortly after the lay-off to both Kempesty and Izyk that he
had no knowledge of the reason for the lay-off belle his testimony
at the hearing that on March 28, 1941, Johnson, in his presence, or-
dered that Kempesty be laid off because of inefficiency If Kempesty's
operation of his frame in fact warranted his summary lay-off, the
respondent has not explained why he was immediately and uncon-
ditionally reemployed after the respondent had been assured that he
was not a union member or officer We are satisfied and we find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Kempesty was laid off because he worked
on the same frame as Ferland and was friendly with him, and because
the respondent therefore believed that Kempesty was associated with
Fei land's union interest and activities
B The discriminatory transfer and lay-offs
1 The transfer and lay-off of Philip Ferland
Ferland, while in the employ of another wire company,at Buffalo,
New York, was interviewed in May and July 1940, for prospective
employment by Stanley Barrows, timekeeper for the respondent, and
by Wahlstrom , then a foieman , who assured Ferland that he "was
just the man for the fob" In response 'to a letter froin,the re-
spondent , Ferland carne to Worcester on July 12 , 1940, when he filed
a written application for employment and, made arrangements with
Bernard Johnson , the respondent's treasurer , to report for work when
called Shortly thereafter , the respondent sent for Ferland, and he
JOHNSON STEEL - & WIRE COMPANY 1057
i(polted for work at the plant on August 12,1940. Ferland was almost
immediately made one of the four regular operators on frame 47 and,
except'for five shifts, he worked exclusively on that frame until .t
was tempos arily shut down about January 25, 1941 9
Nevertheless, in accordance with the respondent's practice of keep-
ing its frame opei atbi s and helpei s employed,10 Ferland -during-
Febi uai y and the gi eater part of March worked regularly, except for
two 8-hour shifts, either-as an operator or as a helper on other frames
During the first 3 weeks of March 1941, except for one shift, he worked-
regularly and exclusively on frame 48 According to the employment
schedule regularly posted on the bulletin board, Ferland was sched-
uled to work on flame 48 as a helper on the 11 p in to 7 a in shift on
March 23, 24, and 25 However, when Feiland reported at the plant
on March 23, frame 48 was not in operation and he worked that shift
as a helper on another flame On the following morning, at the end
of his shift, Ferland met Dyson in the plant, gave him one of a number
of copies of Steel Labor News which Ferland had brought with him
for distribution and began discussing with Dyson one of the articles
in the paper While they were talking, Wahlstrom approached and
engaged Ferland in a conversation, regarding which the testimony is
in sharp confliu t Ferland testified as follows
A Mr Wahlsti om walked up to me and he says. "Phil, I under-
stand you are not satisfied with the work here " 11' I says, "I
wouldn't say I am not satisfied with it " I said, "There may be
a few things I am not satisfied with, a few grievances, but I think
that we could settle them ourselves," and I mentioned a few to
him, like changing my rate a lot of times,-different things I
tried to settle with him before and he wouldn't give me no definite
answer and I put three or four different grievances up to him and
Mr Wahlstrom told me I was a G D liar.
Q Did he use letters or words?
A He used the words
Q Did lie say anything to you about quitting 2
A Yes, he told me "Why don't you quit your job?
A I told him I couldn't afford to quit my job, I had a wife and
two children to support.
Q Did you use any abusive or indecent language?
A Not that I know of
0 Frame 47 resumed operation on April 2, 1941
10 When a frame is not in operation , its operators and helpers are given work on other
frames, if available , or unskilled work
11 On cross-examination , Ferland testified that Wahlstrom also said, "You have been
growling too much "
472814-42-vol 42-67
1058"' DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dyson testified that, although he was unable to hear all of the con-
versation, he heard Wahlstrom in a raised voice call Ferland a liar
with the embellishment appealing in Ferland's testimony, above
Wahlstrom, on the other hand, while he admitted having had a
conversation with Ferland at the time, testified that he merely called
Ferland's attention to a complaint by Night Foreman Masteilotz
that Ferland had been leaving his assigned place of duty to talk to
employees in other parts of the plant.'2 According to Wahlstrom,
Ferland replied by calling Wahlstrom a' belittling and vulgar name
and by saying that he would not take ordeis fiom Wahlstrom but
would see Bernard Johnson. Wahlstrom denied that he had used
any profanity of that he had called Fei land , a liar during the course
of the conversation.
On the eyenuig-of the same day, March 24, Ferland reported for
work on frame 48, but found that his name had been removed from
the employment schedule Edward Carlsti om, the night super intend- ,
ent, told Ferland that his assignment had been changed, and that
he would have no further work on frames, but would be given only
unskilled work 13 Ferland's- lob as helper on frame 48 was given to
another employee who had had no previous experience on that frame,
and Ferland worked that shift as a cleaner's helper
The record shows that this transfer of Ferland was a departure
from the respondent's practice of keeping an operator or he flper on
his frame while it is in operation and of giving him work on another
frame or 'it unskilled work only when his frame is not in operation
The respondent contends, however, that Ferland was transferred for
using insulting language, as set forth above in Wahlstrom's version
of his conversation with Ferland on the morning of March 24, 1941
Wahlstrom testified that, immediately after this conversation, lie told
Superintendent Westlig about it and requested that Ferland be
transferred out of his department At the hearing, however, Westlrng
had no clear recollection of Wahlstroni's reporting the conversation
to him; Westlrng testified, generally, that Wahlstrom had complained
to him on three of four occasions, over a period of several months, of
being unable to get along with Ferland, and that Ferland was trans-
ferred because of these complaints On the other hand, Wahlstrom
testified that, until the conversation of March 24, there were no hard
feelings between him and Ferland
The testimony given, by Wahlstrom and Westling, as the Trial
Examiner has found, was in many respects vague,, lacking in detail,
12 Ferland testified without contradiction, and we find, that he was never reprimanded
by Masterlotz for leaving his post to engage other employees in conversation Masterlotz
was not called a5 a witness by the respondent
"The record shows that unskilled work is less remuneratise and less desirable than
tiame work, and that opeiatois ai e free to dechne it without prejudice to their standing
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY 1059
I
and contradictory, whereas Ferland's testimony was clear, convincing,
and consistent with the whole pattern of events disclosed by the record
Ferland's transfer to less desirable work took place almost immediately
after he hid brought his union activities out into the open and' shortly
prior to the lay-off of Kempesty discussed above Furthermore, the,
insulting remark allegedly made by Ferland to Wahlstrom, which the
-espondent'now urges was the reason for Ferland's transfer on March
24, 1941,-was not alleged in the respondent's answer or in the amend-
ments thereto Under the circumstances, we are convinced and we
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Ferland's version of his con-
versation with Wahlstrom on March 24 is accurate and that- he did
not nn fact make the insulting remark attributed to him by Wahl-
strom In any event, we do not believe that the respondent in trans-
ferring Ferland was motivated by any such alleged remark; the de-
fense is, in our opinion, clearly an afterthought now advanced by the
respondent in an effort to justify the tiansfer 14
Ferland continued doing unskilled work after his transfer until
March 27, 1941, when his employment was terminated. The respond-
ent contends, although it did not allege in its answer, that Ferland
voluntarily quit his employment on that date The contention is
based on the testimony of George W. Forsberg, the respondent's per-
sonnel director, which is contradicted by Ferland's testimony that
he' was laid off by Forsberg The only other person present at the
conversation during which Ferland's employment ended, Foreman
Lawrence Rebstead, was not called as a witness Earlier that same
day, as Fei land testified without contiadiction and as the Trial Exam-
iner has found, Rebstead 'had twice spoken to Ferland about unions
in a disparaging vein and had been told by Ferland that the 'latter
was a union member, strongly believed in unions, and would not
change his maid because of Rebstead's views 18
Despite its contention that Ferland quit his employment on March
27, 1941, the respondent also contends that Ferland created dissension
among the employees by making exaggerated statements about his
late of pay, that lie was inefficient in his work and unacceptable to
liis fellow employees; and that his union activities had violated two
posted rules of the respondent forbidding "unnecessary conversations
14 In its answer, the respondent alleged that Feiland 's transfer was one of several made
necessary at the time by construction work on an ' addition to its plant The respondent
adduced no evidence at the hearing in support of_this allegation -
il Rebstead 's rem-irks to Feiland on March 27 make it clear, in our opinion, that the
respondent was fully aware at the time of Ferland ' s union activities , despite the fact that
it now earnestly urges the contrary In addition , as we have already pointed out, Fer-
land began openly speaking for the Union and distributing union literature on Sunday,
March 23 , 1941 On Maich 25 , 1941, after Feiland's transfer , Edward J Hilland, 'an
organiiei for the Union , called on Personnel Director Forsberg to protest the transfer
While lie was witli Forsberg , IIilland made it clear that Ferland was a union member
and that the Union believed his tiansfer was due to his union membeiship and activity
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between employees during working hours" and "participation in or-
ganizational activities of any kind on company time and property."
Ferland's exaggerated statements as to his rate of pay, although ad-
mittedly made, had been made approximately a month prior to the
termination of his employment, and Wahlstrom admitted at the hear-
ing that the matter had been settled in "a very friendly heart-to-heart
talk" he had with Ferland at the time Although production records
were available, the respondent did not produce them in support of
the claim that Ferland was inefficient, nor is any explanation given
of why the respondent sought Ferland as an employee if lie was as
incompetent as the respondent now urges he was No showing was
made that Ferland was unpopular with and unacceptable to his fellow
employees; on the contrary, all three of the other regular operators
on frame 47 testified that Ferland was well liked As to Ferland's
alleged violation of the iespondent's riles, the iecoid shows, as the
Trial Examiner has found, that the rules in question were not enforced
by the respondent, that it was common practice for employees to speak
freely to each other while the frames were in operation, and that gat
least Ferland did not understand that there was anything improper
in engaging in union activities in the plant so long as it did not inter-
fere with any employee's work. The respondent's reliance on Fer-
land's alleged violation of the rule forbidding organizational activities
on company time and piopeity is in any event inconsistent with its
contention that it did not know of Ferland's union activities More-
over, none of these contentions was made in the respondent's answei11
and all of them are inconsistent with the respondent's position that
Ferland voluntarily quit his employment on March 27, 1941.
In view of the inconsistency 'of the respondent's defenses, the time
at which they were advanced, and the lack of support for them in
the evidence, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Ferland did
not quit his employment on March 27, 1941, but was laid off, and that
none of the other defenses were in fact the reason for his lay-off.
We further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Ferland was trans-
ferred to less desirable work on March 24, 1941, and was thereafter
laid off by the, respondent on March 27, 1941, because ,of his union
membership and activity. By thus discriminatorily transferring Fer-
land and laying him off, the respondent discouraged membership in
the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2' The lay-off of Thomas Dyson
Thomas Dyson, a tinner and galvanizer with 42 years-of experience,
was first hired by the respondent in 1928 and was employed by the
16 The claimed violation of the rules was alleged by the respondent by way of amend-
ment of its answer on the last day of the healing
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY / 1061
respondent lot about a year In 1931 lie was again employed by the
i espondent, tenipoi ai ilk, for about 2 weeks to assist in a rush order
In 1939, upon learning that Dyson nitended to leave Worcester and
accompany his then employer to Buffalo, New York, Bernard John-
son, the respondent', treasurer, invited Dyson to apply for employ-
ment with the respondent if lie Should ever desire to return to Worces-
ter Thereafter, in September 1940, Dyson and his on, Thomas
Dyson, Ji , both applied lot work at the respondent's plant Sev`
eial days after they had applied, Johnson notified them to report for
woi k, which they did on September 22, 1940
Dyson, like Ferland and Kempesty, was one of the four regular
operators,on frame 47 As stated above, on January 25, 1941, that
frame was teniporarily shut clown, but Dyson, iii accordance with the
respondent's practice, as assigned to work on other frames and oc-
casionally to unskilled work On February 21, 1941, after Dyson
and his son had been working for about half an hour on frame 48
in accordance with a posted schedule of assignments, they were told
by Foreman Masterlotz that then assignment to frame 48 was a mis-
take Masterlotz then assigned employee Kempesty to frame 48 and
.offered the Dysons unskilled ,work The offer was declined by the
Dysons, who then left the plant", As we have already indicated,
operators were free to decline unskilled work without prejudice to
their §tanding
Dyson, Ji , never thereafter sought reemployment with the respond-
ent Dyson, Si , however, came to the plant five or six times during
the next 2 weeks, accompanied on one occasion by his son, to find out
-,Ally lie had been taken off frame work and whether frame 47, the one
on which he was a regular operator, was in operation He was finally
told by Foreman Wahlstrom that he would be notified when frame 47
was again placed in Opel atiou As pointed out below, Dyson was
given employment as a laborer .on March 17, 1941, and worked in that
capacity until he was laid off on Match 27
In the meantime, on Match 12, 1941, Dyson rejoined the Union, of
which, as we have pointed out above, he had been a member while em-
ployed in Buffalo Both before and after joining, he was active in
urging upon employees of the respondent the advantages of union-
ization He talked to approximately 50 employees about unions, usu-
ally at the change of shifts but also at times during woikung hours
14 These findings aie based on the testimony of the Dysons , which was corroborated
in pact by Iiempesti Dlastetlotz was not called as a witness noweNer, other witnesses
lot the respondent testified that Dyson , Sr , was laid off on February 21, 1941, as a prelude
to his transfer out of that department because of alleged inefficiency in his work 'ibis
contention is considered and rejected by us below The testimony of the Dysons is cred-
ited by us , as it was by the Tiial Examiner In passing , howevei, it may be noted that
the respondent does not contend that Dyson, Jr, was also laid off on February , 21, 1941,
and does not offer any explanation of his leaving the plant with his father , as he admittedly
did
i
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He solicited employees to join the Union and, as noted above, fre-
quently exchanged leads and other mfoimation with Ferland We
have already described his conversation with Ferland on Monday,
March 24, 1941, when the latter gave him a copy of Steel Labor News
and then was accosted by Foreman Wahlstrom Thereafter and u ntil
his employment was terminated on March 27, 1941, Dyson continued
his conversations with Ferland During his last week of work for
the respondent, Dyson and Ferland were the only employees actively
soliciting members for the Union in the respondent's tinning and gal-
vanizing department
About the muddle of March 1941, Dyson called on Bernard John-
son, the respondent's treasurer, who had been responsible for his being
hired by the respondent in September 1940, and discussed with him
the question of reemployment Johnson assured Dyson that there
would be work for him on fame 47, and referred him to Foreman
Febstead Accordingly, pursuant to arrangements made with Reb-
stead, Dyson returned to work on Monday, March 17,1941 He worked
as a laborer all that week and the first 4 days of the following
week, and his time card shows that he was also scheduled to work on
Friday, March 28 However, at about 5 p in on Thursday, March 27,
1941, after Dyson had finished his shift at the plant, the respondent's
chauffeur delivered to Dyson at his home, according to the testimony
of both the Dysons, a card stating "No work until further notice"
The respondent contends that this lay-off slip Nti as delivered to
Dyson on February 21, 1941, and that Dyson's employment was volun-
tarily terminated by him on March 27, 1941, because of his dissatisfac-
tion with the rate of pay ieceived by him on the unskilled work which
he was then domg Superintendent Wahlstrom and Timekeeper Bar-
rows both testified for the respondent that they arranged to have
Dyson given a lay-off slip on February 21, and there is also testi-
mony that this was done as a prelude to Dyson's transfer out of the
tinning, and galvanizing department because' his ww ork as a frame
cperatoi had been inefficient The lay-off slip itself, however, gives no
indication of any such proposed transfer, and neither Bernard John-
son, the respondent's treasurer, nor Superintendent `Nestling appar-
ently knew anything about the proposed transfer when Dyson spoke to
them Westling, moreover, insisted at the hearing that Dyson had
never been laid off, although he did testify when confronted with the
lay-off slip that it had been given to Dyson at some indefinite time early
in March 1941 Certainly no substantial showing has been made
that Dyson's work prior to February 21, 1941, was in fact inefficient,
as Wahlstrom and Barrows claim in explaining the alleged decision-
to transfer Dyson out of the department The respondent produced
no production data in support of its claim that Dyson was inefficient,
{
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY 1063
although it appears from the record that such data were available
As,to ceitain days on which Dyson's production is shown to have been
low, there is testimony that his frame was then being used for ex-
perimental work of that there was then no wire available for galvaniz-
ing Dyson testified, without contradiction, that no foreman -or
official had ever told him that he was not "taking off enough pound-
abge"
As stated above, the record shows beyond doubt that Dyson appeared
at the respondent's plant at least five or six times during the 2 work-
ing weeks following February 21, 1941, ready for work on frame 47.
This would have been irrational on Dyson's part if he had in fact
received a notice on February 21 that there would be no work for him
until further notice Dyson's claim that he received the lay-off notice
on March 27 is supplemented by his testimony that on the following
day, March 28, when he went to the respondent's plant to get his pay,
he helped Cox, Feiland, and others distribute union leaflets in front
of the plant and, while doing so, showed Cox and Ferland the lay-off
notice which he had received Cox and Feiland corroborated Dyson's
testimony as to his presence in front of the plant.on March 28 and
as to his showing them the lay-off slip Finally, it appears that
Dyson's record card bears the notation "Laid off for lack of work,
March 27, 1941 G W Forsberg " At the healing, Forsberg admitted
that he had made this entry and that it was correct He also testified
that the respondent had "nothing at all" against Dyson This testi-
mony not only fixes the date of Dyson'b lay-off as March 27, but also
directly contradicts the testimony given by Wahlstrom and Barrows
as to Dyson's alleged inefficiency
The respondent's attempt to explain the teinmiiation of Dyson's
employment on March 27 on the ground that he was dissatisfied with
and unwilling to work for the rates of pay for unskilled work is
entirely unconvincing It is, in our opinion, unreasonable to believe
that Dyson, after having worked fox almost 2 weeks at the unskilled
labor rates on the strength of Bernard Johnson's assurance of reem-
ployment on frame 47, would suddenly have taken objection to those
rates bn March 27 and left his job because of them It seems to us
still more unlikely that Dyson would have quit his employment on
- Mai ch 27 because of the unskilled labor rates, as the respondent
claims, and would have applied for reemployment on the very next
morning, March 28, as the record shows he did On the other hand,
the testimony given by the Dysons is not only convincing in detail
but also entirely consistent with the course of events revealed by the
record We credit then testimony, as did the Trial Examiner
Here, as in the Ferland case, the respondent on March 27,-1941;
,terminated the employment of one of the two or three most active
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union proponents in its Plant iio, long after his union activities began
to be carried on openly Here, as in the Feiland case, the reasons
advanced by the respondent for its action are confused, contradic-
tory, and unconvincing We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
respondent in fact laid off Dyson on March 27, 1941, because of his
union membership and activities 18 By thus discriminatorily laying
Dyson off, the respondent discouraged membership in the Union, and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
3 The lay-off of John Cox
Cox was employed by the respondent on January 1, 1941 He first
worked as a laborer, then as an -electrician's helper, and finally, on
February 22, he was promoted to the, position of sweeper at an in-
creased rate of pay. According to the respondent's witnesses, the
sweepers received 621/2 cents an hour base pay and an additional
121/2 cents an hour "bonus" if their work was well done The record
shows that Cox earned 75 cents an hour as a sweeper until he was laid
off on March 27, 1941 According to his substantially uncontradicted
testimony, which we believe, his work had never been criticized by
Night Superintendent Carlstrom or by any other of the respondent's
officials, and on the morning of the day he was laid off his immediate
superior, Foreman Rebstead, told him that he was one of the best men
under Rebstead's supervision and that he should keep up the good
work. `
Cox joined the Union on March 12, 1941 Even before joining,
however, he had discussed unions with a number of the other em-
ployees. When he joined he was told by the union oigaifizer to get
in touch with Fei land, and he and Ferland tlieieafter frequently ex-
changed leads and information at the change of shifts in the plant
Cox also discussed the Union freely with other employees Towaids
the end of February 1941, Cox was given a friendly warning by Tur-
nan, the respondent's receiving clerk, under whose' super vision Cox
had at times worked, that he was "on the spot" with the respondent's
officials for "expressing your ideas too much " Cox also testified
without contradiction, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
during the last week of his employment he was kept under observation
by Foreman Anderson and Superintendent Westlmg apparently for
the purpose of seeing whether and to whom he wasp talking during
working hours During the last hour of his employment, Cox's move-
ments were watched for approximately 15 or 20 minutes by Bernard
Johnson, the respondent's treasurer; and at the 3 p in change of
18 With respect to Dyson, as with respect to Feiland and Cox, the respondent contends
that its action was based in part on alleged Niolation'of rules For the reasons stated in
our discussion of the Ferland case, the contention is rejected
i
11
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY 1065
shift on March 27, 1941, Anderson, Westling, Wahlstrom, and Fors-
berg stood near the time clock and the locker room while Cox changed
into his street clothes and punched out.
Cox was scheduled to work on March 28 and 29, but on March 27,
between 5 and 5 30 p m, a lay-off notice like the one ieceived by
Dyson, stating "No woik until further notice," was deliveied to him at
his home That evening, Cox telephoned Foreman Rebstead and
asked why he had been laid off Rebstead disclaimed any knowledge
of the reason for the lay-off and, after again assuring Cox that he
was a good worker, suggested that he speak to Forsberg Cox then
telephoned Foisbeig and asked why he had been laid off Cox testi-
fied that Forsberg at first denied knowing the reason for Cox's lay-
off, that he then told Cox the latter had been "doing too much talking
about union," and that he finally suggested that Cox call him again
in the moining for "moie of a"definite answer " 19 Forsberg ad-
mitted having this telephone conversation with Cox, but gave a dif-
ferent vei Sion of it. He testified as follows :
He best identified himself saying he was John Cox,
sweepei in the shop, and he said, "I would like to know the rea-
son for my lay-off " I told him I didn't know he had been laid
off, I said, "Why were you laid off V' He said, "I guess I have
been talking too much " I said, "What have you been talking too
much about, John?" "Well, imion activities " "Oh," I said,
"That wouldn't be the sole reason not laying you off, would it2"
He said, "I don't know "' "Well," I said, "You come down to the
factoi) tomorrow and I w ill talk with Mr Rebstead and you and
me will find out about it " "Well," he said, "I cannot afford to
be nixed up with any tenon activities I have a wife and family
to suppot t and I need all my money to take cafe of them "
Admittedly, then, Cox',, union activities woie mentioned in the course
of his telephone corn eisation with Foisbeig oil Maich 27, 1941 As
we have found above, Cox had continued his union activities even after
the warning given him by Turnan in February 1941. The record also
shows that 'Cox on March 28, 1941, the, day following his telephone
conveisation with Foisbeig, pubhcly paiticipated in the'distribution
of union leaflets in front of the respondent's plant This is not the con-
duct of a man who believes lie "cannot afford to be mixed up with any
union activities," and we do not credit Foisbeig's testimony that Cox
so stated We believe and accept Cox's version of his telephone con-
versation with Foisbeig on March 27, 1941, as did the Trial Examiner
The respondent now contends, although it did not allege in its
answer, that Cox was laid off because his work was unsatisfactory
"The next moi nmg, March 28, Cox telephoned Forsberg and was told by him to tele-
phone Rebstead Cox tried to reach Rebstead, but was unsuccessful
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contention is based pimmirly on Superintendent Westhng's testi-
mony that he directed Cox's lay-off because of a complaint by Night
Superintendent Carlstrom that Cox was not keeping his assigned sec-
tion clean and that the other sweepers were therefore compelled to do
additional work Carlstrom was not called as a witness by the re-
spondent, and Cox, as we have already stated, testified that his woik
had never been ciiticized by Carlsti om of by any other supervisory
employee Westing admitted at the healing that he had made no
investigation of Carlstiom's alleged complaint, that he had given Cox
no opportunity to refute the charge, and that Foreman Rebstead had
strongly defended Cox's work at a foremen 's meeting at which the
matter was discussed 20 Noi, could Westlmg iecall at the hearing
when Carlstrom had made his complaint or why action upon it was not
taken until March 27, 1941, the day on which Ferland and Dyson were
also laid off The record shows that during the last 3 days of his
employment Cox worked on the day shift under Foreman Rebstead's
supervision and that during the 2 or 3 weeks immediately preceding
his lay-off Cox had worked more frequently under Rebstead than under
Carlstrom, but no explanation was offered by the respondent of why
Carlstrom's alleged complaint was given more weight than Rebstead's
admitted approval of Cox's work Moreover, Westling also admitted
on cross-examination that the decision to lay off cox "might" have
been made by Bernard Johnson, the respondent's treasurer, whose
anti-union animus is described below in Section III, D, of our decision
In view of Cox's union activities, the remark made by Forsberg on
March 27, 1941, and the unconvincing and contradictory nature of the
evidence adduced by the respondent, we are of the opinion that Cox's
alleged inefficiency was merely an afterthought offered by the respond-
ent m justification of its action, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Cox was in fact laid off on March 27,1941, because of his union
membeiship and activities 21 By thus discriminatorily laying off Cox,
the respondent discouraged membership in the Union, and interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
C The refusal to reinstate g'erland, Dyson, and Cox
Ferland, Dyson, and Cox stated at the hearing that they desired
reinstatement by the respondent, and the record shows that aftei they
20 Personnel Director Forsberg, who attended practically all meetings of the foremen and
who testified at some length during the hearing, did not mention this alleged discussion
of Cox's work Foreman Rebstead was not called as a witness by the repondent
21 with respect to Cox, as with respect to Fernand and Dyson, the respondent contends
that its action «as based in part on alleged violation of its rules For the reasons stated
in our discussion of the Ferland case, the contention is rejected
1
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY 1067
were laid off they unsuccessfully sought reemployment with the re-
spondent - During the first 2 weeks following their lay-off, Ferland
and Cox made mole than eight futile visits,to the plant to obtain work,
and after the last visit they were denied admittance to the plant On'
April 5, 1941, Martin J Walsh, New England Diiector of the Union,
,mtei ceded on behalf of Feiland and Cox, and requested Forsberg and
Ernest L Anderson, the respondent's attorney, to reinstate them.
Anderson, for the respondent, iefused to do so Dyson, on the day
after he was laid off, applied to the respondent for work, but was told
by Timekeeper Barrows that there was none available 22
The service cards of Ferland, Dyson, and Cox each carried the fol-
]owing notation, "Laid-off March 27, 1941 Lack of work 7 23 The
record shows that, at the time of their lay-off and at all times there-
after, there was work available for them at the plant Indeed, during
the 6-month period ending July 3, 1941, the respondent's work force
increased from 591 to 669 employees Cox's position was filled immedi-
ately after his discharge, but the record, does not clearly show who
replaced him When frame 47, which had been down; was put 'in
operation again on April 2, 1941, Ferland and Dyson were not re-
called, but were replaced by operators v%ith less seniority on that
frame 24
In its amended answer and in its 'brief, the respondent contends
that Ferland, Dyson. and Cox engaged in a strike, picketed the plant,
and did not thereafter unconditionally apply for reinstatement The
record show that on March 28, the day after their lay-off, Ferland,
Dyson, and Cox distributed union literature on the street in front of
the respondent's plant and solicited for union membership other em-
1,]oyees of the respondent as they entered and left the plant On
April'21, 1941, the Union staged a "demonstration" in front of the
respondent's plant "to show the people [that] there [were] other
people in Worcester interested in their affairs at the Johnson Steel &
Wire " For about an hour, between 30 and 60 members of various
C I O local organizations employed at other plants, in the city
paraded on the street, in front of the -i espondent's plant, carrying
banners and placaids indicating their local union affiliation and re-
ferring to past successes of the Union Only 3 employees of the
respondent, Ferland, Cox, and Robert Shong, a wile drawer, par-
, I
22 This finding is based on the testimony of Dyson, which we credit, as did the Trial
Examinee Barrows, called as a witness for the Boaid, did not specifically deny Dyson's
testimony , although lie did testify generally that Dyson quit his employment on March 27
and that lie had not seen Dyson since
2'iFoisbeig , who placed these notations on the cards, testified that it was a stock foam
used to indicate that a lay-off of dischaige was without prejudice
24Tbe record shojis that the seniority of frame operators depended on their length of
service on their regular frames
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ticipated in the demonstration Ferland and Cox were not then
working for the respondent, and Shong worked his full shift that day,
so that none of the respondent's employees lost any working time be-
cause of the demonstration There is, moi eovei, substantial evidence
in the record that it was not the puipose of the demonstration and
that no effort was made to induce any of the respondent's employees
to stop work or to interrupt operations at the respondent's plant. We
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the demonstiation was not a
strike.
The testimony given by Personnel Diiectoi Forsberg and Superin-
tendent Westling makes it clear that Ferland and Cox were denied
reemployment because of their participation in the distribution of
union leaflets in front of the respondent's plant on March 28, 1941,
and in the demonsti ation on April 21, 1941, after which they were no
longer considered employees by the respondent While the record is
not explicit as to the alleged reason for the respondent's failure to
'reemploy Dyson, it appears,that he, too, participated in the distribu-
tion of union leaflets on March 28, 1941, and we 'are convinced, as was
the Trial Examiner, that the respondent was moved by the same
considerations in leis' case as in the cases of Feiland and Cox Super-
intendent Westlnng admitted at the hearing that Beinaid Johnson,
the respondent's treasurer, had dueeted that Ferland and Cox,not
,be reemployed because they "had gone on a strike" and he therefore
"didn't want anything to do with them "
We find, as did the Tiial Examiner, that Ferland, Dyson, and Cox
were denied reinstatement because, they had' engaged in legitimate
and lawful union activities By thus discrimrnatoi ily denying' them
reemployment, the respondent discour aged membership in the Union,
and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
D Other interference, restraint, and coercion
In April 1941, Feiland and Cox, while acting as organizers for the
Union in Palmer, Massachusetts, accidentally met Nicholas Butcher
and another employee of the respondent, Magieia Ferland and Cox
spoke to Butcher and Magiera and asked them to join the Union The
next day, Butcher overheard his name mentioned in a conversation
between Magiera and Timekeeper Barrows, and assumed that Magiera
was talking about their meeting with Ferland and Cox on the preced-
ing day Butchei who was financially indebted to the respondent, be-
came apprehensive that the respondent would consider him a union
member or sympathizer, and he explained to Personnel Director Fors-
berg that he had been approached by Feiland and Cox Forsberg
then said, according to Butcher's testimony, that "The chief was not
/ /
JOHNSON STEEL WIRE COMPANY 1069
enthusiastic the way things twined out [the night before]," 15 and that
"with all these strikes going on, starting defense orders, he [Forsberg]
would rather see a shop union come in there " Concerning this con-
versation, Forsberg testified that Butcher asked for his opinion on an
"inside" union and that lie declined to discuss the matter We credit
Butcher's testimony, as did the Trial Examiner
Following this convei sation, Forsberg arranged for Butcher to
see Barnard Johnson, the respondent's treasurer, and Charles John-
son, the respondent's president Butcher told them that he knew that
the respondent knew of his meeting with Cox and Ferland, and
invited the Johnsons to "shoot the works " One of the Johnsons then
stated that he wanted "fii st ]land information on what happened"
on the preceding evening, and Butcher gave his version of the incident,
as set forth above Beinard Johnson then said that if the "union
got tough they could get toughei," to which Butcher replied that'he
was a "middle nman," that both the Union and the respondent were
big, and that he could not "afford to buck either party" After one
of the Johnsons had reminded Butcher that the respondent had 're-
employed his brother after the latter had been severely injured in an
automobile accident, Butcher assured thein that he was not soliciting
,union members and that he "wouldn't walk out on a strike for any
man or union " 24 f
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that, by Forsberg's and Bernard
Johnson's remarks to Butcher, the respondent revealed its hostility to
the Union, and that it thei eby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act
On April 3, 1941, the Union held a meeting which had been pub-
licized by notices distributed in front of the respondent's plant. Tur-
nan, the respondent's receiving clerk, was given one of the notices by
Cox On the evening of the meeting, Turnan parked his automobile
on the street opposite the enti ante to the meeting hall, from which
vantage point he observed the hall for about an hour and a half
Tui nan testified that he did this out of curiorsity and to "see who was
going-and how many were going." While this, in our opinion, clearly
constituted surveillance of the union meeting, the record does not
show that Turnhn was acting at the request of the respondent. Nor
are we convinced that the record contains any substantial evidence
that Tuinan was a supervisory employee or otherwise identified with
management We therefore sustain the respondent's exception to the
Intermediate Report insofar as the Trial Examiner has found that the
1s This we interpret to iefei, first, to Beinaid Johnson as "the chief," and then to
Butchei's chance meeting with Feiland and Cox the night before in Palmer
"These findings ale based on the unconti adicted testimony of Butchei, which we credit
as did the Trial Examiner
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
i espondent kept the union meeting under surveillance, and we find
that the evidence does not sustain this allegation in the complaint
IV THE EFFECT OF 7HE UNFAIR LABOR PR 1CTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set foith in Section III, B, C, and D
above, occui ring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to tiade, tiaffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes buidening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commeice
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the (espondent has engaged in ceitain unfair
tabor practices, we shall oidet it to cease and desist theiefrom and to
take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
We have found that the respondent on March 24, 1941, discrimi-
natorily transfeired Philip Ferland; that on March 27, 1941, rt dis-
eriminatorily laid off Philip Ferland, Thomas Dyson, and John Cox;
and that it thereafter discriminatorily denied 1 ennstatement to all of
them We shall therefore order the respondent to offer Ferland,
Dyson, and Cox Immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without piejudice to their seniority
or othei. iiglits and piivileges We shall further otdei the Iespondent
to make whole Philip Ferland, Thomas Dyson, and John Cox for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's dis-
crimination against them, by payment to Ferland of a sum of money
equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from
March 24, 1941, the date of his discriminatory transfer, to Match 27,
1941, less his earnings during that period, and by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally-have
earned-as wages from March 27, 1941, the date of his lay-off, to the
date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 27
during that period The respondent contends that Dyson unreason-
ably delayed filing chaiges until 5 months after his lay-off on March
27, 1941, and therefore that he "is not entitled to any back pay .. "
At the hearing, Dyson explained that his name -,w as not included in. the
2' By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses such is In it'inspoitation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining nnork and ii oil.mg else-
where than for the respondent , -,Nhich would not have been uuurtul but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Ciossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill , Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received
for work perfoimed , upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work -relief, projects
shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v National - Labor Rela-
itone Board , 311 U S 7 - 1
JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY 1071
original charge filed on Maich 29, 1941, because at that time he *as
not sure that he had been permanently laid off and because he thought
that filing a charge "might piejudice his chance to obtain other work "
Under the circumstances, we find the respondent's contention to be
without merit, and we shall not abate the amount of back pay due hIm 28
Upon the foiegoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the 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 Philip Ferland, Thomas Dyson, and John Cox, and in regard to
the terms and conditions of Philip Ferland's employment, and thereby
discouraging membership in Steel Workeis Organizing Committee, 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 exeicise of the eights guaianteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act
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,
Johnson Steel & Wire Company, Worcester, Massachusetts, and its
officeis, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in Steel Woikers Organizing Com-
mittee (C I O ), or in any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment of any of its employees,
(b) In any other manner mnterfeung with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the iight to self-organization, to form,
loin, of assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
i epi esentatives of their own. choosing, and to engage in concerted
See Matter of The Federbush Co, Inc and United Paper Workers, Local 292, etc,
34 N L R B 539 , National Labor Relations Board v Mall Tool Co, 119 F (2d) 700
(C C A 7 ) , and National Labor Relations Board v Crowe Coal Co, 104 F (2d) 633
(C C A 8)
1072 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , as guaianteed in Section 7 of the Act '
2 Take the following affirmative action, which the Boaid finds will
c ffectuate the policies of the Act ,
(a) Offer to Philip Feiland, Thomas Dyson, and John Cox imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their foimei or substantially equivalent
positions , without piejudice to their seniority or othei iights and
piivileges;
(b) Make whole Philip Feiland, Thomas Dyson, and John Cox foi
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them , by payment to Ferland of a sum of
money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages
from March 24, 1941 , the date of his discriminatoiy transfer, to
March 27 , 1941, less his earnings duiing that period, and by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
normally have earned as wages from March 27, 1941, the date of his
lay-off, to the date of the respondent 's offer of ieuistatement , less his
net earnings during that period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Worcester,
Massachusetts , and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting , notices to its employees stat-
ing (1). that the respondent will not engage in the conduct front
which it is ordered to cease 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
Steel Workers Organizing Committee , affiliated with the C I 0, and
that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because
of membership in, or activity on behalf of, that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fiist Region it writing
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR GFRARD D REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order
1