Julius Breckwoldt & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1938

9 N.L.R.B. 94 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of JULIUs BRECKWOLDT & SON, INC. and THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C 402. -Decided October 8,1938
Wood Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coer-
cion: anti-union statements ; discrediting union ; threats to close plant-Dis-
crimination : charges of , not sustained-Collective Bargaining : charges of fail-
ure to bargain collectively dismissed-Conciliation : efforts at , by New York State
Mediation Board.
Mr. John H. Dorsey, for the Board.
Winslow cfi Bennison, by Mr. James W. Bennison , of Frankfort,
N. Y., and Mr. Robert F. Livingston, of Little Falls , N. Y., for the
respondent.
Mr. John J. Walsh, of Utica, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Raymond J. Compton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been filed by the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Henry J. Winters,
Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York), issued
its complaint dated November 24, 1937, against Julius Breckwoldt
.& Son, Inc., Dolgeville, New York, the respondent herein, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the
respondent and upon the Union.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1)
terminated the employment of and locked out the employees in its
seat and sawmill departments because they had engaged in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection; and (2) refused to reinstate Stanley
Jaquay 1 and Kenneth Maddocks, refused to reinstate Claude Jaquay,
' Incorrectly spelled "Jacquay" in the complaint.
9 N. L. R. B., No. 17.
94
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 95
Fred Perry, and Will Madison to their former, positions,- and dis-
charged Kenneth Maddocks, Linford Homrighaus, John Spofford,
Will'-Madison,' La ' Ver ie `Jagiiay, and--Claude Jaquay, because of
their activity in and affiliation with the Union. • The complaint fur-
ther alleged. that the respondent refused to bargain collectively' with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's
production and maintenance employees, said employees constituting
an appropriate bargaining unit; and that by these and other specified
acts and conduct the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection as' guaranteed in Section 7of the Act.
On December 11, 1937, the respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint in which it denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in
the unfair labor practices alleged therein, but admitted the allega-
tions concerning the nature of its business.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Dolgeville, New York,
from December 14 to 18, 1937, inclusive, before Alvin M. Douglas,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel, participated
in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross,-examine witnesses, and to, introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues. During the course of the hearing,-the Trial
Examiner granted the motion of counsel for the Board to dismiss
the complaint in so far as it alleged that the respondent discrim-
inatorily refused to reinstate Fred Perry to his former position. At
the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board further
moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof. The motion
was granted.
On February 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in un-
fair labor practices, affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He
accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
engaging in the unfair labor practices and that upon request it pro-
ceed to bargain collectively with the' Union. He further found that
the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Subsequently the Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
On May 7, 1938, the Board notified the parties to this proceeding
that they were entitled to request oral argument before the Board
in Washington, D. C., but none of the parties availed themselves of
this opportunity.
. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds
-96 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-that-no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
-affirmed. -The Board has also considered the tjnion's exceptions to
-the findings and recommendations of the Intermediate Report and
-finds them to -be without merit For the reasons hereinafter set
'forth, the' Board does not follow in all respects the findings and,
,recommendations as made by the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New York corporation with its principal
office 'and place of business at Dolgeville, New York. It is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of toilet seats, piano parts,
-and 'dimension lumber. The respondent obtains approximately 49
per cent of its raw materials from the States of Connecticut, Illinois,
;Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin, and approximately 54 per cent of the finished products
manufactured by the respondent are shipped outside the State of
New York. The gross annual sales of the respondent amount to
approximately $500,000.
During the month of May 1937, when the events described below
commenced, the respondent had in its employ approximately 214
maintenance and production workers.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership all the production and maintenance employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged lock-out
On the morning of May 13, 1937, Herman Baylor and Martin
Greif, inspectors and patchers in the buffing room of the toilet-seat
department, decided' to request an increase in their wages. Before
-proceeding to the office of Whallon, the plant manager, they discussed
their decision with Homrighaus, a fellow employee, who told them
that if their request was not granted he would talk to the other
employees and enlist support in their behalf. While Baylor and
Greif were in Whallon's office, Homrighaus proceeded to the sand-
ing room where he told the workers that the buffers were going out
on strike if Baylor and Greif were refused an increase in wages and
.asked them if they would be willing to support the buffers. When
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 97
-Baylor returned and informed Hoinrighaus that Whallon refused to
grant the increase , the men in the buffing room shut off. their
machines and walked out, followed by the employees in-the sanding
room.
After consulting William Breckwoldt, secretary and treasurer of
A he respondent, Whallon ordered the remaining employees in the seat
department to cease work, since it was impossible to continue- opera-
tions without the sanders and buffers. Paul Fitch, a buffing-room
employee, admitted that the buffers had discussed the stoppage of
all operations which their quitting would bring about, and the record
shows that due to the integrated nature of operations a cessation of
work in the sanding and buffing rooms would necessitate the shutting
down of the, entire seat department. The testimony discloses that
some of the windows and doors were closed following the walk-out,
and it was contended that this action, constituted a lock-out. How-
ever, the record supports the respondent's contention that the main
door was not locked until 2 days later when, as was customary dur-
ing week ends,,the respondent completely locked up the seat depart-
ment. -From all the evidence, we are satisfied that the action of the
respondent in locking the doors and windows of the seat division was
not intended to prevent its employees from returning to work,, but
was rather the ordinary precaution customarily taken for, the safe-
guarding of its plant property. -
After gathering - outside the • plant, the employees of the I seat
division went to the Ongowanda Club at the Riverside Restaurant in
Dolgeville, where they elected an organizing committee for, the pur-
pose of forming a union. - The following day, Michael Walsh, an
organizer for the American Federation of Labor, having been invited
to a second meeting proceeded to organize the employees of the seat
department. Within 2 or 3 days almost all-the employees of, the seat
department, as well as several employees,of the sawmill department,
had joined the Union. • . . -
- On May 19, a group of some 30 or 40 Union members went in a
body to the sawmill for the purpose of inducing-the employees therein
to quit work and to cooperate- with the Union. As the Union mem-
bers entered the sawmill, Raymond Zimmerman, the mill foreman,
at the request of a member of the. Union delegation, shut off the
power. The entire sawmill crew then, proceeded to leave the plant
without disturbance. - -
The evidence clearly shows that the employees-in the buffing,and
sanding rooms went out on strike in- protest against the respondent's
refusal to grant an increase in wages to-Baylor and Greif; that the
respondent ,was compelled to discontinue the operation of the other
divisions of the seat department due to the cessation of operations
in the sanding and buffing rooms; and that the sawmill employees
98 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were induced to join the other strikers several days later. Accord-
ingly, we find that the allegations of the complaint with respect to
,the lock-out are not sustained. '
B. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively
On May 16 Whallon communicated with John Spofford, the newly
elected president of the Union, and urged that the employees return
to work because of the.resultant loss of, business if the strike were
prolonged. The following day, Spofford invited Whallon to a meet-
ing at the Ongowanda Club, at which Walsh, national representa-
tive of the Union, and the bargaining committee were present.
Whallon, with full authority to act for the respondent, explained that
the respondent was not averse to the organization of a union by'its
employees, but that inasmuch as the seat division was an experi-
mental venture which up to that time had operated at a loss, it was
of vital concern that the employees return to work at once. He
pointed out that if the respondent was unable to fill its future de-
livery contracts immediately, the loss resulting might force the re-
spondent to discontinue the seat department. He suggested, there-
fore, that the employees first return to work, and that an,arbitration
committee be appointed to settle the existing differences. The Union
refused this overture and submitted a proposed contract, covering
the employees of the seat department, which provided, among other
things, for a 12-per cent increase in wages. Whallori informed the
committee that most of the provisions of the contract were accepta-
ble, or could be adjusted through compromise, but that under the
circumstances a 12-per cent increase in wages was impossible. Fur-
thermore, he offered to submit the respondent's books to justify its
refusal to grant the requested increase in wages. The Union, how-
ever, admittedly refused this offer. Following a discussion of the
40-cent minimum wage proposed in the Union contract, Whallon
agreed to establish•a minimum of 40 cents an hour, except as to be-
ginners. During the course of the meetings which followed, the
respondent submitted other counterproposals in the form of a writ-
ten agreement, but they were rejected by the Union.
On May 24, 1937, John Forster, of The New York State Media-
tion Board, entered into the controversy and several conferences en-
sued. At his suggestion, the Union receded from its demand for a
12-per cent wage increase and agreed to accept a 6-per cent increase
and to arbitrate the other 6 per cent after returning to work. The
respondent, however, rejected this proposal, predicating its position
upon the reasons advanced at the commencement of negotiations.
With respect to the closed-shop provision demanded by the Union,
the respondent countered with an offer to grant a preferential shop
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 9
provision to the Union. Despite Forster's efforts, however, tha
parties .were unable to arrive at a satisfactory compromise.
On June 24, the Regional Director of the Board conducted an in-
formal election, the results of which indicated that the Union rep-
resented a majority of the production employees of the respondent,
including those in the sounding board and piano-parts department
which had not ceased operations during the strike period. Negotia-
tions continued on a plant-wide basis thereafter until, at a final meet-
ing between the respondent and the Union early in July, the Union
bargaining committee walked out and refused to continue negotia-
tions with the, respondent. The, respondent, requested Forster,, to en-
deavor to have the Union resume negotiations, but the Union failed
to respond 'to this solicitation, and made no request for further
meetings.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had made some
solicitation of individual employees to return to work during the
strike period. However, the record discloses that the few instances
of such solicitation which occurred were during the formative period
of the Union and before the respondent was apprised of the proper
representatives with whom to negotiate. Under the circumstances,
we do not believe that the evidence warrants a finding that the re-
spondent attempted to interfere with and impede the negotiations
then being carried on with Union representatives.
The respondent not only recognized the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the seat department
prior to the election, and of all its production employees following
the election, but evinced its willingness to meet and negotiate with
the bargaining committee of the Union. In refusing to grant the
wage increase requested under the Union's proposed contract, the
respondent justified its refusal by an explanation of its financial
status, and offered to show its books in corroboration. The respond-
ent further submitted both oral and written counterproposals, and
urged that its employees return to work and afterwards submit their
differences to arbitration. On the other hand, the Union voted down
the counterproposals, refused to examine the respondent's books,
and abruptly and peremptorily ceased negotiations when its bargain-
ing committee walked out during a meeting held with the respondent's
representatives. The Union thereafter made no effort to comply
with the respondent's desire to continue negotiations.
From all the evidence we cannot conclude that the respondent re-
-fused to bargain with the Union, within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the Act. We shall accordingly dismiss the complaint in so far as
such charges are therein alleged.
The record discloses that the election'which resulted in the certifica-
tion of the Union as the bargaining representative. for all the produc-
134068-39-vol. ix-8
100 NATIONAL LABOR'RELATIONS `BOARD
tion workers of the respondent was not conducted in accordance with
the procedural standards set by the Board. However, inasmuch as we
have found that, the respondent'did not refuse to bargain collectively
with the Union, it is unnecessary to decide the issue as to whether or
not the Union did, in fact; have a majority membership in the appro-
priate unit, within the meaning of the Act.
C. Interference, restraint and coercion
On May 18, 1937, following the 'walk-out in the seat department,
William Breckwoldt appeared before the sounding-board department
and sawmill employees and talked to them. Several witnesses testified
that Breckwoldt told them in substance that he did not want a union
in the plant; that if they joined the Union he would cease operations;
that he did .not want an outside organization which would take the
employees' money out of town ; and that it would be better to have an
organization of their own. Although Breckwoldt denied.that he made
these statements, and stated that he was not opposed to collective bar-
gaining if the employees as a whole desired it, the evidence is eoiivinc-
ing that such statements were in fact made: Although the record dis-
closes no further anti-union speeches by the respondent and we have
found that it did recognize and bargain with the Union, it does not
alter our necessary conclusion- that the afore-mentioned speeches were
a direct interference with the right of .the respondent's employees to
self-organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. Accord-
ingly, we find that the respondent by the above-described acts has
interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The'alleged discriminatory discharges and refusals to reinstate
Following the election of June 24,1937,'a number of the respondent's
employees returned to work. With the addition of'some new employ-
ees, the respondent then resumed operations. On July 14, 1937, both
the 'sawmill and seat-division employees who had remained on strike
voluntarily returned to work upon assurance by the respondent that
they would be reinstated to their former positions wherever possible.
At that time, because-of the decrease in the respondent's business, to-
gether with the addition of new employees, it was impossible to rein-
state all the employees to their former positions. However,' the
respondent did assure the Union that those given other` temporary
work would be returned to their old positions as soon as operations per-
mitted, and that whether or nct an employee was reinstated to his
former position, he would nevertheless receive a wage equivalent to
that paid prior to the cessation of operations:
Stanley Jaquay had worked on a planer in the respondent's seat. de-
partment until May 13, 1937, when he was temporarily.1aid off as a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 101
result of the walk-out, of the buffing and sanding -room employees. On
. May 17 , he joined the Union, but was not an active member thereof.
Although Jaquay was notified by the respondent to return to work- on
July 14, 1937 , h@ did not report until a week later, after the majority
of strikers had returned . He was then informed by the respondent
that , due to his tardiness in reporting , it was impossible to give him
his former position . He was offered another position , which' lie re-
fused. '
There is nothing in the record to warrant a finding that the respond-
ent refused to reemploy Jaquay because of his membership or activity
in the Union.' The respondent had reinstated other and more active
members of the Union, and,had offered Jaquay another . position, since
his former position had been filled . Accordingly, we find that the
-respondent did not discriminatorily refuse reinstatement to Jaquay.
Will Madison was employed by the respondent tailing edges in
the sawmill until May 19, 1937 , when he participated in the general
walk-out . He returned to work on July 14, but not to his former
position . He was given work clearing the railroad track at the same
wages he -received prior to May' 19, and he admitted that the job
"wasn't bad ." Although he was a Union member , he was not active,
and there is no evidence in the record that the respondent 's conduct
-with respect to him was motivated either by his membership or by
his activity in the Union.
The record establishes that there was a substantial decrease in the
respondent 's production around the middle of August 1937. At
that time , along with other employees, Madison was temporarily laid
off' and told that he would be notified ' as soon as production in-
creased. The respondent did notify ' him on September 1, 1937, to
return to 'work , but he was then working at Carthage and did not
return to the respondent 's employ. The evidence shows that the
respondent laid off Madison in accordance with the requirements of
its decreased operations and not because of his activity or affiliation
with the Union.
In view of the foregoing facts, and the record as a whole, we find
no discrimination by the respondent with respect either to its failure
to reinstate Madison to his former position-on July 14 , 1937, or to its
temporary termination of his employment on August 19.
Kenneth Maddocks had been an employee in the sounding-board
department of the respondent since 1935, and continued this employ-
ment until the plant closed for Decoration Day in May 1937. Mad-
docks did not return to work when the sounding -board department
resumed operations after the holiday . He admitted at the hearing
that he "went out on * a sympathy strike with the seat division and
'the sawmill -division." Maddocks had joined the Union , but was not
an active participant in its affairs . Sometime iii July 1937, he'asked
102 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent to be reinstated to his former position, but it had
been filled following his failure to return to work. At the hearing,
Maddocks ' testified'' that he' had another job 'and did not desire to
return to the respondent's employ.
The record affords no basis upon which to conclude that Maddocks
was discharged or refused reemployment because of his membership
or activity in the Union.
Claude Jaquay became a member of the Union several days before
he joined the other striking -employees on May 19, 1937. Prior to
becoming a sawyer in the sawmill, he had worked 10 years on a planer
for the repondent.
Jaquay -'returned to work on July 14, but his former position was
filled. He was temporarily assigned to piling wood, but the same
day Breckwoldt transferred him to the wood shop in the seat de-
partment, where he was given work on the planer. According to
Whallon; working on the planer was "one of the best jobs in the
shop from the standpoint of steady work." This statement was not
denied by Jaquay.
Contrary to the instructions of his foreman, Jaquay reset the
planer without first consulting Jackson, a fellow employee who was
charged with the-duty of.resetting the machines in the wood shop,
and as a consequence some 300 seats were ruined by planing the mate-
rial too thin. Jaquay admitted it was a "mistake", and although
he denied being instructed not to set the machine himself, he did
admit that Jackson was the employee whose duty it was to set up
the machines. The respondent. did not discharge Jaquay for this
infraction of the rules, but he was removed from the planer and given
several different jobs around the plant.
On August 20, 1937, due to a decrease in business , Currie, the gen-
eral foreman, told Jaquay that there would be a temporary lay-off.
Jaquay admitted that when he asked William Breckwoldt if he was
fired, Breckwoldt replied, "No, you're not fired, the work is just a
little slack." Breckwoldt testified that Jaquay told him he had
another job in Carthage and was "through." Jaquay did not deny
Breckwoldt's testimony, and admitted that Breckwoldt "told me he
would give me a recommendation to go any place to saw that I wanted
to." In September, Jaquay was notified to return to work, but did
not do so because he had a position elsewhere.
The evidence does not substantiate the allegations in the complaint
that Jaquay was refused reinstatement to his former position and
later discharged because of his labor activities and affiliation with
the Union. Jaquay was no more active than the other men who
returned to work for the respondent; he was given, another job which
was equivalent to his former position, and one-on which he had 10
years ' experience with the respondent ; a favorable recommendation
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 103
was offered to him when he stated his intention to leave the respond-
ent's employ; and he was notified to return to work after his tem-
porary lay-off. Accordingly, we find no unfair labor practice with
respect to Jaquay's employment as alleged in the complaint.
La Verne Jaquay was employed as a grader in the respondent's saw-
mill prior to May 19, 1937, when he participated in the general walk-
out of the sawmill crew. Upon his return to work on July 14, 1937,
along with the other Union employees, Jaquay was told that his
former position was filled. He was offered another job but he would
not accept it. Pursuant to the respondent's offer to call him when
another position was open, Jaquay returned to work on August 1,
1937. Due to the curtailment of production, he was temporarily laid
off on August 19 2 and told that he would be notified as soon as it
was possible to give him more work. When he asked for his check,
Julius Breckwoldt told him there would be more work during the
following week, but Jaquay admittedly replied that he "could not
hang around like that.'-' Breckwoldt testified that Jaquay informed
him that he had already arranged for a position at Carthage-when
he asked for his' check. Jaquay denied telling him that he actually
had another job, but he did admit that he went to get his money "to
go to Carthage" and that Breckwoldt had told him he was sorry to
have him go. Since obtaining work in Carthage, Jaquay has never
returned to the respondent's plant or applied for reemployment.
The complaint does not allege, nor do we find, that Jaquay was
not offered reinstatement to his former position on July 14, 1937,
because of his activity in the Union., The record is clear, and we so
find, that the termination of his employment on August 19, follow-
ing his return to work on August 1, was due to the business condi-
tions existing in the respondent's plant at that time, and not pursuant
to any unfair labor practices of the respondent.
Lin f ord Homrighaus was employed as a buffer in the respondent's
seat division on May 13, 1937, and went on strike on that date in
protest against the respondent's refusal to grant Baylor and Greif
an increase in wages. He joined the Union the following day, was
a member of the bargaining committee, and took an active part in
organization affairs. He returned to the respondent's employ on July
14, when he was reinstated to his former position.
On July 16, Whallon noticed that a load of seat covers, which
had been polished by Homrighaus, was dull and poorly finished, and
told the foreman to tell Homrighaus to refinish the load. Overhear-
ing Whallon's instructions, Homrighaus told him he would refinish
one seat cover and if that improved its condition he would refinish all
of them. Whallon stated, "You will either do it over or you know
2 The Trial Examiner granted a motion of counsel for the Board to correct the date upon
which Jaquay 's employment was terminated from August 23, 1937, to August 19, 1937.
104 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what you can do," to which Homrighaus replied, "By God, I won't
do them over; I quit." As he walked away, Whallon said, "Homrig-,
haws, the choice.is yours." Pfannebecker, an inspector, corroborated
the conversation, which he overheard, and testified that the covers
were "dull" and "streaky." Bidgood, a packer in the seat division,
testified that he saw 'the coders after Homrighaus had polished them,
and that they were not satisfactory until after they had been refin-
ished. We find that Homrighaus had negligently performed the
work, as the foregoing testimony indicates.. Following this conver-
sation between Homrighaus and himself, Whallon went into his
office. A few minutes later, he sent, for Currie, the foreman, and
asked him to call Homrighaus to the office for the purpose of admon-
ishing him. Currie reported that' he could not find Homrighaus;
that he had quit.
It is clear,-from the facts set forth above, that the respondent did
not discharge Homrighaus, but that he voluntarily quit his employ-
ment when he refused to refinish the poorly polished seat covers in
accordance with the foreman's instructions.' The evidence estab-
lishes that such instructions weie not arbitrary and that the covers
were, in fact, unsatisfactorily polished by Homrighaus. Accord-,
ingly, we cannot sustain the allegations of the complaint that the
respondent terminated Homrighaus' employment because of his mem-
bership and activity in the Union.
- John Spofford was employed by the respondent as a sanding-ma-
chine operator for over 3 years prior to the walk-out of the sanding-
room employees on May 13, 1937. Commencing that day, he was
active in organizing the Union, and was elected its president and a
member of the bargaining committee. He was reinstated to his
former position on July 14, when the seat division resumed opera-
tions. -
'After Spofford returned to work, the respondent received numer-
ous complaints concerning the defectiveness of his work and his
leaving the shop to talk to other employees while they were working.
Efficiency records introduced by the respondent show that for a period
of several weeks Spofford's conduct and efficiency ratings were below
average. On one occasion, Spofford left at 3 o'clock in the afternoon
without the permission 'of his foreman." Spofford' admitted that he
left early, but that he could not find the foreman to obtain permis-
sion to leave. Joe Nardo, an inspector, threatened to quit because
Spofford annoyed him with insulting remarks. Spofford admitted
having annoyed Nardo, but testified that he had apologized to Whal-
lon for his conduct. Several times, Whallon and Currie admonished
Spofford for his inefficiency and misconduct. Spofford admitted that
he had been warned twice concerning complaints about his work and
activities around the plant.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS - 105
'On August 24, Currie left a note on Whallon's desk stating, "This
afternoon Spofford -again had two employees on back porch outside
the shop. Necessary for me to personally call these men back' into
shop as production was held up. There is no use trying to talk any
more to Spofford, and I will send him to your office tonight." Whal-
lon told Spofford 'when he reported that night, "I don't know what
can be done about you, but I am afraid we have reached the end of
our' relations." Following a rather heated discussion,. Spofford
walked out of Whallon's office and never returned to the plant there-
after.
Although the foregoing facts do not clearly indicate whether Spof-
ford quit or was discharged by the respondent, we find that if he
was discharged it was for good and sufficient cause, and not because
of his membership or activity in the Union. Accordingly, we sus;
tain the finding of the Trial Examiner that Spofford's employment
was not terminated pursuant to any unfair labor practice on the
part of the respondent.
We find that the respondent has not discouraged membership in a
labor organization by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of the afore-mentioned employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section.
III, C, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and_
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Claude Jaquay, Will Madison, Stanley
Jaquay, Kenneth Maddocks, Linford Homrighaus, John Spofford,
106 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and La Verne Jaquay, and has not thereby discouraged membership
in a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of its employees alleged to have been locked
°out, and has not thereby discouraged membership in a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) ^ 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 Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Julius Breckwoldt & Son, Inc., a corporation, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interferring with, restrain-
Ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-or-
ganization, 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 bargain-
ing and other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
wi11 effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in the plant,
aiid maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty (30) con-
secutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
the manner aforesaid ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (5) of
the Act.
Mn. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.