National Motor Bearing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 409 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of NATIONAL MOTOR BEARING COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 76
Case No. C-3201-Decided February 18, 1938
Machine Parts Industry-Interforence, Restraint, or Cocrcton• persuading
employees to refrain from forming or joining union ; surveillance of union meet-
ings-Discrsmination: lock-out of all employees and shat-down of plant for the
purpose of discouraging union activity; refusal to reinstate except on condition
of membership in company-favored union-Unit Appiopnatc for Collecrwe
Bargaining: production and maintenance and shipping employees-Reps esenta-
tives: proof of choice: membership applications in union-Collective Baa•gaaning:
refusal to negotiate with representatives of majority of employees; recognition,
as exclusive bargaining agent, of organization known not to be free choice of
majority-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. A. Norman Somers, and Mr. David Sokol, for the Board.
Mr. J. Paul St. Sure, Mr. E. H. Moore, and Mr. J. Marcus Hardin,
of Oakland, Calif., for the respondent.
Mr. Richard Gladstein, of San Francisco, Calif., for the U. A. W.
Mr. James F. Galliano, of Oakland, Calif., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Joseph B. Robison, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 4, 1937, International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, Local No. 76,1 herein called the U. A. W., filed a charge
With the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region (San Francisco,
California) alleging that National Motor Bearing Company, Oakland,
California, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. An amended charge was filed by the U. A. W. on April 14,
1937, and a supplement thereto was filed on May 22, 1937. On May
3, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, duly issued and
' The original charge did not name Local No. 76. The name of the Local appeared.
how ever , in the amended charge.
409
410 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
served a complaint and notice of hearing upon the respondent, the
U. A. W. and Auto Mechanics Union, No. 1546, herein called the
Auto Mechanics, a local union affiliated with the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M. The complaint
alleged 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 Act. On May
13, 1937, after procuring an order extending the time for filing an
answer to the complaint, the respondent filed its answer denying each
of the allegations of the complaint or knowledge thereof, and, as an
affirmative defense, alleging that it had entered into a valid closed-
shop contract with the I. A. M.
Pursuant to the notice of hearing, and a further notice postponing
the date thereof, a hearing was held in Oakland, California, from May
24 to July 2, 1937, before Clifford D. O'Brien, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the I. A. M., and Pro-
duction Workers Local 1518, herein called the Production Workers, a
labor organization chartered by the I. A. M., petitioned to intervene
in this proceeding. On May 27, 1937, the Trial Examiner ruled that
the petition to intervene would be allowed in so far as the interest of
the petitioners appeared, and that the intervention would be treated
as that of a single party. At the hearing, the Board, the respondent,
the U. A. W., the I. A. M., and the Production Workers, were repre-
sented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved
to amend the complaint in various particulars, some of which will be
hereinafter teferred to. The motion was granted with leave to the
respondent to file an amended answer. The respondent's amended
answer was filed on May 25, 1937. At the commencement of the hear-
ing and again at the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respond-
ent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motions were denied. The
respondent also moved-to disqualify the Trial Examiner, which motion
was also denied. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the
Board moved to amend the complaint to conform to the proof. Coun-
sel for the respondent objected on the ground that the evidence failed
to support the amendments to the complaint. The motion was granted.
A motion by counsel for the Board to dismiss the complaint with
regard to the alleged discriminatory discharge of Benjamin S. Hoover
was also granted. The respondent's answer to the complaint as
amended was duly filed on June 29, 1937. Counsel for the respondent
also moved that certain evidence adduced by counsel for the Board be
01
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 411
stricken from the record. The motion was denied. At the close of
the hearing the parties were granted an opportunity for oral argu-
ment, but no such argument was made.
Thereafter a brief was submitted by counsel for the respondent.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before the Board on August 2,
1937, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The
respondent and the intervenors were represented by counsel, and the
American Federation of Labor appeared as amicus curiae, by Charlton
Ogburn, its general counsel.
Thereafter, on August 17, 1937, the Trial Examiner duly filed his
Intermediate Report, in which he found that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from its unfair labor practices, that it bargain with the
U. A. W. as the representative of employees of the respondent, and
that it reinstate certain employees with back pay. He also recom-
mended that that part of the complaint which alleged that the respond-
ent procured the arrest of two of the U. A. W. organizers be dismissed.
Pursuant to an order extending the time within which to file excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, the respondent, the I. A. M., and the
Production Workers each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
On September 24, 1937, pursuant to notice, a further hearing was held
before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The respondent, the U. A. W., and the intervenors were repre-
sented by counsel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
motions and on objections to the introduction of evidence and finds
that, with one exception, no prejudicial errors were committed. With
that exception the rulings are hereby affirmed. Several of these rul-
ings will be hereinafter referred to. The denial of the respondent's
motion to strike the testimony of Captain Thorwald Brown as to the
arrest of Frank Slaby and Miles G. Humphreys is reversed and the
motion is granted. The Board has considered the exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
National Motor Bearing Company was incorporated in California
in 1922. It is engaged, at Oakland, California, in the manufacture
and distribution of shims and oil seals or retainers. It produces on an
average of 1,500,000 retainers and 15,000,000 shims per year. Its total
sales from the beginning of 1936 to the end of February 1937, amounted
412 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to $643,569.26 in value, which sum was divided about equally between
shims and retainers.
The respondent's products are used in such machines as automo-
biles, farm machinery, washing machines, and lathes. Retainers are
made of steel and either felt or leather or both. Shims are made of
brass, steel, aluminum, and babbitt. Both are produced in a wide
variety of sizes and shapes, corresponding to the many uses to which
they may be put. The respondent's retainers are sold for the most
part for use as repair parts; whereas its shims are sold largely to
manufacturers of machinery.
The respondent utilizes 11 warehouses located in 10 different States,
including New York and Illinois. It has sales offices in Detroit,
Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois. The salesmen attached to these
offices travel throughout the country. The respondent's advertising
is on a nation-wide basis, and it utilizes a trade-mark which is regis-
tered for use in interstate commerce. Its plant has a railroad siding
which connects with the Western Pacific Railroad. Its competitors
are all located outside of California.
The steel used by the respondent is shipped to it for the most part
from stock kept in California, but some is also shipped direct from
Weirton, West Virginia. Leather, felt, and babbitt are purchased in
California. Aluminum is also purchased from firms located in Cali-
fornia, but it originates in the eastern part of the country. All of the
brass used by the respondent is purchased in Connecticut.
The respondent sells retainers in every State of the Union, and
shims in more than half of them. It has between 600 and 800 cus-
tomers, 80 per cent of whom are situated outside of California. Be-
tween 75 and 80 per cent of both the. shims and the retainers produced
are shipped to customers or to warehouses located outside that State.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Or-
ganization. Local No. 76 received its charter from the international
organization on October 1, 1935. It admits to membership employees
in the East San Francisco Bay area, including employees of the
respondent.
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
A. F. of L. It granted a charter to Production Workers Local 1518
on April 12, 1937, the charter to bear the date, March 9, 1937. This
local admits to membership mass-production workers, including
employees of the respondent.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of the anfair labor practices
413
1. Events prior to February 1937
The employees in the respondent's tool and die department have
always been members of certain I. A. M. locals which are not in-
volved in this proceeding. There has never been any kind of agree-
ment between the I. A. M. and the respondent, but the latter has
paid the prevailing union rates and has made it a practice to hire its
tool and die men through the I. A. M. In fact, since the skilled tool
and die men in the vicinity have quite generally been members of
the I. A. M., no other course has been open to the respondent.
Some time in August 1936 about 17 of the respondent's production
employees attended a meeting of International Association of Ma-
chinists Local 284, herein called Local 284, at the I. A. M. office in
Oakland. The meeting was called at the instigation of these em-
ployees, and all of them at this time signed applications to the I. A. M.
About a week after this event, L. A. Johnson, vice president and
general manager of the respondent,2 called a meeting in his office of
all of the employees. Johnson testified that the purpose of the meet-
ing was to explain to the employees the change which was about to
be made in the system of paying wages; and he also stated that
the meeting was prompted by the fact that he had heard of the
movement toward unionization among the production employees.
According to his own description of what he told the employees,
he made it clear at the outset that the purpose of the meeting was
to let the employees know the respondent's attitude toward unions,
that he felt that the men must be dissatisfied, since they would only
join a union for the purpose of obtaining some benefit. He stated
that the respondent was not opposed to unions, but that it would be
wise to be sure that they joined "a good one." He said further that
it was not necessary to join a union, because his "office door was open
at all times" to hear grievances. When he asked whether anyone
had any complaints, "one of the wits in the audience made some smart
crack about money," whereupon Johnson explained, the premium
system of wage payments which the respondent was about to install
in the factory.
There is reliable testimony in the record that Johnson's remarks
were in fact far more colored by a desire to halt the threatened or-
ganization of his employees than his own testimony indicates. At
any rate, it is clear that the employees were at this time greatly
s A. S. Johnson, president of the respondent, no longer participates actively in the
management of the corporation L. A. Johnson is at present in control of its policy and
activity. His brother, D. O. Johnson, is the secretary-treasurer and plant manager.
414 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dissatisfied with their wages and that Johnson advised them that
it would not be necessary for them to join a union because he was
going to give them higher wages anyway.
In the meantime, however, Local 284 had been instructed by the
1. A. M. that it could not admit to membership the production work-
ers who had signed applications , since they were not skilled machin-
ists; and that it was therefore to return the application fees. Partly
because of this action of the I. A. M., and partly because of Johnson's
promise of higher wages, Local 284 abandoned its attempt to or-
ganize the respondent 's production wvorkers.3
The premium system which L. A. Johnson had mentioned to the
employees was in fact installed gradually during the months suc-
ceeding August 1936, but it had not yet covered the entire plant by
February 1937. Despite the fact that the employees did receive on
the average more wages under the premium system than they had
before its installation , they were not satisfied with it. They could
never discover how it operated; so there was no way for them to find
out when premiums were due them. In addition they felt that the
plan had all of the drawbacks of a piece -work system in that it
caused increased tension and disregard of safety, as well as a spirit of
enmity, rather than one of cooperation, between the men. In gen-
eral, the employees came to feel that although they might have re-
ceived an increase in wages, this was not the sort of increase they
desired and believed they were entitled to.
2. The organization of the U. A. W. and the respondent's reaction
thereto
A few days before February 21, 1937, at the request of a group
of the respondent's employees, the U. A. W. distributed leaflets in
front of the respondent's plant announcing a meeting which was to
take place on that date. The meeting was held at the U. A. W. head-
quarters in the morning , and was attended by about 15 of the re-
spondent 's production employees. Those present signed applications
and received buttons which were subsequently worn at the plant.
In addition each applicant made a part payment toward his initia-
tion fee. Meetings were held thereafter on February 23 and 25,
in the evening . Each was attended by a greater number of em-
ployees, and again, almost all of those present, who had not done so
before, signed applications, received buttons, and made a small pay-
ment. These were organizational meetings, not restricted to union
members , and no minutes or formal actions were taken. At the
third, discussion was begun on the terms of a contract which was
to be offered to the respondent . No final decisions were made,
3 Local 284 has, since July 1937, been suspended from the I. A. M.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 415
however, and there was no discussion, at this early stage, of the
steps which were to be taken to procure the respondent's agreement
to the contiact. A meeting was set for the following Sunday, Feb-
ruary 28, but before that took place, the respondent had shut down
its plant.
The activities of the U. A. W. and its applicants during this period
were not limited to the holding of meetings. Leaflets were dis-
tributed ; the union was discussed ; and applications were secured
both at the plant and at the homes of the employees. In addition,
buttons were worn conspicuously by the employees while at work.
Clearly, the respondent was not unaware of what was going on
among its employees. A substantial and increasing number of
U. A. W. buttons were worn in the plant. D. O. Johnson, the plant
manager, made it a practice, during the week following the first
meeting, to walk through the plant and comment on the number of
buttons being worn. In fact, the respondent was informed of the
U. A. W.'s organizational drive as early as its employees. Leafleis
inviting employees to the first organization meeting on February 21
came into the possession of the respondent and drew an immediate
response. On February 21, employees at the U. A. W. headquarters,
while waiting for the meeting to begin, saw D. O. Johnson drive past
in his car, then return, park his car in front of the union hall, and
sit in it with pencil and paper in his hand. They informed Frank
Slaby, president of Local No. 76, who went downstairs and spoke
to Johnson, requesting him to give up the paper upon which it was
assumed he had been taking down names, and which he had con-
cealed upon Slaby's approach. Johnson did not deny that he had
been noting the names of his employees, and refused to turn over the
paper, saying that he had a right to do anything he saw fit. At
the request of Slaby, and upon the latter's assurance that the invita-
tion contained in the U. A. W. leaflets was not meant to apply to
him, Johnson left. L. A. Johnson testified that upon hearing of his
brother's intended visit, he requested him not to go, since such an
action might be "misconstrued"; and that when he heard later that
D. O. Johnson had nevertheless one to the meeting he "criticized"'
him for doing so.
There can be little doubt that the plant manager's conduct, par-
ticularly since the employees were unaware of any action with regard
thereto taken by the vice president, could not fail to indicate an
attitude of disapproval on the part of the respondent. L. A. John-
son contended that since the act of his brother was contrary to the
orders of his superior, it cannot be taken as the act of the respond-
ent. But even if L. A. Johnson did inform his brother of the possi-
ble misconstruction of his conduct, he nevertheless did nothing to
overcome the effect which he must • have realized that such conduct
416 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had on the employees. The fact- remains that the employees knew
that their meeting had been observed by the plant manager, and yet
were never informed that this was only, as the respondent now claims,
a regrettable error.
During the course of the following week, the attitude of the re-
spondent toward the U. A. W. was further manifested to the em-
ployees. Numerous witnesses testified that they were advised against
joining the U. A. W. by foremen, as well as by E. 0. Mosher, the
chief engineer. They were told that the U. A. W. was communistic,
that it would do, them no good to join it, and they were given to
understand that it would never be recognized by L. A. Johnson. At
least one employee was reminded by one of the straw-bosses that the
earlier attempt to organize in 1936 had been broken up. L. A.
Johnson testified that he never spoke against the U. A. W. and that
whenever he was asked for advice,, he outlined a "four point pro-
gram," indicating that an employee had four alternatives: "join the
United Automobile Workers ; join this A. F. of L. union; don't
join any union; or quit your job." As a matter of fact, as noted
below, there was no union other than the U. A. W. attempting to
secure applications from the production workers until, at the earliest,
the day preceding the shut-down. This fact casts doubt on L. A.
Johnson's description of his own announced position, and likewise
destroys the respondent's explanation of the conduct of its lower
supervisory officials that they were merely campaigning for their own
organization.
3. Introduction of the I. A. M. to the plant
According to L. A. Johnson's testimony, the respondent's first con-
tact with the I. A. M. came through Fred Metcalfe, secretary of the
California Metal Trades Association, with whom Johnson had dis-
cussed generally the unionization of his plant. Metcalfe arranged
a meeting between Johnson and two representatives of the I. A. M.,
Paul C. Huybrecht, Grand Lodge Representative, and Nash, whose
status in the I. A. M. does not appear in the record. This meeting
took place at Metcalfe's office in San Francisco, on February 23,
1937, after a postponement from the 19th. Johnson testified that he
told Nash and Huybrecht that he would not oppose unionization of
his plant, but that they would not receive any cooperation from him.
During the succeeding days, Johnson had several telephone conver-
sations with Huybrecht and E. H. Vernon, business representativf
of the Auto Mechanics, a local of the I. A. M., which during the
week following the shut-down secured applications from some of the
respondent's employees.
Although representatives of the I. A. M. were thus in contact with
the management of the respondent throughout the week preceding
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 417
the shut-down, it was not until the Friday of that week, February
26, 1937, that any of them attempted to approach the employees. On
that day, however, Huybrecht and Vernon came to the plant at the
beginning of the 45-minute lunch period, and walked through the
gates and up the ramp leading to the loading platform, which is
about 200 feet inside the gates, and visible from the plant office.
Word of their prospective visit was passed around the plant that
morning, in part at least by the foremen. Thirty to thirty-five of the
employees gathered on the platform to hear what the two men had
to say. Vernon and Huybrecht spoke for the I. A. M., but did not
try to sign any of the men up. In fact they did not purport to rep-
resent any particular local of the parent body. The employees indi-.
cated generally that they were satisfied with the U. A. W., and it
became quite clear that the I. A. M. had made little or no impression
on them.
The meeting lasted throughout the lunch period. Some time after
the first or warning whistle blew for the end of the period, and at
a time when most of the employees had already returned to their
posts, D. O. Johnson came out on the ramp and ordered Vernon and
Huybrecht to leave. He told them they had no right to enter upon
the respondent's property, and that such conduct was a violation of
company rules. The two men then left.
The respondent takes the position that it is in no way responsible
for the opportunity that was afforded the I. A. M. representatives
to speak to its employees on its own property, since this was a vio-
lation of its rules, and as soon as its management heard of what was
going on, it terminated the meeting. The meeting lasted 45 minutes,
however, and was not interfered with by Johnson until after it had
already broken up because of the end of the lunch period. It was
known generally in the plant, by the foremen and others, that the
meeting was going to take place, and the meeting itself was attended
by foremen, by Mosher, the respondent's chief engineer who hires
the production employees, and by D. V. Daggett, the general super-
visor of the second floor. If the conduct of Huybrecht and Vernon
was a violation of company rules, and if the respondent actually in-
tended to enforce those rules, Mosher and Daggett would have or-
dered the two men off themselves, or at least would have informed
one of the Johnsons of their presence. Under the circumstances, this
meeting can only be considered as having been part of the respond-
ent's attempt to check the drive of the U. A. W.
B. The lock-out of February 27, 1937
The decision to shut down the plant was made on the afternoon
of Friday, February 26, 1937. The respondent explains this decision
418 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in various ways, but claims that it was prompted by two chief fac-
tors; first, the fact that production was dropping alarmingly during
the last half of the preceding week due to dissension among its em-
ployees caused by the presence of two unions in the plant, and, sec-
ond, the fact that L. A. Johnson had been informed that a sit-down
strike was imminent.
It is clear that organization was discussed extensively by the em-
ployees at the plant; and it is likely that some of this discussion took
place during working hours. Most of it was carried on in the dress-
ing rooms. The evidence refutes entirely the claim that there were
representatives of two unions presenting rival arguments at this time.
Aside from the tool and die men, none of whom ever attempted fo
induce any of the production workers to join their union, no em-
ployees applied for membership in the I. A. M. prior to March 1,
and none were asked to do so. The first contact with the I. A. M.
did not occur until noon on February 26, and even then no attempt
was made to sign employees up.
Witnesses called by the respondent and the intervenors, testified
generally that there was an atmosphere of tension in the plant, and
that employees were seen congregating in groups and arguing. More
specifically, it was stated that girls were seen coming out of the dress-
ing rooms, agitated and in tears; and that the reason for this was
that "heat" was being put on them by representatives of the U. A. W.
None of the girls upon whom this undue pressure was alleged to have
been exercised were called on to testify, although they were working
at the plant at the time of the hearing. The witnesses who did tes-
tify could only state that U. A. W. applicants had told them they
would lose their jobs if they did not join.
In order to prove that production dropped during the three days
preceding the shut-down, L. A. Johnson testified that in two de-
partments, the retainer packing and retainer assembling, the index
for the average amount of work done per hour dropped from 62 to
52, and from 61 to 45 respectively from February 24 to 26, 60 being
considered normal for the purposes of the premium system. Johnson
testified that these two departments were the hardest hit. These
figures are not convincing. They represent only two of several de-
partments in the plant, and admittedly the worst two. Other figures
given by Johnson indicate that five-day averages are usually in the
vicinity of 55 to 57, which indicates that the figures for the 24th
were above normal. Moreover, a chart submitted by the respondent,
to show the effect of the premium system on the wages received by
its employees, shows an increase in hourly earnings in all four of the
departments covered by the chart for the two-week period ending
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 419
February 28, over those for the preceding two-week period.4 Finally
H. K. Pohlman, who measures the work done on individual opera-
tions for the purpose of determining the normal rate of productivity
for those operations, made such measurements during the period in
question, and has never been instructed to disregard the resulting
figures as unreliable.
We come then to the other supposed reason for the decision to shut
down the plant. L. A. Johnson testified that prior to the shut-down
a former employee, Benjamin S. Hoover, came to see him, requesting
that he be permitted to return to work. Johnson was not clear as
to the date of this visit, putting it, at one point in his testimony, on
February 23 or 24, and at another, on the 21st or 22nd. According to
his story, Hoover, after being told that he would have to see D. 0.
Johnson, said that there was dissatisfaction among the employees;
that it was quite likely that there would be a strike because of low
wages; and that the strike would be of the sit-down variety. Hoover 5
denied this story. He placed the date of the conversation at Febru-
ary 119, and stated that while he did mention the fact that the em-
ployees were dissatisfied he did not mention the possibility of any
kind of a strike. Johnson stated that he believed Hoover's unsup-
ported statement that a strike was imminent because he knew that
sit-down strikes were prevalent at this time and because he had
noticed the unrest in the plant. Moreover he was later told by his
attorney that the U. A. W. was led by radicals. The conversation
with Hoover could not have taken place later than the beginning of
the week preceding the shut-down, at which time organization by
the U. A. W. had just begun. There is uncontradicted evidence that
the question of a strike was never mentioned at any of the U. A. W.
meetings during that week and witnesses called by the respondent
and the intervenors testified that no one had had any intimation of
an impending strike before Johnson told them of it on February 26.
Johnson's story is therefore difficult to believe.
By the early afternoon of February 26, 1937, L. A. Johnson had
decided to shut down the plant. He had consulted his attorney, who
agreed with him that that action should be taken. The decision
may not have been adopted by the executives until later that after-
4 Respondent's Exhibit No 8 shows "the percentage increase in hourly earnings for departments on
measured work" as follows
Period Ending
Retainer
Punch Retainer Retainer
Leather
and
Press Assembly Packing Spring
2-15-37-------------------------------------------------------- 21 0 9 0 10 0 15 72-28-37----------------------------------------------------- 23 0 11 5 10 7 19 3
5 Hoover 's testimony is to some extent impeached by reason of his admission while on the stand that he
has been epnvicted of a felony
420 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
noon, at a meeting called by Johnson, but Johnson himself had de-
termined his course of action and had proceeded to make prepara-
tions. He had hired four to six guards from a private detective
agency, Watkins Detective Service, and had communicated with the
Chief of Police of Oakland. The latter had promised to provide
protection.
The executives of the plant met at five o'clock. The testimony of
the witnesses called by the respondent and the intervenors is to the
effect that those present were greatly surprised at Johnson's decision
and at his statement that a sit-down strike was threatened, but that
they agreed that production had been falling off, and that the atmos-
phere of the plant had become highly charged. By six o'clock, the
shut-down had been agreed upon. I
All of the employees, during the afternoon on Friday, were in-
structed, however, to appear the following day, prepared to work
eight hours. It is the practice at the respondent's plant to inform
the employees on Friday whether they are to work on Saturday, and
if they are are, whether for four or eight hours. No warning what-
ever was given of the impending shut-down, despite the fact that
Johnson, who was responsible for decisions of this nature, had made
his decision early in the afternoon. Not even the employees who
worked late that night, two of whom were still in the plant when
the first policemen arrived at about ten in the evening, were notified
that there was no need for them to appear the next day.(' However,
the watchman-janitor who arrived before midnight for his night
shift was met at the gate by the policemen and refused admission to
the plant.
It is somewhat difficult to piece together a consistent story from the
highly contradictory testimony of Captain Brown of the Oakland
Police force. It appears, however, that at about seven o'clock in the
evening of Friday, the 26th, he received, while at home, a telephone
call from headquarters that the respondent's plant would be closed
the following day, and that there might be trouble. Either at that
time, or at the time he appeared at the plant the following morning,
he claims he was told that the reason for the shut-down was the
making of certain minor repairs, a story which is unsupported by
any other evidence in the record, and is wholly incredible; but which
Brown adhered to firmly throughout his testimony. He arranged
for a police guard, which appeared at the plant late that night.
On Saturday, February 27, the employees started to arrive at
6: 30 a. m. They were met at the gate by the plant manager, D. O.
Johnson, supported by private guards and the policemen. Johnson
had a list of employees who were to be admitted, and all others were
0 The employees were later paid for four hours on February 27.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 421
excluded. They were told simply that there was to be no work for
them that day and most were told that they would be notified when
to return to work. No further explanation was given. The execu-
tives, foremen, and clerical workers were admitted to the plant as
well as one or two other employees who were on Johnson's list.
When Captain Brown arrived at the plant, he found the employees
in an angry mood. He was booed, and there were shouts of "We
want to go to work." There was what he considered a semi-riotous
disturbance; so he sent for more policemen. The crowd was forced,
by the policemen, to stay a block away from the plant, except for
certain of the employees who were known not to have been favor-
able to the U. A. W. Brown announced that if the rest did not
stand back the police would use clubs on men and women alike.
It is clear that throughout the day, Brown and those under him
were acting entirely under the orders of the Johnsons. Brown at
no time attempted to exercise any independent judgment as to the
best means to maintain peace and order. He did not attempt to
induce the Johnsons to mitigate the effect on the employees of their
sudden action. Instead, he and his men violently repulsed the
employees at the plant gate and admitted only those whom D. 0.
Johnson instructed them to admit. Those instructions were already
in effect before midnight when Robert Schmidt, the janitor-watchman
reported for duty.?
Brown's subjection to the respondent's orders is further evidenced
by his conduct with regard to the attempt oil the part of the U. A. W.
to see L. A. Johnson. Frank Slaby, president of U. A. W. Local No.
76, arrived at the plant at about 8': 30 in the morning, after receiving
a message from some of the employees informing him of the shut-
down. He immediately selected a committee of employees and sought
to gain entrance to the plant to see L. A. Johnson. The police
sergeant at the gate refused to admit the committee but agreed to
escort Slaby inside to find,out whether Johnson would see him. The
evidence is conflicting 'a's 'to whether Johnson was then informed of
Slaby's presence. At any rate, while Slaby and the sergeant were
waiting, Captain Brown entered and immediately ordered that Slaby
be taken out of the plant. Brown testified that he took this action
pursuant to Johnson's order that no one be admitted to the plant.
Thereafter, if not before, Johnson was informed of Slaby's visit, by
his secretary and by Captain Brown. Although it may be that John-
son did not learn of Slaby's presence until after the latter had been
removed, it is significant that he never made any attempt to have
Slaby recalled. If Brown's conduct was not, in fact, one of the
intended results of Johnson's order to keep everyone but a designated
' Schmidt, after being asked whether that was his name by the waiting policeman,
was told that the plant was closed and he would he told when to ieturn to work.
422 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
group out of the plant, the error could easily have been remedied.
No attempt in that direction was made. That Johnson knew that
Slaby had tried to see him appears from his own testimony that
Brown mentioned Slaby's name to him. It is incredible that Brown
would make no connection between Slaby's presence and the dis-
turbance outside of the plant gates, or that the sergeant would not
inform him of the purpose of the visit. The same considerations
must apply to Johnson's pretended ignorance of the purpose of
Slaby's visit, particularly in view of his testimony that he did not
try to see Slaby because the latter had already left the plant.
Slaby, upon being removed from the plant, informed the em-
ployees of his failure to see Johnson and suggested that they come to a
meeting of the U. A. W. that afternoon. The crowd thereupon
began to disperse. Meanwhile an event was taking place within the
plant which removes all doubt as to the purpose of the shut-down.
The foremen, with one exception, were among those admitted to the
plant at the time of the shut-down. The exception was Hollis
Nichols, foreman of the retainer assembly line, who was one of the
first group to sign applications to the U. A. W. When he,got to the
plant gate he was met by D. 0. Johnson, who told him that there was
no work for him that day. L. A. Johnson could only explain the
failure to include Nichols among those admitted to the plant on the
theory that "he was overlooked in the excitement." He insisted he
had no intention of excluding Nichols. It is clear, however, that of
all those who were admitted to the plant none preferred the U. A. W.
'to the I. A. M. While L. A. Johnson testified that lie knew at the
time that Victor Bettinardi, who was among those admitted, intended
to join the U. A. W. as he in fact did, two days later, Bettinardi
nunself, who is now working at the respondent's plant, testified that
he was not approached as to joining the U. A.,W. until the following
Monday.
The foremen who had been admitted to the plant w=ere-called into
L. A. Johnson's office.s Johnson testified that he told the assembled
foremen the purpose of the shut-down, which was to prevent a sit-
down strike, and generally to clarify the entire situation: and that he
asked the foremen's cooperation in getting the plant reopened. He
told them to visit the employees as quickly as possible, and gave them
separate cards which had been prepared for each of the employees.
The foremen were to divide these cards up among themselves, and
to note on them the responses of the employees to the foremen's
visits.
$ It should be noted that all of the evidence as to this meeting, and also as to the meet-
ing of executives held on the previous afternoon , appears in testimony given by witnesses
who appealed and testified for the respondent or the intervenors
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 423
Johnson's testimony alternates between two theories as to just what
the foremen were to do on their visits to the employees. The theory
relied on in the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port is that the foremen were to find out from each employee which
union he favored, so that the respondent could know which union
to deal with. The reports of the foremen were to be tabulated at the
plant, and the respondent was to at accordingly. That such a
method of determining the union preference of a group of employees,
could not seriously be considered trustworthy is too obvious to re-
quire extensive demonstration. The persons who were to make the
reports were all known to be favorable to the I. A. M. They were
all persons in a position superior to the employees whose sympathies
they were to ascertain. This theory of the respondent is further
refuted by the implausibility of the evidence offered to show how
this alleged polling of the employees was relied on as proof that the
I. A. M. represented a majority of the employees. This aspect of
the case is discussed below.'
Johnson also testified that the foremen were "to contact all the
employees that they wanted to come back first," in order to find out
whether they would return to work. The foremen were to decide
which employees should be asked to commence operations, since the
plant would have to reopen gradually. What the testimony of sev-
eral of those who were present in fact indicates is that the foremen
were to visit those of the employees whom "they believed could be
talked to" and to induce them to return to work on the respondent's
terms.
Johnson stated that he told the foremen that they were not to favor
any union, and that his own position was the neutral one contained
in his four-point program. This testimony is contradicted by at
least one witness, who recalled that "Mr. Johnson stated that if any
union, he preferred the American Federation of Labor." In further
pursuance of his alleged policy of neutrality, Johnson gave to the
foremen, to use as they saw best, photostatic copies of the affidavit
of registration for the Communist Party primary election, of Miles
Humphreys, one of the U. A. W. organizers. The respondent makes
no attempt to deny this but maintains, instead, that "It is incon-
ceivable that any act of the management in presenting to its em-
ployees accurate, truthful inforination concerning a labor organiza-
tion could be held to be an unfair labor practice.10 However, the
Board cannot be blind to the fact that in a critical situation such
as existed at the time of the shut-down, at a time when the re-
spondent claims to have been maintaining a rigid neutrality, the act
° see Section III C 3
i° Respondent ' s Exceptions to Intermediate Report, p 43
80335-88-28
424 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the respondent in giving to its emissaries a weapon which could
be used as an argument against the union which those emissaries
were known to oppose, could only be construed by its employees
as a clear indication of which union the respondent favored. The
effect which the visits had upon the employees can best be seen in
the testimony of Ervin Felix, foreman of the shims press depart-
ment, regarding his report on Elmer Scheidt.
Q. And did you call on Elmer Scheidt?
A. Yes I called on him.
Q. What report did you make as to his union preference?
A. He was willing to do anythiiV I wanted him to do.
Q. He was willing to go along with you?
A. Willing to stick along with me. I was his boss.
The respondent shut down its plant on February 27, 1937, for the
purpose of discouraging its employees from joining the U. A. W.,
and for the further purpose of subsequently inducing them to join
the I. A. M. The facts described above leave room for no other
conclusion. The respondent's contention that the shut-down was re-
,quired in order to clarify a situation which was causing a decrease
in efficiency and production is not supported by the facts, and is
entirely incredible. No attempt was ever made to curb conversation
,or union activity in the plant. No notice was ever given to the
employees that efficiency had dropped and must be restored. The
respondent took no steps whatever until it took the extreme one of
shutting down its plant altogether. While the respondent's conten-
tion derives some support from the testimony of one witness that
he was warned that a sit-down strike was threatened, it cannot stand
in the light of the evidence of the use to which the shut-down was
immediately put. The activities of the foremen, which were arranged
and started on the morning of the shut-down, were a part of the
general plan of which the shut-down was the chief item. It is not
true that at the time of the shut-down there were two unions contend-
ing for the allegiance of the respondent's production workers. It is
not true that following the shut-down, the respondent made a bona
fide attempt to discover which union its employees favored. Instead
it is clear that the respondent was opposed to the organization of its
'employees by the U. A. W., and that the complete failure on Friday,
the 26th, of the I. A. M. representatives to make any headway among
the employees was the final straw in bringing about the respondent's
,decision to take extreme measures to force its employees into the
-union of its own choice. That the respondent knew that its action
-could not be taken by its employees as that of an impartial employer
attempting to end a conflict between two unions, but rather as that of
an enemy attempting to destroy the only union that did exist among
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 425
its employees, is shown by the fact that everyone connected with the
respondent, as well as the police, recognized clearly that the shut-
down would cause extreme resentment on the part of the employees
and might even result in violence. The shut-down was a lock-out, and
as such was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act.
We find that the respondent, by shutting down its plant on Febru-
ary 27, 1937, and locking out its employees, discriminated against its
employees with respect to hire and tenure of employment for the
purpose of discouraging membership in the U. A. W., and that by
such act the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
C. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint as amended alleges that the respondent's employees
in the receiving, production, and shipping departments, exclusive of
supervisory, clerical, and tool and die workers, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondent
and the I. A. M. claim that the tool and die men should be included
in the appropriate unit, and also question the exclusion of certain of
the employees claimed by the Board to be supervisory.
The respondent employs ten foremen, each of whom is in charge
of one of the operations of the plant, such as retainer assembly, shim
packing, and shipping. All but two of them are men. They are re-
ferred to as "foremen," "straw-bosses," and also, as to some of them,
"die-setters." They spend 80 to 95 per cent of their time in manual
work, and they have no power to hire or discharge. The respondent
contends that they are merely older employees who are given the title
of "foremen" out of courtesy. The evidence indicates, however, that
their work is quite different from that of the other employees. As
each job is started, the foreman sets up the machine, makes the various
adjustments necessary for its proper operation on the particular job
being done, runs off a few pieces to see that the machine is running
properly, and then turns it over to one of the men in his department.
Each foreman is responsible for the proper operation of his depart-
ment. His bonus under the premium system depends on the produc-
tivity of the men under him. He supervises all of the jobs, and gives
orders. He has to know how to help his men in case of difficulty, and
must be able to fill in on any job. Although he has no power to
hire or discharge, he can and often does make recommendations as to
raises. The foremen are referred to by the employees who testified
both for the Board and for the respondent as "my boss" and "my
426 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
superior." Witnesses also spoke of the various divisions of the plant
as "Drew's department" and the like.
If there were any doubt as to the inclusion of the straw-bosses in
the appropriate unit, the use to which they were put by the respond-
ent at time of the lock-out would set it at rest. It was these employees
who were selected by the respondent to visit the employees who had
been locked out, to inform them of the respondent's position. Even
if the respondent's description of these visits were accepted, it would
appear that the foremen were given authority to determine which of
the employees were to return to work first. The actual status of these,
men is seen most clearly, however, in the testimony of Drew, quoted
above, that Elmer Scheidt, one of the men in his department, told
him that he was "willing to stick along with . . . his boss." The
foremen or straw-bosses will be excluded from the unit found by the
Board to be appropriate.
The tool and die men at the respondent's plant have always been
organized in the I. A. M. The respondent has paid union wages and
hired its men through the union, although it has never entered into a
contract with it. The tool and die workers, unlike the other men in
the plant, are highly skilled. They produce the dies which must be
made separately for each operation, and they build certain of the
machines which cannot be bought outside the plant. They are also
responsible for keeping the machinery of the plant in working order.
Although their work is essential to the production of the respondent's
wares, they never handle the shims and retainers that are produced.
Moreover, although the employees in the balance of the plant are often
shifted from one department to another, there is no such shifting with
regard to the tool and die department. While they are located on the
second floor of the plant, they are not under the supervision of the
general superintendent for that floor. It is significant that the wit-
nesses at the hearing showed, by their use of the term "production
workers" in a manner which excluded the tool and die men, that they
considered the latter as a separate group.
The contract which the U. A. W. sent to the management on Febru-
ary 28, included the tool and die workers among those for whom rates
were to be established. The extent to which this fact justified the
respondent in treating the appropriate unit as including the tool and
die men will be discussed below.11 At the present time the U. A. W.
does not desire to represent them. Moreover, the contract between the
I. A. M. and the respondent, which was entered into on April 19, ex-
cluded the tool and die workers, as L. A. Johnson testified, by limiting
its application to those "engaged in the actual production of parts."
This exclusion was made pursuant to an oral agreement made between
I
11 See Section III C 3
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 427
the parties on March 2. Thus the respondent and the I. A. M. have
also recognized that the tool and die men should be treated separately.
The employees in the tool and die department will be excluded from
the unit found by the Board to be appropriate.
The respondent's clerical workers will also be excluded from the ap-
propriate unit for the production workers in accordance with numer-
ous decisions of the Board. Two of the respondent's employees are
listed on its pay roll as "General Factory-Clerk." The evidence in-
dicates that they perform clerical tasks, connected with the supervision
of the work, and they will therefore be excluded from the appro-
priate unit. One employee, Alec L. Muir, is listed as "Production
Dept.-Clerk." Although his work was, in February 1937, clerical in
nature, it appears that he was formerly a production worker and had
been removed from this work only temporarily because of an injury
to his finger, which injury had not healed at the time of the events in
question. He will be included in the appropriate unit.
We find that the production, maintenance, and shipping employees
of the respondent, exclusive of supervisory employees, foremen, reg-
ular clerical employees, and employees in the tool and die depart-
ment, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that said unit will insure to the employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the U. A. W. of the majority
in the appropriate unit
The respondent submitted its pay roll for February 25, 1937.12
It shows that there were on that date 96 employees in the. unit found
appropriate by the Board. There were in addition, 16 employees
in the tool and die department, as well as a supervisor of that de-
partment, and ten straw-bosses. Of the 96 employees, 56 had signed
applications for membership in the U. A. W. by the morning of
February 27.1? In addition, one employee, Joseph Paul Kreig, had
taken a U. A. W. button and stated his desire to have the U. A. W.
bargain for him. Since he was a member of an I. A. M. local, he
did not apply for membership in the U. A. W. but told Slaby that
he would arrange for his transfer to that union. Two more em-
ployees signed applications on February 27; two more on February
28; four on March 1; and four have signed since March 1.
Only one of the employees who signed U. A. W. application cards
was ever formally initiated as a member of that union. It appears
12 Board's Exhibit No 1 5 L. A. Johnson testified that there were no changes among
the employees between February 25 and the shut-down.
1S Board's Exhibit No 21 (a) to (k) are the applications to membership in the U A W.
referred to here and below.
428 NATION A.L LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the U. A. W. requires payment of a $7.50 initiation fee before
an applicant can become a member, but that it will act as the col-
lective bargaining agent of applicants who have not completed
payment of this fee. Ordinarily applicants have 30 days within
which to pay the full amount, but the period may be extended for
sufficient reason. In this case, the occurrence of the lock-out, with
the resulting cessation of wages was considered adequate reason for
failure to pay the fee within the specified time, and after February
27, the U. A. W. officials did not attempt to procure further payments.
The respondent and the I. A. M. attempted in several ways to cast
doubt on whether the U. A. W. was ever freely designated by the
applicants as their bargaining agent. It was claimed, first, that the
fact that none of the applicants were ever formally initiated as
members, and the fact that the U. A. W. was never authorized by
a formal resolution passed at a meeting, to bargain for its applicants,
precludes any claim that it had been designated as bargaining agent.
It is necessary to state only that, as the Board has held, a union may
bargain for employees who are not even eligible to membership, pro-
vided that such employees have sufficiently indicated a desire that
such bargaining take place; and that the signing of an application
card in a union can have no important significance other than the
expression of a desire that the union achieve the purposes of all labor
organizations by bargaining with the employer.
Next it was contended that the respondent's employees were misled
into applying for membership in the U. A. W. by the failure of the
officers of that union to disclose its true relationship with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor. It appears that the U. A. W. charter was
displayed to those who came to meetings and that that charter con-
tained a statement that the U. A. W. was an affiliate of the A. F. of L.
However, numerous witnesses testified that at each of the organiza-
tional meetings of the U. A. W., its status was made clear by the
speakers, who stated that it was suspended from the A. F. of L. and
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
Finally, the designation of the U. A. W. as the bargaining agent of
the employees was attacked on the ground that it was procured by
intimidation and threats of violence. The record does not sustain
this contention.14 With the exception of one witness, none of those
who testified could recall any actual acts of coercion. While it is
claimed that some of the girls were seen in tears at the plant, the
most extreme act which was charged to persons connected with the
U. A. W. was that, as mentioned above, they told employees that if
they did not join, they would lose their jobs. Such a threat could
not have been given serious weight by the employees since it could
14 The exclusion of all evidence of intimidation by the U. A W. subsequent to March 1
is discussed below, Section VI.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 429
only be enforced with the cooperation of the employer. 'One witness
called by the intervenors testified to an incident which occurred at
one of the U. A. W. meetings in which a man who put his head in
through the door was chased away by several of those present with
shouts of "get that fellow." The witness stated that this incident,
and the general attitude of the U. A. W. supporters, caused him to
join the U. A. W. to "preserve his health." His testimony was highly
contradictory and was denied by several other witnesses. It was
substantiated by none.
We find that on February 27 and on March 1, 1937, the U. A. W.
had been freely designated as the bargaining agent of a majority of
the employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
3. The refusal to bargain
The attempt on the part of Slaby to see L. A. Johnson on the day
of the lock-out has already been described.15 His expulsion from the,
plant by Captain Brown, who was acting pursuant to the respondent's
orders, and the respondent's failure to have him summoned back to
the plant, although it was at the same time conferring with repre-
sentatives of the I. A. M., are indicative of the respondent's attitude
toward possible negotiations with the U. A. W.
At a regular meeting of the U. A. W. Local 76 on the afternoon of
the lock-out, a meeting of the respondent's employees was set for the
following day. At this meeting, on Sunday, February 28, the em-
ployees discussed the proposed contract, consideration of which had
started on the previous Thursday, and its final terms were agreed on.
Each section was voted on separately by the employees affected, and
the decisions were noted by Slaby. It was agreed that the contract
as finally adopted should be typed out at once and sent to the respond-
ent. This was done.
The contract as submitted to the respondent 18 contained a provision,
that the U. A. W. be recognized as the sole bargaining agent of the
employees, and the respondent considered the contract as a demand
for such recognition. L. A. Johnson testified at length that the sole
reason for disregarding the U. A. W. was that he was convinced that
it did not represent a majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit, and that the I. A. M. did. Johnson was informed of
the receipt of the contract by telephone on Monday morning, March 1,
while at the office of his attorney. He did not at any time communi-
cate with the U. A. W. or in any manner afford them an opportunity
to substantiate their claims- as sole bargaining agency of the employees.
In Supra, Section III-B
16 Boards Exhibit No 17a.
430
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Instead, on the afternoon of March 1, he signed a contract with the
I. A. M.
The circumstances surrounding the concluding of the I. A. M. con-
tract are of great significance. The early activities of the I. A. M. and
its connection with the respondent have already been described. On the
afternoon of March 1, L. A. Johnson met with Vernon and Huybrecht.
They presented to him a letter signed by an official of the I. A. M.17
which stated that a majority of the employees had become affiliated
with the I. A. M., and requested a conference. Johnson thereupon
entered into a contract with the I. A. M.18 which provided simply that
the respondent was to reopen its plant, that the I. A. M. members
were to return to work, and that the pending negotiations were to
continue, the results thereof to be retroactive to the time of resump-
tion of full operations. On the following day, Vernon and Huybrecht
delivered to Johnson a letter in which they agreed that a separate
local was to be set up for mass-production workers. This local was in
fact later chartered and is one of the intervenors in 'this case. On
April 19, a final contract was entered into between the respondent and
the I. A. M.,19 which will be further discussed below. The respondent
maintains that its conduct in signing a contract with the I. A. M. while
refusing to do so or even to confer with the U. A. W. was justified by
the fact that the former union represented a majority of the employ-
ees, whereas the latter did not. Its reasons for arriving at this con-
clusion do not bear close scrutiny.
The figures given above show clearly that on March 1 the U. A. W.
represented a majority of the employees in the unit found appropri-
ate by the Board . The respondent was aware of the fact that a sub-
stantial number of its employees had joined the U. A. W., since
U. A. W. buttons had been worn extensively throughout the plant,
and D. O. Johnson had taken careful note of this fact. The respond-
,ent contends that on the basis of the reports made by the foremen,
which have already been described and which will be further dis-
-cussed below, it determined that the U. A. W. could not have a
majority in the unit which it appeared to consider appropriate. It
maintains that the U. A. W. contract which it received on the morn-
ing of March 1 made no restrictions on the number of employees
which it was to cover and in fact included a provision expressly
covering tool and die workers. To sustain this contention one must
believe that the respondent had reliably ascertained the number of
employees'who desired the U. A. W. to represent them, that the entire
U. A. W. contract, consisting of three typewritten pages, was read, in
17 Respondent's Exhibit No 3
1s Board's Exhibit No. 50-A.
"Board 's Exhibit No. 50-B.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 431
all its details, to L. A. Johnson over the phone, and that Johnson was
able to analyze the terms of the contract sufficiently to arrive at a
decision as to the bargaining unit which it described. However, it is
not necessary for us to decide whether the respondent could preclude
all negotiations with the U. A. W. as to the appropriate bargaining
unit and other matters by signing a contract with another union,
or whether it. could refuse to permit any efforts to establish the
U. A. W.'s majority claims. Even if both of the groups in question,
the tool and die workers and the straw-bosses, were included in the
unit, the U. A. W. on March 1, had secured applications from 67 of
the 122 employees in the unit as thus defined.20
The record gives no support to the respondent's claim that the
I. A. M. represented a majority of its employees on March 1. L. A.
Johnson testified that lie was never shown a list of I. A. M. mem-
bers, but that he relied solely on the claim of the I. A. M. representa-
tives of a majority and on the reports made by the foremen. The
utter unreliability of those reports, if any were in fact made, has
already been pointed out. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the
reports could not have been made. In addition to the highly con-
tradictory nature of the testimony by the foremen themselves as to,
whether. they, were supposed to ascertain the union preferences.of the,
employees,21 there is the fact that Johnson was not at the plant at all
on Sunday or Monday morning, and hence he could not as he claimed
have been present to receive the detailed reports, and have tabulated
them on little slips of paper. Finally, according to the description
of the supposed reports, made by those of the foremen who testified
in detail, most of the employees visited were not at home, or were
doubtful as to which union they favored.
The very earliest day on which there is any evidence that the
I. A. M. procured any applications from among the respondent's
employees was March 1. As noted above, there was no organization
at all by the I. A. Al. prior to the shut-down. Those of the witnesses
who did join the I. A. Al. testified that they did so on March 1 at the
earliest. Thus Ervin Felix, foreman of the shim press department,
testified that he was one of the first ones to join, in fact that he was
"practically one of the instigators of it" and that "it was March the
20 Two of the foremen applied for membership in the U A. W. In considering the
larger unit , they should be added to the 65 non-supervisory employees who had made
application by March 1.
21 The testimony of Thomas Drew , foreman of the leather department , was particularly
interesting Ile testified on direct examination that Johnson's only instructions were to,
go out and get the men they needed to start the plant operating He denied that Johnson
gave orders to discover the union sympathies of the men When Johnson' s testimony to.
the effect that he had given such orders was read to hint , lie changed his testimony and
described at length how lie had visited certain employees and reported on their union
sympathies to Johnson at the plant on Sunday . Johnson , recalled to the stand , testified
that Drew must have been mistaken , since lie was not at the plant on Sunday
432
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3rd that I made out my application, or March 1st-I just don't recall
the date."
The respondent thus signed a contract with a union which did not
represent, and which it could not have thought represented, more
than a handful of its employees, if any, and at the same time turned
its back on a union which represented a majority of its employees in
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, as well as
a majority of the employees in any unit which the respondent could
have considered appropriate. We do not find that the respondent,
in the absence of more proof of the U. A. W. majority than was here
given, could not have asked for that proof before entering into
negotiations. But we do find that by hastily entering into a contract
with the I. A. M. which it at all times treated as a closed-shop contract,
it announced its firm intention to have nothing to do with the U. A. W.
and precluded all further attempts on the part of that union to secure
the recognition to which it was entitled. Such conduct constituted
a refusal to bargain with the duly designated representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit, and was an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of the Act.
D. The discriminatory refusals to reinstate
1. The reopening of the plant
The U. A. W. at its meeting on February 28, in addition to formu-
lating its proposed contract, elected a negotiating committee and a
picket captain. No detailed arrangements for picketing were made
at this time, but the employees agreed that they were to go to the
plant the following day prepared to work, and if they were not per-
mitted to do so, they were to begin picketing. Picketing was in
fact commenced on March 1 and continued until the commencement
,of the hearing in this case. A soup kitchen was opened, and sched-
ules for picketing were established. It was agreed by the U. A. W.
members that picketing was to continue until the respondent recog-
nized and bargained with the U. A. W.
In the meantime the foremen continued their calls upon the em-
ployees. . It cannot be contended that they were still endeavoring
to discover union preferences. Instead, they talked unfavorably
about the U. A. W., said that it was communistic, that it was the
wrong union to join, that it would never be recognized by the re-
spondent, and that those who did not give it up would lose their
jobs. They also asked the employees to join the new I. A. M. local
that was to be formed and invited several of them to a meeting that
was to take place, saying that the plant would reopen as soon as the
I. A. M. had signed up a sufficient number of the men. As one of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 433
the foremen put it, "We just went to see them to see if we could
make them come over to our side so they could go to work."
The Auto Mechanics, an I. A. M. local for garage employees,
started procuring applications from employees of the respondent
early in the week following the lock-out, with the intention of eventu-
ally having them transferred to a new local for production workers.
This local, the Production Workers, which intervened in this proceed-
ing, was chartered by the I. A. M. on April 12, the charter to bear
the date, March 9, 1937. A meeting was held under the auspices of
the Auto Mechanics on March 3 or 4 which was attended by about
30 employees including the foremen, and also by D. O. Johnson.
Some, but not all, of the U. A. W. members were invited to this
meeting. Rose Fereira and Erma JacobsQta were invited and came
to the meeting with Garnett Rose and Ruby Elling, who had not
been invited and who had been particularly enthusiastic in support
of the U. A. W. prior to the lock-out. All four were met at the
door by one of the foremen, who pointed out Rose and Elling to
Vernon of the Auto Mechanics and told him these two were to be
excluded unless they joined the I. A. M. at once. When the two
girls refused to join, they were told they could not enter, although
this purported to be an open meeting. Thereupon all four left.
About ten days later another meeting was held of the group that was
to form the Production Workers. Officers were elected, three of
whom were straw-bosses.
During the latter part of the week following the lock-out, the
respondent decided to reopen its plant on March 8. L. A. Johnson
so informed the foremen, and certain of the employees were re-
quested by telephone, telegraph, mail, and personal visits to return
to work. Among those so requested were several of the U. A. W.
pplicants.22 On March 8, a large number of employees returned
I o work with a police escort. During the succeeding weeks, more em-
ployees returned, but the plant did not commence actual operations
until March 15. Two weeks later the respondent began to hire new
employees to take the place of those who had not returned.
Although the March 1 contract between the respondent and the
I. A. M. was little more than a declaration of an intention to bargain,
the employees who returned to work were informed that the respond-
ent was operating under a closed-shop agreement with the I. A. M.
All of the employees understood quite clearly that returning to
work meant joining that organization. As late as May 18, both the
respondent and the intervenors stated in sworn affidavits filed in
connection with an action in the United States District Court, that
the respondent was at this time operating under a closed-shop contract
22 The effect of these requests on the discriminatory discharges is discussed below.
434 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the I. A. M.23 Thus both parties treated the March'1 contract
as providing for a closed shop.
On April 19, the respondent entered into a contract with the
Production Workers providing for a closed shop, and wages, hours,
and other conditions of employment.24 The contract is to run for
one year and is to be renewed thereafter from year to year unless
terminated by either party by notice at least 30 days prior to the
annual expiration date. The contract contains a provision making
it "contingent upon the employees and the union continuing their
or its affiliation with the International Association of Machinists
of the American Federation of Labor."
As mentioned above, the picket lines established by the U. A. W.
continued up to the time of the hearing in this case. We find that
the labor dispute which began with the lock-out on February 27,
1937, has continued since that date, and is a current labor dispute.
The complaint as amended alleged that the respondent procured the
unwarranted arrest of the president and the organizer of the U. A.
W. The Board finds that the record does not sustain the charge that
the arrest of these two men, which took place on March 6, was
inspired by the respondent.
2. The refusals to reinstate
,The complaint in this proceeding, as amended; alleges the dis-
criminatory discharge of 56 employees, and the discriminatory
refusal to reinstate all but ten of them. As to the ten it alleges
an offer to reinstate only on condition that they withdraw from the
U. A. W. and join another union not of their own choosing.
The lock-out of February 27, 1937, was a mass discharge, aimed at
those of the employees who were favorably inclined toward the
U. A. W. Although employees who had not expressed such an in-
clination were also excluded from the plant, the lock-out had as its
purpose the discouraging of membership in the U. A. W., and it
clearly would not have occurred if that union had not appeared upon
the scene and demonstrated that it was making great headway among
the employees. We have held that in such a case the employer is
guilty of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.25
21 Board's Exhibits 41 and 42 are the papers in a proceeding in the District Court of
the United States in and for the Northern District of California, brought by the re-
spondent to enjoin the Boaid's procedure under the complaint The Production Workers
intervened in that proceeding and joined in the request for an injunction . The injunction
was denied by Judge Louderback on May 24, the day the hearing on the Board's complaint
began The affidavit of L. A. Johnson for the complainant , and the petition in interven-
tion, verified by Muir, president of the Production Workers, both alleged the existence of
a closed -shop contract during the period in question
as Board's Exhibit 50-B
26 Matter of Ford A. Smith et al. and National Furniture TVorke , s, Local No 3,
1 N L. R. B 950.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 435
The evidence shows that certain of the employees were requested by
the respondent to return to work after the lock-out. These requests
took various forms. including letters, telegrams, telephone calls, and
personal visits by foremen and executives. Some of the letters and
telegrams were put in evidence. They contain a simple request to
return, with no conditions expressly attached. It is the position
.of the respondent that these communications contain its official posi-
tion and cannot be considered as having any conditions attached to
them. This position cannot be sustained. It has already been shown
that the respondent considered after March 1 that it had a closed-
shop contract with the I. A. M. which required any returning em-
ployee to join that union and abandon the U. A. W. In addition
the respondent's emissaries made clear to the employees that a
return to work meant a transfer of allegiance from one union to the
other. The employees were forced to assume that they could only
return under these unlawful conditions. It is conceded that many
of the U. A. W. supporters were never recalled, and that those who
were, were called a f'ew at a time. The inference which it was natural
to draw from the briefly worded telegrams and letters was that those
-who received them were being given an opportunity to return on
-conditions which were well understood. The same considerations
apply to those who received their invitation by telephone or personal
visit.
That the employees had been given to understand that the respond-
ent was not taking back all employees without question is seen in
the testimony of Myra Wuepper, who is now working at the plant,
and who testified for the Board under subpena. She stated that
when she decided to try to go back she doubted that she would be
allowed to return to work, since she had applied for membership
in the U. A. W., and that she therefore went to see her superior,
Lansdale, to see whether she could return. Lansdale and several
%other officials of the respondent received her assurance that she would
join the other union before returning to work. Finally there is the
fact already mentioned, which was testified to by witnesses appear-
ing for the respondent and the intervenors, that as soon as they ap-
peared for work, they were informed that the plant was operating
under a closed-shop contract.
Willingness to reinstate employees only on the conditions above de-
scribed, conditions which the respondent had no right to attach, is
equivalent to absolute refusal to reinstate.21, With respect to viola-
tions of the Act and the remedy therefor, all of the employees in
2^,Mallei of Carlisle Lumbei Company and Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local
2511. Onalaska, 1Vashington, and _49socnated Employees of Onalaska , Inc, Intervenor,
2 N L It B 248; 94 Fed (2d) 138, (sub nom National Labor Relations Board v.
Cal lisle Lumbe) Company ) C. C. A , Ninth Circuit , petition for enforcement of the Board's
order granted.
436 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question, whether or not they received a conditional offer of rein--
statement, stand on the same footing.
Many of the employees testified that they would not return to
work unless the respondent recognized and bargained with the-
U. A. W. This appears to have been the position adopted by the
U. A. W. in maintaining its picket line, although some of the em-
ployees testified that they were willing to return if they could remain
members of the U. A. W. In view of the respondent's announced posi-
tion with regard to the return of its employees to work, it is not
necessary to consider the effect of this attitude on the part of the men.
The following employees received requests by letter or telegram
that they return to work :
William Cambra Blanche Triplett
Willard Eugene Cox Leonard Whaley
Tony Dias
The following employees were asked to return by some method
other than a telegram or letter :
Leon M. Bromley George Vincent Paraspolo
Gertrude Deichler Grace Roth
Marie Lichy Sophie Shubin
Harold Merritt
The following employees were never asked to return to work :
Buena Ardinger
Joe Camara
Florence Cambra
Marian Dickman'
Roy S. Dickman
Ruby Elling
Rose Fereira
Dorothy Fernandez
Ray H. Givan
David LaGrone
Erma Jacobsen
Eleanor Johnson
Wilfred Ernest Kettle
Joseph J. Kleiner
Joseph Paul Kreig
Wm. J. MacFarland
Bernice Meyers
James T. Sanchez
Robert R. Schmidt
Vera Leona Tidwell
As to the following employees, there is no evidence that they were-
ever asked to return to work :
Geraldine Brim
Lucille Bronson
Hilda Cardoza
Roy A. Christie
Marie F. Freitas
Albert Greenhalgh
Frank J. Harmon
Mary Hughes
Dorothy Kirilov
Stella Kiseloff
Velma Malfatti
Dorothy Mitchell
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
Hollis Nichols
Gilbert Paula
Robert James Ping
Reginald Price
Garnett Dorothy Rose
Evelyn Severe
Martin J. Shubin
Violet Stagnaro
Irene Stephens
Eldon M. Tennis
Jack Townsend
Fred G. Turner
437
Two of the employees above named, Joseph Paul Kreig and Fred
G. Turner, have obtained regular and substantially equivalent em-
ployment elsewhere since the date of the lock-out. As to four other
employees, some question was raised as to whether they had pro-
cured such employment. Leon M. Bromley, at the time of the hear-
ing, was working part time as a relief gateman for a railroad
company. He desires to return to work for the respondent and con-
siders his present job temporary. Wilfred Ernest Kettle, at the time
of the hearing was working in a stationery store at a salary lower
than his wages at the respondent's plant. He wants to have his old
job back. Wm. J. MacFarland has a job repairing machinery, which
he considers temporary. He does not earn as much as he earned while
working for the respondent, and he desires to return to his former
position. James T. Sanchez, at the time of the hearing, had a tem-
porary job in a butcher shop. He desires to return to work for the
respondent. We find that Leon M. Bromley, Wilfred Ernest Kettle,
Wm. J. MacFarland, and James T. Sanchez have not procured regu-
lar and substantially equivalent employment since February 27,
1937.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and have led, and tend to lead, to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The respondent will be required to cease and desist from the unfair
labor practices described above. The respondent will in addition be
ordered to bargain collectively with the U. A W. Since the making
of both of the contracts with the I. A. M. constituted violations of
the Act, the respondent will be ordered to give no effect to them. The
56 employees listed in Appendix A, who were discriminatorily dis-
charged, are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, even
438
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
though this may'require.the dismissal of employees hired since Feb-
ruary 27, 1937. The respondent will also be ordered to give to these
employees back pay from the time of the discharge, February 27,
1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement. In offering reinstate-
ment the respondent will be ordered to notify the employees that
they will not be required to relinquish their affiliation with the
U. A. W. or to comply with the terms of the contracts made with
the I. A. M. In all cases in which back pay is awarded,, %ve will, in
accordance with our usual practice, order the deduction of all sums
earned since the discharges which would not have been earned if the
employee had been working for the respondent.
VI. THE RULINGS CF THE TRIAL EXAMINER
Certain of the exceptions of the respondent and the intervenors to
the conduct of the hearing by the Trial Examiner, which have been
dismissed by the Board, deserve mention. The Trial Examiner ex-
cluded evidence of the use of intimidation and coercion by the
U. A. W. after March 1. This evidence was offered for the purpose
of showing that those who joined the U. A. W. did so under duress.
,Since the U. A. W. had been designated by a majority of the em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit on March 1, the date
on which the respondent's refusal to bargain took place, the evidence
was, properly excluded.
On June 30, 1937, after the hearing in this case had proceeded for
more than a month, the Trial Examiner announced that beginning
the following day, there would be night sessions on weekdays and
afternoon sessions on Saturdays. The Board's case had been con-
cluded on June 24, and the respondent's case was at that time being
presented. The respondent concluded the presentation of its evi-
dence on June 30, the day that the ruling was made; and the inter-
venors concluded two days later, on July 2. The hearing was also
concluded on that day in the morning. Thus only one night session
was actually held. Nevertheless this action of the Trial Examiner
was assigned as prejudicial error by the respondent and the inter-
venors. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this action
of the Trial Examiner was not a proper exercise of his discretion in
the matter of holding the hearing. On the contrary it appears that
the subject of night sessions had been discussed several times by
counsel, and that counsel for the parties had sufficient warning to
make such arrangements as were necessary to meet whatever burden
-the holding of night sessions laid upon them.
During the presentation of the Board's case the Trial Examiner
-found it necessary to defer the intervenors' right to cross-examine
-Witnesses until the end of the Board's case, at which time opportunity
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 439
for such cross-examination was given. This - action is assigned as
prejudicial error by the intervenors. The record amply sustains
the Trial Examiner's ruling that this action was necessary to expedite
a hearing that was being unduly prolonged by the conduct and tac-
tics of counsel for the intervenors. The cross-examination by this
counsel which had taken place had covered only the ground already
covered in cross-examination by counsel for the respondent. The
record does not show that the intervenors were prejudiced by the
ruling.
There was attached to the intervenors' exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report an affidavit submitted and sworn to by James F.
Galliano, counsel for the intervenors, in which it was alleged that,
in a conversation with the Trial Examiner during a recess in the
hearing, the latter stated that the ruling discussed above was made
because counsel's cross-examination "was disrupting" the U. A. W.
An affidavit in reply has been filed with the Board, in which the
Trial Examiner alleges that lie stated to Galliano that his ruling
was made because counsel's conduct was disrupting the morale of the
Board's witnesses and otherwise interfering with the proper inquiry
into the facts of the case. As noted above, the record in this case
sustains the propriety of the Trial Examiner's ruling.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No. 76, International Association of Machinists, and Produc-
tion Workers Local 1518 are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The production, maintenance, and shipping employees of Na-
tional Motor Bearing Company, exclusive of supervisory employees,
foremen, regular clerical employees, and employees in the tool and
die department, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No. 76, was on February 27, and at all times thereafter has
been, the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively
with International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No. 76, as the exclusive representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
80535-38-29
440 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the employees listed in Appendix A and thereby discour-
aging membership or affiliation with International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 76, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. 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 re-
spondent, National Motor Bearing Company, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act;
(b) Maintaining surveillance of the meetings and activities of
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Lo-
cal No. 76, or any other labor organization of its employees;
(c) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 76, or any other, labor
organization of its employees or encouraging membership in Inter-
national Association of Machinists, or Production Workers Local
1518, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
ing or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of their employment;
(d) Refusing to reinstate any of the employees listed in Appendix
A or requiring as a condition to their reinstatement, membership
in International Association of Machinists, or Production Workers
Local 1518, or any other labor organization of its employees, or
abandonment of membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local No. 76, or any other labor organ-
ization of its employees;
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 44I.
(e) Giving effect to its contracts with International Association
of Machinists or Production Workers Local 1518;
(f) Recognizing Production Workers Local 1518 as the exclusive
representative of its employees;
(g) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 76, as the ex-
clusive representative of its production, maintenance, and shipping
employees, exclusive of supervisory employees, foremen, regular cler-
ical employees, and employees in the tool and die department, in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees listed in Appendix A immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions, without prejudice to,
their seniority and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if neces-
sary, any employees hired by the respondent since February 27, 1937,.
to perform the work of such employees;
(b) Make whole the employees named in Appendix A for any
losses of pay they have suffered by the respondent's discriminatory,
acts, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages from February 27,
1937, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less any
amount earned during that period which he would not have earned.
if working for the respondent ;
(c) Inform the employees listed in Appendix A in writing that
they are free to join or assist International Union, United Automo-
bile Workers of America, Local No. 76, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees and that their status as employees of the re-
spondent will not be affected by such action on their part;
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 76, as the exclu-
sive representative of its production, maintenance, and shipping
employees, exclusive of supervisory employees, foremen, regular cler-
ical employees, and employees in the tool and die department, in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment;
(e) Post notices in conspicuous places in its plant stating (1) that
the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and
(2) that the respondent's employees are free to join or assist any
labor organization; and maintain such notices for a period of at least.
thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the,
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
442 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
Buena Ardinger
Geraldine Brim
Leon M. Bromley
Lucille Bronson
Joe Camara
Florence Cambra
William Cambra
Hilda Cardoza
Roy A. Christie
Willard Eugene Cox
Gertrude Deichler
Tony Dias
Marian Dickman
Roy S. Dickman
Ruby Elling
Rose Fereira
Dorothy Fernandez
Marie F. Freitas
Ray H. Givan
Albert Greenhalgh
David LaGrone
Frank J. Harmon
Mary Hughes
,Erma Jacobsen
Eleanor Johnson
Wilfred Ernest Kettle
Dorothy Kirilov
Stella Kiseloff
Joseph J. Kleiner
Joseph Paul Kreig
Marie Lichy
Wm. J. MacFarland
Velma Malfatti
Harold Merritt
Bernice Meyers
Dorothy Mitchell
Hollis Nichols
George Vincent Paraspolo
Gilbert Paulo
Robert James Ping
Reginald Price
Garnett Dorothy Rose
Grace Roth
James T. Sanchez
Robert R. Schmidt
Evelyn Severe
Martin J. Shubin
Sophie Shubin
Violet Stagnaro
Irene Stephens
Eldon M. Tennis
Vera Leona Tidwell
Jack Townsend
Blanche Triplett
Fred G. Turner
Leonard Whaley