Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 1207 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
A CORPORATION and VICTOR GANDOLFI
Case No. C-1274.-Decided March 27, 1940
Ra,,l'road Cars and Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Tntcrference, Re-
straint, and Coercion: charges of, not sustained-Discrinunation: charges of, not
sustained-Complaint: dismissed
Mr. Stephan M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Winston, Strawn c6 Shaw, by Mr. Thomas S. Tyler, of Chicago, Ill.,
for the respondent.
Miss Charlotte Anschuetz, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Victor Gandolfi,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued
its complaint dated March 3, 1939, against Pullman Standard Car
Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
respondent and upon Gandolfi.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended
during the hearing, alleged in substance (1) that on or about April 6,
1938, the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate
Victor Gandolfi because he joined and assisted a labor organization
known as the Committee of the Stationary Engineers,' and (2) by the
' The original complaint alleged inter alta that Gandolfi had been discharged because he
engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, presenting grievances , and other mutual aid and protection and that the respondent
had thereby discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act The existence of the Committee of the Stationary Engineers
21 N. L R B., No. 122
1207
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge, by maintaining armed guards in and about the power
plant, by requiring its employees to furnish daily written reports of
their activities and conversations and the activities and conversations
of their fellow employees, and by other acts, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. On March 8, 1938, the respondent filed an
answer , which as amended during the hearing, admitted the inter-
state character of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices and denied that the Committee of the
Stationary Engineers was a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on
March 9 and 10, 1939, and April 3, 4, and 5, 1939, before William
P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties. The respondent, at the commence-
ment of the hearing, submitted a written motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the charge was defective and insuffi-
cient. At the close of the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss
those portions of the complaint and amended complaint -pertaining
to the alleged discriminatory discharge and to the alleged interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion. The Trial Examiner reserved rulings
on the above motions. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these and the fore-
going rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
dated April 24, 1939, copies of which were duly served upon the
respondent and Gandolfi on May 1, 1939.1' The Trial Examiner
therein denied the motions to dismiss and found that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
*as not alleged therein. During the course of the hearing and on the basis of a second
amended charge , the Trial Examiner granted the motion of counsel for the Board to file an
amended complaint , the allegations of which appear above The Trial Examiner 's ailing
is hereby affirmed
I In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner stated that "A brief was submitted by
counsel for respondent , which has been duly considered by the undersigned ." The respond-
ent's brief was docketed in Washington, D C, on April 24, the date of the Intermediate
Report. The respondent moved to examine the Trial Examiner with respect to this state-
ment On June 23, 1939, the Board denied the motion On the same day the Assistant
Secretary to the Board advised the respondent that the Trial Examiner had made changes
in his Intermediate Report after consideration of the brief without changing the date
thereof. The respondent excepted to the explanation contained in the letter. Upon recon-
.sideration and since no prejudicial error vvas committed, we affirm our previous ruling
-with respect to the motion.
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1209
2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He accordingly recommended that the
respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take
certain affirmative action remedial of their effect, including the rein-
statement of Gandolfi with back pay.
On May 19, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and to various rulings of the Trial Examiner, and requested
oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to notice, oral argument
was held on February 6, 1940, Before the Board in Washington, D. C.
The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the
argument. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respond-
ent to the findings, conclusions, rulings, and recommendations con-
tained in the Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are con-
sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order below, hereby sustains
them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Delaware corporation with its principal office
and manufacturing plant in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in design-
ing and manufacturing railroad cars, equipment, locomotives, and
accessories. It maintains branch offices and manufacturing plants in
eight other States. This proceeding is concerned with the power,
light, -and machinery department, herein called the power plant,
which supplies power to the respondent's manufacturing plant in
Chicago and also to several plants of affiliates of the respondent
located in Chicago.
During 1938 the respondent used at its Chicago plant raw mate-
rials valued at approximately $2,000,000. Two-thirds of such raw
materials were purchased outside the State of Illinois. In the same
year approximately 90 per cent of the finished products manufactured
at said plant, valued in excess of $4,000,000 were shipped to points
outside of Illinois. The respondent admits that it is engaged in
interstate commerce.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Committee of the Stationary Engineers was an unaffiliated labor
organization, admitting to its membership stationary engineers em-
ployed by the respondent in the powerhouse and boiler room of the
Chicago,plant, excluding those engaged in a supervisory capacity.
8 The Committee of the Stationary Engineers was an informal employee organization
existing during March and April 1938. It designated two of its members to deal with the
respondent concerning conditions of work.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pullman Standard Employees' Union, herein called the Employees'
Union, is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to its member-
ship production and maintenance employees of the respondent,
excluding clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The respondent carries on its manufacturing operations by means
of power supplied through the power plant. The power is produced
in the form of electric current and compressed air. Steam is first
produced in the "boiler room," one of the two buildings comprising
the power plant. It is then piped to the "power house," 400 feet
away, where it is used to generate the electricity and compressed
air through electric generators and air compressors. Continuous
operation of the power plant is secured by 3 daily 8-hour shifts.
Of the approximately 25 men who are required to run the power
plant, about 15 are operating, or stationary, engineers. One engi-
neer has charge of the switchboard, one of the boiler room, one of
the powerhouse basement, and one of the powerhouse main floor dur-
ing each shift. The engineers are responsible for the efficient opera-
tion of the equipment in their charge and for the continuity of
power throughout the entire plant.
Prior to 1937 there were no union activities among the employees
of the power plant. In the spring of that year several engineers,
including Victor Gandolfi and Clyde Crippen, joined a local of The
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
The attempt of this union to organize the respondent's Chicago
plant, however, was unsuccessful and these employees withdrew.
They joined instead the Employees' Union, already existing in other
departments of the Chicago plant. Gandolfi and Crippen solicited
their fellow workers to join the Employees' Union and by July 1937
all the engineers had joined except George Reitz, William Wheatley,
and John Morrison.4
As far as the record shows, the entire activity of the Employees'
Union in the power plant was centered around the adoption of a
swing, or rotating schedule.5 The engineers drew up a petition for
a swing shift which they gave to Gandolfi. He was thereupon ap-
pointed steward by E. Klinger, the president of the Employees'
4 Wheatley and Morrison joined later . Reitz ne%er joined the Employees' Union
5 By a swing, or rotation , shift is meant a rotation of shifts and of positions so that
over a specified period of time each employee works on each of the 3 shifts and in each of
the 4 locations , viz, boiler room, powerhouse basement , powerhouse main floor, and
switchboard.
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1211
Union, to represent the power-plant employees. After the manage-
ment was officially apprised of this fact on July 14, 1937, negotiation
for the swing shift started.
Gandolfi took the petition to Harry S. Boles, master mechanic,
who was in charge of the power plant, with the request that the
respondent inaugurate a swing-shift system in accordance with the
desire of the engineers as evidenced by the petition. Boles stated
that he had polled the powerhouse employees regarding the question
on March 15, 1937, and that at that time 7 had opposed the idea,
6 had favored it, and 5 had been neutral, and that for this reason
he doubted that the engineers wanted any change. On July 21 Boles
again conducted a poll of the engineers which again indicated a small
majority in favor of retaining the present system. Boles accepted
the results of this vote as final.
Gandolfi then approached Harry D. Reed, superintendent of the
Chicago plant and Boles' superior. Reed refused to install a swing-
shift schedule on the ground that too many of the engineers were
inexperienced. As a last resort, Gandolfi and Klinger appealed to
Frank M. Gunn, manager of operations of the Chicago plant. Gunn
arranged a meeting of supervisory employees and union representa-
tives for the end of July to consider the proposal. At this meeting
Gunn was impressed by Gandolfi's statement that the system was in
use at the Ford Motor Company,6 a much larger plant. He requested
Boles and Reed to investigate the Ford Motor Company's system,
then confer with Gandolfi, and draw up a schedule. After consider-
ing many plans, the management put a swing-shift schedule into
operation on October 5, 1937.
This schedule was not satisfactory to the engineers. Some received
a cut in their hourly rate of pay and others lost several working days
during the period for which the schedule was to run. The men
brought their objections to Gandolfi but the management refused to
discuss them with him. Gandolfi thereupon resigned as steward of
the Employees' Union and both he and the other engineers thereafter
refused to pay membership dues to that labor organization.
There was no further collective or union activity until the fol-
lowing March. At that time, realizing that the schedule adopted in
October 1937 was due to expire in another month, the engineers
renewed their activity for the type of schedule they desired. As
a group, they designated as their representatives Gandolfi and Reitz
who, conferred with the management. Boles and Reed told them
that the existing schedule was as good as any that could be devised,
but permitted Reitz to work on a substitute schedule. Reitz and
Gandolfi thereafter presented to the respondent a prosposed sched-
ule, which was neither considered seriously nor put into effect.
0 At Hegewisch, Illinois.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .
The respondent accepted only minor suggestions and adopted a new
schedule of its own on or about April 1, 1938. This schedule pro-
vided for thirteen engineers but was adapted to twelve men after
Gandolfi's discharge on April 6, 1938. Negotiation on the schedule
continued. On May 15, 1938, a new 12-man schedule was adopted.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The amended complaint alleged that in July 1937 the respondent,
for the purpose of discouraging union activities, maintained armed
guards ini and about the powerhouse and boiler room of the Chicago
plant and compelled its employees to furnish daily written reports
of their activities and conversations.
It is uncontroverted that beginning in July 1937, the respondent
introduced a system of surveillance of its power-plant employees.
On July 17 Reed, the superintendent, issued instructions to the
plant watchmen and roundsmen 7 to visit the powerhouse and boiler
room four times an hour during the first and third shifts of the
day. (From 4 p. m. to 8 a. in.) Previous to this order, these
rounds had been made only once or twice in twenty-four hours.
They were continued at this increased rate for three months. The
record shows that the exact locations of all the men were noted
by the watchmen and roundsmen on each round and placed into
reports addressed to Reed. On October 19, 1937, the additional
rounds and reports were discontinued.
At about the same time that the above-described procedure was
adopted, each engineer was instructed to stay at his assignment
and to make a, written report daily describing any special or unusual
occurrence and recording the name of any other engineer coming
on the floor. These instructions were given verbally sometime be-
fore July 17, and on July 21 each employee was required to sign
written instructions to this effect. Copies of these instructions
follow :
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Power Light & Machinery Department
NOTICE
All Boiler House engineers are required, when in an operat-
ing capacity, to remain with the limits of the Boiler House.
This will include the Coal Hopper, Base of Smokestack and
Ash Handling Equipment.
?A watchman differs from a roundsman in that the former ordinarily has a set beat to
follow and is unarmed , wheieas the latter is not confined to a beat but checks upon the
watchmen , and goes to all parts of the plant. ' Most of the roundsmen had been "armed"
(deputized ) since 1934.
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1213
Each engineer shall make a special daily report, which must
include any special or unusual occurrence and give the names
and time of day of -any other engineer who may come to or
pass through the Boiler House, main floor or basement.
Any matter of interest in the operation of the Boiler House
equipment may be mentioned in this report.
Sign your name and put the date on this report and leave same
in a sealed envelope. The envelope may be addressed to H. S.
Boles or W. H. Wilson.
If either engineer has occasion to go to the toilet he will
notify the other operating engineer of his intention so that in
any emergency an engineer will know where the other may be.
(s) BOLES, Master Mechanic.
NOTICE
All Power House Engineers are required, when in an operat-
ing capacity, to remain at all times, unless in an emergency
situation, on the respective floor to which they are assigned.
In case it is necessary to leave the floor, as stated above, the
reason for leaving and time of day the absence occurred must
be stated on a special daily report and left in a sealed envelope
at the close of the shift. Sign your name and put the date on
this report. The envelope may be addressed to H. S. Boles or
W. H. Wilson.
The name of any other engineer who comes on the operating
floor for any purpose, as well as the time, should be noted on the
report.
Any matter of interest in the operation of the Power Plant
equipment may be mentioned in this report.
Emergency reasons for leaving the operating floor include
accidents, injuries, sickness and matters where reason and judg-
ment must be considered.
The requirements are that the circumstances must be noted
on the report, with time and date included.
No absence, no matter how trivial or seemingly unimportant,
should be omitted from this report.
The Operating Engineer on the main floor of the Power House
has the privilege of going down to the Rack Room in the base-
ment, when in his opinion his duties require him to do so. Also
it is permissible to go to the north end of the basement to get
lubricating oil.
Absence in the above cases, as stated before, must be entered
on the daily report.
1214 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The limits of the operating floor are the inside building line
and do not include outside stairways, window casement and steel
supports for condenser equipment.
In case an engineer has nothing to report, as above mentioned,
mark down-"Nothing to report," and submit same as instructed.
If either engineer has occasion to go to the toilet, he will
notify the other operating engineer of his intention so that in
any emergency an engineer will know where the other may be.
(s) BoLEs, Master Mechanic.
So far as the record discloses there is no evidence that these re-
ports were ever discontinued. There was no laxness in enforcement.
On July 19, 1937, Crippen failed to mention in his report that he
had gone upstairs for a drink of water. He was discharged but
reinstated 10 days later.
These measures of limitation of freedom of movement were re-
sented by the engineers. Several of them felt that their reports
constituted a system of spying upon one another to combat union
activity. They claimed that the guards listened to their conversa-
tions, that they were made bewildered, nervous, and annoyed by the
silent watchfulness of these armed roundsmen. One testified that
he stopped paying union dues."
The respondent contended that these measures had no concern
whatsoever with union activities but only with plant management
for the purpose of keeping the men at their respective posts. The
explanation offered was that in the fall of 1936 Reed had observed
several times that the engineers were not staying on their jobs. On
one day he saw Crippen sitting outside of the powerhouse on the
stoop, and on another day, Gandolfi sitting on the porch of the
powerhouse. He requested Boles at the time to keep his men at
their posts. Both Reed and Boles testified that this condition of
laxness and irresponsibility continued in spite of their efforts to
stop it.
On July 2, 1937, a fifteen-minute total power failure occurred
while Gandolfi and Crippen were in charge of the powerhouse first
floor and basement respectively. At the time of the occurrence,
Crippen was upstairs with Gandolfi for the purpose, as he testified,
of taking back pressure and vacuum readings on one of the tur-
bines. Boles testified that these readings could and should have
been taken on duplicate equipment in the basement. There was
never an adequate explanation offered by either Crippen or Gan-
dolfi as to the cause of this failure. Gandolfi's only explanation
8 The two roundsmen who testified maintained that they did not listen to conversations,
were not told to watch union activity, and did not notice that their presence upset anyone.
One was himself a member of the Employees ' Union at the time
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1215
was that "we did get a bump" or a "ground" in the electricity about
15 minutes before "going down." He asserted that this would show
on the charts indicating electric flow. An examination of these
charts, however, fails to reveal the "bump" described by Gandolfi.
No defect was ever found in any of the equipment. Boles testified
that he was at the "end of his string" with this unexplained power
failure when an engineer was away from his duty. He consequently
appealed to Reed for aid in carrying out his orders. Together they
decided to require the individual employee reports, and to have
the roundsmen visit the power plant frequently to check upon the
accuracy of the reports. They claimed that this irresponsibility,
among the engineers, not any union activity, was the only cause
of their measures.
The engineers were never directly advised of the reasons for the
adoption of the reports and the added duties of the guardsmen.
The only information they had was as follows : Reitz stated that
Boles told him the guards were put on for the sole purpose of keep-
ing the men apart ; that "there were some bad apples in the barrel,
and some good ones," and that "he hated to do this to all of the men
but he had to do it to make it effective"; that "he didn't want the
man upstairs to mingle with the man downstairs. . . . He didn't
want a man to look out of the window . . . to walk out on the
porch." Gandolfi's only statement is to the same effect. He testi-
fied that Boles told him : "We are going to see you fellows quit
talking and take care of your work." None of these statements, we
find, is necessarily in conflict with the management's explanation of
its measures to maintain discipline among the personnel. Since
ordinarily the men were each assigned to different locations, strict
adherence to their posts necessarily meant cessation of conversation
among them.
The Trial Examiner found that the system of surveillance by
`armed Guards" disconcerted the engineers, materially interfered
with the proper performance of their duties and, along with the
required daily reports, existed for the sole purpose of discouraging
the engineers in their efforts to bargain collectively through the
medium of the Committee of Stationary Engineers.
As we have described above, the efficient and uninterrupted opera-
tion of the power plant is essential to the function of the respond-
ent's production processes. No "armed guards" were utilized by the
respondent other than deputized watchmen and roundsmen, and
these men made no reports concerning the power-plant employees
other than those concerning their respective locations. Although
the fact that the management imposed the measures at a time when
collective activity on the part of the engineers was beginning raises
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some doubt, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not sustain
the allegation that the system of watchmen and of reports was put
into effect to discourage union activity rather than to procvlre plant
efficiency.
C. The alleged disorinainatory disehamge
Victor Gandolfi was a licensed engineer with 8 years' experience
when he was hired by the respondent on March 22, 1934, as a sta-
tionary engineer. He was continuously employed by the respondent
until April 6, 1938, when he was discharged. The reason assigned
on his "dropcard" was "neglect of duties." The complaint alleged
that he was discharged for joining and assisting the Committee of
the Stationary Engineers and engaging in concerted activities with
other employees for purposes of collective bargaining, presenting
grievances, and other mutual aid and protection.
Gandolfi's union activities began in 1937. In March of that year
lie joined a local of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin
Workers of North America but took no active part in its affairs.
Shortly thereafter he became a member of the Employees' Union.
Immediately on joining the Employees' Union he engaged in active
membership solicitation among the engineers on behalf of this or-
ganization. In July, Gandolfi was made steward of the Employees'
Union to represent the men in the power plant.
As shown above, Gandolfi was the leader and representative of
the power-plant engineers in negotiating for the swing shift. He
represented them first as members of the Employees' Union, and
then later, in March and April 1938, as the Committee of the Sta-
tionary Engineers. When he was discharged, he and George Reitz
were still negotiating for the adoption of the type of schedule the
men wanted.
The respondent contends that it discharged Gandolfi for in-
efficiency displayed over a long period of time and cited a number
of separate incidents in support of its contention. All of these inci-
dents were recorded in two books kept by William H. Wilson, the
foreman of the power plant. The books concerned day-to-day hap-
penings at the plant including records of contracts and repairs to
equipment. These books date from April 15, 1937, which is shortly
after Wilson assumed his position. There is no indication of the
character of Gandolfi's work before April 21, 1937. In these books
no employee's name occurs as frequently as Gandolfi's in connection
with plant mishaps.
The first incident allegedly showing inefficiency was the power
'failure occurring on July 2, 1937. As we have already described,
Gandolfi was unable to give a satisfactory explanation for the power
failure. Boles testified that there was no defect in any of the equip-
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1217
ment, and no mechanical or electrical trouble. Altogether there
have been approximately ten failures during the last 14 years at
the plant, about half of which were due to natural (physical) causes.
This is the only one for which no reason whatsoever could he as-
signed. Wilson testified that there had been no unexplained power
failures during his office as foreman. For this reason Boles, Reed,
and Wilson held Gandolfi personally responsible, concluding that
this type of power failure could not have occurred unless Gandolfi
was neglectful of his duties. On the other hand, Gandolfi was never
reprimanded because of the incident.
The next incident occurred on August 23, 1937. At the beginning
of the regular working day, Gandolfi failed to close the switch for
the steel-shop-welding circuit, and thus prevented the men in the
steel shop from working. Wilson was notified and had to go to the
powerhouse to remind Gandolfi, who then put in the switch. Ac-
cording to Wilson, Gandolfi said, "I guess I slipped up on it." Gan-
dolfi justified his failure by claiming that on that particular morning
there was a danger involved in closing the switch because he had
noticed that certain "disconnects" were out in the rack room in the
basement. At the same time, he admitted that there was no sign
on the switchboard warning against closing the switch, although
such a sign was customary when the disconnects were out. That
Gandolfi was not reprimanded is uncontroverted.
The next two incidents were more trivial. On September 27, 1937,
an engineer, Johnson, called Wilson shortly after midnight pursuant
to instructions to report that Gandolfi, his relief man, had not yet
arrived. Gandolfi was fifteen minutes late and upbraided Johnson
for reporting him. Wilson admitted that tardiness was not in-
frequent, and that he did not usually object if the tardy engineer had
a good excuse. On this occasion he and Boles blamed Gandolfi for
his "attitude" towards Johnson for reporting him, and not for his
tardiness. The other incident occurred when Reed reported to Boles
that lie lead seen Gandolfi sitting on a chair in the powerhouse while
on duty. The evidence is conflicting as to whether it was customary
for the engineers to sit occasionally during working hours. Such
incidents occurred frequently, and there were times when the en-
gineers could sit without neglect of duties. Wilson, whom Boles
told to investigate the incident, did not determine whether Gandolfi
was neglecting any particular duties at the time. When Wilson
mentioned Reed's complaint, Gandolfi admitted an apprehensive
state of mind by testifying that he said : "I expected to hear about
that."
On January 24, 1938, a key came out of the valve-motion of one
of the air compressors while Gandolfi was in charge. Gandolfi was.
not at fault. Wilson testified that he considered Gandolfi neglectful
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in failing to report this incident. Gandolfi testified that Wilson
was near the machine at the time, that the key was easily replaced,
and gave no more trouble. He testified also that the incident was
never mentioned to him until the time of the hearing.
On February 3, 1938, Gandolfi blew the main whistle three min-
utes late, thus delaying the commencement of shop operations on
that day. It is uncontroverted that the whistle has on various other
occasions been blown off-schedule. Wilson testified that Gandolfi,
when spoken to concerning the incident, stated : "I guess I didn't get
around to it." Gandolfi did not deny that he made this statement,
but testified that he was never reprimanded.
The following month, on March 27, while Gandolfi was in charge
of the boiler room, the steam pressure suddenly dropped due to lack
of fire in the boiler. This resulted in no damage but might have led
to serious consequences. It was the duty of Duda, a fireman, to
attend the fire; he had neglected it while making a repair. Boles
and Wilson claimed that because Gandolfi was the engineer in charge
he was responsible for all the equipment and was negligent in not
keeping more careful check on Duda. The record discloses that Duda
was reprimanded by Wilson but that no complaint was made to
Gandolfi.
On the morning of April 4, 1938, the incident occurred which Reed
testified was "the straw that broke the camel's back." Shortly before
7 a. m. Gandolfi, in charge of the main floor of the powerhouse, began
to start up Air Compressor No. 4. His testimony, corroborated by
Reitz, who was taking readings at the time, was that lie opened first
the two valves on the low-pressure side of the engine by hand; then
the two on the high-pressure side-one with a wrench and the other
by hand. After oiling the machine and checking but not closing the
drain valve, he started the engine. At approximately 7: 10 a. in.
William Wheatley, one of the inspectors, came through on his morn-
ing tour and walked around the air compressor in question. Accord-
ing to both Gandolfi and Reitz, who was also present, they were too
far from Wheatley to observe all of his actions. Gandolfi testified
that he saw Wheatley close the drain pipe and asked him, "What the
hell he had done there," to which there was no answer. Wheatley
then left the room. Gandolfi further testified that he returned to
the engine, increased its speed, and watched it run for about 20
minutes. At .8 o'clock his shift ended and he was relieved by
Johnson.
On the following morning Gandolfi was instructed by the fore-
man to see Boles. He went to the office and Boles handed him a note
written by Wheatley the previous morning. Wheatley's note stated
that at 7:15 a. m. he had "found no cooling water, no oil going to
steam cylinders (valves very dry and groaning) and drain valve on
PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1219
intercooler on No. 4 air compressor wide open. Gandolfi was laying
on desk in front of switchboard." After reading the report, Gandolfi
denied that the facts therein were true. Boles thereupon summoned
Wheatley who asserted that his report was accurate. In addition
he stated that he had opened the 4 valves of the machine by hand.
Gandolfi challenged Wheatley's statement that he had opened the
valves by hand stating that this was not possible because one of them
had to be opened with a wrench. Gandolfi, in the presence of Boles,
called Wheatley a liar. In an attempt to ascertain the truth Boles
telephoned Johnson who had relieved Gandolfi and questioned him
regarding the condition in which he had found the machine. John-
son repeated that he had found the valves closed on the low-pressure
side, and open on the high-pressure side; that he had also found the
"tail pipe of the inner cooler too hot to put his hand" upon. Boles
testified that he thereupon discharged Gandolfi, but agreed at Gan-
dolfi's request to reconsider his decision.
The record shows that proper operation of the machine required
that the valves be open and the drain pipe closed. The machine was
steam driven and water cooled. Failure to open the valves stopped
the cooling water from circulating, and the result, if the condition
continued long enough, Boles testified, would have been an explosion
which would have wrecked the entire powerhouse. Although Boles
made no further investigation he admitted that Wheatley was prob-
ably lying. He testified, however, that he thought the incident
showed inefficiency on Gandolfi's part in any event; that even if
Wheatley had closed valves which Gandolfi had opened, Gandolfi was
responsible because he was the engineer in charge at the time, and
should have turned the machine over to Johnson in good condition.
Boles reconsidered his decision but did not change it. He testified
that not alone the closed-valve incident, but all the eight incidents
set forth above taken together, as well as Gandolfi's "attitude," were
responsible for the dischargel. By attitude he meant Gandolfi's use
of abusive language towards Johnson for reporting his tardiness,
and towards the fireman, Duda, for being careless. The respondent
admits the triviality of some of these incidents, but justifies the
discharge by their frequency and by the importance of efficient
operation of the power plant.
On the day following the discharge Gandolfi went to Reed and
asked to be reinstated. Gandolfi testified that on this occasion :
He (Mr. Reed) said, "The engine don't amount to a damned
thing to nze" . . . "You aren't fired for the engine," he
said, "You've been steward around here with this union," he
said, "and you come in here and you raised hell until you got
swing shifts," he said, "then you wasn't satisfied with that, you
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come back and raised hell until you got-you wanted new
schedules and you wasn't satisfied with anything ," he said,.
"you and three or four other men around here have caused me
more God Damn trouble than all of the God Damn plant put
together ." He said, "I want to know something about these
men. And," he said, "You are in a position to tell me, and,"
he said, "you don't live right, you don't see right, you don't
think right," and he said, "what else can I do but let you go?"
Reed denied having made this statement or any statement similar
to it. The Trial Examiner found that the statement was made.
In view, however , of many discrepancies throughout Gandolfi 's testi-
mony, and the circumstances surrounding Gandolfi's discharge, we
are unable to accept Gandolfi 's testimony in this respect as accurate.
Reed's report of this conversation with Gandolfi was to the effect
that he told Gandolfi to return , on the following day when he would
have made an investigation of the discharge . On the following
day, according to Reed, he told Gandolfi that the investigation con-
vinced him that Gandolfi's ability and efficiency were low, that he
might have caused serious trouble, and that consequently he refused
to help him.
Thereafter Gando]fi appealed to various officers of the respondent
to examine his case. He finally went to William Barker, vice presi-
dent of the respondent , who promised to investigate . On June 7,
1939, Barker in a letter to Gandolfi advised him that he had investi-
gated all of the circumstances . He emphasized in his letter the
importance of the work of the powerhouse employees, and con-
eluded that lie had nothing to add to the action already taken by
the management in discharging him. A week later Gandolfi
answered this letter, stated his disappointment at the result, and
alleged that his was not the first "frame -up" in the power plant.
He gave no description of any details surrounding the alleged
frame-up, nor did he mention any union activity that may have
motivated his discharge.
Although the circumstances raise some doubt in our minds, we
find on the basis of the entire record that the respondent did not
discharge Victor Gandolfi because of his union activities.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLusIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent , Pullman Standard Car
Manufacturing Company, occur in commerce , within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
PULLMAN- STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1221
2. The Pullman Standard Employees' Union is, and the Com-
mittee of the Stationary Engineers was, a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment or any condition of employment of Victor
Gandolfi, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint against the respondent,
Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois,
be, and the same hereby is,"dismissed.
Yn8U3°-11 -, of 21--7S