Special Tools and Machinery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1437 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of PAUL F . VOKAL D/B/A SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY
COMP ANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT'
LODGE No. 94 , A. F. L.
Case No. 01-C-2430.-Decided December 18, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 28, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, on June 30, 1945, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief-
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. Oral argument before the Board
at Washington, D. C., was not requested, and none was held.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond-
ent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the exceptions noted below :
1. The Trial Examiner has found that on August 14, 1944, the
respondent discriminatorily transferred George Richard Overfield
from die making work to lathe work in order to induce him to quit
and thereby constructively discharged him in violation of Section 9
(3) of the Act. We do not agree.
The events leading up to Overfield's separation are briefly sum-
marized as follows : On the morning of August 14, 1944, the re-
spondent informed Overfield that he was being transferred from die
making work to lathe work; Overfield voiced objection to a per-
manent transfer and threatened to quit; Overfield was then told by
his superior that he was "foolish for quitting" and that the new as-
signment would not last longer than 6 months; Overfield indicated a
willingness to accept the transfer if he were permitted to leave his
tool box at his die making bench; some 75 feet from the lathe to
64 N. L. R. B., No. 236.
143.2
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which he was being transferred; and upon the respondent' s refusal
to grant him such permission, Overfield stated, "I won't move my
tools to the lathe, I quit." Overfield has not since reported for work
at the respondent's plant.
It is apparent that the Trial Examiner, in rejecting the respond-
ent's contention that Overfield was transferred in order to give him
needed experience on lathe work, gave controlling significance to the
following testimony of Overfield : "I figured it was a demotion and I
didn't want to go back there steady on a lathe. I worked on a bench, and
you get a lot more experience of different types of work than you
would on a lathe." On the- other hand, the record shows that Over-
field was classified as an apprentice tool and die maker and as such was
not experienced in lathe work; that his transfer was consistent with
the respondent's plant policy of transferring apprentices from one
department to another to afford them the experience they needed in the
progressive stages of their apprenticeship training in order to become
qualified as journeymen;1 that the transfer entitled Overfield to a
wage increase from $1.10 to $1.25 an hour; 2 and that the respondent's
insistence that Overfield take his tool box with him to his new assign-
ment was not unreasonable.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the evidence does not war-
rant a finding that the respondent discriminated against Overfield and
we shall dismiss the complaint as to him.
2. We also disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the
respondent's transfer of Robert Leslie Root from the tool and die de-
partment to the lathe department on August 23, 1944, was violative of
the Act. Root was employed in June 1943 as a machinist lathe hand
and was transferred to the tool and die department on August 9, 1943.
On August 23, 1944, Rqot, who was earning $1.25 an hour in the tool
and die department, was transferred to the lathe department, without
any reduction in wages. Root testified that he considered the transfer
a demotion. Nevertheless, he accepted it and continued in the respond-
ent's employ until October 23, 1944, at which time he voluntarily quit
for reasons not connected with the transfer.
1 On October 16, 1944, the respondent filed with the National War Labor Board an
application for wage adjustment with respect to apprentice tool and die makers, a copy
of which is in evidence . This application contained classified job descriptions for appren-
tices first, second , and third class. The job description pertaining to first -class apprentices
reads in part as follows : They will be taught to operate universal milling machine, to
perform more intricate work on lathes , drill presses , do layout work, make simple jigs, dies
and fixtures . They work directly under close supervision and instruction of foreman, or
leadman and with specialist craftsman."
2 The Trial Examiner found that because Overfleld's transfer entailed a change in job
classification and pay rate , the respondent intended the transfer to be permanent. We
do not agree . The respondent contends in his brief that the finding is unwarranted because
the wage Stabilization Act and the rulings of the Tenth Regional War Labor Board made
it mandatory that the respondent , in making such a transfer even though it was to be of
temporary duration , effect a corresponding change in job classification and pay rate.
Moreover, Overfield admitted at the hearing that he was told that the transfer would not
be effective for longer than 6 months.
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1439
The record reveals that at the time Root was transferred the amount
of die work available in the respondent's plant had decreased; while,
on the other hand, the amount of lathe work'available had increased.
The respondent contends that because of these circumstances Root,
who was an experienced lathe hand but inexperienced in die making
work,3 was transferred to the lathe department. The Trial Examiner
admittedly would have considered this explanation of Root's transfer
as valid but for Root's disputed testimony to the effect that employee
Joe Bradshaw, who was transferred from the lathe department to the
die giaking department in order to make room for Root at a lathe,
had no previous die making experience.
We are not convinced that the circumstances herein disclosed sur-
rounding Root's transfer from die making to lathe work on August
23, 1944, warrant a finding of. discrimination within the meaning
of Section 8 (3). The record shows that Root was not an experienced
die maker and that the respondent's decision to transfer Root was
in conformance with the customary plant practice of making inter-
departmental transfers. Moreover, we do not believe that Root's
disputed and conclusionary testimony with respect to Bradshaw's
lack of die making experience has the probative value which the Trial
Examiner attaches to it .-5
We shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that
the respondent discriminated against Robert Leslie Root, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act, we must order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate
of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. Our cease and desist
order is also predicated upon the following findings: The respondent's
illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization among
his employees and its objects. For example, the respondent has inter-
rogated his employees concerning their union affiliation, attempted to
induce them to abandon the rights guaranteed under the Act, and dis-
criminatorily discharged employees Herboth, Mueller, and Baysinger
because of their affiliation with and activities on behalf of the Union.
Such discrimination "goes to the very heart of the Act." 6 Because of
F Superintendent Andrew J . Kuclita testified without contradiction that at the time of
Root 's transfer he was capable of making only "simple dies himself on instruction from
either one of the old craftsmen or the general foreman or the superintendent
4 As previously noted, this was done in the case of Overfield
I In this connection we note General Foieman Gilbert I3orstman ' s testimony to the effect
that Bra Shaw had performed both lathe and die making work prior to the date of Root's
transfer.
IN. L. It. B v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F. ( 2d) 532, 536 (C. C A 4). See
also N. L It. B . v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 116 F. (2d) 350, 353
(C. C. A. 7).
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related
to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their
commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's con-
duct in the past.? The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted
unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore,
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to pre-
vent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
We shall also order the responder}t to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Paul F. Vokal, doing business as
Special Tools and Machinery Company, City of Vernon, Los Angeles
County, California, and his agents, successors and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists, District Lodge No. 94, A. F. L., or any other labor or-
ganization of his employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of his employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, `or any term or con-
dition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of
Machinists, District Lodge No. 94, A. F. L., or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes
of collective bargaining or, other mutual aid or protection, as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Harry A. Herboth, Oliver Edward Mueller, and
Willard Julian Baysinger full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges;
4 See N L. R B v Express Publishinq Company, 312 U S 426.
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1441
(b) Make whole Harry A. Herboth, Oliver Edward Mueller, and
Willard Julian Baysinger for any loss of pay they have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, by pay-
ment to each of them of a stun of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
(late of the respondent's discrimination against him to the date of
the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
such period;
(c) Post at his plant in the City of Vernon, Los Angeles County,
California, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix
A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Twenty-first Region shall, after being duly signed by the
respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60)
consecutive clays thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d),Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated
against George Richard Overfield and Robert Leslie Root, within,
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
NLRB 577
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor,
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 94, A. F. L., or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.
67041 7-46-vol 64-92
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
,of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Harry A. Herboth
Oliver Edward Mueller
Willard Julian Baysinger
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
PAUL F. VOKAL, d/b/a
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated-------- By------------------------------ --------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Charles M. Ryan, Esq., for the Board.
Rarneyn B. Sammons, Esq., of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondent.
E. R. White, Esq., of Los Angeles, Calif, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed by International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No. 94, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California),
issued its complaint dated January 9, 1945, against Paul F. Vokal doing business
as Special Tools and Machinery Company, herein called the respondent , alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, together with notice of hearing, were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance: (1)
that from and after August 9, 1944, the respondent stated to his employees that
he knew which of them were engaged in union activities ; which of them attended
union meetings ; what transpired at the union meetings ; that the Union would
be of no benefit to his employees ; that the Union's organizers would victimize
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1443
Its members ; that the employees who rejected the Union would retain their jobs
with the respondent after the war; and that no union would tell the respondent
how to run his business; (2) that during the period from August 14 to August
26, 1944, the respondent discriminatorily demoted and transferred George Over-
field and Robert L. Root, and discriminatorily discharged Harry A. Herboth,
Oliver E. Mueller, and Willard J Baysinger; and (3) that by the foregoing con-
duct the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On January 12, 1945, the respondent filed his answer and on January 19, 1945,
an amended answer. In his answers, the respondent denied that he was engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and denied the alleged unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held at Los Angeles, California, from Janu-
ary 22 to 26, 1945, inclusive, before Louis Plost the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Union, and the
respondent were represented by counsel. All parties participated in the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the
hearing, the attorney for the Board and the attorney for the respondent argued
orally on the record. The parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs
with the undersigned. A brief has been received from counsel for the respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
-the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Paul F. Vokal, is an individual doing business as Special Tools
and Machinery Company, having his place of business in the City of Vernon,
Los Angeles County, California, where he is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of special tools, special precision gauges, machines, jigs, fix-
tures, airplane parts, and gun parts. During the period from March 1 to Septem-
ber 1, 1944, the respondent purchased aluminum, brass, bronze, steel, and miscel-
laneous materials for use in the manufacture of his products amounting to
$11,924 42. Most of these materials were purchased from California dealers and
delivered from their stock piles. In most instances, the materials purchased
by the respondent for use in the manufacture of his products were originally
produced or manufactured outside California The materials produced by the
respondent are, in the main, sold to various aircraft manufacturing and other
manufacturing concerns in California conceded to be engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of the Act. The tools and appliances manufactured and sold by
the respondent to the concerns above referred to are essential for their operations.
These tools- and devices wear out and become obsolete in a limited time. During
the period from March 1 to September 1, 1944, the value of the materials produced
and sold by the respondent was $190,872.01.
The respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
I In his amended answer, the respondent contends that he is not subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the Board because his business depends upon his personal skill and supervision and
that he could transfer his activities to any of his customers' plants should his be closed.
In his brief , the respondent argues that he is not engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act because his operations are local in character.
The undersigned finds no merit in either contention See N. L. It. B. v. Bank of America,
130 F (2d) 624 (C C A. 9) ; Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. It. B.; 305 U. S. 197;
N. L. It. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U . S. 314.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists District Lodge No 94. A. F, L. is a
labor organization admitting employees of the respondent to menbership
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Interfcrence, restraint, and coercion
In July 1944, some of 'the respondent's employees decided to form a labor
organization. George Richard Overfield, one of their number was designated
to contact an organizer for the Union. On or about July 22, during the noon
hour, one Roberts, an organizer for the Union met with Overfield in a parking-
lot at the rear of the respondent's plant. While Overfield and Roberts were
engaged in conversation, Andrew J Kuchta, the respondent's superintendent,
came up and asked what they were discussing Roberts replied he was selling
insurance, whereupon Kuchta left. On August 8, Over field distributed authoriza-
tion cards for the Union among the respondent's employees On August 10, the
Union held an organizational meeting which was attended by 13 or 14 of the
employees.
Knowledge of the meeting and what transpired thereat became known to
the respondent. On the morning of the day following the Union's meeting,
Kuchta asked employee Carl E. Olson, while the latter was at the time clock.
what he thought of the Union. Olson replied that he did not know. Kuchta
then said to Olson, "Well that is not going to help you any. It will help the-
other fellows."' Kuchta then stated he did not believe the Union would be or-
ganized On the same day, Kuchta asked-employee Adolph DeBlasio if lie had
attended the union meeting DeBlasio replied he had not. At about 4:55 p in ,
Overfield was told by the respondent's office manager to report to the office.
There he was met by Kuchta who greeted him with the i emark "How about selling
me some insurance ?" Kuchta then went on to say, inter (ilia, "Well if it had
been anyone but you I wouldn't have thought much of it But I thought you
was my friend," and asked what Overfield thought a union might get him.
Overfield replied that a union might obtain certain safety devices fot the em-
ployees. Kuchta then showed Oveifield a record of the pay raises he had re-
ceived, and stated that he (Kuchta) had once belonged to a union and walked
a picket line. He asked Overfield how many of the employees had joined the
Union. Overfield told him between 5.5 and 60 percent Kuchta asked if Over-
field thought he could organize a union among the employees Overfield gave
an affirmative answer. The interview lasted until 5.30 p in
Lawrence S. Young, one of the respondent's employees, on August 9, signed
an authorization card he received from Overfield and attended the union meet-
ing on August 10. At the meeting, he spoke against any attempt to obtain pay
raises or other concessions. During the morning of August 11, Kuchta, during
a conversation with Young in the plant, asked if he had signed a card for the
Union and remarked that Young had made a "nice little speech" at the meeting.
During the afternoon of the same day, Young accompanied Kuchta on a trip
away from the plant and while they were together Kuchta told Young he knew-
,about the union activity; that Overfield was back of it; that he was surprised
at Overfield's action ; that he intended to speak to Overfield ; and that he knew-
who had attended the meeting!
Olson was employed as a highly rated skilled tool maker.
Kuchta testified that he had Overfield called to the office in order to discuss bowling-
with him, Overfield having been the captain of the plant bowling team the previous year.-
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1445
On or about August 19, 1944, Kuchta, in a conversation with Adolph DeBlasio,
a tool maker employed by the respondent, asked DeBlasio if he had signed a union
card. DeBlasio replied that he had Kuchta asked DeBlasio what he expected
to gain by it. To this, reply was made that while DeBlasio might gain nothing
by it, other employees might do so Kuchta then recalled to DeBlasio that they
had known and worked with each other for years, and added: "If you stick with
me I will take care of you "
The undersigned finds that by the conduct above described, the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B The disci iiniaatory discha ge of George Richard Overfield
The interview between Kuchta and Overfield in the respondent's office, took
;place as above related on Friday, August 11. On the following Monday, August
14. at 7:15 a in., while Overfield was at work at his bench, Gilbert Horstman,
the respondent's general foreman, informed him that he was being transferred
from die making to lathe work. Overfield asked the reason for the transfer and
Horstman replied "There is going to be a lot of changes made."- Overfield told
Horstman be would not mind working at the lathe for a short time but did not
want lathe work "steady." Horstman again stated that a lot of changes were
being made. Overfield replied that he would quit and was told to see Kuchta.
,Overfield then went to Kuchta and asked why lie was being transferred. Kuchta
i eplied that a die maker needed lathe experience and that Overfield would be on
lathe work for a period of 2 to 6 months. Overfield asked Knehta's permission
to keep his tool box at his die bench. Permission was refused with the expla-
iiation that the bench was needed for a new die maker, and Overfield was told to
keep his tools at the lathe Overfield then said he would quit and was given a
certificate of availability. The record indicates that there were four or five die
maker's benches in the plant not in use. On August 17, Overfield called at the
respondent's office for his check. While he was at the office Kuclita inquired of
him whether a certain die maker had joined the Union He was told that this
(lie maker had joined Kuchta then told Overfield that another die maker, whom
he also named, would quit the respondent's employ if the Union came into the
plant Before he gave Overfield his check Kuchta asked him why the dissatis-
fied employees had not first come to him to "talk things over "
Concluding findings
Overteld was employed by the respondent June 29, 1943, as an apprentice tool
and die maker. Kuchta testified that he had been favorably impressed by Over-
fiield ; that he first employed him at 75 cents an hour and granted him progressive
increases until he reaches the top of the pay biacket in his classification, $1.10
an hour. Overfield's work was helping make dies. His ambition was to become
a master die maker In connection with his die making work he performed oper-
ations on various machines. Approximately 15 percent of the time he had worked
for the respondent had been spent in work on various lathe operations. He was
a good workman The respondent had found no fault with his work.
Kuchta further testified . "But this other thing was on my mind and I was also interested
to know what the fellows wanted " Kuchta testified that the conversation as related by
Oveifield occuired after Overficld's discharge and not on August 11. He did not deny the
statements attributed to him by Olson , DeBlasio, and Young The undersigned credits
Overfield , Olson, DeBlasio , and Young , as to the above related incidents.
I Horstman did not deny Overfleld's testimony.
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO NS BOARD
Overfield testified he considered the transfer to be a demotion, inasmuch as he-
had been helping to build dies, which was bench work, as distinguished from a
lathe operation, which was production work. He further testified that the machine-
offered him was "an old lathe."
Overfield's request to keep his tool box on his bench and not at a machine is
indicative of his keen desire to be identified with the die makers and his pride in
his chosen craft. To Overfield, the transfer from a skilled craft occupation to a
mere machine operation violated the intangibles which not only formed the basis
of his pride but gave him prestige. The transfer was a demotion and violent
reduction in status, none the less real because the loss was intangible and not
measured in money value. At the time he was transferred Overfield was work-
ing on a die. The transfer in a plant as small as the respondent's would undoubt-
edly cause comment and speculation among the employees.
Kuchta testified that the sole reason for the transfer of Overfield was to give him
needed lathe experience.'
In view of Kuchta's statements to Overfield, Young, DeBlasio, and Olson, as
above related, and from the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that
the respondent did not transfer Overfield from his work as a die maker to that of
a lathe operator in order to enable him to gain needed lathe experience, but trans-
ferred him in order to induce him to quit the respondent's employ, and that by
such transfer and Overfield's refusal to accept the transfer the respondent con-
structively discharged Overfield' and thereby discriminated in regard to his hire
and tenure of employment thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The discriminatory discharge of Harry A. Herboth
Harry A. Herboth, then a retail clothing salesman, was employed by the respond-
dent as an assistant tool crib attendant in September 1942. Kuchta testified that
he met Herboth while making a purchase at Herboth's former place of employment
and that Herboth told him that he "would like to get in a shop where he could get
his hands dirty and do something for the war effort." Herboth started at a wage
rate of 65 cents per hour. At the time of his discharge on August 14, 1944, he
was earning $1.10 per hour.' Herboth worked in the tool crib for approximately
6 months. He was then transferred to machine work in the respondent's grinding
department About 6 months later he was again transferred to the tool crib.
Kuchta testified that Herboth's lead man reported that he would "never make a
mechanic" because he was "afraid of the machines." Herboth was given complete
charge of the tool crib on the day shift. During his employment he made cer-
tain improvements in the crib for which he was praised both by the respondent
Vokal and Kuchta.8
5 The respondent in his brief argues that in transferring Overfield from the position of
apprentice die maker to that of apprentice machinist he passed from a maximum pay bracket
of $1.10 an hour to one of $1 25 an hour . Respondent ' s argument shows that Overfield's
transfer was considered permanent by the respondent , and the undersigned so finds.
6 See Waples -Platter Company, 49 N. L. R B. 1156, 140 F. (2d) 228 (C. C. A. 5),.
Herboth ' s pay record with the respondent was
Sept. 1942 . 65 per hour May 3, 1943 . 90
Nov 2, 1942 70 per hour June 21, 1943 . 95
Dec. 7 , 1942 . 75 per hour July 21, 1943 1. 00
Feb. 22, 1943 . 80 per hour Oct 4, 1943 1. 05
Apr. 12, 1943 . 85 per hour Jan. 10, 1944 1. 10
° Kuchta admitted that Herboth had made improvements in the crib , but testified that
he instructed Herboth how to make them and that all such impro%ements were by his
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1447
On August 9, Herboth signed an authorization card for the Union. He
received the card from Overfield. On Saturday , August 12 , Kuchta entered
the tool crib and asked Herboth if he had signed a union card . Upon receiv-
ing an affirmative reply, Kuchta said that he knew Overfield had handed the
card to Herboth ; he then asked , "What the hell did you sign a card for? What
can they do for you that I didn ' t do?" Herboth replied that he expected no
personal benefits from the Union . Kuchta then left but quickly returned with
a statement of the pay raises Herboth had received while in the respondent's
employ. Herboth asked Kuchta why he was against the Union; the latter
answered , "We don't want the Union in here to tell us who to put on a machine,
and when to run a machine." °
On Monday , August 14, at about 4: 30 p . m , one of the respondent 's female
bookkeepers came to the tool crib window and said to Herboth , " Goodbye and
good luck to you." Herboth asked her the meaning of her remark , she an-
answered, "I probably shouldn 't have come out I thought you knew," and'
then left without further explanation . At 5: 30 p. in ., Herboth returned cer-
tain tools to the office , where they were kept during the night. He was met
by Kuchta who told him that he was being discharged . Herboth asked the
season, and was told, "Well , I am just going to replace you." After some fur-
ther conversation , during which Herboth told Kuchta that lie felt that he was-
being discharged because he joined the Union, and received no reply, he left
the plant . The next day , Herboth called at the respondent 's office for his
check, and asked for a letter to show to the United States Employment Service.
Kuchta read him a penciled letter he proposed sending to the U. S. E. S.
which set out the respondent 's reasons for Herboth 's discharge.'° Herboth
asked Kuclita permission to go into the plant to bid good -bye to the employees.-
Permission was refused.
Concluding findings
In the letter shown to Herboth the respondent states that Herboth was
discharged because he was dissatisfied with his rate of pay and became sullen
and dissatisfied ; that in asking for a pay raise he named a company as paying
$130 an hour for work similar to his and that this company was not listed
in the [Los Angeles] directory. Kuchta testified that Herboth did not name
this company until August 12th, the last working day before his discharge.
Herboth testified without contradiction that none of the respondent's officials
ever told him that he was sullen and dissatisfied.
In his brief, the respondent states that Herboth was discharged for issuing
defective and worn out tools, causing workmen to apply to Kuchta for tools, and
for similar dereliction of duty.
order and under his instructions. Gilbert Horstman, the respondent's general foreman,
testified that not Herboth but the night crib attendant made most of the improvements
and that the making of improvements was left entirely to the crib attendant.
U Kuchta testified that Herboth began the conversation and volunteered that he had
joined the Union with the intention of transferring to the clothing union later. He
admitted showing Herboth his pay record
10 This penciled letter was introduced in evidence and reads as follows
Mr Harry Herboth was not satisfied with his rate of pay $110 per hr Claimed
that Whitehead Arrow Co , was paying $1 30 per hr. for tool crib attendants, the
above Co. not listed in directory. He was an enthusiastic worker when the started
to work for our Co. as apprentice 65¢ per hr. Nov. 2, 1942 and in 22 months received
9 raises that is at the rate of a raise every 23 month. He became dissatisfied and
sullen in his work. And made known he was going back to the clothing business.
Having heard the threat several times we discharged him in favor of a more enthusi-
astic worker.
(S) A C. KUCHTA.
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record discloses that many of the files kept in the tool crib were wo n out.
Horstman admitted that when mechanics came to the tool crib for files, Herboth
handed them the drawer containing the entire stock of files, permitting them to
make their own selection. Cutters were also selected by the mechanic who called
-for them. Herboth was not a mechanic The respondent was aware of the fact
that Herboth could not accurately determine the quality of tools. The record
does not show that Herboth wilfully issued dull or defective tools ; on the con-
trary, he left the final selection to the mechanics who were to use them Herboth
had no authority to buy or to order tools He could only report to Kuchta or
Horstman, and the record indicates that lie did discuss the condition of tools in
the crib with them Certain tools and equipment were kept in the office. Herboth
-was required to pass a request for such tools and equipment to Kuchta In no
instance was any request made by an employee directly to Kuchta for any tool
kept in the tool crib.
The respondent adduced evidence, and ai gues in his brief, that about one month
before his discharge Herboth failed to issue a set of clamps to a mechanic but
that immediately after such refusal he issued a similar set pf clamps to the
mechanic's helper. Fred Durkee, the employee to whom Herboth allegedly failed
to furnish the clamps, testified that he did not report the incident to the respond-
^ent. Durkee testified that after the incident:
I went to the crib every day after that and got my tools, and lie waited on
me as usual.
Herboth averaged a pay raise every 22 months he was in the respondent's
employ.
Kuchta testified that he discharged Herboth because "lie got to be a nuisance
after a time ..." From the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that
the respondent discharged Harry A Herboth on August 14, 1944, because of his
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and that by such discharge
the respondent has discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment
and discouraged membership in a labor organization, and thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act
D. The disertniinatovl disclmide of Oliver Ed,toaid Mue7lei
Oliver Edward Mueller was employed by the respondent on May 16, 1944 At
the time he was hired he informed Kuchta that he had experience .is a tool maker,
but that he had no experience as a die maker. Kuchta told him that he would
put him on die making work and did so" After six weeks' employment as a die
maker Mueller was transferred to tool making. Mueller had 10 years' experience
as a machinist and tool maker.
On August 11, 1944, Mueller signed an authorization card for the Union, given
'him by Overfield. He did not attend the Union's meeting on August 11.
Mueller attended the Union's second meeting on August 22. At this meeting
he volunteered to act on an organizing committee.' The day following the
Union's meeting at 5 30 p. in. Kuchta discharged Mueller giving the reason to be
Mueller's spoiling of certain work and the fact that the plant was overstaffed.
ii Kuchta testified that after Mueller had worked as a rlie maker for 6 weeks lie observed
that lie could not do die work and so informed him. Mueller then recalled to Kuchta that
he had told him lie could not do die work when he was first hired, upon which Kuchta said
"Perhaps I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me . . " Mueller was then trans-
ferred to tool making ; and given a 5 cents per hour increase in pay. The undersigned
credits Mueller's version of the occurrence
"The committee consisted of Mueller, Willard Baysinger, Adolph DeBlasio, and Robert
'toot.
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1449
The respondent contends that Mueller was not a craftsman ; that he was unable
to do precision work ; that he had spoiled certain gauges and jigs ; that at the time
of his discharge Mueller was roughing gauges which was work suitable for an
apprentice of limited experience; and that the respondent had no more work which,
Mueller could peiform.
The record shows that within 10 days prior to Mueller's discharge, three addi-
tional workmen had been employed by the respondent; at least one of them having
the same classification as Mueller None of these men were discharged
Horstman testified that sometime in July, Mueller had spoiled a fixture on
which he was working and that it required 20 hours of labor properly to complete
it. Mueller testified that the only times he spoiled any work was on an occasion
about 3 weeks prior to his discharge. He completed a jig and it was found to be
not level, and at about the same time completed another jig also not level The
first of these defective jigs was brought to his attention by Horstman. Fifteen
or twenty minutes was required to perfect the work. The second was brought to
him by the plant inspector. One hour was required to adjust this jig
It is not unusual for work of this character to require adjustment after final
inspection.
The undersigned was impressed by Mueller as being an honest and forthright
witness. The undersigned was not impressed by Horstman, and accordingly
credits Mueller as to the amount of spoilage in his work and the time required
to make the necessary adjustments. This finding is buttressed by the testimony
of Carl E Olson, the respondent's inspector. Olson is a tool maker having 33
years of experience in the craft. Olson testified that he inspected Mueller's
work, as part of his regular duties, and "found them O. K., just as much as the
rest of the fellows "
Adolph DeBlasio, a tool maker having 30 years' experience, and the respond-
ent's highest paid craftsman, testified that at certain times Mueller did "machine
finish" work as distinguished from "roughing" and that Mueller was a competent
workman. DeBlasio had full opportunity of closely observing Mueller's work
as it was his duty to do the final grinding on gauges Mueller machined.
Horstman testified that after Mueller's discharge he found certain tools on
Mueller's bench which Mueller had made for himself on the respondent's time.
Horstman admitted he had not seen Mueller make these tools.
Kuchta testified that during the first week in August Mueller left the respond-
ent's plant without authority He did not reprimand Mueller for leaving. Mueller
denied leaving the plant without authority. The undersigned credits Mueller.
Prior to the day of his discharge none of the respondent's officials ever indi-
cated to Mueller that they considered him to be incompetent or inexperienced.
Concluding findings
The undersigned is not persuaded by the multiplicity of reasons advanced by
the respondent for Mueller's discharge.
The undersigned finds that the respondent discharged Oliver Edward Mueller
on August 23, 1944, because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union and that by such discharge the respondent has discriminated in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment and discouraged membership in a labor
organization, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E. The discriminatory discharge of Willard Julian Baysinger
Willard Julian Baysinger was employed by the respondent as a tool and die
maker June 2, 1944 , and was discharged August 26 , 1044 Prior to his employment
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the respondent, Baysinger had worked in similar capacities elsewhere since
1935 On August 9, Baysinger signed an authorization card for the Union. He
attended the Union's first meeting August 10, also attended its second meeting,
August 22, and became a member of the Union's organizing committee 13
Baysinger tesfi.fied that a day or two after the Union's second meeting, while
he was at his work, lie noticed Kuchta standing near him; that he thereupon
called Kuchta over and engaged him in conversation, informed him that he (Bay-
singer) had become a member of the Union's organizing committee, and added
to Kuchta, as lie testified, "If the boys wanted the shop organized I would help
them organize it." Baysinger further testified that Kuchta replied it was every
man's right to carry a union card, and that after some further talk Kuclita closed
the conversation with the statement "no one was going to tell him how to run
the shop, or after the war, or any other time. That after the war one man
may be willing to bargin for $1.40 and stop there." 14
On August 20, Baysinger broke a punch in a die he was building. While
waiting for a new punch to be ground, and having no further work, he asked
Horstman for work to perform while waiting for the punch Horstman asked
if the storage straps for the die were ready and if the die was stamped. Bay-
singer replied that the straps were ready but could not be attached until the
die was "tried out " Horstman testified he ordered Baysinger to affix the straps
to the die. This was denied by Baysinger who testified that had he been ordered
to do so, he would have affixed the straps. Horstman admitted that Baysinger
had never before refused to follow any order given him Bay-singer further
testified that stamping a die, which means cutting the identifying markings,
was ordinarily left to the discretion of the workman building it. Baysinger
impressed the undersigned as an honest witness. He freely admitted damaging
evidence and made no effort to without any facts. The undersigned credits
Baysinger, and finds that he was not ordered to affix the straps to the die, but
that he was told to stamp it. Baysinger left Horstman ; returned to his bench
took a set of angle plates, belonging to himself but which he used in his regular
work, to a shaper and there performed some repair operations on them. Bay-
singer worked on the angle plates for about 50 minutes and then returned to his
bench where he was met by Kuchta who asked Baysinger if he had been doing
work for himself. Upon receiving an affirmative reply Kuchta discharged him,
giving as the reason therefor that Baysinger had done work for himself on
,the respondent's time The punch Baysinger needed was not yet completed.
Horstman testified that he watched Baysinger working on his own angle plates
as above related for a period of between 15 to 20 minutes ; that thereafter Kuchta
came up, and lie told Kuchta what Baysinger was doing. Horstman said nothing
to Baysinger after lie discovered him doing the work on his angle plates. He testi-
fied this was the first time he had ever seen Baysinger do work for himself on
the respondent's time
The record is clear that the respondent has a posted rule prohibiting employees
-from engaging in work for themselves on his time 1o The record is also clear that
Baysinger was an experienced mechanic, performing highly skilled work upon
-materials covered by a dead line delivery date.
11 See footnote 12, supra.
14 Kuchta admitted holding the above related conversation with Baysinger. He testified
that he said to Baysinger, "You know there are all classes of men in the shop, some are a
bargain at $1 50 an hour and others aren't worth 20 cents. That is the only way I know
to run an efficient shop, to keep the select men that are worth what they are getting."
The undersigned believes the exact conversation to be immaterial, inasmuch as it conveyed
to Kuchta the knowledge that Baysinger was active on behalf of the Union.
15 This rule was posted at the request of the United States Government , as is usual in
such cases.
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1451
Charles Emrick, an employee of the respondent from September 1942 to Jan-
uary 1945, testified that on March 1, 1944, Kuchta instructed him to finish a cutter
for himself."
Emrick further testified, without contradiction, that Horstman had a certain
stool made for Emrick by the night shift foreman on the respondent's time ; that the
tool remained Emrick's personal property, and that he (Emrick) had made a tool
for a former foreman of the respondent on the respondent's time. This foreman
removed the tool from the plant when he left the respondent's employ.
In commenting on Enirick's testimony in his brief, the respondent argues that
Emrick's relations with the respondent's superintendent and foreman were ex-
,ceedingly friendly and that permission for an employee to do work for himself was
.discretionary with management.
Concluding findings
The respondent 's antagonism to the Union is clearly reflected by the record, as
is the respondent 's knowledge of Baysinger 's part in the Union's affairs. Prior
to Baysinger 's discharge , the respondent had discriminatorily terminated the em-
ployment of Overfield , Herboth , and Mueller , and made his anti-union position
-clear through Kuchta 's statements.
It does not seem at all plausible to the undersigned that from any realistic point
of view it foreman who is fully aware of a dead line delivery date on a product
being individually built by a skilled mechanic , would stand by for 15 or 20 minutes
-and permit this employee to do work outside the scope of his employment, and
against the respondent ' s rules, without stopping him, unless this foreman had an-
other motive in mind, namely the entrapment of the employee in an infraction of
rules serious enough to cause his discharge . It seems equally implausible to the
undersigned that the superintendent of a small plant , in need of skilled mechanics,
having full knowledge that an employee was performing skilled work against a
time limit , would summarily discharge such an employee for the infraction of a
rule occasioned by idleness due to a mishap , there being also present either a dis-
pute or a misunderstanding as to a foreman 's orders regarding the use of the
idle time , unless the superintendent was motivated more by the finding of an
excuse for the discharge than by any sound reason therefor.
The undersigned finds that the respondent discharged Willard Julian Bay-
singer on August 26, 1944, because of his membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union, and that by such discharge had discriminated in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment and discouraged membership in a labor
organization and thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced his employees
in rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
F. The disci iminatory transfer of Robei t Leslie Root
Robert Leslie Root was employed by the respondent June 18, 1943. At
the time he applied for employment, he stated that he was a shaper man.
He was given work as a lathe hand and continued in such employment until
August 9, 1943, when he was transferred to the die department and worked
as a die maker's helper until August 23, 1944, when he was transferred back
to lathe work, as hereinafter set out.
Kuchta testified that at the time of his transfer, Root had progressed suffi-
ciently to be able to make simple dies Root started with the respondent at
an hourly wage of $1.15 which at the time of his transfer had been increased
to $1.25, the top bracket for his classification in the respondent's plant.
11 Kuchta testified that lie instructed Emrick to use the cutter , when made , not to keep it.
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 9, 1944, Root signed an authorization card for the Union. He
obtained the card from Overfield. On August 10, Root attended the Union's
first meeting, he also attended the Union's second meeting, August 2214
On August 22, while he was at work and prior to the Union's meeting, Kuchta
asked Root if he had posted a notice announcing the Union's meeting on the
plant bulletin board. Root replied that he had not done so and informed
Kuchta that he had posted a notice on the board appiizing the employees
that he had found a 6-inch scale On the morning of August 23, Horstman
informed Root that he was being transferred to lathe work Root asked Horst-
man if the transfer was temporary, and was told it was permanent. Root
then pointed out that all the lathes were manned, whereupon Horstman replied
that one of the lathe operators was being transferred to die work and that
Root would take his machine. This man was so transferred. He had no ex-
perience as a die maker. Root accepted the transfer and worked at the lathe
until October 23. Root testified that he considered his transfer a demotion.
On the morning of October 23, before he began work, Root asked Kuchta for
a certificate of availability stating that he had secured another position at
more money. Kuchta issued the certificate to Root.18
The undersigned finds from the entire record that Root voluntarily quit the
respondent's employ for reasons not connected with his transfer.
The record shows that the rate of pay in the respondent's plant for apprentice
die makers and machinist lathe hands was identical. The character of the work
is different.
Horstman testified:
We didn't have hardly any dies, maybe three or four in the shop. So in
order to give the first class die maker something to do he [Root] was taken
off dies and put in the lathe department. _
Kuchta testified "he helped to build dies until such time that we ran out of die
work, and had more lathe work; So I switched him back on the lathe. That
is all I have to say about that."
Management is of course in the best position to know what work is available in
any plant. Absent discrimination, it is the perogative of management to assign
tasks to workers. The undersigned would consider the explanation offered by
both Horstman and Kuchta a valid reason for the transfer of Root were it not
for the fact that in order to make room for Root at a lathe, a lathe operator with
no die making experience was transferred to die making. Moreover, on the day
of Root's transfer, the respondent also discriminatorily transferred and construe-
tively discharged Mueller
The undersigned finds on the entire record that the respondent discriminatorily
transferred Robert Leslie Root on August 23, 1944, from his position of apprentice
die maker to that of machinist lathe hand and that by such transfer has dis-
criminated in regard to the conditions of his employment and discouraged mem-
bership in a labor organization and thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced his employees in rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
Because, however, Root voluntarily quit his employment with the respondent 19
for reasons not connected with his transfer the undersigned will not recommend
the usual remedy of reinstatement and back pay
14 DeBlasio testified that Root was placed on the Union's organizing committee at the
meeting
11 Root's new position paid $1 4:i an hour
19 Regarding his transfer Root testified : "I would still be there if I was on a bench, I
think." This is inconsistent with his request for an availability certificate and the state-
ment that-he had secured a position at more money than the respondent could pay him.
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
1453
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that he cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the respondent has discriminatorily discharged
George Richard Overfield, Harry A. IIerboth, Oliver Edward Mueller, and Willard
Julian Baysinger, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent offer to
each of them their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges. The undersigned will further
recommend that the respondent make whole George Richard Overfield, Harry A.
Herboth, Oliver Edward Mueller, and Willard Julian Baysinger for any loss of
pay each may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
bun by payment to each of such employees a sum of money equal to the amount
he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the
(late of the respondent's offer of reemployment, less his net earnings 20 during said
period
Since it has been found that the respondent effected the discriminatory dis-
charge of George Richard Overfield by the method of a discriminatory transfer
from his position of apprentice die maker, the undersigned will further recom-
mend that in the event Overfield is not reinstated to his former position any
"substantially equivalent" position offered him shall be in the respondent's die
making department.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CoNCLusIONs OF LAW
1 Intern:n ics l':lssociation of Machinists, District Lodge No. 94, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a- labor organization, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George
Richard Overfield, Harry A Herboth, Oliver Edward Mueller, and Willard Julian
Baysinger, thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid labor organization,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the conditions of the employment of Robert
Leslie Root, thereby discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists, District Lodge No 94, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, the respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
m By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Comp any, 8 N 1, R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings See Republic Steel Corporation v N L R B , 311 U S. 7.
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged ill
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices aie unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Paul F. Vokal, doing business as Special
Tools and Machinery Company, City of Vernon, Los Angeles County, California,
his officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, Dis-
trict Lodge No. 94, A F. L, or any other labor organization of his employees,
by discharging any of his employees, or by discriminating in any other manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their
employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing his employ-
ees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 94,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to George Richard Overfield, Harry A Herboth, Oliver Edward
Mueller, and Willard Julian Baysinger full reinstatement to their former posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole George Richard Overfield, Harry A. Herboth, Oliver Edwards
Mueller, and Willard Julian Baysinger, in the manner set forth in the section
hereof entitled "The remedy", for any loss of pay they may have suffered;
(c) Post at his plant in the City of Vernon, Los Angeles County, California,
copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Office of the Twenty-first Region shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that he will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944, any
party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of
the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32
SPECIAL TOOLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY 1455
of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof-
upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
Louis PLOST,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 28, 1945.
NLRB 577
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No. 94, A. F. L, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full.
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination.
George Richard Overfield
Harry A. Herboth
Oliver Edward Mueller
William Julian Baysinger.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor-
organization.
PAUL F. VOKAL , d/b/a,
SPncIAL TooLS AND MACHINERY COMPANY,
Employer.
By --------------------------- ------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed.
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date, hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.