Swan Fastener Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 503
Hess activities which affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union, International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-101,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By its attempt to cause the Eclipse Lumber Company, Inc, to discriminate
against Charles B. Marl in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and by its
restraint and coercion of Marl and other employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union did engage and is
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent Company did not, by its discharge of Charles B. Marl at
the Respondent's Union request, engage in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act.
6. The Respondent Union did not, by its request that dues-delinquent employ-
ees of the Respondent Company settle all dues arrearages and fines as a condi-
tion precedent to reinstatement after the execution of its union-security agree-
ment with the Company, restrain or coerce such employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION and LODGE 264 OF DISTRICT 38 OF INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS . Case No. 1-CA-538.
July 21, 1951
Decision and Order
On January 26, 1951, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal
of these allegations. Thereafter, 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, including the granting of the General Counsel's mo-
tion to withdraw those paragraphs of the complaint alleging viola-
tions of Section 8 (a) (2) and (5) of the Act,l and finds that no
'The Respondent has excepted to the granting of this motion However, we have not
rejected the Trial Examiner's ruling as it did not, in our opinion, constitute an abuse
of discretion.
95 NLRB No. 48.
Z04 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
the Respondent's brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the additions set forth below.
.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the conduct of Herman Cravatts
is imputable to the Respondent because of his close family relation-
ship to the general manager of the plant and to the foreman of the
assembly - department. Cravatt's conduct is imputable to the Re-
spondent not only because of this factor but because, upon the record
and the facts set forth in the Intermediate Report, we find that Her-
man Cravatts is a supervisor within the meaning of the amended Act.2
2. The Trial Examiner found that Doucette, Possick, and Kelly
were not supervisors within the meaning of the amended Act. In
the absence of any exception to this finding, we adopt it as our own.
3. The Trial Examiner inadvertently stated, at one point in his
Intermediate Report, that Foreman Whitham's act in "persuading"
Perkins to attend the IAM meeting and report his observations was
interference in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We do not
consider that Whitham "persuaded" Perkins to attend the meeting
but find, as did the Trial Examiner in his conclusions, that Whitham's
interrogation of Perkins as to his intention to attend the IAM meet-
ing and his request of Perkins to report to him the proceedings at the
meeting were in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Swan Fastener Corpora-
tion, Cambridge, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Lodge 264 of District 38 of Inter-
national Association of Machinists, by discriminatorily discharging
any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees as to their union membership,
activities, or sympathies.
(c) Threatening to move its plant, to revoke privileges, or to make
other economic reprisal if the above-named labor organization is
chosen as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.
2 Compare the Trial Examiner ' s findings with respect to the supervisory status of
Keith Whitham and Lillian Michelman.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 505
(d) Engaging in surveillance of its employees ' self-organizational
activities on behalf of the above -named labor organization, or any
other labor organization.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist Lodge 264 of District 38 of Inter-
national Association of Machinists , 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 , or to refrain from any
or all of such activities , except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Martin Moore , Lester Stevens , Stanley Barnette, Don-
ald Blair, Frank Karavetsos , Stanley Doyle, Edward d'Entremont,
and Lois Blair immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole said Martin Moore, Stanley Barnette , Lester
Stevens, Donald Blair , Frank Karavetsos, Stanley Doyle , Edward
d'Entremont , and Lois Blair in the manner set forth in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy" for any losses of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's discrimina-
tion against them.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay and the right
of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(d) -Post at its plant at Cambridge , Massachusetts, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said
notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region,
shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent or by its representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees 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.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order" the words,
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8
(a.) (4) of the Act.
. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
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 discourage membership in LODGE 264 OF DISTRICT
38 OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any- of., our
employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions
of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate-our employees as to their union mem-
bership, activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten to move our plant, to revoke privileges,
or to make other economic reprisal if -the above-named labor
organization is chosen as the exclusive bargaining representative
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees' self-
organizational activities on behalf of the above-named labor or-
ganization, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other 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 LODGE 264 OF
DISTRICT 38 OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 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, and to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 507
Lions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any losses of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Martin Moore Frank Karavetsos
Stanley Barnette Stanley Doyle
Lester Stevens Edward d'Entremont
Donald Blair Lois Blair
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming members of the above-named union or any other labor organi-
zation, except to the extent that the right to refrain may be affected
by a lawful agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment. We will not discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment against any employee because of membership in or activity on
behalf of any such labor organization.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION,
Employer.
By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charges duly filed by Lodge 264 of District 38
of International Association of Machinists, herein referred to variously as the
IAM and the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board'
by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued
a complaint dated June 29, 1950, against Swan Fastener Corporation herein
called the Respondent alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section S (a) (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the charges and the complaint, together with a notice of hearing, were
duly .served upon the Respondent, the IAM, and International Ladies Garment
Workers Union herein called the ILGWU.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent: (1) Had during the period from on or about October 15,
1949, to the date of the issuance of the complaint herein, by its officers, agents,
and employees restrained and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees by various enumerated acts; (2) on various dates between
October 21 and November 17, 1949, discriminatorily discharged eight named
I The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein called the General
Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board is called the Board.
508 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees,' and thereafter refused to reinstate them because they joined or
assisted the IAMI or engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (3) refuses or fails to
reinstate the employees discriminatorily discharged for the further reason that
they filed charges under the Act; (4) by various specific acts from on or about
November 4, 1949, sponsored and promoted the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union and from said November 4, 1949, to.date, has assisted, contributed
to the support of, and interfered with the administration of said International
Ladies Garment Workers Union; (5) on or about October 19, 1949, and at all
times thereafter refused and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the
IAM as the, exclusive. representative of all of its employees in an appropriately
described unit; and, (6) by the foregoing conduct engaged in violations of
Section 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act.
The Respondent's answer duly filed, in part admitted certain allegations of
the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on various dates between July 17 and
August 10, 1950, at Boston, Massachusetts, before Sidney Lindner, the under-
signed Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel ; the IAM and ILGWU
by their representatives. All parties participated in the hearing and were given
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the opening of the bearing a motion for a bill of particulars by Respondent's
counsel was granted in part and denied in part.
During the course of the hearing, the General Counsel moved that the com-
plaint be amended by withdrawing those paragraphs alleging violations of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (2) and (5) of the Act. Over the objection of counsel for the
Respondent the motion was granted. At the close of the hearing, motion by the
General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to formal
matters not affecting substantive issues was granted without objection. Oral
argument was waived. The parties were advised of their right to file proposed
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs. Briefs were received from
counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent and have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Swan Fastener Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation with its plant and
offices at Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is engaged in the manufacture of zippers.
Its principal raw materials, consisting of metals and textiles, are valued in
excess 'of $300,000 annually, almost all of which are shipped to the Respondent's
plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its finished
products are valued in excess of $750,000 annually, about 65 percent of which is
transported to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Re-
spondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Lodge 264 of District 38 of International Association of Machinists, and Inter-
national Ladies Garment Workers Union affiliated with the American Federation
2 Stanley Barnette and Martin Moore, October 21, 1949 ; Lester Stevens, October 24,
1949; Donald Blair, October 25, 1949; Frank Karavetsos , October 26 , 1949; Stanley E.
Doyle and Edward d'Entrem,ont, November 10, 1949; and Lois Blair, November 17, 1949.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 509
of Labor, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The inception of organizational activities; interference, restraint, and coercion
The IAM's organizational activities commenced during the noon hour on Octo-
ber 13, 1949, when IAM Grand Lodge Representative Harold F. Reardon, met
with employees Donald Blair, Stanley Doyle, Edward d'Entremont, Martin Moore,
and Frank Karavetsos on a side street around the corner from the Respondent's
plant where the said employees signed membership application cards which they
turned over to Reardon and in turn received additional blank membership appli-
cations for the purpose of enrolling other employees into the IAM.
The employees returned to their jobs at the plant upon the completion of their
meeting with Reardon,' and after working hours embarked upon a campaign to
enlist other employees into the IAM. During the following week, the above-noted
group of employees together with Lester Stevens, Stanley Barnette, and Lois
Blair 8 constituting themselves the IAM organizing. committee, usually had their
lunch together with other employees near the laundry section in the plant.
Among other matters they discussed the progress of the IAM campaign, the names
of employees to be solicited, and also turned over to either Moore or Donald Blair
the signed application cards which they had obtained.
Moore testified that on or about October 18, while the organizing committee
was eating lunch near the laundry section, William Cravatts, foreman of the
-assembly section and son of the plant's general manager, Robert Cravatts, came
over to a desk located within 1 or 2 feet of the group, stayed for several seconds
observing the group, then turned and left. About 2 days later while Moore
was explaining to his colleagues what the IAM was trying to achieve, and had
been handed some signed membership application cards by the employees meeting
with him, he saw Irving Gilman, manager of the Respondent's plant, 20 feet
away behind a rack, facing the group. According to Moore, Gilman remained
in that position for about 10 minutes.'
The complaint alleges that the Respondent carried on a system of surveillance
and espionage among its employees for the purpose of acquiring knowledge of
the union membership and union activities of its employees. It is the General
Counsel's contention that the acts of William Cravatts and Gilman described
bereinabove constituted surveillance. With respect to such acts it is noted that
the duties of both William Cravatts and Gilman required them to move about
the plant, particularly so far as William Cravatts is concerned, in the vicinity
of the laundry section where a shipping desk was located. Even accepting the
fact that William Cravatts and Gilman looked at the group while they were in
that section of the plant where the group was having lunch and observed what
was going on, such evidence, in the Trial Examiner's opinion, is insufficient to
warrant a finding of intentional surveillance. This is particularly so since the
said employees chose to meet in a. place clearly visible to both Gilman and
William Cravatts as they went about their duties in the plant. See Boreva
Sportswear, Inc., 73 NLRB 1048; H & H Manufacturing Company, 87 NLRB 1373.
On October 19, during their lunch hour, the organizing committee,' met Reardon
3 These latter employees were contacted by Donald Blair and Moore to assist in the
organization of the IAM and were given blank application membership cards to enroll
employees.
4 Gilman testified that he does not go into the factory during lunch time but usually
goes out to eat. He specifically denied that he went down to the laundry section to spy
upon the employees . His denial that he was in the laundry section is not credited.
5 Lois Blair was not with the group that met on October 19.
.5510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the sidewalk near the plant at which time Moore and-Blair handed Reardon
a number of signed membership application cards.
Reardon left the group and called at the Respondent's offices where he saw
William Cravatts. Reardon introduced himself and advised William Cravatts
that his union represented a majority of the Respondent's production and mainte-
iiance employees. Reardon requested that a bargaining conference be held be-
tween the Respondent and the IAM. William Cravatts informed Reardon that
his father, Robert Cravatts, usually handled such matters but that he was absent
from the plant. No further discussion regarding this matter was had that day.
Reardon, however, filed a Section 9 (c) petition at the Regional Office of the
Board under Case No. 1-RC-1261. The Board's Regional Office, on October 21,
notified the Respondent of the filing of the petition by the JAM under the above-
numbered case.
Keith Whitham, in charge of several sections in the assembly department,"
testified that the Respondent became aware of its employees' intention to organize
under the JAM soon after the campaign commenced. Thus Whitham testified
that Robert Cravatts asked if he had seen any employees distributing membership
application cards in the plant during working hours. Whitham told Robert
Cravatts that he had not but would "keep his eye out for it." Whitham further
testified that Robert Cravatts told him to inquire among the employees to deter-
mine how many had signed IAM cards. Whitham admitted making such inquiry
of the employees in the sections under his supervision.? Whitham also made
efforts to learn the identity of employees engaged in the distribution of IAM
cards in the plant by questioning a number of them ; while thus engaged,.
Whitham advised the employees that it would be wiser not to take part in union
activities because it might lead to trouble.
6It is the contention of the General Counsel that Whitham is a supervisory employee.
The Respondent denies this contention . Whitham testified without contradiction that he
is In charge of the press , laundry , and enamel sections, constituent sections of the assembly
department . The said 3 sections have approximately 20 employees . Whitham assigns
the work to the employees , inspects their work ,. and maintains their machines. He
transfers employees from one type of work to another and also recommends layoffs and,
discharges . His recommendations are usually accepted and acted upon by William
Cravatts without further investigation . Gilman's testimony that Whitham does not make
recommendations regarding personnel changes of employees is not credited , nor is his
testimony that Whitham . is a maintenance man in the Respondent 's employ to do building,
credited. While Whitham has not directly hired employees, he testified that he determines
the need for employees in his sections and obtains approval from William Cravatts for the
hiring of additional help. He then advises the plant employees of the Respondent's
personnel needs and requests them to bring in their friends or relatives for the job
vacancies . Whitham hires people thus brought in if he approves them and puts them
to work, usually , in the laundry section under his supervision . Hilton Parkam testified
credibly without denial that he was introduced to Whitham by employee Barnette in
September 1949, and was put to work by Whitham in the laundry section before he reported
to the office. Whitham is the only employee in the 3 sections above described who receives
a weekly salary. Upon the foregoing and upon the entire record, it is concluded and
found that Whitham responsibly directed the work of the employees in the laundry , press,
and enamel sections in the exercise of which he used independent judgment and that he is
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
7 John Perkins , a press department employee since 1948 , testified credibly that his
foreman, Whitham, inquired If he had joined the IAM. Upon being advised in the nega-
tive , Whitham remarked that if the IAM drive was successful the Respondent might move
to New York. Hilton Parkam credibly testified that Whitham asked if he had joined the
IAM. Merton Bennett, an enamel department employee , credibly testified that a few
days after he had signed an IAM membership card , Whitman inquired if he had signed,
Bennett stated he was slow in answering , whereupon Whitham said, "I know all about it
already ." Leonard Yancey also testified that he was questioned by Whitham about signing
an IAM card.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 511
Robert Cravatts categorically denied Whitham's testimony set forth immedi-
ately above. He also denied that Whitham ever reported any information to him.
regarding the union activities of the employees. Whithain testified under subpena
of the General Counsel. Despite the fact that he appeared reluctant to testify
and the further fact that it was necessary for the General Counsel to examine
him under Rule 43B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a hostile witness,
the Trial Examiner is nevertheless convinced that he was an honest witness
whose testimony was straightforward. The same cannot be said of the testi-
mony of Robert Cravatts. He did not answer questions directly and was evasive.
He did not impress the Examiner as being a reliable witness and his denials set
forth hereinabove are not credited.
The chain room in the Respondent's plant contains the machines which manu-
facture the chain, the metal part of the zipper. The lacing machines which lace
the chain to the cloth are also in the chain room. All of the operations in the
chain room are under the general supervision of Foreman Arthur Quaregan.
Because the chain room in October 1949 operated on an around-the-clock basis-„
there was in addition to Quaregan, who was in the plant from 9 a. in. to 5 p. in.,.
an employee in charge of each shift, Arthur Doucette, Saul Possick, and Marti.
Kelly, respectively. They rotated the 3 shifts. It, becomes necessary at this
point to determine whether Doucette, Possick, and Kelly are supervisory em-
ployees within the meaning of the Act in order to decide whether Respondent
committed certain violations of the Act or can be held responsible for violations
of the Act attributed to the said men. Doucette testified that he has been in.
charge of a shift since August 1949. About 30 percent of his time is spent on
production work and the balance watching over the men and repairing the ma-
chines in the department, of which there are 12. Production work is usually
performed only when a man is out sick or when the man in charge of the shift is
not busy on his other work. Each of the men in charge of a shift has 2 chain
machine operators under his direction and when they work the day shift the 2'
lacers also come under their supervision. Doucette testified that his duties
occasionally required him to make suggestions to the men in connection with their
work. On one occasion Doucette recommended that employee Gilbert Sessum
on his shift, be discharged. His recommendation was followed. The men in
charge of the shift are paid an hourly rate which is considerably higher than the
rate of the other employees in the chain department 8 Foreman Quaregan is
the only salaried employee in the chain department. Possick testified that
Quaregan told him his title was shift foreman. He is introduced by Quaregan
to new employees. as the foreman who will break them into the work. Possick
admitted that at no time did the men in charge of the shift have more than 3
men working with them or under their direction. Kelly testified that when he
was assigned to his job by Quaregan he was told that he had complete charge
of the men under him. Kelly admitted that he never hired, discharged, or even
recommended the discharge of any employees. He stated the only recommenda-
tion he made was for a raise in pay for employee Estrella.
Arthur Quaregan, foreman in charge of the chain room and toolroom, testified
that he receives his orders from the office and on occasion from William Cravatts.
He stated that when he receives orders which affect the chain room he rewrites
them so they will be easily understood by the employees of the chain room and
gives them to either Doucette, Possick, or Kelly, who in turn relay such orders
to the employees on the particular shift of which they are in charge. No orders
0
8 Doucette's rate was $1.35 per hour. Kelly and Possick received $1.50 per hour.
Employee Stevens 75 cents ; Moore 95 cents ; and Randolph 70 cents.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
originate with Doucette, Possick, or Kelly. Quaregan's testimony in this regard
is in substantial agreement with the testimony of Doucette, Possick, and Kelly.
It appears from the foregoing that whereas Doucette, Possick, and Kelly
did make recommendations to their foreman, such recommendations were in
isolation rather than a regular part of their job. It further appears that Dou-
cette, Possick, and Kelly did not exercise independent judgment in directing
the activities of the employees in the chain room. Their authority consisted
merely of relaying orders from Quaregan. Upon the foregoing circumstances
and upon the entire record, it is concluded and found that Doucette, Possick,
and Kelly are not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act°
Doucette, who was working the night shift on October 19, testified that upon
reporting for work he found a note from Quaregan advising him that a meeting
was to be held in the office on October 20 at 3: 30 p. m. At noon on October 20,
Doucette received a telephone call at his home from Quaregan who stated that
the meeting was postponed for 1 day., On October 21 the meeting was held at
the appointed hour in Gilman's office ; present were Gilman, Doucette, Possick,
and Kelly. Gilman told the men that a union was being organized in the plant
and sought information from them regarding the employees who were behind
the IAM campaign. A discussion then developed regarding which department
of the plant was responsible for instigating the IAM drive. During the process
of elimination of departments, Gilman expressed the opinion that the organiza-
tional drive of the IAM started in the chain room. Gilman told Doucette that
he knew he had not signed an. IAM card. Turning to Possick he said that even
though Possick had signed a card he did not think he was behind the IAM organi-
zational drive. Gilman inquired of Kelly if he had signed an IAM card and
upon receiving an affirmative answer asked, "Why? What would it benefit
you?" Kelly replied that he did not see that it would benefit him much, where-
upon Gilman said, "In other words you are going to pay union dues for nothing?"
Gilman then asked Kelly why he signed the IAM card and Kelly replied that
he understood the majority had signed and he thought that he would just go
along with the other employees. Gilman accused Kelly of being the prime mover
in bringing the IAM into the plant which Kelly denied. Gilman then asked the
three men to inquire of the men with whom they worked if they signed IAM cards
and why they did so. Gilman stated that even if the IAM drive was successful
it would not benefit the employees. Gilman mentioned that the cost of produc-
tion, including transportation over the road from Massachusetts to New York
where most of the Respondent's customers were located, was quite a factor in
their business, and if the IAM was successful in gaining a foothold in the plant
it might eventually result in the plant moving to New York to save transportation
expenses. The meeting then broke up after Gilman mentioned that the Respond-
ent would like to know the cause of the dissension among the employees, particu-
larly since the Respondent was giving them four paid holidays as well as insurance
benefits. Furthermore, he felt that if the employees wanted further benefits
they would come to him rather than form a union in order to obtain them.
Gilman testifying with respect to his version of the above-described meeting
with Doucette, Possick, and Kelly, stated that he asked them if they knew any-
thing at all about union activity going on in the plant and whether IAM cards
were being passed around the plant. He admitted that he inquired of each of
° In making this finding the Examiner has given due consideration to General Counsel's
Exhibit 16 which lists Doucette, Possick, and Kelly as "foreman" and which was prepared
in the Respondent's office by Hazel Julian Sawyer. At the hearing Sawyer could not state
definitely the source of the information used in the preparation of the exhibit. She
testified that she "just knew" the classifications of the various employees.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 513
the men if they had signed IAM cards . With respect to the removal of the Re-
spondent 's plant to New York if the IAM drive was successful , Gilman testified
that he told the men that the Respondent was the only fastener company in
Massachusetts , that all of their competitors were located in New York, and that
their sales were with the New York dress trade. As a result, shipping the finished
product to New York consumed considerable money and the Respondent was
unable to make as fast deliveries as their New York competitors . In addition,
in order to win over the New York trade, the Respondent had to sell its mer-
chandise cheaper than its New York competitors . Therefore , Gilman stated,
he told the gathered employees that in order to continue competing with the
New York firms , Respondent would be unable to remain in Boston and would
be much better off in New York, the heart of its trade. Gilman admitted saying
to the employees "That's what will happen ." Gilman further explained that
at a corporate meeting about a year and a half ago before the Respondent moved
its plant to Cambridge from Kenmore Square in Boston, a full -scale discussion
regarding this problem took place and the contemplated move to New York
was overruled . Gilman stated that his purpose in having Doucette , Possick, and
Kelly in his office was to find out if the IAM represented the majority of the
people in the plant . With that in mind he inquired if they had signed IAM cards
and also . asked them to question other employees to ascertain whether they had
signed cards.
The Respondent contends that Gilman 's sole motive in requesting Doucette,
Possick, and Kelly to interrogate the employees regarding their membership
in the IAM was to ascertain the number of employees who had signed union
cards in order to determine whether Reardon's statement that the IAM repre-
sented a majority of the Respondent 's employees was true. The only method
open to Gilman, according to the Respondent , was to call in his foremen and
lead men and ask them if they could find out the truth of the matter.
The Board in the Standard-Coosa-Thatcher case, 85 NLRB 1358, stated
"Whenever an employer directly or indirectly attempts to secure information
concerning the, manner in which or the extent to which his employees have
chosen to engage in union organization or other concerted activity, he invades
an area guaranteed to be exclusively the business and concern of his employees."
Furthermore , the Respondent having had the problem of recognizing a union
previously should have known that if there was any question with respect to
majority representation by a union , the same could have been presented to the
Board for its determination rather than a determination made in the method
used by the Respondent , that is, interrogation of its employees.
Upon leaving the above -noted meeting , Kelly returned to his station of work.
Within a short period , Quaregan stopped at the door of the chain room and in
conversation with Kelly stated that he could not understand why he ( Quaregan)
did not know anything about IAM cards distributed in the plant . Kelly gave
Quaregan ' a resume of what had taken place in Gilman 's office, and asked
Quaregan why the Respondent was of the opinion that he was instrumental
in starting the IAM campaign in the Respondent 's plant. Quaregan told Kelly
that since he had been connected with a union at his last place of employment
in the Cambridge Rubber Company , it was .inferred that he was also connected
with the Union in the Respondent 's plant. Quaregan , according to Kelly, asked
who gave him the IAM membership application card which he admitted signing.
Kelly answered that Martin Moore , a chain room lacer , had given him the card.
Quaregan stated that the Respondent did not want a union in its plant . Quare-
gan left Kelly and walked in the direction of the office . About 1 hour later
Moore told Kelly that he had been laid off. Moore 's alleged discriminatory
discharge will be discussed in detail hereinafter.
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to a composite of the testimony of all of the employees of the
cutting department 10 that afternoon, at about 4: 45 p. in., the regular quitting
time, they were told to wait.in the plant to attend a meeting. Included in the
group who were present at the meeting were Donald Blair, Edward d'Entremont,
Stanley Barnette, Frank Karavetsos, and Stanley Doyle, all of whom were
subsequently discharged and whose alleged discriminatory discharges will be
taken up in detail hereinafter. William Cravatts told the assembled employees
that they knew why they were at the metting ; and that he knew all of t:11em
were in "this union." He stated that the Union could not do the employees
any good for the simple- reason that the Respondent could not afford to give
the employees any more paid holidays and vacation tine ; that if the IAM was
successful in its organizational drive and caused trouble, the Respondent would
move to New York ; that all the Union wanted was the employees' "two bucks a
month." Lillian Michelman described variously as a floorlady and forelady in
the assembly department also spoke to the gathered employees telling them that
if the IAM drive-was successful the Respondent could. raise the production
quotas from 10,000 per day to 14,000. She also said the Respondent would put
a stop to all of the privileges which it then allowed its employees, as for instance,
smoking, pointing out to Karavetsos that she saw him smoking that day."
William Cravatts asked if there were any gripes whereupon Donald Blair said
that the employees did not like the deal they were getting on overtime pay.'=
The meeting then broke up.
William Cravatts admitted calling and attending the meeting of the cutting
room employees. He testified that the day before he had asked the employees
to work overtime because of some special orders. At quitting time he saw the
cutting machines unoccupied. Looking around the floor he noticed some of
the cutting employees leaving the plant and others going to the men's room.
William Cravatts explained that in the latter part of the afternoon of the follow-
ing day he called a meeting of the cutters to be held after working hours to
discuss this incident. Present were all of the cutters and the floorlady, Lillian
Michelman. William Cravatts told the assembled employees that they were
called together because of his displeasure with their behavior the day previous
when he had asked them to work overtime and even though they had agreed,
they left the plant. He stated he had made commitments to the office with
respect to getting out the rush orders and when the employees left without per-
forming overtime work they left him "holding the bag." He said that he was
not going to "take any baloney from them." that the only thing he was interested
in was zippers, that this job depended on the way orders were filled,. and that
if anything occurred that interrupted the flow of work he was not going to take
any chances, to him his job was the most important thing. William Cravatts
categorically denied that the Union was mentioned at any time by anybody
present at the meeting. He specifically denied that any mention was made
that the Respondent would move to New York. He also denied that Lillian
10 The cutting department is a constituent part of the assembly department. Before
the layoffs there were seven cutters in the department.
11 The Respondent states in its brief that there was no smoking privilege pointing out
that the plant was heavily posted with "No Smoking" signs. Doucette testified that
smoking was permitted in the chain room. 11lichelman admitted that she smoked around
the plant all the time and in fact witnessed employees smoking at the cutting machines.
It is'found that even though "No Smoking" signs were posted in the plant, there was no
rule against smoking made known to the employees, and that smoking by employees did
go on in the plant premises.
12The Respondent was paying its cutters time and a half for all hours over eight but
did not include the 20 cents per hour bonus in the overtime payments.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 515
Michelman did any talking at the meeting . He did not recall whether Blair
said anything about the dissatisfaction of the cutters with the method of over-
time pay.
Lillian Michelman denied that she said anything at the meeting. In answer
to a question whether she was present at the cutters' meeting she answered,
"I was near there." 13
The Examiner does not credit the testimony of William Cravatts and Michel-
man set forth hereinabove and finds, based upon the testimony of Barnette, Blair,
Karavetsos, Doyle, d'Entremont, Henry Gaines, and Philip Stover, cutting depart-
meat employees, that the meeting including the threats and conduct of Michelman
and William Cravatts took place. substantially as testified to by the ..said
employees.
At the conclusion of the meeting Stanley Barnette received his pay envelope
from Herman Cravatts, brother of William, which contained a slip advising
Barnette that due to a lull in business he was "temporarily laid off." Barnette's
alleged discriminatory discharge will be set forth in detail hereinafter.
On October 24, at 3: 30 p. m., the change-of-shifts hour in the chain room,
Foreman Quaregan instructed the employees to shut off the power in order to hear
a talk by Gilman. The employees congregated in the'back of the machine room.
Gilman told the employees, according to Stevens' testimony, that he knew union
activity was going on in the plant and that he saw boys running around passing
out membership application cards. Gilman inquired if any of the men had any
gripes regarding their wages or other conditions of employment , such as whether
they liked the employee working next to them. He told the employees that they
could talk with Foreman Quaregan regarding these matters and if they were
"Counsel for the Respondent contends that Lillian Michelman is a fioorlady and not
a supervisory employee . In his brief he-sets forth that her duties consisted of handing
out work to the employees in the assembly section and transmitting orders from William
Cravatts to the other employees . He claims further that she does not have the power
to hire , discharge , or discipline , and acted merely as a conduit for the foreman . No orders,
he states , originated with Michelman . The record reveals that in October 1949, there
were approximately 70 to 80 employees in the assembly section, with William Cravatts
as their foreman . Michelnan is 1 of 4 salaried employees in the section , the others being
William, Cravatts , Herman Cravatts , and Keith Whitham . It is interesting to note in
this regard that Michelman went on a salary basis about a year prior to the hearing
herein . In an affidavit by Michelman given to the Board field examiner , she stated that
she has been a supervisor in the assembly section for about a year which coincides with
the period of time she has been on salary basis . Mary Vaughn , an employee in the
assembly- section since March 1949 , testified that she was hired by Michelman. She
further testified without contradiction that on occasion she has asked either William
Cravatts or Michelman for time off and it was granted . The Examiner credits Vaughn's
testimony . Richard Tanner , a cutter in the assembly section , credibly testified that he
takes orders from William Cravatts and Michelman and that he has asked Michelman for
time off from work. which she granted . It does not appear from the record that
Michelman performed any production work . Stanley Doyle testified that Michelman was
his forelady , and that he heard her give 'orders to various employees in the different
departments of the assembly section. Donald Blair testified he was told of his layoff by
Michelman . Counsel for the Respondent pointed out in his brief that in claiming Michel-
man to be a forelady the General Counsel was attempting to build up the Respondent's
supervisory hierarchy to the point where there would be more supervisory employees than
production and maintenance employees in the plant . To conclude , however, as the
Respondent contends , that iflicheIaran was not part of the supervisory hierarchy in the
assembly section would leave William Cravatts with the sole immediate supervision of
some 70 to 80 employees , a large number in a plant the size of the Respondent's, in addition
to other responsibility that he had. See Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia,
85 NLRB 1439 . Upon the foregoing circumstances and upon the entire record it is con-
cluded and found that Lillian Michelman responsibly directed the work of the employees
in the assembly section in the exercise of which she used independent judgment and that
she is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act.
961974-52-vol. 95-34 '
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unable to obtaih results from him, to take up the matter directly with him. It
is the General Counsel's contention set forth in his brief that Gilman called the
employees of the chain room together on Respondent's time to do two things :
(1) Warn them that he knew who was pushing the IAM movement in the chain
room ; and (2) urge them to take up their desire for better pay with their foreman
rather than through the Union which he knew claimed to be their bargaining
representative. The General Counsel's contention with respect to item 1 is borne
out by the record. So far as item 2 is concerned, the Respondent 's preference
expressed to his employees that they take up their desires for better pay with
their foreman and confer with management regarding other conditions of
employment rather' than with the Union, contained no element of coercion or
promise of benefit and falls within the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
The following morning Lester Stevens, a lacer in the chain room, reporting
for work at the usual time did not find his card in the rack. Upon inquiry of
Quaregan where it might be, Stevens was told that he was being laid off because
of "a lull in work." Stevens, as previously noted, was one of the group which
comprised the IAM organizing committee. He was present during the week
subsequent to the original meeting with Reardon when the organizing committee
and other employees ate their lunches together in the laundry section where they
discussed IAM activities, and were observed by William Cravatts and Gilman.
Following quickly on the heels of Stevens' layoff, Donald Blair was told upon
finishing his tour of duty that day that he was being laid off. The. next day
Frank Karavetsos was given similar news.
On the morning of November. 4, William Cravatts testified he was called into
his father's office where he was introduced to several strange men . Robert
Cravatts told William that the men wanted to. speak to the Respondent's
employees and instructed William to assemble them. William Cravatts advised
Quaregan, Michelman, Whitham, and Joseph Walsh, the mechanic in the sewing
room, that there was going to be a meeting at the time clock at about 10 a. in.,
and they were to tell their employees that; at the sound of the buzzer, if they
wanted to attend they could do so. When the employees were assembled, William
Cravatts introduced Ralph Roberts, organizer for the ILGWU, who stood on a
table and addressed the employees. Roberts discussed among other matters the
fact that the ILGWU was the proper union for the zipper industry, paid holi-
days, quotas, and initiation fees. In answer to a question from the floor as to
what would happen to the employees who did not join the ILGWU and it was
successful in its campaign, Roberts stated "they were out." 11 Neither William
Cravatts nor any other supervisory employee present at the meeting repudiated
Roberts' threat. The employees also heard talks by a representative of the Talon
Company? a competitive zipper manufacturer, as well as a shop steward of the
ILGWU, extolling the virtues of the latter organization. Membership applica-
tion cards in the ILGWU were distributed to all present at the meeting and it
appears from the record that the said cards were signed by both employees and
supervisors and thereupon returned to the organizers who addressed the meet-
ing." There is a discrepancy in the record regarding the length of time taken
14 This- finding is based upon the undenied , credited testimony of employee Henry Gaines.
15 The finding that supervisors signed ILGWU cards at the meeting Is based upon the
undenied , credited testimony of Martin J. Kelly, who stated that Quaregan was standing
next to him and signed a card. Kelly also testified that he saw William Cravatts receive
a card. He was not certain whether Cravatts signed because he was standing about 30
feet away from Cravatts and only saw him apply a pencil to the card . Victor Bukauskas,
a former employee , testified credibly that he witnessed William Cravatts sign the ILGWU
card at the meeting. William Cravatts admitted receiving a card but denied that he
signed it . His denial in this regard is not credited.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 517
'up by the ILGWU meeting. Several of the General Counsel's witnesses testified
that it took place after the morning rest period and lasted from 45 minutes to
1 hour. It is unnecessary to resolve this conflict for the reason that the em-
ployees were paid for the time spent at the meeting. It is found that the
Respondent by the conduct outlined above has interfered with the rights of its
,employees in their selection of a bargaining representative, uncoercedly, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act16 See N. L. R. B. v. Norfolk Shipbuilding &
Drydock Corporation, 172 F. 2d 813 (C. A. 4) affirming 70 NLRB 391.
On November 10, less than a week after the ILGWU meeting in the plant,
,Stanley Doyle and Edward d'Entremont, the remaining male members of the
IAM organizing committee, were told by William Cravatts that they were being
laid off. Cravatts did not assign any reasons for their layoffs. Their alleged
discriminatory discharges will be set forth in detail hereinafter.
On November 15, notices were distributed to the employees as they were
leaving work calling their attention to an IAM meeting to be held on November 16.
On the morning of November 16, there appeared on the plant bulletin board
.and in the ladies' rest room a typewritten notice as follows :
Several of the girls have asked me about the union handbills which were
passed out yesterday telling them about a meeting to be held tonight after
work.
The handbills were distributed by the MACHINISTS' UNION, not by the
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION. The Ladies Garment Workers Union is
the union that came up to the factory recently and spoke to you.
Some of the girls have asked me if they have o attend the meeting tonight.
You do not have to attend any union meeting if you do not want to regardless
of what union calls it or passes out handbills. .
The Foreman
William and Robert Cravatts testified that they never saw nor did they know
anything about this notice until it was produced at the hearing herein. The
General Counsel contends that despite the said denials, the circumstances that
the notice was addressed primarily to the girls all of whom are under the over-all
supervision of William Cravatts; that the notice was signed by "the foreman"
and William Cravatts was the only foreman under whose supervision a 'large
number of the girls worked ; that the paper on which the notice was typed is
identical to that used by the Respondent in other exhibits in evidence and that
the' typing is that of a trained typist, the assumption can be drawn that the
Respondent is responsible for the posting of the notice. The Examiner does
not agree with the General Counsel's contentions. Furthermore, there does
not appear to be anything in the notice which can be interpreted as an induce-
ment to the Respondent's employees to refrain from attending the IAM meeting
as contended by the General Counsel. On the contrary, the notice appears to
be factual, completely lacking in coercive statements or promises of benefit
and is found not to be in violation of the Act.
Whithani, testified that he received a notice of the TAM meeting from former
employee Barnette who was distributing the circulars on the stairs in the
building where the Respondent's plant is located. On November 16, Whitham
asked employees Merton Bennett, John Perkins, and Philip Stover if they were
going to attend the meeting. When Bennett and Perkins indicated they thought
16 In making this finding the Examiner is not unmindful of the fact that the IAM did not
request Respondent for its premises and time similar to that granted the ILGWU, and
the further fact that at the hearing Respondent stated it would have granted such request.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they would attend, Whitham requested them to let him know what took place
at the meeting. Stover, an employee in the Respondent's assembly section, in
whose car Whitham rode to and from work, testified that when he told Whitham
lie did not think he would attend the IAM meeting Whitham said that it was
entirely Stover's choice but remarked that the "higher-ups" would want to know
what was going on. Perkins testified that the morning after the IAM meeting,
he told Whitham what went. on at the meeting and further advised Whitham
that none of the employees in the sections which Whitham supervised had
attended the meeting. Whitham's act in persuading Perkins to attend the IAM
meeting and report his observations was interference by surveillance of the IAM
meeting and is in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See N. L. R. B. v.
Electric City Dyeing Co., 17S F. 2d 980 (C. A. 3) enf. 79 NLRB 872; Indianapolis
Wire-Bound Box Company, d/b/a Cleveland Veneer Co., 89 NLRB 617.
Herman Cravatts, son of Robert and brother of William, admittedly attempted
to attend the IAM meeting. He testified that he received the circular advertising
the meeting and because he was interested in joining a union he went to the
meeting hall. Before the meeting started however, Reardon, the IAM repre-
sentative, told Herman that he would have to leave the hall or be thrown out_
Herman left the meeting premises and remained outside for several minutes
before he left the vicinity of the hall. While Herman was sitting in the meeting
hall there were a number of Respondent's employees present and after he left
the hall the record reveals that several employees approached the hall to attend
the meeting and saw Herman standing on the sidewalk outside the hall. It is
the General Counsel's contention that Herman's attempted attendance of 'the
IAM meeting was an act of surveillance by the Respondent. It is the Respond-
ent's contention that Herman was not a supervisory employee and that it there-
fore cannot be held responsible for any of his acts.
Herman Cravatts testified that he became employed by the- Respondent in
May 1949 to learn the zipper industry. He stated that he first went to work
in the salvage section, a constituent part of the assembly section, and that at
all times he took orders from his brother, William, the foreman of the assembly
section. He denied that he at any time had the right to hire or discharge or
recommend such actions. He stated that in October 1949, there was only one
machine in the salvage section called a bottom-stop machine and that all of the
other' salvage work with the exception of a foot-operated machine was carried
on by hand. He was unable to state the number of employees in the salvage
section. Because of the many operations in salvaging zippers it was his duty to
see to it that the work flowed from one operation to the other and he would
personally carry the work from one girl to another and at times would actually
do production work himself: He could not state with any definiteness the
amount of time he spent in production work. It appears that there were seven
employees in the salvage section. Employees Kathleen Ellison, Margaret La-
Roche, and Lois Blair testified that Herman Cravatts was their foreman. Lois
Blair further testified that she received her work orders from Herman Cravatts,
and on occasion when she had to request time off from work, she asked Herman
and he granted it. The record discloses further that Herman Cravatts advised
employees Stanley Barnette and Lois Blair of their layoffs. In contrast to the
other employees in the assembly section 17 with the exception of William Cravatts,
Michelman, and Whitham, Herman Cravatts received a weekly wage rather
than the hourly rate of the other employees. Moreover, in view of the close
family relationship to the general manager of the plant and foreman of the
17 There were approximately 80 employees in the assembly section.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 519
assembly department , Herman was looked upon by the employees as being close
to management and was furthermore regarded by the employees 'as speaking
for management . Under , the circumstances it is concluded and found that
Herman Cravatts' conduct is clearly imputable to the Respondent and his ap-
pearance at the IAM meeting is found to be surveillance in violation of the Act.
See International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72; Taylor
Manufacturing Company, Incorporated , 83-NLRB 142 ; Waldoroth Label Corpo-
ration, 91 NLRB 673.
The day after the IAM meeting , Lois Blair , sister of Donald Blair , who was
also active in the IAM organizing campaign , was told by Herman Cravatts that
her services were no longer needed due to a lull in business . The alleged dis-
criminatory ` discharge of Lois Blair will be taken up in detail hereinafter.
On the basis of the record as a whole , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds
that by the following enumerated acts the Respondent interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof :
(a) Foreman Whitham's interrogation of the employees in the laundry , enamel,
and press sections as to whether they had joined the IAM.
(b) Foreman Whitham's interrogation of the employees under his super-
vision as to which employees were distributing JAM cards and soliciting in be-
half of that Union.
(c) Foreman Whitham's threats that participation in the Union 's activities
might"lead to trouble and Respondent might move to New York.
(d) Manager Gilman's interrogation of Doucette , Possick, and Kelly as to
whether they had signed IAM cards.
(e) Gilman's request of Doucette , Possick, and Kelly to inquire among their
coworkers if they had signed JAM cards and why they did so.
(f) Gilman's threat to Doucette , Possick, and Kelly that if 'the IAM was
successful it would result in the removal of the Respondent 's plant to New
York.
(g) Foreman Quaregan's interrogation of Kelly as to the name of the em-
ployee who gave him an IAM card.
(h) Foreman William Cravatts ' threat to the cutters that the Respondent
would move its plant to New York if the IAM successfully organized the
employees.
(i) Forelady Michelman 's threat to the cutters that Respondent would raise
quotas and revoke privileges.
(j) Granting the ILGWU the use of its time and premises for the holding of
a meeting where employees were threatened with loss of jobs by the ILGWU
organizer if they did not sign cards.
(k) Foreman Whitham's inquiry of employees Bennett, Perkins, and Stover
if they were going to attend the IAM meeting.
(1) Foreman Whitbam's request of employee Perkins to report to him the
proceedings at the IAM meeting.
( m) Surveillance of the IAM meeting by Herman Cravatts.
The Discharges in October and November 1949
Over the period from October 21 to November 17, 1949, the Respondent , accord-
ing to the records obtained from its payrolls , laid off 11 employees . Included
in this group are the 8 named employees alleged in the complaint to have.been
discriminatorily discharged. As noted in the previous section of this Report, the
discharged employees shortly after the IAM campaign started in the plant con-
stituted themselves the JAM organizing group and usually met in a corner of
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the laundry room at noon hour, where they ate lunch , discussed union activities,
including names of employees to be contacted as likely IAM prospects, and
turned over to either Martin Moore or Donald Blair the signed IAM application
cards which had been obtained . While thus congregated the group was observed
by, William Cravatts and Gilman . It was also admitted by Gilman that he re-
quested Possick , Kelly, and Doucette to find out how many employees , and who,
belonged to the IAM. Employee Kincade credibly testified , without denial, that
Gilman told the chain room employees at the meeting conducted by him on
October 24 that he knew the employees who were attempting to organize a union
in the Respondent 's plant. The Respondent 's plant was housed on one floor of
an industrial building. The maximum number of employees at any one time
during the activities described herein was about 140. At the height of the IAM
campaign , talk about the IAM was general and frequent among the Respondent's:
employees and supervisors . The Board has held in several cases that in a plant as
small as the Respondent ' s, the employees ' activities become generally known
by management and knowledge of the employees ' union activities may be in-
ferred. It is found from all of the surrounding circumstances , the observations.
by William Cravatts and Gilman , and from the interrogation participated in by-
the Respondent , that .the Respondent had knowledge of its employees ' union,
membership and activities . See N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills , 127 F. 2d 438,.
440 (C. A. 1) ; The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 62 NLRB 1316; Quest-
Shon Mark Brassiere Co., Inc., 80 NLRB 1149, enforced November 9, 1950, 185 F.
285 (C. A. 2) ; Jasper National Mattress Company, 89 NLRB 75.
Martin Moore commenced his employment with the Respondent as a mainte-
nance man in September 1948 and continued in this job 21/•2 months , after which,
he was transferred to the job of operating a lacing machine in the chain room..
With the exception of a layoff from November 24 to December 8, 1948, because of
a seasonal slump in business , Moore worked regularly until October 21, 1949.
Moore's starting rate of pay was 70 cents per hour. At the time of his layoff
he was earning 95 cents per hour.
Moore, as heretofore noted , was in the group of employees that met with.
Reardon on October 13 at which time they signed IAM application cards and
received batches of cards from Reardon to enlist other employees. Moore
solicited various employees in the plant to join the IAM and among others spoke
with Martin Kelly, lead man in the chain room. Moore acted as the collector
of the signed IAM application cards for the group that met -at lunch time in the
laundry section and was in the group when , as previously found , it was observed.
by both William Cravatts and Gilman.
As heretofore found , Gilman asked Kelly the name of the employee who gave
him the IAM card but Kelly refused to divulge the employee's name. Upon his.
return to his place of work from the Gilman meeting, Kelly told Foreman Quare-
gan, upon the latter's inquiry , that Martin Moore had given him the IAM
card. Quaregan after noting the fact that he could not understand how he
missed the passing out of the IAM cards in his department commented that the
Respondent did not want a union in its plant. Shortly after Kelly had advised'
Quaregan that Moore had given him the IAM card , Kelly noticed Quaregan
going in the direction of the office . At the completion of the day ' s work Moore
found a slip in his pay envelope with the following notation :
We are very sorry to have to inform you that due to a lull in business:
you are temporarily laid off. You may call for your next pay at 3 p. in.,.
Friday October 28, at the office.
Lester Stevens began to work in the Respondent's laundry section in - February-
1949 at a wage of 65 cents per hour. After 4 months he was transferred to the
'SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 521
chain department where he operated a lacing machine. While working in the
laundry department he received an increase of 5 cents per hour and received a
similar increase while in the chain department. His employment was terminated
on October 25, 1949.
Stevens was active in the IAM organization drive in the plant. He was one of
the first employees to sign an IAM card and immediately began espousing the
cause and enlisting others into the IAM. Stevens was on the IAM organizing
committee that met regularly during their lunch hour in the laundry section of
the plant as previously described. As heretofore found, on the afternoon of
October 24 the chain room employees were instructed by Foreman Quaregan to
shut off the machine power in order to listen to Gilman. Gilman told them,
among other things, that he knew union activity was going on in the plant. The
following morning Stevens upon reporting for work did not find his card in the
time rack. Stevens reported this to Quaregan who told Stevens that he was
aware of That fact and requested him to step into the office. Quaregan told
Stevens that he was being laid off due to a lull in business and told him to report
back to the plant on Friday to receive his pay. Kelly testified Quaregan told
him Stevens was laid off. Kelly expressed surprise mentioning that Stevens was
a very good worker and asked the reason. Quaregan answered, "He is passing
out cards.s1e
It is the Respondent's contention that Moore and Stevens, two of the three
lacers employed in the chain room, were laid off for legitimate business reasons.
Quaregan testified that Moore and Stevens were terminated because there was
not enough work to keep them busy. It is interesting to note in this regard that
in the week prior to October 21 the production of the chain room was 54,655
yards, yet during the week ending October 21, when Moore was laid off alleg-
edly because of a lack of work, the production increased to 67,777 yards.
Moore testified credibly without denial that about 3 weeks before his layoff
there was a slackening of work in the chain room and production fell off because
of a shortage of wire for the machines. This condition continued until a week
before his layoff. During this period, Moore stated he was sent to work in the
laundry section when work ran out in the chain room. During the week when he
was laid off, Moore testified wire was received in the plant and he worked sev-
eral hours overtime. Production increased again during the week ending
October 28 to 71,382 yards.
At the hearing Respondent added another reason for terminating Moore and
Stevens. Thus Quaregan testified that about a month before Stevens and
Moore were laid off he had decided that they should be laid off permanently
because they were inefficient lacers and because their inefficiency was affecting
the production in the chain room. Quaregan admitted that prior to a month
before their layoffs, Moore and Stevens were coming along well and were
efficient workers. Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that their inefficiency
was discovered at about the time the IAM drive took form in the Respondent's
plant. It is also worthy to note that even though Quaregan testified that he had
decided sometime before the layoffs of Moore and Stevens that they should be
laid off permanently each was given a notice indicating he was laid off tempo-
rarily due to a lull in business. The undersigned does not credit Quaregan's
testimony regarding the alleged inefficiency of Moore and Stevens in their jobs
as lacers.
18 Quaregan denied that he told Kelly that Stevens was laid off for passing out union
cards and , in fact, denied seeing Stevens pass out any union cards. His denials are not
credited.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That "lack of work" was not one of the real reasons for the layoffs of Moore
and Stevens appears clear from the fact that on October 26, 1949, 1 day after the
layoff of Stevens and only several days after Moore's layoff, there appeared in
the classified column of the Boston Globe newspaper an advertisement for
young men over the age of 21 for factory work at Respondent's plant. Quare-
gan admitted that it was upon his instructions that the said advertisement was
inserted in-the,-newspaper:and he'further testified that the reason for placing it
was that he was looking for lacers. The fair inference is that Respondent
needed lacers to replace Moore and Stevens. The record reveals that Moore's
work was takn over by another employee immediately after he was laid off.
Furthermore, Respondent hired two new employees to do the lacing jobs during
the weeks ending November 11. and November 18, at a time when production was
at, its lowest ebb from the period September 30. It appears that if there was
any time when there was a lack of work for lacers it must have been during the
period when the two new employees were hired. Upon the record as a whole and
from the foregoing, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the real reason
for Moore's layoff was his known activity on behalf of the JAM and the Respond-
ent's opposition thereto. As to Stevens, Quaregan stated the reason to Kelly:
Stevens was let go because he was passing out JAM cards.
Since the timing of the discharges of Stanley Barnette, Donald Blair, Frank
Karavetsos, Stanley Doyle, and Edward d'Entremont and the Respondent's
purported reasons therefor lend themselves to such treatment they will be
considered as a group.
Stanley Barnette started his employment in the laundry section of the Re-
spondent's plant in September 1948. After 2 weeks he was transferred to the job
of cutter in the assembly department and worked in this capacity until his lay-
off on October 21, 1949. Barnette's starting salary was 65 cents per hour. Upon
transfer to the cutter's job he received 80 cents per hour plus a bonus of 20 cents
per hour for making a production quota of 50,000 per week. Barnette testified
that with the exception of the first 2 weeks of his employment as a cutter he
consistently made his bonus.
Barnette was not in the original group of five employees who met with
Reardon on October 13 because he was out of the plant ill. Upon his return to
work on October 14 Barnette was given an IAM card by Moore which he signed
and was also given a batch of application cards which he used to enlist other
employees in the plant into the IAM. Barnette was on the JAM organizing
committee group that met in the laundry section of the plant during lunch hours
where they discussed union activities and turned over their signed cards to
either Moore or Donald Blair. Barnette was active in soliciting employees in
the plant to sign up with the IAM. He attended the meeting of cutting room
employees called by William Cravatts on October 21. After the meeting Barn-
ette punched out his time card and received his weekly pay envelope from
Harman Cravatts which contained, in addition to his pay check, a typewritten
slip advising Barnette that the Respondent was sorry to inform him that due to
a lull in business he was temporarily laid off. Barnette asked William Cravatts
why he was laid off. William Cravatts did not answer Barnette but called
Gilman. Barnette asked Gilman if he was laid off because of poor work.
Gilman replied, "No, I looked into your record and you were a good worker and
I laid you off because you could collect more social security than if I laid some-
one off that had only been working a week." Gilman also advised Barnette
that it would be easy for him to get another job. Gilman told Barnette that he
(Gilman) had been a union member for about 10 years and unions did not
worry him because he knew how they operated . Gilman informed Barnette
that seniority was considered in the layoff decision . In this regard it is noted
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 523
that Barnette had more seniority than other employees in the department who
were not laid off.19 •Barnette testified that during the week of October 17, im-
mediately prior to his layoff, he worked 3 hours overtime. Barnette also testi-
fied that in the past when the work in the plant became slack, the hours of
the cutters were cut down to 6 but none of them were laid off. At other times
during the slack period the men would be sent to the laundry room to work
rather than be laid off.
Gilman did not specifically deny the conversation with Barnette set forth
hereinabove. He testified that he did not have anything to do with the dis-
charge of Barnette and the first time he knew anything of his layoff was when
the complaint in the instant case was filed.
Donald Blair commenced his employment with the Respondent in May 1948
in the laundry section where he received 55 cents per hour. He remained in
this job for 4 months after which he was transferred as a cutter to the assembly
department. His rate- of pay was increased to 80 cents per hour in addition to
which he received a 20-cent per hour bonus if he made a production quota.
Blair testified that after the first 3 weeks in the cutting job he consistently
made his quota. Blair originally contacted Reardon in the early part of October
by telephone about organizing the IAM among the Respondent's employees. He
was in the group of 5 employees that met with Reardon outside of the plant
on October 13 at which time they signed IAM cards and received additional
membership- applications to enlist other employees into the IAM. Blair testified
that he signed up between 15 and 30 employees to IAM membership. He also
-met with the organizing group of which he was a member in the laundry section
during noon hours, as described above, and on one occasion went to the salvage
department of the plant where his sister Lois worked, and talked to her and
some of the other girls about the benefits that could be obtained if .the IAM
came into the plant. Blair testified that Foreman Whitham came up to where
he was talking and stood a few feet away from him. As set forth hereinabove,
on October 24 Gilman held a meeting at 3: 30 p. in. with the chain room efn-
ployees at which time he made known the fact that Respondent knew of the union
activity going on in the plant. On the morning of.October 25 Lester Stevens, a
chain. room employee, did not find his card in the time rack and was advised
that he was laid off due to a lull in business. At the end of the workday on
.October 25, Donald Blair was walking toward the time clock to punch out when
he was called by Lillian Michelman, forelady in the assembly department, and
was told: "Not that we have anything pe'rsonal against you, but we are going
to have to lay you off due to a lull in business. We have machinists in the
chain room that's going to be able to do your work. Between me and you,
Donald, don't you think you was foolish giving up a job like that? A kid like
you will never get a, job for 40 a week." Blair asked Michelman if there was
any chance of his coming back to work and she stated she did not know.
Blair testified that at no time were any complaints made about his work. He
was senior in the cutting room to employees Philip Stover and Henry Gaines at
the time of his layoff. Michelman did not deny Blair's testimony regarding the
events on October 25 when he was laid off. The Examiner credits Blair's testi-
mony herein and finds that the events on the afternoon of October 25 took place
substantially as testified to by Blair.
Frank Karavetsos commenced his employment with the Respondent on August
23, 1948, as a general factory worker at 65 cents per hour. After about 3 months
he was transferred to the cutter's job in the assembly section where he received
19 Henry Gaines had been in the Respondent 's employ since August 30. 1949 , and had
been in the cutting department for only 1 week at the time Barnette was laid off.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
80 cents per hour and a 20-cent per hour bonus if he produced his quota which
he stated he consistently made. Karavetsos was laid off on October 26, 1949.
He was one of the original group that met with Reardon on October 13 when
he signed a membership card in the IAM.20 Subsequently he signed up several
other employees into IAM membership. He was a member of the IAM organiz-
ing group whose activities were observed by William Cravatts and Gilman when
they met during lunch hours in the laundry section of the plant. Karavetsos was
present at the cutters' meeting called by William Cravatts on October 21 when he
made note of the fact that he knew what was going on with respect to the union
activities in the plant. At the finish of the day's work on October 26, William
Cravatts told Karavetsos that he was being laid off because the Respondent was
low in work and he did not know when Karavetsos would be called back to his
job. Karavetsos testified that on several occasions subsequent to his transfer to
work as a cutter, he had been sent back to work temporarily in the laundry
when there was a slackening of work in the assembly department. He did admit
that on one occasion in January 1949, Lillian Michelman talked to him about his
work and warned him to be more careful. He has not been spoken to regarding
his work since that date.
Stanley Doyle became employed as a cutter in the assembly department on
April 21, 1948. His starting wage was 70 cents per hour. During the entire
period of his employment until his layoff on November 10, 1949, he remained a
cutter but his wages were increased to 80 cents per hour in addition to which he
received the 20-cent per hour production bonus. Doyle testified that he con-
sistently received the bonus. Doyle was in the original group of five employees
that met Reardon outside of the plant on October 13, at which. time he signed an
IAM application card and received additional cards to enlist employees into
the IAM. Doyle also was a member of and met with the IAM organizing com-
mittee during lunch hours , as heretofore described . Doyle signed up several
employees to union membership and carried the IAM, application cards in an
open pocket in his shirt while working in the plant, so that they were clearly
visible. In point of service as a cutter Doyle was one of the oldest employees in
the plant. The records taken from the Respondent's payroll in evidence show
that at the time of his layoff, Doyle was senior to several employees retained. At
the completion of the day's work on November 10, William Cravatts called Doyle
and Edward d'Entremont together and told them that he had to lay them off.
Doyle testified that he asked William Cravatts for a statement setting forth the
reasons for the layoff and it was-refused him. Cravatts mentioned the fact that
Doyle could always collect his social security benefits. Doyle has not been
reemployed.
Edward d'Entremont started his employment in the Respondent's plant on
October 23, 1947, as a general factory worker at 60 cents per hour. After 4 days
his pay was increased to 65 cents per hour. His rate was again raised to 75
cents per hour and upon transfer as a cutter to the assembly department he
received 80 cents per hour plus the 20-cent per hour production bonus. He was
on the job as a cutter for 15 months prior to his layoff on November 10, 1949. In
20 It is the General Counsel's contention raised at the hearing and in his brief that
Angelina Mangano, who , according to Karavetsos , inquired about his signing an IAM card,
-was a supervisory employee of the assembly department . The record indicates that Man-
gano, an hourly paid employee , was assistant to Lillian Michelman, and did nothing more
than pass out work to the employees in the assembly section and transmit orders to the
employees . It is found that Mangano was not a supervisory employee within the definition
of the Act . It therefore becomes unnecessary to discuss further the alleged interrogation
of Karavetsos by Mangano.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 525
point of service d'Entremont was the oldest cutter in the Respondent's employ
at the time of his layoff. d'Entremont was in the original group of employees
that met with Reardon on October 13, at which time he signed an IAM member-
ship card and received additional applications to be used in the enlistment of
other employees into the IAM. d'Entremont was in the organizing group that met
during their lunch hours in the laundry section of the plant where union activities
were discussed and, as heretofore noted, the group was observed by William Cra-
vatts and Gilman. d'Entremont was active in the solicitation of various employ-
ees in the plant to IAM membership, and was successful in signing up several
As heretofore noted in the discussion of Stanley Doyle, d'Entremont was 'called in
with Doyle by William Cravatts and told they were being laid off. Other than
the statement that Cravatts had word from the office to lay them off, no reason
was given.
The Respondent contends that its layoffs of the cutters, hereinabove described,
were justified by legitimate business reasons. William Cravatts testified, that the
layoffs came about because the work in the plant slowed down and for the addi-
tional reason that automatic counters were installed on the cutting machines thus
doing away with the necessity for cutters to operate the machines.
It is recognized that an employer may lawfully reduce its operations or for
that matter close its plant for any reason whatsoever, good or bad, sound or
unsound, in its sole discretion, and without censorship from the Board, provided
,only that the employer's action is not motivated by a purpose to interfere with
.and to defeat its employees' union activities. If the latter is the true purpose, it
is unlawful. See Goodyear Footwear Corporation, 80 NLRB 800; Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Company of Montgomery, 72 NLRB 601; Rubin Brothers Footwear, Inc.,
91 NLRB 10.
While it appears true from the Respondent's gross. sales for the months
,of September, October, and November 1949;' that its business did decline,
which might lead to the inference that it did not require as many employees
to conduct its manufacturing operations and that the layoffs hereinabove
described for lack bf work were justifiable, the record proves that this was
not the, fact. The.real facts reveal that practically simultaneously with the
-layoffs there appeared in the "Help Wanted" column of the Boston Globe news-
paper of October 26 the advertisement placed by the Respondent for young men
-over the age of 21 to do factory work. As noted- previously, Quaregan testi-
fied that the advertisement was placed in the newspaper on his instructions
because he was looking for lacers in the chain room. Besides the newspaper
.advertisement for help, the Respondent maintained a "Boys Wanted" sign on
the outside of its plant and called the United States Employment Service to
send it employees. Henry Stankiewicz testified credibly without denial that
early in November 1949, while looking for a job, he saw the "Boys Wanted" sign
on Respondent's plant and upon application in the office was hired b§ Quaregan.
as a lacer in the chain room.22 Richard Tanner, presently employed with the
Respondent, testified credibly without denial that he was hired as a cutter by
William Cravatts on November 1, 1949, upon referral to the Respondent's plant
by the United States Employment Service. Tanner did not have previous ex-
perience as a cutter prior to his employment with the Respondent.
James Metallo, a maintenance man in the Respondent's plant, testified credibly
that within a day or two after the release of a cutter allegedly for lack of work,
n During September 1949 the Respondent 's gross sales were $88,683 .92; October 1949,.
474,163.73; November 1949, $65,659.11.
21 Stankiewicz was hired on November 4, 1949.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a replacement was made by the Respondent either by transfer from another
department or by a new hiring. The replacement cutters were broken in on the
machine by Metallo. It is clear from the admission of Quaregan and from
the credited testimony set forth hereinabove, that Respondent sought replace-
ments for the laid-off lacers and cutters and hired men to fill these jobs' shortly
after the layoffs. The Respondent's contention that the layoffs of the cut-
ters were necessary because work slowed down is without merit.
Equally without merit is the second contention that the counters installed
on cutting machines automatically did the work of the cutters. There is con-
siderable conflict in the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses as to precisely
when the machine counters were put to use. William Cravatts testified that the
counters were installed in October 1949. Quaregan testified that the process
took place from October to December 1949 and that only one machine at a
time had the counter installed on it. Robert Cravatts testified that the automatic
counters were added to the cutting machines during the months of August and
September 1949, and thereafter. The record however does not reveal that
the Respondent found it necessary to lay off any cutters or lacers during the
months of August and September even though identical compelling reasons
existed for the layoffs as did exist in the months of October and November.23
But the IAM had not yet started its organizational compaign at the plant.
Furthermore,'as hereinabove found, Respondent hired replacements for the-laid-
off employees within a day or two after their layoffs. Would replacements have
been necessary if the counters automatically did the work of the cutters? Pe-
culiarly enough, on or about November 10, when Doyle and d 'Entremont were
laid off (they were the remaining two members of the IAM organizing group)
the Respondent found that the automatic counters were not able to take care
of rush orders, so that,. according to William Cravatts, more cutters were needed
to cut those orders from the endless chain, by the manual operation. Of sig-
nificance is the fact that when on November 10 Respondent found that its tech-
nological improvements were. not feasible to handle rush orders necessitating
the hiring of more cutters to manually operate the machines, as had been done
before the layoffs and to some extent during the period from October 21 to
November 10, it did not recall the laid-off experienced employees but hired new
men who had to be broken into the job.24
_" Robert Cravatts testified that the business of the Respondent during September 1949
was 20 percent below its 1948 business.
24 William Cravatts testified that on or about November 10 it became apparent. to him
that additional cutters would be needed on a permanent basis. On that date , he addressed
three post cards to'Barnette, Donald Blair, and Karavetos, advising them that if they
were interested in returning to work to report to the plant immediately . He then placed
the cards on the office girl's desk with the remainder of the plant 's correspondence to be
mailed. According to William Cravatts, neither Barnette, Blair, nor Karavetsos returned
to the plant in answer to the post cards. He therefore took several of the boys who had
been used part time as cutters from October 21 to November 10 and whose regular place
of employment was in the laundry, and put the best ones on the cutting job . Barnette,.
Blair, and Karavetsos denied that they received the post cards referred to by William
Cravatts . As noted bertofore , Doyle and d'Entremont were laid off by the Respondent
at or about the time that William Cravatts claimed be sent post cards to the first three
cutters laid off. When questioned as to the reasons why he did not send cards to recall
Doyle and d'Entremont, he stated he found that some of the part-timers who had been
placed on the job temporarily from the regular laundry work were better cutters than
Doyle and d'Entremont and he decided to keep them on this work. It seems rather
strange that William Cravatts nevertheless felt it advisable to recall Blair , Barnette, and
Karavetsos rather than Doyle and d'Entremont in view of his earlier testimony that the
first three cutters were laid off because they were the poorest in the group of seven in
the Respondent's employ in October 1949. While it may be that William Cravatts
addressed post cards as he testified , the Examiner credits the testimony of Barnette,
Blair, and Karavetsos that they never received them.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 527
The layoffs of the lacers and cutters were not isolated but were an integral
part of the Respondent's plan to defeat the TAM. They followed closely upon
the heels of the appearance of the TAM, the Respondent's learning of it, and the
,campaign to defeat it which involved among other things threats to move the
plant made by Gilman as well as by William Cravatts, already discussed and
heretofore found to be violative of the Act.
It is of significance that included in the layoffs were the employees who made
up the organizing, group of the ISM and who were constantly seen together
during the TAM campaign in the plant. It is further significant that the Re-
spondent found it necessary to employ cutters and lacers after it had gotten
rid of the prime movers for the IAM allegedly on the ground of a lull in business.
Respondent made it unmistakably clear to the employees that the advent of the
TAM was the real cause of the layoffs. Thus, Foreman Whitham, in a conversa-
tion with Merton Bennett who asked Whitham what happened to the TAM,
answered, "Some of those guys got laid off are sorry that they had an idea of
the Union [TAM]." Similarly Forelady Michelman when laying off Donald
Blair allegedly for a lull in business said, "Between me and you, Donald, don't
you think you was foolish giving up a job like that? A kid like you will never
get a job for $40 a week."
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, the conclusion is ines-
capable and the Examiner finds that the layoffs of lacers and cutters Moore,
Stevens, Barnette, Donald Blair, Karavetsos, Doyle, and d'Entremont were
motivated by and were the result of the Respondent's opposition to the unioniza-
tion of its employees into the TAM, thereby discriminating against them within
the meaning of Section S (a) (3) of the Act.
Lois Blair started her employment with the Respondent on September 19,
1949. She was introduced to William Cravatts as one seeking employment, by
her brother Donald, heretofore found to have been discriminatorily discharged,
and was placed in the salvage department under the supervision of Herman
Cravatts with a starting rate of pay of 60 cents per hour. After working a
month, Herman Cravatts complimented her on the fact that she was a fast
worker and she received an increase of 5 cents per hour. She testified that she
operated the five or six machines in the salvage department.
On October 14 Lois received about a dozen TAM application cards from her
brother Donald and immediately took an active part in soliciting female em-
ployees in the plant to join the TAM. She was in the group of employees known
as the organizing committee and met with them on two occasions during lunch
hours in the laundry section of the plant. At other times during her lunch
hours she solicited the employees in her department to join the TAM and suc-
ceeded in having several sign membership cards. Lois testified that on or about
October 17 while eating lunch with several girls in her department, a discus-
sion arose about the TAM. She had distributed some TAM application cards
to the girls when William Cravatts spoke to several of the girls who were then
eating lunch with Lois. According to Lois, she was in the process of handing
TAM cards to some of the girls and in fact had several cards in her hand when
William Cravatts came out of his office and spoke to the girls with her.
Lois attended the November 16 TAM meeting. Herman Cravatts was pres-
ent at that meeting and as heretofore found was asked to leave the premises.
Herman sat directly behind Lois in the meeting hall and in fact greeted her.
Lois testified that she worked.most of the following day on a pinking machine
outside of the salvage department. During the course of the day, she and em-
ployee Gloria Taylor were assigned to work on two new machines. They were in-
structed on the said machines and were told that they would be assigned to work
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regularly on the said machines . At the completion of the day 's work, Hermata
Cravatts told Lois that she was being laid off due to a lull in business.
Herman Cravatts did not specifically deny laying off Lois Blair . He testified-
he never recommended the promotion or discharge of any employee . William.
Cravatts testified that Lois Blair was doing too much talking and not getting her
work done . On several occasions , he saw Lois talking around the plant and it
was necessary for him to speak to her twice about this matter . With respect.
to the occasion ' of. her layoff , William Cravatts testified he told Lois he had
warned her twice previously about talking but she persisted , therefore, he was:
letting her go because she wasn't doing her work.
Gloria •Massicotte , a former employee in the Respondent 's salvage section,
who worked there under the name of Gloria Taylor , testified credibly that she
worked close to Lois Blair, that Lois did not do much talking when she was on
the job , and did not interfere with the work of the other girls.
The Examiner does not credit William Cravatts ' testimony regarding the.
dismissal of Lois Blair and.finds that Herman Cravatts told her that she was
being laid off because of a lull in business.
It is significant that Lois Blair was laid off a day after the IAM meeting,
at a time when the Respondent had to hire new cutters and lacers as it explained
in order to cope with its rush of business. The Respondent was aware of Lois'
relationship to Donald Blair who was a leader in the IAM organizational drive
and whom it had previously discharged discriminatorily 2' The Examiner is
of the opinion and finds that the Respondent discharged Lois Blair because
of her union activities among the Respondent ' s employees and for the additional
reason that it implemented the discharge of Donald Blair, thereby interfering
with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights - guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Violation of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act
The complaint alleges that the Respondent refused or failed to reinstate the
employees found above to have been discriminatorily discharged for the reason
that they filed charges under the Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (4).
Herman Lieberman, field examiner for the Board, testified that. at a con-
ference in the office of Leo J. Halloran, attorney for the General Counsel, on
April 13, 1950, attended by Robert Cravatts and his attorney, George McLaughlin,
while discussing the alleged discriminatory discharges, Halloran said to Cra-
vatts "You even advertised in the Boston Globe at about the time these termina-
tions took place, for help. Why didn't you recall the laid off employees if they
were laid off for lack of work?" Cravatts, according to Lieberman, replied that
the employees had been laid off for lack of work at the time of the layoff, but.
that they had not been recalled because of the filing of charges with the Board_
Robert Cravatts denied making any such statement at the conference. His
denial is not credited. It is noted that Robert Cravatts' statement was made
during a conference called for the purpose, among other things, of amicably
settling this matter before hearing. The Examiner is reluctant to base any
findings upon an isolated statement made during negotiations looking toward
the settlement of cases and accordingly will hereinafter recommend the dismissal
of this allegation of the complaint. In any event, since as heretobefore found the
discharges of the eight named employees were discriminatory, the remedy to
be recommended will be adequate to effectuate the policies of the Act.
u Lois Blair testified that on one occasion when Donald was out ill William Cravetts asked
her why her brother had not reported for work.
SWAN FASTENER CORPORATION 529
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent set forth 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent was engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Martin Moore, Stanley Barnette, Lester Stevens, Donald
Blair, Frank Karavetsos, Etanley Doyle, Edward d'Entremont, and Lois Blair,
it will be recommended that Respondent offer to each immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent position 2° and make each
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against him by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge
to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period,21 with the following exceptions: (a) Back pay for Edward d'Entre-
mont shall not be computed for a 2-week period in the month of April 1950 for
the reason that during said period he left the United States for a trip into
Canada and did not seek employment; (b) back pay for Lois Blair shall not be
computed for the 3-week period from the end of February to the end of the
second week in March 1950 for the reason that during this period she made
no effort to obtain employment and devoted herself to taking care of her mother
at home because of the lattet's illness. Loss of pay shall be computed on the
basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period
from Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer of rein-
statement. The quarterly period herein called quarters, shall begin with the
first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined
by deducting from the sum equal to that which each employee would normally
have earned for each such quarter or portion thereof, his net earnings, if any,
in any other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quar-
ter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter 28 It
will also be recommended that Respondent, upon reasonable request, make
available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to
an analysis of the amounts due as back pay.
It has also been found that the Respondent conducted an antiunion campaign
by means of interrogation, threats, and other illegal conduct in order to inter-
fere with and intimidate the employees from exercising their rights under the
Act. By the number, variety, and' seriousness of the unfair labor practices thus
engaged in the Respondent has revealed such a fundamental antipathy to the
objectives of the Act as to justify the inference that the commission of other
unfair labor practices may be anticipated in the future, and it will be recom-
mended, therefore, that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any
28 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan , Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
11 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440.
'IF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lodge 264 of District 38 of International Association of Machinists, and
International Ladies Garment Workers Union, are labor organizations admit-
ting to membership employees of the Respondent.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Martin
Moore, Stanley Barnette, Lester Stevens, Donald Blair, Frank Karavetsos,
Stanley Doyle, Edward d'Entremont, and Lois Blair, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the above unfair labor practices and by otherwise interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8 (a) (4) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
SCULLIN STEEL CO' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1, AFL, PETITIONER
SCULLIN STEEL Co. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PE-
TITIONER . Cases Nos. 14-RC-1361 and 14-RC-1387. July 25, 1951
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Glenn L. Moller, -hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
95 NLRB No. 60.