The Fred A. Snow Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 1288 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of TILE FRED A . SNOW COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. 0-2137.-Decided June 26, 194.2
Jurisdiction : metal bars and forms treating and processing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices:
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: questioning of employees concerning
union activities and affiliations ; disparaging remarks concerning union leaders ;
anti-union remarks; offering and granting wage increases to induce employees
to refrain from union activities ; request to union leader to burn membership
cards ; campaigning against union in pending Board election.
Discriniinatzon: lay-off and refusal to grant wage increases because of union
membership and activities constitutes violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act ;
charge that an employee was discharged because of union membership and
activities, dismissed
Filing Charges and Giving Testmmony Under the Act: refusal to grant wage
increases because employee caused charge to be filed and gave testimony
under the Act constitutes violation of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to comply with the Act, to reimburse
employee for loss of earnings during period of lay-off, grant wage increase
refused because of union membership and activities, and reimburse employee
for loss of earnings due to discriminatory refusal to grant wage increase.
Mr. Russell Packard, for the Board.
Fyffe & Clarke, by Mr. Albert J. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for the
respondent.
Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Irving Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Union.
Mr. Fred A. Dewey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illi-
nois), issued its complaint, dated January 7, 1942, against The Fred
A. Snow Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
41 N. L. R. B., No. 239.
1288
THE FRED A . SNOW COMPANY 1289
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 St-at. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged,
in substance : ( 1) that the respondent or or about May 1, 1941, to
the date of the issuance of the complaint warned and discouraged its
employees against affiliation with, or activities on behalf of the
Union, questioned employees about their union membership and ac-
tivities , solicited employees for information concerning the affiliation
and activities of its employees and offered bribes therefor , granted
wage increases to its employees on condition that they repudiate the
Union, threatened employees with discharge if they should become
or remain members of the Union , advised union leaders to destroy
union application cards, solicited employees to sign statements that
they were satisfied with conditions, made contemptuous , disparaging,
and insulting statements about union members and leaders, threat-
ened to go out of business in the event its employees affiliated with
the Union , questioned employees as to how they intended to vote in
an election which was to be held under the supervision of the Board
on July 15, 1941, threatened the employees who had joined the
Union with unfavorable working conditions , and otherwise inter-
fered with the employees ; ( 2) that the respondent laid-off Lindsey
Pughsley from August 30 to September 6, 1941, and discharged
Henry Jones on September 5, 1941, because they joined the Union
and engaged in concerted union activities with other employees; and
(3) that the respondent , by the above acts, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
On January 21, 1942, the respondent filed its answer , admitting
the allegations concerning the nature of its business and that it had
laid 'off Pughsley and discharged Jones on the dates alleged, but
denying that the lay-off and discharge were made because of the em-
ployees' membership or concerted activities in the Union. The re-
spondent denied the remaining allegations in the complaint. On
February 16, 1942, the Union amended its charge and the Board
amended its complaint by adding certain paragraphs alleging that
on and after September 3, 194-1, the respondent failed to grant wage
increases to Pughsley because he caused charges to be filed with the
Board -- against the respondent and filed affidavits in support thereof,
and that by so doing the respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (4) of the Act. The
respondent subsequently amended its answer to deny the amendment
to the complaint.
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to"notice, a hearing was held from February 12 to 20,
1942, at Chicago, Illinois, before Tilford E. Dudley, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board,
the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel. All
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to, ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the re-
spondent moved to strike portions of the testimony of certain wit-
nesses. The Trial Examiner reserved rulings on these motions but
subsequently denied said motions in his Intermediate Report.
Counsel for-the Board moved to amend the complaint to conform to
the proof. This motion was granted at the hearing. The respondent
moved for the dismissal of the complaint both in part and in
whole. The Trial Examiner denied these motions. At the conclu-
sion of the hearing all parties were. afforded an opportunity to present
oral argument to the Trial Examiner and to file briefs with him.
All of the parties engaged in oral argument before the Trial Exami-
ner but no briefs were filed. During the course of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the
rulings, of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 19, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in, which
he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from engag-
ing in said unfair labor practices, that it offer Jones reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position and make Pughs-
ley and Jones whole for the loss they sustained by reason of the dis-
crimination against them. The respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and filed a brief in support of its exceptions.
None of the parties requested oral argument before the Board. The
Board has considered the respondent's brief and exceptions and inso-
far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is' an Illinois corporation with its principal_ office
and plant in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the treating or
. I
THE FRED A . SNOW COMPANY 1291
processing of metal bars and forms, large quantities of which are
transported in interstate commerce, from and through States of the
United States other than Illinois, to the respondent's plant, and
which after being treated or processed are transported to and through
States other than Illinois. During the year 1940, metal bars and
forms valued in excess of $500,000 were transported to the plant,
treated and processed and transported from the plant in interstate
commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Prior to May 1941, no attempt had been made by a labor organiza-
tion to organize the respondent's employees. On May 12, 1941,
employee Lindsey Pughsley received some application cards from the
Union, signed one, and began to solicit members among the.other
employees. The organizational activities continued thereafter and a
number of employees joined the Union. Later that month, Fred A.
Snow, the respondent's president and chief executive, inquired of
Foreman Charley Barnes, according to the latter's uncontradicted
testimony which we credit as did the Trial Examiner, if he knew
that some of the employees were trying to organize a union. Upon
receiving an affirmative answer, Snow asked Barnes whether he
thought a majority of the employees would be for the Union. Early
in June, Snow told Foreman Crowder not to join the Union and
instructed him to tell his men not to join. While Snow denied a
similar conversation, he admitted that he might have discussed union
matters with Crowder and did not deny this particular conversation.
In view of these circumstances and other testimony of Snow showing
his animosity toward the Union, we credit Crowder's testimony, as
did the Trial Examiner.
On or about the night of June 3 or 4, 1941, Clinton Snow 1 ordered
employees Pughsley and Ted Stevens, who worked on the day shift
'Clinton Snow is the-son of Fred Snow and is in charge of shipping and purchasing;
he has authority to hire and is consulted by Fred Snow on matters relating to the
conduct of the respondent 's business . He is clearly a supervisory official„ and we so find.
Although present at the hearing, he did not testify. All statements herein attributed to
him were undenied and are based on testimony of witnesses whom the Trial Examiner
credited , as do we.
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-, LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
but had returned to the plant and were in the washroom signing up
union members , to leave the premises. Later that night, he gave
employees Morgan and Fletcher a ride home and while enroute in-
quired of them whether some of the employees had tried to induce
them to sign union cards. He also said that the men should have
given his father some consideration before going to the Union and
,that his father would give consideration to their problems.- He
stopped and looked in at a nearby tavern, to which Pughsley and
Stevens had gone to wait for the end of the night shift, and then re-
marked to Morgan and Fletcher that there were some union men inside.
Shortly thereafter, according to Snow's uncontradicted testimony,
Snow, having learned that Pughsley and Stevens had been at the
plant at night, approached Pughsley and asked him if he was trying
,to organize a union in the plant. When Pughsley admitted that he
was, Snow said that the rules forbade men being in the plant except
during their own shift. Snow also said, according to Pughsley, whose
testimony we credit as did the Trial Examiner, that he did not want
a union in the shop and that unions were backed by the Germans who
did not like the respondent because it was doing work for the Gov-
ernment. He further stated that he did not believe that Pughsley
could organize the employees and remarked, "If they don 't organize
then you think you will be holding this job?" He suggested that
they be friends and offered to give Pughsley a raise if he would
forget about the Union and say no more to the employees about it.
Snow denied making the above statements attributed to him by
Pughsley but other employees, whose testimony we credit, as did the
Trial Examiner, testified to incidents which lend credence to Pughs-
ley's version of the conversation.'
Qn June 14, Snow warned Morgan, according to Morgan' s testi-
mony, that if the Union came in, the employees would not get any
more 48 or 56-hour weeks, that the respondent could not stay in
business for more than 3 months, and that he would turn his shop
over to his son who didn't like colored people.3 Although Snow
denied this conversation, in view of his admission that he had told
several employees that he might turn the business over to his son
and that if the Union came in he was going to retire, we, in agreement
with the Trial Examiner , do not credit Snow's denial.
z Joseph Anderson testified that Snow asked him to talk with Morgan and Dunhums and -
"see if you can get them' to go along with me. " Adams testified that he asked Snow for
a loan and Snow remarked , "You fellows did a rotten trick " When Adams asked, "How,"
Snow replied that the boys had turned in their union cards-against him. Morgan testi-
fled that Snow questioned him about his union activities and remarked , "You don't look
like a German or a Jap but you act like one "
' Most of the employees , other than those in the shipping department which was in
charge of Clinton Snow , were colored.
THE FRED A. SNOW COMPANY 1293
On June 14, 1941, at approximately 12 o'clock, Clinton Snow called
a meeting of all the employees at a shed on the respondent' s premises.
He told them that they were not treating his father right in trying to
form a union without talking to him first. He commented that they
had stabbed his father in the back and that it was a "dirty trick."
He also argued against an outside union and suggested that the
employees form a shop union. He inquired whether the men would
be satisfied and forget the Union if they received a wage increase.
A discussion of wages followed after which Fred Snow entered the
meeting. On being told by Clinton Snow that the men. wanted 50
cents an hour, Fred Snow replied that he could not pay it. He said
that if the Union came into the shop, he would turn the plant over
to his son who would not have any colored workmen and that the
men would not have their jobs. He offered to give everyone a raise
and said that he would start new men at 40 cents an hour and pay
45 cents to the men who had worked 6 months and 50 cents at the end
of a year's employment. He then said that he wanted to see how
many were behind him and how many against him and called upon
those who were for him to come out of the shed and stand beside him.
All of the men thereupon left the shed and joined Snow except
Pughsley, Adams, Ramsey, Jesse Jones, and Foremen Barnes and
Crowder. After some further remarks between Snow and Foreman
Crowder, Snow wrote the substance of his offer as to wages on a time
sheet and asked the men to sign. Pughsley, who would have received
only 45 cents under the offer, refused to sign until Clinton Snow
assured him that he would receive 50 cents despite his lack of a year's
service.' After the meeting broke up, Clinton Snow asked Pughsley
what he was going to do with the union cards. When Pughsley
replied that he was going to keep them, Clinton Snow asked him to
give them to one of the foremen and let them be burned. Pughsley
refused.
On July 3, 1941, the Union filed with the Board a petition for an
investigation and certification of representatives. Thereafter, and
prior to the election, the testimony shows that Snow and his son
Clinton vigorously campaigned against the Union. Morgan testified
that on or about July 5, Snow questioned him about the men on his
shift, mentioned that he had been nice to "the boys," and said that
he wanted them to "go along" with him. Dunhums testified that
Snow questioned him about the men on his shift and asked him if
he knew of any employees who had signed union cards. Snow testi-
fied that he did not remember the conversation with Morgan. He
' The findings in the foregoing paragraph are based largely upon the uncontroverted
testimony of a number of witnesses whose testimony as to what occurred at the meeting
was in substantial accord and whom we credit as did the Trial Examiner. As stated
above, Clinton. Snow did not testify.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admitted a part of the conversation related by Dunhums and that the
rest "might possibly" have beeen said. Under the circumstances we
credit the testimony of Morgan and Dunhums, as did the Trial
Examiner. A few days later, when Dunhums asked Clinton Snow
about a raise, the latter warned him that if a union came in the
colored boys would not "last long." He then remarked that he
would see his father about the raise.
On or about July 12, according to the testimony of Anderson,
Snow asked Anderson if he had signed a union card and, upon
receiving a negative reply, told him to "sign against" the Union.
On the same day, according to the testimony of Ramsey and Jesse
Jones, Snow made disparaging remarks to Ramsey and Jones about
the Union, saying inter alia that if they were unable to pay dues the
Union would say, "To hell with you, and kick you out." Snow
denied the incidents related by Anderson, Ramsey, and Jones. In
view of the observations of the Trial Examiner as to the demeanor
of the witnesses and the similarity of the incidents to other remarks
made by Snow, we, like the Trial Examiner, do not credit Snow's
denial.
On July 14, the day before the election, Clinton Snow spoke to
Pughsley at his press, saying, "Pughsley, you can stop this union
from coming in here if you want to. You know if the union comes
in here the old man will go down." During the same afternoon, ac-
cording to Anderson, Fred Snow asked him if he had joined the
Union and when he replied that he had not Snow'said: "Well, stay
away from Pughsley. He is no good." Morgan testified that on the
evening of the same day, Snow questioned him about the men on his
shift and when Morgan replied that they were all for Snow, Snow
observed that he thought that only Pughsley and Stevens would vote
against him. Snow testified that he did not believe that he engaged
in this conversation and that he thought that he was in Michigan on
that day, explaining that he frequently took Saturday afternoon and
Sunday off. Since July 14 was on a Monday and several witnesses
testified to conversations with Snow on that day, we, like the Trial
Examiner, do not credit Snow's denial.
The election was held on July 15, pursuant to a consent agreement,
and 36 employees voted for the Union and 48 against., But the
campaign against the Union continued unabated. Henry Jones tes-
tified without contradiction that on the day of the election, after the
ballots were counted, Snow remarked : "Thirty-six of the boys were
against me. If the union comes in here, I am quitting." Snow ad-
mitted that he talked to a number of employees about the election
5 On July 16, the Union filed with the Regional Director objections to the election.
The record does not disclose what disposition , if any , was made of the objections.
THE ' FRED A . SNOW COMPANY 1295
and that his stock answer was, "Well boys, it is over now, we won,
now let's forget the whole thing, and everybody get down- to work."
This clearly indicates that Snow took a partisan attitude toward the
election and corroborates our findings that he engaged in anti-union
activities prior thereto.6
It, is apparent from the foregoing facts and the entire record,
that the respondent actively opposed and interfered with the efforts
of its employees to organize themselves for the purposes of collective
bargaining. We find that, by questioning Foremen Barnes and
Crowder in May and June 1941, and by instructing Crowder not
to join the Union and to tell the employees working under him not
to join; by the anti-union remarks of Clinton Snow on June 4 or 5,
1941; by Snow's anti-union remarks and threats to Pughsley and
his offer to give him a raise if he would forget-about the Union; by
the threats made by Snow to Morgan on June 14; by the threats
and arguments made.by Clinton Snow and by Snow, and,by Snow's
request for a vote at the meeting on June 14; by granting wage in-
creases, on June 14 for the purpose of inducing the employees to
refrain from union activities; by Clinton Snow's request to Pughsley
after the meeting to burn the union membership cards ; by the anti-
union campaign conducted by Snow and by Clinton Snow prior to
the election on July 15; and by Snow's remark to Jones that he
would quit if the Union came in, and his remarks to various em-
ployees after the election to the effect that the respondent had won
the election, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
1. The lay-off of Lindsey Pughsley
The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Lindsey Pughsley by cans=
ing him to be.laid off from August 30, 1941, to September 6, 1941,
because of his union membership and activities. The respondent
admits the lay-off but denies that it was for the reasons alleged in the
complaint.,
Pughsley was employed by the respondent on December 9, 1940.
At first he "pulled furnaces," a job which consisted of placing steel
rods in a,furnace and pulling them out when they had reached the
desired temperature, at which time they were quenched in water or
'The record contains testimony regarding many additional incidents , similar to those
detailed above , which indicate that the respondent opposed the union activities of its
emplpyees and disparaged the union leaders Since these incidents are cumulative in
nature; we shall ' not prolong the opinion by enumerating them
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oil. Later' he was transferred to straightening steel bars on a press.
He worked during the day shift under the supervision of Foreman
Barnes and Thompson.
As we have found above, the respondent attempted to interfere
with and restrain Pughsley's union activities and harbored animosity
toward him by reason thereof. He was ordered off the respondent's
premises by Clinton Snow while soliciting members for the Union
on or about June 3 or 4; shortly thereafter he was approached by
Snow who inquired whether he was trying to organize a union in
the shop and, upon Pughsley's admission that he was, Snow stated
that he did not 'believe that he could succeed and that if Pughsley
would not talk about the Union he would get a "decent" raise. At
the meeting on June 14, 1941, when Snow called for a vote to- see
who of the employees were for him and who were not, Pughsley voted
against Snow; after the meeting, Pugsley refused Clinton Snow's
request to burn the union membership cards. On July 14, 1941,
Clinton Snow-told Pughsley that he could stop the Union from com-
ing in and asked him to think it over, and on the same day Snow
asked Anderson, whether he had signed a union card. and told him
to stay away from Pughsley saying, "He is no good." Also on the
same day Snow remarked that lie thought only Pughsley and Stevens
would vote against him in the election. On July 15, 1941, after the
ballots had been counted, Snow remarked to Foreman Crowder, "We
won ... . 36 of the sons-of-bitches was against me- and if I knew
who they was it would be too bad for them." During the second
week in August Snow asked Henry Jones if he knew what was going
on and remarked, "You know that Lindsey l ughsley ? . . . He is
a snake."
On, August 30, 1941; between 8: 30 and 9 o'clock, the day Pughsley
was laid off, according to the testimony of Dunhums, he was called
into Snow's office and questioned about statements that he and others
had signed relating. to claims for back pay under the Wages and
Hours Act. Snow started the 'conversation by remarking, "That
fellow Pughsley, he thinks he owns this place." Although Snow tes-
tified that he did not recall the conversation related by Dunhums;
we credit Dunhums' testimony as did the Trial, Examiner. Pughsley
started work at 8 o'clock that morning and tivorked until 9: 30 or 10
o'clock,' when he ran out of bars to straighten due to the fact that
the.power crane broke down. According to Pughsley, he was stand-
ing with four other employees waiting for the crane to be fixed'when
Snow came to the group and asked what they were waiting for. Joe
Anderson said that they were waiting for the crane to be fixed.
Snow addressed Pughsley and asked him if he had to wait and upon
receiving an affirmative answer told him that if he could not find
THE FRED A . SNOW COMPANY 1297
anything to do to go home. No such order was given to any of the
other men. Pughsley replied that he had work to do and Snow said,
"No, you go home." Snow then walked away. Although Snow
denied that such an incident occurred that morning, he admitted that
similar occurrences might have taken place on a number of other
occasions. In view of the events which admittedly occurred later that
morning and the observations of the Trial Examiner concerning the
demeanor of Pughsley and Snow on the witness stand, we credit
Pughsley's testimony.
Thereafter Pughsley returned to work when the crane-was re-
paired. The remaining-facts surrounding Pughsley's lay-off are
not substantially in dispute. At about 10 o'clock, according to the
undisputed testimony, Snow told Foreman Thompson to tell Pugh-
sley to take the rest of the day off. Thompson went to Pughsley and
took him to one side and said, "I got something to tell you." He
then stated that Snow had said that there was not much work to
do and that Pughsley should take the rest of the day off. Thompson
added that he did not want Pughsley to feel "ungruntled" or get
angry. Pughsley asked Thompson if he could pay him and said that
he would go home if he received his pay. Thompson said : "Well,
I don't mean any harm, I am just telling you what he [Snow] said."
Pughsley said, "That is okay."
At about 10: 30,, Snow went into the shop and saw that Pughsley
was not at his machine but. was instead at Ramsey's press talking
to Ramsey and Jesse Jones. Snow then went to Ramsey's press and
ordered Pughsley to go to his press and get to work. He said
nothing to Jones. Pughsley started back to his press and testified
that as he did so he overhead Snow say to Ramsey, "Pughsley is a
snake, a lizard, a worm, he is nothing but a trouble maker." Al-
though Snow denied making this statement, and other employees
called by the respondent who were working nearby testified that they
did not hear Snow make this remark, Pughsley's testimony was cor-
roborated by Ramsey to whom the remark was made. Also, the
remark was similar in character to remarks made. by Snow about
Pughsley on other occasions. Hence we, like the Trial Examiner,
do not credit Snow's denial. Snow followed Pughsley toward his
machine and said: "Now, if you are going to run that machine, you
get over there and get on it, or either go home." Pughsley replied,
"I won't go home .. . you make me go." Snow replied, "I was
going to send you home for a day, but now that you have been so
smart . .. I am going to send you home for a week." Pughsley
replied, "Well, put me out. Fire me. Give me my check." Snow
answered, "Sure I will give you your check . . . This is my shop.
I 'can run it like I want it."
463892--42-Nol 41-82
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD-
Snow then left and returned in the afternoon accompanied by
Foremen Thompson and Barnes whom he brought along,to witness
the conversation. Snow told Pughsley : "Well, not only take 1 day
off, you will take,a week off for insubordination-... You have been
disrespecting my foremen." Pughsley thereupon asked Barnes and
Thompson if he had been disrespectful to them; they said that he
had not, although Thompson added "You just got mad when I told
you to go home this morning." Pughsley then asked if he was being
discharged and Snow replied that he was not but that he was going
to lay him off for a week. Pughsley asked for his pay and Snow
said that he did not see why he wanted it but said that he would give
it to him.7 Snow left and shortly thereafter returned with Pughsley's
check. At that time a further argument ensued between Snow and
Pughsley as ' to whether Pughsley was being discharged or laid off.
Snow remarked that he wished he could discharge him but that "the
Government" would not allow him to do so.
We do not believe that Pughsley was first asked to take the rest
of the day off because of a shortage of work, as contended by the
respondent. Snow's hostility toward Pughsley is clearly established
and Snow's conversation with Dunhums on the morning Pughsley
was laid off, before he had seen Pughsley, shows that this rancor
existed on that day. When he saw Pughsley and four other em-
ployees waiting for the crane to be repaired, he ordered Pughsley to
find something to do while the crane was being repaired or go home.
'To the other employees similarly situated, he gave no such orders.
Shortly thereafter he sent Foreman Thompson to Pughsley with in-
structions that he was to take-the rest, of the day off. No other em-
ployee had ever been asked to take .a part of a day off." A little later
Snow saw Pughsley at Ramsey's press talking to Ramsey and Jones.
At that time he ordered Pughsley to return to his press and get to
work but said nothing, to Jones. It is apparent therefore, that there
was work for Pughsley to do. It was then that Pughsley overheard
Snow say to Ramsey : "Pughsley is a snake, a lizard, a worm, he is
nothing but a trouble maker." Following this remark, Pughsley
used the language which the respondent characterizes in its brief as
"a deliberate taunting of his employer" and which it contends justi-
fied the week's lay-off. On the contrary it appears to us, and we find,
7 The respondent's custom was to withhold 1 week's pay: Pughsley bad been paid on
the day before his lay-off for the week ending Saturday, August 23, and his request was
for the week ending on Saturday, August 30, the day he was laid off
s while there was evidence that some employees in the straightening department had
occasionally been asked to take a day off, the respondent introduced no records on the
point and the date when this practice began was not made clear. Snow testified that it
might have been in the latter part of August. In September, or in November. His last
statement on the subject was that it was probably in September. Had Snow's,order
to Pughsley been based on the existence of such a practice, it seems clear that he would
have known that it was in effect at the time of Pughsley's lay-off.
THE FRED A . SNOW COMPANY 1299
that Pughsley's remarks were provoked by the conduct and remarks'
of Snow which were motivated by Snow's antipathy to Pughsley
because of his union membership and activities. That Pughsley's
remarks were not the true reason for his lay-off is further-shown by
the fact that Snow later told Pughsley that the reason for his lay-off
was because he had been disrespectful to his foremen, a fact denied
by the foremen in question, and by Snow's remark that he wished that
he could discharge Pughsley but the Government would°not allow it.
Upon the entire record, we conclude and find, as did the Trial.
Examiner, that the respondent, by laying Lindsey Pughsley off on
August 30, 1941, for a period of 1 week, discriminated in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. The discharge of Henry Jones'
The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Henry Jones by discharging
him on September 5, 1941, and in thereafter failing and refusing to
reinstate him because of his union membership and activities. The
respondent admits the discharge and that it has not reinstated Jones,
but denies that the reasons therefor were as alleged in the complaint.
At the hearing the respondent contended that Jones was discharged
because work was slack in the straightening department where he was
employed, and that he was not recalled because he had filed a "fake"
suit under the Wages and- Hours. Act- and because he was slow at his
work. -
Jones commenced his employment with the respondent on May 28,
1941, and was told by Foreman German Holmes, who hired him, that
the job was a steady one.' For a few days he pulled furnaces and
he was then assigned by Holmes to be a helper to Theodor Hrynyshyn,
who operated the only hydraulic press used in straightening the
larger bars. ' Jones continued at - this work until, his, discharge.
On the day that Jones was discharged, Snow remarked to Holmes
that he would have to cut down expenses. Holmes replied that he
did not have much work and suggested releasing his newest man,
who was Henry Jones. Snow assented and paid Jones to the end'of
the week, which was the day filllowing his discharge.
Although there is some conflict in the, evidence as to whether work
was slack in the straightening department at the time Jones was dis-
charged, Jones, testified that he did not know whether work was
slack ancl, several witnesses, including Foreman Barnes, whom the
° Snow, howe%Pi, had inst, ueted Holmes to inform whomever be hired that the job would
not he "definitelti- toil time '
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trial Examiner found to be a reliable witness, testified that work
was slack during the week preceding Jones' discharge. Statistics.
showing the dollar value of the bar work received by the respondent
from June 1941 through January 1942, also show that there was con-
siderably less work in September. In June, the first month of Jones'
employment, the dollar value was $19,069.71; in July, it was $12,738.61;
in August, it was $14,094.76; and in September, it dropped to
$7,982.80. Jones himself testified that there were only enough bars.
for about 4 hours' work at the time he was laid off. There was also
testimony that the percentage of large bars, which were straightened
on the press on which Jones worked, was below normal at that time
and that the large press was operated only part time during the
months following Jones' discharge. It was also shown without con-
tradiciton that no one was hired to replace Jones as regular helper
on the large press and that other employees alternated on the job
when the press was in operation.
The respondent hired several men after Jones was first employed
who performed work similar to that performed by Jones for the first
few days after he was hired. These employees were still in the re-
spondent's employ at the time Jones was,discharged, and no reason
appears why one of them could not have been discharged to make a
place for Jones. However, the respondent had no rules of seniority.
Although Jones joined the Union and sent seN:eral employees to
Pughsley and Fletcher to sign up with the Union, he was not very
active in the Union's affairs. Numerous witnesses testified to dis-
paraging statements made by Snow about various other employees
who were active union members, but there was no evidence that any
such remarks were made about Jones. On the contrary, it appears
that Jones was careful to keep his union activities from coming to
the attention of the'respondent. He did not wear a union button,
he attended no union meetings prior to his discharge, and he refused
to distribute union cards. Snow and Holmes both testified that they
did not lmow that he was a member of the Union at the time he was
discharged, and although Jones was a cousin. of Pughsley, there is no
evidence showing- that this was known to the respondent. At the
meeting on June 14, Jones was among those who voted in favor of
Snow's proposition respecting wage increases.
Snow testified at the hearing when questioned why Jones was
not recalled when new men were hired, that Jones had not shown
any real ability, that he was slow, and "besides that he entered into a
fake suit, or at least as far as he was concerned he knew that-he had
no back time coining and when he entered into that suit, he knew
it. was false." The "fake suit" referred to by Snow was a claim
filed on July 29, 1941, by several employees, including Jones, alleging
THE FRED A. SNOW COMPANY 1301
that the respondent owed them back pay under the Wages and Hours
Act. At the hearing Jones testified that he had always been paid in
full except for a Sunday in August, which was after the suit was
filed, and for which he had admittedly been paid by Snow.
In view of the foregoing and in the absence of proof that the
respondent knew of Jones' union activities or of his relationship to
Pughsley, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion
that Jones was discharged because of his union activities and his
relationship to Pughsley. We find that the evidence fails to establish
that the respondent discharged Jones and later refused to reinstate
him because of his union membership and activities. We shall,
therefore, order that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Henry Jones.
C. Discriminatory denial of wage increases
When Pughsley commenced work for the respondent he was paid
35 cents per hour; in about 4 months, he was raised to 38 cents.
Soon after the June 14 meeting, he was raised to 50 cents per hour,
pursuant to the promise made by Clinton Snow, as found above.
The other employees also received raises at that time. Since that
time, according to Snow, "practically all of the men in the shop,
especially those on . . . heat treating and straightening," where
Pughsley works, have been given additional raises. However, Pughs-
ley's rate has remained at 50. cents per hour, whereas other employees
who perform similar work are paid at a higher rate.
The respondent, in its brief, states that the Trial Examiner, in
finding that Pughsley had been discriminatorily refused a raise, over-
looked the fact that Pughsley was given a greater raise than the other
employees in June 1941, at the time a general increase was granted
and that "There is no evidence in the record, that the raises given
other employees having the same or similar periods of employment
as Pughsley exceeded the additional raise that Pughsley received on
J une 14, 1941." The respondent further argues that length of service
was a factor in determining the amount of compensation and that
Pughsley had not been employed as long as others receiving higher
wages. Except on the occasion when increases were granted on June
14, 1941, for the purpose of inducing the employees to refrain from
union activity, as we have found above, the evidence fails to establish
that the respondent's wage scale was determined by length of service.
Moreover, Pughsley's inferior seniority was not the reason advanced
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing for denying him a raise. At the hearing Snow
testified :
Q. And what contributes to the right to receive ... an indi-
vidual wage raise?
A. The quality of their work.
Q. Anything else?
A. Nothing else. I have given raises to a number of the men
who have testified here against me today, because they were
doing good work.
On June 14, 1941, before the general raise was given , Fletcher,
though he was senior to Pughsley in length of service, was receiving
only 35 cents per hour, while Pughsley was receiving 38 cents per
hour. At that time each received a raise of 12 cents per hour,
making Pughsley's wage 50 cents and Fletcher's 47 cents. Sub-
sequently, Fletcher was raised to 55 cents while Pughsley still re-
ceives 50 cents. As Pughsley was receiving more than Fletcher
before any wage increases were granted, although he had been em-
ployed for a shorter period of time, it appears that Fletcher has
received preferential treatment since that time . On the date that
Pughsley was raised to 50 cents from 38 cents, Ramsey was advanced
from 48 cents to 53 cents, making a differential of only 3 cents.
Subsequently, Ramsey was raised to 58 cents and later to 60 cents,
while Pughsley never received another raise. It would thus appear
that Ramsey was also accorded preferential treatment.
Pughsley testified that on January 15, 1942, he "caught Mr. Snow
and Barnes and Holmes together" and asked Snow if he would be
willing to give him a raise if the foremen said that he deserved it.
Snow replied that he would and Pughsley then inquired of the
i'oremen . Barnes said : "Yes,,Mr. Snow, Pughsley deserves a raise.
If anyone in the shop deserves a raise it is Pughsley . . . He is one
of the most dutiful fellows you have on this shift." Holmes, how-
ever, did not say anything but "bowed" iris head as Barnes was
talking. On the next day, January 16, 1942, when Pugshley received
his pay check for the usual amount, he spoke again to Snow. The
later replied, according to Pughsley : "I don't know what to do
about that, Pughsley. You have tricked me so many little ways
until I just don't know what to do . . . I am not going to let you
trick me any more." Snow then walked away. At the hearing Snow
denied that he promised Pughsley a raise if the foremen said that
he deserved one, but he admitted that a conversation took place at
which the question of a recommendation by the foremen was raised.-
THE FRED A. SNOW COMPANY 1303
He also admitted that he probably said to Pughsley at the second
conversation, "You have tricked me in so many ways you haven't
told the truth." Under the circumstances we credit Pughsley's testi-
mony, as did the Trial Examiner.
On the following Monday, January 19, 1942, Pughsley asked Snow
if he had thought any more about the raise. Snow replied that he
had not and began talking about other matters. The conversation
eventually returned to the wage question and Pughsley again asked
if he was going to get a raise, volunteering that he thought he de-
served it. Snow replied : "Pughsley, I am not going to give you no
raise, you know why . . . Because you went down to the Labor Board
and told them a damned dirty lie and [said] that I fired you. That
is why I am not going to give you no raise." Pughsley said, "0. K."
and walked away.
At the hearing, Snow testified : "The reason was that I told him
plainly that he had gone to the Labor Board and made a false state-
ment about me, claiming he had been discharged when he knew
absolutely he had not been discharged, he made a false accusation
before the Labor Board which caused me a great deal of trouble,
and I says, `You have not cooperated and you do not cooperate now
and you are not entitled to a raise."' 10 Snow further testified that
after the July 15 election, Pughsley neglected his work and wa,-
insolent 11 When asked by his counsel for "some definite acts," Snow
replied : "I just didn' want to talk to the man. I didn't feel like it."
During the first part of July 1941, before the election was held,
Pughsley had visited the Board's Regional Office in Chicago, had
conferred with a Board representative, and had given him an affidavit
concerning the respondent's alleged unfair labor practices. Later in
July, Pughsley and other employees had conferred with the Union's
counsel and had left with him other affidavits concerning the respond-
ent's unfair labor practices. During his lay-off, Pughsley had again
visited union counsel and authorized and had caused a charge to
be filed with the Board alleging that he had been discriminatorily
discharged by the respondent. In September, Pughsley, Jones, Ram-
sey, and counsel for the Union met Snow in the Board's Regional
Office and there conferred over the disagreements between them.
10 As previously pointed out , Snow offered Pughsley a raise if he would forget the
Union and say no more to the other employees about it. Clinton Snow also appealed
to Pughsley to stop the Union from coming into the respondent 's plant. The respondent
also sought to secure Pughsley 's cooperation by agreeing to pay him 50 cents an hour
at the nreeting on June 14 , although , according to the proposition submitted by the re-
spondent, he was then entitled to receive only 45 cents.
n This was not the reason given by Snow to Pughsley , and on the basis of the entire evi-
dence, we do not credit Snow 's testimony that Pughsley's failure to receive a raise was due
to neglect of his work or to insolence . Although Pughsley used language on two occasions
that would be considered insolent under other circumstances , we find that on each
occasion Snow provoked the language by discriminatory treatment of Pughsley.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It seems clear from Snow's own testimony, and we find, that the
major reason for failing and refusing to grant wage increases to
Pughsley was his action in causing a charge to be filed with the Board
against the respondent. By refusing the raise for this reason, the
respondent discriminated against Pughsley in regard to the terms
and conditions of his employment because he filed charges under the
Act and by such discrimination the respondent has discouraged mem-
bership in the Union and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act. We further find that the respondent failed and refused
to grant wage, increases to Pughsley because he appeared before repre-
sentatives of the Board and gave them documentary and oral evidence
concerning the respondent's unfair labor practices, and because of
his union membership and activities, thereby discriminating with
respect to the terms and conditions of employment, and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of
Section 10 (c), and in order to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act, to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action.
Having found that the respondent, to discourage membership in
the Union, discriminated in respect to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Lindsey Pughsley by laying him off from August 30, 1941,
to September 7, 1941, we shall order respondent to make Pughsley
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the lay-off, by pay-
ment to him of a sum equal to that amount which he would normally
have earned as wages during the week of his ]ay-off, less his net
earnings during said period.12
72 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
THE FRED A . SNOW COMPANY 1305
Having found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
terms and conditions of Pughsley's employment by failing and refus-
ing to give him raises in pay because he filed charges and gave testi-
mony under the Act, and because of his union membership and
activity, we shall order the respondent to offer Pughsley a raise to
the pay which others normally receive for the work which he is
performing, or for work substantially equivalent thereto. We shall
further order that the respondent make Pughsley whole for any loss
of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory
refusal to give him a raise, by payment to him of a sum equal to
the amount which he would normally have received as wages from
the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of the raise,
less his earnings from the respondent during said period.
Having found that the respondent did not discriminate against
Henry Jones, we shall dismiss the complaint with respect to him.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, and the terms
and conditions of employment of Lindsey Pughsley, thereby dis-
couraging membership in International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of Lindsey Pughsley because he filed charges under the
Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of Lindsey Pughsley because he gave testimony under the
Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
lay-off and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation V. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
7. The respondent, by its discharge of and refusal to reinstate
Henry Jones, has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, The Fred A. Snow Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discrim-
ination in regard to hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment;
(b) Discriminating against any employee because he has filed
charges or given testimony under the Act;
(c) In any other. manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed, in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Lindsey Pughsley for any Loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discriminatory lay-off from August 30 until
September 7, 1941, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned, less his net earnings, during
said period;
(b) Offer to Lindsey Pughsley a raise in pay to that pay which
other employees normally receive for the work which he is now
performing or work substantially equivalent thereto;
(c) Make whole Lindsey Pughsley for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory failure and
refusal to give him a raise in pay by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he would normally have received
THE FRED A. SNOW COMPANY 1307
as wages from the commencement of the discrimination against him
until the offer of the raise in pay, less his earnings from the respond-
ent during said period ;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs
2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's
employees are free to become or remain members of International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, and that the respondent will not discriminate
against any employee because of membership in or activities on behalf
of that organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent h as taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment, of Henry Jones, within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.