The Marquette Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 869 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION5 UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 8-C-1604.-Decided December 13, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 6, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. He also found that the respondent had not discrimi-
nated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Ernest A.
Hoffman, as alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of
that allegation. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief. The Union has not filed any ex-
ceptions.
Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondent, a hearing
for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on No-
vember 14, 1944, in Washington, D. C. The respondent and the Union
appeared and participated in the argument.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, the oral argu-
ment, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the
modifications hereinafter noted.'
The Trial Examiner found,, and we agree , that, by statements of
several of its supervisory employees, the respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In its exceptions the respondent
3 The date, May 19, 1942 , referring to the date of Francis Yeckley's reemployment by the
respondent and appearing in that section of the Intermediate Report in which the Trial
Examiner states his conclusions as to the discharge of Yeckley, should be May 19, 1943.
59 N. L. R B., No. 173.
869
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
claims that none of the supervisory employees mentioned by the Trial
Examiner made the statements attributed to them.
Employee Harvey Baker testified that R. A. "Rudy" Walters, ad-
mittedly one of the respondent's higher-rated supervisory employees,
stated to Baker that the "Union would never make the grade" with
"Herb" Gleitz, president of the respondent, who had previously
"broke" another union in the plant and would never consider signing a
contract with another union "because he didn't want any part of it."
According to Baker's testimony, Walters also told Baker, "The Union
doesn't get you a thing," and that if the Union got in the plant, "you
wouldn't get a bonus, Christmas bonus, or any of the others." Walters
denied Baker's testimony in this respect. We agree with the Trial Ex-
aminer as to the credibility of Baker's testimony and find that Walters'
denial is not trustworthy. Employee Jake Strekal testified that Fore-
man Bittence stated to Strekal that unions were no good; that the
respondent would never "adhere" to labor unions; that "it had one
before and it didn't work"; that the employees were getting "two bits"
an hour too much; and that wages were "froze" and "the Union can't
get you anything." Strekal further testified that Bittence admonished
Strekal about being too active in the Union, saying "I am going to
warn you. You are too active in the Union"; and that Bittence
informed Strekal that Walters had told Bittence to "bawl out" Strekal
"about being active in the Union." Bittence and Walters denied Stre-
kal's testimony as to these statements. We credit, as did the Trial
Examiner , Strekal's testimony concerning the above statements, and
find, the denials of Bittence and Walters to be untrustworthy. Ac-
cording to the uncontradicted testimony of employee Roy Learn,
Foreman Provencher stated to Learn, shortly after one of the Union's
meetings in December 1943, "I suppose you had a big meeting yester-
day . . . Was there many there? . . . the Union is all right in its
ways and in other ways it isn't . . . there's a lot of people generally
fooled. Whenever it gets in here . . . our piece work will be cut out
and we'll go down to 48 hours a week." Provencher, although shown
to have been available, was not called as a witness. We agree with
the Trial Examiner's finding that Provencher made the statement to
Learn substantially as set forth above. According to the testimony
of employee Steve Sverga, one of the complainants, Foreman Tommy
Schultz stated to Sverga that the Union was "no damn good," and that
they "had one there in 1937 and after the union was broken up" they
"did not even give him his dues back." Schultz denied Sverga's testi-
mony, in this respect. We agree with the Trial Examiner that
Sverga's testimony as to this statement is, credible and. Schultz' denial
untrustworthy.
The respondent also contends that, even if the statements were
made,' they represented only the opinions of the persons who made
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 871
them and did not operate to coerce or intimidate any of the respond-
ent's employees. We find no merit in this contention. The state-
ments are clearly of a coercive nature.
In its exceptions and at oral argument before the Board, the re-
spondent contended that, to support the finding that the respondent'
violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, the Trial Examiner relied upon
certain nebulous evidence with respect to the respondent' s actions
during 1937 and 1938 in disrupting a C. I. O. union in its plant by
inducing its employees to quit the C. I. O. organization and organize
an unaffiliated union. The record contains undisputed evidence of
the existence of a C. I. O. union in the respondent's plant during
1937, and it is also undenied that that organization disappeared in
1938. The Trial Examiner considered the evidence as to the existence
of the C. I. O. union in the respondent's plant in 1937 and its subse-
quent disappearance in 1938 solely to evaluate testimony as to events
occurring during the Union's organizational activities in 1943.
Whether or not the respondent committed unfair labor practices in
1937 or 1938 by disrupting the C. I. O. union is immaterial to our
present finding that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, since the statements
made by its supervisory employees, standing .alone, contain threats
of economic reprisals by the respondent against its employees for
their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union.
The respondent further excepts, on various grounds hereinafter dis-
cussed, to the Trial Examiner's findings that the respondent dis-
charged Sanford J. Safier, Mary Bucar, Francis Yeckley, and Steve
Sverga in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
Safier was hired.by the respondent as a timekeeper on or about Jan-
uary 13, 1943, at a starting rate of 80 cents per hour. After about 6
weeks, he was made an expediter under the supervision of Foreman
Edward J. Blatnick. Safier had some difficulty with Blatnick during
July 1943, and was transferred to a different type of expediting work
under the direct supervision of Joe Kustin , secretary-treasurer of the
respondent. Safier received two automatic 5-cent increases in pay
and several merit increases , his last merit increase in October 1943.
He was making $1.10 an hour when he was discharged on December
18,1943. He became active on behalf of the Union in September 1943,
and formally joined it on December 5, 1943, at which time he was nom-
inated without opposition for the office of president of the Union.
On December 17, 1943, Kustin called Safier into Kustin's office and
stated : "I think it's time that you quit." When Safier asked whether
he was being discharged for union activities, Kustin replied, in effect,
that he did not know of the existence of any union activities in the
respondent's plant. Safier did not work on Saturday, December 18.
When he reported for work on Monday, December 20, he found that
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his time card was not in the rack. Upon inquiring of General Super-
intendent Rudolph Pepke regarding the time card, Pepke stated that
he had asked Kustin "to get rid of" Safier "in a nice way. Now I am
going to get rid of you in a bad way." Safier then asked Pepke,
"isn't my work satisfactory?" and Pepke replied, "Well, you just don't
fit into my organization." Safier was then checked out through the
personnel office.
The respondent contends that Safier was discharged because he par-
ticipated in a liquor raffle in the plant on company time and because
his work was unsatisfactory. It is undisputed that in December 1943,
sometime before Safier was discharged, several employees of the re-
spondent raffled off a case of whiskey in the plant. It is also undis-
puted that Foreman Frank Smiley and employees Frank (Lefty)
Gisondo and one Dolinsky sold tickets for the whiskey raffle in the
plant to employees of the respondent and were discharged. The re-
spondent, contends that Safier was involved in the raffle. The record
fails to support this contention. Safier denied trying to sell or ever
having any raffle tickets in his possession. Foreman Adolph Schmidt
testified that Safier, Gisondo, and Smiley, all approached Schmidt in
an effort to get him to buy raffle tickets. He further testified that he
refused to buy from them but that he saw Safier sell a ticket to em-
ployee Horace Miller. Miller, who was employed in the inspection
department of the respondent's plant at the time of the hearing, was
called as a witness in rebuttal and denied that he had purchased any
raffle tickets from Safier or anyone else. The respondent relies on
the testimony of Mike Madias and his daughter, Kaula Madias, to con-
nect Safier with the ticket raffle.2 Mike Madias stated that he refused
to buy raffle tickets from Safier who approached Madias on December
17, 1943. Kaula Madias testified that she, overheard a conversation
between Safier and Smiley at her father's place of business and that
Smiley, asked Safier how many tickets he had sold to which Safier re-
plied "25 or more." Both Safier and Smiley denied the testimony of
Madias and his daughter insofar as it implicated Safier. Foreman
Smiley admitted that he had sold the raffle tickets and testified that
he had sold two to Mike Madias. Smiley further testified that he did
not discuss the raffle tickets in the presence of Kaula Madias until
the afternoon of December 17; that, at that time, Safier was not pres-
ent; that, when the tickets used in the raffle were turned in, he, Smiley,
assisted in counting them ; and that Safier turned in no such tickets.
Henry Cowles, personnel director of the respondent, testified that
he had heard of the whiskey raffle and had made an investigation;
that he had learned that Safier and three other employees were in-
2 Madias operates a polishing business in a building belonging to the respondent and-
lo-cated on the respondent 's plant premises . * His business is separate and distinct from that
of the respondent
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 873
volved; and that he had procured affidavits in support of such state-
ments. Neither the affidavits nor the persons alleged to have made
them were produced at the hearing.
We find the respondent's contention that Safier was discharged
because he participated in the raffling off of a case of whiskey in the
respondent's plant is without merit because the evidence in the record
fails to connect Safier with the raffle. Furthermore, the respondent's
contention as to the reason for Safier's discharge appears to be without
basis in view of the undisputed fact that, at the time of his discharge,
Safier was not accused of having sold raffle tickets nor was he advised
that he was being discharged for that reason.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Mary Bucar was not-dis-
charged, as the respondent contends, for excess absenteeism and be-
cause she was late in reporting to work. It is undisputed that Bucar
was a competent and efficient worker. Although she was absent from
work 11 days during her 3 months' tenure of employment, she always
complied with the respondent's rules pertaining to absences. Fur-
thermore, the respondent's own personnel records with respect to ab-
sences in the department in which Bucar was employed show that, 'of
the 16 employees in the department, 1 employee was absent 31 days and
3 were absent 11 days during this 3-month period. It does not appear
that any of these employees were disciplined. Moreover, Bucar was
never reprimanded for being absent nor was she warned that she
would be discharged because of absenteeism or for being late.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Francis Yeckley was not
discharged, as the respondent contends, for non-performance of his
duties, absenteeism, or for not staying in his department. It is not
denied that all of Yeckley's absences were for the purpose of receiving
medical attention for a back injury sustained while serving in the
United States Navy, a fact which was known to the respondent, and
that he had the respondent's permission for all such absences. The
record does not show that Yeckley was derelict in the performance of
his duties. On the day he was discharged, Yeckley was instructed by
his foreman, Rudolph Provencher, to secure a magnifying glass from
the valve department and, although General Superintendent Pepke
was apprised of this fact, he discharged Yeckley assertedly for being
out of his department.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Steve Sverga was not dis-
charged, as the respondent contends, because he permitted the motor
on his machine to burn out. The record fails to establish that the
motor on Sveiga's machine was burned out on the day he was dis-
charged. Furthermore, it is undisputed that four or five motors are
burned out every week in the respondent's plant and , so far as appears,
the respondent has never discharged an employee for burning out a
motor . We find it difficult to believe that the respondent would dis-
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge an admittedly valuable worker such as Sverga merely because
he permitted the motor on his machine to become overheated and
thereby cause damage amounting to about $26.
Under the circumstances, including those set forth in the Interme-
diate Report, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent
discharged Sanford Safier, Mary Bucar, Francis Yeckley, and Steve
Sverga because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the
Union. By such conduct, the respondent discriminated with respect
to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, The Marquette Metal Products
Company, Cleveland, Ohio, and its officers; agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discrimi-
nating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) 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 International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed-in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Sanford J. Safier, Francis Yeckley, Mary Bucar, and
Steve Sverga immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Sanford J: Safier, Francis Yeckley, Mary Bucar,
and Steve Sverga, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would
have earned as wages during the period from the date of the respond-
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 875
ent's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in
Cleveland, Ohio, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stat-
ing : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to'cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and, (b) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth
in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respond-
ent's employees are free to become and remain members of Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, and
that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because
of his membership in or activities on behalf of such organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AwD IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ernest A. Hoffman.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Frank Danello, for the Board.
Miller d Hornbeck, by Mr. W. R. Price, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the respondent.
Mr. Steve Sabo, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a fifth amended charge duly filed April 27, 1944, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland,
Ohio), issued its complaint dated April 27, 1944, against The Marquette Metal
Products Company, 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 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that: (1) the respondent discharged Ernest A. Hoffman on August 31, 1943,
Sanford J. Safier on December 20, 1943, Francis Yeckley on December 18, 1943,
Mary Bucar on December 20, 1943, and Steve Sverga on January 15, 1944,' and
since that time has refused to reinstate them, because of their membership in and
activity on behalf of the Union; (2) that the respondent by its officers, agents,
and supervisory employees, including Rudy Walters, Carl Andexler, Adolph
'Dates of discharges are those shown by the complaint after it was , on motion of
Board 's counsel , amended to conform to the proof.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Schmidt, Elias Dranculovic,2 Tommy Schultz, Joseph Bustin, Frank Smiley, Her-
bert Gleits and John Bittence, on or about August 1943, and at all times since
that time, has engaged in certain described acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion against its employees;' and (3) by the acts described above the re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On or about May 6, 1944, respondent filed its answer to the complaint, denying
that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. %
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, from May 9 to
May 17, 1944, before the undersigned, Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and a representative appeared for the Union All parties
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. During the hearing counsel for the respondent made a motion to
strike certain hearsay testimony given by witnesses Mary Bucar and Sanford
Safer in'connection with a conversation had on or about December 21, 1943, with
Frank Smiley, a former supervisory employee of the respondent. The under-
signed reserved ruling on said motion and now rules that said motion be, and it
is hereby granted. At the close of the Board's case, the respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint. The motion was denied by the undersigned. At the close
of the hearing such motion was renewed and was again denied by the under-
signed . Also at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board, moved without
objection, that the complaint be amended in formal matters to conform to the
proof. The motion was granted.
Upon receipt of all evidence and testimony, counsel for the Board and the
respondent argued orally before the undersigned. While the parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs with the undersigned, no briefs have been received.
Upon the entire record in the ease and, from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes, in addition to the above, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal office and place of
business at Cleveland, Ohio. Since 1938 it has been engaged in the manufacture
of precision aircraft parts and Diesel engine parts and assembles The principal
raw materials used are cold finished steel bars, forgings and castings. During
1943, the respondent purchased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, 31
percent of which was shipped to it from points outside the State of Ohio. During
the same period the value ^f respondent's finished products was approximately
$30,000,000, 45 percent of which was sold and shipped by it to points outside the
State of Ohio. The respondent 'admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.'
I Referred to in the complaint as "John"
3 The alleged acts are as follows : (a) advising. urging, threatening and warning its em-
ployees against becoming or remaining members of the Union , (b) making disparaging
and derogatory remarks concerning the Union ; (c) threatening to discharge certain of re-
spondent's employees because of their membership and activity, on behalf of the Union ;
(d) interrogating employees as to union activities • and (e) keeping under observation
and surveillance the meeting places and meetings and activities of the Union.
* The findings in this section are based upon stipulation of the parties entered into at
the hearing.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY
11, THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
877
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; the discriminatory discharges of four
employees
1. Background
During 1937 a CIO union was organized in the respondent 's plant and an
"open -shop" contract was executed between that organization and the respond-
ent. During 1937 and 1938 the respondent 's business declined in excess of 50
percent and resulted in many lay-offs . During such decline the union of that
day "just sort of folded up" and passed out of existence . At this time Henry
Brandt, then chief inspector of unfinished products for the respondent, took
part in an effort to induce employees to quite the C. I. O. organization and organ-
ize an unaffiliated union. He threatened Frank Pehmoeller , then an employee,
that unless the latter signed a sheet circulated for this purpose , he would lose
his job . Pehmoe]ler signed the sheet , quit the C . I. 0., and was retained in his
job.°
2. Union Activity in 1943
About the last of August or the first part of September 1943, the Union began
a campaign to organize the respondent 's plant. Pamphlets and union literature
were distributed at the plant entrance , union meetings were held , and certain
employees canvassed the different departments of the plant during lunch periods
seeking signed applications for union membership . Among the employees who
solicited membership were Sanford J. Safier, employed as an expeditor; Francis
Yeckley, Steve . Sverga, and Ray Learn , employed in the lapping department ;
Mary Bucar , employed in the external grinding department ; and Jake Strekal,
employed in the screw machine department . At the outset those soliciting
union membership were more or less circumspect , but after December 5, when as
set forth below, the Union nominated certain members for office, the campaigning
for membership was done more openly . It is undisputed that the foremen,
supervisory employees and respondent's officials were aware of the union
activity.
Harvey -Baker, who was employed by the respondent from November 1942
to January 13, 1944, rode to work with R. A Walters, sometimes referred to as
"Rudy" Walters, admittedly one of the higher rated supervisory employees.
During December 1943, Walters told Baker that the Union would "never make
the grade" with "Herb" Gleitz, president of the respondent, who would never
consider signing a contract with another union "because he didn't want any part
of it;" and that Gleitz previously had broken a union through a policy of cutting
These findings are based upon the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Pehmoeller.
Brandt, although shown by the record to be presently employed by the respondent as a fore-
man, was not called ' as a witness The complaint alleges no unfair labor practice against
the respondent for the year 1937 and 1938 and the undersigned doesn't find the above
events to constitute an unfair labor practice -The facts found above are used in evalulat-
ing testimony and subsequent events in which the labor organizational activity of the re-
spondent ' s employees during 1937 and 1938 Is frequently mentioned.
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, thereby cutting income so that the employees became "disgruntled and
dissatisfied ." On another occasion and at a time when the Union was dis-
tributing literature at the plant gate Walters discussed with Baker a union at
the A. W. Hecker Company and stated in substance that that union got nothing
for its members ; that the members were fined for not appearing at union meet-
ings ; that they had to work odd hours; that the shifts were moved about; and
that the men were not satisfied. Walters added, "The Union doesn't get you a
thing." The respondent had a custom of giving a Christmas bonus each year.
During the first week of December 1943, before the announcement concerning a
bonus was made, Walters told Baker that if the Union got in "You wouldn't get
a bonus, Christmas bonus, or any of the others." e
Jake Strekal, an employee in the heat-treat room at the time of the hearing,
was employed in the screw machine department under Foreman John Bittence,
from September 1942 to January 1944. Strekal assisted Sverga and Pehmoeller
and others in distributing union application cards during the lunch periods.
During October 1943, Bittence stated to Strekal that, unions were no good ; that
the respondent would never "adhere" to labor unions ; that it had one before and
it didn't work ; that the employees were now getting "two bits" an hour too
much ; and that wages were "froze" and "the union can't get you anything." On
or about December 29, Bittence stated to Strekal "I am going to warn you. You
are too active in the Union." Bittence informed Strekal that Walters had told
him to "bawl" Strekal out "about being active in the. Union." 7
Roy Learn was employed by the respondent from November 10, 1941, to
January 20, 1944, in the lapping department. During all this time he worked
under the supervision of Rodolph Provencher, foreman of the department. On
or about December, 21, 1943, following a meeting of the Union held on December
19, Provencher stated to Learn, "I suppose you had a big meeting yesterday."
When Learn replied in the affirmative, Provencher asked, "Was there many
there?" Learn responded that there was not so many but still there was a
nice crowd. Provencher then stated, "The Union is all right in its way and
in other ways it isn't . . . There is a lot of people generally fooled. Whenever
it gets in here . . . all piece work will be cut out and we'll go down to 48 hours
a week." a
6 The findings are based upon the credible testimony of Baker. Walters categorically
denied Baker's testimony. He admitted that he knew Baker ; had been instrumental in
getting him into the plant ; that Baker rode with him twice daily ; that he had known
Gleitz since 1920; that he had worked at the A. W. Hecker Co. for a time in the Engineering
Department and as night superintendent; that the discussion concerning the Union at
Hecker had to do with one "Kiss" for whom Waltets had procured a job at the Hecker
Company ; that Kiss was the one who had complained of the Hecker union ; and that Kiss'
wife, a passenger along with Baker and Walters had iterated the complaint. In view of
the above and the record, which discloses frequent reports of the respondent's alleged re-
sponsibility for disappearance of the 1937 CIO union, the undersigned is convinced that
Walters made the statements attributed to him by Baker, substantially as found above.
7 Walters denied that he told Bittence to "bawl" Strekal out. He testified that he did
report to Bittence that Strekal was leaving his machine. Walters further stated that a
sweeper had complained to him that Strekal had spiked his wheelbarrow to the floor.
Bittence likewise denied Strekal's testimony in this regard. He denied that he warned
Strekal that he was too active in the Union and stated : "I warned him about leaving
his machine too much and bothering the other fellows." Bittence added, "Well, Rudy,
Walters was telling me about it, he (Strekal) was loafing too much and I should get after
him, keep him by the machine. That is what I told him." When Bittence was asked if he
criticized Strekal and informed him to stay by his machine he replied, "I gave him a
friendly warning to stay by his machine." The undersigned credits Strekal's testimony
and finds that the statements and events referred to above were made and occurred
substantially as found above.
8 This finding is based on the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Learn. Pro-
vencher, although shown to have been available, was not called as a witness.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 879
The lapping department, which employed some 10 or 12 employees, was com-
pletely organized by the Union by on or about December 5, 1943. During October
or November 1943, Provencher, immediately after talking to Pepke, stated to
Pehmoeller and other lapping department employees: "If these fellows don't quit
monkeying around with this union , we will have to cut our hours down to 48
hours." On another occasion immediately after he had talked to Pepke, Pro-
vencher said to Pehmoeller : "Rudy [Pepke] insists that this department is or-
ganized 100 percent " On a still further occasion Provencher stated : "He [Pepke]
still insists that you are organized 100 percent." Pehmoeller replied, "maybe so,
I couldn't tell you."' Provencher asked Pehmoeller if he belonged to the Union
but the latter refused to give an outright answer, although he was a member at
the time.
On or about December 15, 1943, Elias Dranculovic, foreman,30 approached
Pehmoeller in the latter's department during working hours and stated that he
had heard there was quite a lot of union activity in the lapping department. He
added, ". . . we older fellows will have to discouiage that: after all, they may'
cut us down to 48 hours, and we won't make anything " Drauculovic added,
"The Union is nothing but a racket."
During January 1944, Dranculovic talked with Steve Sverga at the latter's bench
during working hours, Dranculovic stated in substance that the Union is no
"damn good," and that if it came in the employees would all have to go on 48
hour week and would make no money."
On or about December 21, 1943, Steve Sverga was in the internal grinding
department during lunch hour soliciting on behalf of the Union. Thomas Schultz,
foreman of that department, was present and stated, the Union was "no damn
good," and that they "had one there in 1937 and after the union was broken up"
they didn't give him his dues back."
During January 1944, Frank Petrovic, foreman of the drill press department,
spoke to Sverga at the latter's bench during working hours. Petrovic stated that
9 These findings are based on the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Pehmoeller.
As stated above. Provencher was not called as a witness
10 The respondent denied that Draneulovic was it foreman The record discloses, how-
ever, that he is in charge of the wash or "cleaning" department and has five or six men
working under him Certain products are regularly sent to his department to be cleaned,
oiled and so forth He directs the work of those under him and it is undisputed that lie
takes orders only from General Superintendent Pepke Under all the circumstances, it is
found that Dranculovic is a supervisory employee whose conduct is attributable to the
respondent
11 These findings are based upon Pehnioeller ' s credible testimony Dranculovic denied
the statements The latter had been steadily employed by the respondent for 11 years,
and Pehmoeller for over 8 years Thus, both were old employees Pehmoeller left the
respondent's employment voluntarily on April 24, 1944 That the lapping department
was organized completely by the Union, is undisputed The record' discloses that there
was it persistent report about the plant to the effect that if the Union came in hours
would be reduced The respondent pays good wages and has a liberal bonus system, and
reduced hours and a withdrawal of the bonuses paid would greatly curtail the employee's
earnings In all the circumstances the undersigned does not credit Dranculbvic's denial
cf the statements attributed to him and is convinced that lie made such statements sub-
stantially as found above
12 This finding is based on Sverga's credible testimony Dranculovic's denial is not
credited by the undersigned See footnote next above
19 This finding is based on Sverga's credible testimony Schultz'denied having made the
statement He admitted that he had been a member of the Union n 19.97 and that lie did
not "drop out" of that union, "it just automatically folded up, that is all " Schultz denied
that Sverga was in his department soliciting union membership The recoid is replete
with testimony of witnesses of both the respondent and the Board to the effect that Sverga
canvassed the entire plant In all, the circumstances the undersigned does not credit
Schultz' denial and finds that he made the statements substantially as tound above
6f8683-45-vol 59--57
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
he "didn't give a damn if the Union got in or not," that he had worked in the
Apex Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio, plant, and that "they have a union
there and they make only about $3,200 a year and here almost anybody can make
between $4,500 and $5,000 a year." "
During December 1943 Provencher stated to Sverga- that there had been a
CIO union in the respondent's plant in 1937 and that the respondent had broken
it up.16
By December 5, 1943, the Union had secured in excess of 150 members among
the respondent's employees At a meeting held on the' night of December 5,
Safier, who had been active in organizing the Union since on or about Septem-
ber 1, but who had not formerly joined the Union, did so on that night He was
nominated without opposition for president. Sverga was nominated for vice-
president, but with opposition. Mary Bucar was nominated as recording secre-
tary without opposition. George Salinger was nominated for treasurer. The
record does not disclose whether he had opposition or not. On December 19,
1943, at a union meeting held for the purpose, Safier and Sverga, who had been
elected over his opponent, Bucar and Salinger were installed in their office.
During the latter part of November 1942, Frank Smiley, then a general fore-
man of the respondent, discussed with Sailer the Union's efforts to organize.
During such discussion Smiley stated that the Union had been successful in
1937 "only to lose out to a Company union and the active members of the CIO
union being discharged." 1e
During early December 1943, Carl Andexler, a foreman in the lathe department,
told Sailer that the last time the CIO had organized the respondent's plant in
1937 the respondent had been "successful in forming a Company union and forcing
the CIO out, and at the expiration of the CIO all the members who had been active
in the formation of the Union there, were then laid off " 1,
The undersigned finds that by the statements of Walters to Baker ; by the state-
ments of Bittence to Strekal; by the statements of Dranculovic to Pehmoeller and
Sverga ; by the statements of Schultz and Petrovic to Sverga ; by the statements
of Provencher to Learn, Sverga and Pehmoeller; by the statements of Smiley and
Andexler to Safier; and by the discriminatory discharges of Sailer, Bucar, Yeck-
ley, and Sverga, as found below, the respondent has interfered with, restrained
1a This finding is based on Sverga's credible testimony. Petrovic admitted that they had
a conversation. He stated • "No, I didn't say it that way " Petrovic said Sverga asked
hint a number of questions about the Union Petrovic stated that they discussed the ex•
perience of the latter's brother-in-law at the Fisher Body Company wherein lie pointed out
that the brother-in-law had not been properly treated and apparently the union there dud
nothing about it In all the circumstances the undersigned does not credit Petrovic's tes-
timony in this connection and finds that Petrovic made the statements substantially as
found above
15 This finding is based upon Sverga's uncontradicted testimony. As stated above, Proven-
cher was not called as a ,ifitness
16 These findings are based upon the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Safier.
Smiley was called as it rebuttal witness by the Board and was not questioned by any of
the parties concerning the above statements
11 This finding is based on Safier's credible testimony Andexler denied making such a
statement to Safier. He testified that he knew Safier was active in the Union , that Safier
had asked him to join, and later advised that he could not join because he was a foreman :
that he was a member of the CIO in 1937, and that he was laid off for 3 months In 1938.
In view of the above and the further fact as the record discloses that other foremen credited
the respondent with having been responsible for the disappearance of the 1937 CIO organi-
zation, the undersigned is convinced that Andexler made the statements substantially as
found above.
,THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 881
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.18
3. The discharges
Sanford J. Safier
(a) Events leading up to the discharge of Safer
Safer was hired on or about January 13, 1943, by Joe Kustin, the secretary-
tieasuier of the respondent. He had been recommended to Kustin by a relative
of the latter. Sailer w as first employed as a timekeeper at the starting rate of 80A
cents per hour. After some six weeks he was transferred to a position as ana
expeditor. He received two automatic increases in pay making his hourly rate,
90 cents. He subsequently received merit raises until his pay reached the sum of
$110 per hour. He worked under the supervision of Foreman Edward J. Blat-
nick, with whom he had some difficulty during July 1943, and was transferred to,
a different type of expediting in the same department. As found hereinbefore„
Safier became active on behalf of the Union commencing about September 1, 1943,
and formally joined it on December 5, at which time he was nominated without
opposition for president of the Union. The Union selected Sunday, December 19,
1943, as the date for the election of contested offices and final installation of alf
oflrcers. On December 17, Kustin had Safier sent to his office. He first aske(
him how he was getting along Sailer replied, "Fine" and that his December
shortages were Pretty well made up. Kustin then asked how he was getting along
"other than that' to which Sailer replied that he was having his difficulties.
Kustin then stated, "I think it's time that you quit." Kustin suggested that Safer
not report for work on December 18, but that he report on the following Monday
or Tuesday directly to Kustin's office, whei e the latter would have his pay, Christ-
mas bonus, and a letter of recommendation Kustin added that it "might every
be possible" to help Safier.in finding another position even better than the one,he-
had with the respondent. Safer then asked Kustin if he was being fired for union,
activities. Kustin replied to the effect that he did not know there were any union,
activities, and asked "What would a union want here anyway?" Safer suggested,
that the union might want equal rates for women ; and vacations with pay. Kus-
tin then stated that women w ere not worth half what they were getting now anc3i+
that when the war is over the respondent was going to get rid of all of them-
With reference to vacations with pay Kustin stated, "What? A vacation with pair
for these hillbillies and coal ruiners?" He added that after the war the respond-
ent would have people it wanted in the plant, and that "then we will discuss
vacations with pay."
Sailer (lid not work on December 18 He reported for work on the following
Monday, December 20, and found that his time card was out of the rack He
made inquiries of the timekeeper with reference to his card and was told that
it had been withdrawn the preceding Saturday. The timekeeper referred him to,
General Superintendent Pepke. Safer saw Pepke and made inquiries regarding
his time card, whereupon Pepke informed him that he had asked Kustin to get
19 The respondent contends in effect that there was no "Company -Union" in its plant irn
1937 and 1938: that it did not discharge any CIO members in 1937 and 1938 because of their
union activities , that it followed seniority rules provided for by contract between it and the
CIO in making necessary lay-offs : and that it is not chargeable with the statements made
by its foremen to the contrary . Such contention is without merit, for the reason that its
supervisory employees have seen fit, whether rightly or wrongly to credit the 1937-1938
discharges of CIO members as having been made for the purpose of destroying the unior,
of that day and have so interpreted such discharges to the present day employees The
respondent is chargeable with such conduct , and it is so found.
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rid of Safier in a "nice way . . . Now I am going to get rid of you in a bad way "
Safier then asked Pepke, "Isn't my work satisfactory?" Pepke replied, "Well,
you just don't fit into my organization." Safier was then checked out through
the personnel office.
(b) Contentions and testimony of the respondent and its witnesses as to the
discharge
The respondent contends: (1) by its answer, that Safler "was dismissed on
December 18, 1943, by reason of the fact that he participated in the selling of
raffle tickets on a case of whiskey to various employees in the plant during work-
ing hours" ; (2) that along with Safler, General Foreman Frank Smiley, employees
Frank (Lefty) Gisondo, and one Dolinsky were likewise discharged for selling
raffle tickets on whiskey; (3) that Safier's work was unsatisfactory; and (4)
that although it was generally known that union activities were, and had been,
widely engaged in from on or about September 1 until the year 1944, neither
Kustin nor General Superintendent Pepke knew of Safier's union activities.
As to contentions (1) and (2) the record contains no evidence, nor does the
respondent contend, that at any time prior to his discharge, Safier was accused
of having sold any raffle tickets for whiskey In this connection Kustin testified,
"I told him that, without getting into a lot of details, I thought that things weren't
working out and asked him to quit."
Kustin further testified : "I told him exactly without giving any details, that
he did not fit, that he had better quit."
Q. You were firing him for participating in the liquor raffle.that day?
A. No, sir.
IQ. You mean that the first you were aware about the liquor raffle is when the
$oard filed charges against the Company?
A I didn't fire him, I asked him to quit.
Pepke, while not denying that he said, "Nell, you just don't fit into my oigani-
Eation," denied that he had discharged Safier. Pepke testified :
Q When did you fire this man Sanford Cafter*?
A. He came back, I did not fire Safier.
Adolph Schmidt, foreman in the inspection department testified that Safier,
Gisondo and Smiley all approached him in an effort to get him to buy raffle
tickets. He testified that he refused to buy them and that he saw Safier sell
one to employee Horace Miller. Miller was called as a witness in rebuttal and
denied that he had bought -any raffle tickets from Safier or anyone else.19 The
record does show that raffle tickets on a case of whiskey were sold in the plant
about the middle of December 1943. Gisondo had a case of whiskey and told
Foreman Smiley that he did not know what to do with it and would like to
raffle it off. Smiley assisted Gisondo in getting the numbers printed, and planned
to take the matter up with Pepke before the raffle started. However, before
Smiley had an opportunity to consult Pepke, Gisondo distributed tickets to Ed-
ward Dolinsky, Mike Fuchie, and one "Joe", a mule driver, who was trans-
ferred from the shipping room to the electric mule.2° The record does disclose
that Smiley, Gisondo, and Dolinsky were discharged and the respondent con-
tends such discharges were occasioned by the sale of raffle tickets 21 The
29 The undersigned was impressed with Miller's demeanor as a witness . The undersigned
credits Miller's testimony above and finds that lie bought no tickets from Safier.
2° The record does not disclose what, if anything was clone in the case of Fuchie and "Toe."
21 While the respondent contends that the discharges of the three men mentioned above
'was occasioned by the fact that they sold raffle tickets on a case of whiskey the undersigned
]hakes no finding to this effect, or on this contention . It is undisputed, and Foreman
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 883
respondent relies on the testimony of Mike Madias and his daughter, Kaula
Madias, to connect Safier with the ticket raffle Mike Madias testified in sun-
stance that on or about December 17, Safier had tried to sell him tickets on the
whiskey raffle and that he had refused to buy them, stating that he would see
Safier "after a while." Kaula Madias testified in substance that she had over-
heard a conversation at her father's place of business between Safier and Smiley,
during which conversation Smiley asked Sailer how many tickets he had sold
for the raffle and that Safier had replied, "25 of more." n Both Safier and Smiley
denied the testimony of the Madias family. Smiley admitted that he had sold
the raffle tickets, and testified that he had sold two of the tickets to Mike Madias,
who denied buying any tickets. Smiley further testified he did not discuss the
raffle tickets in the presence of Kaula Madias until the afternoon of December 17,
and at a time when Sailer was not present ; that at no time did he see Sailer with
any tickets: that when the tickets used in the drawing were turned in he assisted
in counting them ; and that Sailer turned in no such tickets. It is undisputed that
at the time of his discharge Sailer was not accused of having sold raffle tickets.
If at that time the respondent knew, or had reason to believe that Sailer had
sold such tickets lie would have been so advised. In view of the above and the
record, the undersigned does not credit the testimony of Mike and Kaula Madias,
set forth above, but does credit the testimony of Safier and Smiley in this con-
nection. Henry Cowles, personnel director, testified that he had heard that
whiskey raffle tickets were being sold and made an investigation ; that he had
learned that Safler and the other three above named were involved ; and that he
had procured affidavits in support of such statements. Neither the affidavits nor
the persons alleged to have made them were produced at the hearing and the
undersigned gives no consideration or weight to Cowles' testimony in this con-
nection. Roy Graul, foreman in charge of inspection, testified that Safier had
occasion to be in his department approximately eight or nine times a day.
Graul further testified that he saw Smiley and Sailer "in front of the laundry
cage" and that both had a stack of tickets. He testified :
Q. Did you ever see him (Safier) sell any of those in that department?
A No, sir , I never seen him sell any , but Smiley was selling them.
Q You never saw Sandy? (Safler)
A. No, sir, never did.
In all the circumstances detailed above , contentions ( 1) and (2) are wholly
without merit, and it is so found.
As to contention (3), while the respondent's answer contains no allegation
that Sailer was discharged for unsatisfactory work, it did introduce some testi-
mony for this purpose. Edward J Blatnich, Safier's foreman, °testified that he
got along with Safier until the latter lost interest in his work . Blatnick 's testi-
mony indicates that he felt that Sailer was trying to encroach upon his position.
In this connection Kustin testified that Blatnick complained about Safier's work
"occasionally," and that'after Sailer was put to work with Frank Shirtza the
latter complained once or twice "moderately ." Kustin could not remember
Schmidt admitted , that during the season of 1943 he sold football pool tickets ; It is further
undisputed that Foreman Johnny Holowenko sells "Old Reliable " lottery tickets in the
plant Hence it is difficult to determine just what policy the respondent had adopted, if
any, concerning lotteries in the plant.
22 The record discloses that Madias operates a polishing business in a building belonging
to the respondent and located on the respondent ' s plant premises . He employs 35 men
and operates under a subcontract with the respondent. Madias owns part of the ma-
chinery in his shop and part of it belongs to the respondent . While the respondent has
employees working in and out of Madias' shop for the purpose of keeping him supplied with
work to clean and polish and in order to expedite it on its way after he has concluded his
work, it is clear that the business is separate and distinct from that of the respondent.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
having discussed the last complaint with Safier. In all the circumstances, this
contention is without merit, and it is so found
With reference to contention (4) the record clearly shows that Kustin, Pepke,
Gleitz, and at least 12 foremen,23 knew that there was union activity beginning
in August running through the fall of 1943. On December 6, following his nomi-
mation•for president of the Union without opposition on the night before, Safier
was greeted by General Foreman Smiley as follows : "Good morning, Mr Presi-
,dent." Safier asked Smiley what he meant. The latter replied, "Who are you
&idding ? The whole plant knows it." Also on December 6, Pepke discussed the
Union with Smiley, and asked Smiley what he knew about the Union. Smiley
replied, "With all the cards coming out" it seems as though "they are going to
get in here anyhow." Pepke then stated that he would like to know what was
going on at these union meetings and who was attending them. When Smiley
said that he would not be able to get into the union meetings, Pepke suggested,
"Well, can't you have somebody go in and see who is attending the meetings for
us?" Subsequently Pepke asked Smiley what he had learned and was told that
Smiley could not find out anything "because the two girls wouldn't go .s 24 Pepke
then told Smiley that Safier had been at the union meeting. From the foregoing
and the record it is clear that Kustin and Pepke knew of Safier's union activity,
and it is so found.
(c) Conclusions
The record discloses that Safier was employed on or about January 13, 1943; that
She served for a time as a timekeeper and was thereafter promoted to the position
of expeditor ; that during July 1943 Foreman Blatuich complained "occasionally"
to Kustin, since he felt that Safier wanted to take over his job; that Safier was
transferred to a different line of expediting in company with Frank Shirtza, who
complained once or twice, "moderately"; that his pay had been increased from
80 cents per hour to $1.10 per hour per base pay, 20 cents of which represented
`'merit" increases ; that commencing on or about September 1, Safier became
active on the Union's behalf, attended the meeting of the Union on December 5,
completed his membership therein, and was nominated without opposition for
the office of president ; that the respondent executives and officials, including
General Superintendent Pepke, learned of his nomination, determined to dispense
with his services, together with those of other active union members, as set forth
below, and instructed Kustin, who had hired Safier in the first instance, to get rid
of him in a "nice way". When Safier refused 'to quit as requested by Kustin,
Pepke got rid of him in the "bad way" because "you just don't fit into my organi-
zation." Neither Kustin nor Pepke intimated or suggested to Safier that he was
being discharged for selling raffle tickets. From the above and the entire record
the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent discharged Sanford J.
Safier on December 20, 1943, by reason of his membership'in and activity on behalf
of the Union.
Diary Biicar
(a) Events leading up to the discharge
Ducar was employed by the respondent on or about September 16, 1943." She
was assigned to plant number 3 in the external grinding department where she
worked under the supervision of William Green, foreman. Bucar-worked' on
1
23 Green, Bittence , Tegel , l+ilburn, Blatnick, Andrexlar , Walters, Schultz , Petrovic , Dransu-
flovic and Provencher.
24 These findings are based upon Smiley's credible testimony given as a "rebuttal" wit-
eless. Pepke; had testified prior to Smiley and was not recalled.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 885
external grinding and during her employment her work was never criticized.
On the contrary , she was frequently complimented.
As a worker her foreman admitted at the hearing that "she was very good."
General Superintendent Pepke also admitted that Bucar was "a very good worker,
an efficient worker ." The record indicates that it takes from 2 to 3 weeks to
break in an external grinder and that some employees never learn to do the work.
She joined the Union about October 1 and became very active on its behalf. She
talked to employees before and after working hours and during lunch time; and
passed .,out cards for signatures throughout plant number 3. Such cards were
passed out on occasion in the presence of Foreman Green and also on occasion
in the presence of Jim Cowles , son of Henry Cowles, personnel director. Young
Cowles had a supervisory position during the time referred to. Bucar distributed
approximately 100 cards , succeeded in securing the signatures of ten employees to
such cards , one of which was signed in the presence of Foreman Green. Bucar
attended the December 5 union meeting at which time there were some 26 or 30
of the respondent ' s employees present. She was nominated to the office of record-
ing secretary without opposition . She attended the union meeting of December
19, at which time she, together with others elected, were installed in their union
office . On Monday , December 20, she reported to work at noon 2° She found that
her time card had been taken from the rack and reported the matter to Foreman
Green, who advised her to see General Superintendent Pepke. Green stated at
the time that he hoped that Bucar wasn 't being fired because he needed her.
Bucar reported to Pepke who asked no questions or gave her no opportunity to
make any explanation but stated that she was "taking too much time out and
to' check out . . ." Bucar was then turned over to the personnel director who
caused her to be checked out.
(b) Contentions and testimony of the respondent and its witnesses as to the
discharge
The respondent contends : ( 1) by its answer , that Bucar was dismissed on
December 20, 1943, due to continued absenteeism which caused a severe dis-
turbance in the production line; ( 2) that she was frequently late to work; and
( 3) that the respondent 's officials did not know of her union activity.
As to contention ( 1) the record shows that Bucar was absent 3 days in Sep-
tember, 3 days in October , 1 day in November, and 4 days in December of 1943.
Bucar was sent home on September 27 with a "temperature" and before going
the respondent 's plant nurse issued a pass which was countersigned by Foreman
Green ,, General Superintendent Pepke, and Personnel Director Cowles On this
occasion she was absent on September 28, 29, 30; October 1, 2, and 4. Upon her
return she furnished a doctor's certificate as required by the respondent 's rules '
She was absent the second time on November 27 and had her mother telephone the
15 It is undisputed that her Foreman had instructed her or advised her that whenever she
was late it was better to-come in at noon or not at all
28 The respondent ' s rules regarding attendance are as follows :
An attendance of 100 percent is expected of all employees ; however, if you find it
absolutely necessary to be absent from work , you should notify your foreman in advance
whenever possible . If you are unable to do so, the Personnel Office should be notified
before noon of the day you are absent . If you are absent without permission or notice,
you will be expected to give a satisfactory explanation to your foreman upon your
return to work . In case of sickness , you will be required to furnish a doctor's certifi-
cate to that effect If you are absent for-3 successive days without permission or
adequate explanation , the Company will have the right to consider that you have quit
and permission must be obtained from the, Personnel Department to resume work.
Copies of tardiness reports are required by the Draft Boards and are taken into con-
sideration in determining the order in which calls for service ' are made.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office of the respondent to that effect. The third time she was absent was on
December 4 and 5, due to the illness of one of her two children The last time
she was absent was December 15 and 16, due to an attack of the flu. On each
occasion the respondent was notified Green, in his testimony, admitted that
she had reasons for her absences. The record discloses that when an employee
phones the personnel office advising the respondent of his or her inability to
report for work, a clerk takes the information;, makes a record of it; and passes
the information on to the foreman of the department. Personnel Director Cowles
testified that his office had no record of Bucar ever having reported her absences.
No witness disputed Bucar's testimony as to the 6 days in September and October
that she was out ill, after having been sent home upon a pass secured for this
purpose, or that she had submitted a doctor's certificate on her return The
record also discloses that each day when the foreman checks the employees
present, a list of those absent is made up. ' Such list is then handed to one of
the gulyds who, accompanied by a registered nurse, calls on the absent persons
who have not properly reported or arranged for their absences. Bucar testified
without contradiction that no nurse or guard called at her home while she was
absent from the plant. The record further shows that after the guard and
nurse had checked absentees, they in turn make a report to the personnel depart-
ment. If the guard and nurse had visited the home of Bucar, the respondent's
personnel office would have had a record of it No such record was produced.
The record shows that a co-worker of Bucar, one Regis Taylor, was absent 31
days between September and December, and was still on the pay roll in Green's
department at the time of the hearing herein. It is clear that the respondent's
contention herein is without merit, and it is so found.
As to contention (2) Bucar admitted that during the time of her employment
she had been late some four or five times. When asked ". . . Did you ever tell
her at any time that it was better for her not to show up for work at all if she
came in late . . .", Green replied, "Well, I might have made a remark to that
effect, . . ." Credible evidence in the record indicates that Bucar was late not
to exceed 5 times during her employment ; and that in coming in at noon or not'
at all on a day she was accidentally late, she wasIfollowing her foreman's advice.
From all of this it appears that this contention is without merit and it is so
found:
As to contention (4), while Green denied that he knew Bucar was active in
the Union, he admitted; along with a number of other foremen, that he knew there
was union activity in the plant. As has been found above in connection with
Safier's discharge, Pepke also knew of the union activities and undoubtedly knew
of Bucar's unopposed nomination and election to a union office.
(c) Conclusions
The record discloses that Bucar was employed as an external grinder on or
about September 16, 1943; that she was a very efficient worker ; that she was not
unduly absent, and conformed to the respondent's rules pertaining to absences;
that she was not late to work an unreasonable number of times during her em-
ployment; that it required about 3 weeks to break in a person competent to per-
form the type of work she did; that she joined the Union on or about October 1,
became an active worker on its behalf and was elected and installed as recording
secretary of the Union on December 19, 1943, and that the respondent, acting
through its General Superintendent, determined to include her in the group of
other union leaders selected for discharge by reason of such activities. From
the above and the entire record the undersigned' concludes and finds that the
respondent discharged Mary Bucar on December 20, 1943, because of her mem-
bership in and activity on behalf of the Union.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY
Francis Yeekley
887
(a) The events leading up to the discharge of Yeckley
Yeckley was first employed by the respondent on March 1, 1941, and worked
until July 10, 1942, as a'lapping machine operator under the supervision of
Rudolph Provencher. On July 10, 1942 he enlisted in the Navy and served until
April 20, 1943, at which time he received a medical discharge occasioned by a
back injury received in the line of duty On May 19, 1943, he was reemployed
by the respondent and reassigned to the lapping department on the same type of
work he had performed before his enlistment. Prior to his rehiring he was exam-
ined by the respondent's doctor and thereafter regularly examined by a regis-
tered nurse employed by the respondent. As a result of his injury-he is re-
quired to wear a brace on his back After his return to work he took regular
treatments for the back injury at The Cleveland Clinic. At first he went to
the Clinic daily for five or six clays; after a time lie went every two weeks. Be-
tween May 19 and December 18 he was absent 31 days. His absences were
caused by the medical attention above-mentioned; by an injury occasioned by
tripping in the parking lot at the respondent's plant; and for the purpose of
getting married. He had the respondent's permissiop for all of such absences.
He had no trouble with his foreman ; received no criticism of his work ; and was
not reprimanded for any cause. He was always told that his work was good,
Yeckley joined the Union about December 1, 1943. He, Sverga, Jake Strekal
and others, were active during lunch hours in passing out application-for-mem-
bership cards to employees throughout the plant. Yeckley also passed out hand-
bills for the Union on three or four occasions in front of the gates leading to
the plant. On one occasion Gerry Gleitz, the step-son of Herbert Gleitz, presi-
dent of the respondent's company, observed him doing so. On December 18,
his foreman, Provenclier, sent him to the valve department for the purpose of
getting a magnifying glass from one Russell Leibline, a former employee of
the lapping department The glass was needed as Yeckley was putting a very
fine "seat", which had to be lapped by hand, on a "piece". Just after Leibline
had handed the magnifying glass to Yeckley, Pepke tapped him on the shoulder
and asked him what he was doing in the valve department. Yeckley replied
that his foreman had sent him after the magnifying glass, which he showed to
Pepke. Leibline spoke up and stated that he had just given the glass to Yeckley.
Pepke in reply to Leibline stated that Yeckley did not belong in that department.
To Yeckley he said, "come over with me and sign out." Yeckley returned to his
department and removed his apron and reported to Provencher that he had been
fired. Provencher made no response. Yeckley was then turned over to Per-
sonnel Director Cowles and checked out.
(b) Contentions and testimony of the respondent and its witnesses as to the
discharge
The respondent contends : ( 1) by its answer , that Yeckley was dismissed on
December 18, 1943, for continued absenteeism and non-performance of his duties,
and (2) by the testimony of Pepke, that Yeckley did not stay in his department.
As to contention ( 1) the respondent offered no testimony in support of the
allegations of its answer . The record shows that Yeckley was not absent at
any time without the permission of the respondent ' s officials ; and that his work
was satisfactory and had never been criticized . On the contrary , it is undisputed
that he had been complimented upon his work.
As to contention ( 2), Pepke testified:
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q Who is his [Yeckley's] boss?
A Provenclier
Q Did you find out from him what he was doing in the Valve Department?
A He told me he sent him there for some sort of magnifying glass.
Q Yes. Provencher sent him in the Valve Department for a magnifying glass;
is that what Provencher told you?
A Yes, that's what Provencher told me
Q And you immediately took it upon yourself to fire this Yeckley for being
in the Valve Department?
A. Yes; because he was there too long
(c) Conclusions
The record discloses that Yeckley was employed by the repondent from March
1, 1941 until July 10. 1942 , that he served in the Navy from July 10, 1942 until
April 20, 1943, at which time lie received a medical discharge occasioned by
injuries received-in the line of duty ; that he was reemployed by the respondent
on May 19, 1942, and returned to his former department where he performed
satisfactory work until his discharge on December 18, 1943; that all employees
in his department joined'the Union; that he joined on or about December 1,
1943, and was one of the very active employees on behalf of the Union; that
General Superintendent Pepke, having determined to discharge employees who
were active on behalf of the Union. sought an opportunity and a pretext to justify
Yeekley's discharge ; 2T that on December 18, noting that Yeckley was in a de-
partment other than his own, seized the opportunity to and did promptly dis-
charge him; and after learning that Yeckley had been sent to the Valve Depart-
ment by his foreman, Pepke nevertheless permitted the discharge to stand. From
the above and the entire record the undersigned concludes and finds that the
respondent discharged Francis Yeckley on December 18, 1943, because of his
membership in and activity on behalf of the Union.
Steve Sverga
(a) Events leading up to the discharge of Sverga
Sverga, formerly a journeyman carpenter, was employed by the respondent
on August 25, 1942 and was assigned to the lapping department under Provencher,
in which department he worked continuously until his discharge on January 15,
1944. His starting base pay was 70 cents per hour and by June 1943 his rate
had reached $1.10 per hour, the top pay received by a non-supervisory employee
in this department. After about July 15, 1943, Sverga was moved away from the
other employees in his department and placed in a corner by himself where he
had a bench and operated two honing grinders. No other employee in the de-
partment performed the same kind or same type of work that Sverga did after
his change in location His work was never criticized by Provencher but was
always praised. As a worker, Superintendent Pepke rated him "all right" and
stated that it required three months to break in a mad "of Steve's ability" to
perform the work that he was doing Sverga joined the Union about September
1, 1943, and became perhaps the most active and aggressive worker' on behalf
,of the Union. Prior to December 5 he solicited membership among his friends
27 It is significant that Pepke , a general superintendent in charge of from 1 , 800 to 2,000
production employees ( who worked under some 40 or more foremen ), should find time to
note the absence of Yeckley from the latter's department , and then , without consulting with
his foreman , abruptly discharge him.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 889
at their homes and before and after working hours and during lunch time at the
plant After his nomination for vice-president of the Union on December, 5 he,
together with Yeckley, Roy Learner and others undertook open solicitation for
members throughout all parts of the plant After his election as vice-president
Provencher greeted him as follows : "Why, I see you are a big shot union official
now" Shortly after December 5 the lapping department became completely
organized by the Union. As found above, Provencher informed Pehmoeller and
other lapping department employees that Pepke had told Provencher that the
former understood the lapping department was "organized 100 percent."' Fol-
lowing the discharge of union president, Safier, and union's recording secretary,
Bucar, described above, Sverga continued his-effort to enroll the employees as
members of the Union.
On the morning of January 15, 1944, Sverga went to work at the usual starting
time and plugged in the motor on one of his honing machines, which motor had
a burnt-out starting coil.29 After plugging in the split-phase motor, Sverga did
not immediately flip the fly-wheel to start the motor. Before he did so a box
of "rejects" was brougint to him It was necessary that he select certain of the
rejects for attention in his department, and deliver the balance to the Drill Press
Department. He left for the drill press department without flipping the fly wheel
of the above-mentioned motor. While he was gone the motor heated up At
the time he left for the drill press department Foreman Danculovic, and Andrew'
Emerle, sweeper foreman, were talking together near Sverga's bench Whew
Sverga returned he noticed Emerle going in the direction of Pepke's office
Shortly thereafter Pepke arrived at Sverga's bench and said, "What the hell
is the idea of burning out your motor? • I can smell it, in my office. You are
fired. Come with me " 80 Sverga denied that the motor was burned out, inserted
the plug which he had withdrawn upon his return, and flipped the flywheel and
the motor ran Pepke replied. "Never mind, the motor is burned out, now come
with me." John Filburn, foreman of electrical maintenance, then dismantled
the motor. Sverga was then promptly checked out, paid off, and left the plant.
(b) Contentions and testimony of respondent and its witnesses as to the discharge
The respondent makes but one contention, and that is that Sverga was dis-
charged for burning out his motor. The record discloses that the motor itself
had run "hot" on many occasions and continued thereafter to operate. Immedi-
ately after his discharge Sverga went to the union office and got in touch with
Reuben Peters, connected with the Union. He also got in touch with Safler as
president of the Union. Thereafter the three went to the Board's Regional Office
in Cleveland and talked to Robert E. Shuff, then Field Examiner for the Board
R8 As found hereinbefore , Provencher , although shown to have been available as a witness;
was not called . Pepke denied that he had ever asked Provencher concerning union member-
ship in the lapping department . On the record the undersigned does not credit Pepke's
denial
29 The motor in question had had a burnt -out starting coil for more than a year . When,
it was plugged in to the electric current and the switch turned on it would not start unless
the flywheel was given a flip Because of the absence of the starting coil the flywheek
:ould be given a flip or a turn in either one or two directions . In giving a turn in one
direction the motor would cause the honing machine to work clockwise , and if given a turm
in the opposite direction the motor would cause the honing machine to work counter-
clockwise As a result of this "split-phase" operation, the machine on which the motor
was attached could be made to operate differently than other honing machines , thus making
the machine to which it was attached very useful in certain operations . For these reasons
the starting coil of the motor had not been replaced.
88 These findings are based on Sverga ' s credible testimony and other circumstances dis-
cussed below . Pepke's version is likewise discussed below.
890, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sverga related the circumstances of his discharge, and filed a charge ' Shuff
then telephoned the respondent's office and stated that he wanted to see the motor
in question. He was advised by Kustin that the motor would be sent to a
repair shop Shuff learned the address of the repair shop and he, Sverga, Safer,
and Peters went to the repair shop, arriving before the motor reached the repair
.shop. , On the arrival of the motor at the repair shop it was taken to the second
floor and tested by Carl Schwegler, superintendent of Motors Repair Manufac-
turing Company, the company that repairs motors for the respondent. At' the
hearing Schwegler testified as follows :
Q. "Now, to your knowledge did any of these three men ever test that motor
that day?"
A. ". . . couldn't be possible."
Shuff on the other hand testified :
"., . . I plugged the motor in and tried it and spun the shaft one way to see
if it would go that way, and took the plug out and put it back in and spun the
shaft the other way to see if it would go the other way, and the motor would go
both directions."
Schwegler stated that the machine showed a "short" and that "it took excessive
current," and thus inferentially admitted that the motor did in fact operate.
Schwegler stated further, "No it couldn't run no machine over a few minutes,
bcause it would over-heat." The undersigned credits Shuff's testimony.
The repair company did not attempt to repair the motor but supplied a new
one in, its stead and made a charge of $26 for the replaced motor 31 The record
discloses that the respondent burned out motors on an average of four or five a
week and sent them to the motor repair manufacturing company for attention.
(c) Conclusions
The record discloses that Sverga was employed by the respondent on August
2.5, 1942; that until January 15, 1944, he was considered a satisfactory worker;
that he was one of the most active and aggressive workers on behalf of the Union,
if not the most active; that the respondent had determined to discourage union
organization among its employees by discharging the active union leaders ; and
that Sverga was not discharged on or about December 20, at the time other officials
were discharged, because the respondent had not been able to find an excuse or
pretext to justify such discharge. It is unreasonable to believe, that while
Sverga did inadvertently plug in the motor in question and permit it to heat up,
that the respondent would dispense with the services of one whom the record
shows to have been an exceptionally valuable worker, because by such inadvert-
ence he had caused damage in the sum of $26 The undersigned' is convinced
that but for Sverga's union activities, Pepke would not have been informed that
he had over-heated a motor and that even had Pepke become aware of it, Sverga
would not have been discharged for this reason. From the above and the entire
record the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent discharged Steve
Sverga on January 15 , 1944, because of his membership in and activity on behalf
of the Union.
4. The alleged discrimination against Ernest A. Hoffman
Hoffman was employed May 5, 1943, as a Drill Press Operator by Henry Cowles.
He worked under the supervision of Foreman Gus Genitus and John O'Connor,
a' Pepke denied that Sverga had started the motor in his presence. In view of the fact that
the record shows that the motor was actually operated and ran when plugged in by Shuff
at the repair shop, the undersigned credits Sverga's testimony in this connection.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 891
assistant foreman Hoffman made his home on his father's farm at Brunswick,
Ohio, some 34 miles from the plant. Ile did not drive his own car, as his driver's
license had been revoked, but rode with one Mastney. During the latter part of
June 1943, after Hoffman had been absent for some time, Cowles had a talk with
him during which it developed that Hoffman's driver had insufficient gas to make
the round trip each clay and Cowles agreed to, and did, make arrangements for
additional gas for the driver. Hoffman stated that he wanted the gas in order
that he could continue to stay home and thus be able to help his father in the
mornings on the farm.
About the middle of August the respondent posted the notice as follows :
NOTICE
The conditions governing the bonus, which is being paid on August 17th,
are as follows :
Due to Government regulations, we are not permitted to pay any bonuses
which were not paid last year, and the conditions of this year's bonus must be
the same as last years. Therefore, only those employees who started here
before May 1st, 1943, will be eligible to receive the bonus.
Also, to comply with Government regulations, you will note a 20% deduc-
tion for withholding tax. Part of the bonus will be paid in bonds, and the
balance in cash.
As previously stated, bonus will be paid on the basis of past service and
responsibility.
Distribution will be the same as regular pay.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY.
Hoffman contended and testified that at the time he was employed on May 5,
Cowles told him and others employed at that time, that, at the end of 3 months
they each would receive a bond which he described as a "war bond as a bonus." a:
Bonds were issued on August 17, pursuant to the notice above set forth. Two
days later, according t6 Hoffman, =he went to Russell Elwood, night personnel
manager, who works directly under the supervision of Cowles, and asked where
"his bond was." Elwood replied, that quite a few of the plant did not get any
bond. Then, according to Hoffman, he stated :
If that is the way Marquette hires their employees, I would like to have my
release.
Since Hoffman had been employed after May 1, he did not receive a bond, nor did
the respondent give him his release.
By the latter part of August; Hoffman had moved to a boarding house within
three minutes walk from the plant. He went to his father's home each week-end
by bus. On the night of August 30, Hoffman left the plant during the lunch hour,
which is from 10: 30 to 11: 00 p. in., without securing a pass, which the rules of
the respondent require those employees leaving during shifts to have. Hoffman
testified that he was sick ; that he told his foreman, Gus Genutis, of his illness ;
that his foreman sent him to the dispensary, after which he told the foreman he
Q 3J Cowles denied that he had promised Hoffman a war bond at the end of three months
service and Hoffman's statement was not corroborated otherwise Different Board wit-
nesses testified that when they were employed nothing was said about them getting a bond
at the end of three months service. Since the record shows that it has been the practice
of the respondent to, in the past, pay certain bonuses each year, the undersigned is of the
opinion that Cowles may have referred to such practice at the time he was hiring Hoffman
and the others who were employed at the same time, but does not believe that he definitely
promised to give the employees a war bond as a bonus at the end of three months, and so
finds.
S92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was going home that "noon" and that "he (Genutis)- didn't say a thing" Hoff-
pass-outman admitted that he did not ask "a pass- ."
Genutis testified that Hoffman left the plant on August 30 without getting a
pass from him; that Hoffman made no complaint to the effect that he was ill ;
that Hoffman was missing on the night roll call after lunch ; and that Hoffman
was sought and could not be found. The undersigned credits the testimony of
Genutis as to what occurred on this occasion.
Hoffman returned to work on the night of August 31, and as he passed Elwood's
office the latter called to him and said, "Hoffman, I'm surprised at you." Hoff-
inan replied, "You fellows ain't surprising me any." Hoffman testified, "That
is all that was said." Thereafter, without further statement, Elwood gave him
his release and check.
Hoffman contends that he was discharged for union activities. He described
his union activities substantially as follows : That he got to talking to some boys
that "more or less didn't get their bonds, and we thought it would be a good idea
to get a union in there." The employees he had reference to were Joe and Andy
Fiffick, brothers. According to Hoffman the three talked to other employees.
The Fiffick boys went to the union office and got some application cards, a third
of which they turned over to Hoffman. The cards were secured about the 24th
of August. Hoffman says he passed them out on the street in front of his board-
ing house, and a few at the "noon" hour. He met both day and night shift em-
ployees at the place where he boarded and gave them application for membership
,cards. In addition to the cards he passed out at his boarding house and in front
.of his boarding house to the day and night shift, Hoffman/passed out cards
during the "noon" hour on the night shift in the plant. Before passing out the
-cards he signed them "E A Hoffman" to indicate that he was representing the
iUnion. Some of the cards he gave out were signed in his presence. He stated
that, the "Fiffick boys took care of them." Hoffman also stated he received 30
Fcards, "maybe more, maybe less." He further testified that "I was the ring
Leader . . . to organize the Union down there." Hoffman did not sign a union
,card until August 30. He then gave the card to the Fiffick boys to "bring into
the union office." On cross-examination Hoffman testified :
Q. As a matter of fact nobody ever knew about it, did they, except the em-
-gployees that you passed them out to?
A. That's right. That's right.
Yeckley testified that during an occasion in August 1943, when lie was working
on the night shift, Hoffman asked him to join the Union; that Hoffman was a
very active organizer for the Union and passed out cards all through the plant;
and that Hoffman's name was on the card in pencil " Other than Hoffman's
testimony, detailed above, and that of Yeckley, there is no evidence of Hoffman's
union activities.
Conclusions
Hoffman requested a release on or about August 19, 1943, and did not receive it.
He left the plant on the night of August 30 without a pass as required by the
respondent's rules. Assuming that Hoffman engaged in all the union activities
to which he testified, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the
respondent knew he was engaged in union activities. Hoffman , by his admitted
absences from work; by leaving the plant before the end of his shift without a
pass; by receiving his release and check without inquiring why-they were given
to him, indicated that he purposely adopted a course of conduct which had for its
"The record shows that Yeckley did not join the Union until about December 1, 1943.
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 893
ultimate purpose the obtaining of a release so that he might seek employment
nearer to his father's farm. The record shows that he later found employment
nearer to his father's farm than to the respondent's plant. The record does not
support a finding that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Ernest A Hoffman.
IV. THE FiFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intonate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Sanford J Safier, Mary Bucar, Francis Yeck-
ley, and Steve Sverga, by,discharging them on the different dates hereinbefore set
forth. It will he recommended that the respondent offer to Sanford J. Safer,
Mary. Bucar, Francis Yeckley and Steve Sverga immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions. It wild be further rec-
ommended that the respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimmnation, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount he or she would normally have earned as wages during
the period from the date of the respectiie discharges to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his or her net earnings" during such period.
The undersigned has found that the respondent has not discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Ernest A. Hoffman. It will -be recoin-
mended that the complaint as to him be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, C. I. 0., is a labor oiganization, within the meaning
of Section 3 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sari-
ford J. Safier, Francis Yeckley, Mary Bucar, and Steve Sverga, thereby dis-
couraging membership in International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I 0., the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section,8 (3) of the Act.
34 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge'and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sau,miill Workers Union; Local 2e90, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for
work performed upor Federal , State , county, municipal , or other work -relief projects shall
be ennsidered as Barr ngs See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R B, 311 U S 7.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the respondent has engaged
in and i s engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (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. By terminating the employment of Ernest Hoffman on August 31, 1943:
the respondent has not discriminated in regard ' to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment.
RECO:IIIIENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent , The Marquette Metal Products Com-
pany , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile.
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I 0., or in any
other labor organization of its employees by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their employment;
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights to sell-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Worters of America, C 1 0, or any other labor organization , to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual ail
or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Sanford J. Safier , Francis Yeckley , Mary Bucar and Steve Sverga
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Sanford J. Safier, Francis Yeckley, Mary Bucar and Steve
Sverga, each in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" for
any loss of pay they may have suffered ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in Cleveland,
Ohio, and maintain 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 recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a) and ( h) of these recommendations ; ( 2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and
(b) of these recommendations ; and (3 ) that the respondent ' s employees are free
to become or remain members of International Union , United Automobile, Air-
craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0, and that the re-
spondent will not discriminate against any employees because of their member-
ship in or activities on behalf of that organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report , what steps respond-
ent has taken to comply therewith. '
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten ( 10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid. - -
THE MARQUETTE METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 895
It is further! recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges the dis-
criminatory discharge of Ernest A Hoffman, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 32 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 26, 1943, any
party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of
the entry of tha order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32
of Aiticle II of the said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau,
Building, Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing-
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
PETER F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated July 6, 1944.
618683- 45-vol 59-58