The Ridge Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 512 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
failure to file charges or otherwise protest to the Board until after
the election . Applying the principle of this decision to the instant
case, we find that the Intervenor 's failure to object to the statements
made by supervisors to employees Wells, Walters , and Ankrom,
shortly before the runoff election, which substantially interfered with
the employees ' free choice of representatives at the Employer's New-
ark, Ohio, plant ,5 did not preclude the Intervenor from filing its timely
objections after the runoff election.
Accordingly , we adopt the hearing officer 's recommendation sustain-
ing the Intervenor 's objections 1 and 2, and shall order the election set
aside. When the Regional Director advises the Board that circum-
stances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative , we shall
direct that a new runoff election be held among the employees in the
bargaining unit at the Employer 's Newark , Ohio, plant.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on April 3, 1952, among
the employees of The Timken-Detroit Axle Company (Ohio Axle &
Gear Division), Newark, Ohio, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
"See U. S. Rubber Co ., 86 NLRB 3; Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation , 82 NLRB 161.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AuTo-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 8-CA--514. January 23, 1953
Decision and Order
On July 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermedi-
ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
record, exceptions, and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
102 NLRB No. 56.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 513
The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
additions and modifications :
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act. In making this finding, we rely only on the
following conduct, as more fully described in the Intermediate Report.
(a) Foreman Hershey's request of Evanish, and Foremen Hershey's
and Hartley's request of Plas, to report upon the union activities of
other employees.
(b) Foreman Hershey's threat to Evanish that the employees might
lose their Christmas bonus, if the Union was successful.
(c) The Respondent's letters to its employees, dated March 16
and April 12, 1951, which contained promises of benefits if they
refrained from union activity.
(d) Foreman Hartley's suggestion to Howard Myers that continued
employment was conditioned upon abstention from union activities.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent, by dis-
charging Kenneth Myers, Virginia Sweet, Allen E. Highman, Clayton
L. House, and Walter Plas, violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the
Act. In so finding, we reject the Respondent's contention that the
discharges were not unlawful for the reason that these employees were
not members of the Union. The record amply demonstrates that the
Respondent believed that the dischargees were members of the Union,
active in it, or sympathetic to it, although, in fact, they were not mem-
bers, and that the Respondent was motivated by this belief in discharg-
ing them. The Board has held that when an employee is discharged
because his employer believes him to be engaged in concerted or union
activity, the discharge is violative of the Act, whether or not such
belief is well founded. This is because such discrimination tends to
discourage union membership and activities no less than discrimina-
tion directed against union members.2
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Ridge Tool
Company, Elyria, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
2 Thernwid Company, 90 NLRB 614, 635; New York Telephone Company, 89 NLRB 383;
N. L R. B. v. Vincennes Steel Corporation, 117 F. 2d 169 (C. A. 7).
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other man-
ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of their employment.
(b) Requesting its employees to report upon the union activities of
other employees; threatening its employees with discharge or economic
reprisals unless they cease their union activities; promising its em-
ployees benefits upon condition that they cease their union activities;
or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named organizations or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Kenneth Myers, Virginia Sweet, Allen E. Highman,
Clayton L. House, and Walter Plas immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Post at its plant in Elyria, Ohio, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after
'being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to be sure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) 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.
8 In the event that this Order Is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 515
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT request employees to report upon the union activi-
ties of other employees; threaten employees with discharge or
economic reprisals unless they cease their union activities; prom-
ise employees benefits upon condition that they cease their union
activities; or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WOR$ERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to
refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Kenneth Myers Clayton L. House
Virginia Sweet Walter Plas
Allen E. Highman
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a fourth amended charge filed December 31, 1951, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO,
herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Board's Regional Director for the Eighth
Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued a complaint dated January 5, 1952, against
The Ridge Tool Company of Elyria, Ohio, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of Labor Management Relations
Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge and the
complaint together with a notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that: (a) Since September 30, 1950, the Respondent interrogated its employees
concerning their union affiliation and by threat of reprisal and promise of benefit
warned its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
Union or engaging in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid or protec-
tion, has kept the activities of its employees, with respect to their union activities,
under surveillance and has solicited its employees to engage in surveillance of
the Union ; (b) that the Respondent illegally discharged certain named employees,
and has since refused them reinstatement; (c) that the above conduct is in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
On January 17, 1952, the Respondent filed an answer denying that it had
engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Elyria, Ohio, on February 18-22, 1952,
inclusive, before Louis Plost, the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel who are hereinafter
referred to in the name of their principals. The parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues, to argue orally on the record, and to file briefs
and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the undersigned.'
At the opening of the hearing the undersigned granted a motion by the General
Counsel to sequester the witnesses. The undersigned denied motions, made at
the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, and again at the close of the
hearing, by the Respondent to dismiss the complaint. The parties argued orally.
A brief has been received from the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges in substance and the Respondent concedes that:
The Respondent, The Ridge Tool Company, is an Ohio corporation with its
principal place of business at Elyria, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of pipe wrenches, pipe threading and cutting devices,
and related products. In the course and conduct of its business the Respondent
'The undersigned originally set March 13. 1952, as the date briefs , etc , should be filed.
On request of the Respondent made after the hearing the Chief Trial Examiner advanced
this to April 3, 1952, thereafter, again at the request of the Respondent, the date was
advanced by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner to May 1, 1952.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 517
annually sells, transports , and delivers in, and to points outside , the State of
Ohio finished products in excess of $500,000 in value.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act and admits employees of the Respondent to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discriminatory discharges
Franklin Carr testified without contradiction that he is an international repre-
sentative of the Union ; that under instruction of the Union he began an organi-
zational effort among the Respondent's employees sometime in April 1950; that
on January 5, 1951, he first distributed a handbill among the Respondent's em-
ployees ; that various handbills relating to the Union's organizational effort were
distributed at the plant gates approximately each week thereafter during the
period material herein.
The record discloses that on March 16, 1951, the Respondent mailed a letter
to each of its employees. The letter was on the Respondent's letterhead sta-
tionery and was signed by C. H. Ingwer, the Respondent's president. The letter
mentioned the distribution of union literature and the benefits claimed for union
membership ; recalled that a "union election" had been held among the em-
ployees in 1944 in which the Union had been defeated ; spoke of the Respond-
ent's "independence" and "policy"; mentioned past benefits enjoyed by the em-
ployees and promised additional future benefits.
On March 14, 1951, the day following the distribution of the above letter, the
Respondent discharged Kenneth Myers, on March 20 it discharged Viriginia,
Sweet, and on March 28 it discharged Allen E. Highman.
On April 12 the Respondent issued another letter to its employees in which
it told them that a survey was being made with a view to the establishing of
a pension plan and also warned them against signing union-authorization cards
because such signing would thereby "irrevocably designate, authorize, and em-
power the Union" to act in behalf of the signer "before any board, court, com-
mittee or other tribunal in any matter affecting your status as an employee"
in the existing "employer-employee relationship."
On March 23, 1951, the Union distributed a handbill at the gate of the Re-
spondent's plant. The handbill inter alia referred to "the case of Employee
M who was fired . . . Saturday, March 17" and also to "Employee S who was
discharged after six years service." After giving the purported reasons for
the discharges the handbill states that a union organization could "correct" such
situations.
As has been found herein Myers was discharged on March 17 and Sweet
on March 20.
Carr further testified that "in the latter part of April 1951," while in a local
tavern, he was introduced to O. E . Swanson , the Respondent's plant superin-
tendent, with whom he then had a conversation. Swanson then told him that
he (Swanson) did not believe that the Respondent needed a union ; that he did
not think the CIO could organize the Respondent's employees ; that the Union
had no common interest with The Ridge Tool employees ; and that if he felt
that the CIO could win an election among the employees "he would make a deal
with the AFL."
250983-vol. 102-53-34
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although Swanson testified for the Respondent he was not asked to deny the
above-related conversation. The undersigned credits Carr.
On May 14 the Respondent discharged Clayton L. House and on May 23 dis-
charged Walter Plas.
The complaint alleges that Myers, Sweet, Highman, House, and Plas were dis-
charged "for the reasons they had, or the Respondent believed they had joined
... the Union, and engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining." The charge was brought by the Union.
The record discloses that neither of the five above-named employees were
members of the Union, had made application for membership, had in any way
been active on behalf of the Union, or had ever attended any of the Union's
meetings, or were even acquainted with the Union's organizing agent or any of
the employees active in the Union.
Under the Board's rules a charge, which is treated not as a pleading but
merely as an instrument to set in motion the machinery set up by the Board
for an investigation, may be filed by "any person" in his own or another's behalf.
Actual membership in, or adherence to, a labor union is not a necessary pre-
requisite to sustain an allegation of discriminatory discharge. It is well settled
that an allegation involving discriminatory discharge can be sustained on a
showing that the discrimination was mistakenly based on a belief that the
discriminatee was engaged in protected activity on behalf of a union although
the supposed activity was not present.
1. Kenneth Myers
Kenneth Myers testified that he was steadily employed in the Respondent's
"chaser" department as a grinder and milling machine operator from February
9, 1948, until his discharge March 17, 1951; that he knew an attempt was being
made to organize the Union among the Respondent 's employees from the fact
that leaflets in behalf of such organization were being distributed at the plant
gate ; that he always accepted these leaflets ; and that after such distributions
"we would have a discussion of it in the plant."
Myers named 5 employees with whom he discussed the Union's leaflets. Two
of those so named are also alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged,
1 was not called, while the remaining 2 with whom Myers, according to his
testimony, discussed the Union's leaflets, did not deny his testimony and admitted
that they reported various alleged derelictions of employees to their foreman.
A discussion of this testimony appears elsewhere herein.
According to Myers, "several times" during these discussions he told the
group "that I thought that the Union had done a lot of things for employees in
other places, and I felt that they could do a lot for us in Ridge Tool."
At quitting time on March 16 the Union distributed a handbill at the plant
gates. On the morning of March 17 "before the whistle blew" Myers, according
to his testimony, discussed this handbill with the same five individuals he had
named and during the discussion :
I said that I thought the rates on some of the jobs that didn't have rates
on, that if the Union was in there, we would get rates on them, and perhaps
better rates on the jobs that were already timed.
Myers further testified that at about 2: 30 p. in. of the same day, his foreman,
John Hartley, called him to his desk. Hartley then said to Myers, "You have
been talking about the Company, and it's causing you to lose your job."
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 519
Myers replied that he did not understand what Hartley meant by his state-
ment and asked if his work was all right . He was told "it wasn't my work"
by Hartley who then continued as follows :
He told me that he had seen a change in my attitude a couple months
before this, and I asked him why he hadn't said something to me at the
time, and he said he thought it was something that would just pass, that he
himself has times when he is out of sorts, and I told him at that time that
the only reason that I was getting fired was because of the Union trying
to organize there, and they felt that I was trying to help the Union get in.
According to Myers :
He told me that he had warned me about talking excessively , and I said
to him that at the same time he warned me of it, he also told other people
in the department, he told everybody else at the same time.
And he didn't deny that, he didn't say a word.
Then I told him there was no use talking any further, we might as well
get my check, and we did.
Myers testified that Hartley had spoken to him on two occasions regarding
excessive talking, the first time being during 1948, the year Myers was first
employed by the Respondent, at which time Hartley told Myers and "another
fellow" they were making too much noise ; that this was the only time Hartley
criticized his talking by any personal reference but that Hartley did speak to
a group of employees, in which Myers was present , regarding talking. Hartley
never criticized Myers' work.
John Hartley, foreman of the Respondent' s "chaser" department, testified that
he discharged Myers because he displayed a "mutinous attitude." Hartley
defined "mutinous attitude" in the following testimony :
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) What do you mean by "mutinous attitude"?
A. Well, anybody that talks against their employer the way he did, and
causing discontentment in the department , and just didn 't care much for
his work. In other words, I don't think he liked his job.
Hartley further testified on direct examination :
Q. What was he saying against the employer?
A. Well, that a lot of the rates were too low, that they had to work too
hard to make their top rate; some of the jobs were too dirty to work on,
just wasn't satisfied.
Hartley further testified that he talked to Myers about his alleged mutinous
attitude on three occasions, on the day of Myers' discharge, the week before
the discharge , and "a month or so before that." Hartley testified that he did
not call Myers to his office for reprimand but "walked down to him, where he
was working." According to Hartley, on the first occasion he talked to Myers
regarding his attitude he told the employee that "his actions were very peculiar"
and that he should "watch his actions and watch his talking, or I would have
to do something about it," and that he specifically told Myers that "he was
talking against the rates" in the department. After this first reprimand, accord-
ing to Hartley there were no complaints for a while, but eventually "he kept
getting back into the same groove again," and complained ; however he testified
that Myers' complaints were not made to him but to other employees.
Hartley testified :
Trial Examiner Plost : And they came and told you ; is that right?
The Witness : A couple of them did, yes.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trial Examiner Plost : And do you know who they were?
The Witness : Coy Williams was one of them.
Trial Examiner Plost: Who else?
The Witness: I think Tom Stewart was the other one.
Trial Examiner Plost: And what did they tell you?
The Witness: Oh, they told me he didn't like the jobs I had given him,
and they were too dirty, he wanted more piecework, and the rates that he
did get on piecework were not high enough , he wanted to make more money.
Trial Examiner Plost : Did they repeat the conversation they had with
him? Did they tell you what he said to them?
The Witness : Not that I know of.
Trial Examiner Plost: They just told you generally that he wasn't
satisfied?
The Witness : That's right.
Hartley further testified that the two employees , Coy Williams and Toni
Stewart, who reported to him regarding Myers' attitude also at times reported
on other employees , and that various other employees also reported on their
fellows to him. Hartley testified that all such reporting was purely voluntary.
Hartley further testified that "a week or so" before Myers' discharge he was
again complaining , talking against rates and working conditions . Hartley
testified :
Trial Examiner Plost: And where did you get that information from?
The Witness : I seen that myself.
Trial Examiner Plost: You didn't see him talking? Where did you get
the information that he didn't like the rates , and that he was talking about
his rates, didn't like his work, and was talking about the fact that he
didn't like his work? Where did you get that information?
The Witness : Well, I could tell that just by his actions.
Trial Examiner Plost: What do you mean by that?
The Witness: Just the way a guy acts. If a man doesn't like his job,
he is not going to act like a guy that likes his job.
Contrary to his testimony that he knew of Myers' alleged statements because
"I seen it myself," Hartley almost immediately changed it to be that he obtained
the information "from the same two fellows" and not from his observation ; he
then changed his testimony again to be that the information came to him not
"a week or so " before Myers ' discharge but on the same day Myers was discharged.
On redirect examination Hartley testified that Myers habitually quit work 10
or 15 minutes early and that he had reprimanded Myers for this 2 or 3 times.
Myers denied that Hartley had ever reprimanded him personally and testified
that Hartley had spoken to groups of employees regarding this practice, Myers
being present in the groups.
Tom Stewart , named by Foreman Hartley as one of Myers ' fellow employees
who informed Hartley of Myers' alleged derelictions, expressions , and complaints,
did not testify.
Coy Williams , who was named by the foreman as a source of information
regarding employees , testified that he "often" saw Myers " loafing" which he
explained as "standing around talking to other operators ." On direct examina-
tion , in answer to questions leading in character, Williams testified :
Q. Did he spend much time talking to you?
A. No.
Q. Did he talk to you at any time?
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 521
A. Yes, he did.
Q. About any particular subject?
A. Yes, he used to talk to me about certain jobs.
Q. And what was the nature of the conversation?
A. He used to talk to me about different jobs, about not liking certain
jobs.
Q. And why? Did he say?
A. No, he didn't specify any reason, other than I guess it was day work.
Williams further testified that on one occasion, the time of which he could
only fix as the latter part of 1950, Myers referred to the task of washing grease
and oil from "chasers" as "a dirty job." Williams further testified :
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) Did you at any time overhear him discussing
rates with anyone else?
A. No, I can't say I did.
This testimony of course contradicts Hartley who testified that he obtained such
information from Williams.
On cross-examination Williams testified that he observed Myers talking to
employee Tom Stewart and that he (Williams) reported this to Foreman
Hartley ; that he went to Hartley's desk to tell him that Myers and Stewart
seemed to be holding "an interesting conversation" ; and that this occurred "two
or three months" before Myers was discharged.
According to Myers' testimony, Williams was one of the group of employees
to whom he customarily expressed his views regarding the contents of the
handbills distributed in behalf of the Union.
Another employee, Henry Abramoska, named by Myers as being in the group
of employees with whom he discussed the Union's handbills, was called by the
Respondent. Abramoska testified that he reported to Hartley on the actions of
others although he did not testify that he reported any acts of Myers. The
following is from Abramoska's direct testimony :
Q. What if anything did you observe concerning his (Myers) working
habits when he was working on day work?
A. Well, he wasn't too much interested in it.
Mr. Ness : Objection.
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) What do you mean by that?
Mr. Ness : I move it be stricken.
Trial Examiner Plost : The witness' answer, "He wasn't too much in-
terested in it," will be stricken.
Now, go ahead and answer the question. What did you observe with
respect to his work?
A. Well, he seemed to be very contented when he was making $2 or more
an hour , and when he was working-
Trial Examiner Plost : Just a minute. That will be stricken, too.
Tell us what you observed, as exactly as you can. Your opinion isn't
worth anything as evidence.
The undersigned then explained to the witness that the only competent evi-
dence from a witness is what "I saw, what I heard," not what "I think," and
instructed him "tell us what you actually saw in relation to his [Myers]
work." Abramoska then testified as follows :
I am now thinking. I want to be sure I am right. I guess I can't answer
that one-
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned believes Kenneth Myers to be a truthful witness. He does
not believe that Hartley was a truthful witness 2 and therefore does not credit
his testimony but does credit the testimony of Kenneth Myers.
Upon the entire record considered as a whole, including the demeanor of the
witnesses on the stand, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the Re-
spondent did not discharge Kenneth Myers on March 17, 1951, for the reasons
advanced by the Respondent but that the reasons given Myers for his discharge
and advanced by the Respondent as the cause therefore were a mere pretext
and that Myers was discharged for different reasons not disclosed to him by
the Respondent.
2. Virginia Sweet
Virginia Sweet testified that she was first employed by the Respondent in
1945 and continued in her job until sometime in 1949 at which time during a
general reduction in force all the married women employees, Sweet among them,
were laid off.
Sweet had worked under the supervision of Foreman John Hartley. In Decem-
ber 1949 she asked Hartley for reemployment and being told that nothing was
available requested Hartley to notify her if and when there should be work.
On or about April 25, 1950, Hartley sent word to Sweet that a job was available.
She called at the plant and filled out an application form. The application asked
information regarding marital status. Sweet stated that she was "separated."
She had in fact been separated from her husband since December 1949. Sweet
was reemployed. In August 1950 she and her husband were reconciled and
about 2 or 3 weeks later she so informed Hartley, who made no comment at the
time or later with respect thereto.
Sweet testified that at the time she was rehired (April 25, 1950) she was not
told that the Respondent's policy was not to employ married women. According to
Sweet's testimony at least one married woman was hired in her department after
she was reemployed and other married women were also employed in the plant.
Sweet testified that she worked together with employee Hilda Gerhardt, their
work being to gauge "chasers" or dies after which these dies were arranged
into sets. The gauging operation was paid for on a day rate, the separating
job was piecework. The piecework rate brought more daily pay than the day
rate.
According to Sweet when she first began on this job with Gerhardt, the latter
employee received all the piecework tasks but after complaint by Sweet to Hartley
she was also given a share of the higher paid work.
Gerhardt in testifying attempted to create the impression that Sweet's account
of their difficulties and the appeal to the foreman was not correct ; however,
her attempt to discredit Sweet in this respect failed. Hartley's account of the
difficulties of the two employees regarding the assignment of piecework tasks
substantiated Sweet, whose testimony thereon is credited by the undersigned.
Sweet was not a member of the Union. Apparently her only knowledge of
the union effort came from the handbills passed at the gate. Sweet testified
that she accepted handbills and that while she was "in the wash room" she
talked about the Union's literature and on more than one occasion had said
"that we had to give the Unions credit for the raises we got, that usually, when
another shop went out on strike for more wages, we would receive a notice
shortly after that we were getting one." Sweet further testified:
A discussion and analysis of Hartley 's testimony appears at a later point herein.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 523
Well, it was either the day I was let out or the day before that Shannon'
came up to the bench and asked me what I thought of the nickel raise we got,
and I said, "swell, but we still have to give the Union credit for the raises
we are getting."
On March 20, 1951, at quitting time, Hartley called Sweet to his desk where,
according to Sweet's testimony, he told her that she had been "talking against
the company's policies" ; that she had made the statement she should have full
seniority for all the time she had worked in the plant ; that he did not like the
way she and Gerhardt were "getting along" ; and therefore he was compelled to
discharge her. According to Sweet she disclaimed talking against the Com-
pany's policies ; told Hartley that she had made the remark about seniority
rights in December while it was now March, and explained that the remark
was made to employees who were discussing the Christmas bonus based on
length of service ; and also pointed out to Hartley that since the argument regard-
ing piecework, which was at Hartley's desk, she and Gerhardt had "no trouble,
we both worked there and nobody said anything.' Sweet testified that neither
Hartley nor any other supervisor had ever criticized her work.
The Respondent pleaded in effect that Sweet was discharged (a) because
she misrepresented her marital status, (b) was dissatisfied with her wage scale
and complained to other employees thus causing dissension, (c) was inefficient,
(d) hid work, (e) attempted to cause the discharge of others, and (f) engaged
in excessive conversation.
Hilda Gerhardt, who worked at the same bench with Sweet, testified that on
two separate occasions she observed Sweet concealing "chasers" she was gauging
while working on "day rate" compensation, in order to use them when assembling
sets on "piecework" compensation.
Gerhardt testified that on the first occasion Sweet concealed 1,500 "chasers"
by placing them in a receiving pan and then placing this pan under 2 others.
Gerhardt testified that she could not lift the pans when filled but that in this
instance she "took them off, and looked at them and put them back," and then
"at the time it happened" reported the matter to Foreman Hartley.
Gerhardt further testified that Hartley "came over and looked" at the hidden
material, removing the pans that concealed them in order to do so. She testified
that she did not know who assembled the "chasers" into sets after Hartley's
inspection. She could not fix the time of the occurrence either by date or by
reference to the time of Sweet's discharge other than its having occurred "in
the early part of 1951."
Hartley testified that "about a month or so" before Sweet's discharge he was
told, apparently for the first time, that Sweet had concealed "chasers" but did
not make any inspection of, or inquiry into, the report because "I thought it
might be a mistake."
With respect to the second time she allegedly observed Sweet hiding finished
work for later use, Gerhardt testified that "within three weeks" of her discharge
Sweet separated 300 "chasers" in 2 pans which she hid under other pans;
that Gerhardt promptly reported this to Hartley, who made an inspection.
Hartley testified that he was told about the hidden "chasers" and upon a
search, by himself, found them concealed "under three pans." He also testified
that the incident, the report, and his investigation, occurred the day before
Sweet's discharge. Hartley testified :
Q. After you found the work hid, what happened? What did you do?
8 The Shannon referred to is evidently Fleming H. Shannon , an employee who testified
at the hearing.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Well, I was thinking it over, and the next morning I went down and
had Virginia Sweet's papers made out, to have her released.
Q. And where did you have to go to do that?
A. Down to the time office.
Q. Did you call her in, then, and tell her?
A. I told her that same night.
Q. What did you say to her?
A. I told her that I had warned her, and warned the both of them once or
twice before, within the period of time, that if things didn't straighten out, I
would have to let the guilty party go, which I did. And that's just the words
I said.
Gerhardt admitted that she also made up sets during the time she was "gauging"
on day rate to be used later but maintained that she would only make up 8 or
10 sets in order to give them to the grinders before she started to match sets in
order that they could be ground "to see how they were running." She testified
that this was done because the inspectors "want them to check on the cuts."
In her direct examination Sweet testified that she made up some sets in advance.
Sweet testified :
I might have made five or ten sets to put in our pan to hold our pan, just
the same as Mrs. Gerhardt did, before we would go to punch in the time office.
Q. Was this the normal practice?
A. Yes, sir.
Sweet further testified :
Q. Specifically at the time of your discharge, did Mr. Hartley say anything
to you about hiding pieces or making sets while on day rate?
A. It never was mentioned to me.
Hartley admitted that at the time he found the hidden "chasers" he did not
say anything to Sweet about the matter.
Gerhardt clearly sought to create the impression that she and Sweet did not
work independently of each other but that the work of each was dependent on
the other and that Sweet's attitude interfered with the production of the
department. After considerable vague, contradictory, and evasive testimony
with respect to her contention that the two women worked together, on examina-
tion by the undersigned Gerhardt testified :
Trial Examiner Plost : All right. You had a panful and she had a panful.
The Witness : That's right.
Trial Examiner Plost : And when you gauged a panful, did she help you
gauge that panful?
The witness : Sometimes.
Trial Examiner Plost : Well now, how could you both gauge a panful to-
gether? You mean she took some out of the pan and you took some of them?
The Witness : That's right.
Trial Examiner Plost : She didn't have to help you gauge anything, did she?
The Witness : No.
Trial Examiner Plost : And you didn't have to help her gauge anything,
did you?
The Witness : No.
Trial Examiner Plost: You just mean that you both happened to take
chasers out of the same pan; is that what you mean by working together?
The Witness : Yes.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 525
Hartley also testified that the work of the plant was impeded by the arguments
between Sweet and Gerhardt regarding the piecework assignments. On cross-
examination , however, Hartley admitted that he only heard the 2 women engage
in an argument on 1 occasion. Hartley testified :
Q. Did you ever hear them arguing?
A. At my desk, yes.
Q. Well, they were at your desk that one time, weren't they?
A. Yes, and they were arguing.
Q. I am talking about after that.
A. After that they didn't seem to talk too much.
Gerhardt admitted that following the discussion between Hartley, Sweet, and
herself at Hartley's desk she and Sweet did not speak to each other.
Hartley further testified that at the time material herein the Respondent did
not employ married women, but admitted that in at least one instance this rule
was relaxed. He was not asked to deny Sweet's testimony to the effect that
she informed him of her changed marital status shortly after she was re-
employed.
Conclusion as to the Causes of the Discharge of Virginia Sweet
Gerhardt's testimony was vague, contradictory, and evasive and did not im-
press the undersigned as relating to actual fact. Moreover the testimony of
Gerhardt and Hartley with respect to Sweet varied so much as to not only raise
doubt to its relating to actual events but created the impression that Hartley,
who heard Gerhardt's testimony, was attempting corroboration from sheer recol-
lection thereof. Hartley's testimony is sprinkled with instances of direct evi-
dence, later changed, enlarged upon, or modified by volunteered statements.
The undersigned therefore does not credit the testimony of Hilda Gerhardt and
John Hartley where it is in conflict with that of Virginia Sweet, whom the un-
dersigned finds to have been an honest and forthright witness.
The undersigned therefore finds that Sweet's account of the conversation be-
tween Hartley and herself at the time of her discharge represents the accurate
version thereof.
The undersigned therefore finds that at the time of Sweet's discharge Hartley
assigned as reasons therefor only the fact that Sweet was "talking against the
Company's policies" which he explained as found herein, and that she did not
"get along" with Gerhardt.
The undersigned therefore finds that Hartley did not at any time tell Sweet she
had been hiding "chasers."
In Hartley's first account of his discharging Sweet he made no mention of tell-
ing her that she hid "chasers." His contrary testimony to this effect was
built through several answers wherein he first testified that he did not mention
the hidden chasers he found to Sweet at the time of discovery, but after "think-
ing it over" during the night he decided to discharge her at which time he men-
tioned it to her. The undersigned does not find Hartley's testimony to be
convincing.
The undersigned fails to understand why an employee caught cheating in an on-
the-spot investigation would not be confronted with the facts at once. However,
in no event did the first instance of hidden "chasers" allegedly reported by Ger-
hardt enter into Sweet' s discharge as Hartley made no investigation of it. As
to Sweet's alleged hiding of "chasers" in order to make later use of them and
thereby cheat her employer, both as to the alleged first and second times, the
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undersigned is convinced and finds that this could not have been a cause of her
discharge for the reason that it did not occur.
The undersigned is further convinced that the quarrel of Sweet and Ger-
hardt regarding the piecework rate assignments was not a cause of Sweet's
discharge. It is clear that the quarrel came to a climax at Hartley's desk
sometime in the fall of 1950. Sweet, whom the undersigned credits, fixes it
as being not later than October. Sweet was discharged March 20, 1951. It is
clear that from the date of the "discussion" of their difficulties at Hartley's
desk the 2 women if they spoke at all did so "short and to the point." Surely
it is not contended that 5 months of virtual silence on the part of an employee
makes the employee subject to discharge for "excessive conversation" as alleged
in the Respondent's answer, nor can the undersigned be persuaded that a delay
of 5 months in making a discharge for quarreling over work with a fellow
employee is proof that the quarrel existed to the detriment of the Respondent's
operation during the 5-month period.
Hartley's failure to deny Sweet's testimony to the effect that she informed
him of her changed marital status as well as his failure to assign it as a cause
for her discharge when made persuades the undersigned that the restored har-
mony in Sweet's marital relations was not the cause of her discharge.
There is nothing in the record to support the Respondent's pleading that Sweet
was discharged because she attempted to cause the discharge of other employees.
On all the evidence considered as a whole, and from his observation of the
witnesses the undersigned finds that Virginia Sweet was not discharged by the
Respondent on March 20, 1951, for the reasons given her by the Respondent at
the time, plead by the Respondent in its answer herein, or contended by the
Respondent at the hearing and argued in its brief. The undersigned finds such
reasons a mere pretext for Sweet's discharge and finds that she was discharged
for reasons other than those assigned by the Respondent.
3. Allen E. Highman
Allen E. Highman was employed by the Respondent in August 1945, and dis-
charged March 28, 1951. He operated grinders and milling machines in the
"chaser" department, working under Foreman John Hartley.
Highman was not affiliated with the Union. He knew of the effort being
made to organize the Respondent's employees from the literature being dis-
tributed by the Union. According to Highman, he always accepted the hand-
bills distributed by the Union at the plant gates, which he then took into the
plant and customarily discussed with the same group of employees consisting
of Myers and Clayton House, both later discharged, and Abramoska and Flem-
ing Shannon. The last two named employees testified at the hearing that they
reported to Hartley on alleged derelictions of employees.
Highman further testified that on one occasion during a discussion of one
of the handbills, Coy Williams 4 who was present "spoke up and said . . . that
he wouldn't vote for the Union if they did try to get in there," and that he
answered Williams, "Well Coy I suppose they got their good points as well as
their bad."
Highman testified that on March 27 Hartley came to him at his work and
said, "Allen, when are you going to quit talking and get to work?"
Highman protested and pointed out this was the first occasion anything had
been said to him about talking, upon which Hartley stated that he had warned
Highman and Kenneth Myers "about two months ago" but Highman denied
4 Williams testified that he reported alleged derelictions of employees to Hartley.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 527
Hartley had ever done so. Hartley then asked , "what was the matter with
Clayton House" ; and accused Highman of "saying things about company policies."
During the noon hour Highman asked Hartley if Hartley felt that he was in-
volved in some personal difficulty between House and the foreman. According
to Highman the foreman then replied, "Our trouble is you have connections
with the Union."
Highman told Hartley he had "no direct connection with the Union," upon
which Hartley observed "that's what they all say" and pointing to a union hand-
bill lying on his desk he continued, "Kenneth Myers and Virginia Sweet told
me that." The handbill on Hartley's desk was the leaflet which referred to the
discharge of "employee M and employee S" herein found to have been dis-
tributed after the discharge of Myers and Sweet.
Highman further testified that on the next morning, March 28, he spoke to
Hartley regarding his work and in the course of the conversation asked "if he
(Hartley) had heard any more about this Union matter." Hartley replied that
he had not and remarked that "he couldn't afford to jeopardize the whole depart-
ment because of three or four fellows." At quitting time, that day, according
to Highman:
Well, John came to me, around 5: 15, to where I was working and he
said, "Allen, gather your things up," he says, "You're through."
And I said, "I would like to have an explanation of this, John," and he
said, "I don't even want to talk about it, Allen," he says, "Go over to the
time office ; your reason will be on the paper over there and you can pick your
check up. That's all I have to say about it."
Highman went to the time office where he was given a paper showing his dis-
charge as being caused by "Work Unsatisfactory." He refused to sign this,
and was then told to write over his signature "I do not know why my work was
unsatisfactory." This he did, and was paid. He then returned to Hartley and
told him, "You know that's not a good reason for discharging me," to which
Hartley replied, "Well I had to put something on there." Highman testified that
he had never before been criticized for bad work or told his work was unsatis-
factory and that the only time Hartley made any criticism of his work was on
the day of his discharge.
Coy Williams, called by the Respondent, testified that he was a machine
operator in the "chaser" department ; that he worked some 30 feet from Highman ;
that Highman worked on both day rate jobs and piecework jobs ; that he saw
Highman "loaf quite a bit, especially on day work jobs" that Highman shut off
his machine and would "stand around and talk to somebody" ; that Highman
talked to him and others about rates saying "they were no good" and also "there
should be a better rate" ; Williams also testified that he reported to Foreman
Hartley what Highman had said.
Ralph Nichols testified that from April 1950 until October 1951 he was super-
visor of the "chaser" department night shift ; that during this period, until his
discharge, Higbman operated a thread miller machine, not under Nichols but
on the day shift only.
The thread miller is an automatic machine, controlled by gears which are set
to certain speeds for various operations. The gears are accessible behind a
plate which is fastened by screws. Eleven machines of this type are in operation
in the plant. Highman made the cutting edges or threads on "chasers" or dies.
Nichols testified that, at a time not definitely fixed, the discovery was made
that the cutting edges of the chasers made on the thread miller were defective,
necessitating their repair on another machine called a "honer."
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nichols testified that he personally "honed" the defective chasers. In his
testimony it was evident he sought to create the impression that the operation
on each chaser , during the honing process , was made up of various time-consum-
ing and complicated operations but finally admitted that he honed 60 sets (a set
consists of 4 "chasers") an hour. He testified :
Trial Examiner Plost : Yes, that included everything. Picking them up,
taking them to the machine, putting the compound on them, setting them in
the machine, taking them out of the machine, that's all included in that 60
sets an hour, isn't it?
The Witness : That's right.
Nichols admitted that he did not work on the honing of "chasers" at night
but did so on extra time which he worked on day shifts between April 1950
and April 1951, during which period he came in to work on Fridays "during the
football season"; that during this period he came in only 4 times; that these 4
times fell in the months of September, October, and November of 1950; that he
worked at honing "somewhere between 10 and 20 hours ; that between 32,000
and 100,000 defective chasers required honing. Nichols testified :
Q. (By Mr. Ness) How many chasers had to be honed?
A. How many? I couldn't tell you that. Maybe 32,000, maybe 100,000.
Q. How do you get those figures?
A. That's the way the orders would run.
Trial Examiner Plost : You don't mean to say that there were 32,000 to
100,000 chasers that had to be boned?
The Witness : Oh, yes, all of that, probably.
Trial Examiner Plost : Do you know that?
The Witness : Well, there must have been. They run an order out-the
smallest order on them was 32,000.
Trial Examiner Plost : And you didn't hone any 32,000 yourself in four
Fridays, did you?
The Witness: Oh, no.
Trial Examiner Plost : All you know about is what you did yourself,
isn't it?
The Witness : That's right. Well, I know that they were sitting there
and were being run. Who done them I don't know.
Nichols testified that Highman had been making these "chasers"; that the
defective "chasers" had been through the milling machine operation "months
before" ; that all of them had gone through several inspections at various stages ;
that he had no knowledge of when the defective chasers were made.
Nichols further testified that "around the first of the year" 1951 Hartley and he
discussed the possibility of the "chasers" being defective because the machine
on which they were made was operated at too high a rate of speed. As the
machine was automatically operated and controlled by set gears they decided
that Nichols should inspect the gears of the machine Highman had operated.
Nichols testified that at that time Highman had not worked on the machine
for 3 or 4 weeks, which stood idle during that time. According to Nichols,
he inspected the gears of the machine that night ; he made the inspection alone;
he discovered the gear ratio had been improperly set so that the machine
turned out more parts but defective because of the speed.
The plain inference of Nichols' testimony is that Highman had deliberately
set the machine to run faster for his personal gain, as he was paid on a piece-
work rate. Nichols clearly sought to create the impression Highman set the
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 529
gears of the machine but admitted he did not see the machine gears set; while
Highman testified he set up the machine on instructions from Hartley as to
gearing and speed . Nichols testified that only Highman worked on the machine
which was incorrectly set and presumably turned out the defective "chasers"
but again admitted he had no actual knowledge ; he also testified that the last
time the machine he allegedly inspected had been used was some 3 weeks before
the night he inspected it, because Highman had finished the job 3 weeks before
the inspection ; however, Nichols admitted that he did not know when the
"chasers" alleged to be defective had actually been made.
Foreman Hartley testified that Highman worked directly under him during
his employment by the Respondent which covered an unbroken period of approxi-
mately 5% years. Hartley testified that he discharged Highman because "his
work was unsatisfactory" in that Highman would "lay down on the job,"
would talk, walk around, shut off his machine and leave it to talk to others,
or leave the machine running untended in order to talk to other employees.
Hartley testified that he observed Highman leave his machine running and go
to talk to other employees "20, 25 times" within a 3-month period , and that "it
might have been 50 times" within a period of "three, four or five months" before
Highman's discharge . He further testified that he talked to Higbman about his
work habits "two or three times" :
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) And did you have any talk with him about it?
A. I did.
Q. And what did he say and what did you say?
A. Well, I just asked him if he wouldn't do a little bit more work and
not do so much talking, and he said he would.
Q. And after you had had these conversations with him, did he do more
work?
A. He did for probably a couple days , then he was right back to where he
was before.
Higbman denied that he left his machine to visit or talk to other employees
and denied that Hartley had ever spoken to him about such an alleged dereliction.
Hartley further testified that sometime during 1950, Highman told him that
he was dissatisfied with the plant 's working conditions and that he had been
informed "that Al Highman was trying to get a group of people together and
see if they couldn 't work only a half day on Saturday."
Highman testified that he told Hartley that he did not like to work Saturdays
and also that he had spoken to others about "trying to get permission to get
Saturday afternoon off." The plant operated a 6-day week ; 10 hours on the first
5 working days and 8 hours on Saturday.
Hartley also testified that Highman asked for time off but admitted that
during 1950 he was only refused time off on two occasions . He could not give
the number of times such requests were made. Hartley further testified that
he, as well as Nichols, checked the gears on Highman's machine. According
to Hartley, he told Nichols to check the gears during the night ; that Nichols
did so, discovered that they had been set so as to operate the machine at a
faster rate of speed than ordered; that Nichols replaced the plate on the gear
box ; that the following morning Nichols reported to him and that Hartley made
an independent check and verified Nichols' finding.
Hartley then testified as follows :
Well, after I found out the feed gears were wrong, and Al Highman ran
it last, he was the guilty party.
Q. Well, what did you do? That's what I am asking you.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. I fired Al Highman.
Q. And that was one of the reasons that you fired him?
A. That 's right.
Hartley testified that be told Highman about the gears "before I fired him"
and that "He denied it."
At a later point in his testimony on cross-examination , Hartley testified that
he made the inspection of the machine and found the gears set wrong "the latter
part of January , I believe, the first part of February around there." Nichols
set the time as "around the first of the year ." Highman was discharged on
March 28.
Hartley listed the reasons for discharging Highman as being ( a) because
Highman left his machine to talk to others, ( b) because be stayed out from
work or asked for time off , ( c) because he caused discontent by getting other
employees together , so they would work a lesser number of hours on Saturday,
(d) because Highman set the gears of his machine wrong, and ( e) because
Highman generally "layed down on the job."
However , Hartley testified that when he discharged Highman he:
Just told him his work wasn't satisfactory , he wasn 't turning out enough,-
and was causing discontent in the department , and we didn ' t want him
around.
Summary
If Foreman Hartley's testimony with respect to Highman 's discharge is to
be credited it is necessary to find the reason why an employee who during the
last 5 months of his employment not only "layed down on the job" but was
observed by his foreman "at least fifty times" leaving his machine running and
going to talk with other employees ; did not come in to work ; caused discontent
among employees ; and was discovered to have deliberately cheated his employer-
and spoiled 100,000 "chasers," was not promptly discharged but was continued
on his job for 3 months after the last and most serious dereliction . An explana-
tion of this singular forbearance appears in the record.
Hartley was asked by the undersigned , "Why didn't you fire him right then?
Why did you wait three months?" Hartley testified:
The Witness : Why didn 't I fire him?
Trial Examiner Plost : Yes, right then. You were running that depart-
ment, he was working for you.
The Witness : We always try to give a guy a chance.
Following this the testimony continues as follows :
Q. (By Mr . Vandemark) And that is the only reason that you didn't
fire him at that time ; is that right?
A. That's right. He has a wife and a few kids.
Concluding Findings
The witnesses called by the Respondent to testify with respect to Highman
seemed especially eager to condemn him.
Williams testified that he worked 30 feet from Highman and that Highman
loafed "especially on day work."
The Respondent was content to rest its case on the mere conclusion of a ma-
chine operator 's knowledge of a fellow employee's rate of work against his rate
of pay. Although the witness was an employee who brought information re-
garding others to his foreman, the Respondent 's reliance on his nnsupportecl
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 531
statement seems singular especially since the undersigned suggested that work
records would be the best evidence and also suggested that they be produced.
Nichols' testimony with respect to Highman's machine, the damage resulting
from the speeded gearing, and his inspection of it, was carefully detailed. His
entire testimony with respect to Highman would lead one to the conclusion that
part of Nichols' duties was to check on Highman who worked on a shift which
left the plant as Nichols came to work, but despite all the details Nichols failed
to mention that Hartley also checked the machine on the morning following
his report. Nichols' testimony regarding the number of "chasers" spoiled by
Highman and his own part in reconditioning them is so contradictory as to be
rendered incredible.
Hartley was present during the testimony of most of the witnesses as neces-
sary to the Respondent, while the others were separated on motion. When
Hartley was called to testify he impressed the undersigned as attempting to
shore up crumbling testimony. This he did by means of volunteered state-
ments not in any way responsive to questions put to him by either the Respond-
ent or the General Counsel. It was evident that he was acting "on his own,"
eager to make what he considered to be valuable contributions to the Respond-
ent's cause.
In any event, surely, had Highman been guilty of all the offenses charged,
against him, he would have been discharged at the latest when the serious
matter of the improper gearing of his machine was discovered. Both Nichols
and Hartley agree that the machine check was made in January or the first part
of February. Highman was discharged March 28.
The undersigned does not credit the testimony of either Williams, Nichols, or
Hartley. The undersigned is convinced that the testimony of Nichols and Hart-
ley to the effect that Highman improperly set the gears on his machine in order
to cheat the Respondent and that thereby he caused considerable damage and
expense to the Respondent is sheer fabrication on the part of these two witnesses.
The undersigned considers Highman to be a reliable witness worthy of belief
and therefore credits his testimony and accepts his account of his discharge
and the conversations between Hartley and himself at the time to be accurate.
The undersigned further finds that at no time during Highman's approximate
51/2 years of employment was he ever criticized by Hartley because of his work
habits or his work with the exception of the day of his discharge, nor was any
mention ever made to him that he had improperly set the gears of a machine
and caused damage and loss as testified by Hartley and Nichols.
Upon the entire record in the case, the evidence considered as a whole, in-
cluding his impression of the witnesses when testifying, the undersigned finds
that the Respondent on March 28, 1951, did not discharge Allen Highman for
the reasons it advanced to him or for the reasons and causes it offered at the
hearing or advances in its brief but did so for entirely other and different reasons
not disclosed by the Respondent to Highman. The undersigned finds the reasons
advanced by the Respondent for Highman's discharge are not real but are a mere
pretext for his discharge.
4. Clayton L. House
Clayton House was employed by the Respondent from September 1946 until
his discharge May 14 , 1951 . House was an inspector in the "chaser" department.
He described his work as follows :
Spot checking the chasers after finish grind ; that is, following up the
various machine operators on the finished grinder, of chasers, taking sets
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from chasers from those grinders , assembling them in die heads, and making
sample cuts with them.
The record discloses that when the "chasers" or dies were finished a represen-
tative number of them were tested by House in an actual diehead by cutting a
thread on a piece of pipe in the manner the "chaser" would actually be used.
House testified that his job was performed at a fixed bench but that he was
required to make the rounds of various machines in order to pick up and deliver
work, not only in the "chaser" department but in other parts of the plant as well.
House testified that he customarily talked to employees whose machines he was
required to visit; that the conversations were not always confined to the work;
that all conversations were brief ; that such talking was known to the supervision
and was not prohibited and that he had in this way discussed various subjects,
not confined to his work, with Hartley and with Arthur Hayes, his immediate
foreman.
Arthur Hayes, House's immediate foreman, described House's work substan-
tially as did House but in greater detail and further testified that House was
required to remain at his bench. He testified :
Q. Did he have anything to do with getting the chasers from the depart-
ment where they were being made?
A. No, sir, he did not. They were brought to him in pans, or the operator
would bring them to him, as they were making setups, the operator would
bring them to him for tests.
Kenneth Myers testified :
Q. Did House come over to your machine to check the chasers?
A. He did.
Q. What was the procedure ? Did you first go over to his bench and ask
him?
A. If we were setting up a job on the bench grinder, Clayton or John
Demyon usually came over to adjust the clearance on the pieces to get the
right clearance on the throat, and they most generally done the adjusting
of the machine , and would then run a sample cut, and he would take it back
to the bench and make the test cut.
Allen Highman testified :
Q. Did House check the chasers on which you worked?
A. At times, on some jobs that I run, he did.
Q. Normally how long did it take him to check your chasers?
A. Well, I run this throat job sometimes, and it would take him 15 or
20 minutes to make the check on the chasers.
Q. This was after a job was set?
A. Well, no, he would help me set the job up, too. He understood the
job very well, the clearance of the chasers, and either him or Mr. Demyon
or the other inspector would help us set the clearance on the throat, and he
would grind a set and make the cut on them and okay them, and if it wasn't
okay, he would change the clearance and get it right. It would take about
15 or 20 minutes.
Q. He would go back to his bench and make this cut?
A. That's right.
Q. An then he would come back to the bench with you and tell you if it
was all right?
A. Either that, or I went to the bench with him and waited until he made
the cut.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 533
Myers and Highman were called by the General Counsel ; however, Fleming
H. Shannon, called by the Respondent, testified generally against House with
respect to House coming to his machine :
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) How frequently during that period of time did
Mr. House come into your department or to your machine, I'll put it that way?
A. Probably three times a week.
Q. Do you know what he came over there for?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What for?
A. To check on finished products that were rejected somewhere else.
Henry Abramoska, called by the Respondent and who testified inter alia
that he informed his foreman with respect to alleged slowness by House, with
respect to House's work testified :
Q. Did you frequently have contacts with Clayton House?
A. Every day.
Q. What would be the occasion for that?
A. He was to check my work to see if I was running okay.
Q. And in order to check your work, what did he do?
A. He had to take a set of my chasers that I just got through grinding, or
come along and pick up a set if he wanted to, and go make a cut on a pipe to
see if we were getting a good thread on the pipe.
On the preponderance of the evidence, and on the entire record, the under-
signed finds that Clayton House was required to go to various machines and
to various operators in the plant in connection with his regular duties.
House testified that on Friday, May 11, he was sick and telephoned his
foreman, Arthur Hayes, telling him that he would not be in to work until the
following Monday ; that Hayes said nothing about discharging House , merely
"said O. K." and thanked him for calling.
Hayes admitted that House called him on May 11 and told him of his illness
and further admitted that he did not say anything to House about discharge or
impending discharge.
House testified he arrived for work on Monday, May 14, and found his card
out of the rack, he then contacted Hayes who told him that the card had been
removed because "stories had come to him" that House had been complaining
about jobs and rates in the "chaser" department. House admitted discussing
rates but denied complaining, upon which Hayes, according to House, "said
that he also understood I had been telling employees where they could get
jobs at other places of employment," and that he replied, "Well I might have."
Hayes then told House he was discharged and told him to go to the time
office for his check. House testified that he signed a form in the time office
upon which his name may have been written but the cause of the discharge
was not.
The reason for House's discharge is given on the form as :
Making trouble talking to other employees. Trying to make them dis-
satisfied with job.
Nelson Squires testified that he filled out the termination form House signed
and that he wrote in the information regarding the reason for discharge before
House signed; that he received this information the some day as the discharge
from Hayes.
House was discharged practically as soon as he arrived for work in the
morning. Hayes testified that when "he [House] came back to work-I had
250983-vol. 102-53-35
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his termination papers on the 14th of May, 1951." The Respondent argues in
its brief that "what he [House] said about his discharge paper is not true."
The undersigned is not persuaded that the testimony as quoted serves to
discredit House.
As in the case of the other dischargees named in the complaint House had no
connection with the Union.
Foreman Arthur Hayes testified that he was in charge of all the Respondent's
inspectors, including House. Hayes testified that he discharged House on May
14, 1951. He further testified that 6 months before the date of House's dis-
charge Hartley,
... the foreman of the department adjacent to where Mr. House was
working come to me and said, "Your man is causing my men a lot of trouble
over here." He said, "He is coming into our department here, he is keeping
the men from work during working hours. He is visiting." And he said,
"There should be something done about it."
Hayes testified that he "investigated" and
I found that Mr. House instead of being at his bench where he was sup-
posed to be doing his work, was away from his bench into the Chaser De-
partment and was in another department.
While Hayes' testimony correctly places House's bench adjacent to the "chaser"
department, it is clear that House's job was to inspect "chasers" made in that
"department adjacent to his bench" and that he legitimately left his bench to
get and deliver work to various machine operators in the chaser department.
Hayes testified that he "found out from pretty thorough checking" that House
in his visits to other employees on the job and was telling them, "Well you are not
being paid enough for this job," and also that he used "some pretty vulgar"
language in speaking of the Respondent and its policies. He testified that he
observed House talking to others but did not hear the conversations "because I
wasn't close enough to him to hear any conversations."
Hayes testified that after his checkup on House he warned him that "if I
Vnd any more of that happening, I'll have to let you go." Hayes further testified
that for 3 months "things improved" then House "slid back into the same
groove again" and was discharged. According to Hayes on May 10, 1951, Hart-
ley told him again that House was "back in the department visiting again."
On direct examination Hayes testified :
Q. Did you call him in again or reprimand him after that and before you
discharged him?
A. No, I did not. After I gave him the chance to correct his ways and he
didn't take the chance, I had nothing else to do but do what I told him I
was going to do.
However, on cross-examination Hayes changed his testimony, which at least
left the impression that for a period of 6 months prior to his discharge House
gave no trouble, to be that he kept watch on House during this period; that 3
months after the first complaint by Hartley he again observed House leaving
his bench and warned him telling him "you know our conversation, we want you
out of that department. The materials are going to be furnished you here, and you
are to take care of it right here at your bench" ; that thereafter "about two or
three days" before House was discharged Hartley made the second complaint,
and that "I decided to fire him three days later."
Hayes further testified that during the 6 months between the first complaint
by Hartley and the discharge, employee Fleming Shannon told him that House was
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 535
"trying to make him dissatisfied with his job" and that House had told Shannon
the "company was giving him a raw deal " with respect to the rates being paid
Shannon ; that Hartley had first told him "the same thing" regarding Shannon's
statement and that he then went to Shannon for confirmation. He fixed the
incident at some "six months prior to May 14,1951" According to Hayes another
inspector, one Demyon, also told him that House had visited Shannon at his
work.
Hayes also testified that House being away from his bench, visiting employees,
and neglecting his work caused a great deal of loss as the "chasers " went to
stock without inspection. According to Hayes he received Hartley' s second
complaint too late in the day to have discharge papers made for House; House
was out sick the next day and so informed him by phone ; he admitted he did
not tell House he would be discharged during this telephone conversation ; that
when on the 14th, House came in to work :
"Well," I said, "you know, Clayt, I gave you very strict orders not to go
into that Chaser Department and visit with those operators in another
department."
He said , "Yes, I know that."
"Well," I said, "why didn't you do it, then?"
He just shrugged his shoulders.
Q. And you gave him his time, then?
A. I did.
On cross-examination Hayes added the following to the reasons for House's
discharge , "When a man is talking to another man trying to make him dissatis-
fied with his job, its high time that fellow is put in his place."
Foreman Hartley testified that he "told Art Hayes that he [House] was
running around the department where he had no business to be, and causing
discontent among the employees ." Hartley also testified that he observed House
engaged in this conduct "two or three times a day ," however, he could not fix
the time of the occurrences except that his observation of House was made during
"the last two months he [House] worked there." His recollection of the time
of his complaints to Hayes was also different from that of his fellow foreman,
whereas Hayes placed the first complaint , regarding House's conduct, by Hartley
as 6 months prior to the discharge, followed by 6 months of observation by him-
self and a final complaint by Hartley on May 10, with an intermediate reprimand
of House by Hayes, Foreman Hartley testified that his complaints were made
to Hayes twice during the last 2 months of House 's employment.
Fleming H. Shannon , called by the Respondent , testified that House inspected
his work ; that House came to his machine about three times a week ; that he
came in the regular course of his work "on business only" ; that on one occasion
which Shannon fixed as "the first part of May, 1951," House told him that the
Respondent was not paying proper rates and further told Shannon he could
always get a better job elsewhere ; that on a date he could not remember he
thereafter told Foreman Hartley of the above-related conversation ; that he again
spoke to Hartley abort the incident on the day House was discharged and that
these were the only times he spoke to Hartley about the matter before House
was discharged.
In this testimony Shannon squarely contradicts Hayes who testified (a) that
Hartley had told him of Shannon's report on House's statements regarding the
Respondent's rates and the existence of better job opportunities elsewhere, about
6 months before House was discharged, and further (b) that Shannon confirmed
the report to him on the same day. Shannon did not testify to any conversations
with Hayes.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry Abramoska , called by the Respondent , testified that House came to his
machine in the regular course of his work. He described House's duties in con-
nection with his own work as follows :
When I would set up a job, I would have to get an okay from Clayton
House. He would take three sets. He would go, and while he was going
and making the cut on the pipe, putting them in the die head, and so forth,
I waited until I got an okay.
On direct examination Abramoska also testified as follows :
Q. What, in the last six or eight months to a year previous to his dis-
charge, was your experience with reference to getting from him the report
on his cuts?
A. Very slow.
Q. Now, you remember, Mr. Abramoska, about the time he was dis-
charged?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, you say it was very slow. What do you mean by "very slow"?
A. Well, I can best describe it this way. I would have to wait an hour
and a half or longer to get an okay on a setup, which the man that has
replaced him does it within 10, and I never have waited over 15 minutes,
for the same thing.
Abramoska testified that "maybe two or three times" when he was given a rush
job he had told Foreman Hartley, "Well I will do all I can, but I will be held
up at the bench." He testified that neither he nor Hartley said any more with
reference to his meaning when this statement was made.
Abramoska also testified on direct :
Q. While Mr. House was working there, and within the last six months
of that time, what was your observation with reference to his working or
not working?
A. Well, he showed very little interest, was my observation, that he
showed very little interest in the job that he was to perform.
Mr. Ness : Objection.
Trial Examiner Plost : Well, of course, that's a conclusion. I think you
had better tell us what you actually saw.
Mr. Vandemark : I was going to ask him what he meant by that.
Trial Examiner Plost : I know you were.
A. Well, I will tell you how, then, as near as I can. When the finished
work-when I was done with the day's work, it was to go into the stock
room , and be was told-now, I am only saying it because I overheard it,
that he was told to keep all finished stock moving into the stock room, not
to let it accumulate.
And previously, before he was discharged, it took two men one Saturday
afternoon to move the stock that should have been in the stock room, that
had accumulated on the floor, which should have been taken care of every
day, the way I understood it.
Q. Is your production now about the same as it was at the time Mr.
House was there?
A. No, my production is much better now.
Q. Is it greater?
A. Much greater.
Q. And from your observation, in the Chaser Department, is the produc-
tion the same or greater?
A. Greater.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 537
Q. And is the material that is delivered to House for inspection kept
cleared away now, as against when he was working there?
A. No accumulation, only one day's accumulation.
On cross-examination Abramoska admitted that he had no knowledge of what
"chasers" House was required to inspect; testified that House "had been slow"
over a period of 5 years ; admitted that if he had waited for House to make a
cut test for 1Y2 hours or for any length of time whatever the time consumed
would be recorded on his work card which he "rang in" when he turned the test
piece over to House and "rang out" again when he resumed work. The cards
were not produced.
With respect to visiting by House, Abramoska testified on cross-examination
as follows :
Q. (By Mr. Ness) I believe you stated that House came over to your
machine every day to check chasers ; is that right?
A. Yes.
How many times a day did he come over?
Once, sometimes two times, sometimes three times.
And how long would he stay at your machine?
Well, he would visit with me-
I am asking you how long he would stay at your machine.
Long enough to pick up three sets of chasers.
How long would that be?
Not very long.
Would it be more than five minutes?
Not any more than that.
And that would happen perhaps several times a day, did your say?
Not over two or three times a day.
Concluding Findings as to the Discharge of Clayton L. House
House freely testified that he discussed rates and working conditions with
various employees; denied that he engaged in unnecessary visiting; denied
that he was told by Hayes not to talk to employees and ordered to stay out of
the chaser department ; and denied that he had ever been reprimanded by Hayes
or other foremen during his 5 years of employment with the Respondent.
House impressed the undersigned favorably and as a witness worthy of
credence while Shannon, Abramoska, Hartley, and Hayes did not.
The testimony of Shannon and Abramoska reveals that House came into the
"chaser" department only on legitimate business and stayed no longer than nec-
essary . Abramoska 's attempt to create a different impression after once so
testifying was typical of his entire testimony. His attempt to show that House
was slow in his work was rendered ridiculous by Abramoska's own testimony
on cross-examination. His many attempts to put House in a bad light by un-
supported conclusions, not responsive to questions, convinces the undersigned
that Abramoska tailored his testimony to fit his purpose and used whatever
cloth came to hand.
The sharp conflict in the testimony of Shannon and Hayes with respect to
the time House allegedly sought to discredit the Respondent's rates, as well as
the fixing of the incident by Hartley as being within 2 months of House's
discharge , Hayes 6 months before the incident, and Shannon in May, serves
only to convince the undersigned that something quite different than a mere
coincidental lapse of memory by 3 men is involved.
On the entire record, considered as a whole , as well as his observation of the
witnesses , the undersigned finds that Clayton L. House while in the employ of
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent did not visit or annoy other employees at their machines, enter
departments where he had no right to be and from which he was ordered to
absent himself , and further that he was not slow in performing his work thereby
causing loss to the Respondent.
The Respondent avers in its answer that House was unable to perform the
work assigned to him necessitating his transfer to other work . The Respondent
so contended at the hearing, and so argues in its brief.
The evidence is clear that during his first year of employment with the Re-
spondent, House was transferred to inspection and remained on the same in-
spection job until his discharge . House began with the Respondent in September
1946. He was discharged May 14, 1951.
The undersigned finds that the transfer made 4 years prior to House's dis-
charge did not enter into his discharge as a cause therefor.
The undersigned infers that House was discharged by Hayes at the instigation
of Hartley and that Hartley requested the discharge on or about May 10, 1951.
The undersigned further finds that the reasons advanced by the Respondent
for the discharge of House are a mere pretext therefor and not the real reasons
except that the fact House discussed wage rates and working conditions with
fellow employees did enter into his discharge as a cause thereof , but in no event
were the Respondent 's real reasons for his discharge disclosed to him by the
Respondent , pleaded , offered at the hearing, or averred in the Respondent's
brief.
5. Walter Plas
Walter Plas was employed by the Respondent as a machine repairman in
July 1943 and held the same job until his discharge on May 23, 1951.
A space was set aside in the production department, which, though not a
separate room, served as Plas' workshop . He had his workbench in this space
and brought machines there for repair. However , if a machine could be repaired
without being moved to Plas ' "shop" be made the repairs on the spot.
Plas was responsible for the conditioning of some 80 various machines. He
testified he had no regular helper but was given casual help for heavy lifting and
like work. One other repairman was also steadily employed in the production
department.
Plas testified that "about a week" before his discharge Foreman William
Shultz came to "this little place they had assigned to me" and began a con-
versation . Plas testified :
Shultz came up to me at the machine that I was working on , and he says,
"They are trying hard to get a union in here." He says, "We don't want a
union in here. Mr. Ingwer doesn 't want a union in here. We want to keep
it out , and do everything we can to keep the union out of here.
"The work you are doing takes you all over the shop and around the dif-
ferent machines, and I want you to keep your eyes and your ears open, and
anybody that you find who is in favor of the union , who is talking about the
union , let me know, and I don't care who he is, or how good he is, I will fire
him out of here."
Then I told him , I says, "I don't want any part of it . I wouldn't be a
stool pigeon for anybody."
I said , "I seen some good men fired out of here , I thought they done good
work . I don't want any part of it." I says, "If I am a stool pigeon, when
you get done with me you will throw me out , and if I am not a stool pigeon you
will probably kick me out pretty soon. So I want to stay out of it."
Q. What did he say in reply?
A. He said that I should think over what he said . And he walked away.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 539
According to Plas, Foreman Emory Hershey next approached him. Plas tes-
tified :
About 20 minutes after that, Hershey came up to me. He says, "You
know, this union is getting pretty hot around here, it is better than what we
think it is." He says, "We want you to keep your eyes open and see if
you can find out some of these guys that is in sympathy with the union."
And he says, "Here is another thing, when you meet a fellow down the
street, take him in and buy him a few shots, a few shots of whiskey, be-
cause a lot of times if you get a few shots down them they will start spilling
their guts, and otherwise you might not know. And we will make it worth
while for you."
And I told him I didn't want any part of that, I wouldn't be to stool pigeon.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said, "I wouldn't call that being a stool pigeon." And he walked
away.
Shultz then returned and told Plas, "You know that little conversation we
had a little while ago? . . , Just forget all about it." Foreman Shultz denied
the entire above incident as far as he was stated to have been involved therein.
Foreman Hershey denied that he had asked Plas to spy, and testified that at
on a date he could not fix Plas came to him, told him a union meeting was to be
held, and asked Hershey if he would object to Plas attending it. According to
Hershey he answered Plas' question as to whether he objected to Plas attending
the meeting, "absolutely not, that is your privilege." According to Hershey,
Plas then indulged in violent antiunion remarks and stated he would not work
in the plant if the Union was successful.
The undersigned credits Plas, and accepts his version of the incident as
accurate.'
The testimony of Foreman Hershey to the effect that Plas asked permission
to attend a union meeting and his further violent antiunion statements were not
denied, but inasmuch as Hershey could not fix the time thereof, the testimony of
Foreman Hershey may well relate to an incident which has no connection in time
with the incident related by Plas. The undersigned finds that Hershey's above
testimony does not contradict that of Plas.
Plas further testified that on May 23, 1951, he was discharged by Foreman
Shultz. Plas testified :
... And about ten minutes after three he came up to me and he says,
"I have to let you go, I have got to fire you."
And I said, "What is the matter, Bill?"
"Well," he says, "you are not doing enough work." He says, "Pack your
tools, put them in a box, and I will have your check ready for you at 3: 30."
With respect to remarks by Shultz at the time of his discharge, Plas further
testified :
He said I was loafing too much, yes.
Q. Prior to that time had Shultz , Hershey, or any other supervisor ever
said that you had been loafing?
A. Never said a word so long as I worked there about my loafing , or about
me not doing my work right there.
Q. Are you certain of that?
A. I am just as certain about that as I am sitting on this witness stand.
' An analysis of the testimony of the two foremen , including the above-related incident,
will be made later herein.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next night Plas called at Hershey's home and asked Hershey why he had
been discharged. According to Plas, the foreman told him :
He says, "I don't know why they fired you." He said, "I was just as much
surprised as you was." He said, "I never knew it until five minutes before
Shultz fired you, he come over and told me he was going to fire you. I said,
`What is the matter, Bill?' He said, 'I am going to fire him.' I said to Bill,
I said, `I think you are making a mistake, because he is a good man, and he
works on the machines and keeps them running, and we haven' t got a man
as good as he is to put in his place.' He says, `Well, I am going to fire him
anyway."
Hershey testified that Plas called at his home, he fixed the time as in the
afternoon of the day following the discharge, he testified that Plas asked the
reason, and that Hershey then told him, "We told you you got fired because you
wasn 't doing the work."
The undersigned credits Plas, and considers that Plas' account of the conver-
sation represents the accurate version thereof.'
Foreman William Shultz testified that he had known Plas since Plas was first
employed by the Respondent in 1943. Shultz testified that he discharged Plas
May 23, 1951, because Plas "wouldn't work." He detailed the reasons for his
discharging Plas as follows :
Well, Shorty at the noon hour, why, he would lay down on his bench
and go to sleep, and, well, he wouldn't just wake up, I would have to go out
there and wake him up, to get him to go to work.
And, he would take a milling machine-Shorty was a repair man-and we
would give him a machine to work on, and he would make that last just as
long as he could, to keep from doing anything else but milling machines,
but he was supposed to repair anything we had to do.
And then if I would go to him and ask him, "Shorty, can't you speed it up?
We need the machine real bad." Then it would make it worse, he would
hold it up longer.
And then if I would put another man with him, give him a helper, why,
he would tell the helper what to do, and stand there and look at him, he
wouldn't do nothing himself.
And the helpers came to me and squawked, they didn't want to work with
him. They said if they had to do all the work they might as well do it
alone.
In addition to the above-listed offenses, Shultz testified that "a month before"
his discharge Plas refused to repair a grinder, and that on the day of his discharge
he again refused to repair a grinder. According to Shultz "he went over, he
didn't do nothing, he just stayed there." Shultz further testified :
I didn't want to let Shorty go, he worked for me a long time, but, I don't
know, he got worse all the time. I don't know whether he thought I couldn't
get along without him, or what was the matter with him, I don't know. He
seemed to be insulted when you told him to do something.
Following his general indictment Shultz then testified in detail with respect
to each cause for Plas' discharge.
With respect to Plas sleeping during his working time, Shlutz testified that
Plant Superintendent 0. E. Swanson saw Plas "sitting on a box asleep by a
washing machine" ; that Swanson reported this to Shultz who "went over and
6 An analysis of Foreman Hershey 's testimony will appear later in this report.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 541
caught him." Shultz testified that he told Plas at the time, " Shorty we can't
have stuff like that." Shultz fixed this incident as occurring "maybe a year
before" Plas was discharged.
Superintendent O. E. Swanson testified that on one occasion :
As I was walking down through the plant-I happened to glance over
going to the washing machine and I seen Walter Plas sitting on a box
against a pillar apparently asleep. So I went around to Shultz' office and
told him that Plas was sitting over there by the washing machine sleeping.
On cross-examination Swanson pointed out that he had testified Plas was
apparently asleep; that he merely glanced at him as he passed, within "a matter
of seconds." Swanson also testified he also told Foreman Hershey of the incident
at the time. He fixed the occurrence as "three or four weeks before he [Plan]
was discharged."
Hershey testifying to the same incident, changed the individual who observed
Plas asleep and likewise changed the time. He was asked to testify regarding
an incident which occurred "shortly before Mr. Plas was discharged." Hershey
testified :
Well, it is like I said before, I didn't keep dates on any of that stuff, but
Mr. Shannon seen him sitting at the washing machine, sitting asleep on a
box, and told me about that, and he wanted to know if that was the way I
run the department.
Q. Did you go back and see what he was doing?
A. Yes. Plas, I couldn't say, when I went back, he had waked up, I
couldn't say he was sleeping when I seen him.
Shannon, who testified after Hershey and before Swanson,' was not asked to
testify with respect to Plas.
The undersigned is mindful of the contradictions in the testimony with
respect to the incident of Plas' sleeping on a box in the aisle, Shultz fixing the
time as "maybe a year before" Plas was discharged . Hershey who followed
Shultz, giving the source of his information as Shannon, who was not in his
department, but was a machine operator who apparently could leave his work,
inform on another employee, and at the same time taunt a foreman with the
question if "that was the way" he ran his department, was asked to testify
regarding "an incident which occurred shortly before Plas was discharged."
Shannon made no mention of this incident at all, while Superintendent Swan-
son was careful to point out that he only testified that Plas was apparently asleep,
that he merely glanced at him in passing, "a matter of seconds," and testified
further that he notified both Shultz and Hershey, while Hershey did not testify
that Swanson spoke to him regarding the incident. Plas denied that he ever
slept on the job.
From the entire record, including the conflicting testimony, and his observation
of the witnesses the undersigned does not credit the testimony of Foremen
Shultz and Hershey and Superintendent Swanson with respect to their testi-
mony that Swanson observed Plas apparently asleep and so notified Shultz and
Hershey and does not credit the testimony of Hershey or Shultz with respect
to the same incident.
On direct examination Schultz further testified that "two or three months"
before Plas was discharged "he laid down on his bench and would go to sleep,
and just wouldn't wake up in time to go to work," and that he woke Plas "a
couple of times."
7 The witnesses were separated.
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On cross-examination Shultz elaborated on this testimony ; testified he
found Plas asleep on his bench "at noon hour, right after the whistle blowed" ;
that he "caught" him asleep "five times during the last month he worked" for
the Respondent ; that he "caught" Plas asleep and reprimanded him "a couple
of days, a couple of weeks" before his discharge; that during the last year of
Plas' employment he found Plas asleep eight times ; that prior to that he found
him asleep "only the time that Mr. Shannon seen him over at the washing
machine" and then repeated his testimony with respect to Superintendent Swan-
son observing Plas asleep with the exception that the discovery was now at-
tributed to Shannon.'
Foreman Hershey, called by the Respondent in corroboration of Shultz,
testified :
... He (Plas) sat on the workbench there, or he would sleep during his
noon hour, and after the whistle blew he would maybe lay there another
five minutes or so. If you went over to tell him to do something, he would
cross his legs on his work bench and roll a cigarette before he could get
going.
He could fix no definite time that he observed Plas asleep except that "it
happened several different times." However, in answer to questions put by the
undersigned, Hershey testified :
That is he was laying there, I couldn't swear whether he was usually-he
wasn't on his feet, when the whistle blew.
On cross-examination Hershey testified that Plas slept on his bench during
the noon period "after the whistle blew." Hershey on cross-examination evaded
answ' ring whether or not he ever actually found Plas sleeping ; finally admitted
"I can only recall of once that I know of" that Plas was asleep ; that this
occurred "three months before he was let go; that he did not wake Plas at the
time because" I thought, well he is resting. [Emphasis supplied.]
Harry Hutton, who now has the job filled by Plas before his discharge, testi-
fied:
Well, I would see him eat his dinner a half hour before noon, and I would
see him lay on the bench and sleep, and wouldn't go to work until half an
hour after the whistle.
Hutton testified that prior to Plas' discharge, Hutton worked at a machine
which was "70 or 75 feet" from Plas' workbench; that he worked with his back
to Plas but that he observed Plas sleeping, eating early, and beginning late,
"pretty near every day." He testified :
That is right. You see, when you run a machine, you turn around to pick
up a piece to put on your machine , naturally you aren 't going to just look
down, you are going to look around.
Hutton further testified that another machine stood between his machine
and Plas' bench.
On cross-examination he varied his testimony and stated that still a third
machine "a lot closer" to Plas which commanded a clearer view stood between
the machine he operated and Plas' and further testified that during the first
2 months of his employment with the Respondent he operated this latter machine
"straight" and during the last month of Plas' employment , "pretty near all the
1 The undersigned finds support for his finding with respect to this incident in this
self-contradictory testimony.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 543
time." Hutton also testified that he was in the Respondent 's employ for only
3 months prior to Plas' discharge.
William Wilson , employed by the Respondent as an expediter , testified that
he saw Plas in the plant many times each day during the time their employment
coincided ; that he saw Plas asleep on his bench after the starting whistle blew
at 12: 30 p. in. ; that Plas would sleep until 1 or 1: 30 p. in.; and that during 1951
he saw Foreman Hershey wake Plas from his sleep during working time "two
or three, three or four times."
Hershey, as hereinbefore found, testified that he never woke Plas, that the one
time he was definite Plas was sleeping he did not disturb him because of the
thought "well he is resting."
James Conry, a machine operator, testified that "about twice," a "month or
two" before Plas was discharged he saw him sleeping on his bench after the
12: 30 starting whistle had blown ; that the observed this for 5 or 10 minutes
after which he "wouldn't pay any more attention. I would go on to work."
Conry testified he worked 80 feet from Plas, there was a milling machine be-
tween the machine he operated ( which was a grinder ), and Plas' bench, however,
Conry testified "I can easily look right over the top of a milling machine."
Conry testified :
Q. (By Mr. Ness.) You say for about 10 seconds you didn't have to look
at the grinder?
A. Sometimes it takes about 10 seconds while your piece is grinding, you
have to pull it slowly through the wheel, just like I could be grinding here
and I could be looking at you (indicating).
Q. And during those seconds you can look around?
A. I could take a glance and look around.
Q. And that's when you noticed Plas?
A. Yes.
In addition to the Respondent's contention that Plas was discharged for sleep-
ing, Shultz testified that other causes for the discharge were (a) that Plas
would make his work on a milling machine "last as long as he could" ; would not
work on other machines and would hold up work, (b) that helpers refused to
work with Plas, and (c) that on two occasions he refused to finish repair work
on a grinder which work had been started by another repairman.
With respect to the contention that Plas took too much time on milling ma-
chine work and refused to work on other machines : Shultz testified that the Re-
spondent, at the time, employed 2 machine repairmen, Plas and Chester Gard-
ner ; that the plant operated 50 milling machines ; that Plas alone serviced au
the milling machines as Gardner was incompetent to do so, not understanding
the machine ; that Plas also serviced other machines than milling machines ;
that "milling machines need it [repairs] most" ; that "we have one of them out
pretty near all the time . . . sometimes we will have a couple of them out" ;
that each milling machine needs repair work "every three months."
From Shultz' figures, which were obtained on cross-examination, it is quite
apparent that at least 17 milling machines were in need of repair monthly.
Ignoring his testimony that "one of them was out pretty near all the time" and
relying entirely on the mathematics of Foreman Shultz, the undersigned must
conclude that Plas' repair work on milling machines was practically a full-time
job and that inasmuch as he did some other work his time was fully occupied.
Shultz admitted that he did not understand the operation of a milling ma-
chine and did not know how much time was required to make the needed re-
pairs, however, he testified that although Plas did "quality" work "he was too
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
slow at it." Nothing was offered to substantiate this conclusion. Shultz fur-
ther testified that "two or three times" during Plas' last month of employment
he reprimanded him for slowness , and during the last year, 12 or 15 times.
Shultz clearly sought to create the impression that Plas was incompetent
because at one time factory repairmen had been called to service certain mill-
ing machines , however, Schultz admitted that the machines in question had been
bought as "Government Surplus" ; had "been laying around" out of use for sev-
eral years when bought ; and that the factory men were called in at the time
the machines were first installed.
Shultz testified :
Q. When you asked him to do repair work on a machine, did he ever
refuse?
A. No, he just didn't refuse, but he just didn't go and do it, see? Well,
when he got ready, he would go and start looking at it, see?
He also admitted that "Shorty knowed enough to do the job."
With respect to others refusing to work with Plas, Shultz testified that 6 or 8
months before Plas was discharged the other repairman, Chester Gardner, told
him that he did not want to work with Plas, and had made similar complaints at
other times ; that he detailed men from production to help Plas, but on cross-
examination could not name any helpers furnished Plas, testified that a man
repairing a milling machine does not need a helper, that Plas seldom required a
helper, and that Plas and Gardner were not required to work together. His
final testimony was that the only help given Plas was merely to help lift some-
thing, hold a piece of pipe in place, or to move a machine.
Shultz testified he made no decision to discharge Plas until the day he did
so and further testified :
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) Now why, Mr. Shultz, did you continue to keep
him?
A. Well, Shorty worked for us a long time, and I didn't want to lay him
off. I thought if I talked to him he would straighten out, but he didn't, he
got worse instead of better.
As has been found herein Plas denied Shultz' testimony with respect to the
actual occurrences detailed by Shultz and the fact that he was reprimanded by
Shultz because of his alleged derelictions.
On the entire record the undersigned credits Plas and does not credit Shultz.
Foreman Hershey testified with respect to Plas' loafing :
Well, a lot of times if you had a milling machine torn down, and you
knew he could probably get it done the same day and you asked him for it,
you would wait another day for it. I had a lot of trouble that way with
him. And I told him once out there to put a big grinder we had in the
back together. He said he didn't take it down, let him put it together.
He testified he saw Plas sit idle before a machine "for hours" ; that he would
ask Plas when the machine would be ready and Plas would reply "tomorrow or
next day."
On cross-examination with respect to Plas' statements that machines would
be ready later, which according to Hershey occurred "quite frequently" and on
"several different occasions," he testified :
Q. Did he state why?
A. He said he had to let it run in , break in, wanted to be sure everything
was all right.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 545
Q. Did you question it?
A. Well, I told him that we needed the machine.
Hershey testified that he spoke to Plas with respect to his slow work one-half
dozen or a dozen times during the year prior to his discharge.
Hershey was very evasive as to time and actual occurrences, volunteering
answers not responsive to questions put to him on cross-examination, for instance
on being asked to fix a "period of time" his testimony was :
Q. Over what period of time?
A. Well, like I said before, the longer he worked the worse he got.
Q. How long ago did that take place, was it a year, or a month?
A. Well, like I said before, I wasn't over that department, Mr. Schultz was
general foreman then.
Hershey further testified : "Well there was times when you would tell him to
do something, he would say 'What the hell,' he would say `Let Gardner do it."'
Hershey also testified :
Mr. Gardner himself has told me lots of times, "why, I just can't work with
him. If we are working on something where it is about ready to be put
together , or assembled , he will say , if you need something from the tool crib,
to go up and get it, and when you come back, he would have it together."
And guys couldn't learn anything from him in that way.
However, Hershey admitted that Plas had no regular helper assigned to him,
testified that "a couple of years" before Plas was discharged Gardner was as-
signed to work with hint but that this arrangement lasted "probably a week,
that's all."
Hershey testified that he signed Plas' discharge papers, and that he discharged
Plas "because he refused to do work that he was-that was assigned to him."
According to Hershey , Plas had been told to complete the repair of a grinder, and
refused to do so ; that he and Shultz then went to Plas' bench and discharged him.
The following amazing account of the immediate discharge then appears in
Hershey's testimony :
Q. You went out where?
A. In the Repair Department where his work bench was.
Q. What was he doing then?
A. He was starting to work on a big grinder that I told him to put
together just a while before and he didn't want to work on it, he finally did
get started on it.
Q. What did you say to him at that time?
A. Mr. Schultz done the talking when he discharged him.
Q. Did you hear what he said to him?
A. I did.
Q. What did he say to him?
A. He told him that he was going to leave him go because he wasn't
putting his work out, wasn't doing what he was told.
Hershey was contradictory, evasive, patently attempting to adhere to a
predetermined story, and sought to color his testimony by means of volunteered
statements.
Upon the entire record, the evidence considered as a whole, and his observation
of the witness the undersigned does not credit Hershey. At such points where
the testimony of Plas presents a different version or account of an event appear
Ing in both witnesses' testimony the undersigned credits Plas as against Hershey.
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harry Hutton, who now holds Plas' former job and whose testimony with
respect to Plas' sleeping on working time is hereinbefore set out, apparently
called to confirm the Respondent's contention as to Plas' slowness testified that
on one occasion his machine "broke down at 10 o'clock and it was 1 o'clock or
after before he got to fixing the machine." Hutton then testified that the job
setter called Plas, who looked at the machine and said "Well I won't get on it
until 1 o'clock, or after dinner" ; that at 1: 30 Plas came to repair the machine,
and finished at 2; that the difficulty was caused by a loose screw bearing and that
it generally required one-half hour to repair a loose screw bearing.
The undersigned fails to understand how the above testimony shows that Plas
was a slow worker.
Chester Gardner, previously referred to herein, testified that he told Foreman
Shultz he would rather work alone than work with Plas, but could not fix the
time he made this statement to the foreman. Gardner testified that when he
worked together with Plas "he didn't give me much cooperation" and that Plas
got in his way at such times so that Gardner "would have to walk around him."
He could not recall how many times he worked together with Plas and testified
"it may have been (once) and it may have been several times" ; that he did no
work on milling machines because he "didn't know anything about the hydraulic,"
but testified that he worked with Plas at repairing milling machines and that
at such times Plas did the work.
Gardner further testified that he saw Plas "sitting around" lots of times but
that :
Well, I couldn't exactly say when or where because it was several different
times and several different places.
He stubbornly evaded making any answer to questions as to dates , months, sea-
sons of the year or any other time fixing methods intended to make his testimony
definite, the closest approach to any definite time in Gardner's testimony was the
following :
Trial Examiner Plost: We want to know when it did happen, not when it
could happen. Do you have any way of fixing any time at all?
The Witness : There was times when it was four o'clock in the evening.
Trial Examiner Plost.: In what month?
The Witness : I coundn't swear to that. Most any month.
Trial Examiner Plost : All right.
Russell Paddock, a milling machine operator, testified:
From the time about January 1951 all through the following six or seven
months. I was located in my work near where his repair shop was, and
during the hours that I had to work on schedule, when most of us all had
to work, there was time, leisure time for him to sit down during working
hours. I saw that.
Paddock testified that Plas would sit on a box in his work space "doing nothing"
and that between January 1 and June he observed this 40 different times.
Paddock testified that his machine was 35 feet from Plas ; that he worked
with his back to Plas but could and did observe him because :
In working on the machine you have to pick up raw material and replace
finished material, and you have to turn around and pick it up and face back
to your machine. Yours eyes aren't always on the floor or on the material.
If you follow your eyes around the floor or around the room, you can see
what goes on.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 547
Trial Examiner Plost : As I understand it now, your testimony was
that when you were actually operating the machines your back was to
Plas or to his work shop?
The Witness : That's right.
Paddock testified that every 20 seconds during a 10-hour working day he
would turn around to get a piece of material from a container to feed into his
machine and at those times he made his observation of Plas sitting on the box.
He further testified that between his machine and Plas' work space there were
2 gear shapers each "six or seven feet" high and "four or five feet" wide; that he
did not have a direct view of Plas' space as he was "on a diagonal " from Plas with
the machines between them ; that there were generally machines to be repaired
standing in Plas' work space ; that a stationary gear shaper 30 feet from him
blocked his view of Plas' bench and the box on which he sat.
Paddock testified that Plas made "a slow takeoff" when beginning work:
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) What do you mean by a slow takeoff?
A. In a piecework department when the whistle blows, the men jump to
their work. They have to. And here is a case where he didn't have to. He,
perhaps, would sit up and become aware of the fact that the whistle had
blown, and finally start out in some direction to some work of some kind. It
was not a hurried affair like most of us had to do in the piecework department.
John Dorko, employed by the Respondent as a job setter in the milling machine
department , testified that "during the last two or three months" of Plas' employ-
ment, and also over a 5-year period observed by him, "there were times" that
he would go to Plas ' bench during the noon hour in order to report a breakdown
on a machine and ask Plas to repair it; that thereafter Plas would not arrive
to inspect the breakdown for "15, 20 minutes , a half hour" later because Plas
"took his time," in that :
Well, the whistle didn't bother him, the starting whistle.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, everybody gets up when the whistle blew for starting time.
Q. Did he?
A. When he got ready.
On cross-examination Dorko could not recall the number of times he called
Plas during noon hours ; testified "I don't know exactly the months or anything"
but immediately changed this to "eight or ten times" within the last 3 months of
Plas' employment. Dorko further testified on cross-examination that he did not
remain at Pias' bench after telling him of the breakdowns but immediately went
back to the broken machine, and also admitted that he had no knowledge of how
Plas spent the time between Dorko's notifications and Plas' arrival at the
breakdown.
Clearly Dorko was not in a position to note exactly in what manner Plas "took
his time" after Dorko called him, or "when he got ready to get up" after the
whistle blew.
Dorko further testified in response to questions leading in character but not
objected to by the General Counsel :
Q. And during the daytime, during the working hours, did you observe
whether or not he was working all the time, or was he not working all the
time?
A. Well, that was out of my department, out further. You pass by, and
you can see him sitting there. Whether he did work-whether he had any
work to do or not, he would take a rest whenever he felt like it.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the number of times he observed Plas allegedly loafing he could
fix no figure but finally testified "Oh, say 10."
On cross-examination Dorko was asked for how long Plas would sit "doing
nothing" at the times he was so observed by Dorko. To this Dorko replied
"I didn't keep no time on it," and further testified that the time involved might
have been, "Oh, 20 seconds, I would just walk by and come back again, and he
would be in the same place."
Dorko also testified :
Q. You said you observed him sitting around during working hours. How
many times did you observe that in 1951?
A. We keep no record of it.
Q. How many times in 1950?
A. There are no records.
Q. Or in 1949?
A. No sir.
Donald Cameron , employed as a milling machine operator, testified that from
"just a casual observance" of Plas by himself, "Well, he (Plas) seemed to have
a lot of time on his hands." This conclusion of the witness was promptly bol-
stered by the following testimony :
Q. (By Mr. Vandemark) What did you mean by saying he had a lot of
time on his hands?
A. Well, there was work to be done, I would see him sitting around a lot
of times when the work should have been done.
Q. And do you know that there was work that should have been done?
A. Yes.
Q. And how do you know that fact?
A. Because I know they had machines down.
Cameron further testified he observed Plas sitting on a box "in his department"
and "doing nothing," and that "there is generally a machine over there."
On cross-examination Cameron testified that over a period of 5 years (which he
changed to 11/2 years and then back to 5), he observed that Plas would "sit
around for an hour or two" doing nothing and that during this time he so ob-
served Plas "about 40 or 50 times."
Cameron testified that he made his observations of Plas while he (Cameron)
was working at his machine ; that this machine was 60 feet away from Plas'
working place ; that the machine was "diagonally away" from Plas ; that 2
machines stood between Plas and himself, the closest being 15 or 20 feet
away ; that these machines were 5 feet high ; that he saw Plas by looking over
the top of the machines ; that his work was such that he could look up from
his machine and observe Plas for "a minute at a time" between operations;
that Plas is about 5 feet and 5 inches tall and Cameron about 5 feet, 11 inches tall ;
and that Plas sat on a box in his work space back of a machine standing there
for repair.
Cameron testified that Plas was "not efficient" and was "not interested in
his work." He explained that Plas was not inefficient for that although he "knew
his work all right," that he could repair the machines, but that "he didn't."
Cameron testified :
Trial Examiner Plost : You are sure about that now?
The Witness : He didn't do them as quick as he could, because it has been
proved since then that the machines can be taken apart and put back
together and got in working condition a whole lot quicker than they ever
were before.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 549
Trial Examiner Plost : You mean that now it is being done by someone
who does it quicker than he did?
The Witness : Where before a machine would be down three or four-
days, now it's operating the same day.
James Conry, whose testimony with respect to Plas' alleged sleeping has
been recounted herein , testified that he observed "quite often" that Plas sat
on his bench and "couldn 't have been doing anything" for the "only movement
would be smoking a cigarette" ; that Plas would sit on the bench motionless "up
to a couple of hours" ; that he made his observations of Plas while working at
his machine , which was 80 feet from Plas and stood with a milling machine
between it and Plas directly in the line of vision but that he could "easily look
right over the top" of this machine.
Conry also testified that he saw Plas sit "for an hour" on a stool "by the
foreman's bench" ; that the foreman's bench was "50 feet to my right" ; that
during such times the foreman, whom he identified as Shultz, was not present.
Conry testified : "I didn 't make a habit of watching him, but I could see from
where I was working."
Credibility
The major portion of the Respondent's case was devoted to the presentation
of testimony intended to discredit Plas.
The 2 foremen under whom he worked sought to present the picture of an
employee who during 8 years of steady and very responsible employment loafed
on the job, slept during working hours, was slow and incompetent, growing
steadily "worse" until "the last" ; the final act in a long list of derelictions being
a direct refusal to repair a machine, this act being the immediate cause for his
discharge.
The testimony of the two foremen, who led off the testimony with respect to
the contentions of the Respondent as to Plas, was patently self-contradictory and
mutually contradictory. A great deal of their testimony broke down under cross-
examination. The undersigned has hereinbefore made specific findings as to
much of this testimony, and has credited the testimony of the employee (Plas)
where in conflict with that of the two foremen (Shultz and Hershey).
Both foremen testified that the direct cause of Plas' discharge was his refusal
to finish the repair of a machine.
According to Shultz, "he (Plas) went over, he didn't do nothing, he stayed
there."
Hershey, who testified without the auditory benefit of Shultz' testimony,
testified that Shultz and be both went to Plas' "shop" to discharge him, and
that at the time they made the discharge Plas was at work on the machine in
question.
As to the employees who were called, not to corroborate the testimony of Shultz
and Hershey, for although offering testimony which added vivid color to the
picture of Plas as painted by the Respondent, all of these employees testified they
did not disclose the incidents they observed, with reference to Plas' conduct, to
any of the Respondent's supervisors prior to Plas' discharge.
The Respondent claims no knowledge of Plas' alleged bad conduct by reason
of the alleged knowledge of such conduct by the employees called to testify
thereto. Such conduct therefore, could not have entered into Plas' discharge as
a cause thereof.
The testimony of employees Hutton, Gardner, Paddock, Dorko, Cameron,
Wilson, and Conry, referred to herein, is in the opinion of the undersigned so
self-contradictory and obviously so far-fetched as to be wholly incredible.
250983-vol. 102-53-36
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned is mindful that every witness in testifying to his own interest
will color his story to serve that interest, and that a witness who has no personal
interest in a proceeding will become a partisan of the party who calls him and
will also color his testimony in the interest of the cause he has so adopted.
Such action by witnesses is perhaps the natural and inevitable result of the sub-
conscious workings of the human intellect. Every trier-of-fact must make due
allowance for the phenomenon.
The fact that a witness will color his testimony in an attempt to put his best
foot forward in the interest of "his case," does not, to the undersigned, mean
that the witness is essentially untruthful, or that his testimony is not credible.
However, when the point is passed, at which the witness is merely putting the
best foot forward, when there is evident distortion of fact, and an attempt to
mislead becomes apparent, then, of course, not the subconscious but the conscious
intellect is at work and the testimony of the witness must be viewed in a different
light.
The undersigned is asked to credit on the "casual observations" of men, made
while they were at work at machines, from which they could only look up a few,
seconds at a time, and then looking "diagonally" over the tops of machines,
approximately as tall as they were, to a point some 800 feet away, see into a
space, in which machines were standing waiting repair, and there observe that
a man was seated on a box, motionless, or asleep, or observe him perhaps asleep
on a bench. The undersigned is asked to believe that an observer who was at
the time working with his back to the man on the box saw a fellow employee
sitting or sleeping for "hours" at a time, and observed also that a foreman
woke the sleeper "many" times (although the foreman admitted he never so
woke the alleged sleeper) ; that the sleeper would "take his time" in getting up,
although the witness so testifying admitted he was not present when the sleeper
ever so arose "to start off"; that an employee passing a point, within a few
seconds of time could tell that an employee was asleep for long periods of time.
The undersigned is asked to find that conclusions based on no factual founda-
tion other than "they were common knowledge" ° constitute probative evidence;
to believe that if an employee called to repair a machine does not arrive at the
machine immediately, regardless of any other work he may be doing, he is
"slow" and "loafing"; that the element of time, always vague, is not necessary
if the picture is made sharp and clear by testimony volunteered and not re-
sponsive ; and to accept as true all the above observations regarding Plas' glaring
faults because made by individuals who "did not make a habit" of observing him,
including such observation that Plas was able to sit on a stool by his foreman's
desk for hours at a time "doing nothing" apparently without the knowledge of
the foreman.
The undersigned does not believe that any reasonable man can accept such
testimony as true.
The undersigned is persuaded that something other than ordinary coloring
of testimony motivated the testimony of Foremen Shultz and Hershey and em-
ployees Hutton, Gardner, Paddock, Dorko, Cameron, Wilson, and Conry, and
therefore does not credit their testimony with respect to Plas.
The undersigned is of the opinion that the attorney for the Respondent was
greatly surprised by some of the answers given to his questions to the Re-
6 Hutton, Dorko, and Cameron testified that the conduct attributed to Plas was "common
knowledge." In fairness to the record the undersigned points out that Gardner also so
testified but on motion of the General Counsel the undersigned struck the question and
answer, however, as to the others, the question was asked by the Respondent, there was
no objection by the General Counsel.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 551
spondent's witnesses . At one point , where it became painfully apparent that
the witness ( who was not one of those named above ) was floundering in an
attempt to change his testimony he was told by the Respondent 's attorney,
rather sharply, that he was not expected to testify "if you are not sure." The
undersigned also is mindful that the Respondent in a carefully prepared brief
does not advert to much of the testimony the witnesses apparently designed to
further their "adopted" cause.
On all the testimony considered as a whole, and from his observation of the
witnesses while testifying , the undersigned finds that the record does not sup-
port the contention that Plas was either lazy or incompetent , that he wasted
time paid for by his employer , or that he slept during working hours.
The undersigned does not credit testimony contrary to the above finding and
therefore finds that Walter Plas was not discharged by the Respondent on
May 23, 1951 , for the reasons advanced by the Respondent and finds that such
reasons were a mere pretext on the part of the Respondent , and further finds
that Plas was discharged for reasons not disclosed by the Respondent.
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion
Edward Evanish testified that either in late December 1950 or early January
1951 , Foreman Hershey proposed that Evanish spy on the Union . Evanish
testified :
He called me aside , and he says , "Eddie, there seems to be quite a bit of
talk and movement going around here about union . I understand there is
quite a few of the fellows that are commenting about it , that the union is
trying to get in here.
You seem to have been here quite a good while, how about keeping your
eyes and ears open , and if you hear anything unusual, or hear any of these
fellows talking about the union , let me know, because I would just be in-
terested in it.
Because , after all , if we got a union here , the old man has been pretty good
to us, if we got a union here we would probably lose our Christmas bonus,
which you know darn well we sure need, and some of the other benefits that
have been given to us.
Q. What did you say, if anything?
A. I didn't give any reply.
Hershey denied that he had such a conversation with Evanish.
The undersigned , on all the evidence in the record considered as a whole
credits Evanish, whom he considers to be an honest and forthright witness.
C. The reason advanced by the General Counsel for the discriminatory discharges
The undersigned has found that the reasons advanced by the Respondent for
the discharge of Myers, Sweet, Highman , House, and Plas are not real but mere
pretexts.
It is therefore necessary to examine the reasons advanced by the General
Counsel.
In effect the General Counsel contends the above -named employees were dis-
charged because of (a) their activities on behalf of the Union and their member-
ship therein, (b) their other protected concerted activities, and (c) the
Respondent's belief that these employees were members of and active in behalf
of the Union.
As to the first contention. It is clear that none of the dischargees were mem-
bers of the Union or active in its behalf.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to the second contention. The record discloses that Highman not only
talked to others regarding pay rates but he actively attempted to organize a
group of employees in an effort to obtain a change in the Saturday working hours.
Such activity with respect to working conditions is protected by the Act.
Foreman Hartley testified that one of the reasons for Highman's discharge
was his attempt to organize a group of employees in order to protest Saturday
work.
The undersigned finds that insofar as Highman's above-related concerted and
protected activity regarding Saturday work entered into his discharge, High-
man's discharge was per se illegal . Other aspects of his discharge will be dis-
cussed later.
Likewise it is clear that House discussed wage rates and working conditions,
with fellow employees, and argued that better jobs were available in other plants.
Hayes testified that the above-found conduct by House was one of the causes
of his discharge.
The undersigned finds that when House discussed wages, working conditions,
and employment opportunities, he was engaged in concerted activity, protected
by the Act. Therefore insofar as this activity on his part entered into his dis-
charge as a cause therefor, the discharge was in violation of the Act.
As to the remaining reason for the discharges, as advanced by the General
Counsel, namely the Respondent's belief that the dischargees were members of
and active in behalf of the Union. The Respondent's hostility toward the union
organization of its employees is quite apparent from the record.
It has been found that on March 16 and April 12, 1951, the Respondent dis-
tributed certain letters to its employees, arguing against the Union. The state-
ments contained in the letters as herein referred to standing isolated and alone
contain no illegal threats or inducements to sway the employees' thinking regard-
ing self-organization , however, they cannot and should not be viewed in a vacuum.
Although the undersigned is constrained from viewing the letters together with
all the other conduct of the Respondent in a pattern of unfair labor practices,
he believes and finds that the letters do show antipathy toward the unionizing
efforts of its employees by the Respondent.
Plant Superintendent Swanson's statements to Organizer Carr disparaging
the Union and threatening to "deal" with the AFL if the CIO succeeded in or-
ganizing the Respondent's employees, although made in a barroom and not in an
official meeting, is such conduct which not only shows hostility but which has
been held to be coercive in that it would naturally be passed on to the employees
and serve as a means of illegal coercion.
Hartley admitted that he had sources of information among the employees
whereby he was kept informed as to various happenings. Certain employees, as
found herein testified they reported to Hartley that employees were engaging
in activities other than plain work.
It has been admitted that Hartley received information from these admitted
informers with respect to Myers, Highman, and House. These three have been
found to have spoken to the informing employees with respect to rates, wages,
working conditions, and the claims made by the Union in its handbills. They-
spoke in derogation of wage rates and working conditions. They expressed a
lack of hostility toward the claims made by the Union.
Sweet testified that she spoke favorably about unions to one of the employees
who admitted being a source of employee activity information for Hartley_
The undersigned believes it reasonable to infer that Sweet's prounion remarks
were carried to Hartley.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 553
It has been found that following the discharge of Myers and Sweet the Union
distributed a handbill in which it referred to the discharge of "Mr. M. & Mrs. S."
Howard Myers, a brother of Kenneth Myers and also an employee of the Re-
spondent at the time, testified credibly that he was on very friendly terms with
Hartley, that on the day the handbill above referred to was distributed, Hartley
after first calling Howard Myers' attention to the handbill remarked that he
"guessed he got the right two." Myers also testified credibly that during the
same conversation Hartley remarked that he knew Mrs. Sweet "had hired in"
to bring in the Union.
Hartley denied this conversation occurred. The undersigned credits Howard
Myers.
The undersigned has found that on the day of Highman's discharge Hartley
told him that "he couldn't afford to jeopardize the whole department because
of three or four fellows " The two men had been arguing Highman's alleged
union membership or sympathies.
Unions are often born because employees seek a change in wage rates and
working conditions. Unions are often combatted for the same reason.
The Respondent admits that Myers, Sweet, Highman, and House all com-
plained of the Respondent's policies, were not satisfied with the wage rates or
working conditions, that all of them "talked too much" about these matters to
other employees, and in some instances actively sought to bring about changes,
and moreover concedes that such action entered into the discharges as a cause
thereof.
The undersigned believes it logical to infer that because the 4 employees
openly made statements as reported to the Respondent, it formed the opinion
that the 4 were active in behalf of the Union, basing its belief on the character of
the statements made.
The Respondent was of course mistaken in its belief that Myers, Sweet, High-
man, and House were union adherents, active in its behalf. However, this is
of no moment if the Respondent acted on its mistaken belief. The undersigned
finds that the record amply supports the contention of the General Counsel that
the Respondent believed the dischargees above named to be union members and
further finds that their discharge was intended to discourage membership in and
activity on behalf of the Union in violation of the Act.
As to the discharge of Walter Plas. The Respondent brought its heaviest
guns to bear in an effort to lay a devastating barrage against Plas, but the long
cannonade produced little save noise.
The undersigned has found that Hershey and Shultz sought to induce Plas to
act as a spy and informant and that Plas refused.
In a plant admittedly seeking to control its employees by means of a pattern
of employee informants such a refusal marked Plas as unduly independent.
The record otherwise discloses Plas to be an independent individual. From
Plas' refusal to spy on the Union's meetings the undersigned infers that Foremen
Shultz and Hershey formed the opinion that he was a firm union adherent, which
in fact he was not.
Union membership could, in the mind of a supervisor, be synonymous with
independence in an employee.
The undersigned is convinced and finds that Plas was discharged by reason
of the Respondent's mistaken belief that he was a member of the Union and
for no other reason. The undersigned therefore finds such discharge was ille-
gally motivated and in violation of the Act.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Concluding Findings
The undersigned finds that by Plant Superintendent Swanson's statements to
Organizer Carr to the effect that the Union would not succeed but that if it did
the Respondent "could make a deal with the AFL," Foreman Hartley's state-
ment to Howard Myers after the " Mr. M. & Mrs. S." handbill was issued by the
Union to the effect that Hartley had discharged the "right two," both these
statements being calculated to reach the rank-and-file employees and therefore
be coercive as to their union organization efforts ; by Foreman Hershey's re-
quest to employee Edward Evanish that Evanish visit the Union's meetings and
report on them to him, and by Foremen Schulz' and Hershey's requests of em-
ployees Plas to spy on union meetings , both requests constituting attempted
espionage of the employee' s union affairs by the Respondent, the Respondent
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that by the discharge of Kenneth Myers,
Virginia Sweet, Allen E. Highman, Clayton L. House, and Walter Plas because
of its mistaken belief that they were members of the Union, and further by its
discharge of Allen E. Highman and Clayton L. House because they also dis-
cussed the Respondent's wage rates and working conditions with other em-
ployees and the discharge of Highman for the further reason that he attempted
to organize fellow employees in an effort to effect a change in the Respondent's
working conditions, the Respondent has discriminated in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organi-
zation, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. None of the above-named
employees has been reinstated or offered reinstatement by the Respondent.
Iv. THE EFFECT 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, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
in the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices , it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Kenneth Myers, Virginia Sweet , Allen E . Highman,
Clayton L. House, and Walter Plas and has refused to reinstate them , it will be
recommended that the Respondent offer to them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions ,30 without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of such discrimination by payment
to each of them of a sum of money equal to that each of them would have earned
as wages from the date of the discriminatory discharge to the date of the
10 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York ( San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch),
65 NLRB 827.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY 555
Respondent's offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings " during such
period."
In view of the Respondent 's discriminatory discharges made as found herein,
and its other acts of interference , restraint , and coercion , there is danger that
the commission of unfair labor practices generally is to he anticipated in the
future from the Respondent's unlawful conduct in the past. The undersigned
will therefore recommend that the Respondent not only cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices found, but also cease and desist from in any manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act "
The Respondent shall make available to the Board upon request payroll and
other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. The Ridge Tool Company, Elyria, Ohio, is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees with respect
to their supposed union and concerted activities, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of the employment of
Kenneth Myers, Virginia Sweet, Allen E. Highman, Clayton L. House, and
Walter Plas, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
u Crossett Lumber Company, & NLRB 440, 492-498.
" Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which the
employee would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his net earnings,
if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall
have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter . The quarterly periods
described herein shall begin with the first day of January , April, July, and October. It
is recommended further that Respondent make available to the Board upon request payroll
and other records, in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due.
(F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 280.)
12 May Department Stores, 326 U. S. 376
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Kenneth Myers Clayton L. House
Virginia Sweet Walter Plas
Allen E. Highman
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
THE RIDGE TOOL COMPANY,
Employer
By --------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT DIVISION, UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF
AMERICA AND rrs AMALGAMATED PLANT GUARD LOCAL No. 257,
U. P. G. W. A., PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1208. January 23,
1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Edwin Youngblood,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer' is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
' The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
102 NLRB No. 54.