The Seagrave Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 1093 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of THE SEAGRAVE CORPORATION and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-189-Decided January 21, 1938
Fire-Ftghting Equipment Manufactvrinq Industry-Blacklist-Diservenina-
tion: charges of not sustained, complaint dismissed.
Mr. George Rose, for the Board.
Mr. Ralph G. Martin and Mr. Robert T. E. Gibbs, of Columbus,
Ohio, for the respondent. a
Mr. Richard E. Reisinger, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Union.
Mr. Joseph B. Robison, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 9, 1937, United Automobile Workers of America, herein
called the Union, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the
Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) alleging that The Seagrave Cor-
poration," Columbus, Ohio, herein called the respondent, had engaged
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce.
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On May 24, 1937, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Ninth Region, duly issued and served upon the parties a
complaint and notice of hearing. The complaint alleged that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act in that it had discharged and refused to reinstate
two of its employees, Avery Dennis and Lawrence Lewis, for the
reason that they were members of the Union and had engaged in
concerted activities with other employees for the ,purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
On May 28, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint
in which it admitted the allegations concerning interstate commerce,
but denied the allegations concerning the alleged discriminatory dis-
1 The name of the respondent was given in the charge as "Seagraves Corporation."
1093
1094 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charges of Dennis and Lewis. The answer affirmatively alleged that
Dennis was discharged because he was incompetent and that Lewis
was laid off because the work for which he had been employed
had been completed.
Pursuant to the notice , a hearing was held at Columbus, Ohio, on
June 1, 1937 , before Benjamin J. Holly, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were rep-
resented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and. to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
No oral argument was made at the close of the hearing , although
opportunity to do so was granted.
On June 16, 1937, the Trial Examiner duly filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce , within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, by its discharge of
and refusal to reinstate Avery Dennis and Lawrence Lewis. The
Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices and, in addition , offer reinstatement
with back pay to Avery Dennis and Lawrence Lewis. Thereafter the
respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, taking excep-
tions to the rulings of the Trial Examiner during the course of the
hearing, as well as to the findings and conclusions of the Interme-
diate Report. The respondent filed with its exceptions a brief in
support thereof.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on July 8, 1937 , for the purpose of oral argument. The
respondent and the Union were represented by counsel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
objections to the introduction of evidence made during the course of
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and the brief filed in support
thereof. As indicated below, the exceptions to the conclusions and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner are sustained.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Seagrave Corporation is a Michigan corporation engaged in
the manufacture of motor fire-fighting apparatus in Columbus, Ohio.
Its sole manufacturing plant, at Columbus, Ohio, employs about 265
men. The trucks, which are produced at.the rate of about four a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1095
week, are built according to the specifications of the cities for which
they are ordered. The respondent services its trucks after shipment,
Sales offices are maintained from coast to coast, at such cities as San
Francisco and Los Angeles, California, Chicago, Illinois, New York
City, Boston , Massachusetts and Dallas , Texas. The respondent ad-
vertises widely, and its salesmen travel throughout the country. The
total volume of sales in 1936 amounted to $1,300,000 in value. The
allegations in the complaint that the respondent causes both its raw
materials and its products to move through states other than Ohio
were admitted by the respondent in its answer . Moreover , Mr. Spain,
the president of the respondent , stated at the hearing that the re-
spondent was engaged in interstate commerce , and testified fully
with regard to the facts constituting such commerce.
The respondent uses a wide variety of raw , materials which are
procured in all of the 48 states. Among the cities that have bought
its products are Chicago, Illinois, Boston, Massachusetts , Seattle,_
Washington, and New York City.
II. THE UNION
United' Automobile Workers of America is a labor organization,,
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
III. THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES
On October 19, 1936, a 'strike commenced at D. L. Auld Company,
herein called Auld, which is situated in the same town as the respond-
ent, Columbus, Ohio. At that time Lawrence Lewis and Avery Den-
nis were working for Auld and both were among those who responded
to the Union's strike call. Dennis was a member of' the Union, and
chairman of an organizing committee. Lewis joined the Union after
the strike was called., On November 12, Auld reopened its plant.
This reopening was accompanied by a' treat deal of disorder and
received considerable newspaper'publicity. Lewis was arrested for
disorderly conduct, and was fined after pleading guilty. His name-
appeared in 'this connection -in the newspaper reports 2 Despite a.
settlement between the Union and Auld on December 10, Lewis and
Dennis were never recalled to work.
Counsel for the 'respondent stated at the hearing that "everybody-
in Columbus knows" there was a strike atAuld, and that the respond- -
cnt knew at all times material that Lewis and Dennis were involved'-
therein. Both of the men are still members of the Union.
Lewis was hired on March 5, 1937, in the plating, polishing, and
buffing department of the respondent 's plant. The foreman cf this..
2 Boards Exhibit No. 9.
67573-33-vol iv-76
1096 NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S' BOARD
department, Charles Wright, has complete charge of hiring and dis-
charging the men under him. A few hours after Lewis started to
work on March 5, Wright, in consultation with Lewis, filled out his
employmenti card. Wright explained at the hearing that it is the
respondent's usual practice to wait a few hours before having a new
employee's card filled out, to see whether he can do the work assigned
to him. There is a blank on this card where the name of the man's
last employer should appear, as well as the names of other previous
employers. On-Lewis' card, the name of Auld is not given, despite
the fact that Wright knew that Lewis had been employed at Auld.
The evidence in explanation of this omission is conflicting. Lewis
testified that Wright said it would be best not to put the name of
Auld on the card because then it wouldn't "go through the office."
He told Lewis to mention some other place at which he had worked
and Lewis mentioned a concern in Connersville, Indiana. This con-
cern is in fact the only one which was noted by Wright on the employ-
ment card. Wright testified that he did not fill in the name of Auld
because he understood that Connersville was where Lewis had learned
his trade and that it was also the last place at which Lewis worked.
He insisted that Lewis must have given him to understand that Auld
was not his most recent employer, since the name did not appear on
the card.
On Lewis' recommendation, Dennis was hired on March 29, as a
buffer. At the time that Lewis recommended his friend, he told
Wright that Dennis had been involved in the Auld strike. Wright
filled out Dennis' employment card, and wrote down Auld as his last
place of employment.
After Dennis was hired on March 29, the situation in the plating,
polishing, and buffing department was as follows : Foreman Wright
and one other man did the plating; Lewis and four others named
Boles, Miller, Brantner, and Collins were polishing; Dennis and one
other man named Baker were buffing; and one employee named
Vance was available for both polishing and buffing.
On March 30, the day after he was hired, Dennis was discharged.
The testimony with regard to the surrounding circumstances is con-
flicting. Dennis testified that he had advance warning of his dis-
charge through the fact that during the afternoon Wright received
a message which caused him to become "a different man." At the
end of the day, Wright told Dennis he would have to lay him off,
although his work was satisfactory. Dennis said, "Well, you don't
have to explain" and left. Wright, on the other hand, testified that
he discharged Dennis because he could not do the work assigned to
him, and when he handed Dennis his check, he told him,this and
Dennis agreed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1097
Lewis was dismissed on March 31. The testimony as to the occur-
rences on this day is also conflicting. Lewis stated that Wright told
him he had to lay him off because there was a "list of names" in
the office and that his name was on it. According to Lewis, Wright
said his work was satisfactory and that if he left town for a while,
he could get his job back. He offered to give Lewis a recommenda-
tion, but when Lewis sent a friend for it a few days later, Wright
refused it. Lewis also stated that Wright told him that the Metal
Trades Association was connected with the reason for his dismissal.
Wright testified that when he told Lewis that he was being laid off,
Lewis at once said that it was because of certain people "up there" ;
and that he then advised him, if he thought that was so, to leave
town. He denied all knowledge of a "list" of any kind in the office,
and said that Lewis could still have his recommendation.
The respondent's explanation of Lewis' discharge is that he was
taken on because of a temporary emergency caused by an order
placed by New York City and that he was laid off because the work
on that order let up. This was later amplified by explaining that
if -Dennis had been able to do his work both he and Lewis would
have been kept on a month or six weeks longer than they were;
but that when Dennis left, the number of polishers and buffers was
out of proportion, and Lewis, who had been hired most recently, was
laid off. There was evidence for the respondent that work must
be buffed as soon as it is polished, and that the New York order was
a large one, for ten extra size "aerial trucks" which had been delayed
by labor trouble in another plant and which had consequently come
through to the respondent's plant in a rush, causing a need for extra
help in each department of the respondent in turn. The pressure in
Wright's department lessened a few weeks after the discharges and
no man has been taken on in that department since March 31.
Wright, Collins, Brantner, and Jorgensen, foreman of the blacksmith
shop, all testified to the pressure caused by the New York job. It
was denied only by Lewis.
One man, Charles Collins, had been taken on as a polisher after
March 5, when Lewis was hired. However, Collins had worked in
the respondent's blacksmith shop, from January 14 to March 8,
1937. There is some evidence to the contrary, that Collins was not
employed during January and February, but the respondent's records
on this point are quite clear.
The respondent's explanation of Dennis' discharge is that he may
have been considered a good buffer at Auld's or elsewhere, but he
could not handle the work at the respondent's plant. The evidence
-on this is extensive but not wholly convincing. Wright found it
necessary to stand over Dennis several times during the two days he
1098 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worked to show him how to handle the work. It is agreed that
Dennis dropped a few of the pieces he was handling . There is some
testimony by the respondent' s witnesses that Dennis ] et a few pieces
fly, thereby creating a substantial hazard. However , the respondent
conceded that any buffer starting a new job needs some instruction
as to the best way to handle new pieces , and that even experienced
buffers drop pieces occasionally . Brantner , who worked next to
Dennis, stated that the latter only dropped about six pieces during
the two days he was at the plant and that experienced buffers may
drop one to two pieces a day. All of the respondent 's witnesses said
also that Dennis was slow, but , except in response to clearly leading
questions , could not satisfactorily explain why they thought so.
Moreover the evidence indicates that it would be difficult for them
to judge Dennis' speed in view of the varying nature of the pieces
which were being buffed . Collins, testifying for the respondent,
said that Dennis' work had been considered satisfactory at Auld,
but that the work done for that company was lighter than that done
at the respondent 's plant. Dennis, however , testified that he had
handled large pieces at Auld; and both Lewis and Dennis stated that
they heard no complaints about the latter's work for the respondent.
The record in this case does not convince us that the discharge of
either Dennis or Lewis was discriminatory . There is credible evi-
dence that the dismissal of Lewis was a lay-off and there is no ques-
tion that in the event of a lay -off Lewis was the natural one to go.
While there was reason to believe that Dennis' alleged incompe-
tence was more imaginary than real , we see no reason in this fact alone
for finding that the Act was violated. If there were evidence in the
record that the respondent intended to interfere with its employees'
right of self-organization there would be reason to doubt that the
respondent believed, at the time Dennis was discharged, that he was
incompetent. In the absence of such evidence, however, there is
reason to believe that the respondent did in fact conclude that Dennis
could not perform his work satisfactorily, even though the record
indicates strongly that this conclusion was erroneous . Tending to
show an intention to discriminate is the testimony of Lewis and
Dennis as to Wright's statements to them indicating that they were
being laid off because of their activity in the Auld strike. This evi-
dence is directly contradicted by the testimony of Wright. What
additional evidence the record affords is not sufficient to persuade us
that the respondent's acts were motivated by any bias against the
Union. There is little or no evidence of any anti-union activity by
the respondent in its plant.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Lawrence Lewis and Avery Dennis
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1099
because of membership in a labor organization, and thereby dis-
couraged membership in a labor organization.
We find that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained,
or coerced its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent, the Seagrave Corporation,
occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. United Automobile Workers of America is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure- of employment of Lawrence Lewis or Avery Dennis because of
their membership in a labor organization and thereby discouraged
ilnembership in a labor organization, within the meaning of Section
'8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against The Seagrave Corporation be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.