General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON DIVISION, A
CORPORATION ate' INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIR-
CRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
#933, AFFILIATED WITH CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-4597.-Decided August 7,1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 24 , 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions.
The Union has not excepted to the findings and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner. The Board has considered the rulings made by
the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. ,
Upon request of the respondent and pursuant to notice, a hearing
was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 20, 1943, for
the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief filed by the respondent, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the following exceptions :
1. The Trial Examiner has found that certain remarks and conduct
of Superintendent Stewart, General Foreman Van Skyke, and Fore-
men Vandeveer, Hawkins, Stottlemyer, and Moffet ' constituted inter-
ference with the rights of the respondent's employees, within the mean-
ing of the Act. In some instances these remarks included warnings
against solicitation of union membership on company time, such solici-
tation being contrary to a company rule.' As we have previously held,
'Although the Company's printed rules forbade "soliciting ... or the distribution of
literature for any cause, and by any person . . . in the factory or on company property,"
51 N. L. R. B., No. 178.
1116
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON DIVISION 1117
it is normally not improper for an employer to prohibit his employees
from engaging in union solicitation during working time 2 Warnings
reasonably necessary to enforce such rules are not illegal. We there-
fore reverse the Trial Examiner's finding of interference insofar as it
is based on such warnings. With this exception, we agree with the
Trial Examiner and find that the respondent, by the anti-union state-
ments and conduct of the above-named supervisory employees, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner, in finding that Monroe was discharged
because of his organizational activities on behalf of the Union, relied
in part on the testimony of Foreman Flake. The respondent contends
that Flake should be regarded as an untrustworthy witness because he
was admittedly discharged by the respondent at approximately the
time of Monroe 's discharge. The Trial Examiner believed, however,
from his observation of Flake on the witness stand; that he was not
prejudiced against the respondent; and neither the present record nor
the record in the prior representation proceeding 8 contains any evi-
dence reflecting on his credibility.4 In this state of the record, there-
fore, we do not feel that the possibility of resentment by Flake against
the respondent because of his discharge would warrant our reversing
the Trial Examiner and disbelieving Flake's testimony. We there-
fore conclude, on the basis of this testimony and on the record as a
whole, that the respondent discharged Monroe because of his union
activities. We further find that, by thus discharging Monroe, the
respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner has recommended, in part, that the complaint
be dismissed without prejudice insofar as it alleges that the respondent,
on or about October 25, 1941, discriminatorily discharged Harland J.
Davis. Davis did not appear at the hearing; no reason was offered
for his failure to appear, except the statement of counsel for the Board
that neither the Board's Regional Office nor the Union had been able
to locate him ; and no evidence was introduced regarding his case.
Under the circumstances, and in view of the length of time that has
It is clear from the record that the rule was generally understood , by the respondent and
the employees , as applying only to such solicitation on company- time.
2 Matter of Peyton Packing Company , 49 N L . R. B 828
Matter of General Motors Corporation, Allison Division , Case No. R-3739 , 40 N. L R. B.
1387; 41 N. L R. B. 197; 46 N. L. R. B. 574 ; 47 N. L. R. B. 515.
A The record in the present case contains no showing as to the reason for Flake's dis-
charge At the oral argument before the Board, counsel for the respondent stated that
the reason had been given in the prior representation proceeding . We have therefore
searched the record In that proceeding , but have found no evidence bearing on this point.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
elapsed since Davis' discharge and the fact that he has failed to keep
his representative advised of his whereabouts, we shall dismiss the
complaint with prejudice insofar as it relates to Davis' discharge.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, General Motors Corpora-
tion, Allison Division, Speedway City, Indiana, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local #933, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ-
ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Henry Monroe immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position,- without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights or privileges;
(b) Make whole Henry Monroe for any loss of pay he has suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrim-
ination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during such period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant at Speed-
way City, Indiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of
this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the
respondent's employees are free to become and remain members of
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON, DIVISION 1119
Implement Workers of America, Local #933, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership in or activ-
ities on behalf of that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed with prejudice insofar as it alleges that the respondent dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Harland
J. Davis.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS,took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board. °
Mr. Henry M. Hogan, Mr. Harry S Benjamin, Jr., and Mr. William J. 0ldani
of Detroit, Michigan, for the respondent. -
Mr. Andrew Jacobs and Mr. John Bartee, of Indianapolis, Indiana, for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a fourth amended charge duly filed on March 3, 1943, by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local #933, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by its Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana),'
issued its complaint dated March 4, 1943, against General Motors Corporation,
Allison Division, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) on or about October 25, 1941, and June 22, 1942, re-
spectively, discharged Harland J. Davis and Henry Monroe, and thereafter
refused to reinstate said employees, because they joined or assisted the Union
and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection: and (2), by these acts and from on or about
September 1, 1941, to March 4; 1943, through certain supervisory employees, by
vilifying, disparaging and expressing disapproval of the Union ; by interrogating
its employees concerning their union of&liations ; by persuading, threatening and
warning its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or re-
maining members of the Union ; and by keeping under surveillance activities of
the Union or the concerted activities of its employees, has interfered with,
1 Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Harold J. Davis This designation was
corrected by motion to conform at the hearing.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restrained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On March 16, 1943, the respondent filed a joint answer to the complaint and
demand for bill of particulars. In substance, this document admitted the
allegations of the complaint as to the nature of the respondent's business, but
denied that it had committed or was committing any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Indianapolis, Indiana, from March
18 to March 23, 1943, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the
Union were represented by counsel. All of the parties participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent by motion renewed its
demand for a bill of particulars. The motion was granted in part over objec-
tion and was denied in part. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for
the Board and the Union moved to dismiss the complaint without prejudice
insofar as it relates to Harland J. Davis, and the respondent moved that such
allegation be dismissed with prejudice. Rulings on these motions were re-
served. Since Davis was not present at the hearing and no evidence was
offered respecting the alleged discrimination against him, the undersigned
grants the motion made, by the Board and the Union and denies the re-
spondent's motion. At the close of. the Board's case, the respondent's counsel
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof and renewed the motion at
the close of the whole case. Ruling on this motion was also reserved, and the
motion is hereby denied. At the close of the Board's case, its counsel moved
to conform the pleadings to the proof as to names and dates and the motion
was renewed at the close of the whole case. The motion was granted without
objection.
Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally
before the undersigned. Pursuant to permission granted at the hearing, the
respondent and the Union filed briefs, which have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Delaware corporation having its principal office and place
of business at New York, New York and an office and plant at Speedway City,
in the County of Marion and State of Indiana. This matter involves only the
plant of the respondent located at Speedway City.
At this plant the respondent is and has been engaged continuously in the
manufacture, assembly, production, sale and distribution of bearings, aircraft
engines, aircraft engine parts and related products. In the course and conduct
of its business operations the respondent causes and for a long period of time
continuously has caused a substantial amount of materials to be purchased, deliv-
ered and transported in interstate commerce from and through the States of the
United States other than the State of Indiana to its Speedway plant. The annual
value of said materials is in excess of $500,000 and constitutes more than 50
percent of the total amount of the materials used by the respondent at the plant.
The respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations causes,
and for a long period of time continuously has caused, a substantial amount of
the products manufactured, assembled, produced, sold and distributed by it to
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON DIVISION 1121
be supplied, delivered and transported in interstate commerce to and through
the States of the United States other than the State of Indiana from its
Speedway plant. The annual value of said products so sold, transported and
distributed is in excess of $1,000,000 and constitutes approximately 85 percent
of the total amount of the products produced at this plant.
At the hearing the respondent admitted that the Speedway plant is engaged
exclusively in war production and that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
H. THE TABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Local #933, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
For the most part this case is concerned with the period, of time from
September, 1941 through June of 1942. The record discloses that during this
period of time both the Union and United Aircraft Engine Workers, an inde-
pendent labor organization hereinafter referred to as the "Independent," were
engaged in organizing the employees at the Speedway plant. These organiza-
tional efforts on the part of the Union were especially intensive for several
months preceding an election conducted by the Board on June 2, 1942. The
record is silent as to the outcome of the election, but it does appear that the
Independent was the bargaining agency at the plant prior to the election.
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion
J. E. Poe was employed by the respondent from about September 1941 until
about July 1942 . At about the early part of May, 1942, Poe asked Port B.
Stewart, a divisional superintendent , for a transfer to the night shift, which
worked from 4 p. m. to 12 midnight . One of Poe's fellow employees , Lawrence
Cassler, was transferred to this shift although he did not apply for the transfer
until after the request had been made by Poe . This took place on or about
May 15, 1942. Immediately upon learning of Cassler 's transfer , Poe spoke to
John P. Vandeveer , who was Poe's foreman , and asked him why he ( Poe) had
not been transferred to the night shift. Vandeveer said , "Well, if you want to
know the truth about it, you are too active in the C. I. O. . . . It is your own
fault . You stuck your neck out and that is the reason we didn't transfer you."
Upon being asked by Poe if his production had anything to do with it, Vande-
veer replied , "No, your production is all right .. . You are too active in the
C. I. 0., and that is your own fault." 2 Cassler was present during this con-
versation . Poe belonged to the Union , was one of its committeemen, wore a
union button on his work clothes at the plant , and was active during lunch
periods in soliciting members for the Union . Poe's request for a change to the
8 The above facts and conversation were testified to by Poe. Vandeveer denied making
the statements attributed to him by Poe. He also testified that he did not remember
whether Poe or Cassler first requested a change in shifts. Superintendent Stewart testified
that Cassler first made a request for change in shifts The undersigned believes Poe to be
the most credible witness as to the conversation with Vandeveer and as to the facts con-
cerning the request for change in shifts. As will be hereafter pointed out, Vandeveer
admitted certain anti-union actions in connection with other employees. Cassler was not
called as a witness.
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
night shift was not granted. The undersigned finds that Vandeveer's remarks
to Poe constituted interference.
Also in May 1942, Superintendent Stewart called Poe into his office. Poe
testified :
He called me into the office and he said, ""Poe, I am disappointed in you."
And, I said, "Well, what is the reason?" He said, -Now, you have been
here quite awhile and your work is all right and you do good work, but,"
he said, "you are getting too active in the C. I 0," and I said, "Well,
Mr. Stewart, after all we are entitled to believe the way we want to be-
lieve." He said, "Well, you are too active in it and you are going to
have to shut some of your activity off We wont allow that. We won't
allow that with you or anybody else in ever soliciting for members of
the union." I said, "Mr. Stewart, I don't solicit members for the union
during working hours " He said. "No, but I hear about it."
On cross-examination, concerning this conversation, Poe testified that Stewart
accused him of soliciting on company time.'
The undersigned finds that the above was, in substance, the conversation
between Poe and Stewart. The undersigned believes and finds that Stewart
stressed Poe's union activity rather than solicitation on company time and,
therefore, that Stewart' s remarks constituted interference.
Employee Herbert 'Adams became a member of the Union in January 1942.
Several months prior to the election on June 2, 1942, Adams had a conversa-
tion with Foreman Maurice Hawkins. No other employee was present during
the conversation. Concerning this conversation, Adams testified, and the under-
signed finds , as follows :
Well, I was at work and Hawkins called me over to his bench and
he said, "Adams, I understand you are pretty active in the C I 0," and
I said, "Yes, I am " He says, "Well, supervision in the office knows about
this," and, he says, "I have been warned to tell you to stop being so active
in soliciting members on company time." I told him that I had not at
any time ever solicited any members on company time. I did most of my
soliciting in the bowling alley . . . Then he said, "Well," he said, "I under-
stand you have some literature in your desk over there in your drawers "
He said, "They are going to go through those drawers," and I said, I
am safe on that because I took all the literature out of there " He askedti
me why I liked the C I. 0., and I told him that the main reason was I didn't
like the company union .. .
o e • * * * o
I explained that to Hawkins and he said, "Well, I don't see anything
to get mad about that and join the C. I. 0. and all that just because
you got less money." He said, "You will make more money in the end"
He said, "If you keep on at the rate you are going and everything,"
he said, "and the office knows about it, when a chance fora promotion comes
up, they will look down the list and say, here, Adams, is a C. I. 0. member
and too active against the company and not for them and they will not
give him a promotion."
I said, "I don't think they will do anything like that." He said, "Yes,
they will." I said , "I don't think so." And he brought up the question
3 Stewart admitted that he had a conversation with Poe concerning solicitation.
Stewart testified that S'andeveer informed him of solicitation by Poe during working
,hours and that he therefore inquired of Poe whether be had done so Stewart denied all
the other statements attriputed to him by Poe . The undersigned believes that Poe is the
mot e credible ww fitness as to this conversation.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON, DIVISION 1123
that labor unions-he didn't like them so well because he thought he
should be able to fire men whenever he wanted to . . .4
The undersigned finds that the above remarks of Hawkins to Adams constitute
interference.
Employee John Woolley openly wore his union button at the plant. At some
time in April or May 1042, while other unidentified employees were within hearing
distance, Woolley's foreman, J P. Vandeveer, approached Woolley and asked him
^o take off the button. Concerning this incident Woolley testified, and the under-
signed finds , as follows :
... and he came up to me and asked me to take it off, telling me that it would
hinder me in the long run, and that if I would take off my CIO button and
go to work for the company union, that I would, after the war, have I job
and probably a darn good job
I told Vandeveer that I would not take off my C. I 0. button, and I felt that
my chances with the C. I. 0 were just as good as my chances would be with
the company . . .
Woolley further testified, and the undersigned finds, that on or about May 16,
while 6 or 8 other employees were in the near vicinity, Vandeveer approached him
and said, "Well, Woolley, I just found out that the top rate for the C. I. 0 is $1.05
over at Chevrolet Commercial Body"; that he (Woolley) denied the information
was true; that Vandeveer then said, "That is true, because I have just been up to
the front and I know I am right on that" ; and according to Woolley, that ". . . the
other employees, some of them, turned red and some of them laughed ..." In
addition to the above incident when Vandeveer told Woolley to take off his union
button, Woolley testified that at other times Vandeveer ". . . would walk up and
down the aisle and look at my C. I 0. button, shake his head, maybe use a little
profanity and walk on ... He would say, `God damn' and walk on."'
4 Hawkins was called as a witness by the respondent and testified that Adams never did
work under his supervision. On direct examination Hawkins did not specifically deny any
of these statements attributed to him by Adams. On cross -examination Hawkins admitted
that he had had a conversation-with Adams concerning the Union at some time before the
election in June 1942 Concerning this conversation Hawkins testified , "Well, I told him
that I heard that he had been soliciting on company time . . . And that that was against
the rules of the company , and the company could take action against him, disciplinary
action ; and that is about as far as the subject of the speech went, the talk." Adams did
not testify that Hawkins was his foreman or supervisor . Hawkins did not directly deny
the quoted statements attributed to him by Adams
6 Vandeveei denied the above statements attributed to him by Woolley ; and that he had
asked Woolley to remove his union button He testified that he did remember a conversa-
tion concerning $ 1 05 but that he didn ' t remember anything else concerning the conversa-
tion He also testified that he and Woolley were friendly. He further denied that he had
walked up and down the aisle looking at Woolley's union button or that he had said "God
damn " The undersigned believes that Woolley is the more credible witness . On cross-
examination Vandeveer , in effect , admitted that he was hostile toward the C I 0 and indi-
rectly contradicted his testimony on direct examination to the effect that he had not asked
Woolley to remove his union button . This is shown by the following testimony :
By Mr JACOBS:
Q You had the same feeling towards the C. I 0. at the time you took the buttons off
of Beeman and Woolley as you have at this time , did you not?
'A Yes
Q And they were C. I 0 buttons you took off?
Triel Examiner EAniE. He so testified.
Mr. BENJAMiix The same ones.
Mr. JACOBS. Right.
The WITNESS. Yes, Sir.
Moieover , Vandeveer was involved in further incidents and conversations with other em-
ployees which have been and will be hereinafter discussed.
540612-44-vol 51-72
1124 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
d
The undersigned finds that the above acts and statements of Vandeveer in
connection with Woolley constitute interference.
Employee T. L. Bishop was a member of the Union and solicited in behalf of the
Union during the month of January 1942. At some time in that month Stottlemyer
and Moffett, foremen, came to Bishop's machine and, while some other unidentified
employees were in the near vicinity, engaged Bishop in conversation. Stottlemyer
asked Bishop if he had-ever read "the little black book" (referring to a booklet
published by the respondent and containing plant rules) and then required
Bishop to read the following rule of the respondent :
20 Soliciting, or the selling of any merchandise, or the distribution of
literature for any cause, and by any person, without permission of the
Management, is forbidden in the factory or on company property.
They then asked Bishop if •he had been doing any soliciting during working hours
and Bishop replied that the only soliciting done by him was "in the lunch room
at midnight." They then told him that employee Art Metzler had reported that
Bishop had given him a "C. I. O. application" and circulated other such applica-
tion cards in the plant lunch room. Moffett then said, "You are a good man and
we hate to lose you . . . If'we catch you doing any union activities around
here . . . we will have to let you go . . . You are a good man and we don't
want to do that." Stottlemyer then said, "Anyway if the C. I. O. happened to
get in here, you won't have a job, ... They'd have men down here from
Detroit to take your place.""
Although calling the attention of employees to company rules by supervisors
would not, per se, constitute interference, nevertheless in the instance above re-
lated, the undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the acts and statements
of Stottlemyer and Moffett did constitute interference, in that some of the state-
ments standing alone were derogatory to the Union, and in that the procedure
used 'to call Bishop's attention to the rule was out of the ordinary and unneces-
sarilly attracted the attention of other employees.
Employee John Durham joined the Union and openly wore a union button dur-
ing working hours. Durham testified , and the undersigned finds, that about
February 1942 he had the following conversation with Albert Van Skyke, a
general foreman, while Employee Macy was present :
Well , he come around and he looked at me, and seen that I had the com-
mitteeman button on that I have got on now. He looked at me and he
said-"first he started in with a little one and then you get a great big one.
e Both Moffett and Stottlemyer admitted having the conversation with Bishop in January
1942, and that they had required Bishop to read the company rule prohibiting solicitation.
Moffett testified that he and Stottlemyer approached Bishop while he was at his machine
and that he ( Moffett ) began the conversation by asking Bishop if he had " . solicited
union memberships during the company working hours." Moffett further testified that
Stottlemyer then asked Bishop to read the rule, which Bishop did ; that Stottlemyer then
stated to Bishop that ". . . we could not tolerate in any way union solicitation in our
department," ; and that this was ". . . just about the extent of the conversation." Moffett
denied all other statements attributed to. him by Bishop, and that any other employees had
stopped by Bishop's machine during the conversation . Stottlemyer in his testimony con-
firmed Moffett's version of the conversation. He testified that he asked Bishop ". . . to
read Rule 20 of the practices of General Motors ;" that he asked Bishop if he understood
the rule ; and that he told him ". . . I wouldn't tolerate any soliciting of any sort in
the department . . .11 Stottlemyer also denied the statements attributed to Moffett and
to him by Bishop, and that any employees were nearby during the conversation . The under-
signed is of the opinion that Bishop is the most credible witness as to this conversation.
The procedure followed , namely, two foremen approaching an employee while at his
machine and asking ' him to read a company rule, appears to have been out of the ordinary
and it is reasonable to assume that such procedure would attract the attention of other
employees.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON, DIVISION 1125
Can you get any bigger ones?" I said, "Well, I don't know as that matters,
this is big enough to suit me." He said, "Well," he says, "You know I be-
longed to that organization once," and he says, "I can't see that it has ever
done me any good." Well, I says, "I think it does do good." He says, "That
is a matter of opinion between you and me," but I says, "I think it is all
right."
He kept standing around there snickering around and laughing and finally
he said, "Well, you know they haven't any chance here." I said, "Maybe
they will some day ; as long as the ship floats I don't give up." He said,
"Well, you will get a whole lot further," he says, "if you pull them buttons off
and throw them in the trash can and forget about it." I said, "Well, It
is my privilege to wear them, isn't it?" He said, "Oh, yes, if you want to."
I says, "Well, I still think I will continue to wear them."
He said, "Well," he says, "you're on your way out," and he says, "And don't
know it." I said, "Well, I reckon I will know it when I do go out." He said,
"Maybe," and turned around and walked on off.
During the above conversation Van Skyke made some remarks to, and laughed
with, a nearby employee. Durham was still employed by the respondent at
the time of the hearing!
The undersigned finds that the above acts and statements of Van Skyke con-
stitute interference. '
Employee William Beeman was a member of the Union and wore a union button.
Vandeveer was Beeman's foreman, and on several occasions he stopped in front
of Beeman and looked at- his Union button. Beeman testified, and the under-
signed finds, that during these occasions Vandeveer ". . . looked at the button,
and sneered and kind of gave a little laugh and sort of shaked his head ..."
These episodes took place about April and May, 1942. On one occasion in the
cafeteria during the lunch period, Vandeveer removed Beeman's union button and
put it in his pocket. Beeman did not protest the removal of the button. This
was done in front of other employees. Before returning to work Vandeveer
returned the button to Beeman, but did not say anything to him."
The undersigned believes that the above described actions of Vandeveer con-
stituted interference, and so finds.
Employee George White testified that in May 1942, while he was wearing a
union committeeman button, he had a conversation with Robert Gantz, whom he
(White) classified as an "Assistant foreman." It is White's uncontradicted testi-
mony that Gantz handed him a booklet entitled "Join the C. I. O. and Help Build
a Soviet America". This action by, and certain statements of Gantz, as testified
to by White would clearly have constituted interference if Robert Gantz had
7 Van Skyke was called as a witness by the respondent and he denied the statements
attributed to him by Durham. He further denied that he had ever belonged to any union.
He did testify, however, that he had seen Durham wearing a union button, that he had
seen Durham soliciting during working hours, and that he had told Durham ".. . to stay
on the job during working hours." The undersigned believes that Durham is the more
credible witness with respect to this conversation, in view of the general hostility towards
the Union on the part of the supervisory employees of the respondent as heretofore related
and found, and as will be hereinafter pointed out.
8 Vandeveer admitted removing Beeman's button but claimed that such removal and the
removal by him of the union buttons of another employee was ". . . merely a joking
matter, as far as I was concerned." Beeman testified that he and Vandeveer were "pretty
personal" (friends) at some undisclosed time, but that he (Beeman) did not consider the
removal of his button ". . . much of a joke. We had bad no joking." In view of Vande-
veer's actions and conversation with other employees, the undersigned does not believe
that he intended the removal of Beeman's button as a joke.
1126 DE'CISION 'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been, in fact , a supervisory employee. However, the respondent offered testi-
mony showing that Robert Gantz was a "crew leader " and was not a supervisory
employee .' Accordingly , the undersigned finds that the above episode between
Robert Gantz and White did not constitute interference.
C. The discharge of Henry Monroe
Monroe was first employed by the respondent in September , 1936, and was
discharged on June 23 , 1942. About the latter part of 1939 he joined the Inde-
pendent, and was elected to the board of directors of this organization in the
first part of 1941. On or about September 5, 1941, he was transferred to or
started work in Department 494 of Plant No. 4." Monroe joined the Union on
October 13, 1941, and was elected "top committeeman."
Monroe openly and continuously wore at the plant a union button inscribed
"Committeeman , UAW, CIO". It was Monroe ' s duty to appoint alternate com-
mitteemen and shop stewards and obtain new members for the Union . His juris-
diction as top committeeman extended over all 3 shifts of the "bearing division"
in Plant No 4 Union meetings were held once a week and Monroe attended all
meetings . Prior to his discharge , Monroe solicited members for the Union, and
distributed union literature to employees outside the "south gate" of the plant
in May 1942. He was the observer for the Union at the election conducted by
the Board on June 2, 1942.
Monroe was a "group leader " and as such be was responsible for the work of
and had a certain degree of supervision over about 30 employees . Group leaders,
however, were not considered to be supervisory employees and were eligible to
vote in the election conducted by the Board. Monroe worked on the 12 midnight
to 8 a. in. shift . William H. Flake was his foreman and Ralph W. Richardson
was the divisional superintendent over this shift. Harry E. Wheeler was the
divisional superintendent on the 8 a. in. to 4 p. in. shift, and Fred George Pitzer
was the divisional superintendent on the 4 pm. to midnight shift. Wheeler had
supervision to a certain extent over Richardson and Pitzer in the sense that it
was their duty to report to him.
Monroe testified and the undersigned finds that on or about November 9, 1941,
Richardson approached him while he was at work and when no other employees
were present and made the following statement :
"Red, I hear you are trying to get the C. I. 0. in here . The company," he
said, "doesn't want the C. I. 0. in here , and neither do I. If you keep on
monkeying with the C . I. 0., you are going to lose your job."
Monroe also testified and the undersigned finds that on or about November
15, 1941, he had the following conversation with Richardson in Department 494
when no other employees were immediately present :
' He came to me and he said , "Monroe, fifteen men came to me and told me
that you are still trying to get the C. I . 0. in here. I warned you once before,
9 Bryant S . Gantz , a production foreman and Robert Gantz' brother , was called as 'a
witness by the respondent , and testified that Robert Gantz was a crew leader, that he was
not a supervisor , and that he was eligible to vote in the election held on June 2, 1942.
This evidence was not rebutted by the Board and stands uncontradicted other than White's
description of Robert Gantz as an assistant foreman The evidence in the case shows that
crew leaders or group leaders were not supervisory employees to the extent that they were
repiesentatives of management.
19 It appears from the record that Monroe was discharged by the respondent in 1941 but
was reinstated after about 2 weeks . The record is silent as to the cause of his discharge.
It further appears that he was discharged while working in Plant No 1 and was reinstated
at Plant No 4.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON DIVISION 1127
and I am not warning you again. You are going to lose your job if you
keep working with the C. I. 0."
He said, "You lost your job once with General Motors, and if you lose it
again you will never get it back any more."
I said, "Mr. Richardson, I am top committeeman of the C. I. 0.," and I
was wearing my button at the time, and I told him, "I will keep on wearing
it," but I said, "The company got me fired here before,. and I am for the
C. I. 0." 11
At sometime in May 1942 when no other employee was present Richardson
approached Monroe during working hours and made the following comments
about Monroe's union button : -
"Monroe, . .. it doesn't look so good, you wearing that button in here,
because you are group leader over the finished benches.
It looks like the men who are afraid to join the union, you would
ride them and give them tough jobs, and it doesn't look like a man who is
making the money you are would want to be in the C. I. 0. . . . You are
making plenty." '2
For about a year prior to Monroe's discharge he was paid at the rate of $1.05
per hour. The top rate paid by the respondent to group leaders in Monroe's
classification was $1.10 per hour. Monroe asked Flake, his foreman, on several
occasions that he be raised to the top rate. Flake recommended to Richardson,
who was Flake's immediate superior, that Monroe be given the raise. Flake
submitted numerous bi-monthly recommendations for raises on forms provided
for the purpose by the respondent which required the signatures of the foreman,
the divisional superintendent and the general superintendent. Flake first recom-
mended that Monroe receive the top rate in the first part of November 1941. He
made recommendations for increases for 10 or 15 other employees at the same
time and when he handed the recommendation forms to Richardson for his
signature, Richardson signed the others but refused to sign the recommendation
for Monroe. Flake testified and the undersigned finds that Richardson told him
that he would not give Monroe a raise because of his activities in behalf of the
Union." Flake again recommended an increase for Monroe about January of
1942. With respect to this recommendation Flake testified and the undersigned
finds that he saw the recommendation form in Richardson's office, that it had
been signed by Richardson and also had on it the initials of Pickett, the Assistant
"Richardson denied that he made the above statements attributed to him by Monroe
and testified , "I don ' t recall any discussion."
12 Monroe testified to the above statement and the undersigned credits his testimony in
this respect. Richardson denied the above statement attribued to him by Monroe.
11 The above facts concerning a raise were testified to by Flake and the undersigned
credits his testimony in this respect. Richardson admitted that Flake submitted several
recommendations for increases for Monroe and that lie (Richardson) did not approve
them. He denied the above statements attributed to him by Flake, however, testifying
that he did not approve raises for Monroe for the reason that Monroe ". . . was not
tending to his job " The undersigned believes that Flake is the more credible witness in
this connection. Richardson testified that from about January 1942, until he was dis-
charged Monroe was away from Ins -fob about 30% of his daily working hours. The under-
signed is unable to believe that this condition would be permitted to exist over so long a
period of time without some penalty being involved The evidence shows that Monroe did
not receive any lay-off or other penalty prior to his discharge. Flake testified that he
was discharged by the respondent, but the record is silent as to the reason for his discharge.
However, Flake was not a member of the Union, and the undersigned from his observation
of Flake as a witness does npt believe that his testimony was influenced by prejudice to-
wards the respondent.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Superintendent ; that Richardson tore the form up and told Flake that
Monroe was working too much for the Union to get a raise there at that time."
Between November 1941 and May 1942 Flake made about four recommendations
for an increase for Monroe, but Monroe did not receive it. Flake testified that
he did not recall any other recommendations submitted by him that had been
rejected by Richardson.16
During or after November 1941, according to Flake, Richardson told him to
remove Monroe from his job as group leader and put another man in his place
as Monroe had "too much freedom . . . for a CIO organizer." Flake testified
also that he told Richardson that he did not have another man who could
handle the job. The undersigned accepts Flake's testimony as true, and finds
accordingly.
Flake further testified and the undersigned finds that several times Richardson
asked him to watch Monroe and try to catch him smoking and stated that he
(Richardson) wished he could catch Monroe "smoking or doing something that
he shouldn't do" and that he was "just waiting for the time he could catch him
doing something" so that he could discharge Monroe.1°
On June 8, 1942, Richardson went on a two weeks vacation and Joseph Schmoll,
foreman, assumed Richardson's duties during his absence. About the second
week in June, Schmoll requested Flake to remove Monroe from his job as
group leader because of his activities for the Union. Flake told Schmoll that
he would not take Monroe off the job because he did not have anybody else
who could handle the work.17 Shortly after Monroe came to work on June 17,
Schmoll requested Monroe to come into the office. Pitzer and a clerk regularly
employed in Richardson's office were present. Schmoll had in 'the office a
drawer from one of the benches in the plant. The drawer was one used by
Foreman Flake and for which Flake had a key Schmoll asked Monroe if
the tools and materials in the drawer belonged to him. In the drawer were
some scrapers and new files that belonged to the company, some application cards
and literature of the Union, and a wage scale from Plant No 1. Monroe told
Schmoll that he owned the Union literature and wage scale, that the scrapers
had been put in the drawer by himself and the files had been put there by
Flake 18 Monroe testified and the undersigned finds that the following con-
versation then took place:
He (Schmoll) said, "What are you doing with that wage scale?" I said,
"It belongs to me." He said, "No, it belongs to the company." I said,
"I am sorry, it is mine." He said, "You better give it to me." I said,
"No, it is mine." He said, "How did you get it?" I said, "I think it was
mailed to me."
a s • • s s s
... He said, "All right." So I left the office and went on back to the
job."
14 With respect to the above incident, Richardson testified that this could not have
happened since he would not see a recommendation again if he had signed it and the
Assistant General Superintendent had approved it. He also denied that he had torn up
the slip and that he had made the statement attributed to him by Flake.
"Richardson testified that he had refused "several" recommendations for increases
made by Flake but did not identify the employees involved.
"'Richardson denied the above statements attributed to him by Flake.
17 Schmoll denied the above statements attributed to him by Flake.
18 The above facts were testified to by Monroe Flake testified that he had put the files
in the drawer and that he had given Monroe permission about March 1942 to put "his
stuff" in the drawer.
"The substance of the above conversation was not denied in any material respect by
Pitrer or Schmoll. However, Schmoll testified that Monroe as he left the office said he
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION , ALLISON DIVISION 1129
Monroe testified that between 12: 30 a. in. and 1 a. m. an this same night
and after the above conversation he was not feeling well, that he talked with
another employee who was going home, and that he decided to go home with
this employee since the latter had a car. Monroe went to Schmoll about
1 a. m. and asked him for a pass so that he could get out of the plant. Schmoll
gave Monroe the pass and Monroe went home.R° Monroe came back to work
on June 18 and 19. Monroe did not go to work on June 20 or June 22, 1942,
Saturday and Monday, respectively. At about 12: 30 a. m an June 20 Monroe
telephoned Flake at the plant and told him that he could not possibly get to
the plant for the reason that Fuller, the man in whose car he rode to work,
had failed to come after him, that he had tried but was unable to get a taxicab.
and that it was too late for him to catch a bus." Monroe's home was about
five or six miles from the plant. It was the uncontradicted testimony of Monroe,
and the undersigned finds that the last bus to the plant from his home was
at 12: 10 a. m. and that during May and June of 1942 he rode back and forth
to the plant with Fuller in the latter's car. Monroe was absent from work
on June 22 for the same reason, according to Monroe, and so reported to the
personnel office of the respondent, telling the person who answered his call
at the office that he would "absolutely" be at work on the next night 2' Monroe
called the personnel office on this occasion for the reason that he had first
tried to call Flake but Flake was not working that night.
Monroe reported for work on June 23 and rang in his card 5 or 10 minutes before
12 midnight. Richardson came to Monroe and said, "You are discharged, Monroe,
for insubordination," Monroe asked when he was insubordinate and Richardson
replied, "I don't want to talk to you. All I want is to have you get out of the
plant."' Monroe left the plant with the outgoing shift.
was tired of "this damned place" anyway and that he was going to "quit," and Pitzer
testified that Monroe said he "might as well quit." Monroe denied these statements
attributed to him by Schmoll and Pitzer. The undersigned believes that Monroe is the
most credible witness as to this conversation. It appears that the respondent at the
time in question had a cabinet in which company tools were required to be kept and it
was against the rules to store them elsewhere. Schmoll testified that he did not accuse
Monroe of trying to steal the tools and that the conversation was very friendly until the
end when Monroe said he was going to quit.
20 Schmoll testified that he did not "recall" If Monroe said he was sick when he asked
for the pass. Pitzer testified that Monroe when asked to give a reason for wanting to go
home said he did not have any reason; and that Monroe was "considerably" upset at the
time. However, Schmoll testified that Monroe stated that he was "pretty much upset"
over the drawer incident.
u Monroe testified to the above telephone call to Flake and the undersigned credits his
testimony in this respect. R. C. Martz, employed in the personnel department of the re-
spondent, testified that such calls made by employees after 6 p. in. were referred to the
personnel department as the plant telephones were shut off after that time ; but that it
could have been "possible" for Monroe to have made such a call.
S Martz testified that respondent's personnel records show that Monroe made this call.
21 The above conversation was testified to by Monroe and the undersigned credits his
testimony in this respect. Richardson' denied the statements attributed to him by
Monroe, and testified that the following conversation took place :
I said, "Red, owing to the fact that you don't seem to care for your job, you don't
come here often enough to really make it go, you are falling down in your production,
and you promised to come to work and work steady, so I am going to have to dismiss
you, release you." And Henry Monroe says, "I have got several names in front of
the Labor Board already, and I might as well add yours to it, too." .. . I said,
"Okay".
The undersigned believes that Monroe is the more credible witness as to this conversation
for the reason that Richardson, in the separation slip, gave "insubordination" as the
reason for the discharge. Moreover, Schmoll, testified that "insubordination" referred to
the incident on June 17.
1130 DEC'ISION'S OF NAT10'NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At Richardson's direction a discharge slip was made out by Butterworth, the
clerk in Richardson's office, and "insubordination" was placed on the slip as the
reason for the discharge. On June 23 at about 9 a. m Monroe went to the
personnel office to get his check. A clerk handed him a separation slip which had
on it "insubordination" as the reason for termination of employment. Monroe
protested to the clerk who then referred him to Martz. Monroe then went to
'Hartz 's office and told him he didn't think he should be fired for insubordination.
Martz replied that he didn't know anything about it and requested Monroe to come
back the next day. Monroe returned to Martz's office on June 24 between 8 and
9 a. m. A conference then took place in Martz's office, between Martz, Monroe
and Divisional Superintendents Richardson and Wheeler. Monroe testified and
the undersigned finds that at this conference Martz asked Richardson the facts
concerning the alleged insubordination; that Richardson stated that Monroe
threatened to quit on the night of' June 17 in his conversation with Schmoll ;
that he (Monroe) denied that he had threatened to quit; that Martz said that
Monroe should have been fired that night if he had been insubordinate; that
Richardson' then claimed that Monroe's production had not been so good and
that he had not been showing any energy on the job; that he (Monroe) denied
Richardson's claim concerning poor production and asked that Flake' s books on
production be checked, that Richardson said they should fire Monroe for absen-
teeism as he had been absent "quite a bit," that Martz replied they could fire
him for absenteeism after lie (Martz) had an opportunity to "check over on it";
that Richardson then said that Monroe had not reported that he would be absent
on the nights of June 20 and 22; that Monroe stated that he had called Flake on
June 20 and had called the personnel office on June 22 because Flake wasn't at
work ; that Richardson said he had no record of Monroe so reporting ; that Martz
after obtaining the records of the personnel office admitted that the records
showed that Monroe had called the personnel office on the night of June 22; and
that Martz finally said that he was not satisfied with the case and asked Monroe
to return the next clay, stating that he would straighten it out '
Monroe returned to Martz's office on June 25 Monroe testified that Martz
at that time told him that "it wasn't clear in his mind yet about my case", and
asked him to return the next day. Monroe returned to Martz's office on the
morning of June 26. Monroe testified and the undersigned find's that he had the
- following conversation with Martz :
zs With respect to the conversation on June 24 between Martz , Richardson , Wheeler and
Monroe , Richardson testified in part that Monroe objected to being released for insub-
ordination ; that Martz suggested that the reason for discharge be changed to "absentee-
ism" ; that when Martz asked him what he meant by "insubordination" he (Richardson)
replied , "When a man is told to do something and time and time again he does not do it,
that constitutes insubordination , and also when he came back from this little lay off he
took when he was mad and went home early , he was very apologetic to Mr Schmoll and
asked Mr. Schmoll if he could go to work. Mr Schmoll said that he could , provided he
would toe the mark. ", and that he, Richardson , in further explanation, said "Being as
Mr. Monroe had been told to come back to worlt and he said he would do what was right,
and he didn't do that, that also constitutes insubordination That is the reason that I
released him on insubordination" Jlartz testified concerning the above conversation tli.rt
be asked Richardson what he meant by insubordination; that Richardson claimed the in.
subordination was based on Monroe's absenteeism on June 20 and 22, following Monroe's
promise to Schii+oll that he would stay on the job; that he ( Martz ) did not state that
Monroe should have been fired on June 17 if lie had been insubordinate on that night;
and that either lie or Wheeler suggested chanting insubordination to absenteeism. With
respect to the above conversation , the undersigned believes and finds for the reasons set
out below that Monroe is the most credible witness and , accordingly , that the conversa-
tion was substantially as testified to by Monroe.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION , ALLISON, DIVISION 1131
I went in and Mr. Martz said, "Well, I think I have got it straightened out
for you Mr. Monroe." He said, "We will put on here `quit because you didn't
like your job."' I said, "No, I don't want you to put that on there, because
I am not quitting. I am getting fired "
He said, "What do you think we should put on this release?" I said, "I
wouldn't know." He said, "Will absenteeism be all right?" I said, "Yes, it
is. You have got to put something on there."
Martz then crossed out word "insubordination" and wrote "absenteeism" in the
space provided for an explanation of the release. Martz then gave the separation
slip to Monroe.26
Upon consideration of all the evidence in connection with the discharge of
Henry Monroe, the undersigned is convinced and finds that Monroe was dis-
charged' on June 23, 1942, by the respondent because-of his organizational activi-
ties on behalf of the Union. The conversations as found above between Richard-
son and Monroe, and between Richardson and Flake, clearly show Richardson's
hostility towards the Union and determination to discharge Monroe at the first
opportunity. Upon return to the plant from his vacation on June 22, Richardson
discovered what he considered a plausible excuse for the discharge of Monroe,
namely, the alleged insubordination of Monroe on June 17 in his conversation with
Schmoll. The apparent desire of Richardson to discharge Monroe for any cause
whatever is shown by the lack of any investigation on his part into the facts
surrounding the June 17 incident. It does not appear that he consulted with
either Monroe or Flake as to their version of the incident. Moreover, Schmoll,
who had authority to discharge Monroe, did not do so nor did he recommend to
Richardson that Monroe be disciplined. If, as testified to by Richardson, he con-
sidered Monroe's absenteeism on June 17, 20, and 22 as "insubordination", his in-
vestigation would appear to be even less adequate. Certainly in this case it ap-
pears reasonable that he would have checked with the personnel department and
with Monroe's foreman, Flake,^to determine if Monroe had reported that he would.
be absent, or at least to have asked Monroe for an explanation before discharging
him. In any event, the undersigned is unable to believe that Richardson had
in mind Monroe's absenteeism and alleged inefficiency when he discharged him
for "insubordination", especially in view of Schmoll's testimony in this respect.
It is apparent that Martz in his investigation into the facts surrounding the
alleged insubordination on June 17, determined that the grounds for discharge
were insufficient, and so indicated to Wheeler and Richardson in the conference
on June 24. It was then that Richardson, as found above, suggested "absentee-
ism". The respondent, however, in allegedly giving consideration to Monroe's
absentee record acted outside the scope of its usual policy in disciplining for
absenteeism and thereby demonstrated its determination to obtain any ground,
however weak, as a basis for the discharge. This is shown by the respondent's
records that at least two employees, namely, Shoemaker and Basey, in Monroe's
department, had more unexcused absences than he during the periods of time in
question. These records show that from September 1941 to June of 1942, Monroe
was absent on 14 occasions and that on 10 of these the absences were "unexcused."
The attendance record of the two other employees, however, was worse than that
of Monroe, but they were not discharged. Moreover, contrary to the respondent's
n Martz testified that at his meeting with Monroe on June 26 he changed the separation
slip in Monroe's presence, placing his initials under the change, that he did not ask Monroe
if he Martz, should place on the separation slip that he Monroe, quit because he did not
like his job ; and that he did not ask him if absenteeism would be satisfactory.
1132 DECISIONS OF NIATI,ONTAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
usual policy of warning its employees for absence, during this period of time
Monroe did not receive any lay-off or other penalty for absenteeism.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have
(a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease- and desist therefrom, and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Henry Monroe. The undersigned will
recommend therefor that the respondent offer immediate and full reinstatement
to Monroe to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the respondent make him
whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings,20 during said period.
As stated above, the date of said discrimination was June 23, 1942.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local #933, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Henry
Monroe and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ae By net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the respondent's
discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners or America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440.
Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation V.
N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ALLISON DIVISION 1133
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, General Motors Corporation, Allison
Division, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
It. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local #933, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization
of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment ; '
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds' will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Henry Monroe immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights or privileges ; '
(b) Make whole Henry Monroe for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of
the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings ' during said period ; ,
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in and about its plant at Speed-
way, Indiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these Recommendations ; (2) that the re-
spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b)
of these Recommendations ; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free
to become or remain members of International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local #933, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership or activities in this
organization ;
(d) File with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region on or before ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report a report in writing set-
ting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied
with the foregoing Recommendations.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice
insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Harland J.
Davis.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notify said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing Recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring the respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
21 See footnote 26, supra.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28, 1942-
any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order
transferring the case to the Board pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington,
D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of an order transferring the case to the
Board.
JOHN H. EADIE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 24, 1943.