Seren Tool Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 1154 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the'Matter Of MORIS SEREN, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A SEr.EN TOOL WORKS
aiid DIE AND TOOL MAKERS LODGE No. 113 INTERNATIONAL Associ k-
TION OF, MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMFxIC'AN - FEDERATION
OF LABOR
Case No. C-2501.-Decided April 1v, 194
Jurisdiction : tool and fixture manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogation of employees as to union
status, anti-union statements warning employee to discont.nue union activities.
Discrimination: discharges for union membership and activity.
Coiiectvve -Barge nmg., majority status established- by written applications for
membership-uncompromising refusal to deal with the_ union.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay. employer ordered to bargain col-
` -lectively upon request.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production and maintenance em-
- clerical and supervisory employees. , , •„ '
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 12, 1943, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affect-
ing colmnerce, and recommending that the respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the polices of the Act, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report annexed hereto. None of the parties herein filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report nor requested oral argument.' The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the entire- record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner. -
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, Moris Seren, an individual
48 N L R B, No. 136
1154 1
MORIS SEREN ^ 1155,
doing,business as Seren Tool Works, Chicago, Illinois, and his agents,,
successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in Die and Tool Makers Lodge No.'
1131 International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organization of his
employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire or -tenure of
employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b). Refusing to bargain collectively with Die and Tool Makers
Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of
all production and maintenance employees of the respondent employed
.it the, respondent's plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory em-
ployees, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
and protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action , which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Die and Tool Makers
Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of
all production and maintenance employees of the respondent employed
at the respondent 's plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory em-
ployees, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions ' of employment , and if an agreement is reached on
such matters , embody such agreement in it signed contract with the
Union ;
(b) Offer to Francis Bradt and Harry D. Ross immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,.
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole Francis Bradt and Harry D. Ross for any losses
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimi-
nation against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during
the period from-the date of his discharge to the date of the respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement less his net earnings during such period ;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout his plant at.
Chicago, Illinois, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)•
521247-43-vpl 48-74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices stating: (1)'that,
the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which he is or
tiered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), -and (c) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that
the respondent's employees, are free to become or remain members of
Die and Tool Makers Lodge No. 113, International Association of,
Machinists] affiliated with the -American Federation of Labor, or any
other-labor organization, and that the respondent will not discriminate
against any employee because of his membership or activities in any
such organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken-to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr Leon, A Ro.sell, for the Board.
Mr Benjamin H Skidmore, and Mr. firth ar A NUeti eta, both of Chicago, Illinois,
for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge duly filed November 27, 1942 ,' by Die and Tool
Makers Lodge No. 113 , International Association of Machinists , affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor , herein called the Unions tile'Nitional Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board , by the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region ( Chicago, Illinois ), issued its complaint dated December 1, 1942,)
-against Moris Serer ,. an individual doing business as Seren Tool lvoiks , herein
called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged ' in and was'_
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S ( 1) (3) and
(5) and Section 2 (0) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relattoils , Act, 49 Stat 449,,
herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that , the respondent : ( 1) on or about Septeiiiber 14,"1942, and October 7, 1942,
and at other times after September 14, 1942, refused to bargain collectively with
the Union, although prior-to that time the Union had been designated as collective
bargaining agent by a majority of the respondent 's employees in the appropriate
unit described in the complaint; ( 2) on or about September 29, 11;42, discharged
Francis Bradt, and on or about October 10. 1942, discharged Harry D Ross, and
has since refused to employ each of their , because they joined and assisted the
Union; ( 3) from on or about September 14. 1942 , to the date of the complaint
questioned his employees about their union affiliations and warned and discour-
aged his employees against affiliation with or activities in behalf of the Union,
and (4 ) by the foregoing , acts interfered with, restrained , and coerced his em-
ployees in the exercise of i ights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. -
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union . No answer was filed by the respondent Pursuant to
proper notice a. beat ing was lie ] d,December -2S, 1942, at Chicago , Illinois,,before
'The original charge was filed September 24, 1942• A second amended charge Has filed.
October 15, 1942 - '
t'' _- " MORIS - SEREN _ 1157
Frank A. Mouritsen, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. , The Board was represented by counsel, the Union by its business
representatives. The respondent entered no appearance.' Full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties At the conclusion of the hearing
counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to conform to the proof.
The motion was granted without objection. Counsel for the Board argued orally
at the conclusion of the hearing, and opportunity to file briefs with the under-
signed was afforded all parties No briefs have been received. ,
Upon the entire record in this case and from his-observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
l"INDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE Ri SPONDENT
1lloris Seren is an individual doing business as the Seren Tool Works At his
plant located at 500 South Peoria Street, Chicago, Illinois, he is engaged in the
manufacture and production of tools, dies, fixtures, jigs and gauges.. The
materials used in the manufacturing process consist of steel, cast-iron and bronze.
The total annual production of the respondent was not specified, but that it is
not inconsiderable is shown by undenied evidence that for one customer alone,
the respondent in a 2-week period, completed and delivered gauges valued at
approximately $20,000.3 Over 50 percent of the respondent's production enters,
directly, into -interstate commerce. Practically 100 percent of the, respondent's
products are delivered to concerns engaged in the production of war materials,
acid an unspecified portion of the products delivered to plants within the State of
Illinois, are later reshipped by them to points outside Illinois
II THE ORGANIZAHON INVOLVED
Die and Tool Makers Lodge No 113, Inteihational Association of Machinists,
afifliated with the Ameucan Federation of Labor , is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent c
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACIICES
A Inte•feience,'cstraint aiid coeicr,on; the drs(,haiges of B,)adt and Ross
The first indication, in point of time, of the respondent's attitude towards the
Union, is revealed in a conversation Harry D Ross had with Morris Seren at
the time he was hired on July 31, 1942. At that time Seren told Ross that he
was able to hire only h very poor class of men Ross asked him why he did
not try to obtain men through the Union, and offered to give hire the telephone
number of Benjamin H Skidmore, the Union business' agent,, so that' he could
get in touch with him. Seren informed Ross that lie did not want to have
2 At the time set for the opening of the hearing the respondent had not put main appear-
ance. The undersigned therefore called a shoat recess to a%%ait the appearance of the ie-
spondent During the recess, Moris Seren, the respondent, entered the hearing room,
identified himself, and requested a continuance to enable his counsel to prepare for tile
case The undersigned then started to suggest that his request be put on the record with
the reasons for the request, but before the statement could be completed, Seren left the
heaimg room The'hearing then proceeded without any,representatide of the respondent
present The record shows that one continuance had been,gi.mted'the respondent iii older;
to accommodate his counsel pi rot to the present bearing
3 One of the employees estnnated that the respondent's annual business totaled between
$50,000 and $75,000. The above finding indicates that his estimate was to ^.,oilservative.
1158 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anything to do with the Union or its officials. Despite this statement by Seren,.
Ross attempted 'to interest the employees of the respondent in the Union. -His.
efforts to organize the employees met with no apparent success, so that after
Francis Bradt was employed by the respondent Loss lest the organizing of the
employees almost entirely up to Bradt. '
Bradt began to solicit the other employees to become members of the Union
immediately after he was hired, by the respondent on, August 25. 1942. Almost-
immediately his efforts bore fruit, and one of the other employees signed an
application for membership furnished by Bradt, the second day that' Bradt
worked at the plant. Bradt continued his efforts to recruit the other employees
as members of the Union during the lunch hour and after work, and was suc-
cessful in signing up, or securing the promise that they would sign up with the
Union, of a majority of the respondent's 18 or 19 employees On September 12,
Bradt advised Skidmore that a majority of the respondent's employees had-
selected the Union as collective bargaining agent, and suggested that lie meet
with Seren for the purpose of entering into a contract with him. Skidmore-
promised to do so.
On September 14, Skidmore met with Seren in his office, informed him that
the Union represented a majority of his employees and requested that Seren.
bargain with him.- As will be discussed more fully hereinafter, Seren refused
to do so.
On September 23, Irving Seren, son of Aloris and superintendent of the plant.,
distributed to the employees including Bradt cards bearing, the questions: Are:
you a member of a labor organization', and, if so, what organization --------
------------ ? Bradt filled in his card by inserting "Yes" to the first question,
and specified the Union in answer to the second question. Employee Ross, who,
was given such a card to fill out, put down the information that he was a.
member of the Union. Ross was standing next to employee James Ford, who
was a member of the Union, and he noticed that Ford stated on the card that
he was not a member of a union Ross asked Ford why he did not tell the
truth. Ford started -to reply, but before he (lid, Irving Seren, who had been
standing nearby waiting for the cards, grabbed Ford's card and started toward
the office Ross then told Ford that he ought"to be a man and put the truth'
on the card, and stated that he would not allow Seren to grab his card away as
lie did Ford then asked Ross to go with him to get the card. They went to.
Soren and Ford requested that he return the card. Soren refused to do so,
saying that it did not make any difference anyway.'
Bradt continued to request the other employees to apply for membership ins
the Union, and by the time of his discharge on September 29, including his own,
lie had secured signed applications for membership in the Union from 19 of the
respondent's employees (The respondent hired several new employees between
September 14 and September 29.)
On September 28 Moris Seren gave Bradt a three-groove pulley, requestedi
that he' drill a hole therein, and gave him the tools with which to do the work
Bradt suggested that the hole be bored instead of drilled in the pulley, but Seren
told him that he was in a hurry for the job, and that lie should drill the hole
and run a reamer through it. Bradt did the work as instructed. When he
checked the completed work, he found that the hole was two-thousands of an inch
oversize. Upon checking the reamer given by Seren, he found that the
reamer was two-thousandths of an inch oversize. When Seren spoke to him,the=
* The above findings are based upon the testimony of Ross and Bradt, which the under-
signed finds to be credible.'
MORIS SEREN 1159
next day about the pulley, Bradt pointed out to him that the reamer was oversize.
About 4 :15 on the 29th of September, Paul Lang, foreman, told Bradt that he was
discharged because he had spoiled the pulley. Bradt'objected stating that the
pulley was usable. Lang admitted that the pulley was usable, and when pressed
by Bradt for the reason behind his discharge stated, "You know, you have been
too active in the union, and the old man doesn't like the union
Bradt and three representatives of the Union met with Irving Seren on
October 7 and requested that Bradt be reinstated. Seren refused saying that
Bradt, spoiled too much work. As wa11 be discussed in more detail hereafter,
the Union representatives requested at that time that Seren bargain collectively
with the Union, but he refused to do so.
After Bradt's discharge, Ross resumed his efforts to organize the employees;
He solicited new employees to become members, and urged the employees who had
signed applications for membership to complete their application by initiation
into the Union. Several days before his discharge on October 10, Foreman Lang
informed him, "Lay off the union, they are getting on to you." Nevertheless, Ross
persisted in his efforts. On October 9 he took several of the employees to 'a
meeting of the Union to be initiated Matthew'Glowacki, one of the employees
who had promised to go to the meeting with him and to be initiated, failed to
meet him as promised. The next day, October 10, Ross upbraided Glowacki for
his failure to attend' the meeting with him, and to be initiated in the Union.
Morns Seren overheard the conversation. Later in the day, Seren informed
Ross that he was discharged. When Ross asked him why he was discharged,
Seren replied, "Oh, no reason, no reason at all," and then added, "I have got
to make money."'
In December, about 2 weeks before the hearing, Foreman Lang warned em-
ployee Howard Mitchell to discontinue his activities in trying to keep the em-
ployees interested in the, Union, as the Serens were watching him. -
Conclusions regarding the discharges of Bradt and Ross ; interference, restraint
u
'1, and coercion
The reason given by the respondent to the Union representatives on October 7
for the discharge and refusal to reinstate Bradt is the veriest pretext. There
was an unusually large amount of spoiled work in the shop, due to the fact that
the employees were asked to do precision work with old and badly worn ma-
•chinery. Other employees who spoiled a larger amount of work than Bradt
were not discharged because of it. Particularly does the incident of the spoiled
pulley demonstrate the speciousness of the respondent's alleged reason for
Bradt's discharge. Seren himself was as much to blame for the fact that th,3
bole was oversize as Bradt, since lie gave Bradt improper tools, insisted that the
work be clone quickly and rejected Bradt's suggestion that the hole be bored
instead of drilled in the interest of accuracy. Lang admitted that the pulley
was usable. The undersigned finds that the real reason for Bradt's discharge
is that which was given by Lang, namely his activity in behalf of the Union,
which Seren did not want anything to do with. By his discharge of Bradt for
Union activity the respondent thereby, discouraged membership in the Union and,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in' Section 7 of the Act.
That Ross's work for the respondent was satisfactory is shown by the fact
that during the two and a half month period while employed by the respondent
This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Bradt.
The above finding is based upon the credible testimony of Ross.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
he received one raise and was promised another. His activity in behalf of,
the Union was well known to both Moms and Irving Seren, in view of the fact
`that he strongly urged other employees to adhere to the Union in the presence
of each of them as outlined above The inference that he was discharged
for such activity is impelled by the respondent's failure to give him any reason
for his discharge, and the fact that his discharge so closely followed Moms
Seren's observance of his upbraiding Glowacki for failing to be initiated into
the Union The respondent's opposition to the Union is clear from the state-
ments of Moris Seren. Lang and the °nquiry about union affiliation con-
ducted by Irving Seren The undersigned concindes and finds that Ross was
discharged by the respondent for his Union activities, and for the purpose of
discouraging membership in the Union
By the discharge of Bradt and Ross, by Lang's warnings to employees to
discontinue their union activity, by Irving Seren s inquiry into the union af-
filiation of the employees, and by Moms Seren's antiunion statements, the re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. -
B The refusal to ban gain
1 The appropriate unit
The complaint alleged that all production, and maintenance employees of the
respondent, employed at the plant, exclusive of -clerical and supervisory em-
ployees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit As noted the respondent
filed no answer opposing the appropriateness of the unit nor did it in any other
way indicate any opposition to the unit-set out above The employees claimed
to be -within the unit all engage in the same type of work in the respondent's
single shop The Union has attempted to organize and has been designated'
as bargaining agent by all but three or four of the employees within the claimed
unit. The record shows no attempt by the Union to organize the employees
not within the claimed unit There is no history of bargaining in the respondent's
plant in the unit claimed to be appropriate nor in any other unit. The unit
claimed to be appropriate is the usual unit nn,which employees in shops similar
to those operated by the respondent were organized by the Union.
The undersigned finds that all production and- maintenance,-employees pf the
respondent, employed at the plant, exclusive of clerical and supervisory em-
ployees, at all times material herein constituted and that they now constitute-
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages. hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
that said unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates
the policies of the Act.
C Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
On September 14, the date when the Union first attempted to bargain with the
respondent, the respondent employed 18 or 19 employees within the unit found
to be appropriate. Prior to that date Bradt had obtained from 10 employees
within the unit written applications for membership in the Union, and had secured
promises to sign such applications from 5 other employees within the unit.
These five additional written applications were secured by Bradt on September
14. By October 7, the date when the Union next attempted to bargain -with-the
respondent, a number of new employees had been hired, so that the number of
employees within the appropriate unit was then 22 or,23. However, the Union
MORIS SEREN
had secured additional written applications for membership, and before October
,7, 19. (20 indiiding the application of Bradt) of the employees within the appro-
priate unit had signed and submitted to the Union written applications' for
membership
The undersigned finds that on '