Birdsboro Steel Foundry And Machine Company1 And United Steelworkers Of America, Cio, 1274 (1944)

Extract

---

Birdsboro Steel Foundry And Machine Company1 And United Steelworkers Of America, Cio, 1274 (1944)

In the Matter of BIRDSBORO STEEL FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY1 and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 4-C-1360.-Decided February 12, 1944 DECISION AND ORDER On December 20, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report 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 from the unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action, as set out in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Oral argument, in which the respondent and the Union participated, was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on January 20, 1944. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's brief and exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, additions, and qualifications noted below:

1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent was fully aware of the encouragement given by its representatives to the Association.

While we adopt the finding of the Trial Examiner, in so doing, we find it unnecessary to determine whether or not the respondent was aware of the fact that its nurse was soliciting employees during working hours to join the Association. Thus, even assuming, as urged by the respondent, that the respondent had no knowledge of the nurse's activity, we are convinced, and we find, that the respondent's other acts and conduct set forth in the Intermediate Report, particularly Foreman Grimes' conduct (1) in directing employee Flannery during ' The name of the respondent was set forth in the complaint as 'Birdsboro Steel Foundry and Machine Company, Inc.' At the hearing, the parties agreed that the name should be amended to read as set forth above.

1274 working hours to employee Blimline, where Flannery received information as to the benefits to be derived from membership in the Association, (2) in listening while that information was being dispensed, and (3) in indicating to Flannery that he might take time off from work to see another employee who would 'sign [him] up in the Association,'2 clearly establish the respondent's knowledge and encouragement of employee solicitation on behalf of the Association during working hours.

2. We are unable to agree with the respondent's contention that the disparity in its treatment of union members Ellsworth Mock and Warren S. Weiler, in that it retained Mock who admittedly violated the respondent's non-solicitation rule, and dismissed Weiler who admittedly did not violate the rule, proves the total absence of a discriminatory motive in the latter's discharge. We agree with the Trial Examiner that such disparate treatment warrants an inference of discrimination. The record reveals that, as far as the respondent was concerned, the culpable person, irrespective of the violation of the non-solicitation rule, was not Ellsworth Mock, who had distributed a union card on company time and property, but the one who had originated the union activity in which Mock had participated. Thus,

Yardmaster King testified that the retention of Ellsworth Mock w...

See the full content of this document

---