R. C. Mahon Company And Steel Workers Organizing Committee (affiliated With The C. I. O), 619 (1941)

Extract

---

R. C. Mahon Company And Steel Workers Organizing Committee (affiliated With The C. I. O), 619 (1941)

In the Matter of R. C. MAHON COMPANY and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE (AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O) Case No. C-148.--Decided December 17, 1940 Jurisdiction: steel manufacturing industry.

Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interrogation concerning union affiliation.

Discrimination: discharge of employee and refusal to give another employee full-time employment because of their union activities; dismissal of allegations concerning certain employees.

Remedial Orders: back pay awarded.

Mr. William J. Avrutis, for the Board.

Mr. Albert E. Meder and Mr. Thomas E. Wilson, of Detroit, Mich., for the respondent.

Mr. Julius Sobonya, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.

Miss Marcia Hertzmarkc, of counsel to the Board.

AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER On May 22, 1940, the Board issued a Decision and Order in these proceedings.1 On November 22, 1940, it served upon the parties an Amended Decision and Order and notified them that unless sufficient cause to the contrary appeared by December 9, 1940, it would issue said Amended Decision and Order. None of the parties has filed objections to the issuance of the Amended Decision and Order. The Board therefore substitutes its Amended Decision and Order for its Decision and Order of May 22, 1940.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the Union,2 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated SThe particular organization involved herein is Local 1279 of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers, an affiliate of Steel Workers Organizing Committee. Both are affiliated with the C. I. O.

June 29, 1939, against R. C. Mahon Company, Detroit, Michigan, 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. The complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union.

Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that in or about November 1937, and at various times thereafter, the respondent questioned its employees as to their union membership and compelled them to sign written stateme...

See the full content of this document

---