The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, a Corporation And United Steelworkers Of America, C. I. O., 355 (1946)

Summary

---

The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, a Corporation And George Billetdoux

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, a Corporation And United Steelworkers Of America, C. I. O., 355 (1946)

In the Matter of THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS, A CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.

In the Matter of THE SANDY HILL IRON & BRASS WORKS, A CORPORATION and GEORGE BILLETDOUX Cases Nos. 2-C-5703 and 2-C--5600, respectively.-Decided July 11, 1946 Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board.

Mr. Walter C. Ross, of Springfield, Mass., for the respondent.

Mr. Daniel P. Sheehan, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Union.

Mr. Julius Serot, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. O., herein called the Union, and George Billetdoux, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City), issued its complaint dated April 10, 1945,1 against The Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, a corporation, Hudson Falls, New York, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and George Billetdoux.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance: (1) that from and after December 1943, the respondent (a) villified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the Union; (b) interrogated its employees respecting their union affiliation and activities; (c) urged, persuaded, and warned them to refrain from assisting, joining, or remaining SThe Board, by order dated April 4, 1945, had ordered that the cases involving the separate charges be consolidated.

members of the Union; (d) threatened them with penalties if they did so; and (e) kept union meeting-places, activities, and meetings under surveillance; (2) that on April 10, 1944, the respondent discharged George Billetdoux because of his membership in and activities on behalf of International Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M., and because he gave testimony under the Act; (3) that from September 16 to September 20, 1944, the respondent discharged approximately 139 employees,' including 32 employees whose names were unknown, and thereafter refused to reinstate all but 13 of the discharged employees, because they had assisted or become members of the Union or had participated in, or refused to work during, a strike; 2 and (4) that by such acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.

The respondent thereafter filed an answer, dated April 20, 1944, in which, among other things, it admitted that it discharged the 139 employees referred to in the complaint but alleged that they were discharged for good cause beyond its control; and it denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.3 Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Glens Falls, New York, from April 26 through May 8, 1945, and at Kalamazoo, Michigan, on May 19, 1945, before Josef L. Hektoen, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union appeared by its representative; all participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the hearing at Glens Falls, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the complaint to the proof as to formal matters was allowed without objection. During the course of the hearing, and in his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no The complaint, as originally issued, alleged that the respondent had discharged approximately 140 employees and had thereafter refused to reinstate all but 8 of them. One of the 8 allegedly reinstated was named in the complaint as C. J. Grant. At the hearing, the complaint was amended on motion by counsel for the Board, without objection by the respondent, to include the names of 6 additional employees whom the respondent had allegedly reinstated. One of the 6, Charles Grant, is apparently the same person listed in the original complaint as C. J. Grant. The complaint was further amended at the hearing by striking the name of Ernest Waters from the list of employees therein alleged...

See the full content of this document

---