The Wallingford Steel Company And United Steelworkers Of America (c. I. O.), 404 (1943)

In the Matter of THE WALLINGFORD STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (C. I. O.) Case No. C-2707 (1-C-2212).-Decided November 5, 1943 DECISION AND ORDER On August 17, 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 therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions, and requested permission to present oral argument before the Board. On October 6, 1943, the respondent filed with the Board an addition to one of its exceptions, to which were attached copies of two letters from a Field Examiner of the Board to the respondent, and a copy of a letter from a Regional Director to the respondent. We have treated the 'addition to exception' and the attached letters as a motion to supplement the record. Examination of the record shows that a copy of the attached letter from the Regional Director has already been admitted into evidence at the hearing. The motion of the respondent to supplement the record is therefore granted only as to the copies of the letters from the Field Examiner, which are hereby ordered made a part of the record. On October 14, 1943, pursuant to notice served upon all the parties, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by 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 exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions noted below.

In discrediting the testimony of Foreman Stanley Uliasz, the Trial Examiner cites two instances of contradictions contained in his testimony. One such instance has reference to Uliasz's first testifying 404 405 that he had seen 'some' employees wearing C. I. 0. buttons, and thereafter testifying that Romanski was the only one he had seen wearing a button. We do not believe that this apparent contradiction of itself affords any basis for discrediting Uliasz. Uliasz did state that he had seen 'some' employees wearing C. I. 0. buttons. On further questioning, however, he added that Romanski was the only person he could remember doing so. Thereafter, in reply to the leading question, 'And the only one you saw wearing a C. I. 0. button was Romanski,' Uliasz answered, 'Yes.' While we do not think that Uliasz's testimony in this respect can fairly be said to be contradictory, we nevertheless agree with the Trial Examiner in crediting the testimony of Romanski and Basarab over that of Uliasz.

In disposing of the respondent's contentions as to the discharge of Corriveau, the Trial Examiner states that Grinold 'admitted that Corriveau's 'discrepancy in production' in February was not serious enough to warrant discharge.' This admission should be qualified by the addition after the word 'discharge,' of the words 'in February.' In other words, it was Grinold's position that Corriveau was comparatively new at his work, and that his inefficiency in February was therefore not sufficient to warrant his discharge at that time.

The Trial Examiner also sets forth the following excerpt from Grinold's testimony as 'revealing as to [his] confused state of mind and the unreliability of his testimony:' Q. How long had Corriveau been rolling? A. I don't know, but I know he had been one of our old rollers.

Q. There had not been any complaint about his work? A. Not serious. He was a fairly new man.

The respondent, in its exceptions and brief, suggests that this correctly quoted portion of the record embodies an error made in the transcription of Grinold's testimony, and that the phrase 'old rollers' should be 'cold rollers,' a job classification in use at the plant. We are persuaded that it is probable that Grinold did refer to Corriveau as a 'cold roller' and not as an 'old roller,' and that the excerpt quoted from the record cannot therefore be used to demonstrate that Grinold's testimony was confused and unreliable.

The respondent, in its exceptions and brief, also suggests that another error of transcription in the record has been carried over into the Intermediate Report in the Trial Examiner's discussion of the respondent's contention that Giret was discharged for his 'entirely poor attitude.' The Trial Examiner notes that Grinold first testified that he had 'known Giret for a good many years,' and subsequently testified contradictorily that 'Giret was a 'new man,' and that he seldom saw him.' The respondent suggests that Grinold actually testified that Giret was a night man, not that he was a new man, in which case there would be no contradiction. The record is clear that Giret worked on the night shift, and the term 'night man' fits readily into the context in which the words 'new man' appear in the record.

Moreover, while 'night' would hardly be mistaken for 'new' when spoken, nevertheless the shorthand symbols for the two words are sufficiently similar so that if written hastily one could be mistaken for the other. Under the circumstances, we shall accept the suggested correction of the record in this respect. Despite the above two corrections of Grinold's testimony as it appears in the record, we are convinced that there still remain substantial grounds for discrediting his testimony as to the reasons for the discharges of Corriveau and Giret, and we sustain the Trial Examiner in that respect.

ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and 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, The Wallingford Steel Company, Wallingford, Connecticut, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

   (a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America (C. I. O.), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging 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 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 representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities 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 Joseph Corriveau, Stephen Giret, and the employees listed in Appendix A hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled 'The remedy' in the Intermediate Report, and place those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list and thereafter offer them employment as it becomes available, in the manner set forth in said section;

   (b) Make whole Joseph Corriveau, Stephen Giret, and the employees listed in Appendix A hereto, for any loss of pay they have suffered because of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, or of his placement on a preferential list, as the case may be, and in the manner set forth in the section entitled 'The remedy' in the Intermediate Report, less his net earnings during such period;

   (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Wallingford plant, 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 it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that its employees are free to become and remain members of United Steelworkers of America (C. I. 0.), and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of said organization;

   (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.

   MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.

   APPENDIX A Anderson, Gustave Austin, Henry Bakanas, J.

   Bakanas, J. Jr.

   Balou, Joseph Basarab, John Brassil, Michael Brow, L. M.

   Carlson, Bertil Charnysh, John Charnysh, Maurice Cichowski, Joseph Citak, John Corllio, Antonio Corriveau, Leo Czaga, Louis Drum, Chas. F.

   Festa, Joseph Foucault, Paul Gavette, Russell Gayer, Chas.

   Gelt, Frank Gelt, J.

   Gelt, M.

   Germain, Roland Hanisko, Samuel Horvath, L.

   Huey, Chas.

   Karaly, John Kurcaba, Jos.

   Lenart, John Magyar, J.

   Melillo, Michael Mihovitz, Jos.

   Nagy, Julius Naszcywiec, Stanley Palmer, Frank Pare, Jean Petros, Walter Polnar, Walter Popovich, S.

   Prizzi, Peter Rabito, John Romanski, Edward Roy, Delphis Rumi, Eugene Rumi, Lacy Setterstrom, Oscar Simon, J. Urban, John Zalanka, Ray Sittnick, Edward Valentine, Tony Zieminski, Chas.

   Stankevitz, J. Wells, Theron A. Zieminski, Leopold Stewart, Milton Yacek, Walter...