Wyman-gordon Company (ingalls Shepard Division) And United Steelworkers Of America, Cio, 561 (1945)

Docket Number: 13-C-2176 and 13-C-2210

Parts: 610

Linked as:

Summary

Wyman-gordon Company (ingalls Shepard Division) And Chicago Die Sinkers' Lodge No. 100 Of The International Die Sinkers' Conference

See the full content of this document

Extract

Wyman-gordon Company (ingalls Shepard Division) And United Steelworkers Of America, Cio, 561 (1945)

In the Matter of WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY (INGALLS SHEPARD DIviSION) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO In the Matter of WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY (INGALLS SHEPARD DIVISION) and CHICAGO DIE SINKERS' LODGE NO. 100 OF THE INTERNATIONAL DIE SINKERS' CONFERENCE Cases Nos. 13-C-2176 and 13-C-2210, respectively.Decided June 20, 1945 Mr. Gustaf B. Erickson, for the Board.

Winston, Strawn and Shaw, by Messrs. G. B. Christensen and Frank B. Gilmer, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.

Mr. S. E. Perish, of Harvey, Ill., and Mr. Phillip M. Curran, of Pittsburg, Pa., for the Steelworkers.

Messrs. Walter T. Lynch and I. G. Miner, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Die Sinkers.

Miss Kate Wallach, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,

CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, and Chicago Die Sinkers' Lodge No. 100 of the International Die Sinkers' Conference, herein called the Die Sinkers, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint, dated May 13, 1944, against Wyman-Gordon Company (Ingalls Shepard Division), Harvey, Illinois, 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), (2), and (3) 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 Steelworkers, the Die Sinkers, and The Employees' Council, herein called the Council, alleged in the complaint to be a company-dominated labor organization.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance: (1) that, since about 1936 and thereafter, the respondent initiated, sponsored, interfered with, and dominated the formation of the Council, dominated and interfered with its administration, contributed financial and other support to it, and otherwise fostered, promoted, and encouraged the continuation of the Council, thereby violating Section 8 (2) of the Act; (2) that, on or about June 19, 1943, the respondent discharged F. M. Baker and has since failed and refused to reinstate him for the reason that he joined and assisted the Steelworkers and engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, thereby discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Steelworkers in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act;

(3) that, on or about August 9, 1943, the respondent discharged William Coale and Peter Crince and has since failed and refused to reinstate them for the reason that they joined and assisted the Die Sinkers' and engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Die Sinkers in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act;

(4) that, on or about June 1, 1943, and thereafter, the respondent (a) warned and discouraged its employees to refrain from assisting and affiliating with the Steelworkers and the Die Sinkers, (b) made statements disparaging and expressing disapproval of employees who assisted the Die Sinkers, (c) asked employees how it felt to be paying union dues, (d) advised employees that it would be fruitless for them to organize into a union, (e) inquired into the union affiliation of its employees, (f) discharged and threatened to discharge employees because of their concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, (g) inaugurated wage increases to its employees to persuade them from joining or assisting the Die Sinkers, and (h) by devious other acts and statements, indicated to its employees disapproval of and opposition to the self-organization of its employees; and (5) that, by the foregoing acts and statements, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 'By order entered on May 12, 1944, the Board had consolidated the cases arising out of the charges referred to above.

SThe complaint referred to the Die Sinkers as the Conference.

563 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer at the time of the hearing in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint as to the nature of its business but denied that it had committed any unfair labor practice and affirmatively alleged in substance that Baker, Coale, and Crince were discharged 'for soliciting union membership during working hours' and for interfering with the respondent's production of vital war material.

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chic...

See the full content of this document