Interlake Iron Corp., 613 (1941)

Docket Number:00-C-01623


Case No. C-1623.-Decided July 21, 1941

Jurisdiction : pig iron, coke, and coal byproducts manufacturing industry.

Unfair Labor Practices In General : employer responsible for activities of an employee in behalf of inside union of which he was president while he was temporarily engaged in supervisory duties.

Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : statements by supervisory employees favoring inside union and hostile to outside union.

Company-Dominated Union : charge of, dismissed.

Discrvmination : making necessary reduction of personnel in manner violating employer's usual lay-off policy, based on merit-rating system ; making necessary reduction of personnel on basis of discriminatory application of a merit -rating system ; charges of, dismissed as to eight persons.

Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay ; back pay order not to include period between Intermediate Report and date of service of order in cases of employees found by the Trial Examiner not to have been discriminated against ; held purposes and policies of Act require reinstatement of all employees discriminated against irrespective of • whether or not they have obtained substantially equivalent employment.

Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, Mr. Albert P. Wheatley, and Mr. Thurlow Smoot, for the Board.

Pope & Ballard, by Mr. Henry E. Seyfarth and Mr. Lee C. Shaw, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.

Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.

Cusack d Cusack, by Mr. John F. Cusack, of-Chicago, Ill., for the Association.

Mr. George Turitz, of counsel to the Board.





Upon charges and amended charges 1 duly filed by Local'Union No.

1657, Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Con' The original charge was filed September 22, 1938 , the amended charge, April 21, 1939, and the second amended charge, May 2, 1939.

33 N. L. R. B., No. 112.

613 gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union; the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois ), issued its complaint dated April 21, 1939, against Interlake Iron Corporation,

Chicago, 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 and copies of the amended charge, were duly served upon the respondent, the Union and Employees Association of Interlake Iron Corporation, herein called the Association.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing hereinafter referred to, alleged, in substance.

that the respondent : initiated, fostered, and promoted the formation and continuation of the Association; by diverse means advised, encouraged, urged, and warned its employees to join the Association, and otherwise dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association and contributed support thereto; advised, urged, and warned its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union and made disparaging remarks to its employees about the Union and its leadership ; on and before January 7, 1938, warned employees that if the Union won in an election to be conducted by the Board on January 7, 1938, the respondent would close its plant; laid off or discharged and refused and failed to employ Ray Beckley, Henry Buehler ,3 Paul Bulich, Peter Cipich, Clarence Cristy, Joseph DiSanto,4 George A. Dreznes, Jr.,5 Harry Horton,

Eli Knezevich, Alex Kostuch,6 Anton Kure, John Nazy,7 Henry Newsam,3 Glen Rose, Emil Ulaszek, and Gage Woods because they joined' and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and ,other mutual aid and protection, thereby discouraging membership in the Union;' the foregoing and other acts interfered with, re2 The Union was referred to in the charge, amended charges , complaint, and other papers in this proceeding as Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local No 1657, through Steel Workers Organizing Committee , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations . On March 20 , 1941, pursuant to motion made by lodges of the Amalgamated Association of Iron , Steel and Tin Workers of North America and Steel Workers' Organizing Committee , and upon due notice to the parties, the Board ordered that the caption and record in this proceeding be amended so as to state the name of the Union as set forth above 8 Erroneously listed in the Amendment ,to the complaint as Henry Buehler 4 Erroneously listed in the complaint as Joseph De Santo.

6 Erroneously listed in the complaint as George J Drezues, Jr.

6 Erroneously listed in the complaint as Alex Kosctch.

7 Erroneously referred to in the record as John Nazi 8 Also referred to in the record as Bert Newsam 9 The complaint, when served, did not name Cipich and Newsam. On May 4 , 1939, ,the Trial Examiner granted the motion of counsel for the Board to amend the complaint .INTERLAKE IRON CORPORATION 615 strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. ,

The respondent filed its answers to the complaint and the amendment to the complaint, admitting that it laid off or discharged the employees named in the complaint, as amended, but otherwise denying the allegations of the complaint, as amended, with respect to the unfair labor practices. The respondent's answers affirmatively alleged that the employees named, were laid off along with a large number of other employees because of reduced operations and necessary reduction of working forces and in accordance with a fair and just system of rating employees. The answers further alleged that the Board, the Union, and each of the said persons named in the complaint, as amended, were guilty of lathes in that an unreasonable time elapsed between the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint and the service of said complaint upon the respondent.

On May 1, 1939, at the hearing hereinafter mentioned, the Association filed its petition to intervene, wherein, among other things, it alleged that on January 7, 1938, pursuant to a Direction of Election issued by the Board, an election by secret ballot was conducted among employees of the respondent at which the Association received a majority of the ballots cast; that on April 23, 1938, the Board certified the Association as the exclusive representative for purposes of collective bargaining of all employees eligible to participate in the election ; that the Association 'represented all the respondent's hourly employees; that on'August 1, 1938, the Association entered into an oral contract with the respondent, contained in a statement of agreement issued by the respondent on August 1, 1938, which contract was in full force and effect and not terminable by either party prior to August 1, 1939; that any order issuing as a result of the hearing would affect the contract; and that the allegations of the complaint were in derogation of the results of the election..

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, from May 1 to June 30, 1939, before Herbert Wenzel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing the Association submitted to the Trial Examiner its petition to intervene above described, which petition the Trial Examiner granted 'to the extent that the Association is interested.' On June 26, 1939, at the by adding the names of Cipich and Newsam as employees discriminated against At the same time counsel for the Board placed in evidence a copy of the second amended charge.

hearing, the respondent filed a motion that the record remain open for the testimony of one Thomas Adams, which motion was granted by the Trial Examiner by his order dated July 20, 1939, which was duly served upon the parties. Pursuant to the order a further hearing was held before the Trial Examiner on July 29, 1939, at Washington,

D. C., at which place the Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties at the hearings.

During the course of the hearings the Trial Examiner made a number of rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.

The Board has reviewed such rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby, affirmed. During the course of the hearing the respondent and the Association made several motions to dismiss the complaint rulings on which were reserved by the Trial Examiner.

On or about June 15, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he denied the respondent's and the Association's respective motions to dismiss the complaint, rulings on which had been reserved at the hearing, except for the portions thereof which were consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Intermediate Report. He found 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 Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such practices and that the respondent...

To continue reading