Reeves-ely Laboratories, Inc. And Reeves Instrument Corporation And Martin W. Schwartz, Alfred Henley, Morton L. Packer, George Schwartz And Vincent Furnari And Federation Of Architects, Engineers, Chemists And Technicians, Metroploitan Local 231, Cio, Intervenor, 728 (1948)

In the Matter of REEVES-ELY LABORATORIES, INC. AND REEVES INSTRUMENT CORPORATION and MARTIN W. SCHWARTZ, ALFRED HENLEY,

MORTON L. PACKER, GEORGE SCHWARTZ AND VINCENT FURNARI and FEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS AND TECHNICIANS,

METROPLOITAN LOCAL 231, CIO, INTERVENOR Case No. 2-C-6208.-Decided March 16, 1948 Vincent F. Rotolo, Esq., for the Board.

Messrs. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, by Thomas F. Hilbert, Jr., Esq., of New York City, for the respondents.

Mr. Thomas C. Sullivan, of New York City, for the Intervenor.

DECISION AND ORDER On March 19, 1947, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the complainants and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and requested oral argument before the Board. The request for oral argument is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and contentions of the parties.

The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.

The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent with our findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth.1 SThose provisions of Section 8 (1), 8 (3), and 8 (4) of the National Labor Relations Act which the complaint alleged were violated by the respondents are continued, without material amendment, so far as their applicability to the facts of this case is involved, in Section 8 (a) (1), 8 (a) (3), and 8 (a) (4) of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.

1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., did not violate Section 8 (1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning union activity. We do not agree.

   The record shows that on March 1, 1946, Garrett, the respondent's plant supervisor, summoned employees Boyer, Peterson, Martin Schwartz, Packer, and McCann to the personnel manager's office.

   Credible, uncontradicted testimony of the last three named employees, corroborated in material respects by Garrett, established, and we find, that at the personnel manager's office Garrett asked Martin Schwartz, 'Has Henley [the leader of the union movement] been talking unions to you?'; that he asked Packer, 'What is this I hear about you guys and Henley talking union affairs?'; and that he asked McCann if there was any truth to a rumor that the employees were forming a union.

   Schwartz, Packer, and McCann replied in substance that there had been some general discussions among the employees about unions, but that they knew of no labor organization at the respondent's plant.

   Garrett then asked about possible causes of employee unrest. Those present replied that the only cause of dissatisfaction was continuing officious conduct by one of the draftsmen.

   The Trial Examiner found that Garrett's interrogation about union activity was privileged, apparently on the ground that it was incidental to a legitimate effort by him to ascertain and correct the cause of reported dissatisfaction among the employees.2 We do not agree.

   The nature of Garrett's questions suggests that he was quite as interested in obtaining information concerning the status of unionization at the plant as he was in discovering correctable causes of dissatisfaction among the employees. Garrett could easily have inquired about the latter matter without going into the former. However, regardless of Garrett's subjective purpose, we find that his questioning of the employees as to union activity was an unwarranted, coercive interference in a concern which was exclusively their own, and that his questioning, therefore, violated Section 8 (1) of the Act.3 2. The Trial Examiner found that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent, Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., discharged Martin Schwartz on March 7, 1946, and failed to reinstate him, in violation of the Act, are not sustained by the proof. We agree. So far as the evidence shows, the decision to discharge Schwartz was made solely by Plant Supervisor Garrett. Garrett testified that he reached this 2 Garrett testified credibly that before calling the meeting on March 1, described above, he had received several reports indicating that the employees were disturbed about something and were talking about organization. He explained at the hearing, 'I wanted to find out what the basis was of the union. I wanted to find out what was griping them.' referred to therein.

   decision because of personal offense he felt at Schwartz's question on March 6, 1946, as to whether he [Schwartz] was being given a 'run around' by the respondent with respect to a higher classification and a pay increase and because, upon inquiry by Garrett on March 7, 1946,

   Chief Draftsman Pross reported that Schwartz's services were not essential and Engineer Dickerson reported that Schwartz was not a competent draftsman. The Trial Examiner credited the foregoing testimony of Garrett and so do we. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint insofar as its alleges that Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., discriminatorily discharged and failed to reinstate Martin Schwartz.

3. The Trial Examiner found that the proof failed to establish that the respondents, Reeves-Ely Laboratories Inc., and Reeves Instrument Corporation, violated the Act by their discharge on August 2, 1946, of Draftsmen Alfred Henley, Morton L. Packer, George Schwartz, and Vincent Furnari.4 We do not agree.

   At the time they were discharged, the above four employees constituted the Union's organizing committee at the respondents' plant.

   They were the only employees there who had perfected their membership in the Union by signing membership cards and paying initial fees. The record is clear that the respondents discharged them upon the decision and order of Harry Belock, management's highest ranking representative in employment matters at the plant here involved.

   The Trial Examiner's finding that these discharges were not proved to have been discriminatory is based in part upon the premise that Belock acted without knowledge of the union activities of the four employees. This premise is contrary to the evidence. Belock himself testified, and we find, that he knew of such union activities for a substantial time before the discharges.

   In affirmative explanation of his reasons for discharging Henley,

   Packer, George Schwartz, and Furnari, Belock testified variously as follows:

   4 At all times relevant to this case before July 1946, Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., employed the persons and operated the plant here involved as an intra-company department, known as Reeves Sound Laboratories Division-Apparatus Department. Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., managed directly the financial affairs of this department. Harry Belock and Edward Garrett, as employees of Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., and as officers in the department, managed production and employment within the department. In July 1946, Reeves Sound Laboratories Division-Apparatus Department was Incorporated in New York as a wholly owned subsidiary corporation of Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc., entitled Reeves Instrument Corporation. Such incorporation involved no change in the plant or methods of its operation, and only minor changes in personnel. Plant Supervisor Garrett testified that the only purpose of the incorporation was to secure a new name for the department, to better describe its activities, and to make a slight shift of officers.

   Both Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc. and Reeves Instrument Corporation were charged in the complaint with responsibility for the discharges of Henley, Packer, George Schwartz, and Furnari. While both contended that these discharges were for valid reasons, neither disputed its responsibility for them. We find that the operations of Reeves-Ely Laboratories, Inc. and Reeves Instrument Corporation were so integrated as to make them both employers, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, of the four employees named above.

   I didn't want to jeopardize these men, but I couldn't consult with them. They were a lot of prima donnas.

   We fired these five 5 men because they were not worthwhile.

   They could have been worthwhile if they had used their heads.

   The only thing I complain about is that instead of sticking to the table and drawing and trying to do a job and learn what is going out, they are all trying to figure out ways to connive. That is the objection I have.

   I think their main trouble was they got big ideals. They don't know whether to stick to the job or get twisted up. I think that things were starting to be put in their minds.

   I can guarantee that the four6 of them sitting there are sorry that they ever got involved with Henley [the leader of the union movement] and got thrown out.

   The issue before us is whether Belock's above and his other similar complaints about the four employees refer essentially to asserted inefficiency and insubordination by them, or to their known sympathies for and support of a union. We believe, for the reasons following, that Belock's primary objection was to their sympathies for and support of a union.

   First, although Belock testified that Henley, Packer, George Schwartz, and Furnari had been inefficient or inattentive to their duties over an extended period before their discharges, he also testified;... these four men... could have been good men. Nothing wrong with them. They did a clean job as far as I am concerned;

   and there isn't a one here could tell you...