National Labor Relations Board v. Aladdin Industries, Inc.
125 F.2d 377
7th Cir.
1942
Check Treatment

*1 discharge employer ever to charge forbid an statutory case, the In man. either a union rejected applicant was whether the test is discharged on account or the activity, account or on membership or permissible criterion.” of some Labor National petition for enforcement Relations Board admittedly neces allowed, order is 2(b) and paragraphs sary modification of following

2(c) striking therefrom so amount pay language: over “And agency appropriate fiscal to the deducted municipal Federal, State, county, governments government supply projects.” said work relief funds for Republic Corporation v. National See Steel Board, Labor Relations 61 S.Ct. U.S. 77, 85 6. L.Ed.

NATIONAL LABOR BOARD v. RELATIONS INDUSTRIES, ALADDIN Inc.

No. 7670. Appeals,

Circuit Court Circuit. Seventh

Jan. 1942.

Rehearing Denied Feb. *2 In

voluminous to be set forth in extenso. substance, respond- the Board found that ent with, restrained, interfered co- and erced its employees’ maintain- .joining or ing membership in United Automobile Workers finding of America. This respondent’s based on ques- (a) action tioning employees its concerning un- activity; ion (b) seeking establish SPARKS, dissenting in Judge, Circuit independent opposition union in to the part. Union; (c) circularizing its with a attacking letter the Union. It also found that violated 8(3) Section (1) and dis- Act

criminatorily refusing un- reinstate ten thereby ion following members discouraging membership in the Union. directing Board entered an order spondent to and cease desist these unfair labor practices, to reinstate the pay, with post ap- back and to Watts, NLRB, Washing- Robert B. propriate plant. notices of the order in its ton, C., Dorfman, NLRB, D. I. S. of Chi- findings being attacks the 111., Kollender, NLRB, cago, Mortimer and n evidentiary support, and Knapp, Gen. Coun- A. Associate Laurence sel, sup- being Board’s order as without the Gross, Counsel, Ernest A. Asst. Gen. port of be- findings, evidence valid and Sylvester Garrett, Stix, and William yond scope and charge of the Union’s Washington, C., petitioner. D. complaint. Upon the Board’s the conclu- Millar, C„ Waynesville, W. H. F. N. weeks, lasting sion about six trial Davisson, Anderson, Ind., and C. O. Examiner, report, preliminary the found in a respondent. generally against respondent. EVANS, SPARKS, Before and MIN- aspects case, In some is not it TON, Judges. Circuit heard, unlike others we have where unions, employer’s antagonism early EVANS, Judge. Circuit barrassed in later controversies wherein it 1927, respondent operat- Since has been neutrality. it relied on an asserted strict factory Alexandria, Indiana, ing throughout early history, Respondent, its bowls, lamp lamp where it makes kerosene strongly union. Its attitude anti-labor chimneys, mantles, shades, incandescent accepted eagerly Readily and was bitter. it bottles, lamps, etc., vacuum electric and who, opinion group lawyers of a employed increasing has number of Labor Relations Act declared the products, men and women to its turn out ignored was unconstitutional. shipped parts of which are to all the Unit- provisions Act. follow of this fused to engaged ed States. Thus in interstate com- by this was embarrassed this trial At merce, respondent and its ad- attitude, early in- early its anti-union mittedly provisions came within the “yellow dog” con- upon a so-called sistence Act, Labor the National Relations 29 U.S. which, way, with tract its seq. dispute C.A. 151 et between it § long ago abandoned. employees arose, which its called for respondent, Although after it learn the National Labor Relations constitutional, dispute that the L. R. Act came com- N. Board. Out ed adopted plaint by respondent, changed completely its attitude the Board poli employer-employee relationship upon hearing had in new which 1937. a properly nevertheless its action hearing cy, which order entered, interpreted respondent’s Examiner Board thereon, provoked action studied light its earlier petition by the and anti-union attitude. Board for the enforcement of its order. hostile order, Respondent, propriety, much report, findings, with asks togeth- er, upon past document, pass judgment, form lengthy a rather too us attitude, inquire facts history, action, the decisions1 that into the absence) charges preferred, (or the Board ascertain existence support which deal with later Such of find- action. evidence to substantial year ings, lengthily beginning unnecessary action was in it is us *3 following point testimony a its discuss out the sit down or to ployees. strength weaknesses certain estab- lished facts. as it was the Inasmuch discussing There is little what need province legitimate Board’s to draw the place took before other than to time inferences ac- from the evidence which de- employer observe that one at time the cepts as and to the fact true ascertain liberately, constantly intentionally, dispute, where is a we will avoid there rights employee, as violated the of the possible as much over as recital facts a rights subsequent- are defined dispute. accept as a which there is We ly enacted Labor National Relations Act. Board, verity findings except of the study, however, to, Our is directed discussed, are as- those hereafter which to, our discussion is directed what took because, lacking allegedly, wholly sailed year in the Fall of 1936 and in the evidentiary support. findings in These are 1937, during elec- which time there was an generally against respondent. tion, strike, strike, a a settlement of the bargaining, agree- followed collective early In view its record the Board ment employ- and its between justified scrutinizing respondent’s in ees, strike, a second wherein the skeptically to wheth- closely see engaged in down a a sit refusal professions changed er a its attitude court, of the strikers an order of to genuine its toward were discharge by respond- of strikers sincere, lip acceptance of life, peace Following ent. this strenuous just recognition Act which won came, in the form of law suit —in Supreme validity from the Court. say, state speaking court. That to rela- sharp question of brings us to tively, peace. employer there was of- The e., controversy, the refusal reinstate i. to applications fered to from its for- receive employees. Notwithstanding handi- employees, each, and, mer act on caps of its and the indiscretions of birth special reasons, save reinstate presented persua- youth, has jobs. to their former brings in which argument sive favor its The union made collective class, notwith- case the doubtful into large group (117) for a presumptions standing strong which were members and some of whom did findings. the Board’s attend individually ask for reinstatement. argument Respondent meets the Most the old re-en- early history hostile unionism in its not, gaged. although one-third were About by pointing which showed that record sought employ- some them and secured yellow dog contract it abandoned ment elsewhere and made no effort to find 1929, long before the Norris- far back as respondent. Act such contracts LaGuardia declared sharply-disputed controversy The is over policy. complied public respect the action of Recovery Act, Industrial with the National might those who were reinstated. We after it had declared unconsti- even controlling appeal say issue on this complaining When the tutional. non-employment employ- ten former Board, charge filed the before which application for ees whose reinstatement 1936, recognition November, demanded presented by the Union. majority, company claiming a stated respondent’s reasons for non-rein- acknowledge it would such union if an policy several —its statement election the Board disclosed the union women, employ employ married rela- represented majority. The union refused department, incompetence, same tives in the election, called, such an a strike was positions returning lack of available 5, December 1936. The union later con- principal employees being the ones. — election, which held De- sented to an thereupon plain language cember 1936. The union was In view of statute, many bargaining agent, and the times effectuated court named the com- Montgomery Co., 311 v. U.S. Ward & v. L. 1 N. L. R. B. Link-Belt Co. N. R. L.Ed. 368; B., Cir., 107 F.2d 555. S.Ct. pany promptly into a collective company entered refused to discharge Mrs. bargaining agreement writing with said Culbertson hearing, view of meetings union. com- years Thereafter her ten of able service with the com- pany weekly, pany. and union were held department officials Her was one of the oftener, meetings departments sometimes at which two which many adjustments minor profitable were made operation. shown a The union working kept of Minutes relations. insisted discharge. immediate meetings, approved by both The company refused. The union refused which — sides —are in record. called, arbitrate. sit-down strike was began 8:30, March 2. sole A rival immediately sought ground of the strike was the establish employees. among itself *4 company the discharge Mrs. Culbertson company’s only any prohibit action was to hearing. —without a company during solicitation time or company premises. (An announcement clearly union was its outside effect, posted board, that on the bulletin legitimate when it function demanded un- immediately torn down some employer the discharge it foreman a employee members.) ion One who was for the “crabby” reason that he or she is organizer, incapable being but a union or that she disciplinarian is too strict a employee, (or production member because not a that she is desirous of conducting her subject existing department efficiently attack the so the it will show profit discharge. his The a which demanded to her employer). fact, In discharge him company refused without have searched any the inAct vain for hearing. Finally existing a union was authority the which gives to the the persuaded right discharge the to arbitrate to insist on whom the employer shall organizer, although employ employ this the union or super as foreman or joined on the arbitration board member intendent. National Labor Relations Board discharge, the union Laughlin, 1, v. & 45, the vote the 301 57 U.S. Jones employee 615, 893, be demanded said still S.Ct. L.Ed. A.L.R. permitted natural, query to return to work. if the union can discharge direct the of the foreman dispute Two months later another arose superintendent, may object it not also employee, over the retention Mrs. compel president the dismissal of the Culbertson, forelady the mantle de- secretary and the board of directors partment. Friday, February 26, On the company ? discharged the union demanded be that she alternative, But, March 8:30 A. M. As an ignore, we concede or for the if moment, would right be called. Mrs. C. of the union to demand They charged being “an old crab. superintend- the removal of a foreman or (the forelady) just get girls ent, can’t instances, question in some in this cry. along. girls She makes She de- case is not met. The before us can- issue simple mands to do little things ground them that not be save as we consider met life, complaint preferred by come the head of under school not of the the union— give employee life. All it factory everything in all a hear- quite major ing she does. It is of a threatening issue.” alternative —and complaint against Thus was the Mrs. C. sit-down strike. stated whose demand for opinion, union’s action in In our her dismissal was submitted as an alterna- superin- demanding of this the dismissal tive strike. to a stated, grounds without tendent previous justifiable, complaints hearing There had —was management arrogant effrontery. regarding made Mrs. but was case of spoken to her and C. illegal Ignoring for the moment char- (probably careful urged more employees’ strike, the demand acter of the meaning, lenient) management more in her for dismissal of faithful girls. service, hearing given to years’ extraordinary so employee, is so met Mon- said The union meeting as to excite doubt as to day, which unreasonable March at the com- of the Union’s sought correctness of statement pany first discuss busi- unfinished However, the excesses to ness, demands. but union demanded immediate power go, will complaint. one intoxicated with Culbertson consideration of the application, were only by were on the union times, this unreason- is shown not demand, employed. the strike which able strike with was a sit-down start company’s em- all, In 331 of the former sit-down characteristics offensive ployees re-employed. The ex- were trial strike. dismissal of aminer recommended hesitancy reaching respondent charge against have no as to We phase con- employees. given, conclusion that as to Various reasons elsewhere, respondent right, troversy appear, employment was in the —failure to clearly wrong. Be- re-employed, already refusal to be discharge refused to approved cause the examiner’s hired. The sit-down Mrs. C. a strike called. 46 former recommendation to these possession strike, was. union took ployees. plant. occupied Its members examiner also recommended The trial premises to turn over refused pay. back He re- reinstated with 95 be They possession, held owner. about testimony strikers’ fused to receive two weeks. weeks later the Three refusing in- the court’s reopened. junction the sit down strik- and found that During the sit-down discharge, ers *5 competent sought of relief from a court and and back entitled to reinstatement injunction An jurisdiction. was issued pay they employed. were not for the time sit-down strikers who refused found, involving disputes He on all also injunction and defied court. super- employee employer’s veracity and of disposition large- foremen, employee’s this case turns or Final of intendents sides, ly testimony the activities both follow- and should be ac- of truthful ing cepted. sit-down this strike. sit-down strike continued rejected re- the examiner’s The Board 24, 2 March 16. March On March part. 63 in It dismissed commendation spondent long letter sent they actively employees because of the 95 re-employment.2 offering participated in the sit strike. Of the down 22, 32, dismissed on remaining Board reopened April plant was 5. merits might called their be employees, qualifications what Many had whose applications. foremen, passed by irrespective affiliations, sit-down who Board were' left ten found activities, engaged. substantial pay. and back reinstatement entitled to (perhaps half) selected number of those failed reinstate them for pickets. sit-down were former strikers controversy here reasons. various to the action Board narrowed closed, plant respondent the time the At The find- ordering their reinstatement. in employees, whom 550 517 were respondent ing Board that violated .of 362 voted eligible as union members. the latter’s refusal 8(3) based on Section bargaining of the union as their favor ten union members. Its these reinstate agent. At the time of the 95% eligible, refusing action, failing to reinstate who were the former employees, by was construed these members. were union employees’ discouraging member- Board 17, presented appli- April the union On ship violation unions therefore a return work of members who cation 8(3). Section said employees. The foremen and were former charges, sustained go through There were instructed to supervisors Board, which relate to violations Sec- determine who should be list and this they only 8(1). But out- be on tion Selection based instated. charges which regard due to side the competency, and also with meet, reducing upon to answer and to company’s policy num- called they employees. behind the date of down go Some sit married women ber of its settlement. names strike and eleven —whose least —at Regional held no such im- some em Director this letter which It was they prohibited plication in this found ployees letter. believed their said again started, the sit-down strike was subscribe unless would When return discharged employees. dog yellow contracts. The Board Culbertson, respond- against Mrs. past to looking to the justified in While acceptance many down strikers ent’s sit actions of later good faith ascertain the misconduct, con- regard this professions, are convinced that we implied exchange forgive- by what took stituted appeal be determined must can, nor set- ness behind which we neither and its second strike after the (cid:127) should, go. seemingly ac- Both sides tlement 1937. starting a new cepted settlement as this true, question may It is about there be a plant opening there point. With the a strik the loss of an status exchange of for- apparently mutual ing employee participate ac who did effort beginning of a new giveness and the tively dispossessor, as a a sitter. —as harmoniously and parties work both position takes prosperity effectively increased were actual down strikers who sit If employment might result. increased announced in are bound the rule find ourselves go we we back of this date National Labor Board v. Fan Relations reactionary by respondent’s confronted Corp., Metallurgical steel 306 U.S. employees’ by the stalwartism —matched S.Ct. 123 A.L.R. L.Ed. managerial attempt to dictate injudicious view, namely, While inclined to the other ill-advised by its policy followed partici all members of a union staging down strike. sit pate by the strike called sit down as the accept settlement union, liable, Unless although number less are termina- era beginning new actually of a membership oc than entire disputed issues grievances, the past cupies tion premises, are bound we must multiplied hopelessly action, will be consequences of the union’s parties who en- ignore the action of here, necessary to decide that is not for us past close the doors to deavored to moreover, question. is, to dis difficult regrets, mistakes and was filled with member, tinguish who at —and between *6 Surely, and the Board disappointments. union, becomes an unlaw direction of the accept good faith should the the court strike, occupant plant during ful the the of employees and agreements of member, instead and another disputes. should they We settle their when plant, sitter. sitting in the feeds the of keep of burn- try fires discord to the think, are, feasors. Both we wilful tort parties earn- ing, are when the themselves (cid:127) do, as we name- Viewing the situation permit har- estly endeavoring a little to mutual claims and ly, settlement of that a creep in.” mony “to assume, place, we and grievances took safely fairly narrow We can thus and conclude, antedating said grievances which marked the the date our issues to reopening marked settlement March, plant, after opening of the fully were, respondent, plant, by go we were to down strike. If sit ap- completely same waived. and employees would be March back of employees. plies to the sit down right their without —for implied an and ex- was both There the order of to and their respondent part agreement of press on discharge because court, their followed regardless employees, of accept all to they action, right them the such lost to of record, subject past strike their employ- enjoyed might have as otherwise competency, and their their record to dispute. labor ees, unsettled with an limitations as marital relation blood hand, it would un other On the stated. above give to fair, this settlement to view of not, cannot does deliberately right which it respondent a may refuse argue that wisely, believe, and, waived as any question for employees in ten harmony. peace When interest incompetent, other than reason employees to re invited relation status or blood marital or their places, regardless of the old to their turn department, same employees in the other right it waived sit down ap opening when the absence or that though they were as treat justifies its action. received plication was possession of lawless whose wrong doers changed the former employer’s property, employees’ right to absolute re-em- that of tort feasors. employees’ pay, status on the other back ployment and to approval of hand, dependent on our acceptance re-employ- employees’ non-reinstatement finding Board’s pressing grievance their ment Cummins, Mary Cunning- membership evi- were: Charles due to their Disbennet, ap- ham, Dickerson, Edythe Irma presentation denced Kane, Dyer, Holford, Melvin plication Virgil than Ethel through the union rather Rebuck, May McCarty, applications the re- Helen Mabel through individual Thompson. spondent requested. Anna respect spe- brings We below us the claims set forth a statement employees, which employees, ing three as advanced cific ten Board, objec- of the entire may typical well to be be said counsel for the employ to their reinstate- ten .3 The other seven were tions of prominent ment, pay. The ten ees who more back were no .months’ papers hired be jobs ment uary, off * ment on that partment the ware signed ing deparment operations in mins’ but * would I would have to because around ishing department. testified picket time in suggest tion. * testified praised * * that all recommended about found: application. * * * “Cummins testified that “Cummins did “Cummins “ weeks one occasion * * * * * * June and fell in a truck and cut his the sit-down strikers. top As * * (said) that that available sit-down strike. only with * department. Almquist work and that be Company the union as directed of this a line him down there.’ Hellmers, superintendent that ‘he was a foreman June there were no vacancies stopped * ‘he on after ‘at lay-off, * * * April quality Watkins, Charles to not moving * * * when he refused was Watkins, April positions * He he * * record, however, spent he * * * lunch re-employ and was fully wake ** * * * presents application.” ho would went to file a * * * coming good loafer.’ Cummins * of his work nor glass-finishing depart- very worked * belt, * Cummins, that time that Watkins resumed until about * * him when maintained He began work Cummins’ prior lot of time It cannot sign glass-finishing already M * * his reinstatement company applica- told poor foreman, was Cummins: He he there Cummins ‘dozed when the up * served observed off go reopened, testified foreman, Cummins had * * to had an except * said to satisfactory glass-finish- worker worked shows that picture the strike. gather filled Green, sleep been were no glass-fin Almquist foreman, tell him in Jan- nothing * * * on * * * * * * * * sitting did some- Cum- argu- for 6 lehr.’ arm,' shop until that had and any de- up he on * * that when previously initiative’ fact. The tenuousness of such assertion that is further made clear in the hearing, satisfactory * * * brief ‘is still and she didn’t make her A. all favorably when the work was ‘a been worked ment. She sidered him.’ A. told her that she with shade for noontime, found: report, ing was very On one the ware good sirability he had arm. He house man Hellmers, Cummins insisted around As “Jones, “She *7 “Cunningham “The “The right,’ testified company application. him dozed the assertion that ” respect threatened to Cummins poor worker, and, according loafer. an department, employed contrary lehr man on good personally occasion while for down there’ foreman, Watkins, being night made in the she didn’t seem J. admitted that ‘her opening Mary Cunningham, off the allegedly but lacquer * * ‘spent off, be awakened reinstatement. that she was still picketed worker.’ rehiring my employee to work states bringing insisted that ‘she foreman considered for superintendent, a habit foreman, Green, fell in went when parchment-shade to his re-employed could not to is unmarried. *. A. department; lehr [*] since a lot did not recommend communicated because department fire him then. available and has during [*] factory chimneys. that would Cummins, considering at work was working * * them into orders. [*] has no * * * truck sleep June any job. she is clear falling would rates.’ did to have much consider working (she) in his ‘she was slow be top ¤ . respondent’s reports because she was an time told employment parchment- noticed and cut his I can’t use on not return the Board at being considered work said: He was was asleep basis testified, pick She * * * reported resumed night with * * * * * * depart- written * At this, Henry sitting hours. rehir- fore- glass slow con- * was take un- her job. she has ‘He up. de- A. he * 38á ployment pronounced in their ac- union active, ten aggressive tivities than these three. union, members of the or were the employed. members union not Hun- The Board based its on the as- dreds union sumption that denied rein- active, Among them reinstated. were the statement because .these aggressive leaders strike and applied through for They included union activities. partisan the union and thus indicated discharge Mrs. insisted on would adherence to said union. There among reinstated Also support

be if Culbertson. more for this conclusion department. the mantle her sociated with make was slow worker and did not reported Spangler a satis- that she was If she had been unsatisfac- rates.’ an employee factory employee, presumably that tory recommended but she would man- reinstated she should not be' have been considered for reinstatement ground department any nothing tle that on time. There is * * * policy against assigning department an when a. to indicate record supervised by application relative the union * * * submitted * * * applicable ad- He to her. there no for work available * * reason, however, against (her) her real vanced no *. We believe that department. being placed in another reason for her non-reinstatement *** signed application April, she had “Sometime in * * * continuing her, application and had manifested asked thus A. loyalty application, signed general didn’t to the ‘You Union.” the replied Company you?’ A. contends facts are: in the affirmative. She * ** “Mary Cunningham sign She tes- then asked whether she wanted * * * retorted, application. tified she Com- another Disbennet understood pany signed application, think ‘I one desired her file have * * * enough.’ finally promised if but she wanted to return A. will comply necessary put didn’t if he think was her to work could find * * * * * stating applied her, *. he would She reinstatement * * * request department signing assign her to the mantle Union * * * supervisor April 17, 1937, September, because her husband was * but in * * * * * ** A. *. D. at the trial she communicated testified * * * * * (told) further occasions she didn’t want return several * ** opening. not found unless all the back. he had rest them went * * * that, reports, Jones, A. she “At the time her fore- admitted testified, man, qualifications good worker. He considered her was a * * * * * * experienced difficulty re-employment, he that he consulted his * * * vacancy McCarty. finding assistant, for her in another de- Mrs. Jones partment. belonged didn’t know whether she not, any the real the Union or didn’t make are for convinced “We denying reinstatement D. effort to find out. reason * * * * * * * * * testified “Jones fell within was that she *8 right hiring except against policy department in ‘her work was all she was * * * supervision slow; she didn’t under the of seem have * * * * * initiative,’ and that the much even had she *. While wick relative * * * closely department may return to work wanted to he have related department, have D. un- would not her to the mantle came recommended employment employment. manager supervision of Mrs. der sole Culbert- the * * * depart- general son, forelady in testified that of the mantle she good worker, report purposes policy, but his was showed ment for the is * * * jobs step- was slow on the fact that Mrs. that she some shown daughter C.’s * * * give later sister he would consideration to who had employing strike, her for work in under Mrs. before a different de- worked C. * * partment. transferred to the flame- were both * * * Edythe spreader department Disbennet, As after the Board believe that D. stated: strike. Nor do we was * * * respond- employment depart- given in “She worked for not another * * * ment, difficulty A. encountered ent since she was em- because in department. ployed already finding in the mantle As She her. in- * * * many company dicated, ap- return not new were did plication. hired April after * * * * Clay that D. is the *. We not rein- “She wife of Dis- find was supervisor department

bennet, given the mantle in the stated wick * * * department closely department which, employment in another is as- respond- respond- appear possession who took would likewise were those hostility lost court’s must have plant refused to ent’s anti-union ent’s Surely, if retalia- some of its heat in the summer of order return it. ten respond- these before to reinstate tion for activities motivated union important ent, hardly believable that became the is important, union em- the lesser milder assumed. On issue it has since June discipline. ployees would selected for (about two-thirds) they gave respondent notice that written this, take the As illustrative of let us I. from the C. O. had withdrawn Disbennet, Edythe one of the ten. case of said Union not to let and asked re-employed Respondent says she was not represent them further. department hus- in her because her old n depart- supervisor in wick band why five reasons advances ment. findings stand. Board’s can not Mrs. Culbertson’s In as much as majori- large (a) of a sit down immediate cause of the ty non-sit down sit down strikers and concerning her strike, Mrs. D. was asked union, strikers, all members of replied that C. She relations with Mrs. positions, to their old their reinstatement always pleasant treated they were —“She discrimination shows absence of Hughes, Employees, Regina me swell.” Union. Noble, Beeman, Harriet and Mrs. Marie demanding the were each most insistent policy which eliminated wives (b) The Culbertson, before removal Mrs. depart- same and other relatives from the re-employed. strike, yet all three relatives, ment their husbands par- was not an active Mrs. Disbennet is reasonable. is, ticipant sit down re-employing (c) Good reasons for during was not sitter she given. each of the ten old are re-employ her could strike. Failure to given the (d) must be aggres- to her be attributed therefore employ- policy right determine the Yet espousal sive the union cause. efficiency impossible. ment be- otherwise re-engaged Board found she was harmony Likewise, greater will be there support. cause her union striking employees signed the’notice reason she longer loyal the Un- no and remained * * ploy. ion.” Edythe * * * Company as to contends opinion “Counsel * * * Disbennet: case, in the Fansteel admitted department. in the mantle “She worked Edythe Disbennet served the said * * * * * signed also the Union She F'ood Committee *. The sit-down May Company application signed began depart- strike first the mantle supported woman, * * is married * 10. She (she) ment. The chief reason supervisor husband, is the * * her who * was, rehired as testi- * * * charge division the wick employment manager fied * * A. * * re-employed *. Her husband was rehiring *, ‘The reason for not * * her relations *. testified that She * * * strictly company policy. D. always forelady, Mrs. C. were with her ** * Edythe why informed she pleasant. At a treated me swell’. ‘She was not called back the mantle de- meeting time the about Union partment. placed her that if told called, some of sit-down job any it would have to be in * * * * * * most *9 * * * department other than some demanding of removal insistent the * * * story the mantle . Then the old Regina Hughes, Marie Bee- Mrs. C. were up. married ladies came The other of Noble, whom man Mrs. Harriet all of and difficulty finding a foremen had ** * re-employed. Mrs. C. have been say Edythe, I her. as to as to for will * * * disciplinarian. awas strict work, received, the information her her strike. “Mrs. D. was not the sit-down satisfactory.’ The real rea- * * * work was serving However, by aided she * not * son she was reinstated because began, *. the food When her husband sub-foreman granted temporary permission explained department. * * * That was same enter this committee couple times, * * her of and she said permission *. * was cancelled * * up give she she didn’t believe could of the demand evacuation * * * job.” premises, husband for a 4 and also on March 386 employment drawal

than if determine from said union was information policy. respondent, gave added reason for renewed effort weaken or (e) good of em- The faith effort destroy Might the union. not end this ployer fairly employment conduct be' rejection applica- furthered of part by hundreds the business of is attested presented tions union? employees. present of its former union Support may the Board’s of conclusion pic- the other Turn now to side of the also be per- found in statistics and the argues Board from the fact ture. The centages Many of reinstatement. real could advance no that the union application members who made good re-employing these for not reason through union, besides the-ten before ten, activities their it followed union now, us rejected. were The percentage application through the their figures applications of those whose were individually, ex- be the of must instead presented by union, re-em- not planation respondent’s Further- action. of ployed, suspiciously large.4 more, employment records of show em- percentage of union members lower The question ultimate we must determine ployed settlement of after the baffling. is rather They show than before the strike. also we could and While would have percentage former lower of much contrary findings found to the of successfully through applied, ployees who Board, evidence, we believe there was some applied indi- union, those who than persuasive, not very substantial nor vidually aid. and without union’s evidence, some which sustains Board’s were Moreover, ten union members these finding. being Such the situation as to objection employees. No serious all old employees, the ten finding of the Board any of of made to re-employed not were because Significant is the hearing. on the them their applications through were made complaints made as were such fact union must be sustained. never mentioned difficulty said arose and this until follows, ques and without much through application made members tion, rejection applica that if the their the union. reason, Company tion was for this opin- seemingly of the (3) properly violated Section 8 and was company changed its not ion that subject Board’s order to the to cease mistrust dislike attitude matters, particularly desist. In all other sharing opinion, it While union. going before settlement was not en- be admitted must commencement strike and the what we support con- evidence tirely without era, findings call the new conclu viction. sions Board cannot be sustained. inclosing employees, letter The order of the Board in reference re-employment, lent some application unemployed employees, to the ten conclusion. support for this desist, cease the order to based difficulty having holding the refusal of to rein- union was petition because signed state these their membership. The application union, members, through bearing date will be two-thirds proper order to announcing with- enforced. that effect June, ( percentage showing 4 reinstated Union tion and were be- Table incompetency re-employment: application was....... 10 cause applica- company’s in the union The number Number Sept. 17, employ 1937............ tion was........................ 117 application pre-strike (an over The number in who increase employment.) reinstated was............ number, 332 were old em- The number in union Of ployees. reinstated was......... others) (no of old evidence number *10 sign did not The number who was..................172 reinstated application of union members was................. number sign who did not least..............200 The number called application wei'e not reinstat- of old who number appliea- apply).. signed (4 these did not the union ed may respects, presented. In all other petitioner denied. SPARKS, Judge. concur in Circuit I part opinion which reverses ‘from Board’s order. dissent part opinion which affirms Board’s order. BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BACHELDER.

v.

No. Appeals, Circuit.

Circuit Court of Seventh 4, 1942.

Feb. Watts, NLRB, Washington, B. Robert C., Dorfman, NLRB, S.

D. and I. 111., petitioner. Chicago, C. Bachelder Harold K. Bachel- W. Ind., der, Indianapolis, both spondent. EVANS, SPARKS, KER- Before Judges. NER, Circuit KERNER, Judge. Circuit Bachelder, respondent, W. C. Re- Company, for Hoosier Veneer ceiver National Labor Relations ordered to cease desist unfair practices; to offer reinstate twelve labor employees found to have been discrimina- torily discharged, pay and to them back