NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VH. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71
tion of such membership, attendance at union meetings, negotiation
with the employer in behalf of members, and the transacting of other
union business. In Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Co.,4 part of the employee's
union activity which brought about the discharge consisted
m conferring with an attorney of the Board. 5 In Matter of Nebel
Knitting Company s an employee was discharged for testifying in
police court concerning an attack on a union organizer outside the
mill by a supervisor. The Board found that his discharge was caused
in part by "his willingness to assist the union, in indirect fashion, by
actively participating in the police-court prosecution." The Board
indicated that "the criminal proceedings were intimately associated in
the minds of both the respondent and its employees with, the organizational
activity of the union." And the Board has reached the
same result, although the employer attempted to disguise the discrimination
by applying an epithet to the union activity protected by
the act. In Matter of The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company, 7 the
employee was chairman of the union grievance committee in his department.
The employer referred to the employee's activity, as chairman,
as "amateur detective work and snooping around and gathering
complaints." The Board found the dismissal of the employee because
of this activity a violation of the section, stating :
The evidence of the circumstances surrounding the furlough of Eline stands
uncontradicted and leaves little room for doubt that the lay-off was the result
of Eline's union activity in conscientiously representing the employees of his
department in their complaints against the respondent. It is evident that the
respondent intended to discourage the further handling of employee grievances
through union committees * * *. That the respondent's attitude was expressed
in colorful descriptive and epithet made its purpose none the less clear.
In Matter of Botany Worsted Mills, s an employer attempted to
justify the discharge of an employee who discussed union matters
during working hours on the ground that the employer is privileged
to "forbid discussions concerning religion—or politics—or labor
unions." The Board held that a "rule prohibiting outside activities
during working hours" was "within the lawful power of the respondent
to adopt and enforce"; but found a violation because the
employer did not object to the talk as such but rather to the fact
that the talk was in favor of the union opposed by the employer.9
Thus the Board, in one case, dismissed the complaint of an employee
who was discharged becaused he stayed away from work, although
the employee in question stayed away in order to confer with the
regional director of the Board as to the lay-off of two men.1°
4 Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers Federal Labor
Union No. 19375, 1 N. L. R. B. 68, enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf
Trailer Company, 301 U. S. 49 (1937).
5 See. 8 (4) makes it a separate unfair labor practice for an employer to discharge or
otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony
under the act. The section was applied in Matter of Aluminum Products Company,
etc., and Aluminum Workers Union, etc.. 7 N. L. R. B. 1219.
6 Hatter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc., and American Federation of Hosierg Workers,
6 N. L. R. B. 284.
7 Matter of The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company and United Rubber Workers of America,
Local No. 26, etc., 6 N. L. It. B. 325, enforced in Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v.
National Labor Relations Board, 97 F. (2d) 1007 (C. C. A. 4th, 1938).
matter of Botany Worsted Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
4 N. L. R. B. 292.
9 See also Matter of American Potash