NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 75
Upon returning to work the employee failed to report to the employer
though the employer had told the employee to do so before resuming
work. The employee never did report and claimed to have been discharged.
The employer testified that he had no intention of discharging
the employee but merely had desired to see the employee and
request an apology before the employee's return to work. The Board
held that the employee's failure to report to the employer precluded
the finding of a discharge.33
In several cases the employer contended that the employee quit
voluntarily. In Matter of Sunshine Mining Company" the employer
committed several unfair labor practices within sections 8 (1)
and (3). One employee, feeling that his services were not wanted
by the employer because of his union activity, left his employment.
On these facts the Board sustained the employer's contention that
the employee had quit voluntarily. However, the Board held otherwise
where evidence showed that the employer compelled the
resignation of the employee. In Matter of Atlas Mills 35 the employer
exacted from three members of the union negotiating committee
their promise not to strike, in return for his own promise
not to discharge them for union activity. The following day the
committee threatened to strike if the employer did not confer with
the union spokesman. At once the employer assembled all the employees
and made a speech to them, in the course of which he asked
each employee whether he wished to remain or strike. Many left the
plant. The Board stated :
The real alternative, inherent in the situation itself was clear ; either to give
up connection with Local 2269 and abandon their legitimate weapon, the strike,
or leave the respondent's employ. To condition employment upon the abandonment
by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act is equivalent
to discharging them outright for union activities."
Similarly, coercing an employee into quitting, by demotion, transfer,
or other discriminatory treatment, has been held to constitute an
unfair labor practice. In Matter of Waggoner Refining Company.'
the Board found that the demotion of two employees was due to their
union activity and held :
Birdsall and Phipps might have accepted the discriminatory demotions and
subsequently filed charges alleging that the company was engaging in an
unfair labor practice. It was equally justifiable for them to have refused to
accept the discriminatory demotions and to have resigned. Thus their refusals
to submit to an unfair labor practice cannot be considered acts of
insubordination and cannot justify the discharges."
The Board does not require an application by the employee for
reinstatement following a discriminatory discharge, lay-off, or re-
Also Matter of The Louisville Refining Company and International Association, Oil
Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. 13. 844.
34 Matter of Sunshine Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill, and
Smelter Workers, 7 N. L. R. B. 1252.
35 Matter of Atlas Mills Inc., and Textile Workers Union. etc.. 3 N.
36 Also:
L. R. B. 10.
Matter of Highway Trailer Com pany and United Automobile Workers of
America, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 591, enforced in National Labor Relations Board, 95 F.' (2d)
1012 (C. C. A. 7th, 1938).
37 Matter of Waggoner Refining Company. etc., and International Association of Oil
Field, GII8 Well, and Refinery Workers of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 731.
"Also: Matter of Aluminum Products Company, etc., and Aluminum Workers Union, etc.,
7 N. L. R. B. 1219; Matter of Clover Fork Coal Company and District 19, United Mine
Workers of America, 4 N. L. it B. 202, enforced in Clover Fork Coal Company v. National
Labor Relations Board, 97 F. (2d) 331 (C. C. A. 6th. 1938) •, Matter of American Potash
‘f Chemical Corporation and Borax and Potash Workers Union, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 140,
enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corporation,
98 F. (2d) 488 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938).
108817-38-----8