NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 83
"I have nothing to fire you for * * * but at the office they want
you fired * * * Is your husband a member of the Union * * *
The reason you are being fired is because your husband is." The
Board in these, as in many other cases, 8° has given weight to antiunion
statements made by employers in connection with discharges or
other alleged discriminations.
Deliberate efforts by the employer to ascertain the identity of
union members and leaders have been considered by the Board.81
Similarly, the Board has dismissed the complaint upon finding that
the employer was ignorant of the employee's union sympathy claimed
to be the basis for the discrimination. 82 Also, an employer is more
likely to act against the aggressive union leaders than against the
relatively inactive empioyees. 88 For these reasons, the union activity
of the employee claiming discrimination, usually looms large in the
proof. Just as active participation by employees in union affairs has
helped establish a case, its absence has led the Board to dismiss."
Not infrequently the discharge or other alleged discrimination follows
close upon the election of the employee to union office, affiliation with
the union, attendance at one of its meetings, or aggressive negotiation
80 For example, Matter of American Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International
Association of Machinists, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 375; Matter of Belo-it Iron Works and
Pattern Makers League of North America, 7 N. L. It. B. 216; Matter of Missouri-
Arkansas Coach Lines, Inc. and The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 7 N. L. It. B.,
186; Matter of Clover Pork Coal Company and District 19, United Mine Workers of
America, 4 N. L. R. B. 202, enforced in Mover Fork Coal Company v. National Labor
Relations Board, 97 F (2d) 331 (C. C. A. 6th, 1938) (in discharging an employee, the
employer said : "I got a right to fire who I please, I won't ask Turnblazer (District 19
President) or nobody else; as to another, when the employee asked whether his work
had been satisfactory, the employer replied : "It has been, but maybe the Union can do
more for you than I can").
81 For example, Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., etc., and
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, etc., 4 N. L. R. B. 71, enforced in
2d), certiorari granted, 304 U. S. 555 (1938) ; Matter Of Jacob Cohen, etc., and Local No.
127, International Ladies' Garment Workers' titian, 4 N. L. R. B. 720; see above. p. 52.
w For example, Matter of Tupelo Garment Company and Kathleen Patey, etc., 7 N. L.
R. B. 408; the Board, in dismissing the allegation, said : "There is nothing to indicate
that the respondent knew of McCaffey's support of the proposed organization prior to
his discharge or that any of the respondent's supervisory employees or agents had questioned
him concerning any possible connection he may have had with the organizers."
Also, Hatter of Gtnera/ Industries Company, etc., and Hobart Planner, etc., 1 N. L. R. B.
678.
For example, Matter of Art Crayon Company, Inc., etc., and United Artists' Supply
Workers, 7 N. L. II. B. 102; (The Board stated : "Even if the incident did occur, it is
clear from the manner in which Bortoluzzi was discharged and the surrounding circumstances
that Bob Lester was concerned not so much with the significance of Bortoluzzi's
alleged remarks as be was with getting rid of one of the spearheads of the union movement")
; Matter of Weld Transfer and Storage Company, Inc_ and Local Union No. 367,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America,
etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 712 (the Board concluded that the employer had "discriminated illegally
by singling out in the process of reinstatement those be believed to be aggressive
in collective action—in his own words, 'leaders,' 'engineers,' and 'speech-makers'—from
those he believed to be docile and harmless") '• Matter of Mackay Radio cE Telegraph
Company, etc., and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, (lc., 1 N. L. R. B. 201,
enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio it Telegraph Company, 304
U. S. 333 (1938).
84 For example, Matter of Electric Auto-Lite Company, etc., and International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 1179: Matter of Swift it
Company and United Automobile Workers of America, etc.. 7 N. L. It. B. 287. (The
Board, in dismissing the allegation, said : "The evidence does not show that Ditteriine
was active in the United it shows merely that he was a member of that union. Yet a
number of employees wore their union buttons, signifying United membership, openly in
the plant. If the respondent wished to curb United activity by discharging employees, it
Is hardly plausible that Ditterline should have been selected for discharge") ; Matter of
Marks Brothers Company and United Toy and Novelty Workers Local Industrial Union,
etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 156. (The Board dismissed the allegation that one, Sanella, had
been discriminatorily refused reinstatement at the close of a strike on Aug. 24, saying:
"it does not appear in the record that Sandia was unusually active on the picket line
or in any other union activity until September 4, when she was elected secretary of the
United. Other union members were returned to work on Aug. 24 without discrimination.")
Matter of Art Crayon Company, Inc., etc. and United Artiste Supply Workers, 7
N. L. R. B. 102; Matter of Wald Transfer and Storage Company. Inc., and Local Union
No. 367, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of
America, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 712.