NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 85
acted on those grounds and not on the ground of union activity. In
Matter of The Seagrave Corporation, 89 the Board found :
While there was reason to believe that Dennis' alleged incompetence was
more imaginary than real, we see no reason in this fact alone for finding that
the Act was violated * * * there is reason to believe that the respondent
did in fact conclude that Dennis could not perform his work satisfactorily, even
though the record indicates strongly that this conclusion was erroneous.
Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. Conversely, though inefficiency
or some other alleged fact existed, union activity might still be
the true reason for the release. 91 Thus, in Matter of Harry G.
Beele, 92 the employer and employees were engaged in transportation.
The Board, finding that the employees were discharged "in an effort
to stem the tide of organizational activities," said:
It is undoubtedly true that these discharged employees were guilty of some
of the offenses charged against them. However, as was said in Matter of
Houston Cartage Company" * * * "Experience has shown this Board that
there is no field of employment where employers can so easily find means to
cloak their real motives for discharging employees as in the employment of bus
or truck drivers. In practically every case which has come before us involving
such employees, it has been charged and proven that the discharged employees
have exceeded the speed limit, left their route or made stops not strictly in
line with their duties. But from the very nature of the work of bus or truck
drivers it is apparent that an employer has only to follow any truck or bus
driver for a comparatively short time to find him guilty of many such violations.
We are, therefore, not impressed with the sincerity of an employer who
advances such reasons for a discharge where he fails to show that such violations
were flagrant or repeated and where the surrounding circumstances indicate
that the employee was active in union activities to which the employer
was opposed."
In addition to antiunion activity by the employer, union activity
by the employee known to the employer, pettiness of the reason offered,
and nonexistence of the facts upon which the alleged legitimate
reason is based, the Board has had occasion to point out other elements
tending to show whether an alleged reason is only a convenient
pretext. The Board has found significant the unexplained failure of
the employer to call as witnesses the supervisors who would have
personal knowledge of the facts underlying the claimed reason for
'p er of The Seagrove Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America,
4 N. L. R. B. 1093.
go Also, 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; the Board found it impossible to decide whether the employee
discharged was in fact dishonest, but the Board dismissed the complaint upon finding
that the employer had strong suspicions of the employee's dishonesty and that the suspicions
motivated the discharge.
el Matter of American Manufacturing Company, Inc., and International Association of
Machinists, etc., 7'N. L. R. B. 375. (The Board said : "The evidence clearly indicates,
however, that whether or not Gutoski was guilty of insubordination, such insubordination
was not the cause of his subsequent discharge.") In Matter of Kelly-Springfield
Tire Company and United Rubber Workers of Americo, Local No. 26, etc., 6 N. L. R. B.
325, enforced in The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 97
F. (2d) 1007 (C. C. A. 4th, 1938), the Board stated : "If the respondent discharged
Reed on June 1, 1936, because of his organizational activity and affiliation, it committed
an unfair labor practice, whatever 'proper causes' may then have existed for terminating
his employment. While proof of the presence of proper causes at the time of discharge
may have relevancy and circumstantial bearing in explaining what otherwise might appear
as a discriminatory discharge, such proof is not conclusive. The issue is whether
such causes in fact induced the discharge or whether they are but a justification of it
in retrospect. On the other hand, it is equally true that a failure to show proper
causes, indeed, any cause, for the dicharge does not necessarily establish an unfair labor
practice."
92 Matter of Harry G. Beck, etc., and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Stablemen, and Helpers of America, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 110.
gg Matter of Houston Cartage Company, Inc., and Local Union No. 367, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America, etc., 2 N. L.
R. B. 1000.