NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

86 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the discharge.94 Neither are vague general accusations likely to receive
credence. They are "too intangible to refute." The Circuit
Court of Appeals, in enforcing a Board order, stated:
The record shows that the Board gave painstaking and detailed consideration
to the circumstances of each case. Its determination that each discharge
was occasioned by Union activity, rather- than by the rather vague and general
reasons assigned by the respondent at the hearing below, is amply supported
by the evidence."
The unexplained failure to produce specific evidence allegedly in
existence also renders the purported reason dubious. 98 The Board is
not impressed by the sincerity of an accusation where the employer
makes no effort to ascertain whether the accused employee is guilty.
Thus in Matter of The Clover Fork Coal Company,99 the Board,
in rejecting the defense, pointed to "the fact that no investigation
was made of the cause of these cars jumping the track, although it
is clear that Killian may not have been at fault."
The alleged facts underlying the claimed defense may be inherently
improbable; as in the case of an employee who worked for the employer
for 7 years, and was allegedly discharged upon the basis of a
30-day check initiated the day he appeared as a member of the negotiating
committee. The Board stated: "It is unlikely that the work
of a man employed by the respondent as long as Barry had been,
would fall off so badly in a 30-day period to warrant his discharge
and the substitution of a man inexperienced in that type of work."2
The Board has rejected alleged reasons based solely on employee acts
of which the employer manifested no disapproval until the employee's
union activity became apparent to the employer. For example, in one
case the Board found:
The fact that prior to the strike the respondent saw fit to retain Jensen, without
so much as an admonition concerning his alleged frequent absences, is a clear
indication that the reason advanced by the respondent for its refusal to reinstate
him was culled ea post facto to screen its true motive.'
• 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 Matter of National Weaving Company, Inc., and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
7 N. L. R. B. 743; Matter of Missouri-Arkansas Coach Lines, Inc., and The
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 7 N. L. R. B. 186; Matter of Omaha Hat Corporation
and United Hatters, Cap, and Millinery Workers International Union, etc., 4 N. L.
R. B. 878.
,4 Matter of Harry G. Beck, etc., and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Stablemen, and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 355, 3 N. L. R. B. 110.
"National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash and Chemical Corporation, 98
F. 2d 488 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938), enforcing Matter of American Potash (C Chemical corporation
and Borax and Potash Workers' Union, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 140.
'5 Matter of Missouri-Arkansas Coach Lines, Inc., and The Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, 7 N. L. R. B. 186; matter of Kentucky Firebrick and United Brick and Clay
Workers of America, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 455, enforced In National Labor Relations Board
v. Kentucky Firebrick Company, 6 Cir., 99 F. (2d) 89 (rehearing denied Oct. 12, 1938).
• 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).
I Also: Matter of National Weaving Company, Inc., and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, 7 N. L. R. B. 743.
'Matter of B088 Manufacturing Company and International Clove Workers of America,
Local No. 85, 3 N. L. R. B. 400. Also: Matter of Beloit Iron Works and Pattern Makers
League of North America, 7 N. L. R.. B. 216. (The Board overruled the defense that
the employee was discharged for inefficiency, saying : "We can give little credence to the
explanation offered on behalf of the respondent that raises were given to Boulby because
he started at a low rate and because it was hoped that an increase of his earnings would
'pep him up."')
g Matter of Highway Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local
NO. 135, etc., 3 N. L. R. B. 501, enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. Highway
Trailer Company, 95 F. (2d) 1012 (C. C. A. 7th, 1938).