07.02.2015 Views

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 87<br />

In another case, though the employee's defect, arriving late for<br />

work, was alleged to be of long standing, the employer did not attempt<br />

to discipline the employee until be manifested interest in the<br />

union.4 Of course, where warnings followed the employee's infraction<br />

and preceded the discharge, the employer's defense is more<br />

credible.5 Occasionally, the evidence shows that the employer kept<br />

a special look-out to find a pretext for discharging an active union<br />

employee. In Matter of Lenox Shoe Contpany, 6 immediately after<br />

the employee became active in distributing membership cards, the<br />

superintendent of the factory began to keep a very close watch on<br />

the quality of his work for 15 or 20 minutes at a time, three or four<br />

times a day. Neither this employee's work as a learner, nor that of<br />

any other employee, had received such close scrutiny. The Board<br />

concluded "that inefficient work was the pretext." 7 In another case<br />

the Board said :<br />

Under all the circumstances, we are constrained to view Mack Lester's refusal<br />

to allow Bortoluzzi the use of the telephone as an act designed to provoke Bortoluzzi<br />

into leaving the building or into other conduct which would furnish the<br />

respondent a pretext upon which to discharge Bortoluzzi.s<br />

Statements by supervisors contemporaneous with the discharge<br />

often throw light on the defense. In Matter of Memphis Furniture<br />

Manufacturing Company, the employer claimed that several employees<br />

were laid off because of a lag in production ; but the evidence<br />

showed that one of the foremen in laying off an employee told him •<br />

"Not dull business * * * your work is perfect * * * can't<br />

tell why. Have orders from the superintendent to lay you off." In<br />

another case, the employer assigned two reasons for a discharge on<br />

the employee's unemployment compensation card. The Board stated :<br />

"It is significant that Wright was not apprised of this latter reason<br />

when he was dismissed. The respondent's silence, unexplained at the<br />

hearing, leads to a reasonable inference that this excuse was an afterthought,<br />

used as a pretext to cover the fact that Wright was discharged<br />

for his union activity." In the same case, the employer<br />

discharged the vice president of the union for "unsatisfactory conduct,"<br />

and when pressed for an explanation, stated he did not "care<br />

to go into this thing any further." 15 The Board has pointed to shifts<br />

Matter of Harry G. Beck, etc., and international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs<br />

and Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 355, 3 N. L. R. B. 110. Also :<br />

Matter of Electric Boat Company and Industrial union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers<br />

of America, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 572; Matter of Trenton-Philadelphia Coach Company<br />

and Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees<br />

of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 112.<br />

5 For example Matter of Leo L. Lowy, etc., and Tapered Roller Bearing Corporation and<br />

International Association of Machinists, District No. 15, 3 N. L. R. B. 938: Cf. Matter of<br />

The Grace Company and United Garment Workers of America, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 766.<br />

(The Board said : 'The reasons advanced by the respondent for their discharge are even<br />

more improbable when it Ls considered that all of such employees had been complimented<br />

on their work, and not one of them had been reprimanded for any cause)".<br />

• Matter of Lenox Shoe Company, Inc., and United Shoe Workers of America, etc.. 4<br />

N. L. R. B. 372.<br />

Also: Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association, etc., and Textile Workers' Organizing<br />

Committee of the O. I. 0., 4 N. L. R. B. 604.<br />

s matter of Art Crayon Company, Inc., etc. and United Artists Supply Workers, 7 N. L.<br />

R. B. 102.<br />

Matter of Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company and Furniture Workers Local<br />

Union No. 1174, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 3 N. I. R. B.<br />

26, enforced in Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company T. National Labor Relations<br />

Board, 96 F. (2d) 1018 (C. C. A. 6th. 1938) ; certiorari denied, 59 S. Ct. 91 (1938).<br />

lo Matter of American Potash cE Chemical Corporation and Borax and Potash Workers'<br />

Union No. 20181, 3 N. L. R. B. 140, enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. American<br />

Potash and Chemical Corporation, 98 F. (2d) 488 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938). Also : Matter<br />

of American Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Association of Machinists,<br />

etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 375. Matter of Beloit Iron Works and Pattern Makers League of<br />

North America, 7 N. L. R. B. 216.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!