NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 87
In another case, though the employee's defect, arriving late for
work, was alleged to be of long standing, the employer did not attempt
to discipline the employee until be manifested interest in the
union.4 Of course, where warnings followed the employee's infraction
and preceded the discharge, the employer's defense is more
credible.5 Occasionally, the evidence shows that the employer kept
a special look-out to find a pretext for discharging an active union
employee. In Matter of Lenox Shoe Contpany, 6 immediately after
the employee became active in distributing membership cards, the
superintendent of the factory began to keep a very close watch on
the quality of his work for 15 or 20 minutes at a time, three or four
times a day. Neither this employee's work as a learner, nor that of
any other employee, had received such close scrutiny. The Board
concluded "that inefficient work was the pretext." 7 In another case
the Board said :
Under all the circumstances, we are constrained to view Mack Lester's refusal
to allow Bortoluzzi the use of the telephone as an act designed to provoke Bortoluzzi
into leaving the building or into other conduct which would furnish the
respondent a pretext upon which to discharge Bortoluzzi.s
Statements by supervisors contemporaneous with the discharge
often throw light on the defense. In Matter of Memphis Furniture
Manufacturing Company, the employer claimed that several employees
were laid off because of a lag in production ; but the evidence
showed that one of the foremen in laying off an employee told him •
"Not dull business * * * your work is perfect * * * can't
tell why. Have orders from the superintendent to lay you off." In
another case, the employer assigned two reasons for a discharge on
the employee's unemployment compensation card. The Board stated :
"It is significant that Wright was not apprised of this latter reason
when he was dismissed. The respondent's silence, unexplained at the
hearing, leads to a reasonable inference that this excuse was an afterthought,
used as a pretext to cover the fact that Wright was discharged
for his union activity." In the same case, the employer
discharged the vice president of the union for "unsatisfactory conduct,"
and when pressed for an explanation, stated he did not "care
to go into this thing any further." 15 The Board has pointed to shifts
Matter of Harry G. Beck, etc., and international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs
and Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 355, 3 N. L. R. B. 110. Also :
Matter of Electric Boat Company and Industrial union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers
of America, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 572; Matter of Trenton-Philadelphia Coach Company
and Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees
of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 112.
5 For example Matter of Leo L. Lowy, etc., and Tapered Roller Bearing Corporation and
International Association of Machinists, District No. 15, 3 N. L. R. B. 938: Cf. Matter of
The Grace Company and United Garment Workers of America, etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 766.
(The Board said : 'The reasons advanced by the respondent for their discharge are even
more improbable when it Ls considered that all of such employees had been complimented
on their work, and not one of them had been reprimanded for any cause)".
• Matter of Lenox Shoe Company, Inc., and United Shoe Workers of America, etc.. 4
N. L. R. B. 372.
Also: Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association, etc., and Textile Workers' Organizing
Committee of the O. I. 0., 4 N. L. R. B. 604.
s matter of Art Crayon Company, Inc., etc. and United Artists Supply Workers, 7 N. L.
R. B. 102.
Matter of Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company and Furniture Workers Local
Union No. 1174, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 3 N. I. R. B.
26, enforced in Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company T. National Labor Relations
Board, 96 F. (2d) 1018 (C. C. A. 6th. 1938) ; certiorari denied, 59 S. Ct. 91 (1938).
lo Matter of American Potash cE Chemical Corporation and Borax and Potash Workers'
Union No. 20181, 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). Also : Matter
of American Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Association of Machinists,
etc., 7 N. L. R. B. 375. Matter of Beloit Iron Works and Pattern Makers League of
North America, 7 N. L. R. B. 216.