National Labor Rel. Board v. Chicago Steel Foundry Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8493.,8493. |
| Citation | 142 F.2d 306 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CHICAGO STEEL FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Alvin J. Rockwell, Gen. Counsel., Malcolm F. Halliday, Associate Gen. Counsel, Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Isaacson, and John H. Garver, Attys., all of Washington, D. C., and Lester
Asher and Jack Evans, both of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Allen D. Holloway, Albert J. Smith, and John Harrington, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Before MAJOR, KERNER, and MINTON, Circuit Judges.
In proceedings held pursuant to charges filed by Local 214 of the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, the Board found that the respondent, Chicago Steel Foundry Company, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of § 8(1), and that by its refusal of overtime to and discharge of William Sidders because of his union activities and by its discriminatory lay-off of 9 union members, it had violated § 8(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1, 3). The Board entered an order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, to offer reinstatement and back pay to Sidders, and to make whole the employees discriminatorily laid off.
Respondent, a Maine corporation having its principal office and plant in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in interstate commerce, manufacturing, selling, and distributing steel castings. No question is raised as to jurisdiction.
Respondent does not question the Board's findings that respondent was antagonistic to the efforts of its employees to organize a union, and that certain of respondent's officials and supervisory employees distributed anti-union pamphlets, interrogated the employees concerning their union affiliations and made coercive statements in disparagement of the union, which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157. This leaves for review only the question whether there was substantial evidence in support of the Board's findings that the 9 union members were discriminatorily laid off and whether Sidders was discharged and refused overtime because of his union activities.
The controlling circumstances or events relevant to this issue, as revealed by the record, are that the first attempt to unionize the employees was made in April or May, 1940. To counteract the drive, Adams, respondent's superintendent, summoned to his office all of the squeezer molders employed on the day shift and told them that no union was wanted in the plant, and stated, "We have ways of getting rid of a union man." "I can say * * * your work is no good and many other things." In May, 1941, Adams said, "They had it a union in here once, and Mr. Evans respondent's president threw it out." "It will never get back in here again." In February, 1942, Adams inquired of Carlton: "Carlton, what is all this I hear about you and Peters trying to organize the shop and you being the president, * * * what good do you think that the C.I.O. could do you * * *."
Notwithstanding respondent's antiunion hostility, the union continued to gain adherents, and arranged for an election to be held under the auspices of the Board's Regional Office.
Sidders, an able and efficient employee, entered respondent's employ in 1931 and became chief melter in charge of an electric furnace in 1939, responsible for the quality and the carbon content of the molten steel within specified ranges. Sidders joined the union in the spring of 1941, became a member of the union's bargaining board, and during lunch periods solicited union membership among respondent's employees. Sidders' attitude and advocacy was known to the respondent. May 16, three days before the election, Adams, noticing that Sidders was wearing a union button, said to him: "What do you think you are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Laister-Kauffmann A. Corp.
...conflicting, the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences to be drawn from the testimony was for the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Steel Foundry, 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 306; N. L. R. B. v. Crown Can Co., 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 263, 267; N. L. R. B. v. Aluminum Products Co., supra; N. L. R. B. v.......
-
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Shedd-Brown Mfg. Co.
...the inference of discrimination, we can not say that the inference thus created has been destroyed." N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Steel Foundry Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 306, 308. Of the 20 employees recalled in January and February of 1951, only one was a Union member, 19 were Association members. E......
-
Burdon v. Wood, 8486.
... ... Thompson, of Chicago, Ill., and Edward E. Meyer and John W. Spencer, ... ...
-
National Labor Relations Bd. v. The Newton Company
...may be substantial evidence such as to entitle the Board's finding based thereon to our acceptance. N. L. R. B. v. Chicago Steel Foundry Co., 7 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 306, 153 A.L.R. 838. Has the company furnished an explanation which is adequate to dispell the inference, such as it may be, a......