NLRB v. Putnam Tool Company, 14395.
| Citation | 290 F.2d 663 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 14395.,14395. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PUTNAM TOOL COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Rosanna A. Blake, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Vincent W. Bradley, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Elisha Hanson, Washington, D. C., for respondent, Martin J. Ewald, Detroit, Mich., Emmett E. Tucker, Jr., Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Before CECIL, WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
This case is before the Court upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of its order issued against the respondent company pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.).
The complaint issued by the Board charged that the respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act in that it discharged twelve employees between January 9, 1959 and March 4, 1959 because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. At the hearing, the respondent presented no evidence and the Board found that it violated the Act by discharging the twelve employees because of their union activities and membership. The Board issued an order requiring the respondent to cease and desist from these unfair labor practices and to reinstate the discharged employees with back pay and to post the appropriate notices.
The respondent company is located in Detroit, Michigan and at the time of these events employed one hundred thirty-four production and maintenance employees. In early January, 1959, Ernest Provost, one of the later discharged employees, contacted a union representative to ascertain the method to organize the respondent's employees. They arranged a meeting at the Union Hall for the night of January 8, 1959. This meeting was attended by Provost and five other later discharged employees, Lorenzo Julio, Dominic Viviano, Richard Masters, Saverio Franze and Raymond Jerzewski. These six employees signed union cards, were given buttons and union authorization cards for distribution and were formed into the Union Organizing Committee.
The next day, January 9, 1959, four of the employees who had attended the previous night's meeting were discharged. Julio was discharged for washing his hands during working hours although the respondent had no rule against this practice. Viviano, Masters and employee Garrett were laid off because of a lack of orders. Garrett did not attend the organizational meeting but signed a union card at his home after the meeting. David Kendall signed a union card on January 9, 1959. On January 13, 1959, he was given a job which was very complicated. His requests for assistance in doing the job were denied. He was fired the next day for his inability to finish the assigned job. Frank Zombo signed a union card on January 10, 1959 and subsequently distributed union cards to the employees at the plant and at their homes. He was laid off on January 20, 1959 because of a lack of work. He was the only employee laid off that day.
In the cases of Franze and Provost, they had worn union buttons to the plant for the first time on January 20, 1959. On that day, Franze was given a complicated task that he had never worked on before and was fired the next day because of the quality of work he had produced on the new task. Provost was also given a complicated job on a machine with which he had no experience and his requests for assistance were denied by the foreman. He was told if he could not do the work to leave and he was thereupon discharged.
The union filed a representation petition with the Board on February 16, 1959, a copy of which was served upon the respondent on February 18, 1959. By March 4, 1959 there was a discharge of four more union members.
Raymond Templin signed a union card on January 20, 1959. On February 25, 1959, he assisted a fellow employee with his work in the absence of the foreman and was discharged on the next day for this activity. Gus Stavropoulus signed a union card on January 15, 1959. Stavropoulus was a speedy worker and was advised to spread his work throughout the work day. He was given a warning to this effect. He was discharged on February 27, 1959 on the alleged pretext that he spent too much time away from his machine.
William Hanuschock signed a union card on January 9, 1959. He was given a job on a machine that allegedly took two employees with experience to operate. He was fired because the work was not done correctly. Raymond Jerzewski attended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chevron Oil Co., Standard Oil Co. of Tex. Div. v. NLRB
...Industries, Inc., 8th Cir. 1966, 369 F.2d 310; N.L.R.B. v. Murray Ohio Manuf. Co., 6th Cir. 1964, 326 F.2d 509; N.L.R.B. v. Putnam Tool Co., 6th Cir. 1961, 290 F.2d 663; N.L. R.B. v. F. H. McGraw & Co., 6th Cir. 1953, 206 F.2d 635; N.L.R.B. v. Sheboygan Chair Co., 7th Cir. 1942, 125 F.2d I.......
-
NLRB v. Alva Allen Industries, Inc., 18360.
...cert. denied 323 U.S. 751, 65 S.Ct. 85, 89 L.Ed. 601; N.L.R.B. v. F. H. McGraw & Co., 206 F.2d 635 (6 Cir. 1953); N.L.R.B. v. Putnam Tool Company, 290 F.2d 663 (6 Cir. 1961). It is our conclusion that the facts in this case are, in law, not capable of giving rise to the inference drawn by t......
-
Metal Blast, Inc. v. NLRB
...of the Board to determine the real reason for the discharge and whether the reason given by the employer was a pretext. N. L. R. B. v. Putnam Tool Co., 290 F.2d 663, 665, C.A.6th. In doing so, it was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the proven facts. Such inferences, if supported......
-
Champion Papers, Inc.(Ohio Division) v. NLRB
...U.S. 584, 602, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368 (1941); Wonder State Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 1964); NLRB v. Putnam Tool Co., 290 F.2d 663, 665 (6th Cir. 1961); Hartsell Mills Co. v. NLRB, 111 F.2d 291, 292-293 (4th Cir. As to the fourth basis, while in one or more instances ......