The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1951-03-08
A Lot of
(Continued From Page One)

(Continned From Page One)
old company union and that the
company had nothing to do with it
He agreed, however, that the com
pany had dominated the previous
union.
The three members said that
while there was no direct link be-
tween the company and the new
union, "very little time had elapsed
between the disappearance of the
company-dominated union and the
emergence of another labor organ
ization." They also said the new
outfit had the same leaders as the
old one and that "leaders in COM
pany union are necessarily COM
pany representatives, accustomed
to submission to the company. Men
accustomed to such submission
seldom regain their independence
overnight"
What makes a company union !
Well, here's the proof presented to
show the predecessor of the Work
ers' League was run by the COM
pany: 0) meetings took place on
company property and time (2) the
company gave free lunch and free
stenographic help to union meet
ings (3) the general manager of
the company was permanent chair
man and the purchasing agent was
vice chairman (4) the profits OF
the company-owned soda vending
machines were turned over to the
union.
1t was this last point that the
panel jumped on more than any
other: ut is we'll established that
the gift of such proceeds by an en-
ployer to a labor organization
amounts to financial support of the
labor organization" and is illegal.
The trial examiner was again re-
versed in his decision that no dis
elimination had been shown against
"Archie" Bissonnette and Edward
LaCourse. Both had been extremely
active in the organizing campaign.
When LaCourse reported for work
in the polishing department the
morning after the union lost the
election, group of company
stooges grabbed him and threw
him out Of the plant. LaCourse
waited a few minutes and then
went back to his machine. Herman
Moe, the general manager, called
LaCourse and said he was going to
transfer him to maintenance work
because he was "hot" and the men
in the polishing department would
Mt work with him. LaCourse took
the new job and later was laid off
because Of illness.
Bissonnette, on the other hand,
absolutely refused to take the
transfer to maintenance work and
was given a few days with pay "to
cool off" When he reported for
work the following week the 80
men in the polishing department
led by the stooges, stalked to one
end of the room and sat down. He
again flatly refused to take the
transfer and in the heat of argu-
ment quit, was fired, or laid off,"
Gardner, the trial examiner, held
that the maintenance work paid
the same base rate as polishing
therefore was not a demotion-and
that the men had both voluntarily
quit.
The board argued there was no
chance to make extra bonus money
on the maintenance job and that it
was menial labor compared to the
skill required in polishing. They
also ruled the men had not really
quit, but had been euchered into
quitting and ordered both rein
stated with back pay.
An interesting sidelight: Taft
Hartley rules that an employer
can't delegate his right to hire,
discharge or transfer" an employe
because of pressure from pro
union group. The board said the
same applies to the transfer of La
Course and Bissonette in reverse
the employer was guilty of dele
eating his right of transfer" to
an antiunion group.
The trial examiner tried to eX-
plain his stand by saying Bisson-
ette gained the resentment of other
workers by his Language and al
legged threats during the preelec-
tion campaign"
Again he was reversed. The
board looked over the record of the
language and opined: Although
BiSsonette may have used language
which was not polite according to
palor- room standards, it was typi-
eal of the conversation used in in-
dustrial plants, especially during a
heated union campaign"