Opinion ID: 1503025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Discharge of Thomas H. Gregg.

Text: Petitioner discharged Gregg, a head boiler cleaner at the Northeast plant, on August 24, 1937. The Board found the discharge to be because of his union membership and activity. It ordered reinstatement without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges and also reimbursement. Petitioner contends that Gregg quit instead of being discharged but, that if discharged, it was for cause. Although there is evidence that Gregg quit, yet there is substantial evidence that he was discharged and we accept the view that he was discharged. Therefore, the issue is whether there was substantial evidence that the discharge was because of his labor activities. Gregg had worked for petitioner twelve and one-half years continuously and for some time had been a head boiler cleaner at the Northeast plant. As such, he had a small gang of cleaners under him. Although he worked with the men when necessary, he was a sort of gang foreman whose duty it was to see that the men in his gang did the work laid out by his superiors. He was one of, if not the oldest, in seniority in his class. In June, 1937, he joined the Independent Union of Power Workers and remained a member until he joined the I. B. E. W. early in August, about the time the Independent disbanded. Several times, he had declined to join the Association when solicited by Kent and, possibly, by others. He was a charter member of the I. B. E. W. Local. His own testimony is that he was not particularly active in labor matters; that he never attended a meeting of the Independent; and that his activities were mainly talking it some to the men at the powerhouse. Johnson was his immediate superior. Prior to the day of discharge, three or four complaints had been made to Johnson, by Johnson's superiors, that Gregg did not keep his gang going, did not do enough work, loafed on the job, and sat down, smoked and talked during work. Johnson had informed and warned him of such complaints. Also, Johnson had found fault with Gregg loafing on the job and had reprimanded him therefor. Some of these occurrences were before 1937. In July, 1937, Johnson told Gregg that Johnson's superior had reported Gregg as found loafing and Gregg had admitted it to Johnson. This evidence as to the conduct of Gregg was not denied. Several days prior to August 24, 1937, Gregg and a gang of four boiler cleaners had been put to work cleaning the superheater pipes of one of the boilers at Northeast plant. This work is difficult and trying. While cleaning the pipes, the men lie upon the warm pipes inside the boiler with little ventilation. They wear respirators for protection from the dust caused by cleaning. Under these conditions, it is impossible for the men to work continuously but they come out at intervals to rest and breathe fresh air. Only two men could work well in this boiler at a time. Gregg's method was to have two of the four men in his gang work while the other two rested. This was a proper procedure, although Essex (Chief Engineer in charge of the Northeast power plant) claims he was unfamiliar with it. It was recognized by Johnson as proper. The morning of August 24, 1937, Gregg and two of his gang (who had come out for a rest) were outside the boiler talking while two men were inside the boiler. During a round of inspection of the plant, Essex and Atherton (assistant to Essex) saw Gregg and the two men outside the boiler. After watching them for several minutes, they came over to the men. Gregg's account of what took place is as follows: Essex said to Gregg What is going on? Gregg told him we were cleaning the heating tubes. He looked in the boiler, and turned around to me and said `Every    time I come around here there is nothing going on'. Gregg testified also that: He [Essex] was very rough in his language, and he looked in the boiler and he said `Those two men in there aren't working'   . I told him I thought they were. Also, Gregg testified that he could not see the men in the boiler from where he was. Essex testified the men in the boiler were not working and he saw no dust which would have been stirred up if the men had been working. Essex and Atherton left and shortly Johnson had instructions to bring Gregg to the office of Essex, which he did. There is a sharp dispute as to some things which took place there. It is our duty to and we do accept the version given by Gregg, which is as follows: Mr. Essex said, `Gregg, I guess I am going to have to let you go'. I asked him if that was a fact, and he said it was. I said, `Then the next thing is for you to have my time made out.' He says, `Here is your time'  he extended his hand and says `here is your time; it is all ready made out'. The time slip had been made out before Gregg came to the office but was not signed until after the last-quoted statement by Gregg. Gregg then told Essex he was lower than a snake and after an exchange of heated words, Gregg was ordered from the office and went. From the above evidence, the Board found: The work inside the boiler is admittedly unpleasant and the difficult conditions under which it must be performed are such that the boiler cleaners must leave the inside of the boiler at frequent intervals in the course of their work on a particular boiler. In view of the type of work performed by the boiler cleaning crew and the conditions under which they work, as stated above, we find it incredible that Essex should want to discharge Gregg, who had worked for the respondent for 12 years, for the reasons assigned by Essex. The reports of the labor spies had informed the respondent of Gregg's union affiliation and activity. We are of the opinion that the respondent had already determined to discharge him prior to the incident of August 24, 1937, because of his union affiliation and activity, and that Essex arranged the interview in his office to give the appearance that Gregg was being discharged for unsatisfactory work. Under the circumstances, Gregg's request for his time slip did not constitute a voluntary quitting of employment, but was merely a request for the necessary papers to collect his wages after he knew that Essex was discharging him. It is clear that he was not discharged because of anything that took place in Essex' office. We find that the respondent discharged Gregg because of his union membership and activity. The conclusion that Gregg was discharged because of his union activities has no substantial evidence whatsoever to support it. From the evidence, there is no basis for any rational conclusion except that the discharge was because Essex thought that Gregg  who several times before had (as his superiors thought) been found loafing  was doing so again. Gregg made no attempt to challenge the evidence that he had been warned and reprimanded for loafing theretofore or that, on one occasion, he had admitted to Johnson doing so. He made no challenge of the evidence that the two men in the boiler were not working, when Essex looked in. He merely told Essex I thought they were, though he was where he could not see what they were doing and though it was his particular duty to see that the work was done. At the office, when Essex said: Gregg, I guess I am going to have to let you go, Gregg offered no explanation nor made any denial of the incident which he must have known was the immediate cause of the trouble. The evidence of the previous record of Gregg and of the idleness of the men in the boiler is undisputed in this record and without attempt at explanation.