Opinion ID: 1548796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cease and Desist.

Text: Broadly stated, the cease and desist part of the order required respondent to abstain from all interference with free action of the employees in self-organization; and with particular reference to the Union. This portion of the order was based upon four findings of the Board as follows: Hostile activity to the Union organization of employees by Oscar Grott, foreman of this maintenance department of respondent's business; spying upon such organization activities by Grott and by John A. Zenzen (shop clerk); avoidance and defeat of attempts by Union representative to carry on bargaining negotiations; and distribution of a circular entitled A message to employees. Facts about the Wagner Act. (1) As to hostile activities of Grott. He was foreman of this maintenance department, which was the unit for bargaining purposes declared by the Board and rightfully selected since this is a craft union. He did the hiring and firing of men in this department. The activities of Grott involved here consist of statements made by him to various employees. Very concisely expressed, these statements were: that the company would close its business before submitting to unionization; that he would discharge anyone joining the Union, if it were necessary to hold his job; that an employee, who had joined the Union, had better withdraw if he knew what was good for him or he would be out of a job; an intimation, to a Union member, that two men had been discharged for Union activity; an inquiry to one employee, at time of hiring, as to whether he belonged to a union with the statement that he didn't believe in paying dues for someone to ride around in a swell car; and, generally, questioning of various employees concerning their membership in the Union. This activity was distinctly hostile to the rights of the employees freely to organize and choose bargaining representatives. Being the foreman  head of department  over these men and having the power to terminate their employment, responsibility for these actions of Grott are to be attributed to respondent. National Labor Relations Board v. Link Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L. Ed. ___ (decided Jan. 6, 1941); H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. ___ (decided Jan. 6, 1941); International Association of Machinists, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 72, 79-81, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L.Ed. ___. There was substantial evidence to support this finding of the Board. As to spying by Grott and Zenzen. The evidence is as to the presence of these two men near the Union hall at a time, out of work hours, when some of these employees were there. This hall was not anywhere near the business place of respondent. The explanation of Grott as to why he and Zenzen were in that vicinity is not convincing and might well have been disbelieved by the Board. We think there was substantial evidence as to spying to support this finding of the Board. The two findings just discussed are sufficient to sustain the cease and desist portions of the order. Since they are so sufficient, it would be merely unnecessary labor to discuss the two other findings. That portion of the order is upheld for enforcement.