L. H. Hamel Leather Co.

-In the Matter of L. H. HAMEL LEATHER Co. and INTERNATIONAL FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA (CIO) Case No. C-9290.-Decided November 26, 1942 -Jurisdiction : leather manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: disparagement, interrogation, and intimi- dation by official and supervisory employees. -Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair'labor practices Practice and Procedure: settlement agreement entered into in bad faith and fol- lowed by further violations of the Act, held of no effect. DECISION AND ORDER On August 1, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his ^ Intermediate -Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that, the respond- ent had engagecl in acid was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate -Report attached hereto. The respondent has not excepted to the findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the -hearing and :finds that no ' prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered. the Intermediate Re- port and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner ex- cept in the respects noted below. 1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the, exercise of the :rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The evidence has estab- lished and the Trial Examiner has found that the respondent has violated the Act through the following conduct : (a) By, statements of Superintendent Lawson, Foreman Hardi- man, and Foreman Paul in October, 1940, to certain of its employees. (b) By statements of the respondent's treasurer, Louis H. Hamel, in a letter sent to its employees dated November 15, 1940. 45 N. L. R. B., No. 113. 760 L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 761- " (c) By statements made by said Hamel in November 1940 to- employees of-the respondent in certain departmental meetings called at his direction. (d) By statements made by said Hamel on October 14, •1941, to, certain employees of the respondent at a meeting called at his. direction. " ' ' Since the respondent, by its conduct of October 14, 1941, as de- scribed in 1 (d) above, violated the Act subsequent to the settlement made between the Board and the respondent in July 1941, respecting- charges previously filed against the respondent' ' and pursuant to. which settlement the respondent sent its letter of July 15, 1941, to- its employees, in accordance with our established practice, the settle- ment agreement is disregarded and the respondent's entire course of' conduct both before and after the settlement must be considered.2 This course of conduct, as found by the Trial Examiner, constitutes interference with, restraint, and coercion of the employees in the exercise of the rights 'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Furthermore, the respondent by sending to its supervisory em- ployees the letter dated July 15, 1941, in which, in effect, inter ilia, the respondent directed them to continue their prior acts of inter- ference and to disregard the letter of the same date, which it, sent to the employees pursuant to the settlement above-mentioned, evidenced such absence of good faith on the part of the respondent in entering- into-said settlement, as to constitute in itself, sufficient ground for disregarding the settlement.3 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, L. H. Hamel Leather Co., Haverhill, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, sh all : . " 1. Cease 'and desist fr"oln'in-anylnaniier interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist labor organizations; to bargain collectively i On January 21, 1941, based in part upon conduct of the respondent involved herein ; amended charges were filed on March 7, 1941, and May 3, 1941. 2 Matter of Corinth Hosiery Malls, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 16 N. L. R B 414, 426; Matter of Chamber, Corporation, and Ailaed Stove Mounters and Stove Processors International Union, Local No. 36 (A F. of L ), 21 N L R. B. 808, 820; Matter of Hawk and Buck Company, Inc. and United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 229, 25 N. L. R. B 837, 842, 852 - 3 Matter of Marks Products Co , Inc. and Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, A. F. L, 35 N. L. R. B 1262, 1290 See also Matter of Sussex Dye & Print Works, Inc., and Bernard R Armour and Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers and Bleachers of America; 34 N. L R B 625, 647. 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD through representatives ofof their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activitie-s'for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act: 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds -will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in -Haverhill, Massachusetts, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ,(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees, stliting that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is herein ordered to cease and desist; - (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) within ten (10)- days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. William S Gordon, for the Board. Mr. John J Ryan, Jr., of Haverhill, Mass., for the respondent. Mr. Samuel Angoff, of Boston , Mass., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge' duly filed May 26, 1942, by International Fur and Leather Workers of United States and Canada, affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated June 10, 1942, against L. H Hamel Leather Co., herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended charge accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the'Unioi. - With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent: (1) from about October 16, 1940, to the date of the com- plaint, interrogated its employees as to their union activities, threatened to cease operations at the plant or to discontinue part of such operations if the Union was successful in organizing the plant, urged its employees to refrain from joining the Union and to relinquish their membership in the Union, uttered coercive and intimidatory statements to the employees singly and in groups, and criticized the Union and its leaders; (2) on or about November 15, 1940, sent to substantially all of its employees a letter disparaging the Union; (3) in or about October 1941, summoned certain employees to the respondent's main office, interrogated them as to their union activities, urged them to repudiate the Union, and made to them coercive and intimidatory statements ; and (4) • by the foregoing acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the,Act. Thereafter the respondent filed an answer in which it denied having engaged in any alleged unfair labor' practices, and additionally 'averred in the nature of an affirmative defense,- that the charge filed with respect to the November 15 letter, was by agreement with the Board, dismissed without prejudice. The original charge was filed with the Board on November 28, 1941. L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 763 - Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on June 25 and 26, 1942, at Haverhill, Massachusetts, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on°the issues was afforded all.parties At the-close of,the,hearing, the undersigned, without objection, granted a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the complaint to conform with the proof, as to minor particulars. No oral argument was made by the parties. A memorandum brief was submitted by counsel for the respondent. Upon the record thus made, and from his observations of the witnesses, the undersigned, in addition to the foregoing, makes the. following ; FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT L. H. Hamel Leather Co 'is a Massachusetts corporation, having its office and place of business in Haverhill, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manu- facture, sale and distribution of kid linings and other leather products. 'Respondent purchases annually raw materials-skins, chemicals and dyes- valued at approximately one million dollars. Of these, approximately 95 percent in value is transported through the channels of interstate commerce to the respondent's plant, from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The respondent manufactures annually finished products-kid linings, sheep lin- ings, and coat leathers-valued at approximately $1,500,000. Of these, approxi- mately 95 percent in value is transported from the respondent's plant, through the channels of interstate commerce to points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Respondent admits that its business operations affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The respondent normally employs approximately 500 persons in its plant. 11 THE ORGANIZATION INVOL\ED International Fur and Leather Workers of United States and Canada, affil- iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coei cioa During the fall of 1940, an organizational campaign among the respondent's" employees was begun by the Union by the distribution of leaflets and by the enrollment as members of a number of the employees. The respondent asserts that the conduct of the Union in connection with' its membership drive was improper ; that it bothered the employees by calling at their homes ; that it resorted 'to misrepresentation concerning the strength of the Union ; and that it made misleading statements-concerning the employees' rights under the Act. The respondent, therefore, in order that its employees might not be deceived or misled in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, on November 15, 1940, sent a letter to all its employees and called departmental meetings for -the purpose of pointing out to its employees "certain facts and truths" which fall within the realm of legitimate comment and expression of opinion. The respond- ent further asserts that on July 15, 1941, at the request of the Board and in settlement of certain alleged unfair labor practices it sent a letter to its em- ployees explaining to them their rights under the Act. 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Contemporaneously with this campaign of the Union to organize the respond- ent's employees, the respondent's officials and its supervisors evidenced their hostility to the Union, by making anti-union statements to the respondent's employees singly and in groups and by threatening to shut down the plant if the employees joined the Union or continued to support it. The respondent's attitude clearly was that the organizational activities of the Union was a chal- lenge for a contest between itself and the Union On this basis the respondent proceeded. In October 1940 for the purpose of combating the effects of the Union's cam- paign, several of the respondent's agents interfered in the organizational activi- ties of the Union. Joseph Dobrowolski, a fleshing machine operator in the coat leather department and a member of the Union, testified that in the course of a conveisation with Harold M. Lawson, respondent's superintendent, on the day following Dobrowolski's application for membership in the Union, the former asked him if he had attended a union meeting and joined the organization; and told him that if there was anything unsatisfactory about his work to see Louis Hamel, respondent's general manager ; that the Union would not be interested in the men after they were organized; and if there was any trouble (with the Union), the department would be discontinued. Lawson admitted that he had' talked with Dobrowolski at that time, but denied that lie had said anything about closing the department, and stated that he could not recall any conversa- tion about the Union. Dobrowolski is not now in respondent's employ. According to the testimony of John C. Wholley, an employee in the kid leather department, Lawson called him away from his work on the day following his application for membership in the Union and stated that the Union was trying to organize the plant, and that if the Union's organizational campaign was suc- cessful the coat leather department would close, "which might put a lot of fel- lows out of a job." Wholley also testified that during this conversation Lawson said, "I don't care whether you have signed a card or not. I thought I would' relate to you just how things stand but think it over before you do and be sure that you know what you are doing." Lawson admitted a conversation with Wholley in which there was some discussion about problems in the coat leather department as a new department, but testified that he had no recollection of any reference being made to the Union. Wholley is not now in the employ of the respondent, was an unwilling witness, and testified under the compulsion of a subpena. Dobrowolski also testified that his foreman, Thomas J Hardiman, asked Win if he had attended a meeting of the Union and signed a card to join and then mentioned to him that Hainel was very charitable, that anyone could talk with him and that if there was any trouble with the union or any labor organization,. the coat leather department would close Hardiman testified that he spoke with Dobrowolski'and told him that he was holding up production by visiting the - smoking room too frequently. Wholley also testified that Chester S Paul, foreman of the "beam house" de- partinent, approached him and warned hint to be careful about unions because the employees who had been involved in the strike at the respondent's plant in 1933, were now in less desirable jobs elsewhere or with the W P A Desire Comeau, a fleshing machine operator, testified that Paul had asked him whether he had heard of a union meeting or had been approached by the organizer Paul also advised Comeau that he did not believe in unions. Paul made no specific denial of these conversations although he generally denied talking with any of the employees about the Union. L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO.^ '765- Notwithstanding the respondent's contention that it instructed the supervisory force to refrain' from interfering with the employees on' matters pertaining to unions, Lawson, Hardiman, and Paul persisted in discussing the Union with those.working under them. Lawson and Hardiman were unable to recall any mention of the Union. They admitted, however, holding conversations on the occasions referred to by Board's witnesses. Paul denied ever discussing the Union with any of the employees. The circumstances reflected in the record do not, however, lend credence to their testimony, while the respondent's anti-union attitude as shown by Louis Hamel's activities described below, together with the mutually consistent testimony of the Board's witnesses in some respects sup- ported by the respondent's testimony , justifies the undersigned in finding' that Lawson, -Hardiman, and Paul' made the statements attributed to them by Dobrowolski, Wholley, sand Comeau. The foregoing, statemens show that the re- spondent, through its agents, interfered with, restrained, and coerced the em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On November 15, 1940, during the Union's organizational campaign, Louis Hamel sent to the employees of the respondent a letter reading as follows: To Our Employees : During the past few weeks, several of you have complained to me that you were being bothered at your homes and in other places by certain indi- viduals who were trying to induce you to allow them to represent you in your dealings with this company. Because of this activity, I feel that out of fairness to those who have already been approached as well as to those who might possibly hereafter be approached, I should make my, position clear. It seems particularly important to do so at this time'in view of the fact that many false and misleading statements appear to have been made to some of you by these outside individuals. In addressing you now I prefer to speak not so much as the General Man- ager of the L H. Hamel Leather Company, but rather as a friend, and fellow worker. The great majority of you have rendered loyal service to this company for many years and I consider all of you, irrespective of the length of time you have been associated with the company, as my personal friends. During the years that we have been associated together in this business, you know that the most cordial spirit of friendship and cooperation has always prevailed between us. Because of this rather unusual relation- ship, I feel justified in speaking to you frankly and openly. The single suggestion of trouble in the past twenty-five years since I have been in business, came from those who had absolutely no connection, with or interest in the company, its business or its employees and who, as a matter of fact did not even belong here in Haverhill. Today again it would seem that a group of strangers are once more at work hoping that they can STIR UP TROUBLE among us solely for the purpose of PROMOTING THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS. I neither wish nor intend to influence any employee in any decision he or she may feel called upon to make for his or her own best personal inter- ests. However, I do feel it is my,duty to warn you against certain possible consequences - I only ask each one of you before you elect to place your jobs, your living and perhaps your entire future in the hands of these strangers and TO 8 Lawson has for 13 years been the superintendent of the plant and Hardiman and Paul for several years have been departmental foremen. The respondent admits that these indi- viduals have complete supervisory authority. With respect to the acts of these three super- visory employees the doctrine of respondeat superior applies, and the respondent is respon- sible for their acts related,herein. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SURRENDER TO THEM RIGHTS YOU HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED, that you stop and think and weigh the possible consequences most care- fully. In all sincerity I ask you to consider the record and reputation of your company for steady employment, fair wages and working conditions. If you reflect upon it, you must realize that they are not excelled by any other factory in the city and are equalled by few factories in the entire industry. I realize as well as you perhaps, that during the period from the clatter part of March until September of this year, due to conditions beyond any- one's control, there have been certain interruptions in employment for some of our employees which have been most unusual for our factory. I have regretted this;as much' as anyone, and I am glad I can now say that this temporary condition has been corrected and that there is to be put into operation a plan which we hope will insure a regularity and continuity of employment which will even exceed anything we have every enjoyed in the past. In the light of all these things, STOP and THINK. If you sign with these individuals who do not belong in Haverhill and have no knowledge of this factory or the working conditions, they have got you, but what have you got? (Italics supplied) If you only think you must know that it is not necessary to PAY SOME OUTSIDER every month for the privilege of work- ing here. Can you believe that any group of outside men can do more for you, than is being done right now? We, have never had to bargain'WITH ANY OUTSIDERS against our own employees and we do not expect to begin now. It hardly seems necessary to remind you that as in the past, I am always prepared'to discuss matters relating to our work with any employee or group of employees at any time. The door of my office is always open to any one of you. This freedom and close association between us has always been a source of the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to me. I hope that it may never be interrupted. It is obvious from reading the capitalized parts of the letter by Hamel-STIR UP TROUBLE . . . PROMOTING THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS .. . TO SURRENDER TO THEM RIGHTS YOU HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED . . . STOP AND THINK . . . PAY SOME OUTSIDER . . . [bargain] WITH ANY OUT- SIDERS-that the letter was not intended to be a mere expression of opinion. The foregoing letter appeals to the employees individually to renounce the Union's leadership if they are to avoid-placing their future in the bands of "strangers," surrendering rights the respondent has permitted them to enjoy in the past, and paying to "outsiders" for the privilege of working in the plant-the "consequences" of union adherence. It also constituted a thinly veiled threat of unemployment as - a penalty for continuing support to the Union, by referring to the interruption of business in the past by strangers who,are interested only in their own selfish interests.' The letter was an unequivocal notice to the employees to choose be- tween employment with the respondent and membership in the Union. - A few days after the employees had received the letter referred to above, Hamel instructed the respondent's foremen to call departmental meetings of the employ- a The only such interruption in the respondent's business was in 1933 during the strike, and it is clear that it was the same incident referred to by Paul when he told Wholley that employees involved in the 1933 strike had less desirable . Jobs or were with the W. P. A. Louis Hamel , testified : " . . a lot of our people . . . had some very unsatisfactory es- periences with this group back in 1933." L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 767 ees throughout the entire plant.' These meetings, extending over a period of four days, were addressed by Hamel, who testified, in substance, that he discussed the statements contained in the letter of November 15, 1940, and in addition stated enter alia that the employees could not be forced to join a union, that he could not do business in Haverhill with the Union, and that the employees would. earn less each year if the Union came in. Camille Comeau testified that Hamel stated that he would go out of business before he would sign up with the Union. Hamel also testified that during these meetings he displayed to the employees the Novem- ber 1940 issue of the Union's newspaper "Fur and Leather Worker," which contained on the first page an article referring to the reversal by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the convictions of Ben Gold, international president of the Union, and other officers of the Union, and stated to the employees that they were the type of men who represented the Union, and asked whether the employees wanted that kind of men to represent them. Champagne, Desire and Camille Comeau, and Fournier, employees who attended the departmental meetings, testified that ,Hamel in his talk referred to Ben Gold and the union representatives as persons having prison records. The undersigned credits the testimony of these employees.' The respondent's contention that the letter of November 15 was sent to the employees and the departmental meetings held because of numerous employee complaints against the Union that had been received directly by Hamel and through the various foremen is rejected. Hamel's testimony with respect to, the number of complaints and the names of the persons complaining was most indefinite and, even if accepted as true, there is no contention by the respondent that the Union was using other than peaceful persuasive means to secure mem- bership in the Union. The undersigned also rejects the respondent's contention in its brief that Hamel's statements in the letter of November 15 and his talks to the employees in the departmental meetings "fall within the realm of legitimate comment and expression of opinion." Unquestionably, Hamel had the right to state to the employees the respondent's position with respect to the mis- representation of any facts involving the wages or working conditions in the plant, but, in making anti-union statements at the same time in the guise of such defense, he'clearly interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On November 28, 1941, the Union filed charges against the respondent with the Regional Office of the Board, alleging a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Following several conferences at the Regional Office, the respondent, on July 15, 1941, sent a letter to all of its employees, the text of which was proposed and approved by the Regional Office. This letter contained the terms of Section 7 of the Act, and also the following paragraphs : We have instructed our supervisory force that it is to maintain. a hands off policy in the matter of labor organization. The question of whether or not an employee of the L. H. Hamel Leather Company should join or not join any labor organization is a matter solely for each employee to decide for himself. The company does not intend to influence the decision of any em- ployee in any manner whatsoever. 4 Hamel was extremely vague as to the respondent's custom of assembling Its employees at departmental meetings. He could not recall whether it was once a year or once in five years. 'Significantly, Foreman Paul said that he remembered only two such meetings in the past, one being an outing of employees, and the other a credit union organizational meeting held 8 or 9 years ago, and Foreman Hardiman stated that during the past 5 years such meetings consisted of "outing committees " ° Several of the foremen attended the departmental meetings in which Hamel referred to the union paper and type of individuals representing the Union, none of whom were called by the respondent to refute the testimony of the Board' s witnesses that Hamel re- ferred to the union representatives as persons with records. The testimony of the Board's witnesses, several in number, was consistent and substantially similar. '768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In accordance with the provisions of the Act, no employee of this com- pany will be discriminated against in any manner because of his member- ship or non-membership in any labor organization, or for his activities on behalf of the labor organization. The Act leaves the decision as to union membership to employees., This letter is sent you in order to dispose of the charges filed against us and at the suggestion of the National Labor Relations Board. The above letter was sent to all of the respondent's employees and "the charges previously filed in reference thereto were dismissed by the Board with- .out prejudice." 6 Although normally effect is given to agreements purporting to settle unfair labor practices where Board agents have participated in such agreements, in the instant case the employer continued to engage in unfair labor practices, and it is therefore necessary to consider the subsequent conduct of the respondent in order to determine the effect to be given to the sending of the letter of July 15.T The record contains convincing proof that the respondent, while asserting to its employees in the letter of July 15 the right to self-organization, and despite its agreement to settle the alleged unfair labor practices charged by the Union, advised the foremen of respondent's intention to continue the contest with the Union. On the same day as the letter was sent to the employees, Hamel sent to each of the supervisory force a letter stating that a claim had been made that the letter of November 15, 1940, to the employees was misleading The letter to the foremen further stated that unless the respondent agreed to send out the :letter prepared by the Board there would be a hearing and that such hearing would be unpleasant and give unfavorable publicity to the respondent. Among other things the letter stated : The fact that the Fur Workers' group had brought these charges DOES NOT MEAN that we are guilty of violating the Wagner Act. It is simply a complaint which they have brought against us for their own reasons. We agreed to send out such a letter to avoid such a hearing because the hearing would take considerable of my time as well as the time of- other executives and it would be costly The question of whether we would choose a hearing or send out the attached letter has been an open question in our minds for some time. We had some fear that some of our employees might misunderstand the letter., This letter is practically a form letter that we were told to send to each employee who had received a copy of the November 15 letter. It is not the intent of the Act nor of the National Labor Relations Board to influence any employee and the purpose of this letter is simply to undo any possible act of coercion which may unintentionally have been implied. The National Labor Relations Board leaves to ' every employee the right to decide whether or not he wishes to join any organization. The purpose of the L. H Hamel Leather Company's letter of November 15 was to let every employee know that this is his right so that HE WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY OUTSIDER TO INFLUENCE ANY DECISION THAT HE HAD TO MAKE In other words, it is our intention to protect in every way possible each employee's right to reach his own decision There is a possibility that after this letter had been received by our em- ployees, there will be attempts to misinterpret its contents and tryto, show d See respondent's answer. T Although the letter contained no express statement that the respondent would not thereafter interfere with or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act, such meaning must be implied from the language of the letter and the dismissal , of the 8 ( 1) charges. L. H. HAMEL LEATHER. CO. 769 that our letter is an invitation to our employees to join some organization. Of course each of you foremen will understand that this is not the case and no doubt most of our employees will also understand it. Nevertheless, we want you, our foremen , to thoroughly understand every part of this situa- tion, so that you will know all of the facts in case any attempts are made to misinterpret them. The foregoing letter to the foremen was notice to them that they were to prevent any "outsider" from influencing the employees in any way. In the fall of 1941, the Union intensified its organizational activities amongst the employees of the respondent. These activities were well known to the re- spondent and, according to the testimony of Hamel , led him to believe that the employees were again being misled by the Union. ' On or about October 14, 1941, Hamel notified the foremen to send to his office Champagne , Desire and Camille Comeau, and any 'three other employees working with them . Hamel testified that he had considered Champagne as "the man inside trying to organize" the plant for the Union, and that he selected Camille Comeau because Foreman McLaughlin told him that unless respondent granted an increase in the togglers' rate of pay, Camille Comeau would persuade the togglers to quit work. * The respondent was represented at this meeting by Louis and Herbert Hamel and Foreman McLaughlin . The meeting lasted for approximately two hours, and there was no deduction from the wages of the employees attending the meeting. Hamel did all the talking for the respondent . He testified that the meeting was held for the reason that the Union had passed out leaflets to the employees which contained false statements, and also because of some dissatisfaction amongst the employees - with their rates of pay , particularly in the kid and coat leather departments . It is clear that the real reason for calling the meet- ing was to ferret out the activities of Champagne and the two Comeaus in behalf of the Union , rather than to discuss wage rates. Although McLaughlin, foreman of the toggling department , testified that he thought that the main pur- pose of the October 14 meeting was to discuss wage rates in the toggling depart- ment, it is significant that he did not participate in the discussion ; and that Hamel did not solicit his opinion , concerning the wage rates of the department of which he was in direct charge. Hamel also testified that he concluded that the activities of the Union must be having an effect on the employees , because it was unusual to have dissatisfaction in several departments at the same time. It is thus evident, according to Hamel 's own testimony, that he employees were assembled for the purpose of discussing a situation which Hamel thought was due to the activities of the Union. Hamel opened the meeting by pointing out to the employees that the amount of dissatisfaction in the plant indicated that the employees must have some grievances. Hamel's testimony that there was some discussion concerning rates of pay in the various departments is credited by the undersigned , but his denial that there was any discussion concerning the activities of the Union is rejected. The Board's witnesses testified in substance as follows : During the course of Hamel's talk, he stated that Champagne was the No. 1 man of the Union, and he described Champagne and the two Comeaus as the three "key men" in the Union's organizational campaign. Hamel, during the course of his talk, asked the employees how, many persons had signed up with the Union , and what connection Champagne and the Comeaus had with the Union ,, and whether they were being paid by the Union for the work they were doing. In closing, Hamel stated that he had enough money to live on for the rest of his life and, rather than have anything to do with the Union , he would close up the business. In view of the mutually corroborative testimony of the Board 's witnesses, the 493508-43-vol. 45--49 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD admission by Hamel that the Union's activities were, in part at least, instrumen- tal in calling the meeting, and the further fact that Herbert Hamel and Foreman McLaughlin, while present at the meeting, were not called to testify, with respect to the 'statements of Hamel, the undersigned credits the testimony as above related. The respondent, in, its memorandum brief, contends that any [Union] com- ments by Hamel were incidental and that in any event it has not been estab- lished by the Board that anything Mr. Hamel said in this conference [of October 14, 1941] had the effect of coercing or dominating the employees. Without regard' to whether the statements were incidental or expressions of opinion, the record, in its entirety, establishes that the statements of Hamel to the employees.,were made to dissuade' them from affiliating with the Union. In fact, .the state- ments had the desired effect, for immediately thereafter, Champagne, whom Hamel singled out as the "No. 1 man as an organizer working for the -Union" stopped his union activities because he was afraid of losing his job. Desire Comeau, too, stopped attending union conferences, and ceased talking about the union among his co-employees, because of the meeting with Hamel. Camille Comeau, after Hamel's threat to go out of business if the Union succeeded in. organizing the plant, informed Hamel at the conclusion of the meeting that he would stop his activities in the Union, and thereafter ceased all efforts in its behalf. As Champagne was leaving the meeting of October 14, Louis Hamel requested him to stop in later. Some two weeks thereafter, Hamel approached Chain- pagne and inquired how many employees had signed up with the Union. The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the foregoing statements, of Hamel, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In view of these violations of the Act, the undersigned cannot consider, the previous unfair labor practices as having been settled by respondent's letter sent to the employees on July 15, 1941. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V.' THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it 8 In view of this argument , the following language of the Circuit Court of Appeals 'for the- Seventh Circuit is peculiarly applicable : The position of the employer , where, as here, there is present, genuine and sincere respect and regard, carries such weight and influence that his words may be coercive when they would not be so if the relation of master and servant did not exist. N. L. R. B. v. The Falk Corporation, 102 F. ( 2d) 383 (C. C. A. 7). Notwithstanding the fact that Hamel's statements had a coercive effect, it is not necessary, under the circumstances here indicated , to show that respondent 's statements and actions were actually coercive in effect in order to constitute violation of Section 8 (1). It is enough that they were reasonably likely to restrain the employees ' rights under the Act. See N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding d Dry Dock Co , 308 U S 241, 25,1; N. L. R. B . v. Link. Belt Go, 311 U. S. 584; N. L. R B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U. S_ 318 ; Heinz Co v N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514; Atlas Underwear Co. v. N. L R. B, 116 F. (2d)' 1020, (C. C. A. 6) ; Triplex Screw Co. v N. L R B., 117 F. (2d) 858, (C C. A 6) N. L. R B. v. Federbush Co., 121 F (2d) 954, (C. C. A. 2) ; Titan Metal Mfg. Co. V. N. L R B , 106 F. (2d) 254, (C. C. A 3), cert. den 308 U S 615; ' Bethlehem Steel Co v N. L R. B., 120 F. (2d) *641 (App. D. C. ) ; N. L R. B v. New Era Die Co., 118 F. (2d) 500, (C. C. A. 3). L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 771 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS of LAW 1. International Fur and Leather Workers of United States and Canada, affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), of the Act. . 3. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the, meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the respondent, L. H. Hamel Leather Co. (Haverhill, Massachusetts), and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees' in the exercise of the right to self- organization ; to form, join, or assist labor organizations ; to bargain collectively through representatives, of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose, of collective bargaining or other mutual aid' or protection, as guaranteed in Section. 7 of the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act ; (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in Haverhill, Massachusetts, and maintain for a period of not less than sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices td its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of these recommendations ; and (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) within twenty (20) days'from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the receipt of the Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue'an order requiring the respondent to take- the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended-any party may within, thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to' the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four ,copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in- support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within twenty (20) days after the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. JAMES C. BATrEN, Dated August 1, 1942. Trial Examiner.