J. Greenbaum Tanning Co.

In the Matter of J. GREENEBAUM TANNING COMPANY, PLANT #3 and AMERICAN LEATHER WORKERS UNION Case No. R-4983.-Decided May 144, 1943 Messrs. Russell Packard and Clarence Meter, for the Board. Lamfrom, Tighe, Engelhard & Peck, by Messrs. A. J. Engelhard and E. W. Peck , of Milwaukee , Wis., for the Company. Mr. N. Paley Phillips, of Milwaukee , Wis., for the ALWU. Messrs. George Bradow and Augustus J. Tomlinson , of Milwaukee, Wis., for the C. I. O. Mr. Wallace E. Royster, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by American Leather Workers Union, herein called the ALWU, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of J. Greene- bauin Tanning Company, Plant #3, Milwaukee , Wisconsin, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Charles E. Persons, Trial Examiner . Said hearing was held at Milwaukee , Wisconsin, on March 8 , 9, and 10, 1943 . The Board, the Company, the ALWU, and International Fur & Leather Workers Union ( CIO), herein called the CIO,1 appeared, participated , and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues . The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 'On March 1, 1943, the C. I. O. filed a written motion to Intervene in this proceeding. The Regional Director granted the motion on March 2, 1943. 49 N. L. R B., No. 112. 787 531647-43-vol. 49-51 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATPONS^ BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following,: FINDINGS OF FACT ; 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY J. Greenebaum Tanning Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The Com- pany operates tanneries in Chicago, Illinois, and in Milwaukee, Wis- consin, and a sales agency in Massachusetts. This proceeding involves only the employees at the Company's plant #3 which is located in the south side of the city of Milwaukee. The principal product of the Company is leather. At plant #3' -the Company purchases annually hides, and chemicals valued in excess' of $500,000, of which approximately. 90 percent is shipped to plant #3 from points outside Wisconsin. The annual production of plant #3 has a value in excess of $1,000,000, of which approxi- mately 75 percent is shipped from the plant to points outside Wisconsin. The Company concedes that it is engaged in commerce at plant #3 within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 11 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED American Leather Workers Union is an unaffiliated labor organi- zation admitting to membership employees of the Company. International Fur & Leather Workers Union (CIO) is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESEN'rATION In the notice of hearing in this proceeding, dated February 22, 1943, the Board provided that, in addition to the usual investigation of the question of representation, evidence be received at the hearing on the issue whether the petitioning ALWU is a successor to or a continuation of Employees Benefit Association 'of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' ,Mutual Benefit Association, herein called the UMBWA, on Independent' Tannery Workers of America, herein called the ITWA. Disestablishment of these four organizations was ordered by the Board in a prior proceeding, herein called the com- plaint case.2 We will first consider the evidence bearing on this issue. 2Matter of J Greenebanm Tanning Company and United Shoe Workers of America, Local 29 (CIO), 25 N L R B 672. I J. GIREENEBAUM TANNING COMPANY 789 , In December 1934, the UMBWA, an unaffiliated labor union, was formed at plant #3 and was subsequently recognized by the Com- pany as the bargaining representative of the employees. In 1937 the UMBWA was reorganized and became the ITWA, also an unaffiliated union. The latter too was recognized by the Colppany. The Board found in the complaint case that the UMBWA and the ITWA were identical organizations except in name, that the Company had domi- nated and interfered with the formation and administration of both, and had contributed financial and other support to them. Upon these findings the Board's Order in the complaint case required the dises- tablishment of these organizations. The Order was dated July 19, 1940, but the Company took no action'in compliance therewith until a consent decree of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued on January 26, 1942, enforcing the Board's Order. Thereafter, oil Feb- ruary 2, 1942, the Company posted the notices required by the Order. On October 24, 1941, the membership of the ITWA, being advised that the Company did not propose to resist enforcement of the Board's Order, voted to dissolve and empowered the officers to wind up the affairs of the organization. On December 4, 1941, the Company was advised by letter that the ITWA would not act as bargaining•repre- sentatlve of the employees after December 10, 1941. It appears from the recard that many members of the ITWA ivei•e reluctant to dis- sol\ e that organization. In November 1941, Walter Piasecki, It steward in the ITWA, called several members of that organization to his home, and discussed with them the formation of another union. As a result of this meeting, a group of officers and members of the ITWA, including the vice president and three stewards, consulted N. Paley Phillips, attorney for the ITWA. Phillips advised them how to proceed to the formation of another union and advanced funds for the printing of membership application cards. A mem- bership campaign was undertaken and other members of the ITWA joined this group in soliciting the employees to join the projected union., As stated above the Company posted disestablishment notices on February 2,1942. On the following day, after a membership campaign of nearly 2 months, the organizers for a new union decided to have an open meeting of those interested, and to invite representatives of the CIO to address the gathering. The meeting was held on February 26, 1942, and was attended by approximately 117 of the 340 employees at plant #3. CIO representatives urged affiliation with their organi- zation and Joseph Danbrea,4 president of the UMBWA and of the 3 The organizing group consisted of the following office, s and members of the ITWA : Albert Cheslik, vice president, Walter Piaseck,, steward, Stanley Kotaiski, Frank Giaca- lone, Billy Kubicki, HoN,ard Laabs, Rudolph Grabowski, Steve,Piasecki, Alex Balcerzak, Porfino Gonzales, and Herbert Fcest. , 4 Spelled ei roneously, . Dambrea" in'tbe complaint case, 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD ITWA until its dissolution, vigorously advocated an independent union. At the meeting, Attorney Phillips referred favorably to work- ing conditions existing at a local plant where an unaffiliated union was recognized, and asserted that in many plants independent unions were functioning as well Qas or better than CIO unions. A vote'taken among those present resulted in the choice of an independent union over affili- ation with the CIO, by a vote of 61 to 39. A committee was then chosen to select a name and draft, a constitution for the new union. Joseph Danbrea, Billy Kubicki, Walter Piasecki, Howard Laabs, and Stanley Kotarski formed this committee. All members of this committee had been active in the ITWA, Danbrea and Piasecki, having been officers in that organization. 'Phillips attended meetings and advised the committee. On March 15, 1943, at a meeting of the membership of the new union, the following temporary officers were elected : President, Joseph Danbrea. Secretary, Sigmund Tylenda. Sergeant at Arms, A. Kordes. All three had held corresponding offices in the ITWA. At this same meeting the name American Leather Workers Union was adopted. At a later meeting on May 21, the constitution was adopted and the following permanent officers elected : President, Joseph Danbrea. Vice President, Albert Cheslik. Secretary, Sigmund Tylenda. Treasurer, Margaret Uelman. Sergeant at Arms, P. Robinson. Bargaining Committee, Howard Laabs, Walter Piasecki, Stanley Kotarski. Cheslik; as well as Danbrea and Tylenda, had held the same office in the ITWA; Piasecki was a steward in that organization; and Laabs and Kotarski were active members. Joseph Danbrea has been an employee of the Company for 20 years and has taken a significant and effective part in union affairs at plant #3 since 1934. In that year he was a leader in, organ izing the UMBWA and later became president of that organization. In 1937 when the ITWA•replaced the UMBWA, Danbrea became president of the new organization and retained this office until the ITWA dissolved. As stated above, the Board found in the complaint case that the Company dominated and assisted both the ITWA and the UMBWA. This finding was based in part upon evidence that Danbrea received funds from the Company both to assist the formation of the ITWA and to reward him for his organizational efforts. To this extent he became the agent of the Company. It does not appear that the Company has I J. GIREENEBALJM TANNING COMPANY - 791 ever effectively renounced this agency . At the hearing , Danbrea ad- nutted that his earnings at the plant exceed those of others doing the same work and offered no credible explanation for this circumstance. That the employees regard him as one able to obtain favors from the Company is evidenced by the testimony of Theodore Piasecki. Pia- secki testified that in the summer of 1942 he joined Danbrea and others in assisting an inside union at another plant of the Company, prior to a Board election . Allegedly , Danbrea promised to arrange a paid vacation ,for him at the expense of the Company as a reward for his time and efforts . Later in the year Piasecki, Danbrea, and others were absent from the plant on a hunting trip. Piasecki received no pay for the time he was away from work and protested to Danbrea about it. Danbrea admitted that Piasecki appeared to expect pay for this absence and asked Danbrea to obtain it. Danbrea denied that he promised the paid vacation or sought to arrange it for Piasecki. We do not find it necessary to resolve this conflict. While we do not find that Danbrea promised or sought to arrange the vacation, we are of the opinion that Piasecki reasonably regarded Danbrea as one able to obtain such a favor from the Company. Although he had previously remained aloof from participation in the organizational activity which led to the formation of the ALWU,5 Danbrea vigorously advocated the organization of an unaffiliated union at the meeting of February 26, 1942. Considering his privileged status as an employee and his leadership , for 8 years , of Company-sponsored organizations , we are satisfied that the employees at that meeting must have understood Danbrea to be voicing the Company's preferences with respect to the form of the new organization.° We think it is clear from the facts above recited -that the ALWU appeared to the Company 's employees to have evolved directly from the ITWA.7 Organization of the ALWU was undertaken by officers and leaders of the ITWA even before the predecessor organization had ceased to function , and nearly 2 months before the Company took any ,step purportedly to disestablish it.8 Under the guidance of the attor- 5 At the hearing , Theodoie Piasecki testified that Phillips advised the organizers of the new union to keep the officers of the ITWA in they background ' 6Inteiaational Association of Machinists v N. L R. B, 311 U. S 72, affirming 71 App J C' 175; I 10 F. (2d ) 29 (App P ' C ), enforcing 8 N L R B 021. Matter of Serrack Corp, 311 U S 729. rehearing denied N L R. B v. Link-Belt Co, 311 U S 5S4, reversing modification of Board 's Order in 110 F . (2d) 506 (C. C. A 7), enforcing as modified 12 N L. R. B 854. 7lrcctinphouse Electric & Mfg Co v. N. L. R B , 112 F. (2d) 657 (C C A. 2), en- forcing as modified 18 N L R B . 300 ; affirmed ( per curiam) 312 U , S 660 9 N L R B v Newport Neaps Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co, 308 U. S 241, reversing modification of Board's Oidei in 101 F (2d) 841 (C C A 4), enforcing as modified 8 N L 11 B 866' 11,estern Union Telegraph Co v. N L. R. B, 113 F (2d) 992 (C C A. 2) enforcing as modified,25 N L R P. 1312 Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. N L. R. B, 116 F ( 2d) 388 (C. C. A. 4), setting aside 24 N. L R B •919 V. L. R. B. v II E Fletchei Co , 108 F ( 2d) 459 (C. C. A 1), enforcing 5 N L. R. B. 729. 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ney who had counseled the ITWA, and with the forceful and timely support of Danbrea, the ALWU was effectively organized-the ques- tion of affiliation determined, a constitutional committee selected, the name chosen, and temporary officers elected-before the expiration of the 60-day ,period during which the Company was ordered to keep posted its notice disestablishing the ITWA. At no time did the Com- pany expressly disavow its interest in the formation of a new union to succeed the dominated ITWA, an interest which the employees' must have imputed to it in view of the apparent continuity between the ITWA and the "new" organization:9 If the notice of February 2 gave rise to any doubt in the employees' minds as to the Company' s desires, such doubt was dispelled by Danbrea's advocacy of an unaffiliated 'union at the organizational meeting of February 26. Under the cir- cumstances we hold that the disestablishment notice was rendered ineffective, and that the employees have at no time been liberated from the effects 'of the Company's domination and interference with their choice of bargaining representatives.10 We find that the ALWU is a continuation of and the successor to the ITWA and as such is within the purview of the prohibitions of the Order in the complaint case and of the decree of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing that Order. It is clear then that the ALWU is an, organization from which the Company, by the said Order and -decree, is required to withhold all recognition "as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the [Company] concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work." Under the circumstances, we cannot certify the ALWU as the rep- resentative 'of the Company's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, as requested in the petition for investigation and cer- tification herein. The CIO, the intervening labor organization in this proceeding, requested at the hearing that it alone appear on the ballot, if the Board should order an election. Since the CIO has filed no cross_ petition for investigation and certification and since it has made, no substantial- showing of 'current membership among the Com- pany's employees at plant #3, we shall refuse this request 11 Weefind e Cf Matter of Providence Gas Company and Local 12133, District 50, United- Mine A orkers of America, C I. O. 41 N. L R B 1121. "See N L R. B v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U. S. 272, reversing modifica- tion of Board 's Order in 91 F. (2d) 458 (C. C. A 9), enforcing as modified 2 N. L. R B. 431 n The Field Examiner stated that the CIO submitted 81 designations, all bearing apparently genuine ouginal signatures Nine designations were undated and the re- mainder dated variously from January-to August 1942 Forty-four bore the names of persons, whose names appear on the Company's pay roll 6f December 19, 1942, and of these, 2 bore the names of persons appearing on the designations of the ALWU. This pay roll contains the names of 342 persons. 1 J. GR'EENEBAUM TANNING COMPANY 793 that no question - affecting commerce concerning representation of employees of the Company at plant #3 has arisen, and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition of the ALWU. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investi- gation and certification- of representatives of employees of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Company, Plant #3, Milwaukee, Wiscon- sin, filed by American Leather Workers Union be, and it hereby is, dismissed.