Wells-Lamont-Smith Corp.

In the Matter Of WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION and AMAL- GAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA and ELSBERRY GLOVE WORKERS' ASSOCIATION Case No C-0117 -Decided July 15,1949 Jurisdiction : glove manufacturing industry Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restialnt, and Coercion anti-union statements, declaration of union preference, interrogation concerning union membership and activities, refusal to deal with iepresentatiie of employees, threatened cessation of operations, favoiitism shown to unaffiliated oigauization-charges of, dismissed as to curtailment of earmug, of eniploSees because they joined or assisted charging union Company-Doniinatcd Uinon interference in formation and administration cir- culation of petitions and solicitation of signatuies on company time and prop- erty in presence of and with knowledge of supervisors, signing of same by supervisors, permitting posting of notices in plant of "inside" union activity despite notice_agaiust union activity, participation;itL-admiiiistiation, encour- agement of membership therein by numerous acts of iiiteifeience, restraint, and coercion, precipitate iecogmtion of "inside" union as bargaining representative, and execution of contract with it as means of pieservmg its existence Remedial Orders : disestablishment of dominated organization oideied, contract with dominated organization abrogated Mr. Bertram Diamond, for the Board Fyffe d Clarke, by Mr Albert J Smith, of Chicago, Ill , for the respondent. Mr Frank Schaps, of Chicago, Ill, for the Amalgamated Mr. J E. Clarke, of Elsberry, Mo , for the Association Mrs Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE - Upon an amended charge duly filed on January 8, 1942,' by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amal- gamated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region ( St. Louis, Mis- souri ), issued , its, complaint, dated ,January 8 , 1942, against Wells- Lamont-Smith Corpoi ation, Elsberry, Missouri, herein called the re- 1 The original charge was filed by the Amalgamated on September 15, 1941 42 N L R B, No 97 440 WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 441 spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served on the respondent, the Amalgamated, and Elsberry Glove Workers' Associa- tion, herein called the Association, a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be dominated by the respondent With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended at the hearing alleged, in substance, (1) that the respondent on and after September 10, 1941, dominated and interfered with the forma- tion and administration of the Association, and contributed financial and other support to it, uiged its employees to join the Association, and recognized and entered into a contract with the Association as an exclusive collective bargaining agent at a time when the Association did not represent an uncoerced majority of the respondent's employees; (2) that the respondent on and after September 10, 1941, urged and warned its employees not to join the Amalgamated,, threatened to close its plant if they joined the Amalgamated, and curtailed the earn- ings of employees because they joined and assisted the Amalgamated; and (3) that by the foregoing and other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act On January 21, 1942,7tine respondent, and on January 22, 1942, the Association, filed answers to the complaint In its answer the respond- ent admitted the allegations of the complaint respecting the nature of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and asserted that the Association tendered proof that it represented a majority of the respondent's em- ployees; that it thereupon recognized the Association as exclusive col- lective bargaining agent of its employees, and that thereafter it entered into a written contract with the Association The answer of the Asso-, ciation denied the commission of unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent and averred that the Association had been selected as exclusive collective bargaining agent by a majority of the respondent's employees prior to September 16, 1941; that on or about September 16, 1941, it presented to the respondent evidence of its majority repre- sentation and was recognized as exclusive collective bargaining agent, and that thereafter, on September 23, 1941, it entered into a written contract with the respondent in which it was accorded recognition as the sole bargaining agent by the respondent. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elsberry, Missouri, on January 19, 20, 21, and 22, 1942, before Frank A. Mouritsen, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board, 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondent, the Amalgamated, and the Association were repre- sented by counsel and participated in the hearing Full opportunity to-be heard, to examine and cross-exannne witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties At the con- clusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the plead- ings in minor details to conform to the proof Over the respondents objection, the motion was granted During the course of the hearing, the Trial Eaminer made several rulings on other motions and on objec- tions to the admission of evidence The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial eriors were com- mitted. - The rulings are hereby affirmed 2 After the close of the hearing, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner Thereaftei the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, dated February 16, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommending that the, respondent, cease, and -desist ; from, its unfair labor practices, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act The Trial Examiner found that the respondent did not cur- tail the earnings of employees because they joined and assisted the Amalgamated and therefore recommended that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as it alleged that the respondent violated the Act in this respect On March 16, 1942, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intelme- diate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions In its brief the respondent moved that the Board dismiss this proceeding on the ground that the evidence did not support a finding that the respondent had violated the Act. For reasons which appear below, the motion is denied. Neither the Amalgamated nor the Association filed excep- tions- to the Intermediate Report or a brief No party has filed a request for oral argument. The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs submitted by the respondent, and save as the exceptions are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set for th below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record-in the case, the Board makes the following: 2 At the hearing, at the request of the Trial Examiner, and with the consent of all parties, the respondent agreed to submit after the hearing a report showing the work of its cutters during 1941 , subject to the approval of the Board's attorney Respondent's Exhibit No 1 was the designation reserved for this report The report, having been sub- mitted by the respondent and duly approved by the Board's attorney, was forwarded to Washington and designated Respondent 's Exhibit No 1 As such, it is hereby incorporated in, and is part of, the record in this proceeding WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 443 Wells-Lamont-Srmth Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, has` its principal office-and place of business 'at Chicago, Illinois The re- spondent operates a plant-at Elsberry, Missouri, the only plant in- volved in this pi oceeding, foi the manufacture, sale, and distribution of gloves The principal materials used in such manufacture are- leather, cloth, and thread. During the year 1941, the respondent used at its Elsbeiry plant materials valued in excess of $200,000, of which 50 percent by value was brought to the plant from points out- side Missouri During the same per rod, products finished at the Elsberry plant exceeded $200,000 in value, of which more than 50 percent by value was shipped to points outside Missouri II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the respondent Elsberiy Glove Workers' Association is all unaffiliated labor organi- zation, admitting to member ship employees of the respondent III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Domination of and interference with the formation and admin- istration of the Association; interference, restraint, and coercion On September 8, 1941, a number of the respondent's employees at the Elsberry plant attended a meeting of the Amalgamated in Louisi- ana, Missouri, a nearby town Five of them became members of the Amalgamated at this time Two days later the first meeting of the Amalgamated, was held at Elsberry- Between 80 and 100 of approxi- mately 300 employees attended this meeting. The following morning, Bernice Creech, floorlady of the finishing department, asked employee Georgia Suddarth whether she had attended the meeting and had signed a card Suddarth replied that she had attended the meeting, but refused to disclose whether she had signed a card. Creech told her that she did not think Suddaith should have signed if she had, and stated further that the factory would close its doors if the Amalgamated "got in." Later Creech made disparaging remarks to Suddarth concerning the organizers of the Amalgamated, and questioned her about the Amalgamated.8 " We credit, as did the Trial Examiner , the uncontradicted testimony of Suddarth Creech did not testify at the hearing 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD Between 9 and 10 o'clock on Thursday morning, September 11, Richard Smith, superintendent of the plant; made three speeches to different groups of employees in the plant' The power was cut off, work ceased, and the employees were assembled, one group in the base- ment, two on the main floor In the short addresses, which were sub- stantially the same, Smith, emphasizing his own bald work at the plant and his own willingness to woik, in substance told the employees that he would still be friendly toward them even though their feelings toward him had changed, that the respondent had favored with reemployment cutters who had left, for work in defense plants and had returned to work in the respondent's plant, that things ntihicli had taken years to build, like the Clarksville Dam, could be destroyed in an instant; that he did not go around "peeping in windows", , that the respondent's employees Were in a much better situation than were people in foreign countries; that the employees were getting all they could get and they could not get any more at the present time; and that they knew what he meant and could read between the lines The Trial Examiner found that the respondent, through Smith's opportune speeches. advised and warned its employees of the re- spondent's opposition to the Amalgamated and that they could expect no benefit from joining the Amalgamated The respondent takes exception to this finding We find no merit in this exception. The Trial Examiner did not credit Smith's confused and incoherent ex- planation of his meaning, nor can wee The speeches were made on the morning following the first meeting of the Amalgamated. Smith's reference to peeping in windows necessarily had reference to the 4 At the hearing , Smith explained that he spoke to the employees because production was dropping , which he apparently did not mention in his speech , because employees were leaving for defense plants , and because employees were demanding higher wages Many employees had left the respondent's plant in the spring of 1941 A few of them had re- turned and had been reemployed by the respondent As a matter of fact, the cutters had asked for higher wages in August 1941 and Smith addressed them at that time, explaining the respondent's position with respect to current contracts and the possibility of a wage adjustment later The cutters, so far as the iecoid discloses , were the only employees who were demanding higher wages With the exception of this talk to the cutters , Smith had not, before September 11, 1941, addressed employees as a group since he had become superintendent in 1936 5 At the meeting of the Amalgamated one of the employees had said, "Suppose Mr Smith was walking past and would look in the window and would see us clown here and we don't sign a card , or we do , would he have a right to fire us tomorrow for attending the meeting I" 9 Smith explained that there were tumors going around the factory of mistreatment of employees , and therefore , although it appears he did not specifically inquire concerning the causes of such alleged rumors or attempt to remove them , he told' the employees of his friendliness Lonaid them that it didn't make any difference what employee considered that the were getting nustieated , regardless who they were or how they were toward me, I still maintained it was my intentions to go down the aisle and still continue doing the same as I had previous days, saying my good mornings to them" Smith testified that he told any employee who could get mole money elsewhere than at the plant to go and get it, but urged the cutters , who were the only employees specifically asking for increases in wages, to stay at the factory and that the respondent would try to do something for them later Smith testified that his references to his own hard woik at the plant and his willingness to work hard with other employees was inserted in his speeches "Just mean- WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 445 d _,ry remark made at that meeting. We conclude and find that Smith in- tended to warn the employees that their affiliation with the Amalga. mated endangered the respondent's business, that the Amalga- mated could destroy the respondent's business which had taken a long time to build, just as a bolt of lighting could destroy the Clarksville Dam; that this would result in their unemployment; that while their patient endurance might later result in wage increases, affiliation with the Amalgamated could bring them no advantage; and that this was what they might "read between the lines." 7 Upon the conclusion of Smith's speeches, there appeared in the plant a petition which stated that the signers desired to form an inde- pendent organization of their own to keep other organizations out of the plant The record does not disclose its origin. This petition circulated openly 8 in the plant during working hours in the presence of foremen and foreladies and was signed by many of the respondent's employees, including three supervisory employees, Mary Johnson, forelady in the sewing room, Emma Levengood, her assistant, and Thelma Jean Temple in charge of the packing table .9 At first the ingly, that it would be a sentence," and further that a remark comparing the situation of the iespondent's employees to the labor conditions in foreign countries was merely a casual remark Smith pointed out that things which took a long time to build like the Clarksville Dam could be destroyed in an Instant with respect to this comparison , Smith gave the fol- lowing explanation "well , the temperature was rather hot during my previous talk along about the first of September, September 11 or 10, and the boys were perspiring at that time and I tried to cut my talk as short as possible because, it was very hot, and' I told them at that time that wasn't created by man (Board Attorney ) "You mean the perspiration hasn't? (Smith ) "Yes, sir, that wag created by someone more than mankind, and I also stated that the Clarksville Dam wasn't built in one day, but had taken some time to build, and that one bolt of lightening could destroy it in an instant " Questioned further as to the relation of his remark about the Clarksville Dam to his speeches on September 11, Smith ansitered "It was related to the fact that it was rather hot , and I thought at that time we could-it wasn't that condition existing as to the tetrific heat as had pieviously" In explaining his meaning in his suggestion that his employees "read between the lines" Smith contended that he meant only to state "indirectly" what he had already clearly explained, namely, that when the respondent 's contracts expired in October, the respondent would then be able to make an adjustment in wages '' The only employees who testified with respect to the import of Smith's speeches so interpreted their meaning They testified, in substance, that they though Smith was referring to the Amalgamated and that he meant that the respondent would not have the Amalgamated in the plant and that there would be no work in the factory if the Amalga- mated came in 6 The Trial Examiner so found and we agree The respondent takes exception to this finding we find no merit in the exception Supervisors Johnson, Levengood , Creech, Robinson , and McKenzie were on the floor when the petition circulated Levengood and Johnson signed it during working hourg Superintendent Smith, advised of the petition by Assistant Manager Bowton , according to his own testimony , even cautioned Levengood about signing it while the petition was circulating Robinson discussed the petition with an employee in his department Purposely to attract McKenzie 's attention , Clyde Hatfield, an employee in the cutting department , held the petition high while he was reading it O The Trial Examiner found that Temple was a supervisory employee The respondent takes exception to this finding We find no merit in this exception Temple, the highest paid employee at the packing table, receives written or oral orders from Assistant Manager Bowton or Superintendent Smith, which she transmits to other employees She delivers checks and instructs employees in their work, as other supervisors do She directs other employees at the packing table what gloves to fetch , staple, and pair to fill the day's orders 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD petitions were passed from employee to employee, but after the initial circulation they were carried around by Temple Temple urged many of the employees to sign the petition. While discussing it with em- ployee Cecil Fines, Temple said, "The Company will recognize this, and they will not recognize the C I. 0,10 and if the C. I 0 comes in, the Company will close its doors and move out, and then where will we be?" To Fines' question, "Are you sure about this," Temple answered, "Yes, it came pretty straight." To Juanita Dameron, an- other employee, Temple urged that the employees might get a raise as a result of signing the paper, but she could not promise.11 To Nola B. Strus, another employee, who asked her if the petition was to keep the C. I. O. out, Temple, assenting, added that "if they got enough names on the petition and thereafter the C. I. 0 came in and tried to start trouble or anything, they could call in the State Militia." 12 On the afternoon of the following day, Friday, September-12, notices of a meeting of the respondent's employees to be held at 8 o'clock the same evening were posted on the bulletin board and passed out in the plant to employees as they were leaving work for the day. The notice declared that the purpose of the meeting was "for . . . per- fecting the organization of an Independent Union." With reference to the proposed meeting, Floorlady Creech told employee Edna Fines, "We are having a meeting in the opera house tonight. Pass the word along " 13 The Amalgamated had scheduled a meeting earlier in the same evening Some employees attended the meeting of the Amalgamated and upon its early adjournment joined other employees at the opera house 14 Three members of the Elsberry Chamber of Commerce pre- sided 15 One of them made a short talk, telling employees, in substance, When work for the day is completed , -Temple notifies Bowton and conveys to other em- ployees at the packing table his instructions for their release and return to work The packing table is in the finishing room, but not under the finishing room supervisor Bowton, to whom Johnson , Levengood, Creech, and Temple report, supervises the entire sewing department Although there are only six employees at the packing table, a con- siderably smaller number than in the other divisions of the plant , it seems clear that the relation of Temple to such employees does not differ materially from that of Johnson, Levengood , and Creech to the employees in the departments in which they work The respondent admits that Johnson,'Levengood , and Creech are supervisory employees under Bowton, but contends that Creech's discretionary powers at the time of the hearing were greater than in September 1941 "The Amalgamated, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is fre- quently designated in the record as "the C I O " n We credit, as did the Trial Examiner, the uncontradicted testimony of Cecil Fines and Dameron Temple did not testify at the hearing 11 We credit the uncontradicted testimony of Strus, noting that Temple did not testify at the hearing The Intermediate Report does not recite her estimony v We credit, as did the Trial Examiner , the uncontradicted testimony of Edna Fines. As noted in footnote 3 above, Creech did not testify at the hearing 14 The opera house is otherwise known in the record as "Morris Hall" or "Morris Opera House " >6 The record does not disclose the nature or origin of the Chamber's interest in the organization of the respondent 's employees WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION - - ' 447 that the Chamber of Commerce was behind them 100 percent whether they wanted the C I 0 or the A F of L, or an independent union, and that Attorney J - E Clarke had prepared a plan of organization for them Having introduced Clarke, the members of the Chamber of Commerce left the meeting Clarke, who later represented the Association at the hearing, read and explained to the employees a model blank form of an employees' representation plan. Clarke told the employees that it was not material to him whether or not they adopted this plan Then lie asked for a showing of hands to indicate whether the employees desired an in- dependent union. Clyde Hatfield, an employee in the cutting depart- ment, who was a member of the Amalgamated and later became its president, asked Clarke to read and explain to the employees present the National Labor Relations Act, a copy of which Hatfield offered Clarke Clarke refused, saying that he would have to study it first. Clarke then proceeded with the organization of the unaffiliated union, which became Elsberry Glove Woikeis' Association, herein called the Association Claike explained that the petition which had been cir- culated by Temple at the plant on September•11 was wiong "in form," so that a new petition was necessary to form the Association 16 Clarke announced that he had two petitions-one in favor of and one opposing the Association-and that the employees should do as they pleased about signing one or the other Clarke said that both petitions would be posted in the plant. It was testified without contradiction that the petition to vote against the Association was not posted or circulated at any time During the course of the evening about 80 to 100 employees of approximately 300 employees signed the petition approving the Asso- ciation At Claike's request a temporaly committee of 5 employees volunteeied to act for the Association pendnig the election of per- manent officers - On Monday, Septembei 15, the next working day, a member of the temporaly. committee of the Association posted on the respondent's bulletin board the completed plan of organization of the Association, which had been read in di aft form by Attorney Clarke at the meeting on September 12, and a notice explaining the plan These remained posted until the following day, when they were removed for approxi- mately half an hour During this interval, the respondent placed on its time clock, some 6 or 8 feet from the bulletin board, a notice stating that petitions or organizational activities of any kind on company time or property were prohibited Within 15 or 20 minutes after the above "Clarke did not explain in what particular the petition circulated at the plant was wrong The distinct difference between the two petitions that the record discloses is that Johnson, Levengood , and Temple did not sign the second petition, nor did Temple solicit signatures for it 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD notice was placed upon the-time clock, a member of the telnpoi ary committee posted upon the bulletin boas d a notice stating that the Association plan had been adopted by a majority of the workers and reposted the plan and the explanatory notice, which had been removed shortly before Thereafter, all three papers concerning the Associa- tion remained posted on the bulletin board at the plant until the middle of October 1941 Smith admitted that he had seen them so posted and that he had taken no step to remove them Some time after the above notices were posted, Superintendent Smith observed employee Thomas Walters passing out leaflets for the Amalgamated on the sidewalk approaching the plant, 30 feet from the building, but inside the respondent's pi operty line Having ascer- tained that they were Amalgamated leaflets, he approached Walters and asked him whether he had read the notice that papers were not to be handed out on company time and property Walters said that he had not seen the notice, and Smith told him to read notices there- after 17 When Smith talked to Walters, the Association plan and notices had been posted on the bulletin board for some time On Tuesday morning, September 16, before work started for the day, the Association's temporary committee met v ith Smith in the plant and asked whether the 1 espoi dent would recognize the Associa- tion as collective bargaining agent Smith informed them that he could not so advise them, but would attempt to have someone from the Chicago office confer with them on the following day On Wednesday morning, September 17, Smith and Arnold Norum, from the respondent's headquarters in Chicago, met with the tempo- rary committee of the Association The committee told Smith and Norum that they had a petition bearing the names of 154 employees and asked for recognition of the Association Norum glanced at the petition, but advised the committee that he did not desire to count the names and he would take then woad for the number Being ad- vised by Smith that the respondent had 298 employees then on its plant pay roll, Norum stated that the respondent would recognize the Association. Norum advised the committee that it would be better to get more signers, and the more signers the stronger the Associa- tion would be At Norum's request 1 member of the committee had the petition "notarized " 18 For the foregoing findings, we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, the testimony of Hurley Cox, a member of the temporary committee, and later a supporter of the Amalgamated, whose account of this meeting the respondent admits is substantially correct. 17 Smith substantially corroborated Walters' testimony concerning this incident 19 Norman Evans, a member of the committee, took the petition to Clarke 's office, where lie signed a statement that he had witnessed the signing of the signatures on the petition Evans, however, admitted at the hearing that he had witnessed only the signatuies affixed at the meeting of September 12 WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 449 On Thursday, September 18, Superintendent Smith called the tem porary committeemen together in the plant and advised them to hold their election for permanent officers as soon as possible They told Smith that they had planned to hold the election the following Mon day. At his suggestion they agreed to hold the election on Friday September 1911 On Thursday afternoon, petitions nominating peunanent officers for the Association were circulated openly in the plant during working hours A gioup of employees complained to Smith of the circulation of the nominating petitions, stating that theie were about 10 of the papers going round the plant Smith walked down 1 aisle, returned to the group, and said,that he was unable to see any such petitions At the hearing, Smith iemembered the complaint regarding the cir- culation of the nominating petitions Smith denied at the hearing, however, that he knew of their circulation dining working hours. The Trial Examiner did not credit Smith's denial, nor do we. Such circulation is clearly in line with Smith's .desire that the completion of the Association be speeded At the time when Smith was advised of the circulation, two employees, neither of whom belonged in the department, were soliciting signatures for the nominating petitions about 30 feet distant from him. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Smith knew of the circulation of nominating petitions in the plant during working hours and in spite of the notice previously posted prohibiting circulation, did nothing to prevent it The election of the permanent representatives of the Association was held at the opera house on Friday, September 19, and the results announced On Monday the iepresentatives elected officers and con- ferred with Clarke. On Tuesday, September 23, the representatives of the Association met with Smith and Norum. The representatives requested specific improvements in working conditions and a raise in wages The re- spondent orally promised to, grant certain improvements, but denied other requests. In response to their question whether a contract should be drafted incorporating the respondent's oral agreement, Norum informed the representatives that he would draw up a con- tract and submit it to them On September 24, at a wage conference with the representatives of the Association, the respondent agreed to raise the wages of almost all employees 15 percent An_mcrease of 7 percent was to be paid on October 1, 1941, and 1 percent added each month, thei eafter until the total of 15 percent should be reached On about October 1, Smith submitted to the representatives of the Association a pi oposed contract which he had received from Norum "Smith was not questioned concerning this incident we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, the uncontradicted testimony of Cox with respect to this meeting 472814-42-vol 42-29 ' 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD They rejected it One of them liter appealed fox help to a Mr Jones, a local banker in Elsbeiry, and Jones promised to secure Clarke's aid in drafting a contract satisfactory to the Association The iepiesen tatives of the Association received from Jones a form of contract, which they appiovel, signed, and submitted to the respondent. Neither the representatives of the Association who testified at the heai- ing nor Smith could indicate in what particulais the contract tendered to the respondent by the Association differed ftom the contract pro- posed by Norum Norum and Smith signed the contract 20 tendered by the Association The contract piovides for the recognition of the Association as the sole baiganung agent of the respondent's employees and permits the collection of Association' dues upon company prop- erty 21 Neither the contract proposed by the respondent not the As- sociation's counterproposal was submitted to the members of the Asso-, ciation fox approval The executed contract was not pi esented to the members of the Association for ratification The Association has not held a membership meeting since the. organizational meeting of Sep- tember 12 22 B Conclusions concerning the unfair labor pmetrces The foregoing facts disclose that the respondent countered the nas- cent self-organizational efforts of its employees by embarking upon ,t course of conduct calculated to divert then from allegiance to the ;amalgamated to the establishment of a labor organization confined in membership to employees of the Elsberry plant The initial Amal- gamated meetings of September 8, -and 10 were followed immediately by improper interrogation on the part of- Flootlady Creech and by Superintendent Smith's unprecedented action in calling meetings of employees while work was stopped and making speeches to the em- ployees in which he disparaged the advantages of membei slop rin the 201he signed contract bears the date of September 23, 1941 the date on ahnh Norum and Smith first eonfeued with the iepiesentatrces of the Association , as noted above. The respondent did not expl un how the contract came to beat this date The association in its answer stated that September 23 was the day on which the wiitten contract was made %ccoiding to the testimony of its serretaiy>, it was not written until after Oc- tober 20 Under date of September 23, the minutes of the association record, "Contract finished Nosember 1 ' The contract, moreo0er, prosrdes for a wage conference to be held on September 24 The wage conference in fact was held on September 24, about a month before the contract according to the testimony of the Association s secretary was written 21 _AIthouga the secs et .u ^ of the Assocr rtron testified ser stint to the sei eral remedial pioNrsrons which the iepresentatrres considered indispensable to then satisfaction of a contract between the respondent and its` employees , such' piousions .ue uotabl'y 'lacking from the executed contract 22 In the Intermediate Report the Trial I 'a.unrnei set forth more bnefiy the negotia- tions between' the Association and the respondent with respect to the negotiation of the contract which began on September 2'i The only substantial rontiadictron in the iecotd- coneeuung these negotiations mvohes the date upon which-the contract was signed wh.ch is fully discussed in footnote 20 abote \i'ELLS-LAiIONT-S'NllTH CORPORATION 451, - Amalgamated and threatened possible unemployment if the employ- ees persisted in joining that olgaluzation 23 Although there is no indication that 'any employee had theretofore expressed a desire for an "`inside" union, Smith's speeches served as the signal for the wide- =piead cnculation in the plant during working hours, in the presence of the respondent's supervisors, and with their knowledge and the knowledge of Superintendent Smith, of a petition favoring such an of ganization This petition was in fact signed by three of the respond- ent's supervisory employees, of «hom two (Johnson and Creech) were in immediate charge of approximately one-half of the employees The third (Temple) went so far as to carry the petition about, urging the employees to sign and expressing the respondent's opposition to the Amalgamated Her absence fiom her usual place of work over a considerable length of time was either overlooked or approved by the i espondent 24 On the following day, notices of a meeting for the "perfecting" of the inside organization weie posted on the bulletin board and distributed to the employees At least one supervisory employee urged attendance The meeting furthered the cause of the projected "inside" organiza- tion Attorney Clarke explained that the petition circulated the pre- vious day was bad in form and requested the employees to sign a second petition, which they did 25 We attach no importance to the fact that the Association appeared to come into formal existence from this new petition rather than immediately upon the circulation of the first one, w Inch had been circulated by one supervisory employee and .igned by, several The impetus given to the formation of an un- ifihatecl organlzlition by the action of Smith in assembling the em- ployees curing working hours, by his remarks on that occasion, by "As noted above, Smith char ictenied his more ob ions statements as casual or super- fluous Although his ambiguous utteramies on September 11, separated from their bach- giound , might be without-any pertinent meaning whatsoever, we grew them as p,ut of the totality of the respondent's conduct So evaluated, they emerge as a coercr,e act in a pattern designed to inteifere with and restrain the employees See National Labor Relations Board N Virainia Electric and Power Company, 314 U S 469, re'g and iem'g 115 P (2d) 414 (C C ' 4) settmg'aside Matter of Viiginia Electric it Power Company and Transport Wetkers Union of America, 1'ugrnut Electric,( Power Company and Anialyamnted, Association of Street, Electrical Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, an unincorporated association , Virginia Electric & Power Company and Inter- national Brotherhood of Eleclrical Wonc(,rs, 20 N L R B 911 24 'is -w e base found above, Temple's relation to other employees at the packing table dieiloses her supervisory status See International Association of Machinists v Nation'I Labor Relations Boar d, 311 U S 72, 80, aff g 71 App D C 175 , 110 F (2d) 29, enf g Matter of The'Se,,icl Corporation and International Union, United Automobile 1Porhers of dine,ica, Local No p;7, 8 N L R B 621 The responsibility of the respondent for Temple's actrs its on the pait of the Association, how es er, does not rest merely upon her official capacity to iepiesent her employer Similar acts its on the part of any ordinary eiuploy ee at the plant similarly disposed to carry out the wishes of the respondent clearly expiessed through the remarks of Smith and Creech would, under these circumstances, be attiibutable to the respondent 1 -' In the absence of any explanation, we may assume that the petition proposed by Clarke was designed to replace coseitly the petition signed and circulated in the plant by the iespom'ent's supeisisoiy employees 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the queries, comments, and acts of the supervisory employees, and by the immediate circulation of the initial petition on company time and propeity was not dispelled by any act of the respondent or by the passage of time Accordingly, and in view of the supervisory sponsorship of the first petition, no independence can be imputed to the action of the employees in signing the second 2C, The respondent not only failed to declare its impartiality in the selection of a bargaining agent, but continued to support the Associa- tion thereafter Despite the notice posted by the respondent subsequent to the formation of the Association against organizational activities on company time or property, the respondent suffered the nominating petitions for representatives of the Association to be circulated freely in the plant and the Association's plan and notices to be posted and to remain posted on its bulletin board This leniency toward the Associa- tion in disregard both of the respondent's rules and of complaints by members of the Amalgamated is to be contrasted with Smith's personal reproof of Walters' asserted violation of the respondent's posted notice when Walters distributed Amalgamated leaflets after working hours on the sidewalk approaching the respondent's factory about 30 feet from its building, and with the respondent's other pointed expressions of opposition to the Amalgamated to which we have referred Against this background of employer interference, the very speed with which the Association achieved the adherence of employees without labor experience to guide them, serves to dis- credit it as the object of their free choice The temporary representatives of the Association achieved a 'ma- jority before work began on Tuesday, September 16 Only 2 work- ing days had elapsed since the first petition was circulated at the plant, and only 1 working day had elapsed since the second petitions was presented by Clarke at the Friday evening meeting It is significant that the respondent, through Norum, in the face of the organizing efforts of the Amalgamated, unquestioningly recognized the Associa- tion as sole bargaining agent for its employees, at the same time not- ing the narrow margin of its majority- and that Smith, present at this recognition, did not question the precipitate recognition of the Association by Norum, although Smith was so well advised of the activities on behalf of the Association on company time and property. Smith's affirmative interest in the Association is further evidenced by his calling a meeting of the Association's committee and requesting that it hold elections as early as possible 28Cf N L R B V Brown Paper Company, Inc, 108 F ( 2d) 867 (C C A 5), enflg Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc, Monroe, Louisiana and International Brother- hood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor , Matter of Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc, Monroe, Louisiana and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N L R B 60, cert denied 310 U S 651 WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 453 The respondent quickly cemented its recognition of the Association by a wage increase The subsequent contract, notably lacking the several remedial provisions which the respresentatives of the Associa- tion considered indispensable to their satisfaction, nevertheless re- corded the recognition of the Association and provided for the collec- tion of Association dues on company property We think it clear that the course of the respondent's conduct was coercive of its employees in the excercise of their right to self-organi- zation and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing with the result that when they formed the Association they were not as fiee as the statute requires ; 27 and that the Association owes its origin and existence to the respondent's unfair labor practices We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Associa- tion and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restrain- ing, and coeicing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act- We further find, as did the Tiial Examiner, that by the anti-union speeches, statements, and conduct of Smith, Creech, and Temple, by its acquiescence and participation in the cir- culation of the organizing petition of the Association during work- ing hours in the factory, by the action of Supervisors Johnson, Leven- good, and Temple in signing the petition, by the immediate and per- functory recognition of the Association, and by permitting the circula- tion of nominating petitions for officers of the Association during working hours in the factory, and by each such act and by its whole course of coercive conduct at a time when its employees were seeking self-organization and many of them were joining the Amalgamated, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act We further field, as did the Trial Examiner, that the conti act entered into between the iespondent and the Association has been and is the means for utilizing and preserving a company-dominated organization, and that the respondent has thereby thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that the iespondent did not curtail the earnings of employees because they joined and assisted the Amalga- mated. None of the parties takes exception to such findings. Upon the basis of the whole record, we find that the respondent did not cur' tail the earnings of its employees because they joined or assisted in the Amalgamated. 17 See International A69oc1ation of Machinists v National Labor Relations Board, 311 U 8 72, 82 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV THE EFFECT OF TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMI'RCF The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above oc- curiing 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 se^, eial States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstiucting commerce and the flee flow of commeice V THE REMEDY Having found that the iespondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order the iespondent to cease and desist theie- from and to take certain affirmative action which will restore the status quo and otheiwise effectuate the policies of the Act We have found that the respondent has dominated and inteifeired with, and contributed support to, the formation and administi ation of the Association In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees of the iespondent from such interference and domination and the effects thereof, which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by its employees of rights guaranteed them -in the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdiaw all Iecognr- tion from and completely disestablish the Association as representa- tive of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work Since the contract dated September 23, 1941 , between the respondent and the Associa- tion, embodies recognition of this organization as such representative and represents the fruit of the respondent 's unfair laboi practices and a device by which to perpetuate their effects , we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to this or any other agreement with the Association in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of work Nothing in the Order, however, shall be taken to iequire the respondent to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its relations with the em- ployees themselves, which the respondent may have established in performance of this contract as extended , renewed, modified, supple- mented, or superseded. Because of the course of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and tendency , we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found above are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed in the Act and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of ` WELLS-LAMONT-SMITH CORPORATION 455 respondent's- conduct in the past 28 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our Order is coextensive with the threat In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to pievent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby to minimize industrial strife which buidens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we must order the respondent to cease and desist from in, any manner infringing the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Elsberry Glove Workers' Association are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2 By dominating and interfei nig with the formation and the ad- ministiation of Elsberry Glove Workers' Association and contributing support to it, the iespondent has engaged in and is engaging in un- fair labor piactices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3 By mterfeiing with, i esti aunng, and coeicing its employees in the exeicise of the eights guaianteed 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 4 The afoiesaid untaii laboi practices are unfair labor practices affecting conuneice within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 5 The respondent did not engage in unfair labor piactices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act by cuitaihng the eainings of employees because they had joined and assisted the Anralgarnated, as alleged in the complaint ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and puisuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Laboi Relations Boai d heieby orders that the i espondent, Wells-Lamont-Smith Coipoiation, Elsbeiiy, Missouri, its officers, agents, successois, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Dominating of Intel feimg with the administration of Elsbeiiy Glove Woikers' Association or with the foimation or administiation of any other labor organization of its employees and from contributing "See National Labo, Relatcous Boa,d V Express Publishing Co, 312 U S 426, rev'g mod of 11i F ( 2d) 588 (C C A 5) mod Matte? of Express Publishing Company and San Iatonmo _Veaspaper Guild, 13 N L R B 1213 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD support to Elsberry Glove Workers' Association or any other labor organization of its employees, (b) Giving effect to or performing the contract dated September 23, 1941, with Elsberry Glove Workers' Association or to any extension or renewal thereof or to any other agreements , understandings, or arrangements entered into with said Association; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, loin, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in conceited activities for the purpose of collective bargaining of other mutual aid of protec- tion, 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) Withdraw all recognition from Elsberiy Glove Workers' Asso- ciation as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment and completely disestablish said Elsberry Glove Workers' Association as such representative; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Elsberry, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct froin which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Or der, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges that the respondent curtailed the earnings of employees because they joined and assisted Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.