Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp.

SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 425 WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Laundry , Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union, Local 200, or any other labor organiza- tion, by discharging employees, or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL offer Gilbert Lopez immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position at Wash Well 2, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of his discharge. WE WILL NOT by threatening to discontinue benefits or to close some portion of the laundry operations or by interrogations or in such context by aiding employees to withdraw from the Union, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organ- ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities. WASH WELL No. 2, INC., WASH WELL No. 3, INC., WASH WELL OF TUCSON, INC., BRICKMAN CLEANERS AND LAUNDRIES , INC., AND ROBERT BRICKMAN LAUN- DRY AND DRY CLEANERS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employee presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Resident Office, 230 North First Avenue, Federal Bldg., Phoenix , Arizona, Telephone Number, 261-3717 if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp. and International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA1-3755. October 24, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On July 27, 1962, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec- ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm- ative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in another certain unfair labor practice, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegation. Thereafter, the Genera] Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, which were concurred in by the Charging Party. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 139 NLRB No. 28. 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications: We do not agree NA-ith the Trial Examiner's finding that Respond- ent's conduct, with respect to encouraging the formation of an inside union, was nothing more than an expression of preference for such union coming within the protection of Section 8(c) of the Act. The facts concerning the Respondent's activities with respect to an inside union are amply set forth in the Intermediate Report and need not be repeated here. It is sufficient to note that the remarks on Feb- ruary 23, 1962, of Superintendent Carbone and Supervisor Devejian to the assembled employees in support of an inside union were given in a context of threats of possible recrimination should an outside union be selected, and of promises of benefits were an inside union chosen. These threats and promises the Trial Examiner properly found violated Section 8(a) (1). In such context, the Respondent's support for an inside union clearly went beyond a mere statement of preference, and tended to, and was intended to, interfere with, re- strain, and coerce the employees in the selection of a bargaining repre- sentative. Consequently, we find that by such conduct Respondent further violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.' ORDER The Board adopts the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as herein modified.2 ' See, Alberto Culver Company, 136 NLRB 1432; Lee-Roman Manufacturing Company, 129 NLRB 980 2 In view of our finding herein that the Respondent committed a violation of Section S(a)(1) in addition to those found by the Trial Examiner , we shall amend provision 1(d) of the Recommended Order to read 1(e) and insert 1(d) as follows . "Threatening its employees or promising them benefits to induce or attempt to induce them to form an inside union " The notice attached to the Intermediate Report will be amended by inserting the fol- 1oiLing as a fifth indented paragraph : "We WILL NOT thi eaten our employees or promise them benefits to induce or attempt to induce them to form an inside union The penultimate paragraph in the notice is amended to read • posted for 60 con- secutive days from the date of posting." INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on March 21, 1962,1 by International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued his complaint, dated May 3 , against Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., 1 All dates herein refer to 1962 The charge was amended on April 11. SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 427 herein called Respondent or the Company. In material part , the complaint alleges that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1), and affecting commerce as comprehended by Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Re- pondent has answered denying that it committed any unlawful acts although admitting some facts. Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James V. Constantine at Lawrence , Massachusetts , on June 21 . All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing , and had the opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to file briefs, and to argue orally. Upon the entire record in this case , including the stipulations of the parties, and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged at Lawrence, Massachusetts, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of schoolbags, notebooks, attache cases, and related leather products. Annually, it receives materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from, and ships finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to, points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Early in 1962 the Union initiated an organizing drive to recruit membership among the Company's employees. By the end of January, Respondent had knowledge thereof. This case concerns conduct by Respondent alleged to be engaged in illegally to combat the Union's efforts. A. Chronology of events Sometime in late January, Norman Carbone, Respondent's superintendent (whom I find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, to be a supervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act), learned of the Union's organizing activities among its employees. Not long thereafter, Carbone asked employee Raymond Kelleher if he had "sent in" a union card. When Kelleher replied affirmatively, Carbone inquired of Kelleher what he thought the Union would accomplish if it got in, to which Kelleher answered that it would do the shop a lot of good. Sometime in February, Carbone was approached by employee Paul Boucher who reminded Carbone that he had not heard on his month-old request for a raise in pay. Carbone replied by asking Boucher whether the latter had sent in his union card, and upon receiving a negative reply, said to Boucher, "Well, what do you need a raise for; the Union is coming in and they'll take care of you." Boucher inter- preted this remark to mean that he would obtain the raise if he had nothing to do with the Union. During the Union's campaign two employees, Darge and Raymond, came to Edward Schoenfeld, Respondent's treasurer and factory manager, whom I find to be a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, and suggested to him "it might be advisable to consider an internal union" comparable to that of another employer in the building. Schoenfeld, who considered this suggestion a sound one, then transmitted this information to Superintendent Carbone. Darge and Raymond then approached Carbone, told him that some employees wanted an "inside union," and asked him if there existed "any chance of having a closed shop union inside." Carbone replied by instructing them to get the employees together and then to talk it over "with the office." As a result of this conversation, and at the request of Darge and Raymond, Carbone called an assembly of all employees for 3 p.m., February 23. Carbone testified that this meeting was scheduled by him to call to the attention of the employees the suggestion that they might want an inside shop union. About 3 p in., February 23, pursuant to word which was passed among the em- ployees at Carbone's request, they assembled in the vicinity of his desk. Three 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other supervisors also were present. Carbone then spoke to the employees. In his opening words, he remarked that "the Union's outside and they're trying to get in." Then he told them that "we were one big happy family" and that the shop could handle their problems. Continuing, Carbone told the employees that if the Union got in Respondent would have to put padlocks on its doors because it would not be able to meet the Union's demands Emphasizing this, he observed that "Don't think they couldn't [close down] because the padlocks could be provided," and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Another loss to employees if the Union got in, Carbone stressed, would be to limit the number of working hours to 40 or 44 a week; but he assured them that if they rejected the Union they would continue to work a couple of nights overtime a week as they did then. During the course of his speech to the congregated employees, Carbone alluded to the fact that the Company had financial problems resulting from its recent move from Haverhill to Lawrence, and that its books were open for inspection by the employees. He concluded by men- tioning that an inside shop union bargained for employees of another employer downstairs in the same building occupied by Respondent; that the inside shop union, which had been started by those employees themselves, was "working out fine"; that Respondent's employees could start a similar union for themselves, electing a shop steward to handle their problems and grievances; that Mr Schoenfeld, Respondent's treasurer and factory manager, would always listen to their steward with an open mind; and that dues paid to their own shop union would be placed in a fund, held by Respondent, from which employees would either be reimbursed or from which they could borrow "for sickness or hospitalization or anything like that " Finally, 'Carbone promised that, if the employees did not accept the Union, Respondent would consider granting additional benefits to them by way of raises in pay and longer vacations. Carbone was followed by Tony Devejian, a supervisor as defined by Section 2 (11) of the Act, who repeated most of Carbone's sentiments "in a shorter time " Among other things, Devejian urged the employees to take their problems to Factory Manager Schoenfeld, who he said was a reasonable man. Devejian also said that Schoenfeld would do the best he could for them on extra benefits, such as paying part of the premium on Blue Cross or Blue Shield hospitalization 2 insurance, and granting longer vacations, if Respondent picked up financially and an inside shop union was chosen About 3:15 p.m., when Devejian had finished, Frank Coppola, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, who was also present, requested Carbone and Devejian to leave the area with him, and told the employees to stay for the purpose of discussing among themselves whether they wanted an inside union. The employees remained until 3:30 p.m., the scheduled quitting time, but they lost no compensation for the time they were away from work from 3 to 3.30 p in B. Concluding findings Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the whole record, I further find as follows: 1. Interrogation Carbone's inquiries propounded to employees Kelleher and Boucher regarding their union activities and sympathies have not been shown to be for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of the Union's representation for any legitimate objective. Accordingly, I find this interrogation to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees contrary to the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Offers or promises of benefits In his talk to Boucher, Carbone told him in effect that he could get a raise in pay if he had nothing to do with the Union. And in his speech to the employees on Feb- ruary 23, Carbone promised them, to induce them to lose interest in the Union, economic benefits by way of part payment of hospitalization premiums, longer vaca- tions, and raises in pay And Devejian promised additional economic benefits 3 if 2 Respondent does provide such insurance for its supervisors at present, and also for one employee who was formerly a supervisor 4 This conclusion is not affected by the fact that Deveiian conditioned his promises upon an improvement in Respondent's financial condition Even conditional offers run afoul of the law if they are made to wean or sever employees from rights which Section 8(a) (1) guarantees to them safe from employer interference SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 429 the employees selected their own inside union and repudiated the outside Union. I find that the foregoing statements contravene Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This result is consonant with N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 304 F. 2d 368 (C.A. 5), where unconditional increases in benefits given during an organizing campaign were held not to be coercive even though they may persuade employees not to vote for a union. However, where the benefits are conditioned upon a rejec- tion of the union, as here, the situation differs because employees are put in a squeeze. This "operates as a part of an overall scheme that puts substantial pressure on the employees and prevents them from exercising a free choice as to whether they wish to establish a union." N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, supra. 3. Threats Both Carbone and Devejian in their addresses made on February 23 threatened employees that the plant would close if they designated the Union as their bargain- ing representative, and Carbone also warned them they would suffer a reduction in overtime if the Union came into the shop. I find that these utterances contravene Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. Proposing an inside union Although Respondent's supervisors proposed the formation of an inside shop union, I find that this conduct was not unlawful. Under Section 8(c) of the Act, an em- ployer may express preference for one labor organization over another, or he may state that he does not like affiliated unions, or no unions at all. The proposals in the instant case, in my opinion, do not transgress the boundaries of Section 8(c) be- cause they substantially consist of an expression of preference for an unaffiliated union. Accordingly, I find that they do not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. For the same reason, I do not find violations of Section 8(a)(1) in the remarks of Supervisor Coppola. However, it is immaterial to this finding that the employees abandoned their alleged desire for an inside union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The illegal activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent as set forth 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma- tive action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. In my opinion Respondent's violations are not flagrant. Accordingly, a broad order is not war- ranted. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and of the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp. is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By (1) interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, ac- tivities, and desires; (2) by offering or promising its employees economic benefits if they have nothing to do with the Union and to induce them to refrain from joining, remaining members of, or assisting the Union; and (3) by threatening to padlock its doors and to withdraw some existing benefits if employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act as alleged in the complaint 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding , it is recommended that the Respondent , Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, activities , or desires. (b) Offering or promising its employees economic benefits if they have nothing to do with the Union and to induce them to refrain from joining, remaining mem- bers of, or assisting the Union. (c) Threatening to padlock its doors or shut down its plant and to withdraw or reduce existing benefits, including overtime , if its employees select the Union as their bargaining representative. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in its plant at Lawrence, Massachusetts , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector for the First Region, shall , after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to make certain that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5 It is further recommended that unless Respondent shall within the prescribed period notify the said Regional Director that it will comply, the Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action . It is further recom- mended that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects. * If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by substituting the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Ordei " e In case this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read • "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their member- ship in, activities for, or desires concerning International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT offer or promise our employees economic benefits if they have nothing to do with said union and to induce them to refrain from joining, remaining members of, or assisting said Union. WE WILL NOT threaten to padlock our doors or shut down our plant and to withdraw or reduce existing benefits, including overtime, if our employees select International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. AUTOMOTIVE PROVING GROUNDS, INCORPORATED 431 All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem- bers of International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate with the Board 's Regional Office, 24 School Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts , Telephone Number, Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Automotive Proving Grounds, Incorporated and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO Armstrong Tire and Rubber Company and Louie E. Wright and Herman Lloyd Automotive Proving Grounds, Incorporated and Armstrong Tire and Rubber Company, Armstrong Tire Test Fleet and Louie E. Wright, Paul B. Smith, and Fred W. Geissler. Cases Nos. 16-CA-1492, 16-CA-1551, and 16-CA-1552-2-3. October 24, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On June 6, 1962, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent Automotive Proving Grounds, Incorporated had engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He also found that the Respondents named in Cases Nos. 16-CA-1551 and 16-CA-1552-2-3 had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in ^ A major portion of this Intermediate Report consists of some 18 pages from Respond- ents' briefs and a portion of the General Counsel's brief, which the Trial Examiner states he "adopts as his own" because he is "unable to improve on this recitation" of the facts. While it does not appear that this practice has resulted in prejudice to any of the parties, Chairman McCulloch and Member Fanning do not believe that an Intermediate Report, reciting and adopting to this unusual extent the allegations of either of the adversaries in this proceeding, is a desirable exercise of the Trial Examiner's function to provide the Board with his own recitation of the facts and recommended findings. 139 NLRB No. 33.