R. Wolfenden & Sons

In the Matter of HARRY C. WOLFENDEN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE AND TRADE NAME OF R. WOLFENDEN & SONS and FEDERATION OF DYERS, FINISHERS, PRINTERS & BLEACHERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-744.-Decided April 8,1939 Dyeing, Bleaching , and Finishing Industry Interference , Restraint, and Coercion: charges of, not sustained-Discrimination : charges of, not sustained- Complaint : dismissed. Mr. Norman F. Edmonds, for the Board. Barnes, Smerdon & Makrauer, by Mr. Clarence A. Barnes, of Boston, Mass., for the respondent. Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers & Bleachers of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by A. Howard Myers, Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated May 2, 1938, against Harry C. Wolfenden, doing business under the style and trade name of R. Wolfenden & Sons, Attleboro, Massachusetts, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent terminated the employment of Antone P. Vieira on February 1, 1937, and refused to reinstate him there- after for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union. On May 6, 1938, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying that his manufacturing activities are interstate in nature and that he had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. 12 N. L. R. B., No. 20. 160 HARRY C. WOLFENDEN 161 Pursuant to notice, duly served upon the respondent and the Union, a hearing was held at Attleboro, Massachusetts, on May 13 and 14, 1938, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion was granted. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were, committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On May 25, 1938, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On June 30, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter- mediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respond- ent and the Union, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. He accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices and reinstate with back pay the individual named in the complaint as having been dis- criminated against. On July 11, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and requested oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the Union, a hearing was held for the purpose of oral argument before the Board on March 16, 1939, in Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the argument. The Union did not appear. The Board has considered the respondent's excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and to the extent indicated below finds merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent operates one of the world's largest dyeing plants in Attleboro, Massachusetts, where he processes worsteds, rayons, and woolens for converters. Approximately 80 per cent of such goods are shipped to the respondent's plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and after processing are reshipped outside the State. The respondent spends approximately $175,000 annually for the drugs, chemicals, and soaps used in dyeing opera- tions, approximately two-thirds of which are purchased outside Massachusetts. 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondent employs an average of 150 employees and does an annual business amounting to approximately $500,000. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers & Bleachers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership all production employees in the respondent's plant, excluding supervisors, foremen, and clerical employees. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Ant.one P. Vieira was first employed by the respondent on October 11, 1927, and at the time of his discharge on February 1, 1937, he was working in the cloth-dyeing department. The Union commenced organization activities among the respond- ent's employees in November 1936. About 10 employees, including Vieira, attended the first meeting on November 29 and joined the Union. Approximately 15 employees attended the second and last meeting which was held on December 6. Vieira did not attend this meeting and, except for his membership, played no part in union activities. Between December 9 and 26, because of a decrease in business, the respondent laid off 12 employees, including Vieira and 4 other mem- bers of the Union. Vieira, who had the least seniority among the employees in the cloth-dyeing department, had been similarly laid off in the past. At the request of the Regional Director, Vieira was reinstated on January 5, 1937, and two other union employees re- turned to work later in the month. The remaining two union mem- bers relinquished their claim to reemployment and secured jobs elsewhere. During the month of January the respondent's business failed to improve and Vieira shared the work of his department with the five other employees therein. On Wednesday, January 28, however, Vieira's foreman laid him off and told him to return on the following Monday. On Monday morning, Vieira returned to the plant, and as he started to load his machine, his foreman told him that there was still no work available and advised him to report again in 2 or 3 days. Thereupon Vieira became abusive, and according to the testimony, stated that "this God damn company ain't no good" and "God damn Mr. Wolfenden, he's no good." The foreman reported the incident to the superintendent, James J. Crowley, and the latter immediately discharged Vieira. It is apparent from the foregoing that Vieira was discharged for his abusive conduct. The record does not support the allegations of HARRY C. WOLFENDEN 163 the complaint that he was discharged for his union activity. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLusIONs OF LAW 1. The operations of the respondent, Harry C. Wolfenden, doing business under the style and trade name of R. Wolfenden & Sons, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers & Bleachers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not, engaged in and is not engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to the discharge of Antone P. Vieira. 4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com- plaint against Harry C. Wolfenden, doing business under the style and trade name of R. Wolfenden & Sons, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 169134-39-vol 12-12