International Shoe Company

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY and LOCAL UNIONS No. 248 AND 709 BOOT & SHOE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-773.-Decided May 8, 1939 Shoe Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-Com- pany-Dominated anon: domination of and interference with formation and administration ; support ; dependence of community upon employer ; previous vigilante activity induced by fear of loss or curtailment of pay rolls ; employer knowledge and notice thereof ; effect of, on employer's duty ; employer encourage- ment of formation of "inside" union ; employer's suggestion to "inside" union organizers to consult advisers some of whom were known to have been hostile to past organizational attempts by national unions; adoption by "inside" union of constitutional provision for giving such advisers a vote on matters in dis- pute with employer ; statements of supervisory employees favoring "inside" union and expressing hostility to national organization ; disestablished, as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination: charges of, dismissed as to all em- ployees named in complaint, without discussion, following Trial Examiner's recommendation, not excepted to-Espionage: charges of surveillance of union activities dismissed for want of evidence. Mr. Alan F. Perl and Mr. Gordon T. O'Hanlon, for the Board. Mr. Richard 0. Rumer and Mr. R. E. Blake, of St. Louis, Mo., and Mahan, Mahan & Fuller, by Mr. Dulany Mahan and Mr. Ezra T. Fuller, of Hannibal, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. Charles E. Rendlen and Mr. Branham Rendlen, of Hannibal, Mo., for the Brotherhood. Mr. Richard A. Perkins, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Locals 248 and 709, herein called the Affiliated Locals, of Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, herein called the B. & S. W.,1 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the 1 The charge and certain other formal papers designate the B . & S. W. as Boot & Shoe Workers' International Union. The name given in the text is taken from its con- stitution (Board Exhibit 38). 12 N. L. R. B., No. 81. 728 INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 729 Board, by Dorothea de Schweinitz, Regional Director for the Four- teenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated Feb- ruary 28, 1938, against International Shoe Company, Hannibal, Missouri, 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), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent, the Affiliated Locals, and Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, herein called the Brotherhood, a labor organization alleged in the complaint to have been dominated by the respondent. The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent had by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guthrie, Earl Kroger, and James McQueen, encouraged membership in the Brotherhood and discouraged mem- bership in the B. & S. W., had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Brotherhood, and had by these and other means, including threats and espionage, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On March 4,1938, the Brotherhood filed with the Regional Director its motion for leave to intervene. On March 5, 1938, the respondent filed its answer, together with motions to dismiss the complaint or to make the same more definite and certain. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was begun before David F. Smith, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, on March 7, 1938, at Hannibal, Missouri. The Board, the respondent, and the Brother- hood were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. On March 7 the Trial Examiner granted leave to the Brotherhood to intervene and denied the respondent's motions to strike the complaint and make the same more definite and certain and a motion by counsel for the Board to strike certain matters from the respondent's answer. On March 22, 1938, the Trial Examiner allowed a motion by counsel for the Board, to amend the charge and complaint so as to allege the commission of unfair labor practices by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Thomas Carter, Ora Black= ston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, and Francis Burrell. The Trial Examiner thereupon continued the hearing to March 28, 1938, when the hearing was resumed and the respondent, pursuant to leave granted for that purpose, filed an amendment to its answer so as to meet the allegations added to the complaint by amendment. 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the conclusion of the Board's case in chief, counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged dis- crimination with respect to Earl Kroger. The motion was allowed. On motion of the respondent, the Trial Examiner dismissed the com- plaint in so far as it related to the alleged discrimination with respect to Herbert Beadle. On the same day the Trial Examiner overruled other motions of the respondent and the Brotherhood to dismiss the entire complaint and various specific allegations thereof. On May 7, 1938, at the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, on motions made by the respondent and the Brotherhood, respectively, struck certain allegations from the respondent's answer and from the Brotherhood's motion to intervene. The respondent and the Brotherhood at the same time renewed their several motions to dis- miss the entire complaint and certain specific allegations thereof. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on these motions. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. One of the grounds originally advanced by the respondent in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint was that there was a prior complaint pending in Case No. XIV-C-119 relating to sub- stantially the same matters alleged in the complaint in this pro- ceeding. Prior to the commencement of the hearing in the instant case, the complaint in Case No. XIV-C-119 had been on March 5, 1938, dismissed without prejudice by James C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated to conduct a hearing on that complaint. This objection is therefore without merit.2 As another ground for dismissal of the complaint the respondent set forth that it had entered into an agreement with the Affiliated Locals providing, among other things, for the settlement of grievances, and that the Affiliated Locals, having omitted to use the remedies alleged to be available under their agreement, were estopped to charge the respondent with the commission of unfair labor practices. This contention is counter to Section 10 (a) of the Act, which defines the Board's jurisdiction as exclusive, subject to being affected by no other means of adjustment. This objection is without merit .3 The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 2 See Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Com- mittee, 5 N. L. R. B. 908. 8 Matter of Maryland Distillery, Inc. et at. and Distillery Workers Union 20270 et al., 3 N. L R B 176; Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organ- izing Committee, 5 N. L. R. B. 908. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 731 On July 6, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging- in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but not within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. He ruled accordingly on the motions made at the hearing. He recommended that the respond- ent cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the forma- tion or administration of the Brotherhood, recognizing the Brotherhood as bargaining representative, and interfering with, restraining, or coercing its'employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and that the respondent dis- establish the Brotherhood as bargaining representative and post notice of compliance. The Trial Examiner also recommended dismissal of the complaint so far as it alleged the commission of unfair labor practices in encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organization by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. Pursuant to an extension of time granted for that purpose, the Brotherhood on July 28, and the respondent on July 30, 1938, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on November 1, 1938, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the Brotherhood participated and filed briefs. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit, and they are hereby overruled. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, International Shoe Company, a Delaware corpora- tion with principal offices at St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of leather, canvas, and rubber shoes and other types of footwear. It operates 45 shoe factories situated in Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, and New Hampshire, 9 tanneries located in Mis- souri, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire; a rubber plant in Missouri, a cotton mill in Arkansas, and sales branches in New York City and Boston, Massachusetts. The re- spondent sold goods to the value of $88,278,810.29 during its fiscal year ending November 30, 1937. The respondent claims to be the largest manufacturer of shoes in the United States. The complaint relates to the respondent's alleged unfair labor practices in the operation of its three factories at Hannibal, Missouri, 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD namely, the Seventh Street factory (also known as the International or Hannibal factory) employing about 1,395 persons, the Bluff City factory, employing about 810, and the rubber and canvas footwear plant, employing about 593. The first two above-named factories produce leather shoes; the last produces canvas and rubber shoes as finished products and rubber soles and heels which are attached to shoes made at the respondent's other shoe factories. The total value of the finished products manufactured at the Hannibal factories for the year ending November 30, 1937, was $10,767,142. Raw materials valued at $4,146,666 were used in the manufacturing processes carried on at the respondent's Hannibal plants during the year ending November 30, 1937. The immediate source of most of these raw materials was the respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, ware- house, but more than 90 per cent of such materials originated in States other than Missouri and in foreign countries. Cloth is ob- tained from Arkansas, crude rubber from New York City and Singa- pore, and reclaimed rubber from Illinois, New York, and Ohio. Most of the sole leather, upper leather, and pigments used come from outside Missouri. The products of the Hannibal factories are initially distributed approximately as follows : 57 per cent to the respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, warehouses ; 21 per cent, being rubber soles and heels, to various of the respondent's shoe factories in Missouri for use in further manufacturing processes; 17 per cent to the St. Louis, Mis- souri, warehouses of the J. C. Penney Company; and 4 per cent to the respondent's branches located in Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts. The products shipped from the Hannibal factories to the re- spondent's St. Louis warehouses are there combined with products from its other factories. The respondent's sales agencies fill orders for merchandise from this common stock. The six sales agencies- Roberts, Johnson & Rand, Peters Branch, Friedman-Shelby Branch, Continental Branch, Jefferson Branch, and Export Department- which distribute shoes made in the respondent's Hannibal factories through its St. Louis warehouses, sold a total of $71,320,702.76 worth of goods during the respondent's fiscal year ending November 30, 1937. Of this total over 94 per cent was sold to purchasers outside the State of Missouri, in various places throughout the United States. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Locals 248 and 709, Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, are labor or- ganizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 733 called the A. F. of L. The B. & S. W. admits to membership "any male or female boot or shoe worker over 16 years of age and actively employed at the craft." Local 248 admits to its membership the respondent's employees who work at the Seventh Street and Bluff City plants. Local 709 admits employees of the respondent who work at the rubber- and canvas-footwear plant. Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, a Missouri corporation, is an unaffiliated labor organization. Its constitution provides that "any person employed or engaged in any process in the manufacture of shoes or rubber products, excepting persons employed in a supervisory office or administrative capacity may become a member of the organization subject to such rules and bylaws as may hereafter be adopted." The Brotherhood has not in fact admitted to membership any person not employed in the re- spondent's Hannibal factories. The Brotherhood has set up local unions as follows : Local No. 1, for employees of the Seventh Street plant; Local No. 2, for employees of the rubber- and canvas-foot- wear plant; and Local No. 3, for employees of the Bluff City plant. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination of the Brotherhood 1. The respondent's position in Hannibal-events preceding the for- mation of the Brotherhood Since the significance of the various events hereinafter related de- pends materially on the relationship of the respondent's Hannibal factories to the community in which they are located, it is necessary first to describe that relationship. Hannibal is a city of about 23,000 inhabitants situated on the Mississippi River in northeastern Mis- souri. The respondent is the largest employer of labor in the city, employing approximately 3,000 persons. Mercantile establishments dealing in consumers' goods in Hannibal to a large degree depend on the purchasing power of the respondent's employees for the main- tenance of a retail market. Control over all but details of the opera- tion of the respondent's Hannibal factories is lodged in the respond- ent's executive offices in St. Louis, which is about 120 miles from Hannibal. There are many shoe factories, including both those of the respond- ent and those of its competitors in the St. Louis area, eastern Mis- souri, and southwestern Illinois. Shoe manufacture, especially in novelty lines, which form a substantial part of the respondent's 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hannibal production, is seasonal. The peaks of production are in the spring and in the fall. Much of the machinery employed in mak- ing shoes is leased rather than owned by the actual manufacturers, and is readily removable from the buildings in which it is housed. Inhabitants of Hannibal have closely followed reports on the activity of shoe factories in other communities in the same area. Compari- sons of such activity have been noted by the townspeople, and there has been speculation as to the reason for each variation in the volume of production. Throughout the period here under consideration, a substantial number of Hannibal residents-not only the respondent's em- ployees-were alert to discover an actual or fancied inverse causal relation between union activity in nearby shoe-manufacturing com- munities and the regularity of employment in the shoe factories in those communities. The union activity which went on at Pittsfield, Illinois, and Moberly, Missouri, the locations to which local interest chiefly attached, included, not strikes, apparently, but rather, mere organizational attempts on the part of nationally affiliated trade unions. In particular, it was thought by some that slack production at several of the factories of the Brown Shoe Company was due to a deliberate curtailment of operations by that company in order to discourage organization by national or "outside" unions. Whether such was actually true is without the scope of this proceeding. The fact is that such an impression was prevalent in Hannibal. It was likewise assumed that the respondent was likely to adopt similar measures in order to avoid the organization of its employees. Whether or not this assumption was true at the beginning of the period here considered, it definitely existed as a factor by which many persons calculated their future conduct. The combination of the foregoing factors, namely, the economic dependence of Hannibal trade upon the respondent's pay rolls, the readiness with which so large an enterprise could shift its opera- tions, and its supposed hostility to "outside" labor organizations, resulted in an attitude of watchfulness on the part of many Hannibal tradesmen and some of the respondent's employees. It was felt by some that it was ordinary prudence, if not a positive civic duty, to discourage efforts by "outside" labor organizations to reach the re- spondent's employees for the purpose of enrolling members and bargaining collectively. There seems to have been no articulate public opinion exerting pressure upon the respondent to relax its supposed hostility toward labor organizations. Rather, for some reason, possibly because of the size and power of the respondent, it INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 735 seems to have been assumed that the respondent's policy was un- changeable, and that the only way in which pressure could be effec- tively applied so as to avert a conflict and preserve Hannibal's chief industry was to harass union organizers and sympathizers in order to prevent them from gaining access to the respondent's employees. The whole emphasis was upon placating the respondent by assuring it of a supply of tractable labor. That this general fear and this readiness of outsiders to interfere with the organization of labor were originally inspired by the re- spondent does not appear. But specific instances to which we shall advert below have been brought forward to show that the respondent had knowledge of these conditions and by acting upon them, tended to continue their existence in such a manner as wholly to adapt them to its purposes. That issue is our principal concern in what follows. Prior to the year 1933 there was no labor organization among the respondent's Hannibal employees, so far as the record shows. At some time in that year H. E. Jenkins, then superintendent of the Seventh Street factory and possessed of some control over the other two Hannibal factories, announced at several meetings of employees that a ballot would be taken to determine whether the employees pre- ferred a national or a local union. He remarked that a local organiza- tion would be cheaper and that the money collected by outside or- ganizations would be taken out of town. He said that if he could see any advantage to unions he would haul the employees "down there." He added that the law now said how many hours they could work but not whether or not they had to work, and made some reference to not "sinking the ship." C. F. Nerlich, another supervisor, spoke to the same effect. G. B. Britton made similar remarks to a meeting of employees in the rubber plant, of which he was superintendent. A ballot presenting a choice of a local and national organization (apparently not specifying any particular unions) was thereupon conducted under the supervision of the management. Tellers from among the employees reported to the management the result, which in several departments ran at least 85 per cent in favor of a national organization. The total result was never announced by the manage- ment. A few days after the election Jenkins announced that he had been incorrectly advised by counsel as to the requirements of the National Industrial Recovery Act,4 and ' that it was not in fact necessary to have any labor organization. Shortly after this poll was taken, two rival national shoe workers' organizations, the B. & S-. W. and the Shoe Workers' Protective Union, herein called the Protective, attempted to organize the re- spondent's employees. The Protective was the more successful at this k 48 Stat. 195. 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time, and in about 2 months' time claimed a membership of about 1,600. The Hannibal local of the Protective soon declined, however, and ultimately disappeared. By the end of 1933 no labor organiza- tion existed among the respondent's Hannibal employees. During the 1933 organization campaign there occurred events which demonstrate the attitude of some elements of the community toward "outside" labor organizations. On one occasion, one Turner, a Protective organizer, was met on his arrival at a railway station in Hannibal by a mob which included some of the respondent's em- ployees. The leaders of the mob demanded that Turner leave town forthwith, but he refused to do so, and continued his activity for the time being. The leaders of this mob later took part, as we shall see, in the formation of the Brotherhood. During the Protective campaign, Wallace Chaney, a Protective sympathizer, applied to J. B. Robinson, then mayor of Hannibal, for permission to hold a meeting of shoe workers in a municipal park. Robinson said he would have to ask Jenkins, the respondent's Hannibal superintendent, about it. Chaney inquired whether Jen- kins "owned the city park"; Robinson replied "Well, if I let you have a meeting down there Jenkins might move his factory out of Hannibal and there will be grass growing up and down the street on Broadway." Chaney by way of subterfuge suggested that Robin- son tell Jenkins that "we are against the organization they are talk- ing of here." Robinson followed this suggestion and later the same day informed Chaney that Jenkins had told him it would be all right for Chaney's group to meet in the park since the group was "against the other organization," evidently meaning the Protective. M. H. Moore, foreman of the Seventh Street packing room and in charge of about 150 employees, on one occasion in 1933 gathered a group of employees from his department and advised them against joining any union. This incident together with the NIRA election episode, and Jenkins' remarks favoring an "inside" union, and his directions to Mayor Robinson, indicates that the general opinion con- cerning the respondent's hostility to "outside" unions had some foundation in fact in 1933. During the period in 1933 when the Protective was active in Han- nibal, several of the respondent's employees, led by William Broad- dus, consulted C. F. Nerlich, then in some supervisory capacity in the Hannibal factories, regarding the possible formation of a local "independent" union among the respondent's employees for the pur- pose of combating the Protective. Broaddus' testimony as to Ner- lich's advice is self-contradictory; at one point he said Nerlich was opposed to the formation of such an organization; at another he said Nerlich told the delegation that it was entirely up to the em- INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 737 ployees. After this meeting with Nerlich the employees in this group abandoned the idea of forming a local organization for the time being. Broaddus' attitude toward the management was at all times such, as we shall later see, that it is likely that his former story was correct, and that Nerlich expressed opposition to the pro- posed organization. Broaddus subsequently acted accordingly. The next attempt by a national labor organization to organize the respondent's Hannibal employees was made by the B. & S. W. early in 1935. One Carlin, an organizer, and William Cox, a former employee of the respondent and secretary of a B. & S. W. local then established and chartered in Hannibal, were active in this campaign. One day in March 1935, Carlin and Cox were called to the lobby of the hotel where Carlin was staying in Hannibal and accosted by Mayor Robinson and a mob of 35 or 40 shoe workers who had just come from a meeting in a city park. Robinson exhibited a petition which he stated had been circulated in the shoe factories and bore the names of 2,000 shoe workers who had authorized him to act for them. He said that the shoe workers were strongly opposed to the A. F. of L. and that there was likely to be violence. He advised Carlin to leave town immediately. One of the mob threatened the organizers. Carlin did not then comply with Robinson's demands. Later the same day Carlin and Cox learned from the janitor of the Marion County courthouse in Hannibal that the judge who had control of the building had directed that the courthouse be closed that evening, despite previous permission granted the B. & S. W. to hold a meeting there. Arch Leonard, sheriff of Marion County during 1935, testified that on one occasion in the spring of 1935- probably the day referred to by Cox in his testimony, although it is not clear-he refused the use of the courthouse to a shoe workers' union on demand of a Chamber of Commerce group represented by one Hodgdon, who stated to Leonard, "if you let them fellows or- ganize up there ... Jenkins will shut down the factory and don't you know we can't stand that." The respondent was a member of the Hannibal Chamber of Commerce. Hodgdon was cashier of the Farmers & Merchants Bank where the respondent maintained a pay- roll account. On the same evening that the projected B. & S. W. meeting was canceled, Carlin moved from his hotel under police protection against a mob of shoe workers, and a few days later he left town. Cox con- tinued his organizing work. Later in March Cox attended a meeting of the Hannibal City Council to investigate a report that a group of shoe workers intended to petition the Council to run the union organizers out of town. After the meeting, which was the scene of some disorder, Mayor Robinson told Cox that he was in danger of 738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD violence, and offered him the shelter of the city jail, but Cox de- manded and received a police escort to his home. On April 5 the Hannibal Courier-Post, a daily newspaper of general circulation in Hannibal, carried a half-page advertisement which attacked the motives and methods of union organizers and stated that in opposing the current attempts to organize- For assistance we appealed to Mayor J. B. Robinson, and are proud of his cooperation and determined efforts, not only in our behalf but in what we know to be the best interests of our entire city. We appreciate the fine support given us by Sheriff Arch Leon- ard and the many business and professional men that have recognized the seriousness of this latest form of racketeering and have encouraged us in every way. With the help and cooperation of most of the citizens of Han- nibal we feel we have at least for the present forestalled the trouble, strife, hatred and possible bloodshed in our community that has been experienced and even now is taking place in several cities because of radical organized pressure by outside organizers that make their living off of honest working men and women. We thank you and shall expect your continued moral support and cooperation in the future that our present "happy situation" may continue indefinitely. The above written and paid for by employes of the three plants of the International Shoe Co., in Hannibal. The authorship of the advertisement does not appear in the record, nor does it appear who ordered it. After its publication Alvia Hines, Harry King, Ezra Treaster, Dorse Adrian, and Roy Farmer, employees of the respondent, took up a collection to pay for it from among employees in the respondent's Hannibal factories. We have seen what "cooperation" Mayor Robinson furnished the anti-union forces. The "many business and professional men" referred to are evidently those of the Chamber of Commerce group represented by Hodgdon. Carlin returned to Hannibal. On April 7, 1935, a mob besieged him in his hotel. He telephoned Cox for help. Cox started toward the hotel but was set upon and severely beaten by a group of shoe workers and others. Various members of the mob suggested lynching Cox, but it was finally agreed to take him home on the condition that he would tear up the B. & S. W. local charter and throw the pieces out the window. When Cox reached his home he telephoned the city police and the sheriff and prosecuting attorney of Marion County, but all refused to furnish protection. Cox then telephoned the Governor of Missouri, who sent State police to escort Carlin out INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 739 of Hannibal and restore order. Cox remained in Hannibal, and a few days later signed a criminal complaint against two of his assail- ants Charles Giles and Robert McIntyre. They were not taken into custody. Walter Stillwell, the county prosecutor, notified the de- fendants by telephone to appear before a magistrate. They pleaded guilty to common assault and were fined $5 each. Meanwhile a city-election campaign proceeded in Hannibal. Rob- inson, the incumbent mayor, had been refused renomination by the city Democratic caucus. Sinclair Mainland, the Republican nominee, campaigned on a platform of preserving Hannibal's industry by con- tinuing Robinson's policy of "cooperation" with local anti-union forces. Early in Mainland's campaign he was visited by a delega- tion of shoe workers, including three who were identified as partic- ipants in the assault on Cox of April 7, who asked him how he "stood on unions." He replied, according to his testimony, that "they would have to take it at their own risk. I had only one thing in mind and that was the best I could do for the city of Hannibal, mainly to keep all the industries we had here and to keep them going." During the height of the campaign a Mainland sound wagon cruised the streets of Hannibal repeating the slogan "Vote the Main- land ticket and keep your meal ticket in Hannibal." On April 29, May 1, and May 4, 1935, there appeared in the Han- nibal Courier-Post a series of political advertisements r, in support of Mainland's candidacy. These asserted that shoe-manufacturing communities near Hannibal had flourished where local authorities and townspeople had suppressed union activity and had declined where such activity had been permitted. The advertisements also recounted some of the incidents of the vigilantism directed against Cox and Carlin in Hannibal, and complimented former Mayor Robin- son and his chief of police for their conduct, which was said to have kept the pay rolls at the shoe factories going. Finally, the advertise- ments promised that Mainland would maintain a firm policy toward union organizers so as to preserve Hannibal's chief industry." Board Exhibits 29, 28, 30, and 21. e Board Exhibit 30, an advertisement printed on May 1, 1935, after relating incidents at Centralia, Illinois, and Moberly, Missouri, stated the following under the caption "DOES HANNIBAL WANT TO KEEP ITS SHOE FACTORIES?": It does no good to lock the barn after the horse is stolen. Centralia lost its factory ; Moberly is drying up. Can this community fail or falter in support of its major industry? Other communities yearn to get some of our shoe industry. The owners of the Hannibal factories operate factories in 42 other places where shoes can be made that are now made in Hannibal. Surely, paid outside agitators and those who do not work in our shoe factories, who are sticking their noses and meddlesome fingers into the affairs of the Hannibal 169134-39-vol. 12-48 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mainland's campaign was successful. After his election, but be- fore he took office, he and Morris Shea, the newly elected city marshal, called on Nerlich, who had succeeded to Jenkins' position as general superintendent over the Hannibal factories and in direct supervision over the Seventh Street plant, to ascertain Nerlich's views on "union- ization." According to Mainland, the only person who testified con- cerning this conversation, Nerlich said "whatever his employees wanted to do was their own business, and that he had no attitude in the matter at all." What is important here is that Mainland sought to ascertain Nerlich's views on "unionization" of the respond- ent's employees presumably for use as a guide in the formulation of municipal policy. Soon after Carlin was expelled from Hannibal the B. & S. W. renewed its organization campaign through J. W. McGonigal, an- other organizer. Early in June, after Mainland took office as mayor, Shea, chief of police, sent McGonigal to see Mainland, who informed him that there was "some argument" in Hannibal as to the activity of the B. & S. W., and advised him that it would be best for him to attend a meeting at the City Hall the same evening. Shea told McGonigal that there had been threatened and actual mob violence directed against B. & S. W. representatives in the past, and offered to protect McGonigal on his way to the meeting from his hotel. McGonigal then refused assistance. But when the time for the meeting drew near, a mob congregated in the hotel lobby, and the desk clerk sent for the police. Shea and another officer escorted McGonigal to the City Hall. A. J. Mulvihill, vice president of the Hannibal Chamber of Com- merce, and later mayor of the city, presided at the meeting. Others present included Mainland, Robinson, Stillwell, J. E. McNally, a plumbing contractor, and two shoe workers. There were about a dozen persons there, five or six of whom were members of the Cham- ber of Commerce. Mainland had gathered the group, except for the shoe workers, whose presence is not satisfactorily explained. The sense of the discussion was that McGonigal's presence was a threat to the continued operation of the respondent's shoe factories in Han- nibal, that McGonigal was likely to suffer mob violence if he remained in the community, and that he had better leave. Robinson remarked shoe factories , should be given to understand by all our people to let our shoe factories, employers , and employes alone. Quit their efforts to stir up strife. The workmen concerned have shown in no uncertain way that they want to be left alone. It is Hannibal's interest to do no act that give encouragement to these trouble- makers, whose activities will hurt the entire city. In 1934 our shoe factories paid to employees in its HANNIBAL factories $10,000 a week in WAGES! Two and a Half MILLION DOLLARS to workers in 1934 all spent in Hannibal. ' That means much to every man , woman, and child in Hannibal . Shall we permit meddlers to disturb or threaten its loss? INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 741 in the presence of the police chief that it would be a good idea to take McGonigal out to the edge of town, give him a beating, and send him on his way. The shoe workers present made threatening remarks to McGonigal. McGonigal would not agree to leave town. As the meeting broke up James Spencer, one of the shoe workers, stated to the chief of police "Mr. Shea, I am leaving it up to you to see he leaves town and if he doesn't we will take care of the matter." As he left the meeting, again under police protection, McGonigal was met by a mob. He decided to leave town after all, and was furnished a convoy of automobiles by Mainland and Shea on his way out. The motive of those who threatened McGonigal at the City Hall meeting is well revealed in Mainland's testimony, which is in part as follows : Q.... These well-known citizens were, for the most part, am I not correct, afraid something might happen to the shoe factory? A. I believe they were. I can't tell you what they thought, but I gathered that from what I could hear around town. Q. That was your motive too, was it not? You, as mayor of the city, took it upon yourself to protect the industries of the city as you understood it? A. Yes, sir. Although Mainland testified he had heard no direct threat by the respondent relative to moving its factory, and in fact had received some sort of assurance to the contrary in the conference with Nerlich prior to the induction of the new city administration, yet Mainland proceeded on the assumption that the respondent would remove its plant if threatened by union activity. Thus : Q. I do not quite understand why you were afraid there might be further difficulty with Mr. McGonigal? A. Well, I do not suppose there was much sense to it maybe, but I just had it. Q. And you still had those groundless fears that the Interna- tional Shoe Company might remove its plant from Hannibal? A. I had known positively that riots and things like that would not help it any. Q. I understand that, but I mean so far as the fear of the Inter- national Shoe Company removing their plants from Hannibal, you had Mr. Nerlich's assurance that would not happen? A. Nobody in any way connected with i he factory has threat- ened to move or close it down, to my knowledge. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. That was general talk around? A. I gathered my feeling from hearsay. Q. . . . you are talking about this talk around town about the shoe factory closing down. Was that extensive talk among shoe workers and employees? A. Yes, sir, it was. Everybody seemed to be afraid of it. McGonigal left Hannibal with the understanding that he might return to wind up his personal affairs but for no purpose connected with further union organizing. He returned' on the evening of June 10, 1935, to meet one Baxter, general representative of the B. & S. W. At 9 a. in. on July 11, McGonigal and Baxter were accosted in a hotel lobby by a policeman who stated that Mayor Mainland had directed him to invite Baxter to a meeting of city officers and Chamber of Commerce members. Baxter refused to attend the meeting. He and McGonigal left town the same day. McGonigal returned in July 1935 to take up the charters of the Hannibal B. & S. W. locals, and did not return to engage in organizing work until more than 2 years later. This last incident, which illustrates Mayor Mainland's effective in- telligence service, is of a piece with his general policy. Referring to union organizers, he'testified: "I told Chief of Police Shea if any- body came to town to bring them to see me." In the spring or summer of 1935, while the B. & S. W. campaign of that year was on, a group of shoe workers considered forming a local "independent" labor organization as a counter-attack upon nationally affiliated unions. The first and only thing they did pursuant to their plan was to call upon Nerlich. Nerlich testified concerning this meeting in part as follows : Q. And who came in at that time? A. Oh, twelve or fifteen men, and asked what I thought about it, and I advised them at that time it might be well for them not to do it, to postpone it, that it was their right if they cared to, but at that time the Boot and Shoe Workers were attempting to organize, and they had better wait and see what they got into and what the employees want there, and wait at least several months. If they wanted to do it, it was their right, but I advised them to postpone it. On June 18, 1937, Nerlich characterized the proceedings of the 1935 discussion by saying to members of the group "I put you off two years ago . . ." The employees' delegation also asked Nerlich to discharge several employees who were thought to be sympathetic toward the B. & S. W. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 743 This Nerlich refused to do. The committee, upon learning Nerlich's attitude toward their suggestions, abandoned the notion of forming a local organization and did not revive it until 2 years later. In the meantime, however, there occurred an incident which indi- cates that the respondent kept itself informed of incipient union activity with a view to eliminating it. Early in 1936, Foreman Moore told L. W. Robinson, an assistant foreman in the packing department, that the respondent had discovered through one of its St. Louis attor- neys that one Roman, employed in the Hannibal factories, had writ- ten to a union to ask that an organizer be sent to Hannibal. Moore instructed Robinson to watch Roman's work in order to discover a pretext to discharge him, and thereafter Roman was discharged. This we learn from Robinson's testimony. Moore testified on an- other issue and was not questioned on this incident. 2. The formation of the Brotherhood In the spring of 1937, newspapers circulated in Hannibal carried accounts of events which caused a renewed local interest in labor organizations. Among them were organization drives carried on by trade unions throughout the country, and the occurrence in some localities of disorder attendant upon such organization campaigns or upon employer or community resistance to them. The merits of these controversies are of course not of concern here. Some of them have been brought before the Board for decision. It is sufficient to note here that the Hannibal public became aware of them through the press. One consequence of the publicity was that some of the re- spondent's employees became convinced that a renewal of union ac- tivity among Hannibal shoe workers was imminent. The idea of forming a local "independent" organization was revived. On June 5, 1937, Spencer, King, and Treaster, shoe workers em- ployed by the respondent, consulted Stillwell, Marion county prose- cutor whose activities have been noted above, for advice concerning the formation of a local organization. Stillwell advised them to see a private practitioner, stating that he was not conversant with labor law and that his official duties occupied his full attention. He asked whether the group had been to see Nerlich yet. They replied that they had not. He told them "Well, I believe if I were you I would go and tell him what you are going to do before anybody else goes down there and tells him a lot of things you are not doing." During the following week King discussed labor matters with Robinson and Mainland, former mayors (the latter having just com- pleted a 2-year term and lost his campaign for reelection). They told him it was a shame the way people were forced into national 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organizations. King asked them what they thought of forming a lo- cal organization. One of them replied "Under the Wagner Act if you get them lined up you drive out whatever it might be . . ." It ap- pears from the context that this statement referred to the formation of a local organization in order to forestall action by national unions. On June 12, Broaddus, Spencer, King, and Treaster met Robinson and Mainland to ask them for advice concerning the formation of a local organization. Either one or both the ex-mayors said they thought it a good idea, but stated they could not furnish legal advice, and suggested names of several lawyers. Mainland (and possibly Robinson also) advised them to go to Nerlich with their plan. At about 4:30 p. m. on June 18, a group of 16 shoe workers col- lected by Broaddus, King, Spencer, and Treaster called on Nerlich. Those present, besides those just mentioned, were: Charles Giles, Dan Mack, Harry Beadle, Edward Riney, Carl Gilbert, Marvin Smith, Alvia Hines, Charles Overton, Robert, McIntyre, Harrison Hull, Red Mahood, and W. E. H. Herrin, shoe workers, and Charles Myers, employment manager in the Hannibal factories. The following is a stenographic report of the proceedings: HANNIBAL MO., Friday, June 18, 1937. Sixteen employees of the three plants came in and asked to see Mr. Nerlich. After W. C. Broaddus stated the purpose of the meeting Mr. Nerlich stated that the suggestion was one that recent legislation made it necessary for him to be very careful about expressing himself and asked their permission to call in a stenographer who could make a record of the entire meeting. After the stenographer was called in Mr. Broaddus repeated the purpose of the men's visit. Mr. BROADDUS. About two years ago practically this same group of men were here and asked how the company felt about their organizing at that time an independent union among the em- ployees and at that time they were neutral on the subject. How- ever, it has now come to a "show down" and they have come in to ask how you feel about their organizing an independent union at this time. Mr. NERLICH. I am glad to talk with you about anything that is on your mind and unfortunately I cannot say a great deal on this subject. Recently laws have been passed regarding this sub- ject so that we cannot advise you. In other words, I will say that it is a matter entirely up to you men. We haven't a thing in the world to say about it or against it and, of course, we can't say anything for it as it is a matter that is entirely up to you. I would lika to say too that we have never had any trouble getting along INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. ET AL. 745 with our people here and if you find it to your advantage to organize an independent group that is up to you. I am sure that our Aid Society has proven that you can do a good job of it and if you feel that it has come to a "show down", as Mr. Broaddus says, and that it is to your best interest, I think certainly it would be an all right thing to do. I would like to say if you decide to do this, do a good job of it like you try to make good rubber soles, heels, and shoes. We have always been glad to cooperate with you and will be now. It is, of course, against the company's wishes to have a company union, but if you feel it is best to organize an entirely independent group I think that is up to you. The company of course will have nothing to do with it. It might be a good thing for you to do. However, as manager of the plant I can't say very much on the subject, but I would like to suggest that you talk with several business men and get their ideas. I am sure you men realize a thing of this kind is of very vital interest to the community and it is a matter to be seriously considered and I think you would do well to see men that you know and have confidence in and sit down and talk to them about it. Mr. Hodgdon, Mr. Sparks, Judge Bigger, Father Fox, Rev. Schwehn, J. B. Robinson, and Sinclair Mainland would be good men to see and many others I might mention in this group. Let a few of you talk with them about it and see what they think concerning it. Mr. BROADDUS. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Nerlich, we came down to see you. We want to keep out of the C. I. 0. and the A. F. of L. and such organizations. We realize this is a very serious thing and we knew we could sit down and talk our problems over with you. I don't believe it would be advisable for us to have a union here that could be managed by a group 1,000 miles away. We don't want things to happen here that took place in Clarksville, Missouri, a few days ago or in the Hershey Company Plant or such things that happened here several years ago. I have been in this office several times myself when I thought things were not running smoothly and have always felt better after talking with you. I have been employed by the Interna- tional Shoe Company for some time and am loyal to them and will be so long as I remain with them. Mr. W. HERRIN. When Charles Giles suggested to me to come down here I thought about it all afternoon trying to think what should be done. 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Now, men, I don't know whether the organization of an inde- pendent union would be just exactly the thing or not. You all remember about two years ago how our outside friends started to organize here and that there was so much trouble and it seems to me this might have the same effect. They thought they were the right ones to organize us and such a thing might happen again if we were to organize an independent union. We want to have a place where we can work and make a living and where we can settle our own difficulties. I feel that the em- ployees of the International Shoe Company have enough com- mon sense to realize what they are up against. I feel that if four or five of the Rubber Plant men want to strike because they are dissatisfied for some reason that would be their own business and that we shouldn't have to strike. I feel that if something could be done along this line then we would really have an organization. Mr. NERLICH. Mr. Herrin, as I said before, that will be a matter that you men must work out, but for goodness sake do the thing you feel confident is the thing to do and get together and sit down and talk it over among yourselves and with some of the men down- town and tell them the things you feel in your heart will give you the best results. I must assure you I feel we will get along. Mr. DAN MACK. I have two nephews working in Michigan and they tell me of the serious trouble they have had and the way the C. I. 0. has conducted its organization and the interfering man- ner in which their elections have been held. We certainly don't want anything of that kind in Hannibal. Mr. MCINTYRE. There is the question of two or three men being dissatisfied and wanting to call a strike. We will have an arbi- tration agreement that no strike will be called unless all agree. Mr. NERLICH. Men, the more I hear you talk the more I am im- pressed with your determination and I am sure you will try to do the right thing. I put you off two years ago because at that time I thought it would foster more trouble. Conditions have changed since then and we are having labor trouble all over the country. I believe you realize the seriousness of the situation enough and if you plan an independent organization I am sure you will work out your own problems and still keep in mind what is best. Mr. BROADDUS. Mr. Nerlich, we are not coming to you this after- noon as superintendent, but as a friend we know and we would not do anything that you did not think best. We don't want to do anything that would cost us our job with the company or any- thing that is not best for the company. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 747 Mr. NERLICH. Men, I want you to know that the company ap- preciates your loyalty far more than you think and I am pleased and happy that you have come here. We have always agreed and I feel that we will on this. I want you to feel that you can always come in and talk over your problems with me. Under the present conditions I want to say that our company has tried diligently to keep the plants going and to give all of you work, but we want to run our business peacefully and for the best interest of all concerned. I feel, men, that we can settle all of our problems coming up bearing in mind the welfare of our employees, realizing they are closely related with the welfare of our company and the community in general. Mr. HARRISON HULL. It seems something will have to be done and we want to do what you think best and I am sure you are right, but with the present union conditions I feel we would be one jump ahead of outside union agitators. Mr. NERLICH. I will try to answer as far as possible all ques- tions coming up. I know you are going to have problems and questions to settle and I will, of course, try to answer any of your questions that the law will permit. You must remember what you do will be of your own accord and entirely independent of the company. I want you men to know that we have no fear of deal- ing with you fellows. It is hard for me not to be able to talk with you more freely, but I feel sure if you will make up your minds ana get together on it you will work it out so it will be satisfactory with all concerned. Our company, of course, will have no company union, but if you feel you want an independent organization the company will. of course, cooperate with you. I want you to know that the International Shoe Company has always kept your welfare in mind and will continue to do so always. I appreciate your friendship and confidence in coming to me and I want to say you are all free to feel at liberty any time to come in with your problems and we will talk them over. Mr. BROADDUS. Mr. Nerlich, we want to say again that we ap- preciate your courtesy and privilege that we have always had in coming to you with whatever was on our minds and we want you to know that no matter what we do or how we do it that we extend you the same courtesy to come to us with anything that you may feel is not to the best interests of the International Shoe Company and its employees. Mr. NERLICH. Mr. Broaddus, we appreciate that statement and the spirit that prompts it. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Immediately after meeting with Nerlich most of the 16 gathered outside the Seventh Street plant to consider their next step. They decided to meet the following Sunday, June 20, at Broaddus' home. On Saturday, June 19, King invited Mainland and Branham Rendlen, an attorney, to attend the meeting the next day. Broaddus also talked to Mainland on June 19. On June 20 a group of about 20 shoe workers, together with Main- land, Robinson, Rendlen, and Homer Hammett, a druggist, met at Broaddus' home. Robinson and Mainland told those present that the formation of a local organization was a good idea and that it would be a good thing for the community. Rendlen offered to wait for his fee for advising the organizers until the new organization should get well under way. The group elected temporary officers as follows : Broaddus, president; Treaster, vice president; Harold Jaeger, secre- tary; Russell Trail, treasurer. The organizers met again on the evening of June 21 in Rendlen's office. There the new organization was named Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers. Membership application cards were ordered from a printer and delivered on the following day, when the Brotherhood organizing campaign started in earnest. Brotherhood organizers actively solicited members in the factories. The conclusions to be drawn from this activity are discussed in Section III-A-3 below. The news that a group of men had been to discuss with Nerlich the formation of an independent or "inside" union spread rapidly through the factories. In soliciting applications for membership some of the promoters of the Brotherhood related the incident to prospective members. On June 25 the Hannibal Courier-Post reported an interview with Nerlich, who was quoted as follows : We have learned recently that some of our employees are spon- soring a local employees' association for the purpose of repre- senting the employees of the company in dealing with us on prob- lems of mutual interest. Choice of representation is a matter which must be settled by the employees themselves. For many years the finest kind of rela- tions has existed between us and our employees. We are anxious to preserve that relationship and are confident that our employees share the same feeling in the plan that they are trying to work out. It is gratifying to us to recall our experience of more than 30 years in Hannibal; and any plan designed to serve the best inter- est of our employees and the best interest of the city of Hannibal is entitled to thoughtful consideration by all. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 749 On June 28 the Brotherhood held a mass meeting in the Orpheum Theater, the use of which was donated by its owner. Broaddus, Jaeger, Branham Rendlen, A. J. Mulvihill, the incumbent mayor, Mainland, Hodgdon, Leo Bonham, a merchant, and two clergymen, the Reverend Mr. Schwehn and either Father Fox or Father Ernest, sat on the platform. Broaddus spoke and among other things said, referring to the Brotherhood, "This is not a union. It is an organi- zation to keep unions out of Hannibal. I hate the word `union."' Branham Rendlen explained the aims of the organization, stating that in view of the labor unrest prevalent over the country, the Brotherhood was being formed to keep unions out of Hannibal, and it was the general idea to "lock the barn door before the horse got out." Mulvihill announced that he was for the Brotherhood "100 per cent." The Brotherhood met July 8 at a school building where there was an attempt to select permanent officers but for some reason the matter was postponed until July 13, when the Brotherhood held a meeting at the courthouse. At one or the other of these meetings the Brother- hood constitution, drafted by Branham Rendlen, was adopted, and at about this time the Brotherhood caused it to be printed in full in a local newspaper. The constitution provides, in part, as follows : SEC. 7. The administrative power of this brotherhood is vested in an Executive Board, composed of seven (7) members. The Executive Board shall consist of the President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer of the Brotherhood, and three (3) addi- tional members .. . SEC. 9. The Executive Board shall solicit and obtain the serv- ices of five (5) citizens of the highest integrity, honesty, and character, (residing in Hannibal, Missouri), no one of whom shall have any interest in or connection with employers of shoe and rubber workers in any manner whatsoever, to serve as an advisory committee to the brotherhood, the members of the ad- visory committee shall each serve for a term of five (5) years. The original five (5) members of such committee shall be selected one for one year, one for two years, one for three years, one for four years, and one for five years, and each year a member thereof shall be selected for a five-year term to take the place of the member whose term expires. Date and manner of selection of such member other than the first committee shall be fixed by by- laws. Vacancies occurring upon such advisory committee shall be filled by the Executive Board, such appointee to serve until the term of the member thereof whose vacancy is thus filled, would have expired. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No action shall be taken by the Executive Board affecting this brotherhood until such proposed action shall be approved by a majority of the full Executive Board and the full Advisory Committee acting jointly, provided that in the event the Execu- tive Board has agreed with the employer on any matter the Advisory Committee shall not be required to advise thereon ...7 The executive board of the Brotherhood later considered several persons for appointment to the advisory committee. Among them were several mentioned by Nerlich on June 18, including Mainland, Robinson, Bigger, Hodgdon, and Father Fox. The only one actually asked to serve was Mainland. The committee never was organized and never functioned. Witnesses for the Brotherhood testified that the notion of an advisory committee, although quite popular in the beginning, later fell out of favor and the constitutional provision for the same was never executed. The abandonment of the provision for an advisory committee seems to have occurred about September 1937, when it became known in Hannibal that the. Board's agents had begun to investigate the respondent's dealings with the Brotherhood. That the advisory committee did not function is not determinative of the significance of the provision. The important fact is that, after the incorporation of Nerlich's advice regarding business advisers into the organic framework of the Brotherhood, the persons whom the Brotherhod considered for membership on the advisory committee included five of the seven whom Nerlich suggested. On July 16, 1937, the Brotherhood applied to the respondent for recognition as representative of its own members. This the respond- ent granted by letter dated July 21. On September 16, 1937, the Brotherhood was granted a corporate charter by decree of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The idea of incorporating originated in a suggestion made by Ray Camp- bell, president of one of the Brotherhood locals, by Bigger, probate judge-one of the advisers suggested by Nerlich on June 18. On September 20, 1937, the respondent entered into a contract with the Brotherhood. The agreement, although in terms applicable only to such of the respondent's employees as were members of the Broth- erhood, contained certain provisions, such as a seniority rule, the application of which was extended in practice to all the respondent's production employees. By its contract of September 20, 1937, and amendments thereto, the Brotherhood secured some concessions from the respondent. In the spring of 1938, however, the respondent promulgated a notice of a wage reduction after giving the Brotherhood only 1 or 2 days' warn- 7 Italic supplied. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 751 ing. Ten days thereafter, the Brotherhood ratified the respondent's action. 3. The B. & S. W. campaign-competition between rival organiza- tions-activities of foremen The B. & S. W. commenced its latest organization campaign among the respondent's employees about August 1, 1937, when McGonigal returned to Hannibal. The incumbent city administration, like its predecessors, was vigilant for signs of union activity, and soon after McGonigal's arrival, Mayor Mulvihill approached him and demanded his credentials. The city officials' chief animus was apparently di- rected against the Committee for Industrial Organization, for the mayor consented to let McGonigal remain in the city after he had satisfied the authorities that he was not acting in the interest of that organization. Those of the respondent's employees who joined the B. & S. W. were organized into the Affiliated Locals as described in Section II above. On October 4, 1937, Local 709 applied to the respondent for recognition as bargaining agent, and the respondent recognized that local as representative of its members on October 6. Local 709 did not claim exclusive bargaining rights. Local 248 on October 23 asked and on October 26 received recognition in the same manner as had Local 709. On November 29 the Affiliated Locals presented a pro- posed contract to the respondent, but the respondent, by its industrial relations manager, refused to consider any agreement at the time. Later the respondent reversed its policy in this matter and after some negotiation executed a contract on February 19, 1938, with the Affil- iated Locals. The contract covered such of the respondent's em- ployees as were members of the B. & S. W. and was in general similar to the Brotherhood contract. A large quantity of evidence was adduced at the hearing upon the extent and character of membership solicitation in the factories by the Brotherhood in order to establish the inference that the respond- ent, by permitting such activity to proceed, impliedly gave its ap- proval to it and thereby favored the Brotherhood. But the B. & S. W. also, according to many witnesses for the respondent and the Brother- hood, and to admissions from witnesses called by the Board, engaged in some such activity in the plant. So far as any quantitative com- parison is legitimate, it seems reasonable to conclude that the volume of Brotherhood activity was greater; however, that may be explained by the fact that the Brotherhood was first in the field and at all times probably had more members-and consequently more promoters-in the factories. 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Evidence was also adduced upon the activities of the respondent's foremen in the membership campaign of the two organizations. Much of the evidence brought forward to establish that foremen had advo- cated membership in the Brotherhood and threatened reprisals against the B. & S. W. is equivocal and much of it is contradicted to the extent that the commission of unfair labor practices is not estab- lished. But one supervisor, D. J. Matteson, admitted such activity and similar evidence as to another, Assistant Superintendent Palmer, admits of no doubt. Matteson, general foreman of the stock-preparation department in the Rubber Plant, and in charge of about 75 employees, told Clyde Strickland in July or August 1937, in response to a question whether employees were required to join the Brotherhood, that employees had the right to join either organization but that he thought any employer would prefer to deal with his own employees rather than with "outsiders." The foregoing is Matteson's account of the incident. He also testified that sometime later he informed Superintendent Britton what he had said, and that Britton replied that it would have been better had he kept still. But it does not appear that the respondent ever disavowed Matteson's statement. The testimony of 9 witnesses involves Clifford G. Palmer, assistant superintendent of the Bluff City plant, in making statements deroga- tory to the B. & S. W. Some of the remarks he is said to have made are equivocal and some were apparently made in the course of joking familiarly with employees. Palmer denied some of the remarks at- tributed to him and as to others he admitted the general nature of the conversation but put the words in the mouth of the employee with whom he had conversed. We cannot prefer Palmer's account in every instance. L. Pabst testified that while the Bluff City plant was shut down in the fall of 1937 Palmer came to the Seventh Street plant, where Pabst worked, and after asking a group including the latter where their B. & S. W. union buttons were, said "You see what it got us. We are not turning a wheel"-apparently referring to the Bluff City plant which was then shut down. W. B. Atterbury testified that in August 1937 Palmer, after dis- cussing with him conditions at a Moberly, Missouri, shoe factory, said, "Don't you know that the International Shoe Company will never have a union here, and furthermore if they can't make shoes here they will make them somewhere else." Palmer admitted discussing the B. & S. W. with several workers in a joking manner and admitted speaking of shut-downs in shoe factories elsewhere. He denied the specific statements attributed to him by Pabst and Atterbury but agreed with them as to the fact of the conversations and as to some of the subjects therein mentioned. Palmer's admitted readiness to INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 753 discuss the B. & S. W. with the employees, together with the unlikeli- hood that he stood as mute as he claimed while the employees did most of the talking, render it probable that he made the remarks, and we find in accordance with Pabst and Atterbury's versions. The activities of Matteson and Palmer tended to confirm the gen- eral impression that the respondent was hostile to nationally affiliated trade unions, and thereby contributed support to the Brotherhood, which was organized for the purpose of combating affiliated unions. There is evidence that foremen were instructed not to interfere with union activity and that Matteson and Palmer were later reprimanded by higher authority, but such instructions were ineffec- tive to restrain these men. Their positions were such as to give them the apparent authority to represent the respondent in dealing with the rank and file of workers." 4. Conclusions with respect to the Brotherhood We have given an account of the sequence of events which form the subject of the complaint, commenting only where the events required explanation. It now remains for us to decide whether a fair interpre- tation of the whole leads to the conclusion that the respondent domi- nated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Brotherhood or contributed support thereto within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. The first important fact to be considered is the attitude toward na- tional labor organizations prevailing in important Hannibal groups on and after July 5, 1935. Much of the evidence relates to occur- rences prior to that date. The respondent strenuously objected to the reception of such evidence. Here, as in our previous cases, we con- sider such evidence not for the purpose of giving retroactive effect to the Act, but to determine the existence of attitudes and modes of behavior which give clearer understanding of events taking place after the effective date of the Act." The respondent did not reor- ganize its factories on July 5, 1935, nor was Hannibal resettled on that date. The state of public opinion is a fact like any other fact. Caution is required in affirming the existence of so elusive a fact, to be sure. But the fact must be stated as accurately as the nature of the subject matter permits; to overlook it would be to omit an im- portant ground of interpretation of the events which we have re- 8 Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A. F. of L. Federal Union No. 31164, 9 N. L R B. 117. O Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., Greyhound Management Company, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Elec- trio Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 1, enforcement ordered in National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S. 261. 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD counted. The content of community opinion has been referred to. There was present the fear that the respondent would cease or curtail operations at its Hannibal factories in order to forestall organization of employees. This we learn from the testimony of Mainland, for- merly mayor of Hannibal, who was certainly well qualified to testify. In the Hannibal political campaign of 1935 local politicians em- phatically played upon this fear, thus tending to confirm the existing belief that the respondent would penalize the community if its em- ployees joined national trade unions. The hostility existing in Hannibal in certain quarters toward "out- side" unions probably resulted from a complex of several factors. The most important of these we believe to be the fear that the re- spondent would curtail its operations to check union activity. The violent means used by Hannibal city officials, tradesmen and shoe workers to deport the "invaders" suggests the intensity of this hostility. We must inquire what significance attaches to this community fear of a cessation of the respondent's operations. That the respondent had knowledge and notice of the existence of such a fear we conclude from several circumstances. Jenkins, formerly superintendent of the Seventh Street plant, to whom Mayor Robinson had applied for per- mission to allow shoe workers to meet in a city park in 1933, was vice president of the respondent in charge of industrial relations in 1937. Counsel for the respondent stated at the oral argument before the Board that the mob activity of 1933 and 1935 was public knowl- edge in Hannibal. L. B. Brown, assistant director of industrial rela- tions for the respondent, testified that for many years prior to the hearing he had regularly received a newspaper clipping service relat- ing to all matters wherein the respondent was mentioned in publica- tions of the communities where the respondent operated factories. This being so, it is plain that the contents of the newspaper adver- tisements referred to above could not have failed to come to the atten- tion of the respondent's St. Louis officials. And of course the re- spondent's Hannibal officials could not have been ignorant of the Mainland campaign and the barrage of newspaper publicity. Nerlich was a lifelong resident of Hannibal. Mayor Mainland's visit to Ner- lich to get instructions at the beginning of his term of office must have apprised Nerlich of the community attitude if he knew it no earlier. In reference to the community Nerlich said at the conference of June 18: ". . . I am sure you men realize that a thing of this kind is of very vital interest to the community . . ." And again, "I feel, men, that we can settle all our problems coming up bearing in mind the welfare of our employees, realizing they are closely related with the welfare of our company and the community in general." In his INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 755 press statement of June 24 Nerlich said, ". . . It is gratifying to us to recall our experience of more than 30 years in Hannibal ; and any plan designed to serve the best interest of our employees and the best interest of the city of Hannibal is entitled to thoughtful con- sideration by all." He could hardly have made such statements with- out having clearly in mind, and knowing that his audience would likewise have in mind, the fact that in the past, powerful forces in the community had translated their recognition of the respondent's local importance into efforts to eradicate all attempts to organize shoe workers. With this knowledge, Nerlich's remarks emphasized the importance of organizational activity in relation to community welfare and did not in any way attempt to dispel the prevailing community opinion that organization by outside groups might result in the curtailment or withdrawal of the respondent's pay rolls. It is worth noticing also that the "welfare of the community" and the "best interest of Hannibal" were phrases adopted by the authors of the Mainland campaign advertisements, in which these interests were conceived to be such as required the suppression of union ac- tivity. Herrin, the nominal sponsor of the advertisements, was pres- ent at the conference of June 18 and took part in the discussion. The welfare of Hannibal had a special meaning to the anti-union forces of that community-a meaning which excluded certain values which the Congress has seen fit to protect, namely, workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. It is plain that the respondent by its -agents had notice and actual knowledge of the community state of mind to which we have re- ferred. That being so, we are required to consider whether and to what extent the respondent's knowledge affected its duty under the law. The respondent was not absolutely bound to correct any mis- taken impression concerning its motives which might have existed. But it was bound to act, when it did act, with due regard to the sus- ceptibilities of the community,1° realizing that fearing the result of the respondent's hostility toward unions, generally reputed to exist, and indicated by the previous actions of Jenkins, Britton, and Moore, many of its employees and others would be alert to discover its wishes, however casually expressed, and would carry them out. When the 16 Brotherhood founders conferred with Nerlich on June 18, 1938, it was incumbent on the respondent to act with cir- cumspection in view of the considerations just mentioned. The testi- mony of those in this group together with all the evidence concerning the past behavior of these men points to the conclusion that the group applied to Nerlich for advice regarding their tentative plan of 10 See Matter of Elkland Leather Company, Inc. and National Leather Workers' Associa- tion, Local No 37, 8 N. L R B 519. 169134-39-vol. 12-49 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD forming an "inside" union. Several of the 16 did testify that they went to announce to Nerlich a decision already made, but the tenor of the conversation as reported negatives such an interpretation of their visit. Their spokesman, Broaddus, in his opening remarks said, "However, it has now come to a `show down' and they have come in to ask how you feel about their organizing an independent union at this time." King testified that Broaddus had on his own initiative abandoned their common plan of announcing a fixed intention, and had made the suggestion in a tentative manner contrary to their wishes. But Hull said to Nerlich "We want to do what you think best," and none of the others objected to Broaddus or Hull's state- ments while at the conference. After the meeting the Brotherhood organizers proceeded with a despatch which, in view of the delibera- tion characterizing their former actions in the matter, can only be accounted for by their construction of Nerlich's remarks as being favorable to their suggestion. The past activities and allegiance of the several of the 16, known to Nerlich, made it plain to him how likely they were to take the re- spondent's part in any controversy and to carry out the community mandate toward conciliating the respondent. As appears from the report of the conference, Broaddus had consulted Nerlich twice before in regard to forming an "inside" union, and receiving no encourage- ment had abandoned the plan. Other members of the 16, namely, Spencer, Hines, and King, had accompanied Broaddus on his call upon Nerlich in 1933, and Mack, Herrin, King, McIntyre, and Treaster were present at the similar conference in 1935. Herrin signed one of the Mainland campaign advertisements which approved the vigilante attacks on B. & S. W. organizers and stated that the con- tinuation of the respondent's operations in Hannibal depended on the maintenance of a firm policy toward "trouble-makers." King's par- ticipation in the assault on Carlin in the spring of 1935 was referred to in another of the advertisements. Several of the 16, it is true, had belonged to the Protective in 1933, but by 1935 had evidently turned against nationally affiliated unions. The 16 were employees of 8 to 25 years experience in the respondent's plants. The antipathy these men bore toward national labor organizations undoubtedly in- spired them as well as their fear of a lock-out. They had the privi- lege of expressing such opposition through the formation of an organi- zation for mutual aid and protection or in any other manner, free from the respondent's domination, interference, or support. But the propensities of the 16, ready as they were to take the respondent's part against "outside" labor organizations, were such that the re- spondent, being advised of the same, knew that the 16 would adopt a course of action in any way suggested by the respondent, and that INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 757 the respondent's approval given to a tentative plan of action put for- ward by the 16 would bring into actuality that which hitherto had only potential existence. Nerlich's remarks were guarded. His statements were made con- ditionally. ". . . If you feel that it has come to a `show-down,' as Mr. Broaddus says, and that it is to your best interest, I think certainly it would be an all right thing to do." ". . . If you plan an independent organization I am sure you will work out your own problems and still keep in mind what is best." But his statements are to be read in connection with the prior expression of the delega- tion, who had stated tentatively their desire to form an "independent" organization subject to the respondent's approval. By thus adopting their premise ("if you feel, etc." and "If you plan, etc.") and giving his approval conditioned on the group's wish (already expressed in tentative form), Nerlich effectively gave the plan the respondent's sanction. The respondent and the Brotherhood urge that Nerlich's remarks evinced a strict abstention from .interference on his part, and that his expressions of apparent approbation were merely the friendly re- marks to be expected from an executive dealing with employees of long service, several of whom were known to him. If this were a correct interpretation of most of the colloquy (and our analysis in- dicates that it is not), it nevertheless fails as a justification for Nerlich's advice to the Brotherhood organizers to "see men that you know [Hodgdon, Sparks, Bigger, Father Fox, the Rev. Mr. Schwehn, Robinson, and Mainland] and have confidence in and sit down and talk to them about it." This advice, which Nerlich reiterated, was a suggestion as to means of obtaining the support and assistance of powerful community groups." Thus while telling the organizers that the respondent could not help them, Nerlich told them where they could go for help. It is true that 4 of the 16 organizers had already consulted Robinson and Mainland, but Nerlich and Mainland denied having any previous understanding and there is no showing that Nerlich knew of the prior conference between the ex-mayors and the original 4 organizers. The previous conference between the ex- mayors and the inner-group organizers had left the latter still un- decided, as appears from the opening remarks of Broaddus to Nerlich on June 18. The prior participation of the ex-mayors in the plan was, then, insufficient, up to June 18, to give the inner group of organ- izers the impetus actually to form an organization. Thus to refer U See Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Worker8 of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N. L. R. B. 654, ordered enforced in National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation, 102 Fed. ( 2nd) 383 (C. C. A. 7, March 7, 1939 ), where the employer furnished the name of an attorney to employees who were considering the formation of an "inside" union. 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the original four organizers back to the ex-mayors was not simply to echo a decision already formed or to mirror a fixed design. 'It was to send them back with the assurance of the respondent's approval of a plan hitherto only conditionally arrived at and tentatively ex- pressed. And as to the 12 who had not consulted the ex-mayors and who had just been gathered to go to Nerlich's office, Nerlich's recom- mendation of the advisers tended to operate with even greater force. As we have seen, most of the 16 met with the ex-mayors on June 20 and organization proceeded apace. The group took Nerlich's sug- gestion so seriously that they provided a constitutional basis for the participation of Hannibal business men in Brotherhood affairs and in partial execution of that provision discussed naming as permanent advisers some of the persons originally suggested by Nerlich. The views concerning labor organization and the past participation in vigilante activity of some of those mentioned by Nerlich as ad- visers must have been known to both Nerlich (or his superiors) and the Brotherhood organizers. Nerlich admitted knowing that Robin- son had some trouble with union organizers during his term of office and had on at least one occasion induced them to leave the city. Nerlich or his superiors were charged with notice, through Brown's clipping service at least, of the Mainland election campaign. It is likely that the respondent was aware of the anti-union activity of Hodgdon in the local Chamber of Commerce of which the respondent was a member. There is no showing as to Sparks or Judge Bigger or to the clergymen, whose participation was apparently limited to appearing at Brotherhood public meetings. Several of the Brother- hood organizers, on the other hand, had collaborated previously with Robinson and Mainland in ejecting union organizers from the city. When, therefore, Nerlich endorsed these men he was endorsing the practices which they were known to have engaged in and the opinions they were known to have. The organizers did not need to have ex- plained to them the suggested advisers' attitude; they knew even as Nerlich spoke. The organizers asked Nerlich for advice. In effect he told them that he could not advise them directly but that they might get proper advice from a certain source; the kind of advice he meant was obvious. Considering that the advisers might reasonably have been presumed to hold the same opinions they formerly enter- tained, it is as if Nerlich, being asked for advice, had declined to com- mit himself directly but had referred instead to a book or pamphlet set- ting forth anti-union views and had given it his endorsement. The history of Robinson and Mainland was not such as to mark them as specially qualified to aid in forming a genuine organization; rather their experience with shoe workers' unions was limited to opposing them. Such an organization as Robinson and Mainland would help to form would probably be a sham designed to meet the exigencies of INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 759 new legislation which rendered the cruder devices of the past im- politic-an organization which would be negative in character, a mere buffer against organization of a more spontaneous sort. These were the implications of Nerlich's recommendation. The Brotherhood was at its inception considered by its organizers and sympathizers as an organization designed merely to impede the imminent progress of nationally affiliated organizations among the respondent's employees. Several of the 16 promoters so stated at the hearing. It is clear most of them originally had no conception of the purpose or method of collective bargaining and that they were not interested in it except in so far as they were compelled to simulate typical union activity in order to forestall established labor organi- zations. This appears from the proceedings of the first public meet- ing of the Brotherhood, held on June 28, 1937. In the constitutional provisions for community representation on the Brotherhood advisory committee emerged Nerlich's suggestion, made June 18, that the organizers of the yet unnamed Brotherhood take local business leaders into their counsel. Thus, firmly embedded in the constitution is the principle that in effect assures the dominant business interests of Hannibal a voice and a vote in the government of the Brotherhood on any question upon which the respondent and the Brotherhood should differ. Upon what side the business ad- visers would probably find themselves in the event of such a difference is apparent. The theory that labor's right to organize and bargain collectively should be sacrificed in exchange for an assured continuity of pay rolls would be likely to actuate the business advisers of the Brotherhood in the future as it had in the past. Nerlich said at the June 18 conference, "... Under the present conditions I want to say that our company has tried diligently to keep the plants going and to give all of you work, but we want to run our business peacefully and for the best interest of all concerned." Thus he adopted the thesis put forward by the Brotherhood organ- izers, that the advent of national trade unions might result in dis- order, and he implied that the respondent's continued operation of its factories might be jeopardized thereby. The only violence which had arisen in connection with shoe workers' unions in Hannibal had proceeded from mobs in which several of the conferees of June 18 were participants. Yet Nerlich said, "I want you men to know that we have no fear of dealing with you fellows." Finally, at the conference Nerlich made it plain that his attitude was different then from what it was when Broaddus and others asked his advice in 1933 and 1935. He said : I put you off two years ago because at that time I thought it would foster more trouble. Conditions have changed since then 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and we are having labor trouble all over the country. I believe you realize the seriousness of the situation enough and if you plan an independent organization I am sure you will work out your own problems and still keep in mind what is best. Here the organizers plainly were told to proceed. The respondent urges that the reason for Nerlich's reversal of his former advice not to form an independent union was that such advice, while lawful in 1933 and in 1935 prior to July 5, was unlawful in 1937 by virtue of the Act. This explanation is disingenuous. The ground for the change of policy in 1937 as plainly shown in Nerlich's own words was the "labor trouble all over the country" and "the seriousness of the situation" resulting therefrom. Thus in rescinding his former in- structions he did not merely withdraw the respondent's influence; he exerted it in respect to an existing condition which, his listeners would readily infer from his remarks, demanded the sort of remedy they had tentatively advanced. We have discussed above some of the particular aspects of the conference of June 18, 1937. In evaluating these expressions, some of which might appear to be noncommittal rather than hortatory, we have taken into consideration, as the participants must have, the recent community history and the conferees' familiarity with it and with each other. In our interpretation of this conference we have recognized and accorded due weight to the relationship of employer and employees subsisting among the conferees.12 We find that the effect of Nerlich's discourse taken as a whole was to encourage the employees present to form an "inside" union and consult the sug- gested advisers to that end. Nerlich's announcement to the press on June 24 gave the Brother- hood something in the nature of official sanction. He said, comment- ing on the Brotherhood, For many years the finest kind of relations has existed between us and our employees. We are anxious to preserve that relation- ship and are confident that our employees share the same feeling in the plan that they are trying to work out. Here the respondent asserted that the Brotherhood, although officially designed to carry on collective bargaining with the respondent, was likely to introduce no real change in the relation between the respond- ent and its employees. And the respondent expressed confidence in the motives of the Brotherhood-this in a situation wherein it had 12Virginian By. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, et al., 84 Fed. (2nd) 641, aff'd 300 U S. 515 ; National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation , 102 Fed . (2nd) 383 (C. C. A. 7, March 7, 1939). INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 761 been generally supposed that the respondent was hostile toward unions. Nerlich concluded : ... Any plan designed to serve the best interest of our em- ployees and the best interest of the city of Hannibal is entitled to thoughtful consideration by all. Taken alone this statement is the expression of a generous sentiment, nothing more. But the words were not uttered at random; the state- ment was made with specific reference to the Brotherhood, which was the only labor organization then existing among the respondent's Hannibal employees and which was at that moment in the process of formation. In its context the statement is a plain endorsement of the Brotherhood and a certificate to the effect that it would not suffer the displeasure which Hannibal residents feared the respondent would visit on any nationally affiliated union. Our analysis indicates that the respondent gave the vital impetus toward the formation of the Brotherhood, which otherwise would likely have remained only a subject of discussion as it had been prior to June 18, 1937. The respondent also helped to secure public accept- ance of the Brotherhood by Nerlich's announcement and by steering the Brotherhood organizers to a group of business advisers who could and did bring novel respectability to a labor organization among Hannibal shoe workers. The character of the Brotherhood was at its outset one of quasi-official status. By making effective an organi- zation which had only the most tenuous form prior to the respondent's interference, by securing it local acceptance, by fixing upon its growth the influence of the business advisers, and by permitting Palmer and Matteson to encourage membership in the Brotherhood and discour- age membership in the B. & S. W., the respondent is chargeable with the formation, the structure, and the growth of the Brotherhood. We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Brotherhood and contrib- uted support thereto. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion The complaint alleges that the respondent by threatening em- ployees, keeping them under surveillance, and otherwise, had inter- fered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We have considered above the activity of Palmer and Matteson. The proof concerning the alleged espionage does not bear out the allegation with respect thereto. There is evidence of some moneys paid out by the respond- ent for under-cover work as late as 1936, but the exact nature of this activity is not in evidence nor does it appear that any of it took 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD place in the Hannibal factories. The testimony of Robinson men- tioned above does tend to implicate the respondent in espionage carried on in 1936 in St. Louis but relating to the Hannibal factories. Robinson's testimony on this point is not sufficiently specific to sup- port a charge of espionage, although we have accepted his testimony concerning the same transaction for another purpose. We shall dis- miss the complaint so far as it relates to the alleged espionage. The acts set forth in Section III A 2, 3, and 4 above which we have found to constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act are likewise unfair practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. We find that by the acts set forth in Section III A 2, 3, and 4 above the respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. The alleged discrimination The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent had dis- criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of nine employees. We find that the evidence does not sustain the allega- tions of the complaint in this respect and we concur in the Trial Examiner's recommendation that they be dismissed. Since no excep- tion has been taken to the Intermediate Report in this respect, we will not discuss the alleged discrimination in detail.13 We find that the respondent has not by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guth- rie, Earl Kroger, James McQueen, Thomas Carter, Ora Blackston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, or Francis Burrell, encouraged or discouraged membership in any labor organization. 1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A 2, 3, and 4 and Section III B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Brotherhood and contrib- 12 Matter o f Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates, and Pilots of A+nerica, No. 9, 8 N. L. R B. 730. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 763 uted support thereto. These practices are reflected in the structure and character of the Brotherhood, so that it would not be an effective remedy merely to order the respondent to cease and desist from such practices.14 In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Brother- hood and completely disestablish it as a representative of the re- spondent's employees. The respondent's contract with the Brotherhood of September 20, 1937, was, in view of our finding as to the respondent's relation to the Brotherhood, unlawful and void. Since the contract expired on September 30, 1938, and had no provision for automatic renewal or negotiations looking toward a renewal, we do not find it necessary to order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect thereto. Since we have found that the respondent has interfered with, co- erced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from such practices. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Locals 248 and 709, Boot and Shoe Workers Union, and Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin- istration of Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, and by contributing support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in the unfair practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by encouraging or discourag- ing membership in any labor organization by discrimination in re- gard to the hire or tenure of employment of Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guthrie, Earl Kroger, James McQueen, Thomas Carter, Ora Black- ston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, or Francis Burrell, nor in unfair 14 Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, supra, footnote S. 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act in respect to the alleged espionage charged in the complaint. ORDER Upon the basis of the above 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 respondent, International Shoe Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating and interfering with the formation or adminis- tration of Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incor- porated, or of any other labor organization of its employees, and from contributing support to Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con- cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, as such representative; (b) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its Hannibal, Missouri, plants, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating: (1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and (2) that the respondent withdraws all recognition from Western Brother- hood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, as a representative of its employees, and completely disestablishes it as such repre- sentative; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing with ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 765 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organization by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guthrie, Earl Kroger, James McQueen, Thomas Carter, Ora Blackston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, or Francis Burrell, and so far as it alleges the commission of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, by keeping the union activity of its employees under surveillance.