Laird, Schober Company, Inc.

In the Matter of LAIRD, SCHOBER COMPANY, INC. and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-811.-Decided August 26, 1939 Shoe Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion- Employer Election: results of, disregarded-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and administration ; support ; sponsoring and fostering growth of ; activities of supervisory employees in behalf of ; activities on company time and property ; disestablished as agency for col- lective bargaining-Contract : recognizing company-dominated union as exclu- sive bargaining representative ; provided for check-off of dues ; respondent ordered to cease giving effect to-Check-Off : employer ordered to reimburse employees for amounts deducted from wages as dues of company-dominated union-Remedial Order: bilingual notices to be posted, in English and Italian. Mr. Joseph Castiello, for the Board. Wesley, Wagoner, Troutman & McWilliams, by Mr. J. W. McWil- liams, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Respondent. Mr. Leo Goodman, of Washington, D. C., for the United. Mr. William P. Davis, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for the F. S. W. U. Mr. William Strong, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the United Shoe Workers of America, herein called the United, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ), issued its complaint dated May 5, 1938, against Laird, Schober Company, Inc., herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2- (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon the United. The complaint alleges in substance that the respondent dominated and interfered 14 N. L. R. B., No. 88. 1152 LAIRD, SCHOBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1153 with the formation and administration of the Fashion Shoe Workers Union, a labor organization of its employees, herein called the F. S. W. U., and contributed financial and other support to it; and thereby, and by threats, speeches, and other acts of its officers, foremen, agents, and supervisory employees, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices charged. The F. S. W. U. filed with the Acting Regional Director a motion to intervene in this proceeding. The motion was granted. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, on June 2, 3, 6, and 7, 1938, before Mapes Davidson, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond- ent, and the F. S. W. U. 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 on the issues was afforded all parties. In the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled upon numerous motions and objections to the admis- sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On August 1, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, wherein he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action remedial of their effect. Thereafter, the respondent and the F. S. W. U. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. At the request of the F. S. W. U., the Board, on October 15, 1938, issued an order permitting the F. S. W. U. to withdraw its exceptions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held at Washington, D. C. on May 11, 1939. The United was represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has fully considered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, con- clusions, and order below set forth, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Laird, Schober Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal office and plant at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a sales office in New York City, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, 1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and distribution of shoes and related products. In its manufacture it uses kid, calf, raw hide, and sole leathers, cotton and silk fabrics, and cotton, linen, and silk threads, 65 per cent of which are brought in from points outside of Pennsylvania. Approximately 85 per cent of its finished products, which are valued at approximately $1,200,000 annually, are transported to States other than Pennsylvania. During 1938, the respondent employed more than 450 persons. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Shoe Workers of America is a labor organization, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,' herein called the C. I. 0., admitting to membership employees of the respondent. Fashion Shoe Workers Union is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of the unfair labor practices In about 1885, the Central Convention of Shoe Workers of Phila- delphia, a labor organization, herein called the C. C., was organized for the purpose of securing amicable adjustment of labor disputes. It was composed of representatives of shop associations formed at the plants of several Philadelphia manufacturers who were members of the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers Association.2 Employees of the manufacturers automatically became members of the shop associations. Dues were deducted by the employers from their employees' wages and were used primarily to pay shop dele- gates to the C. C. a fee of $1.00 for each meeting attended. At times when the accumulated dues were not sufficient to pay delegates, the respondent, who had custody of the funds collected at its plant, itself made up the amount necessary to pay the fee to the delegates from its plant. Early in 1937, the C. I. O. began organizing employees of the shoe manufacturers in Philadelphia. As a result of such organization numerous shop associations withdrew from the C.- C. and, for this reason, the C. C. began disintegrating, and in June 1937 finally dis- banded. Efforts were made by employee representatives of shops still remaining in the C. C., with the assistance of the employers involved, to rejuvenate the C. C. As a result of such efforts, a new organization was formed, under the name of Philadelphia Shoe Workers Union. The respondent's employees, however, did not be- come affiliated with this new organization. ' Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations. 'The respondent's shop association was called the Laird, Schober Shop Association. LAIRD, SCHOBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1155 B. Domination of the F. S. W. U. By the end of April 1937, a substantial number of the respondent's employees had joined the United. On May 6, 1937, the United sent a telegram to the respondent, stating that it represented a majority of the respondent's employees and requesting that conferences for the purpose of collective bargaining be inaugurated. Upon receipt of the telegram, George Laird, president of the respondent, telephoned other manufacturers in town and ascertained that they also had received similar telegrams. He then called to his office certain employees who formerly had been delegates to the C. C., showed them the telegram, and asked them, according to his own testimony, "to find out or advise whether they believed or thought that the United had a majority," so that he could answer the telegram. At this meeting it was decided to poll the employees of the respondent as to whether they desired to be represented by the C. C. or the United. Notices advising employees that a special meeting of the Laird, Schober Shop Association would be held at 11 a. in. on Monday, May 10, 1937, on the third floor of the respondent's build- ing, were prepared and distributed to, the employees, with Laird's assistance. On May 10 foremen and other persons instructed employees to cease working and attend the meeting. Laird spoke to the assembled employees and told them that the purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the United or the C. C. had a majority. He also stated that a vote should be taken for this purpose. Thereupon Laird left the room and the balloting proceeded. None of the wit- nesses at the hearing knew who had prepared or paid for the ballots which had been printed. Out of about 450 eligible employees, 300 voted. The results were 169 for the C. C. and 131 for the United. On the basis of this election, the respondent ignored the telegram of the United. When asked at the hearing whether he ever requested the United to show proof of its membership, Laird replied,. "No, why should I?" The Board's experience has shown that the presence of super- visory employees at the polls, the conduct of the election on the employer's property, together with manifestations by the employer of preference for or dislike of a particular labor organization, pre- clude the casting of a ballot which registers the free and independent choice of the employee.' We find that the election of May 10 was held at the behest of the respondent, and under circumstances and sSee Matter of The Heller Brothers Company of Newcomerstown and International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L. R. B. 646; Matter of Eagle Manufacturing Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 6 N. L. R. B. 492. 1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conditions indicating to the employees the respondent's interests and desires in the situation, and thus precluded a full and independent expression of choice by the employees. We further find that by its actions the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. A few days after the election, Otto Gregory and, James Rizzo, employees, consulted Laird regarding the formation of a labor organization of the respondent's employees. Laird indicated his dis- approval of the C. I. O. and, although refusing to assist them in the formation of a labor organization, referred the two men to the officials of the Pandora Union which existed among the employees of another shoe manufacturer in Philadelphia. Laird testified that when he gave the foregoing advice he was aware that a charge that the Pandora Union was employer dominated was pending before the Board. Following Laird's recommendation, Gregory and Rizzo consulted officials of the Pandora Union, who referred Gregory and Rizzo to its attorney. They consulted the attorney, and secured from him forms of articles of incorporation and bylaws. On May 18 or 19, 1937, Rizzo called a meeting of the former dele- gates to the C. C., proposed the formation of a new labor organiza- tion, and presented to them articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other formal papers. Those present agreed to form an unaffiliated labor organization as proposed by Rizzo. Thereafter, in May 1937, F. S. W. U. organization activity was conducted at the plant during the day by means of meetings, speeches, distribution of cards, and solicitation of members. At the general meetings Rizzo and Gregory addressed the em- ployees, informing them that a new union had been formed and stating that one of its purposes was to exclude racketeers from the plant. Rizzo and others testified that the speeches were made during lunch hour and not on respondent's time. Rizzo stated that he did not secure permission from the respondent to speak, nor did anyone interfere with him or inquire into what was going on. At the conclusion of the speeches, membership cards were distributed and employees were asked to join the F. S. W. U. Several foremen of the respondent admitted at the hearing that they made no effort to prevent this activity on behalf of the F. S. W. U., justifying their position by saying either that they did not at any time interfere with activities of the employees, or did not know what was going on. Foremen and assistant foremen aided the F. S. W. U. in its efforts to organize the employees, by calling the workers together and send- ing them into the rooms in which speeches were being made, aiding LAIRD, SCHOEER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1157 employees in signing F. S. W. U. cards, and permitting the F. S. W. U. great latitude in its activities on respondent's premises during working hours. In contrast to this assistance to the F. S. W. U., foremen discouraged efforts. of the United to secure members by stating to employees that the respondent would close its plant if the C. I. O. succeeded in securing a foothold and that the C. I. O. was composed of racketeers. One foreman told an employee that he would be sorry if he remained in the United. The F. S. W. U. was incorporated in the State of New Jersey. On June 1, 1937, when its certificate of incorporation had been received, a meeting of the directors designated in the certificate was held, and the following officers were elected : Rizzo, president; Del Guercio, vice president; and Ollie Kidwell, recording secretary. These individuals are also among the incorporators of the F. S. W. U. On June 3, 1937, a meeting of respondent's employees was held for further. F. S. W. U. organizational purposes, at Columbus Hall in Philadelphia. Notices for this meeting were posted in the plant.. On that day, Florence DeHart, forelady of the pattern makers, at the instruction of her superior, one Ziegler, instructed the pattern makers to stop work at 3: 30 instead of 5: 30 as usual, and to attend the meeting. The power in the pattern department was shut off at 3: 30 that afternoon. The machinery in other departments was also stopped at about this time. Charles Lefko, a pattern worker, stopped working at 3:30 p. in. but did not attend the meeting. On the fol- lowing day DeHart berated Lefko for not having attended the meeting. The June 3, 1937, meeting was opened by Rizzo, who explained to the employees that there; was no need for an outside organization, and that the F. S. W. U. had been organized. A request by some employees that representatives of the C. I. O. be permitted to speak, was refused, whereupon a large number of employees left the meeting. Rizzo, Del Guercio, and Kidwell, who previously had been elected officers of the F. S. W. U. at the June 1 meeting of the board of directors, were again "elected by proclamation," at the June 3 meeting, and the directors named in the articles of incorporation were "declared" to be the standing directors. At the meeting it was decided to assess dues of 10 cents a week. Gregory testified that the employees present at this meeting authorized the F. S. W. U. officers to negotiate a contract with the respondent. The minutes fail to show that this authorization was made. On June 4 a F. S. W. U. committee approached Laird, advised him that the F. S. W. U. had been formed, and requested that he conclude a contract with them, the draft of which they brought 1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with them. Laird desired to have his attorney present at the negotiations, and a second meeting was held on the following day, Saturday, June 5. The proposed contract was discussed , and, to ascertain the membership in the F. S. W. U ., Laird says that he counted the F. S. W. U. cards, which had been brought by the com- mittee, and found that they totaled about 300. Laird did not check the signatures , however, because he felt that there was no question as to their authenticity. Kidwell, present at these negotiations , first testified that Laird did not ask whether the F. S. W. U. had a majority and did not check cards, and that he, Kidwell, merely gave Laird the figures as to mem- bership in the F. S. W. U. On cross-examination by the respondent's attorney, Kidwell changed his testimony to conform to that given by Laird. The minutes of the following meeting, held on June 28, contain this statement : "The President read the contract we have with the employer and contents noted and approved ." This was the first time that the employees of the respondent and the members of the F. S. W. U. were informed as to the terms of the contract-about 3 weeks after it had been signed. The agreement , as finally signed, is self-renewable from year to year, and is terminable upon notice by either party. It provides that the respondent recognizes the F. S. W. U. as exclusive representative of all of its employees , agrees that all the employees must become members of the F . S. W. U., and that no other union shall be recog- nized in the plant during the life of the agreement . There is a check- off provision whereby the respondent is to deduct from each em- ployee's weekly pay the F. S. W. U. dues and is to turn such dues over to the F. S. W. U. On the entire record we find that ,the respondent assisted in the formation of F. S. W. U., and has dominated and interfered with its administration, and has contributed financial and other support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercinb its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find, further, that the F. S. W. U. is incapable of serving the re- spondent's employees as their genuine representative for purposes of collective bargaining under the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities set forth in Section III B above, occur- ring 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. LAIRD, SCHOBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED V. THE REMEDY 1159, Having found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the F. S. W. U. and contributed financial and other support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining,. and coercing 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 unfair labor practices. By reason of the respond- ent's acts, the F. S. W. U. cannot serve the employees as their genu- ine bargaining agent. In order to restore to the employees the rights guaranteed them under the Act, we shall order the respondent to dis- establish the F. S. W. U. as the representative of any of its employees. for purposes of collective bargaining. We shall further. order the respondent to cease and desist from giv- ing effect to its contract with the F. S. W. U. or to any extension or renewal thereof, or to any successor contract with the F. S. W. U.. which may now be in effect, and to reimburse its employees for all the sums checked off by it as dues pursuant to the provisions of its- contract with the F. S. W. U.4 We shall also order the respondent to post notices in its plant stat- ing that it will take the affirmative action required by us to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since many of the respondent's employees, are conversant with the Italian language only, we shall direct that the notices be in the Italian language and in the English language. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the. Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Shoe Workers of America, affiliated with the Commit- tee for Industrial Organization and Fashion Shoe Workers Union are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and ad- ministration of Fashion Shoe Workers Union, and by contributing financial and other support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4 See Matter of The Heller Brothers Company of Newcomerstown and International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L. R. B. 646. 190935-40-vol. 14--74 1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 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 re- spondent, Laird, Schober Company, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating and interfering with the administration of Fash- ion Shoe Workers Union or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing support to Fashion Shoe Workers Union or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Giving effect to its contract with Fashion Shoe Workers Union, or to any extension or renewal thereof, or to any successor contract with Fashion Shoe Workers Union which may now be in effect; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw recognition from, Fashion Shoe Workers Union as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and com- pletely disestablish Fashion Shoe Workers Union as such representa- tive ; (b) Reimburse the employees who were members of Fashion Shoe Workers Union for the sums the respondent has deducted from their wages, on behalf of Fashion Shoe Workers Union; (c) Post notices, in the English language and in the Italian lan- guage, in conspicuous places throughout all departments and divi- sions in the plant, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid, and will take the affirmative action required in 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; LAIRD, SCHOBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1161 (d) Maintain such posted notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above. Decision and Order.