Cooper, Wells & Co.

In the Matter Of COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS Cases Nos. C-736 and C-737.-Decided October 17, 1939 Hosiery Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: charges of, not sustained-Company-dominated Unions : charges of, not sus- tained-Complaint : dismissed. Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board. Courshon d Freeman, by Mr. R. L. Freeman, of Chicago, Ill., Mr. A. Edward Brown, of St. Joseph, Mich., and Mr. C. H. Eyster, of Decatur, Ala., for the respondent. Peach & Caddell, by Mr. John H. Peach, of Decatur, Ala., for the Independent. Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges duly filed 1 by American Federation of Hosiery. Workers, herein called the A. F. H. W., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint, dated May 3, 1938, against Cooper, Wells & Company, St. Joseph, Michigan, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. In substance, the complaint as amended al- leged that on or about April 20, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of, and supported, two labor organizations,2 one formed at its plant in 'Separate charges were filed by the A. F. A. W. In the Seventh and Tenth Regional offices of the Board. On January 19, 1938, the Board ordered the matter arising out of the charges filed in the Tenth Region transferred to and consolidated with the matter arising out of the charges filed in the Seventh Region. 2 Although the complaint originally referred to the two organizations as a single organi- zation, the record shows that they were separate and distinct labor organizations. This error was remedied by a motion granted by the Trial Examiner at the hearing. 16 N. L. R. B., No. 6. 27 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Joseph, Michigan, and the other at its plant in Decatur, Alabama. The St. Joseph labor organization is known as Cooper, Wells and Company Employees' Association, referred to in the record and herein called the Committee of Eleven. The labor organization formed at the respondent's plant in Decatur, Alabama, is known as the Independent Organization for Collective Bargaining of Em- ployees of Cooper, Wells and Company of Decatur, Alabama, and is herein called the Independent. The complaint further alleges that the respondent, by expressing opposition to the A. F. H. W., by in- timidating and coercing its employees into signing so-called loyalty petitions and other petitions, and by other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights .guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The complaint and an accom- panying notice of hearing were duly served on the parties, and upon the Independent and the Committee of Eleven. On May 10, 1938, the respondent filed its answer in which it denied, that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in St. Joseph, Michigan, from May 12 to 18, 1938, and at Decatur, Alabama, from May 23 to 26, 1938, before Hugh C. McCarthy, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. At the hearing the Independent filed a petition to intervene in the proceeding. This petition was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Independent 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. 'During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On June 29, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re- port,. in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the 'complaint, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist its unfair labor practices and disestablish the Independent and the Committee of Eleven as bargaining representatives of its employees. There- after, the respondent and the Independent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On April 14 and on August 8, 1939, oral argument was had before 'the Board at Washington, D. C. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the arguments. A brief has also been "submitted by the respondent. ' . The Board has considered the exceptions 'to the Intermediate Re- port.. ,As indicated by our findings, conclusions of law, and order set COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY' 29 forth below, we sustain the exceptions to the findings of the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Cooper, Wells & Company is a Michigan corporation with its prin- cipal offices located at St. Joseph, Michigan. The respondent is also licensed to do business in the State of Alabama. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of silk hosiery. It operates two hosiery-manufacturing plants, one at St. Joseph, Michigan, and the other at Decatur, Alabama. All of the raw materials used by the respondent, including silk, cotton yarn, rayon, combination yarn, worsted, and wool yarn, are obtained and shipped to its plants from outside the States of Michigan and Alabama. The respondent ships all of the products manufactured at its Decatur plant to its St. Joseph plant for final processing operations. Approximately 93 per .cent of the finished products manufactured and processed at the re- spondent's St. Joseph plant are shipped out of the State of Michigan. The respondent employs approximately 275 employees at its Decatur plant and approximately 435 employees at its St. Joseph plant. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization affiliated at the time of the hearing with the Committee for Industrial Organization and admitting to its membership the production and maintenance employees of the respondent, excluding clerical and supervisory employees. Cooper, Wells and Company Employees' Association is an unaffili- ated labor organization admitting to membership the respondent's employees at its St. Joseph plant, excluding supervisory employees. The Independent. Organization for Collective Bargaining of the Employees of Cooper, Wells and Company of Decatur, Alabama, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership the re- spondent's employees at its Decatur plant, excluding supervisory employees, watchmen, and clerical employees. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Alleged unfair labor practices at St. Joseph, Michigan Prior to 1937 no labor organization existed at the respondent's St. Joseph plant. Early in 1937, a group of knitters at the plant formed a Knitters Club for the purpose of bettering their working 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conditions. In the latter part of March 1937, Kelsey Smith, an A. F. H. W. organizer, appeared in St. Joseph and began organizing the employees. On April 4, at a meeting of the Knitters Club, Smith urged the formation of an A. F. H. W. local. Within a few weeks 25 employees had signed applications for membership. On April 25, 1937, a charter was granted to a local union and it became Branch No. 133 of the A. F. H. W. While a majority of the members of the Knitters Club favored affiliating with the A. F. H. W., there remained a militant minority of about nine employees who were opposed to it because of its affili- ation with the Committee for Industrial Organization. This mi- nority began agitation against the A. F. H. W. soon after Smith appeared on the scene. On April 27 the employees who were opposed to the A. F. H. W. circulated a petition among the employees, which read : We pledge ourselves to be loyal to Cooper, Wells & Co. and forget all union activities. While this petition was circulated in the plant during working hours, it was established that the circulation of petitions was a common occurrence in the respondent's plant. With but two -minor excep- tions,' the circulation of the petition was unmarred by any super- visory influence. In view of our discussion below, we do not consider these exceptions of such a nature as to constitute unfair labor prac- tices on the part of the respondent. On April 30 the proponents of this counter movement' secured the services of an attorney to guide them in formal matters attendant upon the formation of an independent union. Under the guidance of the attorney, a petition was drawn up designating 11 persons as the collective bargaining agents of the employees. Between April 30 and May 4 the Committee of Eleven secured the signatures of approximately 276 of the 435 employees in the plant to its petition. The. signatures were, on the whole, procured outside of the plant. On May. 5 the Committee of Eleven presented its signed petition to the respondent's officers and requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. After checking the signatures on the petition with its pay roll, the respondent granted. the -desired recognition. From the record it appears that the respondent's officers main- tained a neutral attitude toward unionization,of its-employees. In ' Alma Herman, a-woman employee, testified that her foreman asked her to talk to the employee who was 'circulating the petition. Herman al! first 'refused to do so, but later changed her mind . Herman did not sign the petition. One other woman employee, Sarah La Violette, testified that during the circulation of the petition her foreman, James Fish, asked her why she joined the A. F. H. W. and characterized all unions as a "bunch of graft." While this testimony was denied by Fish, we do not credit his denial . La Violette, 'however, also refused to sign the petition. • COOPER, WELLS- & COMPANY 31 conformity with this policy, the respondent held a meeting. of its foremen in the plant on or about April 15, 1937,' and instructed the foremen that they were to take no part in the organizational activi- ties of the employees. There is some testimony as to remarks made by foremen and subforemen indicating hostility to the A.'F. H. W. Much of this testimony is denied by the supervisors involved. We have examined this evidence and are not convinced, in the light of the entire record, that it establishes any interference of a substantial nature. While certain proponents of the Committee of Eleven' included in their arguments to employees assertions to the effect that the re- spondent proposed to close down the plant if the A. F. H. W. became organized, there is no showing in the record that the respondent sanc- tioned such utterances. On the other hand, it was established that rumors to the effect that those employees who did not join the A. F. H. W. would lose their positions were also disseminated among the workers. Upon being advised of such rumors by certain female em- ployees who requested the respondent's officers to state its position in the matter, the respondent called a meeting of its women em- ployees on April 28, 1937. At this meeting the respondent's officers denied rumors to the effect that the mill would be closed down or that the employees would be discharged for their union activities. The respondent's officers also made it clear that the union affiliation of the employees was a matter for the employees themselves to decide and that the respondent could have no voice in the matter. We are of the opinion that the evidence does not bear out the allegations of the complaint with respect to the organizational ac- tivities at St. Joseph, Michigan. It appears from the above discus- sion that the Committee of Eleven was conceived by employees who were opposed to the formation of a union affiliated with the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization. There is no showing that the respondent fostered such opposition. On the other hand, it appears that the respondent's officers sought to maintain a neutral attitude in the conflict between the rival organizations. While certain minor supervisors acted contrary to the respondent's instructions, in view of the respondent's open declaration that the employees were free to join any labor organization they desired, we are not convinced that such actions on the part of the respondent's supervisors interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.4 { By so holding we do not mean to imply that as a general rule an employer may avoid the consequences of the coercive acts of its supervisory employees merely by Instructing such supervisors to take no part in organizational activities, or by making general announcements of. neutrality to. Its employees . The question in each case is 'a matter of degree depending upon such circumstances as the status of the supervisors involved, the effect of their statements upon the employees , the steps which the employer takes to 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Committee of Eleven or con- tributed financial or other support to it and has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its St. Joseph employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. B. Alleged unfair labor practices at Decatur, Alabama 1. Alleged domination and support of the Independent The A. F. H. W. began its organizational campaign among the respondent's employees in Decatur, Alabama, in May 1937. On May 10 the Chamber of -Commerce of Decatur called a meeting of the businessmen in the community for the purpose of reviewing the labor situation in Decatur. It is evident from the record that the meeting. of the Chamber of Commerce was called for the purpose of opposing the campaign of the A. F. H. W; However, there is no showing that the respondent participated in the activities of the Chamber of Commerce. On the day following the meeting, John Patterson, a director of the Chamber of Commerce, came to the respondent's plant for the ostensible purpose of obtaining a position in the plant for a friend. A group of employees, gathered in front of the respondent's plant, suspected Patterson of furthering the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce to interfere with the right of the employees to organize. Adel Powers, who was the leader of the group, suggested that the employees go into the office and ask Patterson his purpose. Pursuant to this suggestion three employees accompanied Powers into the office.' While there is some conflict in the evidence as to what actually occurred in the office, the following pertinent facts are virtually undisputed. Powers opened the conversation by protesting the ac- tions of the Chamber of Commerce and demanded to know of the respondent's supervisors, Frank Yaney and H. M. Jones, the re- spondent's labor policy. Yaney and Jones stated that they were not in a position to express the respondent's labor policy and that under the Act their "hands were tied" so far as expressing their own opinion was concerned. The conversation continued for some time with Powers reiterating his demand that the supervisors express the 're- spondent's labor policy. Finally, Patterson intervened and suggested that the employees take the matter up with the respondent' s officers remove any impression which such statements may have created , and the respondent's known attitude . toward the unionization of its employees . Cf. Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, et al., 9 N. L. R. B . 783, 812; Matter of Goshen Rubber Manufacturing Company and 'United Rubber Workers of America, It N. L. it. B. 1346. 6 These four employees were, or later became, members of the A . F. H. W. COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY 33 in St. Joseph, Michigan. Patterson agreed to act as an intermediary for the purpose of contacting the respondent's officers. Either Pat- terson or one of the employees-the record is not clear on this point- suggested that a petition be signed by a majority of the employees indicating their desire to have the respondent's officers come to Decatur and explain its policy. While there is some testimony on the part of the employees that Patterson declared his hostility toward an out- side labor union and suggested the formation of an inside union, there is no showing that the respondent's supervisors acquiesced in or sanctioned such utterances. The supervisors repeatedly stated that their "hands were tied" so far as the expression of an opinion on labor matters was concerned. Pursuant to the suggestion, the four employees spent the rest of the day in obtaining signatures of the employees on a blank piece of paper. The employees were orally told that by signing they were indicating their desire to have the respondent's officers come to Decatur and explain its labor policy. After securing approximately 55 signatures the four employees came to Patterson's office. When they appeared at his office Patterson was conferring with the re- spondent's supervisors and several other businessmen of the com- munity. The admitted object of the conference was to discuss the general labor situation in Decatur and specifically whether Patterson had violated the Act. While the presence of the respondent's super- visors at this meeting appears somewhat suspicious, we cannot say that it establishes a violation of the Act on the part of the respondent. After the above conference Patterson saw the four employees and agreed to telephone the respondent's officers the next morning. On the next day Patterson telephoned Nicholas Lahr, the respondent's manager and vice president, and told him that the employees wanted him to come to Decatur and express the respondent's labor policy. On the following day Lahr sent a telegram to his supervisors at Decatur indicating his willingness to have an open meeting with the employees and suggested that such a meeting be arranged for May 15. On May 15 the respondent's officers, accompanied by coun- sel, appeared at a meeting of the employees. After some preliminary questions and answers respondent's counsel explained, in substance, that under the Act the employees were free to join any organization they desired. There were no anti-union utterances interspersed. After the meeting was over Quimby Sewell, an employee of the respondent, asked a Board's Field Examiner who was present at the meeting, whether it would be possible under the Act to organize an independent organization. The Field Examiner indicated that this was permissible under the Act. Sewell, together with another" em- ployee, James Belew, then conceived the plan of forming an inde- pendent union. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,, On or about May 18 Belew and Sewell consulted a local attorney who thereafter guided them in formal matters pertaining to the formation of an independent union. A petition was drawn up in which the signatories agreed to name a representative committee to conduct bargaining relations with the respondent. Beginning May 22, the two employees proceeded to secure signatures of the employees to this petition. By Jude 5, 206 of the approximately 275 employees had signed the petition. While it appears from the record that some of the signatures were procured during working hours, there is no showing of any supervisory influence. On the other hand, the record shows that the A. F. H. W. also solicited membership in the plant during working hours. On or about May 30 a group of Committee of Eleven members from St. Joseph, ostensibly on vacation for the Memorial Day holi- day, came to Decatur for the purpose of investigating rumors to the effect that the employees at Decatur were rapidly joining the A. F. H. W. When they arrived at the respondent's plant they re- quested permission of the respondent's supervisors to go through the plant and talk to the employees. This request was denied until, in response to a telegram sent the respondent's officers at St. Joseph, an answer was received stating that it was all right to allow the employees to go through the plant. The St. Joseph employees then went through the plant and made arrangements to meet with the leaders of the independent union after work. There is no showing that employees generally were solicited on behalf of an inside organization at this time. As a result of the contact made by the St. Joseph employees with the leaders of the Independent group at Decatur, the Independent took on a form somewhat similar to that of the Committee of Eleven. On or about June 3, 1937, at a meeting of the employees held off company property, 11 persons were chosen to represent the employees as a Committee of Eleven for the purposes of collective bargaining. This committee adopted a set of bylaws similar to that already in force in St. Joseph. On or about June 5 the Committee of Eleven at Decatur elected its officers and authorized its secretary and chair- man to arrange for a conference between the respondent and the committee. On June 9 a conference was held with the respondent's officers and, after checking the signatures on the above-mentioned petition with its pay roll, the respondent recognized the Independent as the bargaining agent of its employees. We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of, or contributed support to, the Independent. COOPER, WELLS & COMPANY -35 2. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion While the record reveals that a great deal of anti-union literature was distributed among the employees in the Decatur plant, there is no showing in the record that the respondent took any part in this distribution. Furthermore, it was revealed that the A. F. H. W.'s official publication, the Hosiery Worker, also was distributed to the respondent's employees in the mill. Only one incident is cited to show any discrimination on the part of the respondent"in'the distribution of the opposing types of publi- cations. W. J. Frazier, general organizer for the A. F. H. W., testified that sometime in May 1937, when he first attempted to dis- tribute copies of the Hosiery Worker in front of the respondent's plant, he was prevented from so doing by the local Chief of Police who told him that the company had complained of his actions. The Chief of Police, however, advised Frazier to go to the Mayor and secure a 'permit to distribute his literature. Acting upon this advice Frazier saw the Mayor, who simply requested Frazier not to dis- tribute the literature on company property. Frazier agreed to this limitation but later regretted his decision when he discovered that he could not reach the employees because most of them came to work in automobiles. Frazier testified that, on the other hand, when two unidentified persons distributed copies of an anti-C. I. O. publication to the employees they were specifically requested by the respondent's supervisor, Yaney, to distribute their literature at the employees' entrance. The respondent's supervisors, Yaney and Jones, both denied that they had complained to the police about Frazier's activities and Yaney denied that he had witnessed the passing out of anti-C. I. O. literature. It appears from the recordthat Frazier's testimony was somewhat colored by his espousal of the A. F. H. W.' s cause. Fur- thermore, it was admitted by Frazier that beginning in June 1937 the Hosiery Worker has been distributed to the employees at the plant entrance without hindrance. In view of all the circumstances we are not persuaded by this claim of discrimination., We find that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of • the Act. Since none ' of the allegations of unfair labor practice have been found to be supported by the record, the complaint will be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations and business of the respondent constitute a con- tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Cooper, Wells and Company Employees Association, and Independent Organization for Collective Bargaining of the Employees of Cooper, Wells and Com- pany of Decatur, Alabama, are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The respondent has not dominated or interfered with the forma- tion or administration of, or contributed financial or other support to, Cooper, Wells and Company Employees Association or Independ- ent Organization for Collective Bargaining of the Employees of Cooper, Wells and Company of Decatur, Alabama, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of ' the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that .the complaint against the respondent, Cooper, Wells & Company, St. Joseph, Michigan, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 0