New Idea, Inc.

In the Matter of NEW IDEA, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS , DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, and INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF NEW IDEA, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT Case No. C-1383.-Decided March 7, 1940 Farm Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coer- cion: maintenance of company-dominated union ; anti-union statements of super- visory employees ; questioning employees concerning union status-Company- Dominated Union: solicitation by supervisory employees, closing plant early to encourage attendance at organization meeting; participation of supervisory em- ployees in formation of ; use of company time and property by ; suggestions and support by company officials to sustain membership in ; disestablished as collective bargaining agency-Contract : with company-dominated union abrogated. Mr. William R. Consedine, for the Board. Hedges, Hoover & Tingley, of Columbus, Ohio, by Mr. H. R. Tingley and Mr. George R. Hedges, Jr., for the respondent. Cusack & Cusack, of Chicago, Ill., by Mr. John F. Cusack, for the Association. Mr. Alois J. Eberhardy, of Chicago, Ill., for the Brotherhood. Mr. J. W. Ramsey, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Paul Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M. Mr. Edward Sch eunemann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by International Association of Machin- ists, and an amended charge duly filed by the International Associa- tion of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, both affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor and hereinafter jointly referred to as the A. F. of L., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the 21 N. L. R. B., No. 27. 223 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued a complaint dated May 26, 1939, against New Idea, Inc., herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce in its Sandwich, Illinois, plant, 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. Copies of the complaint, accom- panied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the A. F. of L., and Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc:, herein called the Association. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that from August 1937 to the date of the hearing, the respondent instigated the formation of the Association, dominated and interfered with 'its administration, and contributed, financial and other support to it; (2) that,,on-or about September 28, 1938,- the respondent entered into an illegal contract with the Association, and (3) that by these and other acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in'the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On June 5, 1939, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices, and moving that the complaint be dismissed.. The motion is hereby. denied. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Sandwich, Illinois,' from July 6 to July 14, 1939, inclusive, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly designated by;the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were represented by counsel, the A. F. of L. by officials, and all, 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,a number of rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of " evidence.' The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On September 29, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent had ,engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease, and desist from these violations, and from giving any effect to its contract with the Association or any modi- fication and renewal thereof, and affirmatively disestablish and with- draw recognition from the Association. He also found that the alle- gations of, the complaint that the respondent interrogated employees concerning their union membership, urged and threatened them to refrain from becoming or remaining members- of -the-A. F. of -L., and threatened them with discrimination in wage rates if they re- NEW IDEA, INC. 225 mained members of the A. F. of L., Were not supported by evidence and recommended that they be dismissed. On November 4, 1939, the Association and the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On December 11, 1939, the Association and the respondent filed briefs with the Board. . On December 12, 1939, pursuant to notice, a hearing was "held before the-Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argu- ment. The Association, the A. F. of L., and the respondent were represented by counsel and presented argument. The Board has considered the exceptions and, save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS The respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal office in Coldwater, Ohio. It is.engaged in the manufacture and sale of farm instruments. It owns and operates two manufacturing plants located at Coldwater, Ohio, and Sandwich, Illinois, and maintains ware- houses in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The respondent employs approximately 179 employees in its Sandwich, Illinois, plant. In 1938 the respondent purchased materials for its Sandwich plant valued at $475,000, and obtained 50 per cent in value of such materials outside the State of Illinois. Its sales in 1938 totalled $675,000; and it shipped over 75 per cent in value of manufactured products to States other than Illinois. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists and Internitional'Brother- hood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers are labor organiza- tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. ' They admit to membership certain production, employees of the respondent. Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., is an un- affiliated labor organization. It , admits to membership production employees of the respondent. III. DOMINATION OF INTERFERENCE WITH, AND SUPPORT TO THE ASSOCIATION A. The sequence of events On August 19, 1937, Richard L. Sidford, foreman in charge of the stockroom, and Douglas Watt, an employee, initiated the formation 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Association. Pursuant to Sidford's suggestion they went to the office of John F. Cusack, a Chicago attorney, who supplied them with a constitution, bylaws, and application forms for the new organiza- tion. The bylaws barred supervisory employees from participation in the Association. Sidford, accordingly, withdrew from further participation therein. Watt, however, proceeded with the plan of forming the Association. Watt arranged for a general meeting of the employees to be held in the evening of August 23, at the City Hall, with Wallace E. Cock- ran, mayor of the city, presiding. During the day of August 23, Watt returned to Chicago to obtain further information from Cusack. Herbert Eldred, assistant foreman in the paint department, and Wilton Fish, an employee, accompanied him. Although Eldred and Fish returned to work upon their return to Sandwich, Watt continued preparations for the meeting. He spent some time circulating through the plant to inform employees of the meeting. He con- ferred with Harry Miller, plant superintendent, and pursuant thereto, Miller ordered the departments working overtime to close early so that the employees could attend the meeting. Edward Eagle, then foreman in charge of the punch room, who was later made general foreman in charge of production, notified each employee individually that his department would close early. Jewell Summers, an em- ployee, testified without contradiction that Wells Wilson, assistant foreman in the welding department,' stated to him, "we are having a meeting up at the City Hall, and I would like for you fellows to go up." Other testimony is in conflict as to solicitation by supervisory employees to attend the meeting : John Francis, an employee, testified that Ingvald Thorsen, assist- ant foreman, asked him if he was going to attend the meeting and stated, "We're going to organize a union of our own here to keep out the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. because we don't want any trouble out here." William Meilinger testified that his foreman, Ernest Todd, told him, "You had better go and join their organization. We don't want to see the C. I. O. or the A. F. L. come in here and give us a lot of trouble." Bruce Hawkins testified that Frank Webber, the yard foreman, told him, "We are going to have a meeting at the City Hall tonight to form an independent union of our own. I want all my men to be there because we want this union to keep out other organizations, and I want all the men there if possible." ' Persons designated foreman and assistant foreman with the exception of Wilson throughout this decision are those so designated by the respondent on a list read into the record by Aloys Mueller, general manager. The testimony clearly shows that Wilson was an assistant foreman and General Foreman Edward Eagle admitted that Wilson was his assistant for 4 years. NEW IDEA, INC. 227 Clifford Reinhart testified that Foreman Edward Eagle asked him of he was going to attend the meeting and when he replied that he was not, Eagle said, "You had better go and find out what it is about," that an "independent" union was to be formed to avoid the trouble with the C. I. 0. and the A. F. of L. Ralph Kaufman also testified that Eagle told him, "I would like to have you go to that [the meeting]. The purpose is to keep out the C. I. 0. and the A. F. of L.," and that when he asked, "Do you have to go?" Eagle replied, "Yes, you had better go." The named supervisory employees denied having made the statements attributed to them. Under the circumstances presented here, we credit the above-men- tioned testimony and reject the denials. The Trial Examiner, who had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, found that the foremen and assistant foremen made these statements. By closing departments early to facilitate attendance at the meeting, Superintendent Miller made clear his support of the meeting. Ac- cordingly, the fair inference is, and we find, that his supervisory employees in substance made the above-mentioned statements further to encourage attendance at the meeting. The meeting was held as scheduled. Mayor Cockran had asked Miller not to permit foremen and assistant foremen to be present at the meeting. Miller stationed himself outside the City Hall and asked Earl Walker, assistant foreman, not to enter the meeting hall. Walker testified, and Miller denied, that Miller on this occasion told him that "he would like to see the boys organize into a home union and keep the outside unions all out." In view of the Trial Examiner's finding crediting Walker, the presence of Miller outside the meeting hall, and the other circumstances in this case, we reject his denial, and find that he, in substance, made the statement attrib- uted to him. Assistant Foremen Eldred and Thorsen attended the meeting and occupied prominent positions, sitting at a table facing the assembled employees. In substance the meeting consisted of a speech by Mayor Cockran, in which he praised "inside organization" and decried "outside organizers who disorganize the smooth-running program you now have." At the close of the speech, all of_ the employees present signed application cards for membership in the Association. Assistant Foremen Eldred and Thorsen participated in the procuring of these signatures. Pursuant to an arrangement made at this meeting of August 23, the Association held a second meeting at the hall of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, on September 9, to complete its organization. Mayor Cockran presided again. The constitution and bylaws were revised somewhat and adopted. Monthly meetings were provided for. Watt was elected president and Eldred was elected secretary. 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On September 21, 1937, the Association demanded recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative. One Kirk, then general manager of the respondent, checked the Association's cards against the pay roll. On September 28, 1937, the respondent signed a notice granting the Association exclusive recognition. Two days later copies of the notice were posted throughout the plant. The Association made no other substantial efforts to obtain collective bargaining con- cessions until some 6 months later. The Association frequently carried on its activities on the respond- ent's time and property. It solicited new employees and collected dues at the plant before, during, and after working hours, without regard to the presence or absence of supervisory employees. Mem- bers of the Association conducted two elections in the plant for departmental representatives in the Association, one during the noon hour, and one during working hours when a temporary lull in opera- tions occurred. In January 1938 Harry Erwin was elected president of the Associa- tion to succeed Watt. He pledged himself that the Association would "get out and fight for the boys." On February 23, 1938, the Association drew up certain proposed bylaws. Some of these dealt with terms of employment, which were proper subjects for collective bargaining. The following-day, Super- intendent Miller admittedly called Erwin into his office and interro- gated him with respect to a meeting the night before "because he wanted to know what happened at the meeting, how they were pro- gressing, how things were going on." He also admitted that "from time to time" he called Erwin in to "find out how things were going on." Erwin testified and Miller denied that Miller also stated that he, personally, was opposed to any organization but that he -was forced to cooperate with the Association since Henry Synck, president of the respondent, and stationed at Coldwater, "wanted" the Associa- tion. In view of Miller's above-mentioned admissions and the other circumstances in the case, we find that Miller in substance made the statement Erwin attributed to him.2 On March 21, 1938, the Association submitted its proposed bylaws, some of which, as we have noted, were proper items for collective bargaining, to Synck, president of the respondent, "for approva].' Erwin also wrote to Synck at Coldwater that the Association was re- ceiving no cooperation from the respondent and that members were refusing to pay dues until "such time that they are assured that their organization is to be respected and considered as a collective bargaining 2 There is a further conflict in the testimony as to whether Miller accused Eiwln and his cuppot.eis of being in the minority in the Association We need not resolve this conflict. NEW IDEA, INC. 229, association." Synck replied on March 29, 1939, suggesting that "in view of the by-laws the Association might prefer some sort of a con tract," and suggesting also that "the Association might be interested in a group insurance plan among its members." On April 26, 1938, Synck wrote again to Erwin suggesting group insurance and stated : It would give them [the members] some protection that they wouldn't have and it would give them some advantages that they would not have unless they belonged to that Union [i. e. the Association]. Of course, as you understand, we, as employers, cannot really give you much of any information along these lines as we would not want the Labor Board to construe our good intentions in a wrong light. About August 26, 1938, Aloys Mueller, general manager succeeding Kirk, submitted to the Association a contract which had been for- warded to him from Synck. On August 30, 1938, Erwin sent a telegram to Synck again com- plaining of lack of cooperation and warning him that some members of the Association were considering membership in other, national, labor organizations. On August 31, •1938, Synck replied in part : Your letter does not say anything regarding the reception of the contract that we sent up, by the members. This contract was worked out very carefully by us and the Coldwater union and their respective attorneys and I believe it embodies every- thing that is fair between the two parties and puts no undue hardships on either . . . Our Coldwater Union is functioning very nicely and there is no reason why the same cannot be done in Sandwich . . . On September 16, 1938, the Association submitted the proposed con- tract to its members. Thereafter, the parties held a short conference in regard to it and it was executed by them on September 28, 1938. The contract as executed was in substance no different from the one volunteered by the respondent. It provided, inter alia, for exclusive recognition of the Association, methods of arbitrating grievances, maintenance of existing wage rates, and a list of five factors, of which seniority was the last, to govern retention of employees, lay-offs, and rehiring: As indicated above, members of the Association had previously shown dissatisfaction with it. Their dissatisfaction was not allayed' by respondent's suggestions of a group-insurance plan tied up with membership in the Association and the contract. On February 3, 1939, the membership of the Association resolved to-invite A. F. of L. representatives to speak at a subsequent meeting of the Association and not to continue with the Association. At. subsequent meetings 2S3032-41-vol. 21-16 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,of the Association held on February 10, 20, and 24, 1939, A. F. of, L. representatives were present. On February 20, 1939, Erwin became a member of the A. F. of L., and the record discloses that other members of the Association also joined the A. F. of L. at or about the same time. There is no evidence, however, that the Association dissolved. An attorney has appeared in this proceeding on behalf of the Association. Francis testified that he had the following conversation with Emanuel Sandoval, assistant foreman in the forge department in April 1939: [Sandoval] said "I understand the men are having a little trouble with the union [i. e. the Association]" I said "Yes, they are. Some of them are even contemplating calling in an outside organization because they are dissatisfied with the present set-up." He says, "Well, the A. F. of L. may be all right or any other organization may be all right, but I think that the company has treated the men pretty good here and, in order to avoid any trouble, they ought to stick." 'Sandoval was not called as a witness and the foregoing is not denied. We find that the conversation occurred substantially as set out. B. Concluding findings We find that the foremen and assistant foremen in supporting the Association as set forth above were acting -for the respondent. We predicate : this, finding on the following : They possessed distinct supervisory responsibilities, such as laying out- and directing work, 'and transmitting orders to employees. The respondent designated them as "foremen" and "assistant foremen," respectively, and they were regarded by the employees as overseers and representatives of management.' Foremen are in complete charge of their departments. Assistant foremen transmit orders to the employees and report back to the foremen. In the absence of the foremen, assistant foremen are in complete charge of the various departments. Miller's instruction to Walker not to attend the meeting of August 23 because he was an assistant foreman and Miller's presence outside the meeting hall to keep foremen and assistant foremen away from the meeting constitute an admission that such supervisory employees do represent manage- ment. Finally, the support given by the supervisory employees to the s The Association recognized that the foremen and assistant foremen acted on behalf of the management and not as ordinary employees Thus, watt advised Sidford that he should not participate in the Association because he was a foreman. Sidford withdrew, and Cochrane, for the Association, advised Miller to keep foremen and assistant foremen from the organization meeting. NEW IDEA, INC. 231 Association was in line with the respondent's policy, as revealed by the closing of departments to enable employees to attend the organiza- tional meeting on August 23, and by Miller's statement that Synck "wanted" the Association. We are convinced that the respondent sponsored the formation of the Association. The respondent's motive was to forestall the forma- tion of an outside organization. Thus the foremen and assistant foremen in telling the employees to attend the August 23 meeting informed them that the Association was "wanted" to keep out the A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0. Foreman Sidford was one of the,two persons who initiated the Association. He traveled with the other, Watt, to Chicago to confer with an attorney about forming the Association. An assistant foreman accompanied Watt on a similar trip. Departments shut down so that employees could be present at the crucial meeting of August 23. Watt notified them of the meeting during working hours and on company property, and management representatives told them to attend. At the meeting two assistant foremen participated in the procuring of signatures and one of these was elected secretary. Subsequent to the formation of the Association, the respondent allowed his activities to be conducted on company time and property, interfered, through Miller, with its internal organization by interro- gation of Erwin, and, through Synck, volunteered suggestions that the Association might sustain its membership. Sandoval's statement set out above further indicates respondent's continuing support. Synck "wanted" the Association because he intended it as a barrier to outside organization. Although it may not have served its pur- pose completely, its continued existence and its contract constitute present obstacles to genuine self-organization because the respondent sponsored the Association in contravention of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and contributed sup- port thereto and by such acts, by the contract with the-Association, and by other statements and activities set out above, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees' in the exercise of rights 'guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD States, and - tend- to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY 11 Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist. therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent dominated , interfered with the formation and administration of the Association, and contributed support to it. Its continued existence is a consequence of violation of the Act, thwarting the purposes of the Act. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and to free the employees of the . respondent from such domination and interference , and the effects thereof, which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Association as it representative of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment, and to disestablish the Association as such representative. Since the agreement between the respondent and the Association embodies recognition of the Association as exclusive representative, and represents the fruits of respondent's unfair labor practices and a device to perpetuate their effects, we shall order the respondent: specifically to cease and desist giving effect to this or any other agree- ment it may have entered into with the Association in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, or other conditions of work. The evidence does not support the allegation of the complaint that the respondent threatened to withhold pay checks unless, and prom -ised work if, the employes abandoned their union afiliations. We shall dismiss this allegation. - Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Association of Machinists and International, Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, both affili- <ted with the American Federation of Labor, and Independent Em- ployees Association of New Idea, Inc., are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., and by contributing 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. NhW IDEA, INC.' - 233 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 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 respondent, New Idea, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra- tion of Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., or the formation and administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing any support to Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., or to any other labor organization of its employees ; (b) Recognizing the Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., as the representative of any of the employees for the pur- pose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any term or condition of employment; (c) Giving effect to any agreement with the Independent Em- ployees Association of New Idea, Inc., in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment ; (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 Section 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 all recognition from Independent Employees Asso- ciation of New Idea, Inc., as the 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 condi- tions of employment, and completely disestablish Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., as such representative; (b) Post immediately and in conspicuous places in each department of respondent's plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD consecutive days from the date of posting, notices stating : (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as provided in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent threatened to withhold pay checks unless, and promised work if, the employees abandoned their union affiliations, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.