J. Greenebaum Tanning Co.

In the Matter of J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 29 (C. I. 0.) Case No. C-1339.Decided July 19, 1940 Jurisdiction : tanning industry. Unfair Labor Practices In general: responsibility of employer for acts of supervisory employee without authority to hire or discharge. Company-Dominated Union: formation after validation of Act of successor organ- izations similar in structure to predecessor organizations; failure of employer to sever its relationship with the successor organizations ; participation in formation of: soliciting members ; contribution of support to : furnishing office facilities ; meeting place; bulletin board ; permitting activity on company time ; assistance in connection with picnic; recognition of, without proof of authority. Arrangement conjoining check-off of union dues and group insurance premiums on same authorization card held support to inside union. Where union is allowed to administer group insurance benefits on policies in part paid for by respondent, held support. Discrimination: charges of, dismissed. Remedial Orders: disestablishment of company-dominated unions; abrogation of contracts; reimbursement of dues checked off. Mr. Frederick P. Mett and Mr. Morris L. Forer, for the Board. Lam from, Tighe, Engelhard di Peck, of Milwaukee, Wis., by Messrs. Leon B. Lwnfrem, 'E. W. Peck, and Albert C. Heller, for the respondent. Mr. Florian W. Kern, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the T. E. B. A. Mr. N. Paley Phillips, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the I. T. W. A. Mr. Max E. Geline, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Levine cQ Schlesinger of Washington, D. C., by Mr. Sidney C. Schlesinger, for Local 29. Mr. Edward Scheunemann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Shoe Workers of America, Local 29, herein called Local' 29, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di- rector for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued its complaint dated March 22, 1939, its amendments to the complaint dated 25 N. L. R. B, No. 75. 672 J. GREEI\TEBAUM TANNING CO. 673 March 29, 1939, and its amended complaint dated May 18, 1939, against J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent, Local 29, Independent Tannery Workers of America, herein called the I. T. W. A., and Tannery Em- ployees Benefit Association, herein called the T. E. B. A. Copies of the amendments to the complaint and of the amended complaint were served upon all parties at the hearing. All parties waived further notice. The amended complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent: (1) in its Plant No. 2, dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to the formation and administration of Employees Benefit Association of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, herein called the E. B. A., and its successor the T. E. B. A.; (2) in its Plant No. 3, dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association, herein called the U. W. M. B. A., and its successor the I. T. W. A.; (3) terminated the employment of LeRoy Schulz because he joined and assisted Local 29 and opposed the I. T. W. A.; and (4) by these and other acts, interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 27, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the answer would be deemed to deny also that the respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the amended complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from March 30 to May 5, 1939, inclusive, before Gustaf B. Erickson,' the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. On April 3, 1939, the Regional Director granted a motion filed by the T. E. B. A. for permission to intervene. During the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the I. T. W. A. permission to intervene. The Board, the respondent, Local 29, the I. T. W. A., and the T. E. B. A. 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. On April 20, 1939, when the Board rested its case, the Trial Examiner granted the respondent's motion for a continuance to April 24, 1939. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number of other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On August 2, 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 affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from these violations, disestablish and withdraw recognition from the T. E. B. A. and the I. T. W. A ., reimburse its employees for dues checked off from their wages for the E . B. A., the T. E. B. A., the U. W. M. B. A., and the I. T. W. A., and reinstate LeRoy Schulz with back pay. On August 23, 1939, the respondent , and on August 29, 1939, the T. E. B. A. and the I. T. W. A., respectively, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On November 1, 1939, the respondent filed amended exceptions , and a brief. On March 12 , 1940, pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before the Board in Washington , D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent - and Local 29 appeared by counsel , but only the respondent presented argument. The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs , and, save as the exceptions 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 Illinois corporation with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It owns and operates tan- neries in Chicago and Milwaukee, and a sales agency in Massachusetts. This proceeding involves only the Milwaukee plants, known respec- tively as Plant No. 2 and Plant No. 3. The respondent employs an average of 515 employees in Plant No . 2, and 293 employees in Plant No. 3. The respondent purchases annually materials valued at more than $1.268,035 for use in Plant No. 2, and it obtains approximately 91 per cent in value of such materials outside the State of Wisconsin. It manufactures annually in Plant No. 2 products valued in excess of $2,202,397, and it ships approximately 77 per cent in value of such products to States other than Wisconsin. The respondent purchases annually materials valued at more than $587,418 for use in Plant No. 3, and it obtains approximately 88 per cent in value of such materials from outside the State of Wisconsin. J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 675 It manufactures annually in Plant No. 3 products valued in excess of $1,206,863, and it ships approximately 83 per cent in value of such products to States other than Wisconsin. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Shoe Workers of America, Local 29, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. Employees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Company, Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association, and Independent Tannery Workers of America are unaffiliated labor organizations. They admit to mem- bership employees of the respondent. .III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Plant No. 2 1. The E. B. A. In January and February 1934 the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., began to organize the employees of the respondent. On or about February 27, 1934, Edward Deicrich, an employee known as a shaver, undertook to form the E. B. A. He circulated among the employees a petition, addressed to the respondent, calling attention to the fact that the National Industrial Recovery Act, herein called the N. I. R. A., gave employees the right to choose their own representatives for collective bargaining, and advising the respondent that the undersigned employees did not believe in "outside" repre- sentation. The petition requested that the respondent grant the peti- tioners permission to solicit votes in the plant for bargaining repre- sentatives, and furnish them with a meeting room in the respondent's premises. Deidrich obtained 15 or 16 signatures to the petition and submitted it to Lewis J. Greenebaum, vice president of the respondent and manager of Plant No. 2. On March 1, 1934, Greenebaum notified Deidrich that the requests contained in the petition had been granted, and that a small room in the plant would be made available for the use of the petitioners.' On or about March 8 and 22, 1934, pursuant to permission granted by the respondent, Deidrich conducted meetings of all the employees on the fourth floor of the plant during the noon hour in order to 1 The room , which was separated from the superintendent's office only by a glass parti- tion, was used thereafter by the E. B. A as its office. In 1935 the respondent granted the E. B A. the use of another room further removed from the superintendent's office 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD explain the proposed organization to them. He advertised the -meet- ings by notices posted on the respondent's bulletin boards. The respondent, at Deidrich's request, furnished a stenographer to record his speech at the first meeting. At both meetings, Deidrich circulated petitions, which read : "We want inside representation in all our labor and wage disputes. We hereby make application to become members of E. B. A." He obtained approximately 400 signatures by circu- lating the petitions in the plant at these meetings and on other occasions. Shortly after the second meeting Deidrich consulted with Attorney Florian Kern in respect to completing the organization in order, as he expressed it in his "biography," 2 "to safeguard against an invasion of radicals in our plant." He referred thereby to the organization campaign then being conducted by the A. F. of L. Early in April Deidrich conducted a third meeting of the employees, by permission of the respondent, in the splitting room during the noon hour. Pursuant to Greenebaum's permission, Kern attended and addressed this meeting. The employees present then voted to form the E. B. A. On April 24, 1934, after two short conferences, the respondent and the E. B. A. entered into a contract. By its terms the respondent in substance agreed to bargain with the E. B. A., to allow the E. B. A. Shop Committee to inspect the factory, and to give the Shop Chairman access to any department; and the E. B. A. recognized that the power to discharge employees rested with the management. The parties agreed further that there should be no "stoppages of work" and that "matters in dispute" should be submitted to arbitrators, who had power to hear appeals and to interpret and apply the terms of the agreement. The contract contained no other terms with respect to wages, hours, or conditions of employment. On or about April 30, 1934,3 Deidrich conducted a fourth meeting of the employees, again held in the splitting room during the noon hour. The employees present elected Deidrich as Shop Chairman of the new organization. They also adopted a form of application for membership ,4 Articles of Association, and bylaws. Kern had previ- 2 Deidrich 's "biography" is a record of his activities on behalf of the E B. A, which he wrote shortly after the formation of the E B A 3 The record does not establish the date of this meeting precisely . Deidrich 's "biography" lists the date as "4/30/34." The "4" is crossed out and the number "3" is inserted In pencil It is clear, however , from his testimony concerning the chronology of the meetings, and from the substance of his "biography," that the meeting was held on or about April 30, 1934 It should be noted that in other instances the dates listed in the biography are inaccurate. 4 The application pledges the applicant to observe the "constitution and bylaws," au- thorizes the respondent to check off dues from the pay check of the applicant, and binds him to submit "differences" to the Shop Committee and Supreme Council. It is identical with the application set out in Matter of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co . and National Leather J. GREENEBAUNI TANNING CO. 677 ously drafted these documents. The Articles of Association provided for a Supreme Council composed of four persons elected by the mem- bership,5 and a Shop Committee composed of representatives from each department in the plant. They also provided,, as did the contract previously entered into, that the chairman of the Shop Committee 6 was to have access to any department in the plant. Thereafter, the respondent appointed Deidrich inspector in the shaving department, and allowed him to divide his time equally between his duties as chairman of the E. B. A. Shop Committee and his duties as an inspec- tor for the respondent. The respondent kept records of the time spent by Deidrich in performing both jobs, but paid him only for the time he worked as an inspector. During the time he worked for the E. B. A., the respondent allowed him complete freedom to move about the plant.? Deidrich testified that some supervisory employees were undoubt- edly present at this and the other meetings since the meetings were held on the open floor and he "had no power to keep them away." Only a few supervisory employees denied that they were present at these meetings. We find that supervisory employees attended these meetings of the E. B. A. Peter Kimmel was the first president of the E. B. A. The record does not disclose how or when he was elected, but the E. B. A. minute books show that he acted as president at least from May 25, 1934, to December 1936. He was classified by the respondent as a sorter, and is the oldest employee in his department. Although he does not have power to hire or discharge, he gives instructions to the head splitters and to the inspectors of the shaving machines. He deter- mines the quality and type of leather that should be processed on the setting machines, and transmits orders from Greenebaum or Frank Reilly, plant superintendent, to the foremen of the other departments. He has power to reprimand Deidrich, Frank Holton, Harry Miller, and other inspectors, and to send helpers home when work is slack or to transfer them to other jobs. He has a call bell connected directly with the office, he signs requisitions for tools from employees in the Workers Ass'n, 11 N. L R B 300, enf'd as mod., National Labor Relations Board V. J. Greenebamn Tanning Co., 110 F. ( 2d) 984 ( C. C. A. 7 ), involving the respondent's Chicago plant. 6 The Supreme Council was "under a duty to call into their meetings four (4) members of the management to discuss with them any problem winch may arise or may have been submitted to it by the Shop Committee " E Section 4 (a) of Article 4 provided that, "The chairman of the Shop Committee shall not during the term of his service be employed by said company or ieceive any compensa- tion from said company when said position is on a full -time basis . However, when said position is on a part -time basis be may be employed by said company and be shall be compensated as beieinafter provided in the bylaws, and upon former position with said company " 4 Later, in November 1934, after the E B A. became inactive , as noted below, the respondent again changed Deidrich 's duties and made him an inspector stationed directly behind the shavers. 2S3030-42-vol 25-44' 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD splitting and shaving departments, aiid distributes pay checks on pay day to 45 other employees in the department. He is paid on a weekly basis, whereas the other employees in the department are paid on an hourly or piece-work basis. After the N. I. R. A. went into effect, his time card carried the designation "supervisor." We find that he is a supervisory employee and that he represents the respondent.8 Shortly after the formation, of the E. B. A., the respondent at the request of the E. B. A. took out a group health and accident insurance policy for the benefit of employees who desired to be covered by it. The respondent, pursuant to the E. B. A.'s request, agreed to pay half of the premium. The other half was to be borne by the employees insured under the policy. The group policy was used as a device for promoting the E. B. A. Thus a booklet, in respect to the policy, printed by the insurance company and distributed to the employees contained a letter from the respondent to its employees reading in part as follows : In answer to a request from some of our employees and in cooperation with the Employees Benefit Association of J. Green- baum Tanning Company, Plant No. 2, the following Group Sick- ness and Accident Insurance Plan has been arranged. . . . Our hope is that every eligible employee will take immediate advantage of this splendid opportunity. The E. B. A. and the insurance company printed the following authorization blanks : I, the undersigned being a member of the Employees Benefit Association of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, authorize the company to deduct from my weekly pay check Insur- ance for Health and Accident and an additional 5 cents dues in the Association. It is understood that the 5 cents dues will be turned over to the Treasurer of the Association. The respondent, after once refusing the E. B. A.'s request for a check- off of dues, later agreed to, and did, check off the stated sums from the wages of employees who signed these double-barrelled authoriza- tion cards. The respondent also administered the policy in close asso- ciation with the E. B. A. Don Schaber, Jr., secretary of the E. B. A., maintained in the E. B. A. office in the plant, records of check-off authorizations, insurance claims, and benefit payments. Schaber fur- nished to the respondent records upon which the respondent paid out insurance benefits. Foremen, not eligible for membership in the E. B. A., often secured their insurance through the E. B. A; Schaber BInt'l Ass'n of Machinists, et al v National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d) 29 (C C. A, D C.), cert . granted, 60 S Ct. 721 , enf'g Matter of The Rerrich Coropration and Int'l Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 459, 8 N L. R . B. 621. J. GREENEBAUI/ TANNING CO. 679 kept their insurance records as well as those of other non-member employees. The respondent canceled the original group policy in 1936, and obtained another from a different company, at Schaber's request. The E. B. A. solicited employees to come within the group policy. The intimate relationship between the respondent and the E. B. A. in respect to the group policy is further revealed by the fact that many of the employees believed that participation in the insur- ance scheme hinged. on membership in the E. B. A. The respondent took no effective means to advise the employees otherwise until April 16, 1937, when it posted a notice informing the employees that the insurance was available to all employees. In May 1934 the E. B. A. began making loans to its members. The respondent agreed to check off from the earnings due E. B. A. mem- bers, payments on the loans made by the E. B. A. to them. The records of loans and payments made were kept by the respondent during the borrower's employment with the respondent. The E. B. A. kept no independent records of such transactions, relying instead on those of the respondent. On or about May 24, 1934, the E. B. A. requested a loan of $400 from the respondent to enable it to pay its attorney's fees. The re- spondent granted the loan. The E. B. A. repaid it in two installments, on January 4, 1935, and August 22, 1935. During the summer of-1934 the E. B. A. requested that the respond- ent furnish a picnic for its employees. The respondent granted the request and 'furnished transportation and benches. The picnic was open to all employees, but the officials in charge were all members of E. B. A. and the posters announcing it were signed by the E. B. A. In September 1934 the E. B. A. was practically disrupted by a strike called by the A. F. of L. It held no meetings, and the respondent in December 1934, discontinued the check-off of E. B. A. dues. Deidrich obtained an increase in wage rates for some employees after the strike, but did so without authorization from the E. B. A. In December 1934 the E. B. A. again became active. Nelson Van Luven, an inspector, was elected Shop Chairman succeeding Deidrich. Peter Kimmel was reelected president of the Supreme Council. The respondent resumed the check-off of dues and loans on January 5, 1935, and continued such check-off until July 3, 1937. There was no change in respondent's relations with the E. B. A. after July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act. Kimmel and Van Luven continued as its two most important officers. In April or May 1936 the E. B. A. began a monthly shop newspaper called the E. B. A. Viewpoint. It carried shop news, sporting items, announcements of picnics and social affairs, and occasional- items soliciting'su pport for the E. B. A. as opposed to the "two large affiliated 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organizations." It was frequently distributed in the watchman's shanty on the respondent's property. The E. B. A. Viewpoint was edited by Don Schaber, secretary of the E. B. A. Kimmel and Addison Silverthorn, foreman of the finishing department, were members of the editorial staff, and their names appeared on the,masthead. During the summer of 1936 the E. B. A. held another picnic. The respondent furnished transportation again for the employees. The picnic was open to all employees, but the E. B. A. Viewpoint and the bulletin boards of the plant advertised it as the "E. B. A. picnic." The August 1936 issue of the E. B. A. Viewpoint carried an expression of the E. B. A.'s gratitude to the respondent for its aid in connection with the picnic. The respondent made no attempt to differentiate its support of the picnic from support of the E. B. A. In the annual election of December 1936, conducted in the plant, Deidrich was elected chairman of the Shop Committee, and George Schulz, an employee, was elected to succeed Kimmel as president of the Supreme Council. In January 1937 Local 29 began a campaign to organize the respond- ent's employees. It approached them by the use of sound trucks sta- tioned outside the plant, and by the distribution of handbills and literature announcing mass meetings. At the April 29, 1937, meeting of the E. B. A., shortly after the Supreme Court decisions affirming the constitutionality of the Act, Kern was instructed to see that the E. B. A. bylaws and Articles of Association conformed to the "labor laws." A motion was also made that the E. B. A. apply to the State Labor Board and to the National Labor Relations Board to be listed as an independent labor organiza- tion, but no such action was taken. Kern reported back at the next meeting that the E. B. A. conformed to the "labor laws." When the Supreme Court decisions were made clear to Deidrich, however, he decided that the.E. B. A. "did reek a little of company assistance" and resolved to reorganize it. At about the same time, the respondent informed Deidrich, through Frank Reilly, superintendent of Plant No. 2, that "every iota pertaining to the E. B. A." would have to be removed from the plant, and that the respondent would no longer allow the use of the plant for E. B. A. meetings. 2. The T. E. B. A. Deidrich called a meeting at a place known as Listwan's Hall for May 6, 1937, to inform the members of the E. B. A. of his desire to reorganize the inside organization. He testified that at the meeting : I believe I asked the Association and told them of my deciding to change from E. B. A. to the T. E. B. A, because the E. B. A. J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 681 was "of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Co.," so the Tannery Em- ployees Benefit Association was all that was put on the second. Q. And if you got that change of name, it would be all right, wouldn't it? A. Well, I do feel, that after knowing, then I felt that it reeked a little of company domination, and to sever ourselves I conceived the idea that I would make it open for other tannery employees to enter if they so desired. Deidrich obtained consent at this meeting to proceed with the formation of the T. E. B. A. The first meeting of the T. E. B. A. was held on June 5, 1937. The minutes recite that Articles of Organization, prepared by Kern, were adopted, that a motion was made and carried that the Shop Com- mittee of the E. B. A. should become the Board of Directors of the T. E. B. A., and that application cards for membership in the T. E. B. A. were signed. The Articles of Organization, referred to, changed the name of the organization to Tannery Employees Benefit Association and expanded the eligibility rules so that employees of any tannery could become members thereof: No members were ever obtained from other tan- neries. With the exception of the above-mentioned changes the Ar- ticles of Organization are substantially the same as the E. B. A. Articles of Association. The T. E. B. A. functioned exactly as had the E. B. A. On June 10, 1937, the Board of Directors met and elected the members of the Supreme Council of the E. B. A. as the officers of the T. E. B. A. Lorraine Reimer, secretary of the T. E. B. A., continued the clerical work of administering the group insurance. The check-off of dues, which, as we have noted, was begun for the E. B. A., continued after the T. E. B. A. was formed, until July 3,1937, when it was discontinued by the respondent. The E. B. A. Viewpoint continued until September 1937, with the same editorial staff under the name of T. E: B. A. View- point. The T. E. B. A., as had the E. B. A, used company bulletin boards, and solicited membership and dues and distributed copies of the organization newspaper on company property. The E. B. A. had $414.68 in its treasury upon the formation of the T. E. B. A. With this money the T. E. B. A. financed a picnic, held on August 17, 1937. The respondent, by request of the T. E. B. A., paid for the transportation of employees to the picnic. All members of the old E. B. A. received 10 free tickets which were good for beer and refreshments. Other employees were required to buy their re- freshments. What remained of the money in the treasury of the E. B. A. after the picnic, was transferred to the T. E. B. A. The E. B. A. officers continued in control of the T. E. B. A. The T. E. B. A. 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD used minute and account books of the E. B. A. and received payments on loans made by the E. B. A. On July 6, 1937, 1 month after the T. E. B. A. had been formed, it entered into an exclusive bargaining contract with the respondent covering the employees in Plant No. 2. The testimony is in conflict as to how much proof the respondent required that the T. E. B. A. represented a majority of-the employees. Lorraine Reimer, the sec- retary, testified that the membership cards were never out of her possession and that she had not submitted them to the respondent. She later testified that "it was possible" Deidrich submitted the cards to the respondent without her knowledge. Deidrich testified that he showed the cards to Arthur Duwe, clerk of the respondent, in Greenebaum's presence, but that he would allow Duwe only to shuffle through the cards without looking at any names.' The T. E. B. A. at about this time had only 129 paid-up members. The record does not disclose other designations of the T. E. B. A. The average number of employees in the plant was 515. We find that the respondent entered into the exclusive bargaining contract with little or no proof that the T. E. B. A. represented a majority of the employees. Kern prepared the contract from a synopsis given him by Deidrich. Thereafter it was discussed at several committee meetings, held during the noon hour, at which not more than 5 or 6 committeemen out of the 19 elected were present. The membership was never given an opportunity to make suggestions or to approve the provisions of the contract 10 Christ Schmidt, an employee, testified that in the spring of 1937 Christ Trieber, foreman of the hide house, summoned him to the fore- man's desk, that a number of T. E. B. A. application cards lay on the desk, and that Trieber requested him to sign one. William Starkell, an employee, testified that Trieber also solicited him to join the T. E. B. A. Trieber denied both incidents, and further denied that he had ever heard of either the E. B. A. or the T. E. B. A. Since Schmidt and Starkell gave credible and mutually corroborative testimony, and since E. B. A. and T. E. B. A. activities had.been carried on so freely about the plant that they could not have escaped Trieber's attention, we do not credit his denial. We find that Trieber solicited membership in the T. E. B. A. substantially as described by Schmidt and Starkell. Martin Taussan, an employee, testified that in August 1937, Marcus Cesarec, foreman of the beam house, told him during working hours to "go see Ludwig" Cesarec, his brother, who was standing by Marcus' ° In the light of the testimony of the T. E B A. representatives showing that at best the respondent made only a cursory examination of the membership cards, we do not credit Duwe's testimony that he checked the names on the cards against the respondent's pay roll. 10 Cf. Matter of J. Greenebauin Tanning Co . and National Leather Workers Ass'n, supra, footnote 4. J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 683 desk in the beam house; and that when he did, Ludwig ordered him to sign one of the T. E. B. A. membership cards, winch were lying on the desk. Although Marcus denied generally that he had discussed unions with anyone or that he ever kept T. E. B. A. application cards on his desk, he did not deny, specifically the events related by Taussan. Ludwig Cesarec admitted soliciting Taussan's membership, and also admitted that' he kept application cards on Marcus' desk during the noon hour. We find that Marcus cooperated with Ludwig in soliciting Taussan's membership. William Marquardt, a witness called by the respondent, testified, and we find, that Peter Kimmel, a supervisor and president of the E. B. A., asked him to become a member both of the E. B. A. and the T. E. B. A. His testimony is undenied. On or about March 22, 1938, Local 29 requested the respondent to grant it bargaining rights. Nathan Garfield, the organizer, told Reilly and Greenebaum that Local 29 represented' 250 employees. Leon Lam- from, attorney for the respondent, requested that the Union furnish "proof of a majority sufficient to convince them." Garfield replied that the membership cards were in the possession of the national organiza- tion, with which Local 29 was affiliated, but that he would be willing to submit them to a representative of the National Labor Relations Board to substantiate Local 29's claim-of a majority. Lamfrom volunteered, instead, to make a personal investigation to determine whether Local 29 represented a majority. He called Duwe and Reilly, clerk and super- intendent of the respondent respectively, into his office and asked them whether Local 29 had a majority of the employees. They told him "they didn't think so," and he thereupon informed Local 29 that its bargaining request was denied: The T. E. B. A. has held no general membership meetings since its organization. Monthly meetings of the Board of Directors have been held in taverns close to the gates of the respondent. All employees may attend the meetings of the Board of Directors, but no more than 10 em- ployees, aside from members of the Board of Directors, have ever attended and few members of that Board attended regularly. Sub- stantially all the activities of the T. E. B. A. in its relations with the respondent have been handled by Deidrich alone without the advice or knowledge of the general membership of the T. E. B. A.11 The T. E. B. A. discontinued dues payments entirely because interest in the organization had waned, and because insufficient dues were received to continue benefit payments which the T. E. B. A. had begun to' pay shortly after its formation. n Cf. Matter of J. G-reenebauna Tanning Co. and National Leather Workers Ass'n, supra, footnote 4. 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Concluding findings The E. B. A. was formed in February 1934, shortly after the com- mencement of, and in opposition to, the A. F. of L. campaign. The respondent immediately came to the assistance of the inside organiza- tion by granting a petition that it might solicit memberships and con- duct meetings, on company property. The respondent engaged in further support of, and interference with, the E. B. A. by lending it the services of a stenographer; arranging for Deidrich to work only half a day for the respondent so that he could devote the remaining half to the E. B. A.; authorizing Kern to speak at an E. B. A. meeting on com- pany property; loaning money to the E. B. A.; assisting it in connection with picnics; helping it to maintain loan records; permitting the use of company property 12; and participating, through supervisory employ- ees, in E. B. A. activity, including presidency of the E. B. A., member- ship on the editorial board of the E. B. A. publication, and attendance at E. B. A. meetings. The respondent acquiesced in a check-off ar- rangement which conjoined affiliation with the E. B. A. and insurance under the respondent's group policy, thereby fostering 'the impression among the employees that insurance benefits, in part donated by the respondent, were contingent upon membership in the E. B. A. The respondent also fostered this impression and manifested its approval of the E. B. A., by its letter to the employees reprinted in the insurance company's booklet; and by partially delegating administration of the group policy and payment of benefits thereunder, to the. E. B. A. In view of these circumstances, the facts in respect to the group policy at Plant No. 3 noted below, and the respondent's other support of the E. B. A., we find that the respondent utilized its group insurance policy as a further method of encouraging membership in the E. B. A.13 The respondent executed a contract which granted organizational privileges to the E. B. A. This contract contained no provisions concerning wages, hours, or other conditions of employment which are normally subjects of collective bargaining, and it was executed even before the E. B. A. had completed its formal organization. Under these circumstances, we find that the respondent entered into this contract with the E. B. A. for the purpose of lending it further 12 Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in April 1937, sustaining the constitu- tionality of the Act, the respondent purported to withdraw from the E. B. A. authority to use company property It recognized thereby that such authority constituted unlawful support of the E B. A. 13i1tatter of International Harvester Co. and Local Union 57, Int'l Union, United Auto- mobile Workers of America , 2 N. L R B 310, where we said in an analogous situation, "The impropriety would hardly be more obvious if the respondent were to inaugurate the practice of Christmas bonuses and allot them to the employee representatives for distribu- tion" , Matter of Electric Boat Co. and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 6, 7 N. L R. B. 572; Matter of Titan Metal Mfg. Co. and Federal Labor Union No 19981, 5 N L. R. B . 577, enf'd, Titan Metal Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Boasd. 106 F ( 2d) 254 (C C A 3), cert denied, 308 U. S. 615 J. GREENEBAli_?\1 TANNING CO. 685 aid. Pursuant to this policy the respondent arranged the duties of the Shop Chairman so that lie was free to conduct E. B. A. activity on the respondent's property during working hours. In view of the respondent's other acts of support to the E. B. A., we find that the check-off of dues, while normally a legitimate method of collecting union clues, was here used by the respondent in connection with the group insurance, as another device for fostering and supporting the E. B. A. The respondent's assistance to the E. B. A. began before the effective date of the Act.15 The respondent did not, upon or after the effective date of the Act, notify the employees that the respondent had dis- associated itself from the E. B. A. On the contrary, it continued to support this organization formed in opposition to outside representa- tion. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in April 1937 sustaining the constitutionality of the Act, Deidrich, the leading E. B. A. official, admitted that the E. B. A. "did reek a little of com- pany assistance." We find, upon the entire record, that the respond- ent interfered with, supported, and dominated the formation and administration of the E. B. A. The T. E. B. A. and the E. B. A. are identical except in name. The respondent did nothing to sever its relationship with the E. B. A. and the T. E. B. A. The respondent thus interfered with, supported, and dominated the formation and administration of the T. E. B. A .16 Moreover, the respondent assisted the T. E. B. A. in connection with a picnic, and through solicitation by supervisory employees and the continued authorized use of company property by the intramural organization. The respondent's recognition of the T. E. B. A. follow- ing a cursory examination of its right to such status, as contrasted with the respondent's refusal to recognize Local 29 after an arbitrary de- termination of its membership claims, constitutes further support of the T. E. B. A. 14 Matter of Clinton Cotton Mills and Local 2182, United Textile Workers of America, 1 N L. R. B. 97; Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and Professional Workers of America, No. 24, etc, 14 N. L R. B. 1045. 15 The E B. A. and the T. E B A. have had a continuous existence from February 1934 to date Consequently, although the respondent's conduct occurring prior to July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act, does not constitute unfair labor practices, such conduct deter- mines the significance of the respondent's acts, occurring after the effective date of the Act, and also' the character of the E B A. and the T. E B. A. National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et at, 303 U S 261, rev g, 98 F (2d) 178 (C C. A. 3), and enf'g, Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, Greyhound Manage- ment Company, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 1. 16 Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. V. National Labor Relations Board, 112 F. (2d) 657 (C C A 2), enf'g as mod -Matter of Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co and United Radio and -Machine Workers of Amerca, Local #410, 18 N L R B 300; Kansas City Power and Light Co, a Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board and Association of Employees of the Kansas City Power and Light Company, 111 F (2d) 340 (C. C. A. 8), enf'g, as mod. Matter of Kansas City Power d Light Co . and Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-412, 12 N. L. R. B. 1414. 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered With the formation and administration of the E. B. A. and the T. E. B. A. and has contributed support to them; that by its aforesaid acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Plant No. 3 1. The V. W. M. B. A. The U. W. M. B. A. was formed in December 1934 following the A. F. of L. strike referred to above. LeRoy Schulz '17 an employee, circulated a petition among the employees of Plant No. 3 similar in substance to the one circulated by Deidrich in Plant No. 2.18 He obtained approximately 15 ' signatures, and, together with Joseph Dambrea, another employee, submitted the petition to Fred Grom- bacher, manager of Plant No. 3. Grombacher informed them that he would take the matter up with an attorney. Thereafter, Schulz, Dambrea, and three other employees requested Grombacher to recog- nize the U. W. M. B. A. Grombacher told them that, so far as he was concerned, the respondent was still operating under a settlement which the respondent had concluded with the A. F. of L., following the above-mentioned strike. 11 Schulz testified before the Wisconsin State Labor Board on November 3 and 30, 1937, and January 19, 1938. Such testimony purpoited to show the legitimacy of the U. W. M. B A and the I T. W. A. At the present hearing he testified that the testimony he gave before the Wisconsin Board was false and that it was given because he feared that if he told the truth the respondent would discharge him. During the hearing in the present case, he testified for several days as a witness for the Board on direct examination and for half a day under cross-examination by the respondent. He did not appear on April 10, 1939, for further cross-examination although he had been instructed by the Trial Examiner to do so Attorneys for the Board visited his home and advised him to return to the hearing He refused because, he claimed, Local 29 had not fulfilled a promise to provide him with transportation to the hearing On April 11, 1939, the Board obtained a subpoena from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin requiring him to appear at the hearing He complied with the subpoena and resumed his testimony-under cross-examination on April 12, 1939. On April 10, 1939, and at the close of the hearing, the respondent moved to strike his testimony. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon and denied the motions in his Interco-liate Report. He stated therein that he would not rely on the testimony of Schulz exe"ut in so far as "it is corroborated or is not denied by the credible testimony of witnesses for the respondent- and for the intervenor." The respondent excepted to the ruling Since the respondent had adequate opportunity to cross-examine Schulz on all his testimony, we conclude that the Trial Examiner properly denied the respondent' s motion to strike. The fact that Schulz gave false testimony before the Wisconsin Board does not, of course, preclude the possibility that he testified truthfully in the present proceeding. Moreover, since the circumstances concerning which he testified at both hearings were clearly within his knowledge, if his testimony at the Wisconsin Board hearing purporting to show that the respondent did not contribute support to the I T W A , is false, then necessarily his testimony in the present case purporting to show that the respondent did contribute support to_the I. T. W A must be true. We have taken into consideration his admission that he testified falsely before the Wisconsin Board, his conduct at the present hearing, and any incon- sistencies in his testimony, in evaluating the weight to be attached to it. , 11 Schulz testified that he circulated the petition at the request of William Reimer, fore- man, and Fred Grombacher, manager of Plant.No. 3. Reimer and Grombacher, in sub- stance, denied this testimony We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict. J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 687 Dambrea and Schulz continued to solicit members for the U. W. M. B. A. They also consulted, with an attorney in respect to formal completion of its organization. In February 1935 they decided they needed a competent secretary and, therefore, requested Grombacher to reinstate Arbutus McGinn, an employee who had been secretary of the A. F. of L. during the strike and who had not been reinstated at its close. Grombacher said he "would see," and 2 weeks later reinstated her pursuant to the request.19 McGinn became active in the U. W. M. B. A. immediately upon her return to the respondent's employ. In May 1935 Schulz, Dambrea, and McGinn arranged for an organ- ization meeting at a place known as the South Side Armory. McGinn prepared the notices and presided at the meeting. By pre-arrange- ment between the three organizers a motion was made and carried that Schulz be elected president, Dambrea, vice president, and McGinn, secretary-treasurer. Thereafter department representatives of the intramural organiza- tion were appointed by Schulz and Dambrea. Dues Were fixed at $1.00 per month, and were collected by Schulz during working hours, on the respondent's property. During the entire organizing period Schulz was allowed great freedom in the plant to carry on his organizing activities. On December 9, 1935, the U. W. M. B. A. incorporated. The Articles of Organization, prepared by Attorney Charles Higgins, provide for a Board of Directors of 13 members, and 3 officers, elected by such Board. The Directors, previously appointed by Dambrea and Schulz, continued to hold office. In February 1936 McGinn resigned as secretary, Schulz took her place, and Dambrea became president. In December 1936 Dambrea and Schulz had difficulty in collecting sufficient dues to continue operation of the U. W. M. B. A. They informed Grombacher of this stringency and told him the organiaztion was "falling apart." Shortly thereafter, in January 1937, the respondent, after first refusing, agreed to a check-off arrangement with the U. W. M. B. A. The respondent agreed further to take out a policy of group health and accident insurance to cover employees in Plant No. 3. After several conferences, in which representatives of the U. W. M. B. A., the respondent, and the insurance company participated, the insur- ance company printed authorization forms which, like the cards used at Plant No. 2, combined a check-off, from each signer's wages, of 15 cents a week for health and accident insurance and 5 cents 11 Dambrea and Grombacher testified that they "didn't remember" this incident we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this incident described by Schulz , occurred as set forth in the text. Egg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for U. W. M. B. A. dues. The cards were distributed among em- ployees by the foremen. Although an employee could obtain the insurance without being a member of the U. W. `M. B. A., many, employees were not so advised. There was a widespread impres- sion among the employees that it was necessary to be a member of the U. W. M. B. A. to be eligible for the insurance. The U. W. M. B. A. used the group insurance as an organizing device. The respondent began the check-off, pursuant to this arrangement, on January 24, 1937, and continued it until July 31, 1937. 2. The I. T. W. A. Early in 1937 Local 29 began an organizing campaign among the respondent's employees, by the use of a sound truck stationed outside the plant, and the distribution of handbills at the gate. In March and May Local 29 held mass meetings in an attempt to organize the respondent's employees. On June 25,20 at a meeting and party described below, the I. T. W. A. was formed to succeed the U. W. M. B. A. We have adverted to the prominent part played by Schulz and Dambrea in the U. W. M. B. A. They were also the leaders in the formation of the I. T. W. A. Schulz testified and the Trial Examiner found that the respondent gave them money in connection with this organizational activity. We shall consider first a payment of $500 and then one of $150. On June 17 Grombacher 21 handed Schulz $250 and received in re- turn a demand note for that amount. Schulz testified, and Grom- bacher, Dambrea, and Evelyn Neassen, Grombacher's secretary, .denied, that Grombacher also gave Dambrea $250 in return for a demand note at this time.22 Schulz testified further, and Grombacher and Dambrea denied, that by this $500 payment Grombacier sought to finance the formation of the I. T. W. A. and to reward Shulz and Dambrea for their organizational activity. Schulz testified in substantial detail to the circumstances surround- ing the transaction, and his testimony concerning material circum- stances is undisputed or is corroborated by other evidence. Thus, Schulz's testimony that the purpose of the contribution was to aid Schulz and Dambrea in forming a new organization to succeed the U. W. M. B. A., is corroborated by the following: Schulz and 20 See infra, footnote 23. 21 There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Greenebaum was present during this transaction . We do not and it necessary to resolve this conflict. 22 The respondent introduced in evidence a note for $250 signed by Dambrea on Feb- ruary 3, 1937 The fact that Grombacher loaned money to Dambrea on February 3 Is, of course, no proof that he did not also loan money to him on June 17. J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 689:= Dambrea did form a new organization succeeding the U. W. M. B. A., shortly after June 17, 1937,-the date of the contribution ; the first entry in the books of the I. T. W. A. was- July 1-Capital per loan ( Joseph Dambrea )________________ $130 July 1-Capital per loan ( LeRoy Schulz) ------------------- 130 and when Attorney Charles Higgins, who was making an audit of the books asked Dambrea and Schulz in January 1938 to explain the entries, both told him that the entries represented part of a sum which they had borrowed from Grombacher and had advanced to the I. T. W. A.; Higgins testified that Grombacher also told him that he had loaned .money to Schulz and Dambrea, and that Higgins under- stood Gr,_giihacher to mean that he made;a.loah to them in cotiiiectioii with their desire "to get the Union started." Schulz's testimony that Grombacher told him at the time he advanced the money that it was a loan only in name is substantiated, in part at least, by the fact that neither the respondent nor Grombacher attempted to secure payment on the note until after January 1938, that is, after Schulz had failed to win reelection as I. T. W. A. secretary and the respondent had laid him off. Schulz's testimony that Grombacher's contribution amounted to $500 in cash is corroborated by Grombacher's admission that he withdrew, $600 in cash from the bank on June 16, and that he used part of this sum to make the payment on June 17. Schulz testified, further, that immediately upon receipt of the $500 from Grombacher,_ he and Dambrea deposited $260 in the bank, and divided between them the remaining $240 in cash; and that shortly thereafter they drew upon the $500 contribution to pay the expenses of the party which they held on behalf of the I. T. W. A. on June 25. This testimony is corroborated by the bank statements showing the deposit by Schulz and Dambrea jointly of $260 on June 17, by Dambrea's admission that such a deposit was made, by the holding of the party referred to by Schulz on June .2 3, by the fact that Schulz and Dambrea each spent between $50 and $100 in cash at the party to defray some of its expenses, and by Schulz's undenied testimony that the other ex- penses were paid from the joint account opened on June 17. Moreover, Grombacher and Dambrea offered incredible testimony in support of their denials. Thus, Grombacher at first testified, con- cerning his contention that he made only one loam to Dambrea-in February 1937-that he obtained the money which he loaned to Dambrea from a safety deposit box in his wife's name at a local bank; then returned to the stand to testify that he obtained it from his wife 23 The respondent first stipulated at the hearing that the party was held on June 25. Later, to rebut the testimony that the loan was made before the party , it produced wit- nesses to show that the party was held in May In view of the stipulation , and the testa' mony of Myron Polinski, the owner of the hall in which the party was held, taken by deposition after the heating, we find that the party was held on June 25, 1937. 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD who kept it at home without his knowledge. Neither Grombacher nor his wife kept a safety deposit box at this bank in February 1937. He attempted to explain his withdrawal of $600 in cash from the bank at the time of the loan to Schulz on the ground that his wife, who ordinarily went to the bank to make deposits and withdrawals, was away from the city, and that he did not wish to make repeated trips to the bank for money curing his wife's absence. The explana- tion is not credible in view of his subsequent admission that he made deposits at the bank during the same period. Dainbrea's assertion, that he thought the $260 with which he and Schulz opened a joint banking account in their own names on June 17, 1937, was money belonging to the U. W. M. B. A. which Schulz had in his custody, is belied by the fact that he knew that the U. W. Al. B. A. was having great difficulty in collecting any substantial sum in dues,24 and also by the fact that be knew that the U. W. M. B. A. had had its own banking accounts under its own name. Dambrea testified that he was able to advance from $50 to $100 in cash at the party on June 25; and that, although he had not expected to advance any money at the party, he nevertheless had such a sub- stantial sum on his person, because he had won $75 in a game of dice several days before the party and he expected to play again at the party. We are not impressed by this claim of fortuitous coinci- dence. Moreover, we do not believe that Dambrea' would donate his "own money to the I. T. W. A., in view of his individual financial problems,25 his previous complaint concerning the status of the union's treasury, and the fact that it was in arrears on his salary payments. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Trial Examiner's find- ing, and the respondent's other support of the inside organizations at Plant No. 2 and Plant No. 3, we find that Grombacher paid money to Schulz and Dambrea on June 17, 1937, in connection with their organizational activity. This conclusion is reinforced by a consid- eration of the $150 payment. Greenebaum gave Schulz and Dambrea each $75 as a gift.211 Schulz testified in substance that he told Greenebaum that "they were entitled 24 The respondent , in an attempt to show that Schulz borrowed the money to replace U. W Al. B A funds which he had used personally , called some witnesses who testified that Schulz had assured them the U. W M B A had a substantial sum of money. Schulz denied making such statements , and the complaints of Dambrea and Schulz to Grombacher concerning ' the lack of dues , the testimony showing the difficulty U W. M. B A. had in meeting its expenses , and the records of dues payments , even after the check -off was instituted, show clearly that the I T. W. A did not possess a substantial sum of money collected from its own members 25 His loan from Grombacher in February 1937 will be recalled in this connection. 21 Schulz testified that the payment was made on June 26. the day after the I. T W. A was formed . Dambrea testified that lie did not remember the date of the payment . Greene- baum also testified to this effect at first, then returned to the stand to claim that the pay- ment occurred in March . We need not resolve this conflict as to the date upon which Greenebaum gave Schulz and Dambrea the $150 J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 691 to something for their work" on behalf of the inside organization, and that Greenebaum, agreeing thereto, paid them the $150. Dambrea asserted at the hearing that he did not know why Greenebaum gave them the money.'? Greenebaum, while admitting the gift, sought to explain it on the ground that Schulz had claimed to be in need of money. The Trial Examiner did not credit this defense. Schulz's alleged financial embarrassment does not appear to be an adequate motive for an outright gift of $75 by Greenebaum to him. -Certainly it does not explain why Greenebaum should have,given $75 to Dam- brea. On the other hand, the respondent's stake in the intramural organization provides an entirely adequate inducement for its payment of $150 to the leaders of that organization. In view of these consid- erations and the other circumstances disclosed by the record, we find that Greenebaum gave Schulz and Dambrea the $150 because of their organizational activity. The I. T. W. A. was formed at the meeting and party held on June 25, 1937. Dambrea presided at the meeting. Charles Higgins, attor- ney for the U. W. M. B. A., read amendments to the Articles of Organi- zation of the U. W. M. B. A. By these amendments, the organization changed its name and expanded its eligibility rules so that employees of any tannery could become members thereof. The amendments were adopted. Here, as with the T. E. B. A., no members were ever ob- tained from other tanneries. The meeting was followed by a stag party for the men, at which sandwiches, beer, whiskey, and entertain- ment were provided. A separate dinner, in charge of Clara Farina, who aided Dambrea and Schulz in planning the I. T. W. A., was held for the women employees. The stag and dinner cost approximately $260. As indicated above, this money came from the $500 which Dambrea and Schulz received from Grombacher on June 17. zz Dambrea testified as follows in this connection : Q Now will you try to recollect just what the discussion was between Mr Schulz and Air. Gieenebaum that led up to the giving of $75 00 to each of you by AIT. Greenebaum ? A. I don't know I know it was something about work there. I don't know if we were on shorter time at the time. I don't remember what that was. I know it had something to do with the work. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't know what it was. Q Now can't you tell us why you received the $75 00 from Air. Greenebaum along with Schulz9 A No No, I don't know. I can't recall what was said there Q What time of the day was that you and Schulz set out to go to the north side plant on the day you received the $75 00 from Air Greenebaum? - A. I am not sure whether it was just a little before noon oi-because we aiiived, I am not sure whether it was just before noon or right after noon . I don't know. I don't remember that. Q Where did you start from? A I think it was-that I am not sure of that either. I don't know whether we went home and changed clothes and then called Mr Schulz, I think. I don 't know. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter the I. T. W. A. continued to function in the same manner and with the same officers as the U. W. M. B. A. The respondent con- tinued the check-off until July 31, 1937. Without requiring that new authorization cards be signed, it turned over to the officers of the I. T. W. A. the money thus deducted from employees' wages. Dambrea testified without contradiction that the I. T. W. A. was formed because the Supreme Court had sustained the constitutionality of the Act, because employees were criticizing the U. W. M. B. A. "company union," and because its financial condition did not permit continued benefit payment to its members which it had begun shortly after its formation. He testified before the Wisconsin State Labor Board, and reaffirmed this testimony at the hearing in the present case, that- there was no difference [between the U. W. M. B. A. and the I. T. W. A.] that I know of. It was still the same. We had the same bargaining, only we didn't want to be known as a company' union or to be called a company union. On July 27, 1937, a month after the I. T. W. A. was organized, the respondent signed a contract, at the request of Attorney Higgins, recognizing the I. T. W. A. as exclusive bargaining agency at Plant No. 3. The contract, which provided inter alia for a 45-hour week and an 8-hour day, time and one-half for overtime, minimum rates for piece work, a 5-per cent general wage increase, specified holidays, and arbitration of grievances, was signed after very short preliminary conferences between Higgins, Grombacher, and Dambrea. The record does not disclose that the respondent asked for, or that the I. T. W. A. offered, any proof that the I. T. W. A. represented a majority of the employees. There was no discussion of the terms of the contract among the members of the Board of Directors of the I. T. W. A. The members of the I. T. W. A. were given no opportunity to discuss in any way the terms of employment which they desired to have incor- porated in the contract, or to criticize the contract prior to its adoption. Schulz, who signed the contract, knew nothing of its terms or of the alleged negotiations which preceded its execution.28 In August the I. T. W. A., through Dambrea, requested that the respondent finance a picnic for the employees. Grombacher agreed. The picnic, although open to all employees, was advertised in the name of the I. T. W. A. The picnic was planned and administered by com- mittees which were appointed by Grombacher. They consisted of the most prominent I. T. W. A. members, including Dambrea and Schulz. Dambrea used the opportunity provided by the picnic to enroll new members in the I. T. W. A. 28 Cf Matter of J G) eenebaum TanntnC Co and National Leather Workers Ass 'n, supra, footnote 4 J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 693 On March 22, 1938, Local 29 requested, and was denied, bargaining rights from the respondent under. the circumstances which we -set forth in discussing the events at Plant No. 2. During 1938 interest in the I. T. W. A. waned. Seventy-five per cent of the members were in arrears in paying dues. In January, 1939 .the Board of Directors decided, accordingly, to wipe out all arrears and to begin anew the collection of dues. 3. Concluding findings The U. W. M. B. A. was formed following a strike' conducted by the A. F. of L. The respondent assisted the U. W. M. B. A. prior to the effective date of the Act 29 by reinstating McGinn, and by permitting the. U. W. M. B. A. to engage in organizational activity on company 1 ime and, property. The respondent did not disassociate itself from the inside organization on or after the effective date of the Act. On the contrary, the respondent contributed further support to it through the group insurance plan and the check-off.30 The I. T. W. A. and-the U. W. M. B. A. are identical organizations, except in name. The re- spondent'did'nothiiig to sever its relationship with the U. W. M. B. A. and the I.I. W. A.31 Instead, it gave Schulz aid ' Darnbrea' money in connection with' their activity on behalf of the U. W. M: B. A. and the I. T. W. A., and contributed further assistance to the -I. T: W. A. in conducting its picnic. The above=mentioned facts, in connection with the respondent's execution, of an exclusive- recognition contract with the I. T. W. A. and its refusal to bargain with Local 29 under the circumstances hereinabove set.forth, also-demonstrate-the unlawful relationship obtaining between the respondent and the I. T. W. A. We find that the' respondent has dominated and interfered' with ,the formation and administration of the U. W. M. B. A. and the I.f"T. W. A. and has contributed financial and other support to them; that by its aforesaid acts, the respondent has, interfered with, re- strained,'aiid coerced its employees in the exercise of:rights guaranteed in'Section 7 of the Act. . , C. LeRoy Schulz The complaint alleged and the answer denied that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy Schulz. The Trial Examiner found that it had so discriminated and the respondent takes exception thereto. 'Schulz was laid 'off on January 25, 1938. The respondent contends 'that it laid'him off because work was slack in the Quirin presses, which 29 'See supra, footnote 15. 30 See supra , footnote 14. ffi See supra , footnote 16 2830' 6r-42-vol 25--45 694 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Schulz operated, and that it has since hired no one in his place. The record supports the respondent's contention. Approximately ^O employees were laid off or discharged early, in 1938 because of decreased production at the respondent's plant. Ten' employees in the department in which Schulz worked were laid off. Nine of them have since been reinstated as production increased. Schulz has not been replaced. No one else is operating the machine upon which he worked before he was laid off. He had less plant seniority, and may have had less departmental seniority, than the nine employees, who were reinstated. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the record does not support the allegations-of the complaint that the respondent discrim- inated in, regard. to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy Schulz, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, 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 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 find interfered with the formation and administration of the E. B. A., the T. E. B. A., the U. W. Al. B. A., and the'I. T. W. A., and contributed support to them. Their 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 con- stitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed in the Act, we shall order the respondent to with- draw all recognition from the E. B. A., the T. E. B. A.; the U. W. Al. B. A., and the I. T. W: A., as respresentatives 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 E. B. A., the T. E. B. A., the U. W. Al. B. A.. and the I. T. W. A. as such representatives. J. GREENEBAUAI TANNII\TG CO. 695 Since the agreements between the respondent and the T. E. B. A. and the I. T. W. A., respectively, embody recognition of the T. E. B. A., and the I. T. W. A.,. as exclusive representatives,' and since these contracts and the contract with the E. B. A. represent the fruits of the respondent's unfair labor practices and devices by which to per- petuate their effects, we shall order the respondent specifically to cease and desist giving effect to these or any other agreements it may have entered into with the E. B. A., the T. E. B. A., or the I. T. W. A. in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of work. The respondent, as we have noted above, deducted 5 cents per week from the wages of employees who were members of the E B. A., the T. E. B. A., the U. W. M. B. A., and the I. T. W. A. as dues for those organizations. This check-off was a device utilized by the respondent to insure the perpetuation of the results of its unfair labor practices, namely, the prevention of the self-organization of its employees by fostering and supporting these company-dominated organizations as a buffer and an obstacle to self-organization. By use of the check-off, the employees leave devoted part of their wages for the maintenance of the very instrumentality which frustrates them in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in the Act and which thwarts the purposes of the Act. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we will order the respondent to reimburse its employees for amounts deducted from their wages as dues for the above-named labor organizations since July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act.32 The evidence does not support the allegation of the complaint that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy Schulz. We shall dismiss this part of the complaint. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact'and' upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Shoe Workers of America , Local 29, ( C. I. 0.), Employees Benefit Association of J., Greenebaum Tanning Co ., Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association , United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association and Independent Tannery Workers of America are labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Em- ployees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 38 Matter of The Helier Brothers Co. of Newcomerstown and Int'l Brotherhood of Black- smiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L R B. 646; Matter of The Western Union Telegraph Company, a corporation, and American Commumcatsons Association, 17 N. L. R B 34 696" DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2, and `United Workers'- Mutual Benefit Association, and the forina: tion and• administration of'Tiirinery Employees Benefit Associationl' and Independent' Tannery Workers of America, and,by contributing financial'and' other support to them, 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 rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respond- ent 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, ' by terminating the employment ' of LeRoy' Schulz, did not engage in' unfair labor practices within the; meaning' of Section 8 (3) of the Act: ORDER ,Upon.tlie basis of the foregoing, findings of fact and conclusions pfd law, and-pursuant to Section 10 (c), of the National Labor Relations Act,. the National Labor ,Relations Board .hereby orders that the re ^, spondent, ,J. ,;Greenebaum , Tanning Co.,. and , its officers, agents,) successors,,and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : a) , Dominating, or, interfering with the a chnii,istration 'of Em- ployees Benefit, Association of J. Greenbaum Tanning Co., Plant No.i 2, Tannery, Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association or Independent Tannery Workers of America, or, with •the,formation, or administration of any, other,.,labor organization of its employees, and-contributing financial or other silpport; to ,Em, , ployees Benefit Association of J. Gr'enebaum Tanning Co,, Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Assoc:ation, United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association or Independent Tannery Workers of America, or any other labor, organization of its employees; '(b) 'Recognizing Employees Benefit Association of J. Greenbaum, Tanniiig Plant, No. 9I Taiuiery Employees Benefit 'Association, United''orkers' 1'Iutual Beiiefit Association, or Independent Tannery Worllers of"Ainerica, as the representative of any of its'employees' for,the purpose of dea}ling with the respondent concerning grievances,' labor disputes, -,-ages,, rates of pay, hour's' of employment, 'or conditions of work; (c) Giving,, effect, to, any agreement, with, the, Employees Benefit Association' of J."Gree`nebaum' Tanning Co:,. Plant No . 2, Tanner. Em, ^ployYees Beiiefit Association or' IndePeiident Tannery y Workers ol','', J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 697 America in respect to 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 iri concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees Benefit Association .,of -J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association and Independent Tannery Workers of America, 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 conditions of work, and completely disestablish Em- ployees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. Tannery Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association and Independent Tannery Workers of America, %as such representatives; , (b) Reimburse, individually and in full, all employees who were or `still are, members of Employees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association, ;United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association or Independent Tannery Workers of America, for the dues, if any, which it has deducted from their wages, salaries, or other earnings on behalf of the above-named organizations since July 5, 1935; (c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout Plant No. 2, and Plant No. 3, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will, not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a); (b), (c), and (d) aboye, and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2T (a)' and (b)-, of this,, order; (d) 'Notify the Regional ' Director; for the' Twelfth Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days,from the date of, this Order what, steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,, and it hereby. is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy Schulz. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.