The Wessel Co.

In the Matter of THE WESSEL COMPANY, A' CORPORATION'and UNITED ADVERTISING WORKERS UNION " '' ' ' • ' ' ' Case No. C-1616.-Decided August 6, 1940 Jurisdiction : printing and advertising industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : anti-union statements ; circulating- anti- union petition ; inducing employees to resign from union . , ' - . , Discrimination: discharge, allegation in complaint as to, dismissed. . , f Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist' unfair labor practices. Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for' the Board. Levinson, Becker, Peebles & Swirin, by Mr. Harold M. 'Keefe 'arid Mr. Eugene P. Florsheim, of Chicago; Ill., for, the respondent. Mr. Sydney L. Devin, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.' Mr. Frederick R. Levinstone, of counsel to the Board.- - DECISION AND ORDER '•f STATEMENT OF THE CASE On charges, and amended charges, duly filed by United Advertising Workers Union, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, by G. L Patterson, Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its com- plaint, dated March 27, 1940, against The Wessel Company, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance, that on or about April 6, 1939, the respondent discharged Jacqueline Marie Kortzeborn because she joined and assisted the Union and 'engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid andprotec- tion, thereby discriminating with regard to her hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in the Union and that by these and other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and 26 N. L. R. B., No. 22. 192 SOUTHERN, COTTON OIL COMPANY 193 coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act . On April 8, 1940 , the respondent -filed its answer denying'that it had ' engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meanmg 'of 'the Act: Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on April 11, 12, and 13 , 1940, before John T. Lindsay , the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board , the respondent, and the Union, were represented and participated in the . hearing. Full opportunity to be heard and 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 ruled on various motions and on objections to the, admission of evidence . The Board has reviewed the 'rulings 'of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and fi'nds ' that 'no' prejudicial errors were ' committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On June 1'1 , 1940, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the'meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)' and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act , and accordingly recommended that the 'respondent cease' and desist therefrom . The Trial Examiner also, r' ecomm'ended that the respondent offer reinstatement with back pay'-to Kortzeborn. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. r I ' ,,;The Board has considered the exceptions to,the Intermediate Report and, except as: they, are inconsistent with the findings , conclusions, and order. set forth below , hereby sustains them., I Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1 "11 ^ P. THE BUSINESS-OF'THE RESPONDENT The Wessel Company, an Illinois corporation , is engaged in the printing and advertising business 'at ' Chicago ,' Illinois. The principal i:aw,materials' purchased by the respondent are paper and ink, all of which are purchased from jobbers in the City of Chicago . In addi- tion; the,respondent purchases parts for repair of presses and new presses whicht repurchased in the City of New York and other points outside the State of Illinois . During , the period from December 1938 through December 1939, the respondent's sales amounted to approxi- 11 L mately ,$300,000 , ; of which approximately 13 per cent represented shipments , to, destinations outside the State of Illinois. The re- spondent has agents in various cities including Philadelphia, New Orleans, , and San Francisco, to solicit orders for its business , and ,also solicits;orders ,by mail throughout the country. 194 DECIS1IONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD II. ,THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Advertising Workers Union is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion admitting to membership only employees of the! respondent,, excluding supervisory employees. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference,- restraint and coercion In the spring of 1937 Franklin'Union No. 4 and Chicago Printing Pressmen's Union No. 3, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, were organized in 'the respondent's plant. , On February, 9, 1938, one'Hughes, a day foreman, called'all'the employees to a meeting, in a' tavern near, the, plant; ' Hughes informed the employees that the unions in 'question were not doing the employees any good and re- quested them to resign from the Union. The following petition addressed to the respondent'was' thereafter circulated and signed by the employees at the request of Hughes: 'Ve,,.the undersigned, representing a majority of the workers, wish to, advise you that, from this, day, we, have discontinued our, relations with, Franklin, Union. #4, and Chicago • Printing Press- .men's Union,#3,. and, will be represented by, Mr. Phil Kohl, representing the pressroom workers of The Wessel Company., Kohl, who, was''designated -as' the representative, was an 'assistant foreman.: 'Shortly after the circulation of this petition Hughes called Henry Javor, night foreman; to his desk, and stated that if Javor wanted!'to work' for him he would be required to quit' the union and further stated "The Wessel Company is an open shop from today on." We find that the respondent, by the foregoing acts, and conduct of Hughes, interfered with,restrained,-,and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B., The alleged, discriminatory discharge ' ' On March' 1, 1939, 'the respondent employed'one Van Dorn t'o' replace the forme'day foreman, Hughes. Almost' imhf6diat'ely'after Van' Dorn replaced Hughes, di'scussion' vas revived' with'respect to' unions aiid`wheii'it was'aniiounce'd by the'respoildent'shortly thereafter that the women were to 'be''replaced by men, an active movement' was' institiited'to organize`a union in''the'plant.' Ko'rtzAo i,'who was most active in organizing' theUnion, tel'ephoiied'approximately 25 Of'the' employees oii''M'arch 24' 'and ' arranged' for a' meeting to be held' on March 26; ' at' which 'time"ii' temporary organization was set'ilp.`1`1n layiiig 'plans' for" the ' organization, 'Kort`zeborii''coiisiilted''frequeiitly with Javor, her foreman,"with whom-she''was very friendly andin' whom she reposed great trust and confidence. THE WESSEL COMPANY 1195 Shortly after the union mecting.and on April 6',1Kortzeborn1 reported for work ather usual hour of 4;30 in the afternoon,and-was presented with her, assignment by Foreman Javor. 4; The, assignment, called ,for, washing of sausage casings on a rush job. At about 7'o'clock, one,of the men working on the press brought over approximately 50 casings on, which the ink had been smeared and Kortzeborn volunteered !to assist him in,washing-these casings so that they could be sent through the press before the, ink, on the press dried. While, she was, assisting the pressman, Javor reprimanded her for leaving the rush job, and despite her explanation, ordered her back to the task to which she had been previously assigned. 'Aft'er Kortzeborn's'return to the wash- ing, job, in which she was assisted by three or four other girls, Jayor came to the table at which „they were working and , told them to "Hurry up." Javor repeated ,his urging several4 more times, which, according to Kortzeborn, distracted the attention of all of ,the girls and was "getting on our neryes-it ,was on mine ^anyw,ay.,? ; Thus when Jayor came up to the table again and urge';nag.` , them, to hurry,. Kortzeborn looked up and said, "Oh, Henry, don't We'll get it done." Javor walked away fora moment,,then came back and told Kortzeborn that she was discharged. The Trial Examiner, in his Intermediate Report, concluded that Kortzeborn was discharged by Jayor at the behest of-Van Dorn, th'e' day foreman, an'd 'cites,in support thereof two occasions on which Kortzeborn was reprimanded by' Van Dorn: It is ' unnec'essary1 to' recite these incidents in detail here. It is sufficient to note that on one of the occasions, Van Dorn,,.according, to Kortzeborn, after reprimanding her for allowing dirty casings to be shipped,` stated, "I want it fully understood that. I- am,not bawling you out for your union activities." Javor and Assistant Foreman Phil Kohl, who were present during this 'conversation; testified that Van Dorn did not mention the Union until after'Kdrtzebor$'s assertion that Van Dorn was not "getting mad at me 'for'ma work. You 'are getting mad and picking on me for my union' activities " Javor and Kohl test'ified that it was'in reply to Kortzeborn's charge thai Van Dorn' retorted that Kortzeborn's union activities were not in any way involved: The Trial Examiner relying upon Kortzeborn's vrei:sion of 'this-incident and tlie'additional finding that Van Dorn'wa's superior in' authority to ' Javor, conclud'ed' that Kortzeborn's ' discharge was not the result of favor"e "own free volition", but was "at the"regiies't -of - Van"Dorn because of her membership and union activitiesin'the United..clever- tismg Workers Union." Although we, do not agree with the Trial Examiner's final conclusions, we can not say that they are not sup- ported in some measure by tlie' evidence.'' The ' fact` that Kortzeborn was the leading figure in the Uni'on' and that -her discharge `followed so closely 'after the' first organizatioriali lriiee'ting, 'however, does' not' 196 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD necessarily indicate that her discharge was motivated by a desire to discourage membership in the Union . We do hot 'believe that' the evidence justifies a finding that Javor, who was clearly shown( to: have been a close friend of Kortzeborn , would have' discharged her'at' t'he request of Van Dorn. ' ) ' I ^ r ^ 1 ; We find that the respondent has not discriminated against Jacques line Marie Kortzeborn in regard to hire and tenure of , employment: Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges such discrimination . ' IV. THEE FFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON XOMMERCEt, The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A' ab`ovc; occurring in connection with the operations ` of the" respondent'''de' scribed in Section I ' above, have' a''close, `intimate; And `s'ubstantial relation to trade, traffic , rind commerce among the several " State'; and tend to lead to labor disputes 'burdening and'obstruct'ing"co`mer`ce and the free flow of commerce. ' 11 ` • " , V. THE REMEDY i r . I • „+. Having found that ' the respondent has engaged in `certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and' desist from further engaging therein. We shall also order the respondent to tal certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the' policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Advertising Workers Union is a labor organiration within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. • .1 :r,L f,,,r 2: 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. , , 3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices,affecting commerce within the meaning of Section' 2 (6), and (7,),p f the Act. , 4. The respondent, by discharging Jacqueline Marie Korttzeborn, has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. I ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact', .and , conclusions of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders :that the respondent, The Wessel Company, ; its officers , agents, successors,, and assigns, shall: THE WESSEL COMPANY 197 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant in Chicago, Illinois, notices to its employees and maintain such notices for 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 paragraph 1 of this Order: ' (b) Notify the 'Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region iii writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jacqueline Marie- Kortzeborn, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of. Section 8 (3) of the Act. t MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 323429-42-vol 26--14