Leitz Carpet Corp.

In the Matter of LEITZ CARPET CORPORATION and LOCAL 1261, CARPET, LINOLEUM, AND RESILIENT FLOOR DECORATORS, AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F. OF L. Case No. C-1610.-Decided September 14,1940 Jurisdiction : floor covering wholesaling industry. Unfair Labor Practices - Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; discrediting labor organization ; interference with tenure of , employment ; threat to cease operations. Discrimination: discharge, charges of, not sustained. Remedial Orders : cease and desist engaging in interference, restraint, or coercion. Mr. Lee Leovinger, for the Board. Messrs. Sam J. Levy and James H. Levy, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the respondent. Miss Mary Met gay, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Loca11261, Carpet, Linoleum, and Resilient Floor Decorators, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor (Relations Board, herein called the 'Board, by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its com- plaint dated April 19, 1940, against Leitz Carpet Corporation, Minne- apolis, Minnesota, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re- spondent 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. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent on June 22, 1939, discharged Oscar 27 N. L.R.B,No.53. - '235 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carlson, an employee, and has since refused, to reinstate him for the reason that he had joined the Union and had ' engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; and (2) that the respondent, by such discharge and refusal to reinstate and by advising, urging, and warning its em- ployees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or assisting the Union, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of, the Act. On April 29, 1940, the respondent filed its answer, admitting cer- tain allegations as to the nature of its business, and denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in unfair labor practices as alleged. The answer further alleged that the discharge of Oscar Carlson was made for due, sufficient, and legal cause. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 2, 1940, at Minne- apolis, Minnesota, before Henry W. Schmidt, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues of the case was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled on a number of objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were made. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On June 12, 1940, the Board issued an order directing that no Inter- mediate Report be prepared by the Trial Examiner on the complaint and hearing thereon and, in accordance with Article II, Section 37 (c), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 2, as amended, that proposed findings of fact, proposed- con- clusions of 1aiv, and a proposed order be issued and that the parties be permitted within twenty (20) days from the date of said proposed findings, conclusions, and order to file exceptions and to request-oral argument before the Board, and to file a brief with the Board within thirty (30) days after the date of the proposed findings, conclusions, and order. On August 10, 1940, the Board issued its Proposed Find- ings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. No exceptions were filed to the Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order, and no request for oral argument was made. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Leitz Carpet Corporation, a Delaware corporation having its prin- cipal office at Wilmington, Delaware, is engaged in the wholesale - LEITZ CARPET CORPORATION 237 distribution of carpet, linoleum, and other floor covering, window shades, and smoking stands. It maintains an office, warehouse, and showroom at Minneapolis, Minnesota. During the respondent's last fiscal year preceding the date of the hearing it purchased rugs, car-. pets, linoleum„ and sundries amounting to $939,771 from points outside the State of Minnesota. During the same year it sold products amounting to $247,185, approximately 22 per cent of its total sales, to points outside the State of Minnesota. All merchandise sold by the respondent is shipped from its place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is sold by traveling salesmen who sell the respondent's products through territory embracing Minnesota, North Dakota,_ South Dakota, Iowa, Montana, and Wisconsin. The respondent em- ploys approximately 58 employees in its warehouse and sales office. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 1261, Carpet, Linoleum, and Resilient Floor Decorators is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership employees engaged, in Minneapolis and the adjacent area, in installing, cutting, selling, measuring, and sewing of carpet, linoleum, and, other floor covering. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion In April or May 1939 Oscar Carlson and Hilbert Johnson, then employees of the respondent, attended a general membership meeting and became members of the Union. The following day Charles Vroo- man, sales manager and superintendent of the respondent, spoke to Carlson and' Johnson, separately, concerning the Union. Carlson testified in substance that Vrooman, after questioning him concerning his attendance at the union meeting, enumerated the advantageous working conditions and privileges granted by the respondent to its employees, and in conclusion stated that he did not know why the employees "bothered" about the Union in the face of these advantages and privileges. Vrooman admitted that he had a conversation with Carlson after he had learned that Carlson had attended the union meeting. He testified that, "I asked Oscar (Carlson) if he was dis- satisfied, and if he was why didn't he come down and talk things over. I didn't say nothing about the Union." Johnson, who was called as a witness by the respondent, testified that Vrooman questioned him concerning his attendance at the union meeting. He further testified to the effect that Vrooman told him that he believed in good unions but not in "shyster outfits" like 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Le Roy) Johnson's,l and that Leitz would not stand for any "shyster outfit" like that running or interfering with his business. Vrooman denied having made the foregoing statements. In view of Vrooman's admission concerning the conversation he had with Carl- son, and upon the basis of the entire record, we And that Vrooman made the statements attributed to him by Carlson and Johnson. Carlson also testified in substance that in the spring of 1938 Leitz, president of the respondent told him that he did not see any reason why anyone of his employees should join the Union and pay $2 monthly dues and that he would be compelled to "close up the carpet company" if his employees did join. Paul Bernard Jacobson, who had resigned from the respondent's employ in March 1938, testified that at the time he resigned, Leitz expressed fear of the Union to him and said that if he were not afraid of the Union he could hire from six to eight more employees. Leitz did not controvert the testimony of either Carlson or Jacobson, and we find that Leitz made the statements attributed to him above. Carlson further testified that in the spring of 1939 Walter Barnacle, foreman of the order department, "had all the boys together and told them that they would be making a very big mistake if they joined the Union because a lot of them would lose their jobs." Barnacle denied that this incident took place, but in view of the other evidence of the respondent's hostility to the Union wo do not credit his denial. We find that the respondent, by the above-described statements of Leitz, Vrooman, and Barnacle, has interfered with, restrained, and 0 coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Oscar Carlson Oscar Carlson was hired by the respondent in September 1936 as a porter at a monthly wage of $50. He was employed in that capacity for a period of 6 months, after which he was given a $10 monthly in- crease and transferred to the rug-padding department. He worked in that department from March 1937 to September 1938 and received two $5 monthly increases. His duties consisted of cutting and sew- ing rug padding in specified sizes. In May 1938 Donald McKenzie, who is a member of the Union,,became foreman of that department. Carlson worked under his `supervision for 4 months until September 1938, when Carlson was transferred to the sample order-filling de- 1 Le Roy Johnson is business agent of the Union. LEITZ CARPET CORPORATION 239 partment. His duties in that department consisted of cutting and fill- ing orders for sample rugs, inspecting and segregating soiled samples from clean samples, recording and crediting damaged and returned merchandise, and assisting salesmen in matters involving sample car- pets. Carlson worked in this department under the supervision of George Mitchell. In April or May 1939 Carlson joined the Union and had the con- versation with Vrooman described above. Shortly thereafter Le Roy Johnson, business agent of the Union, informed Leitz that Carlson was a member of the Union and requested a wage increase for him.2 Leitz refused to grant the increase. On June 22, 1939, Carlson, while on vacation received a letter from Vrooman discharging him from the respondent's employ. The re- spondent contended that it discharged Carlson for the reason that, after 21/2 years of unsatisfactory work, Carlson by his delinquent is ork habits caused the loss of a sale of a $500 rug. McKenzie, foreman of the workroom and himself a member of the Union, testified that during the 4 months in which Carlson worked in his department he prepared an, insufficient number of rug padding daily- and was frequently missing from his work place. He further testified that he complained consistently to Vrooman about Carlson's failure to produce sufficient rug padding and his disappearance from his place of work, and that bah he and Vrooman spoke to Carlson in connection therewith. Vrooman and Barnacle, foreman in the order- filling department, corroborated McKenzie's testimony. Both McKenzie and Vrooman testified that upon Carlson's failure to improve, McKenzie requested Carlson's transfer. Vrooman testi- fied that he transferred Carlson to the order-filling department in an attempt to find more suitable work for him to do. Although Carlson denied that complaints were made of his work, and although he testi- fied that he was transferred at his own request because he believed that the order-filling work involved a promotion, nevertheless, in view of McKenzie's testimony and on the entire record we do not credit Carlson's denial nor the reason advanced by him for his transfer. Vrooman and Mitchell testified that Carlson continued his delin- quent habits after the transfer, and that his shortcomings were fre- quently pointed out to him. Carlson denied that either Vrooman or Mitchell complained to him about his work habits. The respondent introduced records of Carlson's attendance, which indicated that his tardiness and absences increased during the last 6 months of his 2 There is testimony in the record that Johnson bargained for various union members and had had many conferences with Leitz concerning such employees. 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment.' Upon the basis of the entire record we do not credit Carlson's, denial. The respondent was tolerant of Carlson's faults until, on June 7, 1939, he filled an order for a sample rug with a soiled sample. Vroo- man testified that as a result of the soiled sample the dealer to whorl it was shipped was unable to effect a sale of a $500 rug. Vrooman conferred with Mitchell on June 15, 1939, after learning of this inci- dent, and decided to discharge Carlson. The respondent's employ- ment record, which indicates that in the 10 years of its existence it discharged only 2 employees, substantiates the respondent's assertion that it retained Carlson in its employ despite his faults because it was a policy of the respondent to shift its employees to different depart- ments until a satisfactory place could be found for them. Under all the circumstances we conclude that the evidence is insuffi- cient to support a finding that Carlson was discriminated against because of his affiliation with or activity on behalf of a labor organi- zation. We find that the respondent has not discriminated against Oscar Carlson in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to dis- courage membership in a labor organization. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent 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 Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action. which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. • Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : 3 Although Carlson's attendance record during the 3 months preceding his discharge was relatively good as compared with his record during his entire employment , during the 6 months preceding his discharge he had been absent from work once and late for work 17 times. LEITZ CARPET CORPORATION 241 CONCLUsIONs OF LAW 1. Local 1261, Carpet, Linoleum, and Resilient Floor Decorators, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5,) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices, affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National.Labor Relations,Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond- ent, Leitz Carpet Corporation, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights 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) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its office and ware- house at Minneapolis, Minnesota, notices to its employees, and main- tain such notices fora period of sixty (60) days, stating that the re- respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to ,cease and desist as aforesaid; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region (Min- neapolis, Minnesota) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 323428-42-vol 27-17