C. A. Lund Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 423 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of C. A. LUND COMPANY and NOVELTY WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL 1866 (A. F. OF L.) SUCCESSOR
In the Matter Of CHRISTIAN A. LUND, DOING BUSINESS AS C. A. LUND
COMPANY AND NORTHLAND SKI MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A COR-
PORATION, and WOODENWARE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 20481
In the Matter of C. A. LUND COMPANY and NORTHLAND SKI MANU-
FACTURING COMPANY and WOODENWARE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL
20481
Cases Nos. C-233, C-234, and R-204, respectively.-Decided
April 5, 1938
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing Industry-Employer: individual
owner of manufacturing plant found to dominate and control corporate owner
of similar plant-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: observation of union meet-
ing; threat to remove business; threat to discharge employees joining union-
Company-Dominated Union: fostering, encouraging, and granting immediate
recognition of independent union by employer as effort to defeat outside union ;
list of employees given to men hostile to union by management; plant closed
to permit solicitation of membership in office ; mayor induced to address em-
ployees in favor of independent union; disestablished as agency for collective
bargaining--Discrimination: discharge of president and secretary of union at
height of organizing activities of rival labor organizations; refusal to reinstate
for alleged violence-Strike: result of employer's unfair labor practices-Lock-
Out-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: production employees of both
plants ; similarity of operations of two plants ; unity of interest ; transfers of
employees ; similarity of degree of skill required ; absence of wage differentials-
Representatives: proof of choice : comparison of membership records and pay
roll; majority of company-dominated union disregarded-Collective Bargaining:
refusal to recognize union as representative of employees in both plants-Rein-
statement Ordered: of discharged employees ; of strikers, upon application, dis-
missing newly hired employees if necessary-Back Pay: awarded discharged
employees ; awarded strikers whose applications for reinstatement are refused
by employer-Petition for Certification: dismissed because of order to respond-
ents to bargain.
Mr. Thurlow Smoot, for the Board.
Mr. E. S. Stringer, of St. Paul, Minn., for the respondents.
Bradford, Cummins d Cummins, by Mr. Mundt Torrison and Mr.
C. W. Cummins, of St. Paul, Minn., for the Independent Order.
Mr. Herbert Fuchs, of counsel to the Board.
423
80618-38-von. vi-28
424 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 4, 1937, Woodenware Workers Union, Local 20481, herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Eighteenth
Region (Minneapolis, Minnesota) an amended petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Christian A. Lund, doing business at Hastings,
Minnesota, as C. A. Lund Company, herein called the respondent
Lund, and of Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, St. Paul,
Minnesota, herein called the respondent Northland, and requesting
an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act.
Separate petitions had been filed, on May 13, 1937, by Novelty
Workers Ullion,l and on May 25, 1937, by Milton Schumann, on
behalf of Independent Order of C. A. Lund Company.2 On June 2,
1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
Upon charges and amended charges 3 duly filed by the Union, the
Board, by Robert J. Wiener, Acting Regional Director for the
Eighteenth Region, issued its complaint dated June 21, 1937, against
the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. The complaint, in substance, alleges that the
respondent Lund is engaged, at his plant in Hastings, Minnesota, in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of skis, ski accessories, hockey
sticks, toboggans, snowshoes, and similar articles; that the respondent
Northland is a corporation, engaged, at its plant in St. Paul, Minne-
sota, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of skis, ski accessories,
hockey sticks, toboggans, snowshoes, and similar articles; that through
1 John Janosco , business agent of the Union, testified at the hearing that Novelty
Workers Union is not yet set up as a complete organization A charter has been applied
for and granted, and it is contemplated that Novelty Workers Union will be the successor
of the Union.
2 Schumann testified at the heating that the petition filed by him was intended to be
filed on behalf of independent Order of Ski workers, the intervenor herein
3 The original charges were filed on May 13, 1937, on behalf of Novelty Workers Union,
and named only the respondent Lund On May 28, 1937, the Union filed amended charges
against both respondents
DECISIONS AND OUDDItS 425
stock ownership the respondent Lund dominates and controls the
respondent Northland; that the plants of the two respondents are
operated as one unit; and that production workers at the respondents'
plants, exclusive of those employees engaged in supervisory and cler-
ical capacities, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
In respect of the unfair labor practices, the complaint further
alleges (1) that although a majority of the employees in said unit
have designated the Union as their exclusive bargaining agent, the
respondents have refused and continue to refuse to bargain collectively
with the Union; (2) that on or about March 22, 1937, the respondents
discharged Edward Hageman and Sigurd P. Nesseth for the reason
that they had joined and assisted the Union and had engaged in con-
certed activities with other employees of the respondents for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and
have refused and continue to refuse to reinstate them ; (3) that the
respondents have dominated and interfered with the formation of a
labor organization at the Hastings plant known as Independent
Order of Ski Workers; and (4) that by the foregoin g acts and refusals
to act, and by persuading and warning their employees to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of the Union, the respondents
have interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and continue to interfere
with, restrain, and coerce their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The complaint and accompany-
ing notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
On June 25, 1937, each respondent filed a separate answer. Both
answers deny domination and control by the respondent Lund of
the respondent Northland, deny the appropriateness of the unit con-
tended for in the complaint, and deny the commission of the unfair
labor practices charged in the complaint. The answer of the respond-
ent Lund alleges, in addition, that his employees separately constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining; that he
iefused to bargain with the Union because it did not represent a
majority of his employees, and because he had entered into an agree-
ment with the Independent Order of Ski Workers which did repre-
sent a majority of his employees; and that Sigurd P. Nesseth was
discharged for cause, and Edward Hageman was discharged for lack
of work. The answer of the respondent Northland alleges that its
employees separately constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
On June 29, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section
10 (c) (2), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the cases be consolidated
for the purpose of hearing.
426 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a, joint hearing upon the petitions and the
complaint was held in Minneapolis , Minnesota , on July 6, 7, 8, and
9, 1937, before James C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board and the respondents were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. At the opening of the hear-
ing, the Independent Order of Ski Workers, herein called the Inde-
pendent Order, filed a petition to intervene. The petition was
granted. The Independent Order was represented by counsel and
thereupon participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on the
motions and objections made during the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On September 4, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report. He found that both respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
8 (1), (3), anti (5) and 2 (6) and. (7) of the Act, and that the
respondent Lund had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, and recom-
mended that the respondents cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found; that the respondent Lund reinstate and make whole
the employees discriminatorily discharged by him, and withdraw
recognition from the Independent Order; and that both respondents
post notices in their respective plants that they will cease and desist
as aforesaid , and notify the Regional Director of the steps taken to
comply with these requirements.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the
respondent Lund. The Board has considered these exceptions and
finds them without merit.
Upon the -entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENTS
A. The busines3 of the respondents
The respondent Christian A. Lund has been doing business at
a manufacturing plant in Hastings, Minnesota, since 1927 under the
name of C. A. Lund Company, and is there engaged in the manufac-
ture , sale, and distribution of skis, ski accessories, hockey sticks, to-
boggans, and snowshoes. Lumber imported from the States of Ar-
kansas , Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin , Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Alabama, and Louisiana constitutes not less than 70 per cent of the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 427
raw materials used at the Hastings plant. In addition, rubber,
tonkin, bamboo, rattan, leather, rawhide, enamel, stains, varnish,
and shellac enter into the manufacturing processes of this respondent.
With the exception of varnish and shellac, which constitute only 2 or
3 per cent of the materials used, all of these materials are purchased
outside the State of Minnesota. Approximately 90 per cent of this
respondent's finished products are sold outside the State of Minnesota.
Gross sales for 1936 amounted to $332,000 of which $23,000 was re-
ceived from sales within the State.
The respondent Northland Ski Manufacturing Company is a
Minnesota corporation having its principal place of business and
manufacturing plant at St. Paul, Minnesota. It is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of skis, ski accessories, and
toboggans. Lumber imported from the States of Mississippi, Arkan-
sas, Louisiana, Texas, Wisconsin, and Indiana constitutes 70 per cent
of the raw materials used by this respondent. Hardware, brass,
rubber, leather, bamboo, lacquer, stains, chemicals, cotton goods,
and rope, all purchased outside the State of Minnesota, account for
another 20 per cent of the raw materials used. Approximately 90 per
cent of this respondent's finished products are sold to customers out-
side the State of Minnesota. Gross sales for 1936 amounted to
approximately $460,000.
Both respondents are among the leading concerns in the ski manu-
facturing industry. At peak of production the plants run 2 shifts
and each employs 130 men.
B. The relationship between the respondents
The Northland Ski Manufacturing Company was incorporated in
1912. In 1913, Christian A. Lund became associated with the busi-
ness through the purchase of stock. Since 1916 he has been the
owner of substantially all the stock of the corporation. At present,
he is its president and general manager, and he and members of his
immediate family comprise all of its officers, directors, and stock-
holders. The stock in the corporation is held as follows :
Owned by Christian A. Lund as
trustee for members of his im-
mediate family------------------
Owned by Christian A. Lund, in-
dividually -----------------------
Owned by Christian A. Lund's wife
and two sons-------------------
Total-----------------------
Class A
(voting
common )
Class B
(nonvoting
common )
Class C
( nonvoting
preferred)
98.4% 99. 0% 24. 1%
.410 .251/o 74. 8%
1 2%0 • .73% 1.1%
100.0% 100.0% 100 0%
428 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The trusts of which the respondent Lund is trustee are irrevocable;
the trustee has full voting power over the stock and receives all divi-
dends therefrom . This respondent and his sons , Carl F . and Ambrose
C. Lund, draw salaries as officers of the corporation . Both sons also
draw salaries from their father for services rendered the C. A. Lund
Company.
We find that by virtue of stock ownership the respondent Lund
dominates and controls the respondent Northland.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Woodenware Workers Union, Local 20481, is a labor organization.
It is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and admits to
membership all woodenware workers in Minnesota , excluding super-
intendents and clerical employees.
Independent Order of Ski Workers is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation. It admits to membership employees of the C. A. Lund Com-
pany at Hastings , Minnesota.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of labor relations among the respondent 's employees
The first attempt to organize the respondents ' employees was made
by the American Federation of Labor, herein referred to as the A. F.
of L., in the fall of 1935 at the Northland plant in St. Paul. At the
same time an independent union was being organized under the name
of Ski Workers Association . A consent election held on October 23,
1935, resulted in victory for the independent union. The respondent
Northland and the Ski Workers Association thereupon entered into
an oral agreement covering a period of 6 months. Christian A. Lund
testified that he had been bargaining with the Association for the past
2 years. There is no evidence , however, that the original agreement
was ever renewed or that anything of consequence in the way of col-
lective bargaining was ever attempted or accomplished by the Asso-
ciation. In April 1937, its chairan publicly announced that it had
ceased to exist.
On August 29, 1936 , about 20 employees in the Northland plant
joined the Furniture Workers Union , affiliated with the A . F. of L.,
and thereafter held regular meetings until late in December. On the
occasion of the August 29th meeting , Olson, superintendent of the
plant, was observed slowly circling the union hall in an automobile.
A few days later the men who had attended the meeting were called
before Christian A. Lund who threatened that he would move out of
town in the event of any "labor troubles." There is evidence, also,
that Lund threatened individual employees with discharge if they
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 429
joined the union. By January 1937 most of the men who had joined
the Furniture Workers Union had been discharged. The few remain-
ing union members decided against further organizational activities
as long as the Hastings plant remained unorganized, and meetings
were discontinued. We find that the respondent Northland has in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Organization of the Union
Sentiment for a union among the employees of the Hastings plant,
which began to manifest itself during February 1937, came to fruition
on the night of March 19, when Sigurd P. Nesseth and another worker
secured the signatures of 84 men, comprising a majority of the em-
ployees of the plant, to a paper professing to favor unionization. The
next day, Nesseth and four other workers went to Minneapolis and
induced John Janosco, an A. F. of L. organizer who had assisted the
Furniture Workers Union's attempt to organize the Northland plant,
to agree to go to Hastings and address a meeting. On Sunday evening,
March 21, an organization meeting was held at Hastings at which
Janosco spoke. About 50 employees signed applications for member-
ship in the Woodenware Workers Union and elected temporary of-
ficers. Nesseth was elected president and Edward Hageman, treas-
urer. The Union was subsequently chartered by the A. F. of L. as
Local 20481.
C. Organization and recognition of the Independent Order
On March 20, when Carl Lund learned of the organizing activities
of the preceding night, he called a number of supervisory employees
into his office, questioned them concerning rumors that a union was
being started, and invited them to meet him again on the next day
with such further information as they were able to obtain. At 1
o'clock on the following day (a Sunday), the men met Carl Lund
at his office. Olaf Skjefstad, plant superintendent, and E. P. Fritts,
office manager, as well as Adrian T. Driscoll and Royal F. Sutton,
supervisory employees who later figured prominently in the affairs
of the inside union, were also present. The testimony as -to what
was said on this occasion is conflicting. Carl Lund testified that the
men present expressed preference for an "official" group over an
outside union and asked for the names of all employees so that they
might meet and persuade them. A witness for the Board testified
that Carl Lund, himself, urged the inen to explain to the other
workers,that he would never recognize the A. F. of L. union. -That
Lund gave the men lists of the employees working in the respective
departments is uncontradicted.
430 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That evening, Driscoll and 20 or 25 other men who had attended
the organization meeting of the Woodenware Workers Union gath-
ered in the office of the Hastings plant. They decided to form an
inside union, elected Driscoll temporary chairman, and called a meet-
ing for the next evening. Carl Lund, who was still at the office,
discussed certain phases of the A. F. of L. meeting with Driscoll.
The same evening Lund posted a notice to the effect that the plant
would be closed until further notice. He testified that this act was
prompted by fear of a sit-down strike.
Men coming to work on Monday morning, March 22, found the
plant closed, but the office open. Inside the office they encountered
Driscoll and Sutton, in the presence of Carl Lund, Skjefstad, and
Fritts, circulating a paper in favor of an independent union.
That evening, the inside union met, adopted the name of Inde-
pendent Order of Ski Workers, adopted a constitution and bylaws,
and elected seven directors, including Driscoll, Sutton, and two other
foremen. There is some conflict as to the origin of the constitution
adopted by the Independent Order. Witnesses for the intervenor
testified that a former employee, absent from the hearing, happened
to have a form constitution in his pocket when appointed to the
constitution committee. Witnesses for the Board testified that Carl
Lund had admitted securing the form and giving it to Driscoll.
On Tuesday, March 23, the plant reopened and Nesseth and Hage-
man were discharged. In the evening, the directors of the Inde-
pendent Order met with Christian and Carl Lund and presented
demands for recognition, a closed shop, and a wage increase. The
Lunds immediately -ranted recognition of the Independent Order
as sole bargaining agent and promised to answer the other demands
in 48 hours. Shortly before midnight, Carl Lund escorted Herman
A. Fasbender, mayor of Hastings, to the plant and ordered the
night foreman to turn off the power. Fasbender thereupon entered
the shop and addressed the night crew. He urged them to aban-
don the A. F. of L. and to fall in with the Lunds' wishes for an
inside union.
On Thursday, March 25, the Lunds again met with the directors of
the Independent Order, rejected the demand for a closed shop, and
granted a partial wage increase for a period ending January 31,
1938. The next day the terms of this oral agreement were posted on
the time clock.
Consideration of the events of March 20 through March 25 leads to
the inescapable conclusion that the Lunds fostered and encouraged
the organization of the Independent Order, and hastened to recog-
nize it in a determined effort to discourage and defeat the formation
of the Union. Every step in the organization of the inside Union
was dominated by the management. Carl Lund gave the initial
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 431
impetus by putting employee lists into the hands of men known to
him to be hostile to the A. F. of L. By closing the plant on March
22 and tacitly permitting supervisory employees to solicit signatures
in his office, he sped the success of their efforts. The alleged col-
lective bargaining between the Lunds and the Independent Order
is most unconvincing. Recognition was granted upon the presenta-
tion of a paper reading, "We, the undersigned, are in favor of or-
ganizing an independent union", and signed by 97 men, but without
proof that any such union in fact existed. The good faith of the
act of recognition and of Carl Lund's testimony at the hearing that
the efforts of the A. F. of L. had amounted to nothing significant
is thrown sharply in doubt by Lund's own testimony that he had
feared a sit-down strike of the night crew. Perhaps aware that they
had recognized a union with little or no support among the men,
the Lunds availed themselves of the influence of the mayor of
Hastings to persuade the workers to their point of view,-in itself
a flagrant violation of the Act.
We find that the respondent Lund dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Independent Order and
has contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining,
and coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The discriminatory discharges
From some time in the spring of 1936 to and including the night
of March 19-20, 1937, Sigurd P. Nesseth worked on ski-shaping ma-
chines at the Hastings plant and earned approximately $95 per month.
On the last night of his employment Nesseth burned the head of the
machine on which he had been working. The night foreman was
near at hand but was unable to state how the machine had been
damaged. Nesseth telephoned to Driscoll at his home and requested
him to come to the plant and inspect the machine. Driscoll complied,
stated that the machine would have to be repaired, but did not indi-
cate that Nesseth had been at fault. The evidence is conflicting as to
the condition of the machine before it was damaged. There is testi-
mony that it had previously been broken and that repairs had neces-
sitated changes in operation of which Nesseth had not been apprised.
Driscoll testified at the hearing that the damage resulted from Nes-
seth's neglect. Nesseth finished the night shift doing other work and-
left the plant on the morning of March 20 without any intimation
that he was to blame for the damage. Because the plant was closed
on March 22, Nesseth next reported for work on the evening of the
twenty-third. He was met by Skjefstad, the superintendent, who
told him he was discharzed. When Nesseth refused to accept his
432 NNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
check unless given the reason for his discharge, Skjefstad took him to
Carl Lund and there told him, "I suppose it is because you burned the
head." Nesseth offered to show Lund that the accident had been
caused by changes in operation of which he had not been informed,
but Lund refused.
Nesseth's work had always been satisfactory. Although the rec-
ords of the C. A. Lund Company show that his discharge took place
on Saturday, March 20, there is no evidence that he was informed of
it before he reported for work on the evening of the twenty-third.
Edward Hageman was employed by the C. A. Lund Company on
October 7, 1935. He was laid off for lack of work on December 23,
1936, and rehired on February 1, 1937. Although his work record
bears the notation "poor", Hageman received three wage increases
during the course of his employment. , At the time of his discharge
he was working at unloading lumber and was earning approximately
X15 per week.
When Hageman reported for work on March 22, the clay the plant
was closed, Sutton requested him to join the inside union which was
then in the process of formation. Hageman refused. During work-
ing hours on the following day Driscoll made a similar request of
Hageman. Hageman, who had been accused by Driscoll of talking
about union matters during working hours, responded by reproach-
ing Driscoll in similar terms. Shortly afterwards, Skjefstad told
Hageman that he would be laid off for lack of work. There is testi-
mony to the effect that another carload of lumber was delivered at
the plant on the next day.
The words "N. G. Do not rehire" were later added to the work
records of both men. Fritts, the office manager, testified that this was
clone because both had participated in violence before the plant on
March 30.
Nesseth and Hageman were active members of the Union. Nesseth
had been the leading figure in its organization and was elected
president at its first meeting, on March 21. At the same meeting
Hageman joined the Union and was elected treasurer. Driscoll, the
supervisory employee who became the president of the Independent
Order, attended the meeting at which Nesseth and Hageman were
elected and discussed it with Carl Lund. It is a significant coin-
cidence that both men were notified of their discharge on the day
after the plant had been closed and at the height of the organizing
activities of the Union and the Independent Order. It is also pecul-
iar that Skjefstad, the plant superintendent, was unable or unwill-
ing to tell Nesseth the reason for his discharge until supported by the
presence of the general manager. The reasons given by the Lunds
for discharging these men are contradicted by the fact that at a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 433
-number of conferences the Lunds based their refusal to rehire them
.solely on the charge of violence. The alleged violence consisted of
participation in a fight between strikers and non-strikers . There is
no evidence that any serious consequences resulted or that Nesseth or
Hageman took a prominent part. At the hearing it developed that
one worker whose employment record was similarly marked "Do
not rehire" for alleged participation in acts of violence had since
Joined the Independent Order and was once more working at the
plant.
The Lunds' frequently expressed hostility to the Union, and their
encouragement and speedy recognition of the Independent Order,
contribute to the conclusion that Nesseth and Hageman were dis-
charged not for the reasons given by the respondent Lund but for
union activities . Neither man has been able to secure steady employ-
ment since his discharge.
We find that the respondent Lund discharged Sigurd P. Nesseth
and Edward Hageman because they had joined and assisted the
Union, thereby discriminating against his employees in regard to
hire and tenure of employment and interfering with, restraining, and
•coercing his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
E. The strike
On the day following the 'discharge of Nesseth and Hageman, a
committee of members of the Union called on Carl Lund and de-
manded their reinstatement . Lund refused . Between March 25 and
March 27, several employees quit work in protest , and on March 28,
at a meeting attended by a great majority of the employees, the
Union voted unanimously to strike . Next day a picket line was
established at the Hastings plant. The plant was open but did not
•operate. Mayor , Fasbender , at the request of the Union, attempted
to induce Christian A. Lund to discuss settlement. The mayor testi-
fied that Lund said , "I will absolutely not have anything to do
whatsoever with any union connected with the A. F. of L., and that
is final."
On Tuesday morning, March 30, Driscoll and a number of his fol-
lowers marched to the plant and a fight ensued between them and the
pickets. The Lunds later refused to reinstate several men because of
their alleged participation in that fight . Although the testimony
leads to the conclusion that Driscoll 's men provoked the encounter,
this attitude was taken by the Lunds only toward members of the
Union, including Nesseth and Hageman, and not toward any mem-
ber of the Independent Order.
During the next few days , Mayor Fasbender and Harold E. Stassen,
'County Attorney of Dakota County, Minnesota , attempted to medi-
434 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ate the strike, but Christian A. Lund steadfastly refused, to meet the
Union. On one occasion he permitted his son, Carl, to meet with a
committee limited to employees of the C. A. Lund Company, with the
proviso that he refrain from bargaining. When such a meeting took
place, Carl Lund reaffirmed his previous stand, and refused to recog-
nize the Union or reinstate the blacklisted employees.
On April 12, a group of strikers from Hastings went to St. Paul
and spoke to some of the employees at the Northland plant. Within
a few days, most of the Northland workers had joined the Union
and gone on strike. The Northland plant closed on April 14 and
had not reopened at the time of the hearing. The Hastings plant
was closed from the end of March until shortly before the end of
June when about 60 men returned to work. At the time of the hearing,
the strike had not been settled.
F. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The St. Paul plant manufactures higher-priced, better-grade prod-
ucts than does the Hastings plant. It sells primarily to retailers,
whereas the products of the Hastings plant are sold to wholesalers.
Snowshoes and hockey sticks are manufactured at the Hastings plant
exclusively, and approximately 25 per cent of the employees of that
plant are engaged in their production. The two plants are 20 miles
apart. These are the principal differences between the St. Paul and
the Hastings plants.
The record abounds in proofs of the similarity of the operations
at the two plants, and of the unity of interest which exists between
their managements, on the one hand, and among their employees,
on the other. Workers have, from time to time, been transferred
between the plants. Joint purchases of raw materials are sometimes
received at one plant for both, and a portion is later reshipped. Prod-
ucts partially manufactured at one plant are not infrequently fin-
ished at, and shipped from, the other. Although each plant ordinarily
uses its own trade-marks, products manufactured at one plant have
been sold under the other's mark.'
The production employees of both plants, in general, do the same
kind of work, requiring approximately the same degree of skill. No
appreciable wage differential exists between the plants. All the em-
ployees recognize the authority of Christian A. Lund and of his son,
Carl. At each plant, the workers are hampered in the exercise of
their rights of self-organization and collective bargaining by the
threat that union activity will result in the abandonment of that plant
and the transfer of its business to the other. Having found (Section
I-B, above) that the respondent Lund dominates and controls the
respondent Northland, we find that the production employees of both
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 435
respondents together, excluding supervisory and clerical employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that said unit insures to employees of the respondents the
full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bar-
gaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the
appropriate unit
The Union submitted its membership records as proof of its
majority. Comparison of the records with the pay roll of the
respondent Northland indicates that by April 19, 1937, more than
80 per cent of the employees of that respondent had signed the
Union's application cards.
At the Hastings plant, the Union commanded a majority on
March 19, when Nesseth secured 84 signatures on its behalf ; on March
28, when a majority of the erinployees voted unanimously to strike;
and again on about June 9, when a majority signed a petition favor-
ing the Union. The Union's membership records, compared with
the pay roll of the respondent Lund, indicate, also, that by April 19,
a majority of the employees of that respondent had signed applica-
tions for membership.
On about March 22 and about June 19, Driscoll and Sutton, super-
visory employees, secured the signatures of a majority of the Hastings
employees to petitions favoring the Independent Order. Having
found that the Independent Order was dominated and assisted in its
formation by the respondent Lund, we shall disregard these evidences
of a majority on the ground that they were obtained through inter-
ference and coercion and do not reflect the free will of the employees.
We find that the Union has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their represen-
tative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3. The refusal to bargain
We have seen that by April 19, 1937, the Union had achieved a
majority in the appropriate unit. On April 19, a committee of Union
men called at the office of Christian A. Lund with a proposed union
contract, fixing wages and conditions in both plants, and drawn by a
committee of workers from both plants. Lund was absent. The
committee left the contract with an office employee who promised to
bring it to Lund's attention. On May 26, Lund not having replied,
3anosco, the business agent of the Union, sent him a registered letter
requesting a meeting with the management. This letter, also,
I emainecl unanswered.
On about June 4 a Union committee succeeded in meeting Christian
A. Lund in his office in St. Paul. They referred to the Union's pro-
436 - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
posed contract and asked whether he had any counterproposal to,
make. Lund stated that the men were always welcome to come and
see him, and that he would be glad to discuss the question of working
hours. He rejected as unreasonable the proposed wage scale, and
flatly refused to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent for
employees of both plants. Lund testified at the hearing that he had
never bargained with an A. F. of L. union.
We find that the respondents have refused to bargain collectively
with the representatives of their employees and that by such refusal
the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ents described in Section I-A above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
We have found that Nesseth and Hageman were discriminatorily
discharged. They are entitled to reinstatement with back pay.
The strike of the respondents' employees was caused by unfair labor
practices. We shall order the respondents, upon application, to offer
reinstatement to their former positions to those of their employees
who went on strike, dismissing, if necessary, employees hired since
the beginning of the strike. Our order will also provide that em-
ployees whose application for reinstatement is refused by the respond-
ents in violation of the order herein shall be entitled to back pay
accruing from the date of the refusal of the application to the date
of reinstatement.
THE PETITION
Our findings in Section III-F will serve in lieu of certification of
representatives. The petition for investigation and certification of
representatives will accordingly be denied.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Woodenware Workers Union, Local 20481, and Independent
Order of Ski Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 437
2. The respondent, Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund
Company, by dominating and interfering with the formation and
administration of Independent Order of Ski Workers and by con-
tributing support to it, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. The respondent Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund
Company, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Sigurd P. Nesseth and Edward Hageman, and thereby
discouraging membership in Woodenware Workers Union, Local
20481, has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. All of the production employees of the respondent Christian A.
Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund Company, and of the respondent
Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, together, excluding super-
visory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
5. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Woodenware Workers
Union, Local 20481, having been selected as their representative by a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, was, on April 15,
1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative
of'all the employees in such unit for'the purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with Woodenware Workers
Union, Local 20481, as the exclusive representative of their employees
in an appropriate unit, the respondents, Christian A. Lund, doing
business as C. A. Lund Company, and Northland Ski Manufacturing
Company, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. The respondents Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A.
Lund Company, and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, by in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8. (1) thereof.
8. The afore-mentioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
'ORDER
Upon the basis of -the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders :
1. That the respondent, Christian A. 'Lund, doing business as
C. A. Lund Company, his agents, successors, and assigns, cease and
438 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
desist from in any manner dominating or interfering with the ad-
ministration of Independent Order of Ski Workers, or any other
labor organization of his employees, and from contributing support
to Independent Order of,Ski Workers, or to any other labor organi-
zation of his employees.
2. That the respondent, Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A.
Lund Company, his agents, successors, and assigns, cease and desist
from discouraging membership in Woodenware Workers Union,
Local 20481, or any other labor organization of his employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of his employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment of any of his employees.
3. That the respondents, Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A.
Lund Company, and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, cease and desist from refusing
to bargain collectively with Woodenware Workers Union, Local
20481, as the exclusive representative of the production employees,
excluding supervisory and clerical employees, in their employ.
4. That the respondents, Christian A. Lund, doing business as
C. A. Lund Company, and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
5. That the respondents, Christian A. Lund, doing business as
C. A. Lund Company, and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, take the following affirm-
ative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of
the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Woodenware Workers
Union, Local 20481, as the exclusive representative of the production
employees, exclusive of supervisory and clerical employees, in their
employ, for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment.
6. That the respondent Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A.
Lund Company, his agents, successors, and assigns, take the follow-
ing additional affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 439
(a) Offer Sigurd P. Nesseth and Edward Hageman immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Sigurd P. Nesseth and Edward Hageman for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharges, by,
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as ivages from March 23, 1937, the
,late of his discharge, to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less
any amount earned by him during such period;
(c) Upon application, offer to those of his employees who were
oon the pay roll on March 25, 1937, and who went on strike, imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights or privileges, dismissing, if
necessary, all persons hired for the first time since March 25, 1937;
(d) Make whole all of his employees who were on the pay roll on
March 25, 1937, for any loss they may suffer by reason of any refusal
of their application for reinstatement in accordance with paragraph
^6 (c) herein, by payment to each of them of a sum equal to that which
he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the
date of any such refusal of his application to the date of reinstatement,
less the amount, if any, which he earned during said period;
(e) Withdraw all recognition from Independent Order of Ski
Workers as the representative of any of his employees for the purpose
of dealing with this respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of. employment, or other. conditions, of em-
ployment, and disestablish Independent Order of Ski Workers as such
representative;
(f) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout his
plant and maintain such notices for a period of thirty (30) consecutive
clays stating (1) that this respondent will cease and desist as afore-
said; and (2) that this respondent will withdraw all recognition from
Independent Order of Ski Workers as the representative of any of
his employees for the purpose of dealing with this respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay. hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment;
(g) Notify the Regional Director 'for the Eighteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
this respondent has taken to comply therewith.
7. That the respondent Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, its
agents, successors, and assigns, take the following additional affirma-
tive action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act :
(a) Upon application, offer to those of its employees who were on
the pay roll on April 14, 1937, and who went on strike, immediate and
80618-38-von vi-29
440 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
full reinstatement to their former positions, without, prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges, dismissing, if necessary,
all persons hired since April 14, 1937;
(b) Make whole all of its employees who were on the pay roll on
April 14, 1937, for any loss they may suffer by reason of any refusal
of their application for reinstatement in accordance with paragraph
7 (a) herein, by payment to each of them of a sum equal to that which
he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the
date of any such refusal of his application to the date of reinstate-
ment, less the amount, if any, which he earned during said period;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain ^ uch notices for a period of thirty (30) consecu-
tive days stating that this respondent will cease and desist as
aforesaid;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
this respondent has taken to comply herewith.
8. That the complaint, in so far as it alleges that, the respondent
Northland Ski Manufacturing Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices by discriminating in regard to the hire and' tenure of Sigurd
P. Nesseth and Edward Hageman ; or by dominating or interfering
with the formation or administration of a labor organization, or con-
tributing support to it, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
9. That the petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives be, and it hereby is, dismissed.