Colonial Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 174 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of COLONIAL PRODUCTS COMPA NY and UNITED FURNI-
TURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C-2250.-Decided September 19, 19412
Jurisdiction : kitchen cabinet and wood products manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Company-Dominated Union: participation by representatives of management :
in organization's drive among Company's employees ; ordering employees to
attend a meeting on company time and property ; expressing preference for
particular union, the president of which was permitted to address meeting
of employees in plant; promise by Company's president that employees
would receive increase in wages to offset union dues as inducement to
join particular union ; assistance of foremen in signing up men in union-
use of Company stationery and bulletin boards to advertise union meeting-
closed-shop contract with assisted union.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated union; 'abrogation
of contract.
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunni ff, for the Board.
Einhorn cC S'ehetch,tel, by Mr. Samuel I. Einliorn, of Philadelphia,
Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Louis Gilbert, of Baltimore, Md., for the Union.
Mr. A. Snmmer Lawrence. of, counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ANDD
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Furniture Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. O., herein called the Union, the National Labor, Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint
dated June 3, 1942,1 against Colonial Products Company, Dallas-
town, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accom-
1 Due to a typographical error the complaint bears the date June 3, 1941
44 N L. R: B., No. 32.
174
COLONIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 175
parried by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the re'spondent,-
the Union, and Allied Woodworkers of America, Inc., Local No. 7.
herein called the Allied.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent: (1) in January 1942, dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Allied
and contributed financial and other support thereto; (2) by the fore-
going acts interfered with, restrained, and.coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The
respondent filed its answer on June 12, 1942, in which it denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 25, 1942, at York,
Pennsylvania, before Will Maslow, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner: The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel and the Union was represented by
a lay representative. All parties other than the Allied participated
in the hearing.2 Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the Trial Exam-
iner made rulings on various motions and objections to the admis-
sion of evidence. ' The Board has reviewed the rulings of, the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. . `
On July 6, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon the parties. ' He found that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in 'unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint and recommended that the
respondent cease and desist therefrom, that, the respondent withdraw
all recognition from and completely disestablish the Allied as bar-
gaining representative of the respondent's employees and further
that the respondent cease giving effect to the contract of January 27,
1942, between the respondent and the Allied. On August 6, 1942,
the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief
in support of its exceptions. No 'request for oral argument has been
made by any. party. The Board has considered the exceptions and
brief of the respondent and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent
with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,_ finds no
merit in them. '
2 The Allied, though notified, did not appear at the heaiing when the Trial Examiner
aas informed during the heaung that the shop steward of the Allied was present in the
heaung loom, the Tiial Examiner requested the shop steward to notify the president of
the Allied of the pendency of the proceeding Subsequently in the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner requested the attorney for the Board to notify the president of the
Allied that the heaung was continuing without him Neither the piesident, nor any other
authomized iepresentatne of the Allied could, however, be located
DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR , RELATtIONS BOARD-176
Upon the enure record in the case, the Board makes the folloav lug :
l
,v t, {, 1
I: THE t SINESS OF T,. I:rSroNDENT
Tlfe ^respondeut is a Pennsylvania corporation' engaged in the
maiiufacture, sale,, and distribntlon of kitchen cabinets and other
wood products, having its principal office and place of business at
,Dallastown, Pennsylvania. During the year- 1941, the respondent
pni'chaised'raw materials consisting of lumber, hardware, and paint
in the amount of about X80,000, approauuately'60 pei'cent of which
was 'shipped to 'its plant from points outside the Colnnionwealth.
Diwing the same period the respondent thanufactiired products in
the value of about $180,000, of ww'hicli 60 percent was shipped front
the respondent's plant in Dallastown, Pennsylvania, to other States
of the United States.' The respondent admits that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
I+ r nlNlis or FAC, r
II.. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of lm;i'ica is a labor organization,aifili-
ated with'the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the respondent. ,
Allied Woodworkers Union of America, Inc., Local No. 7, is an
unaffiliatecl labor organization, admitting to membership employees
of the respondent. It also has members employed by, and contracts
with, several other furniture manufacturers in Pennsylvania.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
' 'Iii Septehiber 1941, Philip Rojahn, vice president of the respondent-
a'nd in 'charge of personnel, met Milton Peters, president of the
Allied, whom he'had known for 20 years. Peters told Rojahn that
he anticipated organizinb the I;espondent's employees. Rojahin
according to his uncontradicted testimony which we credit, as did the
Trial Examiner, replied that he had no objection, but did not believe
the plant was "ready" for it. Shortly thereafter, Peters telephoned
to Rojahn and inquired whether lie had learned anything further as
to the conditions of the plant and whether he thought "the time was
ripe for him [Peters] to start in Ai ork organizing." Rojahn again
replied that he thought that the men and plant were not ready for it.'
During this period there was pending before the noaid a proceeding in shich the
u'spondent and Charles I'echenik, its president, were pasties On December 17, 1941, the
1, oaid issued its Decision and Order in said proceeding, finding that the respondent and
I'echenik had disciinunatorily discharged one employee and had otherwise inteifered
COLONIAL PRODUCTS, COMPANY. 1~77
Sometime later that fall. Peters visited Rojalin at the latter's home
and asked for an appointment with Charles Pechenik, president of
the respondent. Rojali n transmitted Peters' request to Pechenik, but
the respondent's president declined to see Peters because he felt that
,the men were not ready for unionization. One week later, Peters
called again at Rojahu's home and renewed his request for an appoint-
meiit,with Pechenik, explaining that he was going to start organizing
the respondent's employees. , '
A,nieeting was thereupon arranged and in the first week of January
1942, Pechenik and Peters niet for the first time. Peters told Pecli-
enik, according to the latter's,testimony uuhich we credit, as did the
Trial Examiner, that he represented a, majority of, the respondent's
employees. Pechenik replied that he did not think there was any
need j'or a union, organization, iv-hereupon Peters told him that under
the law he had no other choice, suggested that he could call a strike
in . thearespon(tell t's plant, and requested Pechenik to change his nand
about permitting him "to come in there • and organize your' place."
Yechenik asked what terms the, Allied desired, to which Peters replied
that he wanted a general increase, plus $1 a month to-cover union
dues. Pechenik then asked if this was customary and, upon being
told that it was,-asked for time to consult his attorney. In response
to Peters' request for permission "to come in and talk to, your men,"
Pechenik replied that he "would let him know."
On January 15, 1942, Pechenik telephoned Peters that he had con-
sulted counsel and gave Peters permission to talk to the respondent's
employees that clay. Pechenik told Rojalln of his conversation with
Peters and asked him to call a meeting of the respondent's, employees
at 5 p. m. Rojahn thereupon instructed the respondent's foremen
to notify the employees to stay after work and assemble in the cabinet
room.
Shortly before 5 p. in. on January 15, 1942, the respondent's fore-
men told all the respondent's employees, then numbering about 125,
to meet in the cabinet room. At that time, the working day for
about 70 percent of the employees ended at 5:30 p. m.; for the re-
maining, employees it ended, at 5 p. in. Without punching out their
time-clock cards, the employees, together with all the foremen and
other supervisory officials, assembled in the plant where Pechenik
addressed them.4
n ith, iestramed , and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights gua!anteed in Section
7 of the Act The Board accoidiiigly ordered the respondent and Pechenik to cease and
desist from their unfair labor practices and to take certain afiirmativd action See Platter
of National Lumber Mills , Inc, Colonial Pioducts Company, and Charles Pechenik and
York Federation of Trade Unions, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 37
N L R B 700
'The findings as to Pechenik ' s speech are based on his own testimony supplemented by
the testimony of Itolahn . a foieinan , and two employee witnesses called by the Boai ii
Although the accounts iof Pecheiuk ' s specch vary in detail , thei c, is no ,nb-, lnrtial dispute
among them
48749S-42-vol 44--12
178 `11'' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pechenik told the employees that in the past "we haven't lead the
need of any union" and that it was unusual for an employer "to ask
employees to join a union ." He explained that since the respondent's
products had to be installed by union carpenters , a union label was
now necesary. He stated that under the law he could not tell the
employees what union to join and that he had no objection to any
union so long as it was "fair." Pechenik said he had had pleasant
relations with the American Federation of Labor in New York, that
the Allied was "fair and square," and that he thought the men could
profit by affiliating with the Allied. He then remarked that Peters
had several members in the plant and was in a position to organize
the plant. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Leroy
Douglass, an employee, Pechenik further told the employees that join-
ing the Allied would not cost them anything since he would increase
their pay $1 per month, to be used to pay their union dues. We find
that Pechenik made this statement. Pechenik then observed that
rather than,,cause ,trouble he-, would grant Peters' request to address
the men if they approved. The employees indicated their approval,
and Peters came into the cabinet room and addressed the employees.
Peters stated, according to the uncontradicted testimony, that it
was "nice" to come in under such friendly condition-, to talk to em-
ployees and that it was the first time in his experience that he had
been,allowed,to.address employees with the approval of the. manage-
ment. He explained that the monthly dues of the Allied were $1, but
that he "understood" that the respondent would "pay the organiza-
tion" a bonus in the amount of dues at the end of each month, so that
the cost to employees would only be their induction fee. Peters then
asked those employees who belonged to the Allied to raise their hands.
About 25 or ` 30 did so.6 Reading off the text of an application for
membership, Peters then asked the employees to sign it.7 Then with
Pojahn's permission, Peters went to the office of Charles Koontz, one
of the respondent's foremen.
A line was formed in front of Koontz's office' by employees seeking
to sign the cards. When 5: 30 p. in. approached and some employees
began to complain that they would not remain after working hours,
Peters gave Koontz a stack of cards and solicited his help. A second
line was then -formed in the paint shop and Koontz distributed cards
to employees in line. More than 100 employees signed up that night.
s The testimonv is conflicting as to ii hethei Pechenik left the room or remained while
Peters spoke to the employees We find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict . It is un-
ciisputed and iNe had that all the iespondent's foremen, as well as Rojalin, the vice presi-
dent, and Godfiey, the null superintendent, remained in the room while Peteis spoke.
6 According to Ronalm,'the icspondent in the fall of 1941 had hired about 15 or 20
employee, nho had foimeily WWoihod for it concern vvith which the Allied had a closed-
shop contiact
The application designated the Allied as the collective haigaining icpresentative of
the signer for a pei led of 5 years
COLONIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 179
No deduction was made from the wages of any employee for, time
spent at this meeting, and employees who had 'remained after their
regular quitting time were paid up until the time they punched out
on the time clock. Prior to the meeting no organizer or other repre-
sentative of the Allied had made any direct effort to organize the
respondent's employees 8
The next morning, January 16, a. typewritten notice was posted
on the time clock in the 'plant. This notice, on the distinctive pink
stationery of the respondent, read :
All persons not yet having made union connections' will have
the opportunity of doing so at the close of work tomorrow Friday
evening. All persons wishing to join must sign even though they
are now union members in order for us to represent you at
COLONIAL PRODUCTS C0311P 1NY.'
About a week later another notice -%N'ritten on a printed form of the
respondent's was posted in the plant on the bulletin board adjoining
the time clock. This bulletin board was used by the respondent for
notices to its employees. The notice read :
INTER-OFFICE TELEGRAM
To Employees:
From Office.
Date 1/23/42.
Subject
There will be a meeting of Colonial Products Company in the
basement of Dallastown Coffee Shop tonight at 7:30.
elf.
(s) MILTON PETERS.
Tlie. initials "elf" were those of Esther Frees, the respondent's book-
keeper, and were in her handwriting.
Around January 21, Pechenik met with Peters and a so-called nego-
tiating committee consisting of members of the Allied. No employee
of the respondent was a member of this committee or was present at
the collective bargaining conferences. The terms of the contract were
discussed at this conference and at a subsequent one several clays later.t'
On January 27, 1942, a contract was executed between the Allied and
the respondent. The contract provided that employees were required
8 The Union began to organize the respondent's employees ' on January 19, 1942
On January 16. 1942, the employees received a blanket wage increase of S cents :ill
hour in accordance with it promise of a general wage increase in an unstated amount,
which had been made by Pechenik shortly before Christmas in 1941
10 She was not called to explain the notice, although in the respondent's employ at
the time of the hearing
u Pechenik testified that he never requited Peters to submit pi oof that lie represented
a majority of the iespoudent's employees becauao he "took that foc granted" after Janu-
ary 15
'180 DECISIO'\S. OP.\ATIO\'AL'LABORjREL_^T10\S BOARD
to join the Allied by February 1, 1942; and that,persons hired there-
after would -be required to join tlleiAllied within 14 days from the
time they were hired.. It also provided for an increase of $1 a month
to each employce and, a further increase of ;3 cents tun . hour to be
'granted 6 months from the date of the agreement, the term of which
was 1 year."
Subsequent to the execution of :tbe contract no. effort has been
'made by the Allied to enforce - the closed-shop provision with re-
spect to some, 20 new employees who had been hired '3 or 4 weeks
prior, to the hearing. It appeals that since the execution of the
contract, the respondent has paid its employees a dollar extra each
month to take care of their union dues in compliance with the prom-
ise of Pechenik made at the meeting of January 15.
Upon all the evidence, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the respondent rendered material, if not indispensable assistance
support to the Allied in obtaining members 'among the re-and
spondent's employees. This the- respondent's president, Pechenik,
clearly indicated'at the meeting in the plant on January 15 that he
desired that the employees j bin the Allied, by expressing preference
for that organization and promising a wage increase to offset dues.
Immediately thereafter employees-were solicited to sign. Allied cards
in the plan0on company time, with the assistance of Koontz, a fore-
man: On January 16 and 23, the employees were further apprisedo
of-the respondent's preference for the Allied by means of the notices
posted in the plant. Finally, on January 27, the respondent gave
further support to the Allied by entering into a contract with it
requiring employees to join the Allied as a condition of employment.
We find,' in accord with the Trial Examiner, that the respondent
has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration
of the Allied and has contributed fiiiancial and other support to it;
that, by such interference, support, and domination, and by the
aforesaid statements and acts of supervisory employees in opposi-
tion to self-organization, the respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
miteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the contract of
January 27, 1942, between the respondent and the Allied was but
a means of utilizing an employer-dominated organization to frus-
tnite a free choice by its employees, and that by entering into the
contract the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
"On January 23, IJ-12. the emplo%ees of the respondent attended the hest meeting called
the AIhi'd 1'cteis read the text of a contia(t to which the Union was a party in other
plants and told the men that lie wished to enter into a snruL•u one with the respondent
t .A second meeting it to held on Jannai r 27 1942
7
COLONIAL PRODUCTS' COMPANY 181
IV. THF: FFF'ECT OF TIIE 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 de-
scribed iii 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 burd°eniiigr Rind obstriietitrg commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, Ave will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the purposes
;and policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Allied and has con-
tributed financial and other support to that organization. By such
domination, interference, and support, the respondent has prevented
(he, free exercise of its employees' right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining. In order to remedy the respondent's unlaw-
ful conduct and restore to the employees the full measure of their
rights guaranteed under the Act; we shall order that the respondent
withdraw all recognition from the Allied and completely disestablish
that organization as the representative of its employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with the respondent 'concerning grievances, labor
cl €sputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or conditions of employ-
ment. .
We have also found that the 'agreement of January 27, 1942, is not
the result of bona fide collective. bargaining between the respondent
and the freely designated representative of its employees,, but was
executed in furtherance of the respondent's program to foster the
Allied. ,,We shall 'order'tlie:•.respoiident. to cease: and desist, from
giving any effect to the contract of January 27,' 1942; or to any
extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any
superseding contract which may now be in force. Nothing,in our
Decision and Order shall be taken, however, to require the respondent
to vary any non-discriminatory wages, seniority? or other substantive
features of its relations with the employees themselves which the
respondent established in performance of the invalid contract as
extended, renewed, mod€fiecl, supplemented, or superseded.
Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying
purpose and tendency, we .are convinced that the unfair labor, prac-
tices found are persuasively -related to the other unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed and that clanger of their commission in the future
1.82 DECISIO,\S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in
the past., 13 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted un-
less our order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore,to
make effective, the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to'prevent
a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, we must order the respondent to
cease and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the aboi,e'findin s of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following::
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, C. I. O.; and Allied
Woodworkers of America; Inc., Local No. 7, are labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
' 2. By dominating' a'iid iii drfering with the form ation1amid`