Crawford Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1237 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TEXTILE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-330.-Decided September 24, 1938
Automobile Accessories , Tarpaulin , and Hassock Manufacturing Industry-In-
terference , Restraint , and Coercion : expressed opposition to labor organization-
Company-Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation ;
expression of intention not "to sign up" with an outside labor organization ;
disestablished , as agency for collective bargaining.
Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Mr. R. E. Cabell and Mr. M. Wallace Moncure, of Richmond, Va.,
for the respondent.
Mr. H. M. Ratcliffe and Mr. William C. Miller, Jr., of Richmond,
Va., for the Association.
Mr. Francis Hoague, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
herein called the T. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by Bennet F. Schauffler, Regional Director
for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued a complaint
dated November 18, 1937, against Crawford Manufacturing Company,
Richmond, Virginia, 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. A copy of the complaint and an
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent
and upon the T. W. O. C.
The complaint alleged in substance, so far as here material, that
the respondent on or about August 5, 1937, promoted, assisted, and
sponsored the formation of an independent labor union of its em-
ployees, known as the Crawford Manufacturing Company Employees'
Association, Incorporated,' herein called the Association; and that it
1 The complaint refers to the Association as the Crawford Employees Association.
8 N. L. R. B., No. 153.
1237
1238 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has intimidated, restrained, and coerced its employees, and in other
ways has attempted to prevent them from joining a labor organiza-
tion of their own choosing. On November 26, 1937, the respondent
filed an answer in which it denied the material allegations of the
complaint.
Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held in Richmond, Virginia,
on November 29, 1937, before Tilford E. Dudley, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. At the commencement of the hearing
the Association appeared and presented its motion for leave to inter-
vene. This motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Asso-
ciation thereupon filed an answer denying the averments of the com-
plaint. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were repre-
sented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence and on motions of the parties. The Board has re-
viewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At
the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner afforded the parties
opportunity for oral argument and to file briefs.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, a
copy of which was duly served on all parties, finding that the respond-
ent had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act, and recommending that the respondent cease and desist from
its unfair labor practices and take certain action to remedy the situa-
tion brought about by such practices.
On December 27, 1937, the respondent and the Association each
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On June 16, 1938,
pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent, the Associa-
tion, and the T. W. O. C., a hearing was had before the Board in
Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respond-
ent appeared by counsel and presented oral argument to the Board.
The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and
the Association to the Intermediate Report, and in so far as they
are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth
below finds no merit in them.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1239
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Crawford Manufacturing Company is a Virginia corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of auto tops, seat
covers, tire covers, tarpaulins, awnings, and hassocks. It operates
a manufacturing plant at Richmond, Virginia, where its principal
office is located. Approximately 275 persons are there employed.
Of the raw materials used at the plant in the course of manufacture
approximately 95 per cent are shipped to the respondent from out-
side the State of Virginia. Ninety per cent of the manufactured
products are shipped directly to customers outside the State of
Virginia.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to membership workers employed in the textile industry.
Crawford Manufacturing Company Employees' Association, In-
corporated, is an unaffiliated labor organization incorporated under
the laws of Virginia. It admits to membership all employees of the
respondent excluding supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Throughout its existence the respondent and its affairs have been
controlled by one man, its president and general manager, Cone. He
founded the business and during its growth and development has
kept a. close, intimate supervision over all operations "even as to
details." He has succeeded in maintaining a personal relationship
with all employees.
In May 1937, immediately following the decisions of the United
States Supreme Court in the Jones & Laughlin 2 and related cases,
there was considerable discussion and debate in Richmond, as in
the country at large, by employees about their forming or becoming
affiliated with labor organizations. This interest manifested itself
at the respondent's plant in the conversations of the workers. No
labor organization then existed among the employees.
On June 5, 1937, Cone called a meeting of all employees during
working hours and read to them from a written statement. The
statement itself shows that it had been prepared because of the dis-
2 National Labor Relations Board v. Jones c6 Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1.
1240 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cussions concerning unions then being had among them. Cone told
the employees, among other things "that the time has come for
our employees and the management to have a better understanding
of each others problems;" that he knew that the employees did not
need an outside union or a company union to advance their employee
interests; that "Of course, if you want either one you can have it;"
that the progress of the business depended on "loyalty ;" that the
respondent had no contracts concerning employment "even with our
salesmen. * * * If they can't make money with us, they will
leave;" and if there were any grievances, employees should "take
[them] * * * to Mr. Markham;" that the employees should "stick
by us and we will stick by you."
In August 1937, the T. W. O. C. commenced organizational activ-
ities at the plant. An open membership meeting for the employees,
announced by handbills, was held on the evening of August 4. At
the meeting T. W. O. C. organizers explained to the employees the
aims and purposes of the T. W. O. C., and solicited applications for
membership. Fifty-one employees signed membership application
cards.
The following morning Cone assembled all the employees during
working hours. He spoke to them at length. While part of his
speech was devoted to business matters, a substantial portion dealt
with union organization. Cone testified that he had seen the hand-
bill announcing the T. W. O. C. meeting and that one of his reasons
for the talk "was to enlighten [the employees] * * * on their
rights as regards the Wagner Labor Act." We are satisfied that
Cone knew of the occurrence of the meeting the preceding evening.
There is some conflict in the record as to precisely what Cone said.
It is shown, however, that Cone told his workers that he was dis-
couraged or disappointed to learn that some of them had begun a
union at the plant; that in so far as the Act was concerned, it gave
them the right to join an outside union, an inside union, or no union at
all ; that the Act did not, however, compel the respondent to do more
than to meet with and listen to a union as bargaining representative;
that the Act did not require the respondent to sign a written contract
with a labor organization; and that he, Cone, did not expect "to sign
up" with an outside labor organization as long as the law stayed as it
was. The testimony of several witnesses established that the employees
understood from Cone's speech that the respondent was opposed to
their becoming affiliated with an outside labor organization, but that
an inside union would not be so distasteful. We are of the opinion
from the circumstances of the case that the employees reasonably so
understood Cone.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1241
Within a few days thereafter, a small group of employees engaged
the services of a lawyer to advise them in forming an inside union,
that is, a labor organization limited in membership to the respondent's
employees and unaffiliated with any outside or national labor organi-
zation . During the remainder of August and the first part of Septem-
ber several organizational meetings were held by this group for the
employees in a hall which one of them rented. On September 17, the
Association was incorporated under the laws of Virginia, and a ma-
jority of the employees became members. On September 30, it re-
quested the respondent to bargain collectively with it as representative
of all the respondent's employees. Negotiations between the respond-
ent and the Association were had, but the parties postponed the sign-
ing of a contract pending the determination of this proceeding.
We are satisfied that the respondent has obstructed and interfered
with its employees in their right to form and join a labor organiza-
tion; that it has limited their freedom of choice of labor organization
to an inside union, thereby fostering, dominating, and interfering with
the formation of the Association and intermeddling in its affairs.
The June 5 speech, considered in the light of how the employees
reasonably must have understood it, informed them that the respond-
ent was hostile to union organization at its plant, that its policy was
opposed to contracts with employees, and that "loyalty" was to be
measured in such terms. While it is true that Cone also said that the
employees might have a union, such words hardly could affect or
change the import of his entire speech. Cone personified the respond-
ent and its economic power. We repeatedly have held such statements
of management under similar circumstances to be coercive, within the
meaning of the Act.a
That the employees were desirous of securing the advantages of
collective representation and organization is amply shown by the
success of the T. W. O. C. organizational meeting in August, despite
the opposition to unionization voiced in the June 5 speech, and by the
formation of and number of those who joined the Association after
the August 5 speech. These desires the respondent, in the second
a Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Work-
ers, 6 N L. R. B. 284; Matter of Mansfield Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Organiz-
ing Committee, 3 N. L. R. B. 901, 906; Cong . Rec. May 16 , 1935, p. 7967 , Senator Norris :
On the one side is the employer, and on the other is the laboring man , the employee.
One, the employer, has almost unlimited economic power in dealing with the other,
the employee . The employee has no economic power The employer holds in his hand
the welfare, perhaps even the right to live, not only of the employee but of his family.
His economic power can be enforced, as the Senator from Massachusetts has well
said, through channels and by means almost impossible , if not absolutely impossible to
detect. He has many methods of exercising his economic power . The employee has
none. * * * Ordinarily the employee has no other means of livelihood, no other
means of supporting his family, his wife, and his children, of clothing them and of
feeding them , than what he gets from his employment. He is, therefore, almost help-
less in the economic situation when he runs up against the employer.
1242 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
speech of Cone, fettered and circumscribed. Coming immediately
upon the T. W. 0. C. meeting, Cone's words made it evident to the
employees assembled for the occasion that the respondent not only
was opposed to its employees affiliating themselves with the
T. W. 0. C., an outside organization, apart from the general dislike
which it still retained toward any unionization, but that it had as-
sumed the further position that "so long as the law stayed as it was"
it did not propose "to sign up" with any outside labor organization.
Independent of the fact that Cone's statement concerning the duty
imposed upon employers to bargain collectively rested on a misappre-
hension of the Act,4 the position taken that the respondent did not,
propose to execute an agreement with an outside union, in view of
the circumstance that no like proscription was placed upon collec-
tive bargaining with an inside union, was tantamount to a pronounce-
ment that an inside union was the only effective means available to
the employees for fulfilling their desires for union organization.
As above stated, the employees reasonably so understood the August
5 speech. We find that by this speech the respondent likewise inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their right to form and join a labor organization of their own choice.
Upon the record before us we are convinced that the formation of
the Association, followed, as it was, by a rapid, vigorous growth of
that, organization, can only be attributed to the respondent's acts
in diverting and confining the desires of its employees into and within
the channel of an inside union. Where an employer thus limits
his employees to a particular form of labor organization and upon
such limitation being imposed, a labor organization of the prescribed
pattern springs into being, such an organization, in the absence of
any showing to the contrary, must be presumed to reflect, in that
respect, the will of the employer. Such an organization is not the
result of a free choice, but one whose formation has been interfered
with and dominated by the employer, within the meaning of the Act.5
k See Matter of St. Joseph Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 159 , 2 N. L. R. B. 39, where the
Board stated :
We must not be considered as holding that an employer is obligated by the Act to
accede without more to the terms of a contract presented to him by the representa-
tives of his employees * * * But the line * * • is distinct : the employer
must negotiate in good faith in an endeavor to reach an understanding , and that
understanding if eventually achieved must be incorporated into an agreement if the
representatives of the employees so request.
See also Matter of S. L. Allen & Company, a corporation and Federal Labor Union Local
No. 18526, 1 N. L. R. B. 714, 727, order enforced C. C. A. 3 (1938).
At the healing and again at the oral argument before the Board, counsel for the respond-
ent stated that the speeches of Cone were without the advice of counsel. This fact, of
course, cannot affect the decision and order of the Board herein.
6 See Matter of Simplew Wire and Cable Company and Wire & Cable Workers Federal
Local Union 21020, etc., 6 N. L. R . B. 251.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1243
We find that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act; that it has dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion of the Association.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we will order the respondent to cease and desist from
such practices.
In view of our finding that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation of the Association, recognition by the re-
spondent of the Association as a representative of its employees for
purposes of collective bargaining will serve to defeat self-organiza-
tion and obstruct the exercise by the employees of a free choice of
collective bargaining representative. Accordingly, to effectuate the
policies of the Act, we will order the respondent to withdraw recogni-
tion from and to disestablish the Association as such representative.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee and Crawford Manu-
facturing Company Employees' Association, Incorporated, are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation of Craw-
ford Manufacturing Company Employees' Association, Incorpo-
rated, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
1244 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the 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 respondent,
Crawford Manufacturing Company, Richmond, Virginia, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From dominating or interfering with the administration of
Crawford Manufacturing Company Employees' Association, Incor-
porated, or the formation or administration of any other labor or-
ganization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other
support to Crawford Manufacturing Company Employees' Associa-
tion, Incorporated, or to any other labor organization of its em-
ployees;
(b) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Crawford Manufacturing Com-
pany Employees' Association, Incorporated, as a representative of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concern-
ing grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment, and completely dises-
tablish Crawford Manufacturing Company Employees' Association,
Incorporated, as such representative;
(b) Post immediately, and keep posted for a period of at least
thirty (30) days from the date of posting, copies of this order in
conspicuous places in and about the plant of the respondent at Rich-
mond, Virginia;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
Mn. EDWIN S. SMITH took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.