Detroit Steel Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 511 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF, AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 351
Case No. C-1198.-Decided March 11, 1940
Iron avid Steel Products Industry-Interference, Restraint , or Coercion: sepa-
rate charges of, dismissed-Company-Dominated Union: domination of and inter-
ference with administration ; charges of, sustained as to Mutual Association and
dismissed as to Spring Association ; Mutual Association disestablished as agency
for collective bargaining-Contract: with company-dominated Mutual Association,
abrogated.
Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board.
Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Bills, by Mr. Rockwell T. Gust, of
Detroit, Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 351, herein
called the U. A. W. A., the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called the Board, by Frank H. Bowen, Regional Director for the
Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint dated July
13, 1938, against Detroit Steel Products Company, Detroit, Michigan,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
upon the respondent, the U. A. W. A., the Detroit Steel Products
Mutual Benefit Association, herein called the Mutual Association, and
the Detroit Steel Products Spring Workers Association, herein called
the Spring Association, and herein jointly called the Associations.
The complaint alleged in substance: (1) that from on or about July
5, 1935, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
21 N. L. R. B., No 48.
511
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and administration of the Associations and contributed financial and
other support thereto; and (2) that by expressing opposition to the
U. A. W. A. and engendering fear of loss of employment because of
membership and activity in the U. A. W. A., and by other acts,, the
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On July 16, 1938, the respondent filed with the Regional Director its
alternative motion either to make the complaint more definite and cer-
tain or to issue a bill of particulars, and also for an extension of 10
days' time after service of an amended complaint or bill of particulars
in which to answer. The Regional Director granted the respond-
ent an extension of time in which to answer but denied the motion
in other respects. On August 1, 1938, the respondent filed its answer
denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 9, 10, 11, and 12,
1938, at Detroit, Michigan, before John T. Lindsay, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the inception of the hearing the Associations moved to intervene.
The respondent also renewed its alternative motion. The Trial Ex-
aminer denied these motions. At the close of the Board's case, the
respondent moved for an adjournment until the following morning so
that preparation might be made to present its case. The Trial Ex-
aminer granted the motion. Counsel for the Board also moved to
amend the complaint to conform to the proof, limiting the amendment
to typographical errors and the misspelling of names and not extend-
ing it to any material allegations. This motion was granted by the
Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings
on other motions and on objections to the admission 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 February 16, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on the parties, and on the
Associations. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease
and desist from its unfair labor practices, and, affirmatively, disestab-
lish the Associations, and terminate the contracts between the respond-
ent and the Associations.
DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 513
On March 2, 1939, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. On April 12, 1939, the respondent filed a brief.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was
held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on August 22, 1939.
The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the
argument. The Board has considered the exceptions and brief and,
in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Michigan corporation having its office and two
plants, herein respectively called the Sash and Spring plants, at De-
troit, Michigan. It also has a plant in Oakland, California, which is
not involved in the instant proceeding. The respondent manufactures
steel windows, auto springs, and railroad springs.
Its purchases for the first half of 1938 were valued at about $986,-
000.00. Approximately $711,388.59 in value of this material came
from without the State of Michigan. In 1937 the Sash plant shipped
materials valued at more than $6,000,000.00 of which 75 to 80 per cent
in value were transported to States other than Michigan. The Spring
plant's shipments during this period were valued at more than $3,-
000,000.00. Most of these shipments were within Michigan. The same
percentages were present for the first half of 1938. Customers for the
automobile springs of the Spring plant include Chrysler Corporation,
General Motors Truck Corporation, Ford Motor Car Company, and
Graham-Paige Company.
The Sash plant has branch offices in 13 different cities throughout
the United States. Both plants have salesman throughout the United
States. There are normally about 550 to 600 employees in the Sash
plant and about 300 to 350 employees in the Spring plant.
The respondent is one of the larger companies in its particular line
in the United States and utilizes railroads, steamships, and motor
trucks for transporting its product. ° It sends 3 to 10 per cent of the
finished product to its Oakland, California, plant for assembly.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local
No. 351, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations. It admits to membership only those who work
in the plants of the respondent.
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Detroit Steel Products Mutual Benefit Association is an un-
affiliated labor organization . It admits to membership all non-super-
visory , hourly or daily paid employees of the Sash plant who are more
than 18 years of age.
The Detroit Steel Products Spring Workers Association is an un-
affiliated labor organization . It admits to membership all employees
of the Spring plant. ,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Backgrownd
Early in 1934 a committee of employees from the Sash and Spring
plants met with management representatives for collective bargaining
purposes . Shortly thereafter this arrangement was discontinued. At
about the same time employees of the respondent formed a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
B. The Mutual Association
During March 1934, a few employees of the Sash plant , meeting in
the plant lunchroom during working hours, formed the Mutual Asso-
ciation. They selected a committee on bylaws which received the
assistance of one Frazer, personnel director of the respondent . There-
after the committee submitted proposed bylaws to employees at the
Sash plant for their approval.
The bylaws as approved provided for officers and a board of direc-
tors, check-off of 50 cents monthly , grievance procedure , disability
and sick benefits , annual elections in April, but contained no pro-
vision for meetings . They were amended in April 1938 to provide for
representatives , monthly general membership meetings, regular
bimonthly meetings of the board of directors and representatives,
and procedure for amendments.
Pursuant to the Mutual Association 's request , the respondent,
through Frazer, had membership cards printed without charge to the
Mutual Association . Pursuant to a further request, Frazer attended
a meeting of the Mutual Association in 1934 to provide certain infor-
mation as to the proper organization of the Mutual Association. Dur-
ing the same period the Mutual Association also consulted him in
planning a feather party and a picnic.
The Mutual Association solicited new employees, during working
hours, to join the organization. At a date which does not appear in
the record , the respondent instructed its foremen that there was to be
no solicitation of members by any labor organization during working
hours. There was , however, no rule against solicitation during lunch
DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 515
hours. Also at some undisclosed date, the respondent received com-
plaints that the Associations and the U. A. W. A. were soliciting mem-
bers. Thereafter it "checked with the foremen again on our instruc-
tions."
With the approval of W. C. Owen, vice president of the respondent,
the board of directors of the Mutual Association held meetings two or
three times each month , usually in the plant lunchroom , during work-
ing hours and without loss of pay . This practice did not cease until
sometime in 1937 . The board of directors held a meeting in the plant
lunchroom as late as July 1938. A meeting of the employees to discuss
a proposed decrease in wages was held under the auspices of the Mu-
tual Association in the plant lunchroom during March or April 1938.
During the spring of 1935 elections for officers of the Mutual Asso-
ciation were held in the plant during working hours . Again early in
1937 nominations and elections of such officers were held in the plant
during working hours. Members of the nomination and election boards
were not docked for the time spent in such activity . The respondent
supplied the Mutual Association with the printed ballots used in the
elections.
The bulletin boards of the plant were customarily available to the
Mutual Association . It posted regularly notices of meetings, elections,
parties, and picnics. The U. A. W. A. made a single request to post a
notice in the plant. The respondent granted this request.
The respondent checks off dues for the Mutual Association from the
wages of employees who, in writing, so authorize the respondent. The
respondent and the Mutual Association have executed several agree-
ments beginning with May 1935. Since April 16, 1937, the respondent
has recognized the Mutual Association formally as representative for
its members.
C. The Spring Association
In October 1934 John Bickman, subsequently elected president of
the Spring Association , and one or two other employees of the Spring
plant, having learned of the Mutual Association , informed Owen that
they desired to form a similar organization . Owen replied that the
respondent would bargain with any of its employees and that collec-
tive bargaining was "a good idea. " The Spring Association was
formed at a meeting of employees held outside the plant on October
26, 1934.
At this meeting a committee on bylaws was selected. The commit-
tee submitted proposed bylaws to the meeting of the Spring Associa-
tion held on November 15, 1934. The minutes for this meeting recite
that the bylaws were adopted and were to be printed if Owen "ac-
cepted" them . Thereafter the Spring Association requested Owen to
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accept or approve the bylaws. W. R. Aylward, secretary of the Spring
Association, testified that pursuant to such request Owen accepted the
bylaws. Owen testified, however, that he replied to the request as
follows : "I have nothing to do with the approving of your by-laws.
That is your baby." Thereafter Frazer had the bylaws printed at the
expense of the Spring Association. These bylaws provided for officers
and a board of representatives, grievance procedure, annual elections,
general membership meetings "whenever it is deemed necessary by the
Board of Representatives," and monthly meetings of the board of
representatives.
On February 27, 1935, the Spring Association bifurcated into a
bargaining association and a benefit association. These subsidiary
organizations remained parts of the Spring Association. The bylaws
described above became the bylaws of the bargaining association. The
Spring Association adopted new bylaws for the benefit association.
Frazer had agreed to assist the Spring Association in the preparation
of the benefit association bylaws but the record does not reveal what
aid, if any, he offered in this connection. In August 1937 the Spring
Association consolidated the two sets of bylaws. An employee might
belong to either or both associations.
Frazer had agreed to assist the benefit association "in any manner
possible." What assistance he extended to the benefit association, if
any, does not appear.
Prior to May 1, 1937, the board of representatives of the Spring
Association held its monthly meetings in the plant office. Thereafter
it met outside the plant.
The Spring Association has held each of its annual elections in the
plant, and, except for the last two occurring prior to the hearing, dur-
ing working hours.
The respondent checks off dues for the benefit association of the
Spring Association from the wages of the employees who, in writing,
so authorize the respondent. Following the formation of the Spring
Association, the respondent agreed to "acknowledge" it. The respond-
ent has entered into several contracts with the Spring Association be-
ginning in May 1935. Since May 17, 1937, the respondent has recog-
nized the Spring Association formally as representative of its members.
D. The respondent's policy toward affiliated labor organizations
The American Federation of Labor at one time had, and the U. A.
W. A. has, members among employees of the respondent. The respond-
ent has conferred with these organizations in regard to their de-
mands. It has instructed its foremen not to advocate or oppose any
labor organization. The record does not establish any infractions
DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 517
of this rule. On June 17, 1938, after charges were filed and before
the complaint issued in this case, the respondent announced to the
employees a "policy" of "strict neutrality" between "different labor
organizations." 1
E. Concluding findings
The respondent has not been hostile toward affiliated labor organi-
zations.
The Mutual Association, in its formation and administration, has
received aid from the respondent. Its initial and subsequent meetings,
elections, and other activity occurred on company time and property.
Personnel Director Frazer rendered it assistance in the formulation of
bylaws, and in respect to its organization and activities. Finally, the
respondent donated to the Mutual Association membership cards and
printed its election ballots.
The Spring Association has also used company time and property to
some extent for its activities. There is no evidence, however, that the
respondent supplied the Spring Association with materials such as
membership cards and election ballots. Although Frazer agreed to
extend aid to the Spring Association, his offer applied to the benefit
association of the Spring Association; an employee could join the
benefit association without affiliating with the bargaining association
of the Spring Association ; and the nature of Frazer's assistance, if
any, does not appear.
Whether an employer's conduct is serious enough to constitute domi-
nation, interference, or support within the contemplation of the Act is
necessarily a question of degree upon which, in some cases, reasonable
men may differ. This question, in respect to the Mutual Association
and the Spring Association, is admittedly a close one. I am of the
opinion that the Mutual Association has received enough tangible and
material support from the respondent to make it influenced "by fear or
favor, of or from the management," and hence proscribed under See-
The material portions of the statement are as follows :
Any employee is free, without fear of coercion , restraint or discrimination, to
join or not to join any union.
Employees will not be discriminated against nor favored because they belong
or do not belong to any labor organization
As between different labor organizations , the Company will maintain an attitude
of strict neutrality.
We will discuss with any minority group or individual any request , complaint
employees as the exclusive bargaining agent. This bargaining will determine
definitely all agreements regarding major issues, such as wages, hours , working
conditions , seniority rules, and similar items
We will discuss with any minority group or individual any request , complaint
or grievance , in accordance with our established grievance procedure. Decisions
reached in such discussions can not in any way conflict with general agreements
made with representatives of the majority of employees
283032-41-vol 21-34
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.2 I am of the- opinon further that al-
though the existence of the Mutual Association may have suggested
the formation of the Spring Association, the record does not establish
sufficient acts of the respondent to enable the Board to find that the
Spring Association is not a representative of the employees' own
choosing free from "fear or favor" of the respondent.
- Mr. Smith agrees with Inc in regard to the Mutual Association. Mr.
Leiserson agrees with me in regard to the Spring Association. Mr.
Smith, Mr. Leiserson, and I are agreed that the evidence does not sup-
port the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent expressed
opposition to the U. A. W. A. or engendered fear of loss of employ-
ment because of membership and activity in the U. A. W. A.
The Board finds that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Mutual Association, and
has contributed support to it; that by its aforesaid acts, the respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
The Board finds that the respondent has not dominated or inter-
fered with the formation or administration of the Spring Association,
or has contributed support to it.
The Board finds that the respondent did not express opposition to
the U. A. W. A. or engender fear of loss of employment because of
membership and activity in the U. A. W. A.
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 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.
2N. L R. B v Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc, 310 U S 651, enf'g Matter of
Brown. Paper Mill Company, Inc Monroe, Louisiana and International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 12 N. L R. B
60. The Mutual Association has had a continuous existence from March 1934 to date.
Consequently , although the respondent' s conduct occurring prior to July 5, 1935, the
effective date of the Act, does not constitute unfair labor practices, such conduct deter-
mines the significance of the respondent 's acts, occurring after the effective date of the
Act, and also the character of the Mutual Association. N L. R B v Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Inc . et al, 303 U. S 211, rev'g 91 F (2d) 178 (C C A 3), enf'g
Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc , Greyhound Management Company, Cor-
porations , and Local Division No. 1063 of Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N L R B. 1; Jeffery-DeWitt In-
sulator Co v. N. L. R B, 91 F (2d ) 134 (C C A 4), cert den 302 U S 731, enf'g
Matter of Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Company and Local No. 1155, United Brick and Clay
Workers of America, 1 N. L. R B. 618.
DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
519
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Mutual Association and
has contributed support to it. Its continued existence is a consequence
of violation of the Act . In order to effectuate the policies of the Act
and free the employees of the respondent from such support, inter-
ference, and domination , and the effects thereof, which constitute a
continuing obstacle to the exercise by employees of rights guaranteed
in the Act , we will order the respondent to withdraw all recognition
from and completely disestablish the Mutual Association as repre-
sentative of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment , or conditions of work. Since the agree-
ment of April 16, 1937, between the respondent and the Mutual Asso-
ciation embodies recognition of the Mutual Association as such repre-
sentative , we will order the respondent specifically to cease and desist
from giving effect to this or any other agreement it may have entered
into with the Mutual Association in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , or other conditions of work.
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. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No. 351 , Detroit Steel Products Mutual Benefit Association, and
Detroit Steel Products Spring Workers Association are labor organi-
zations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent , by dominating and interfering with the admin-
istration of, and contributing financial or other support to Detroit
Steel Products Mutual Benefit Association has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (2)
,of the Act, and thereby is interfering with, restraining, and coercing
-employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
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 dominated or interfered with the forma-
tion or administration of, or contributed financial or other support to
Detroit Steel Products Spring Workers Association , within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 re-
spondent, Detroit Steel Products Company, Detroit, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of the Mutual Association, or with the formation or administra-
tion of any other labor organization of its employees, and from
contributing support to the Mutual Association, or any other labor
organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to the agreement of April 16, 1937, or any other
agreement it may have entered into with the Mutual Association in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of work;
(c) 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 rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in 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 the Mutual Association, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of work, and completely
disestablish said Mutual Association, as such representative ;
(b) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its Sash plant, and maintain such notices for a period of
at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating
that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in
paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) and that it will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region 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 dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of, and contributed
financial and other support to Detroit Steel Products Spring Workers
Association within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, or ex-
DETROIT STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 521
pressed opposition to International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, Local No. 351, and engendered fear of loss of employment
because of membership and activity in International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 351.
MR. EDWIN S . SMITH , concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the finding that the respondent dominated, interfered
with, and supported the Mutual Association.
I believe that the Spring Association falls within the same category.
The dominated Mutual Association inspired its formation. John
Bickman, its president, accompanied by other employees, informed
the respondent of their idea of starting an organization similar to the
Mutual Association at the Spring plant, thereby, in effect, seeking the
respondent's consent. The Spring Association submitted its bylaws
for the respondent's approval. Whether or not the respondent gave
explicit consent or approval to the project, it is clear that the Spring
Association was amenable to company domination, and not "wholly
uninfluenced by fear or favor, of or from the management." 8 This
susceptibility must be attributed to the respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices with respect to the Mutual Association. Consequently, effectua-
tion of the policies of the Act requires disestablishment of the Spring
Association as well as disestablishment of the Mutual Association.4
Moreover, the support which the respondent gave the Spring Asso-
ciation, by permitting it the use of company time and property and
by Frazer's offer to aid the Spring Association "in any manner pos-
sible" is' not materially different from the assistance afforded to the
Mutual Association. The surrounding circumstances may determine
what assistance is substantial enough to constitute unlawful support.
In view of the Spring Association's initial responsiveness to interfer-
ence and domination, and in view of the extension of unlawful sup-
port to the neighboring Mutual Association, I regard the respondent's
support to the Spring Association as substantial and in violation of
Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
I concur in the finding that the respondent did not express opposi-
tion to the U. A. W. A. or engender fear of loss of employment because
of membership and activity in the U. A. W. A.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON , concurring in part and dissenting in
part :
I am of the opinion that the record does not support the allegations
of unfair labor practices. The entire complaint should be dismissed.
s See N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mill Company, footnote 1, supra.
' See my opinion in Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company and Telephone Operators
Union, Local 175-A, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 12 N. L R. B. 375,
400.