Fred Rueping Leather Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 1086 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
FOND DQ LAC, WISCONSIN and TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COM-
MITTEE (C. 1.0.),
Case No. C-7'25.-Decided June 29, 1940
Leather . Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion-
Company-Dominated Unions: background of company-dominated union and
hostility to outside unions; three successive unaffiliated unions involved ; simi-
larity to ' admittedly company-dominated union 'of organizational features of
successor unons ; substantial identity of leaders ' of successor unions ; continued
hostility by respondent to outside unions; : existing company -dominated union
disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Procedure: because of hearing.
.upon unfair . labor practice charges against respondent before Wisconsin Labor
Relations Board, parties agreed that evidence of unfair labor practices occurring
-prior to "termination of that hearing should be considered only as background-
Settlement : all charges except those relating to domination and interference
with alleged company-dominated unions , settled by stipulation subsequent to
filing of Trial Examiner 's Intermediate Report.
Mr. Morris L: "Forer, for the Board.
Lines, Spooner d Quarles, by Mr. Janes T. Guy and ?I1r. William
J. McGowan, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Mr. 'F. W. Chadbourne, of
Fond du Lac, Wis., for the respondent.
Mr. Max E. Geline, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the T. W. O. C.
Miss Fannie M. Boyls and Mr. Abraham L. Kaminstein, of counsel
to the Board. -
DECISION
. AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE.CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Louis Schultz,
general organizer for Textile Workers Organizing Committee of the
Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the T. W. O. C.,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin),
issued its complaint dated March 25, 1938, and an amendment.to its
complaint 1 dated April 8, 1938, against Fred Rueping Leather Com-
pany, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, herein called the respondent, alleging
1 This instrument was incorrectly designated as an "Amended Complaint."
24 N. L. It, B., No. 120.
1086
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1087
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfairlabol
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),-
(2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as
amended alleged in substance that the respondent discouraged mem-
bership in the T. W. O. C. by laying off or -discharging and refusing
to reinstate 52 named employees because of their membership in or
activities in behalf of the T. W. O. C.; that the respondent dom-
inated and interfered with-the formation and administration of Fred
Rueping Leather Company Employees Association, herein called the.
Association, until the dissolution of the. Association on January 8,
1938, and since then dominated and interfered with the formation
and continued existence of Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union,2
herein called the Union, and contributed support to said Union ;
and that the respondent threatened, coerced, and intimidated its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Copies of the complaint and amendment to the complaint, accom-
panied by 'notice. of hearing thereon,, were duly served upon the
respondent and the T. W. O. C.3 On March 31, 1938, the respondent
filed all answer in which it admitted the allegations of the complaint.
relative to the nature of its business and the effect of its business upon.
commerce and denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in any
of the unfair labor practices with which it was charged. On April
19, 1938, the, respondent filed an answer to the amendment to the
complaint, in which it denied that it had engaged in or was engaging'
in the alleged unfair labor practices. .
. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin,
from March 31-to April 29,1938, inclusive, before Madison Hill, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the re-
spondent, and the T. W. O. C. were represented 'by counsel and par-
ticiliated'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.
At the conclusion of the Board's evidence counsel for the Board
moved to amend the complaint to conform it to the evidence adduced
at the hearing, particularly in respect to discrepancies in 'dates and
the spelling of names. This motion was granted by the Trial Exam-
iner without objection from the respondent. During the course of
' Erroneously 'designated in the complaint as Independent Association of Fond du Lac
Tannery workers, but corrected by amendment at the hearing to read as above shown.
8 The Union was not served with a copy of the complaint and notice of the hearing.
Frank W. Cosgrove, attorney for the Union, received a copy of the charges, however, and the'
Union thereafter, upon the advice, of Cosgrove, voted not to intervene at the hearing.
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing the Trial Examiner made other rulings on various mo-
tions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
considered these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors .were
committed. The rulings are ,hereby affirmed.
On June 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
engaging in such unfair labor practices, reinstate, with back pay, 48
of the employees named in the complaint, and disestablish the Union
as the collective bargaining representative of its employees. He
further recommended' that the. complaint be dismissed in so far as it
related to Gilbert Andrews, and Salvador Gusman, two employees
alleged in the complaint to have. been discriminatorily laid off or
discharged. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the
respondent and the T. W. O. C. on July 1 and July 5, 1938, respec-
tively. Pursuant to a request by the respondent, the Board granted
the parties and the Union an opportunity for oral argument before
it on January 17, 1939. On January 14, 1939, the Board issued and
served upon the parties a notice of postponement of the, hearing. for
an indefinite period. Subsequently, on October 12,1939, the respond-
ent-withdrew its request for oral argument, and no. oral argument. was
had.
On May 2, 1939, the respondent, Louis Schultz, General Organizer
and National Representative of the T. W. O. C., the T. W: O. C., and
counsel for the. Board entered into the following stipulation:-
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND' AGREED by and between the' FRED
RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY, a corporation, respondent herein,
by and through Lines; Spooner & Quarles, of Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, Attorneys. for and on behalf of the Fred Rueping' Leather
Company, Louis ScHULTZ, General Organizer and National Rep-
resentative for the Textile Workers Organizing Committee
(C. I. 0.), by and through Max E. Geline, Attorney, Milwaukee;
Wisconsin, the TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations; by and
through Max E. Geline, Attorney, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and
Morris L. Forer, Attorney, Twelfth Regional Office of the
National Labor Relations Board:
1. Upon Charges, Amended Charges, and Second Amended,
Charges, duly filed by Louis Schultz, on behalf of Textile Work-
ers Organizing Committee (C. I. O.),, the Regional Director for
the Twelfth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, act-
ing.pursuant to authority granted in Section 10 (b) of the Na-
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1089
tiolial Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, and in accord-
ance with Article II, Section 23, and Article IV, Section 3, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
1, as amended, duly issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
on the 25th day of March, 1938, against the Fred Rueping
Leather Company of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, respondent herein.
Said Complaint and Notice of Hearing, together with the Charge,
Amended Charge, and Second Amended Charge were duly served
upon the Fred Rueping Leather Company at Fond du Lac, Wis-
consin, Lines, Spooner & Quarles, Attorneys-at-Law; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, for and on behalf of said Fred Rueping Leather
Company, and Louis Schultz, General Organizer for and on
behalf of the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, on the 25th
day of March, 1938. Answers were made by the respondent to
the Complaint and to the Amended Complaint. Madison Hill,
as duly designated Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, conducted a hearing from March 31, 1938, to April
29, 1938, at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, at which place all parties
were afforded an opportunity to participate in the hearing, to
call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce- evi-
dence. During the hearing, an Amended Complaint and a Notice
of Hearing on the Amended Complaint were served on April 11,
1938, on -all the parties. At the close of the hearing, Board's
counsel moved that the Complaint be made to conform to the
evidence adduced at the hearing and that it be amended to that
extent (R. 4179). This motion was granted by the Trial Exam-
iner without objection from counsel for respondent (R. 4180).
The Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union,4 an independent asso-
ciation, at present consisting of employees at the respondent-
company, did not seek to intervene in the proceedings. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the parties were afforded reasonable
.opportunity to file briefs in. lieu of argument and were advised by
the Trial Examiner that they, would be given opportunity for
oral argument before the Board, upon request of the Board made
within ten "days after the receipt of the Intermediate Report.
2. On June 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermedi-
ate Report,- a copy of which was duly served on all parties, find-
ing that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
.4 This organization was referred to in the Complaint as the Independent Association of
"Fond du Lac Tannery Workers. Several witnesses so referred to it during the hearing and
-also applied to it the name of Independent Fond du Lac 'Tannery Workers Union. It ap-
pears , however, from the exhibits and from the testimony of the Secretary-Treasurer of the
Union that the proper name is the Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union. In accordance with
the motion to conform the .Complaint to -the evidence and, further, pursuant to Section
10 (b) of the Act, the Complaint is amended in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 11 to substitute the
name, Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union for the name included. The Complaint is
further amended in Paragraph 13 by adding "(2)" after "subsections (1)."
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2)
and (3), and. Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist from such Unfair
labor practices, reinstate forty-eight of the fifty employees cited
in the Complaint and Amended Complaint, with back pay, dis-
establish the Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union as the bar-
gaining representative of its employees, and take certain other
affirmative action. It was recommended. that the Complaint- be
dismissed insofar as it related to Gilbert Andrew and Salvador
Gusman. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report thereafter were
filed by the, respondent (except insofar as the Report recom-
mended the dismissal of the Complaint in respect to Gilbert
Andrew and Salvador Gusman) and by the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee (C. I. 0.) in respect to Gilbert Andrew.
Oral argument upon the Exceptions was requested by the re-
spondent, and opportunity was granted by the Board, by a
Notice of Hearing, setting such argument down for January 17,
1939. Such Notice was served upon all parties on December 13,
1938. On January 14, 1939, Notice of Postponement of Hearing
for an indefinite period of time was duly served upon all parties.
3. The Fred Rueping Leather Company, hereinafter referred
to as the respondent, is . a • Wisconsin corporation engaged in the
tanning of hides and fabrication.of finished leather. Its prin-
cipal office and place of business are located in Fond du Lac, Wis-
consin, and it owns and operates a plan in Fond du .Lac, Wiscon-
sin. The respondent was incorporated under the laws of the
State, of Wisconsin on June 22, 1894; it is licensed to do business
in the States of New York and Massachusetts. The respondent
has sales offices in New York, New York; Boston, Massachusetts;
Cincinnati, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; Milwaukee, Wisconsin (re-
moved since time of hearing) ; San Francisco, California; Mont-
real, Canada, and Leicester, England.
4. The respondent, in the course of its operations at its place of
business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, is engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.
5. Animal skins and hides, together with chemicals and dye
'stuffs, constitute the principal raw materials purchased by the
respondent. During the year 1937, over 90% of the raw materials
used by the respondent in its plant at Fond du Lac were shipped
to such plant from foreign countries and states other than Wis-
consin. For the year 1937, the total purchases of hides and skins
from Wisconsin amounted to $214,624.43, ' and from other states'
$3,317,730.70.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1091
During the year 1937, the.respondent manufactured at its Fond
du Lac, Wisconsin, plant finished leather, and certain byproducts
such as leather splits, hair, and glue, valued at $6,074,418.00, of
which more than ninety per cent (90%) was sold and shipped to
purchasers outside Wisconsin. The respondent has .sales outlets
in Europe, the Far East, and South America.
6. The transportation facilities of the respondent include rail-
road, truck,, and express. Advertising space is taken by the re-
spondent in periodicals of national circulation. The sales meth-
ods of respondent are by personal contacts with the larger shoe
manufacturers. .
7. The officers of the Company are : F. J. Rueping, its Presi-
dent; Frederick E. Rueping, Vice-President and Superintendent;
J. C. Goetz, Vice-President and Hide Purchaser; N., L. Adams,
Vice-President and Sales Manager; and F. W. Chadbourne, Sec-
retary and Treasurer. In the Production Department, Frederick
E. Rueping is the Superintendent, W. H. Rueping is Assistant
Siuperintendent;;,Floyd Brennand and Carlton Margraf are Gen-
eral Foremen; and Francis Donovan is General Night Foreman.
. 8. The respondent. at the present time employs approximately
6650 persons.
9..,Textile Workers Organizing, Committee is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
During the spring and summer of 1937, while affiliated with the
Committee for,Industrial Organization, it was engaged, through
its agents and members, in efforts to organize all the production
employees of respondent.
10. Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union is an organization of
tannery workers in the city of Fond du Lac; Wisconsin, but mein-
bership therein now consists of . actual employees of , the Fred
Rueping Leather Company. Fred Rueping Leather Company
Employees' Association was an association of employees of the
respondent-'company. It passed out of existence in January, 1938.
11. Concurrent with this Stipulation, an agreement was entered
into by and between-"Fred Rueping Leather Company, a corpo-
ration of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, party of the first part, and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Textile Workers
Organizing Committee (C., I. 0.), parties of the second part,
represented by Louis Schultz, General Organizer and National.
Representative," as follows :
THIS AGREEMENT made this 28th day of. April, 1939, by and
between Fred Rueping Leather Company, a corporation, of
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, party of the first part, and Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America and Textile Workers
1092 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., parties of the second part,
represented by Louis Schultz, General Organizer and Na-
tional Representative,
WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, proceedings are now pending before the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board in the matter of Fred Rueping
Leather Company, a corporation, Fond du Lac, 'Wisconsin,'
and Textile Workers Organizing Committee (C. I. 0.), case
number C-725, upon an Intermediate Report of Madison Hill,
trial examiner, dated June 21, 1938, and exceptions thereto
made by Fred Rueping Leather Company and Textile Work-
ers Organizing Committee; and
WHEREAS, parties are desirous of disposing of the issues in
said matter by mutual agreement;
Now, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties, subject
to conditions as herein provided, as follows :
1. Party of the first part agrees to pay the sum of Thirteen
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($13,500.00) to said Louis
Schultz and to Richard Assaf and George Haensgen, Local
Committee of the parties of the second part as agents and
representatives of all forty-eight individuals entitled- to
share therein as hereinafter, provided. The payment of said
sum is to be made to said parties referred to above, upon the
approval by the National Labor Relations Board of the terms
and provisions of a stipulation to be entered into by and be-
tween the parties hereto and a representative of the National
Labor Relations Board.
2. Said sum of Thirteen Thousand Five 'Hundred Dollar3
($13,500.00) shall be in full of all claims of all company
employees who were found in the Intermediate Report of
the trial examiner to be discriminated against in violation
of the National Labor Relations Act, whether such em-
ployees have at the date hereof been recalled to work by
the company or not, and also to cover all attorneys' fees,
costs and disbursements, if any, of the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee (C. I. O:), and of each of the employees named in
the Labor Board complaint. Payment of said sum by the
party of the first part shall constitute a full release and
discharge of any and all claims arising out of the pending
proceedings, before the National Labor Relations Board
before referred to, of the said parties of the second part
and of the individual-employees named in said Labor Board
complaint except as otherwise specifically, provided for in
this agreement.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1093,
3. The party of the first part agrees that all of the em-
ployees who were found in said Intermediate Report to.
have been discriminated against and who, at the date hereof,.
have been recalled to work by the company, will be retained,
in the employment of the company for such time that their
earnings from and after the date hereof, together with their-
earnings during the time they have been on the payroll
since their recall to work, respectively, will make up the.
difference in cash between what each of said individual em-
ployees shall receive out of the lump sum settlement aforesaid
and the, net amount which has been computed as being the
back pay to which the individual would be entitled if the'
Intermediate Report of the examiner aforesaid' were sus
tamed. The computations of net amount which would be.
due employees as aforesaid are set forth upon a schedule,,
of which both parties have a copy, and computed by Louis,
Schultz from data furnished by the company and the per-
sons, affected thereby. Any of said employees' who may,
hereafter voluntarily quit his employment, or who may-
hereafter be discharged for proper cause, shall 'thereby for-
feit all right to further employment by the company and to.
,further earnings or compensation under this paragraph.
4. It is further agreed that all the employees recalled to,
work by the company and covered by the provisions in para--
graph 3 above, be entitled to reinstatement to their former.
positions, or substantial equivalent thereof, without loss of
,seniority to such extent, if any, as previously enjoyed by
each one of said employees, and without any prejudice to,
any rights, if any, previously enjoyed by said employees,,
and which are now 'enjoyed by other employees 'presently
employed in like positions.
5. The agreed retention of employment above provided
shall be subject only to discharges for cause, voluntary quit-
tings and necessary lay-offs, as herein provided.. If, by reason
of business conditions, the party of the first part shall be,
required to reduce its working forces, such lay-offs, so far as.
the employees within paragraph 3 hereof are concerned,,
shall be handled,by departments, and it is,understood that;
so far. as reasonably possible, said employees within para-
graph 3 hereof shall be given preference in retention at work-
in the departments in which they are regularly employed,,
and that where they can not be so retained in their regular
departments, the company shall transfer them' to jobs in
other departments for which they are immediately qualified,
provided such other jobs are available without first laying
283035-42-vol. 24=70
1094 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off other qualified employees from such -jobs. In event any
of the workers within paragraph 3 of this agreement shall
-be laid off before they shall have earned sufficient earnings
to make up the difference in cash as specified in Paragraph
3, such laid-off employees, shall be the first employees to be
recalled to work as soon as business conditions improve and
as soon as there shall, be jobs available for which said
workers are immediately qualified, on the same general
basis as provided herein with respect to, lay-offs. The pro-
visions of this paragraph shall be considered fully performed
as to each' of the employees. within paragraph 3 of this
agreement, respectively, as and, when the total wages earned
by each while in the employ of the company since his recall
to work shall.equal the difference in cash as provided for
and computed as set out in said paragraph 3 hereof.
6. It is agreed that any dispute arising between the party
of the first part' and any employee within paragraph 3 of
this agreement, or parties of the second part, or either of
them, arising out of the performance or nonperformance
of this agreement, shall be submitted to Voyta Wrabetz, at
present Chairman of the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board
and Chairman of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, of
Madison, Wisconsin, as arbitrator, for final ; arbitration.
Said arbitrator shall hear the parties and take such testi-
mony as he may desire. His decision in the matter shall
be final and binding upon all parties.
7. It is further agreed that each of said parties of the
second part shall have the right to ` represent its members
with respect to any and all grievances which said members,
or any of them, shall .have. Any such grievance, as well
as any grievance on the part of the company against either
of said parties of the second part or its members, which
cannot .be' agreed' upon between the parties, may be sub-
mitted by either party to Voyta Wrabetz, at present Chair-
man of the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board and Chair-
man of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, of Madison,
Wisconsin, as arbitrator, for final arbitration. Said arbi-
trator shall hear the parties and take such testimony as he
may desire. His decision in the matter shall be final and
binding upon all parties. It .is agreed that the term "griev-
ance" as used in this paragraph, shall be limited in scope
and shall not include matters, controversies, or grievances
which are the proper subject of collective bargaining, such
as wages, hours, and general terms and conditions of labor.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1095
. 8. This agreement shall not be binding unless and unti 1
approved in writing by the forty-eight men who were found
in the Intermediate Report aforesaid to have been discrimi-
nated against by the company and this agreement is in all
ways subject to such approval, and unless and until the
National Labor Relations Board shall have approved, a
written stipulation entered into concurrently with the exe-
cution of this. agreement by and between. the parties hereto
respecting said case number C-725 now pending before said
Board.
9. It is further agreed that the party of the first part
and the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, by its
proper officers and representatives, will enter into a stipu-
lation and agreement with a representative of the National
Labor Relations Board, providing, among other matters,
with respect to the pending proceedings before said Board,
that the said party of the first part will consent to the entry
of an order by the National Labor Relations Board,, and
a decree by the appropriate Circuit, Court of Appeals, re-
specting the tatters covered. in the complaint in the afore-
said proceedings on the issues arising under Sections 8 (1)
and 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, and will
comply with any order entered by the Board respecting
said matters. It is further agreed that the issues arising
under Section 8 (2) of the National Labor Relations Act
as alleged in the complaint, shall be determined by. decision
of the National Labor Relations Board and that the decision
of said Board and any order entered thereon will, in all
respects, be. complied with by said party of the first part,
it being further agreed, that such order shall be treated in
the same manner as any order, based on the issues arising
under 8 (1) and 8 (3) of said' ct ; , and that the consent
decree above provided for may include the order on the 8 (2)
allegations.
12. Attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," ? and made a part
of this stipulation, is a copy.. of the document. by which each
.of the forty-eight employees who were found in said Intermediate
Report to have been discriminated against have consented to
and approved all of ;the terms.and `provisions of the agreement
set forth above, and have authorized and empowered the execu-
tion of. said agreement and of this stipulation and the payment of
all sums provided therein, in accordance with the terms and
provisions.'of said agreement and stipulation, thereby comfirming
and ratifying any acts so taken. without further notice to them.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
13. The respondent hereby withdraws . all exceptions hereto-
fore filed by it to the Intermediate Report of Madison Hill,
Trial Examiner , referred to in Paragraph 2 of this stipulation,
with respect to all findings of fact and recommendations made
therein in connection with issues ' arising under Sections 8 (1)
and 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, and hereby
waives any further exceptions under the National Labor Rela -
tions Act, or under the rules and regulations promulgated there-
under with respect to said issues , a.nd hereby-waives any right to
further hearing before the National Labor Relations Board or
before the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals with respect
to said issues ; provided , however, that the respondent does not
withdraw its said exceptions or waive any right to further hear-
ing before the National Labor Relations Board, prior, to the
issuance of an order , with respect to any issues arising under
Sections 8 (1) and 8 ( 2) of the Act as to alleged domination or
interference with the formation or administration of any labor
organization or the contribution of financial or other support
to it by the respondent , or with respect in any way to the findings
or recommendations of. said Trial Examiner in regard to such
issues.
14. This stipulation may be ' made a part of the record in the
above captioned case.
15. This stipulation may serve as the basis of the hereinafter
stipulated order of the National Labor Relations Board and of
the consent decree of the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals on
all issues raised by the complaint and amended complaint (and
arising under Sections 8 (1) and 8 ( 3) of said Act), except
insofar and to the extent that such order and. consent decree
may be modified or added to , in accordance with Paragraph 19
of this stipulation respecting issues arising under the allegations
as to the domination of and interference with the formation and
administration of -any labor organizations , and the contribution
of financial and other support to the formation and administra-
tion of any. such labor organizations.
16'.. On the basis of this stipulation, and on the basis of the
order to be entered pursuant thereto, a decree enforcing such
order may be entered by the appropriate Circuit Court of Ap-
peals; and'the respondent Hereby waives further notice of the
application therefor.
17. The order, Which may be forthwith entered by the National
Labor Relations Board, and the decree, which may be forthwith
entered by the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, may pro-
vide, except insofar and to the extent that such order and'consent
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1097
decree are modified or added to, in accordance with Paragraph
1.9 of this Stipulation, that :
(1) The respondent , Fred Rueping Leather Company,
shall cease and desist from :
(a) in any manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form, join or assist the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection ;
(b) in any manner discouraging membership in the Tex-
tile Workers Organizing Committee ,.affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations , or in any other labor
,organization , by discrimination in regard to hire, tenure or
Any term or condition of employment; °
(2) The respondent, Fred Rueping Leather Company,
shall take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act :
(a) Offer to :
Harry Andrews Ernest Kumber
Charles Assaf Alex Kulaga
Roy Behnke Lawrence Lange
John Bahr Steven,Lietz
Rudolph Bahr Carl Manthey.
'Othmar Baumann , . Charles Millard,
Frank Bednarek Erving Otto
Levi Boda N. E. Peterson-
Alvin Brooks Arnold Plonsky
Solomon Buckrma Frank Prosser
Robert Dame Fred Prosser
Ashley Duquette ' Roy Resheske
Francis Errard Mennard Richter
Emanuel Flores Frank Sabel
Walter H. Frank Phillip Schneider
Stanley Gebert- Harold Steinke
'Geo. Haensgen Charles Weiss
Howard Hendrickson Leonard Wentland
Ralph H. Kohn - Jacob Wettstein
Arthur Kosloske Alex Zulauf
Robert Krug
] ^98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
full and immediate reinstatement to their former positions,
or the substantial equivalent thereof, without prejudice to^
the rights and privileges previously enjoyed by them;
(b) Pay to the following employees the sums stated after
their respective names, such stated sums being in lieu of
loss of pay suffered by each of them by reason of their
lay-off or discharge, as alleged in the Complaint and
Amended Complaint :
Harry Andrews_________ $136. 31 Robert Krug ----------- $114. 51
Charles Assaf__________ 255. 85 Ernest Kumber_________ 161.45
Roy Behnke ------------ 139.68 Alex Kulaga___________ 177.33
John Bahr_____________ 187.93 Lawrence Lange________ .82.43
Rudolph Bahr ---------- 207.44 Steven Lietz___________ 117.30,
Othmar Baumann ------ - 144. 28 Carl Manthey---------- 195. 45
Frank Bednarek-------- 147.22 Charles Millard________ 185.20,
Levi Boda_____________ - 196. 65 Erving Otto____________ - 116.21
Alvin Brooks ----------- 145.85 N. E. Peterson--------- 94.39
Solomon .Buckrma------ - 236. 26 Arnold Plonsky_________ 128. 28:
Robert Dame ---------- 220. 45 Frank Prosser__________ 161. 35
Ashley Duquette-------- 1.30. 33 Fred Prosser___________ 120.61
Francis Errdrd--------- 144.71 Roy Resheske__________ 387.75
Emanuel Flores________ -246.62 Mennard Richter -------- 127.60,
Walter H. Frank_______ 276. 37 Frank Sabel____________ 207.77
Stanley Gebert_________ 293.96 Phillip Schneider------- 166.63':
Geo. Haensgen-- ------- 253.52 Harold Steinke --------- 173.50
Howard Hendrickson--- 252.96 Charles Weiss__________ 251.87
Ralph H. Kohn_________ 219. 85 Leonard Wentland-__-_ 136. 10
Arthur Kosloske________ 125.99 Jacob Wettstein-------- 71.23
Senon. Flores ------------ 734. 73 Alex Zulauf____________ 196.39'
Chas. Floyd ------------- 635.04 Arthur W. Pagel_______ 629.24
Peter Ganacoplous_-____ 834. 52 John Uelman___________ 674.19%
Arnold Lueke__________ 668.45 Arthur Ziebell__________ 635.71
(c) Post, and keep visible, in conspicuous places in its
plants and buildings in the city of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin,
for a period of sixty (60) days after receipt of a copy of
the order to be entered herein by the National . Labor
Relations Board the following notice :
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, the Fred Rueping Leather Company is:
posting the. following notice to all its employees :
1. The Fred Rueping Leather Company .will cease
and desist from in any way interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights of self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
Textile Workers Organizing Committee, or any other
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1099
2: The Fred Rueping Leather Company will cease-
and desist from in any manner discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of employment in order to discourage member-
ship in Textile Workers Organizing Committee (C.
I. 0.) or in any other. union. All employees are
entirely free to join, belong to and participate in the
Textile Workers Organizing Committee, or any other
union, without fear of any discrimination on the part
of the Fred Rueping Leather Company.
. This notice will remain posted in conspicuous places
for a period of sixty - (60) days.
Dated ----------------, 1939.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY,
By
(d)' The Fred Rueping Leather Company shall inform
the Regional Director for' the Twelfth Region of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board within ten (10) days. of the
service, of said .Order,' of: the steps taken to comply
therewith.
(3) It is further ordered that the allegations of the Com-
plaint; with respect to the lay-offs or discharges ,of Gilbert
Andrew and Salvador Gusman, be dismissed..
18. IT IS STIPULATED that all of the employees named in Para-
graph 2 (a) of the order, set out in Paragraph 17 hereof,
namely:. .
Harry Andrews
Charles Assaf
Roy Behnke
John Bahr
Rudolph Bahr
Othmar Baumann
Frank Bednarek
Levi Boda
Alvin Brooks
Solomon Buckrma
Robert Dame
Ashley Duquette
Francis. Errard
Emanuel Flores
Walter H. Frank
Stanley Gebert
Geo. Haensgen
Howard Hendrickson
Ralph H. Kolar
Arthur Kosloske
Robert Krug
Ernest Kumber
'Alex Kulaga
Lawrence Lange
Steven Lietz
Carl Manthey
Charles Millard
Erving Otto
N. E. Peterson
Arnold Plonsky
Frank Prosser
Fred Prosser
Roy Resheske
Mennard Richter
1 100 DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frank Sabel Leonard Wentland
Phillip Schneider Jacob Wettstein
Harold Steinke Alex Zulauf
Charles Weiss
have heretofore been reinstated and are presently employed by
the respondent corporation, except Ralph H. 'Kohn, who quit
January 11, 1939.
19. The above stipulated order and consent decree may be
modified or added to, in accordance with the order made by the
National Labor Relations Board upon its findings of fact and
conclusions of law in respect to the allegations under Section 8,
subsection (2), and Section 8, subsection (1), of the National
Labor Relations Act, and especially as set forth in Paragraphs
-7, 8 and 11 of the Complaint and Amended Complaint, in
respect to the alleged domination of, interference with,
and contribution of financial . and other support to the.
formation and administration of.. the Fred Reuping Leather
Company. Employees' Association and . of the Fond du Lac
Tannery Workers Union; and. such addition to and modi-
fication of the order of the National Labor Relations Board
may be made an integral part of such order and consent
decree; and insofar as the respondent is. ordered to cease and
desist from any action or conduct in respect to the- aforemen-
tioned Fred Rueping Leather Company Employees' Association
,or the Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union, or both, provi-
sions may be made therefor under Section 1 of said order and
consent decree by the addition of paragraphs thereto, and insofar
as the respondent is ordered to take affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act in respect
to the aforementioned Fred Rueping Leather Company Em-
ployees' Association or the Fond du Lac Tannery Workers
Union, or both, such action may be provided for by additional
paragraphs under Section 2 of said order and consent decree and
provision may be made for the addition of the appropriate
language in the Notice to be posted.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that any order of the National
Labor Relations Board, in regard to said issues arising under
Section 8, subsection (2), and Section 8, subsection (1), as pro-
vided in this paragraph 19, may forthwith and without objec-
tion or exception on,the part of the respondent, be made a part
of the consent decree to be entered by the appropriate Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the respondent hereby. waives further
notice of application therefor.
FRED RIIEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1101
20. This,stipulation is conditioned upon the express approval,
. of the National -Labor Relations Board at Washington, D. C.,.
and is made subject to such approval.
EXHIBIT A
The undersigned, each being one of the employees or ex-em-
ployees of the Fred Rueping Leather Company. of Fond du
Lac, Wisconsin, who are named in the Intermediate. Report
dated June 21, 1938, of Madison Hill, the trial examiner of the
National Labor Relations Board, in the matter of the Fred
Rueping Leather Company and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, (C. I. 0.), Case No. C-725, and who were found in
said report to have been discriminated against in violation of
'the National Labor Relations Act, and who were in said report
ordered reinstated with-back pay, etc., do by these presents,,
consent to and approve of all.the terms and provisions of the
agreement made and entered into by, and between the Fred.
Rueping Leather Company, as party of the first part, and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers , of America and Textile
Workers Organizing Committee, parties of the second part,.
represented by Louis Schultz, general organizer and national
representative, and .executed on the. 28th day of April, 1939,.
and do each for ourselves hereby authorize and. empower the
said Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Textile
Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress for
Industrial Organizations, to act for each of us and on our behalf'
in all respects in executing and putting into effect the terms
and conditions of said agreement, and further to act for us and.
on 'our behalf in executing any stipulations in the National.
Labor Relations Board proceedings aforementioned, which.'
may be necessary in order to make the terms and provisions of
said agreement effective, hereby confirming and ratifying any
action so taken without any further notice to us.
Ernest Kumber
Charles Millard
Manuel Flores
Ralph Kohn
Arthur Kosloske
Frank Prosser
Lawrence Lange
John Uelmen
Carl Manthey
N. E. Peterson
Harry Andrews
Levi Boda
Charles Floyd
Mennard Richter
Alex Kulaga
Leonard Wentland
Frank Bednarek '
Geo. Haensgen
Alvin Brooks
Frank Sabel
Othmar Baumann
Phillip Schneider
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Walter H. Frank
Fred Prosser
Arthur W. Pagel
Ashley Duquette
Robert Dame
Steven Lietz
Solomon Buckrma
Alex Zulauf
Arthur Ziebell
Senon Flores
Arnold Plonsky
Stanley Gebert
Jacob Wettstein
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charles Assaf
Roy RResheske
Francis Errard
Arnold Lueke
Howard Hendrickson
Charles Weiss
Roy Behnke
Robert Krug
John Bahr
Rudolph Bahr
Erving Otto
Peter Ganacoplous
Harold Steinke
On May 15, 1939, the Board issued an order approving the stipu-
lation and making it a part of the record.
The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the parties, save
those which we find it unnecessary to consider in view of the stipula-
tion and agreement set forth above and, in so far as they are incon-
sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below; finds
them to be without merit.
Upon the above stipulation and the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Fred Rueping Leather Company; has been engaged
in the business of tanning hides and fabricating finished leather at
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, since 1854. In 1894 it was incorporated
under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. The respondent maintains
its principal office and place of business at Fond du Lac, and main-
tains sales offices at Boston, Massachusetts; New York, New York;
Cincinnati, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; San Francisco, California;
Montreal, Canada; and Leicester, England.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent are animal
skins and hides, chemicals, and dye stuffs.. During the year 1937, over
90 per cent of these materials were shipped to the respondent's plant
in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, from States other than Wisconsin or
from foreign countries. Purchases of hides and skins within the
State .of Wisconsin amounted to $214,624.43 and from points outside
the State of Wisconsin $3.317,730.70. t
During the year 1937 the respondent manufactured at its plant in
Fond du Lac finished leather and byproducts of hides and skins
FRED RIJEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1103
valued- at $6,074,418, of which more than 90 per cent was sold and
shipped to purchasers outside Wisconsin.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.' During
the spring and summer of 1937, it was engaged in efforts to organize
all the production employees of the respondent.
Fred Rueping Leather Company Employees' Association was an
unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership all employees
.of the respondent except foremen and assistants to' executives. It
dissolvedby vote of its members in January. 1938.
Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union is an unaffiliated labor organ-
ization admitting to membership all ' production and maintenance
tannery workers in Fond du Lac, exclusive of supervisory employees.
The respondent operates the only tannery in Fond du Lac, and
membership in the Union is therefore confined to employees of the
respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Iri June 1937 a hearing was held before the Wisconsin Labor Rela-
tions Board upon charges that the respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Wisconsin Labor Relations
Act. At the hearing in this proceeding it was agreed by all parties
-that charges of unfair labor practices would cover only the period.
,subsequent to June 18, 1937,6 when the hearing before.the Wisconsin
Labor Relations Board terminated.
All allegations of unfair labor practices in the complaint, except
those relating to the charge. that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Association and
the Union, were settled subsequent to the hearing by the agreement
and stipulation of the parties set forth above.
There have existed-at the respondent's plant three successive unaf-
filiated labor organizations-Departmental and Plant Representa-
tion; herein called the Plan, created by the respondent in 1934 and
admittedly dominated by it until April 1937; the Association, which
came into existence by an amendment of the articles of organization
of the Plan in. April 1937 and continued in existence until its disso-
lution inJanuary 1938; and the Union, which was formed in January
1938 after the dissolution of the Association. We are here concerned
only with determining whether or not 'the respondent dominated or
5 Formerly the Committee for Industrial Organization.
4 The charges and parts of the record incorrectly refer to this date as June 21, 1937.
1104 DECISIONS -OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interfered with the administration of the Association, or contributed
support thereto, after Julie 18, 1937, and whether or not the respond-
ent dominated or interfered with the formation or administration
of the Union or contributed support thereto. These issues we shall
consider in the light of the background of the respondent's relations
with labor organizations.
A. Background of the respondent's relations with labor organizations
In 1933 when the American Federation of Labor commenced organ-
izing employees of the plant, it met with immediate resistance from
the respondent. Foremen attended the organizational meetings and
John Symes, chairman of the executive committee of the A. F. of L.
organization at the plant, at the request of Frederick E. Rueping,
then assistant superintendent, kept the latter informed of the plans
and number of members of that organization. Soon thereafter some
of the A. F:. of L. leaders were laid off. F. E. Platt, then superin-
tendent, sent to all employees a letter disparaging .union organizers,
referring to'them as agitators, and offering a $5 reward to any
employee who would furnish certain information about "the agi-
tators." Following an unsuccessful strike by the A. F. of L. union,
an election conducted in February 1934, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, was lost
by that organization.
On February 14, 1934, the respondent presented to its employees
a plan of representation, herein called the Plan, which provided for
the election of 21 representatives from the various departments of
the plant to. serve as collective bargaining agents for the employees.
No dues were charged. members of the Plan and assessments were
levied against members only for special purposes such as for dances.
Stationery and printing used by the Plan were paid for by the
respondent. Meetings of the representatives were held during work-
ing hours at the plant and representatives were paid by the respond-
ent for the time spent by them at the meetings. No general meetings
of members Of the Plan were ever held. The Plan was in operation
at the plant on April 12, 1937, when the Supreme Court of the United
States issued its decisions upholding the constitutionality of the
National Labor Relations Act., The respondent admitted at the
hearing in this proceeding that the Plan was sponsored and domi-
nated by the respondent.
Within a day or two following the Supreme Court decisions Fred-
crick E. Rueping, then superintendent and vice president of the
respondent, called into his office Willard Fritz, secretary-treasurer
of the Plan, and informed him that Plan members could no longer
7 N. L. R. B. v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1, et al.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1105
use the respondent's recreation room for its activities. At about that
time, either. at this interview or at another, officers of the Plan
informed Rueping that they did not believe the, Plan would "stand
up" in view of the Supreme Court decisions and thought that
another labor organization should be formed. Rueping told them
that he thought their suggestion about forming another organization.
"wa,s• a very good idea" and advised them to consult an attorney.
On April 13 or 14 Fritz and Emil Kath, president of the Plan,
consulted Frank W. Cosgrove, an attorney known and suggested by
Kath, in regard to the effect of the Supreme Court decisions upon
the operation of the Plan and employed him to assist them in the
formation of "an independent union that would come under the law."
Cosgrove,, after studying the Act, called Fritz and Kath to his office
for another interview on April 18, 1937. He proposed to them that
the Plan be changed by .amending its articles of organization and
adopting a new name, Fred Rueping Leather Company Employees
Association. On the following day the 21. Plan representatives held
it meeting in Cosgrove's office and approved the articles of organiza-
tion as amended by Cosgrove.
The organizational set-up of the Association was the-same as that
of the Plan. The object of the Association, as stated-in the amended
articles, was "to promote steady employment, fair wages and working
conditions, to prevent strikes and disputes, and to promote harmony
and cooperation which has existed for the past 80 years in this plant."
The amended articles. contained a number of provisions entailing
obligations or cooperation on the part of the respondent to make
them effective.s These provisions, however, were apparently inserted
without the knowledge of the respondent, with only an expectation
that the respondent would accede to them.
. Copies of the amended articles and authorization cards were
printed on April 19 and delivered to Fritz who-gave copies to each
of the. representatives. for distribution within their respective depart-
ments. Upon the authorization cards were printed the following
statement:
8 For example, Section 3 of Article V reads in part as follows :
Failing satisfactory adjustment of said complaint the Employee Representative and
if desired, the Plant Committee, shall have the right to deal directly with the head of
the department or the management on any grievance or complaint, and the manage-
ment shall cooperate in every way in negotiating and adjusting reasonable grievances,
complaints or disputes by conference and bargaining on a fair, open and equitable basis.
[Italics supplied.]
Section 4 of Article V provides in part : .
If the Plant Committee desires arbitration, It shall on five days' notice to the manage-
ment, select one of its members as an arbitrator, whereupon the management shall select
one of its members as another arbitrator within five days, and the two arbitrators so
selected, shall within five days arbitrate such grievance, complaint or dispute, or agree
upon a third arbitrator. [Italics supplied.] . , .
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I agree to the plan. for collective bargaining and employee
representation as now alnended and presented to me. I consent
that the present representative and officers now acting for me
shall continue in office for the balance of the year 1937:
On April 27 the Association addressed a memorandum to the re-
spondent in Which it claimed as members over 80 per cent of the
employees and stated that it had elected to constitute itself the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees. The respondent
replied by a memorandum dated April 30, 1937, offering to bargain
with the Association on any subject which. it might propose.
During the first part of May 1937 the T. W. O. C. commenced
organizing the plant. On May 5 it held its first meeting for the
respondent's employees. Many of the foremen loitered . or sat in
parked.cars near the meeting, place at this and subsequent T. W. O. C.
meetings.° On May 7,.8, and 21 the respondent mailed to its em-
ployees communications stating its views in regard to labor organiz-
ers and purporting to explain and answer questions in'regard to the
National Labor' Relations Act. Some of these statements were
obviously aimed at the T. W. O.. C. organizers and hostile to them.10
0Haring_ Zarback , Len, Johnson , . Vogds , Sutter , Wischnefski , Stoddard , Grenier , Lefeber,
Russart, Ditwell , Nack , Pitas, and Davis.
15 The communication dated May 8 reads as follows :
MAY 8,'1937.
To all Employees of Fred Rueping Leather Company:
For Over Eighty-eight Years We Have Obeyed the Law
For eighty-three years not a single violation of the law concerning workers has
occurred . We are' paying the highest wages in this community for the class of work
which our business requires and will always be in the front rank on wages consistent
with business conditions and competition in our industry.
Let us cooperate for a recovery to further increase wages and employment.
Our Platform for Eighty-three Years
for eighty-three years workers, foremen and owner have all pulled together AS ONE
FAMILY for better or worse , through panics, wars, hardships , depressions and pros-
perity, with the utmost cooperation and good will.
CONFIDENCE . For eighty-three years we have paid all the wages which our business
permitted. When business is bad, wages must be reduced to sell our products at the
price the buyers will pay. When business improves we have been in the front rank in
raising wages and WE HAVE PAID WAGES CONTINUOUSLY FOR EIGHTY-THREE
YEARS WITHOUT A SHUT DOWN. We have justified your continued confidence.
No agitator can show any such record either in furnishing employment or paying wages.
According to the records of the Department of Labor of the United States, there are
now about nine million people out of work . Not a single job has been created so far
as we know by any agitator. Where were these agitators all these years and what have
they done to increase employment? The record of the Department of Labor further
shows that in the last four years, there have been over eight thousand strikes and five
million men put out of work because of them.
There is no record that any agitator has ever given any worker a steady job, or any
family a full dinner pail.
- FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY,
/s/ F. E. RUEPING,
Vice President of Superintendent.
P. S.-Please note that nothing herein contained is intended to interfere , restrain, or
coerce any employee in the designation of any representative for collective bargaining or
any self organization , or any other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.
FREDRUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1107--
Throughout the months of May and June, T. W. O. C. organizers
who attempted to speak to employees in front of the plant during the
noon hour met with various types of opposition from the respondent
as well as from association representatives and members. Frank
Lou, a foreman, Fritz, and -other employees played "bazookas"'""
while Samuel Leghorn and Al Benson, T. W. O. C. organizers, at-
tempted to speak. Upon one occasion, Lemke and Miller; two
employees, marched Leghorn away from the plant and forced him
into his car. Upon anothen occasion as Leghorn was attempting to
speak in front of the plant a pail of water was thrown upon him from
a window of the plant. When Rueping was told about the incident,
he remarked to an employee that it was "too bad if wasn't a bucket
of . . . seasoning." 12 .
After it was reported to Rueping that the T. W.. O. C. had organ-
ized about 90 per cent of the employees of the trimming room,
Rueping made a talk to those employees in which he berated the
T. W. O. C. organizers;1i3 informed the men of their right to join any
labor organization which they might choose, and added, "But, .. .
if I were to. have a collar placed about my neck I would want to at
least know who held the collar." A number of the foremen also in-
formed employees of their hostility toward the T. W. O. C. or, outside
unions in general."- Two foremen, Korth and Stoddard, told differ- -
ent employees that the men who signed up for the T. W., O. C. would
be "kicked out." Another foreman, Davis, after branding the C. I. O.
as a "Communist outfit," told an employee that the men who were
joining the C. I. O. had better "look out" or they would all be out of
a job. Wischnefski, a foreman, warned an employee that if he joined
the T. W. O. C., he would be laid off as his brother-in-law had been.
Still another foreman, Nietman, in discussing the T. W. O. C. with an
employee, told him, "Any union that gets in, we can get around
that, we can always find away to fire a man."
While voicing its opposition to -the T. W. O. C.. and threatening
T. W. O. C. members with discharge, the respondent encouraged and
bestowed favors upon the Association. Although the respondent had
granted a general 71/2-per cent increase in wages to its, employees in
March, it granted them an additional 10-per cent increase effective
June 1, at the request of the Association, in spite. of the fact that its
production had commenced declining sharply in May. The respond-
ent had in effect a rule prohibiting employees from visiting in depart-
11 A type of whistle.
12 A bucket of seasoning was thrown upon -Benson subsequent to- the hearing before the
Wisconsin Labor Relations Board.
13 In regard to the organizers , Rueping testified that be told the employees , "I was not.
competent to argue with them any more than I would be entering a 'kissing' contest with a
skunk , and I used a different woid in place of 'kissing.'"
14 Leu , Stoddard , Baring, Korth , Davis; Lefeber , Wischnefski , and Nietman.
_1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
_ments other than their own, except on the respondent's business, and
prohibiting "all -unnecessary. running around." Rueping reminded
Ray Resheske, a T. W. O. C. member, of this rule and warned him that
:anyone caught soliciting members or doing any union work in the
plant would be immediately discharged. The respondent, neverthe-
less, permitted Fritz 75 to visit throughout the plant in signing up
:association members, collecting dues, and transacting other association
:business. After May 10, at Fritz's request, the respondent deducted
from his pay the time spent on such activities. Many of the other
-representatives passed out membership cards and collected dues during
working hours without taking deductions from their pay. Some of
them'kept their dues books in the desks of their foreman. Two of the
employees handed their association membership cards to their foreman,
'Oscar Haring, who promised to transmit them to the representative.
Another employee turned in his association membership card to the
timekeeper, Frank Bednarek. One foreman, George Seeley, signed
-up an. employee as a member of the Association. Hank Andrews, an
:assistant foreman, in' response to a question by one of the employees
About the effect of not paying association dues, stated, "I don't say
-that they will get canned, but this much I know, that they will be the
-first ones that will get laid off."
There can be no doubt from the facts above related that the re-
-spondent prior to Julie 18, 1937, not only discouraged membership in
the T. W. O. C. and encouraged membership in the Association but
actually dominated and interfered with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Association and contributed support to it. We are not
here concerned with these activities as unfair labor practices but (,illy
-as a picture of the situation which existed at the plant when the hear-
ing upon charges of unfair labor practices before the Wisconsin
Labor Relations Board took place.
B. The respondent's relations with the Association subsequent to the
hearing before State Board
The Association continued to function after the termination of
the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board hearing substantially as it did.
before. The same employees who were elected representatives of the
admittedly company-dominated Plan continued as representatives of
-the Association. From June 19, 1937, until the dissolution of the
Association in January 1938, Fritz caused to be deducted from his pay
11 Fritz was the moving spirit in the formation as well as in the functioning of the Asso-
ciation . For about three years prior to 1930 he had been a foreman, but at all times herein
mentioned he was employed as a 'color matcher . ' His duties as a color matcher entailed
frequent visits to several . of the departments and facilitated his work in behalf of the
Association . From May 10 to June 19, 1937 , Fritz bad deducted from his pay an average
.of more than an hour a day for time spent on association activities.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1109
an average of almost an hour's earnings each day for the time spent
on association activities. In addition to this time for which he did
not receive pay, Fritz spent further time on association business for
which he did receive pay. Some of the representatives continued to
collect dues during working hours and some of them continued to keep
their dues books in the desks of their foremen.
The respondent, subsequent to June 18, continued to manifest a
hostile attitude toward outside. unions and especially toward the
T. W. O. C. F. W. Chadbourne, secretary-treasurer as well as attorney
for the respondent, told Benson, when the latter attempted . to per-
suade him that the T.M. O. C. was a responsible labor organization,
"N6, I am not interested. We have just begun to fight." At the hear-
ing in this proceeding, Chadbourne testified, "The Company, frankly;
did not favor having an outside union represent their people, but had
never at any time within my knowledge, and I feel certain that it was
the fact, had never refused or intimated that they would refuse to
recognize it if the majority of the employees wanted it." Rueping,
wherf asked, at the hearing whether the respondent's opposition to
outside unions included the C. I. 0., replied, "I think they would be
at the head o'f the list.".
During the summer and fall of 1937, when the respondent's business
was declining and the respondent was laying off employees, it built
two washrooms for women with the announcement that it intended to
employ women as well as men when business commenced to improve.16
No women had ever theretofore been. employed in the plant. It was
rumored about the plant that all T. W. O. C. men would be replaced
by women. 17 Balthazor, a supervisory employee, when asked by one
of the employees whether this rumor was true, replied, "They ought to
be all laid off." Balthazor's statement, under the circumstances, if it
did not tend to confirm the truth of the rumor in the mind of the em-
ployee', at least discouraged membership in the T. W. O.- C.
Rueping admitted that subsequent to June 18, 1937, he had repri-
manded Walter Frank, a T. W. O. C. member, for talking and had
told him, "I didn't care what he was talking ,about, whether he was
doing organizational work or what it was, but I wouldn't stand for
him keeping other men from their work." Frank testified that Ruep-
ing, upon parting, added, "Every one of you guys that. belong to the
C. I. O. will be out of here by the first of the year." Rueping, who
heard Frank's testimony and testified subsequent to Frank, neither
admitted nor denied having made that statement. We find that he
16 The respondent had not commenced employing women prior to the hearing in March
and April 1938.
1T Sixty-nine of the 81 employees laid off or discharged during the summer and fall of 1937.
were members of the T. W. O. C. The T. W. 0. C. apparently never claimed more than about
350 members among the respondent's approximately 700'enmployees.
283035-42-vol. 24 71
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made it. Rueping, when asked whether he had spoken about the
C. I. O. to another employee, Ehlert, subsequent to the State Board
,hearing, replied in the affirmative, and explained, "I told him I wished
he would quiet down and settle down to business and not let outside
influences affect his work." It does not appear that Rueping ever
singled out any association members for reprimand for their organi-
zational activities, although at least some of their activities were known
to him.18
In October 1937, after Robert Dame and many other employees had
been laid off, Oscar Haring; one of the foremen, told Dame "that it
was too bad that [they] were laid off, but [they] should have watched
themselves and not joined the Union [the T. W. O. C.]." Fritz and
other association representatives made similar statements to other
employees. A number of employees were induced by advice or threats
of association representatives,1° to resign from the T. W. O. C. and
join or pay dues to the Association in-order to make their jobs more
secure. 2' The'representatives of the Associatioii had theretofore been
representatives of the respondent's Plan.21 It is not surprising that
their advice and threats .were effective.
Moreover, there can be no doubt that the respondent's vigorous
opposition to the T. W. O. C., as set forth above, and its concurrent
friendly treatment of the successor to its self-created' and dominated
Plan, subsequent to as well as before June 18, 1937, contributed to
the action of the employees in shifting their affiliation to or remain=
ing, members of the Association. A labor organization whose mem-,
bership is thus influenced exists in subservience to the' desires of the
respondent and is not the freely chosen representative of the
employees.
The Trial Examiner's finding that the Association was "at all
times under the domination and control of.the respondent" is amply
supported by the'evidence. We find that the respondent subsequent
to June 18, 1937, dominated and interfered with the administration
of the Association and contributed support -to it, and that it thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
11 At one time Fritz's foreman reported to Rueping that Fritz was spending too much time
"running around ." Rueping told the foreman , "well , go after him , hold him down."
Although . Rueping saw . Fritz almost daily , he never reprimanded Fritz.
4 0 Fritz , Abig, Rollman, and Bowers.
20 Fritz had "revoke cards" printed and distributed to T. W. O. C. members during May,
June, and July . Forty-eight signed and returned to Fritz these cards purporting to revoke
their membership in the T . W. O..C.
21 Cf . National Labor Relations Board v ..Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Com-
pany, 60 S. Ct . 203, rev'g. modification of Board's order , 101 F. ( 2d) 841 ( C. C. A. 4 ), enf'g
as modified Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial
Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America ., 8 N. L. R . B. 866.
FRED RUEPING LEATHER, COMPANY
C. Formation of the Union
The Association, prior to the hearing before the Wisconsin Labor
Relations Board, filed an application with that Board for a listing
pursuant to provisions of the Wisconsin Labor Relations Act. The
application for a listing, which was heard on June 16, 17, and 18 in
conjunction With the unfair labor practice charges, was denied on
August 6, 1937. Thereafter Fritz discussed with other association
representatives and with Cosgrove the advisability of taking steps to
remove the cloud cast over the legal status of the Association by the
action of the Wisconsin Board. Among other matters discussed was
the advisability"of changing the Association's name, omitting the
respondent's name from the new title. No definite steps were taken,
however; until after the first of the year 1938 when Cosgrove told
Fritz and- Kath that the Association should be dissolved and a new'
labor organization formed. On January 7, 1938, the 21 Association
representatives met in Cosgrove's office and voted to dissolve the Asso-
ciation and .form a new organization. On the following. day printed
copies of a letter from Cosgrove, suggesting the dissolution.of the
Association and the formation of a new organization, to which were
attached authorizations for the dissolution,, were distributed to the
association members. Within 3 or .4 days thereafter, over 500 em-
ployees had signed the authorizations for dissolution. Funds in the
treasury of the Association were thereafter prorated and returned to
the members.
On January 13 Fritz and 10 other employees met in Cosgrove's
office to discuss the formation of a new organization. Again Fritz
was the moving spirit in the organizational work. He invited or
gathered together practically all of the 10 employees, 4 of whom, in
addition to himself, had theretofore been representatives under the,
Association. A proposed constitution and bylaws prepared by Cos-
grove and patterned after those of the Kohler Workers Association
in Kohler, Wisconsin, but preserving the organizational set-up insti-
tuted by the respondent for the Plan', was discussed and tentatively
decided upon by Fritz and the other employees. Fritz, during the
preceding summer,. had visited Kohler and interviewed officers of the
Kohler Workers Association in regard to their independent union.
A meeting of all employees interested in forming an independent
union was called for Saturday afternoon, January 15. About 370
employees attended the meeting, voted to form an. independent union,
then summoned Cosgrove to address them. Cosgrove presented the
proposed constitution and bylaws for a labor organization to be called
Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union, which were adopted.22 Mem-
2 This was the same consitution and bylaws previously approved by Fritz and,the 10 other
employees on January 13.
1112 DECISIONS,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bership cards which Cosgrove had caused to be printed were there-
upon distributed among the employees and 364 signed them. On
January 22, the Union met and elected 22 representatives, 16 of whom
had been representatives under the Association or the Plan. Fritz
was elected secretary-treasurer and Alex Abig, a representative under
the Association, was elected president. On February 4, 1938, the
Union notified the respondent that it represented a majority of the
employees and requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative. The respondent demanded proof that the Union repre-
sented a.majority, whereupon the Union permitted a certified public
accountant employed by Chadbourne to check its membership cards
against the respondent's pay roll.. The check disclosed that 589 of
the respondent's 651 employees had joined the Union. Thereafter,
the respondent recognized the Union as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of its employees and negotiated a contract with it, which
was signed on March 1, 1938
Cosgrove, at the January 15 meeting, warned the employees not
to solicit memberships in the Union or transact other ]union business
during working hours and this instruction was apparently heeded by
most of the employees.23 Fritz, however, continued to a limited
extent his old practice of having deducted from his pay his earnings
for time spent on union activities. He caused to be deducted a total
of 51/2 hours'. earnings between January 15 and March 8, 1938, the
last date upon which any deduction was made.
Whether or not the respondent dominated or interfered with the
formation or administration of the Union or contributed support to
it cannot be determined solely by a consideration of its relations with
the Union as set forth above. The effect of its background of domi-
nation of and support to the two preceding company unions, the
Plan and the Association, together with its unremitting hostility to
"outside" organizations and its failure at any time to assure the
employees that it is not opposed to "outside" labor organizations, must
also be considered.
As we have pointed out above, the Plan was foisted upon the: em-
ployees by the respondent without their having an opportunity to
acceptor reject it as an agency for collective bargaining., It provided
for the selection of representatives from the various departments of
the plant who. constituted a committee which acted in the presenta-
tion of grievances, to the respondent. The Association, which came
into existence as a result of the amendment by Plan "leaders of the
articles or organization of the Plan, retained this organizational fea-
ture which the respondent had initiated. The Union, whose organiza-
2' Aside from Fritz's activities, the record shows only one instance of ally union activity
during working hours. .
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1113
tion was planned and instituted by leaders of the Plan and Association,
also retained this organizational feature. The same employees who
served as representatives under the Plan continued to serve as repre-
sentatives under the Association throughout the year 1937 until the
election of association representatives during the last week in Decem-
ber 1937. Sixteen of the 22 employees elected as representatives under
the Union had theretofore been representatives under the Association.
Fourteen of the 16 association representatives had also been represen-
tatives under the Plan. These facts, together with the fact that
Cosgrove, in his communication to the employees advising them to
dissolve the Association, advised them also'to form a new "independent
union" and the fact that they immediately acted upon his advice and
accepted a constitution and bylaws for a .new "independent union"
which had already been approved by former leaders of the Plan and
the Association, lead us to conclude that the Union was a mere con-
tinuation of the Association, which.in turn was a mere continuation of
the Plan.
In addition to the continuity of the organizational features of the
three "independent" labor organizations, the substantial identity of
their leadership, and, the proximity. of the succession, one to the other,
of the three organizations, we bear. in mind that the ' respondent
throughout the year 1937 waged an unremitting campaign of hostility
toward "outside" organizations, the T. W. O. C. in particular; that it
never at any time thereafter assured its employees that it was not op-
posed-to "outside" unions and thus allayed the fears which its previous
conduct had aroused; and that it continued to permit Fritz to carry on
union activities during working hours and to deduct from his pay his
earnings for the time spent on such activities, in spite of having there-
tofore warned Resheske, a T. W. O: C. member, that anyone caught
doing any union work in the plant would be immediately discharged.
In National Labor Relations Board: v. Brown Paper Mill Company,
Inc., the Court' stated : 24
The Act does not' compel employees to affiliate themselves with
existing national or other unions or associations, nor does it pre-
vent them from forming truly independent local associations of
their own. But it does flatly prevent and prohibit the formation
of associations of employees for bargaining, which, though they
are ostensibly independent, are really supported, controlled or
influenced though ever so slightly; by the management. The stat-
ute recognizes two parties to a labor bargaining compact. It
requires that the employees in bargaining be completely inde-
u 108 F. (2d) 867, 870-871, cert.,denied 310 U. S. 651, enf' g Matter o f Brown Paper Mill,
Inc., Monroe, Louisiana, and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, 12 N. L. R. B. 60. , , .
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendent of the employer so that in the bargaining, labor will be
represented by persons or organizations. having only its interests
in mind, and acting wholly uninfluenced by fear or favor, of, or
from the management.
This statement might well be applied to the situation before us. ' 'In
view of the circumstances under which the Union was formed and
administered,. which we have set forth above, it could not have been
"wholly uninfluenced by fear or favor, of or from the management." 25
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Union and con-
tributed support to it, and we are convinced that his conclusion was
correct.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Union and contributed support
to it, and that the respondent has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
IT. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR ' LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMME RCE
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 sub-
stantial 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 thereof. .
V. THE REMEDY.
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found, that the respondent dominated. and interfered
with the administration of the Association and contributed support
to it, and that it dominated and interfered with the formation and
administration of the Union and' contributed support thereto. In
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respond-
25 Cf. international Association of Machinists v. National Labor Relations Board, 110 F.
(2d) 29 (App. D. C.), cert . granted , 60 S. Ct. 721, enf'g. Matter of The Serrick Corporation
and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L. It. B.
621 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company,
60 S. Ct. 203 , rev'g modification of Board's order, 101 F. (2d) 841 (C. C. A. 4), enf'g as
modified Matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial Union
of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers .o f America, 8 N. L. It. B. 866; Westinghouse Electric
& Manufacturing Company v. National^Labor Relations Board; 112 F; (2d) 657 (C. C. A. 2),
decided June 10, 1940,.enf'g Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company -And
United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local #4,10, 18 N. L. R . B.'300..
FRED RUEPING . LEATHER COMPANY 1115
ent to withdraw all recognition from the Union and to disestablish
Was a bargaining representative of any of its employees . We shall
also order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to
its contract of March 1 , 1938, with the Union, as well as • to- any
extension , renewal , modification , or supplement thereof, and, any
superseding 'contract with the , Union . which may now be: in force.
Nothing in this Decision and Order , however, should be construed
to require the respondent to 'vary those wages, hours , and other
substantive features of its relations with the -. employees themselves
which ; the respondent has established in performance of the invalid
contract or any extension , renewal , modification, or supplement
thereof, ' or -any superseding • contract with the Union.26
- Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and stipulation, and
upon the entire record in the case; the Board makes the following'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee and Fond du Lac Tan-
nery Workers Union are labor organizations , within the meaning
of Section 2, (5) of the Act.
.2. _ Fred Rueping . Leather Company Employees Association was`
prior to its dissolution in January 1938 a labor organization , within.
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in. the exercise of the rights guaranteed, by Section 7 of the Act, 'the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. By dominating and 'interfering with the administration of Fred
Ruepihg Leather Company Employees Association and contributing
support to it, and by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union
and contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section
8,(2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair . labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of .lie Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above. stipulation, findings; of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record. in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National
26 Cf. Matter of The Perfection Steel Body Company (A. K. A. "The Perfection Burial Vault
Company ) and Local 1151, International Association of Machinists , A. .F. -o f _L.; 23 N. L.
R. B. 99.
1,116 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Fred Rueping Leather
Company, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin , and its , officers, agents , successors,
and assigns , shall
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist the Textile Workers Organizing Committee or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or'
protection ;
(b) In any manner discouraging membership . in the Textile Work-
ers Organizing Committee , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations , or in 'any other labor organization , by discrimination
in regard to hire, tenure , or any term or condition of employment;
(c) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Fond
du Lac Tannery Workers Union or with the formation or adminis-
tration of any other labor organization of its employees and from
contributing support to said, Union or to any other labor organi-
zation of its employees; .
(d) Giving effect to its contract of March 1, 1938, with Fond du
Lac. Tannery Workers Union or to any extension , renewal , modifica-
tion or supplement thereof , or to any superseding contract with
Fond du Lac Tannery Workers Union which may now be in force.
2.. Take the following . affirmative action to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act:
(a) Offer to : .
Harry Andrews . Howard Hendrickson
Charles Assaf • Ralph H. Kohn
-Roy Behnke Arthur Kosloske
John Bahr Robert Krug
Rudolph Bahr Ernest Kumber
Othmar Baumann , • ' Alex Kulaga
Frank Bednarek Lawrence Lange
Levi Boda - Steven Lietz
Alvin Brooks Carl Manthey
Solomon Buckrma Charles Millard
Robert Dame Erving Otto
Ashley Duquette • N. E. Peterson
Francis Errard Arnold Plonsky
Emanual Flores Frank Prosser
Walter H. Frank Fred Prosser
Stanley Gebert • ' Roy Resheske
Geo. Haensgen Mennard Richter
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY 1117
Frank 'Sabel Leonard Wentland -. ^
Phillip Schneider Jacob Wettstein
Harold Steinke Alex Zulauf
Charles Weiss
'full and . immediate reinstatement to their former positions, or the
substantial equivalent thereof, without prejudice to the rights and
privileges previously enjoyed by them; , ° .
(b) Pay, to - the following employees the sums, stated after. their
respective names', such stated sums being in lieu of loss of pay suf-
fered by each of them by reason. of their lay-off or discharge, as
alleged in the Complaint and Amended Complaint ;
Harry . Andrews --------- $136. 31 1 Stanley Gebert________ 293.96
Charles Assaf_________ 255. 85 Geo. Haensgen________ 253.52
Roy Behnke__________ 139. 68 Howard Hendrickson_ _ 252.96
John ' Bahr____________ 187.93 Ralph ' H. Kohn - ------ 219.85
Rudolph Bahr -- ------ 207.44 Arthur , Kosloske_ _ _ ---- 125.99
Othmar Baumann_____ 144. 28 Robert Krug______-___ 114. 51
Frank Bednarek_______ 147.22 Ernest Kumber________ 161.45
Levi Boda __ __________ 196. 65 Alex Kulaga - --------- 177.33
Alvin Brooks --------- 145.85 Lawrence Lange_______ 82.43
Solomon Buckrma----- 236.26 Steven Lietz ---------- 117.30
Robert Daine__________ 220.45 Carl Manthey --------- 195.45
Ashley Duquette ------ 130.33 Charles Millard _______ 185.20
Francis Errard________ 144.71 Erving Otto___________ 116.21
Emanuel Flores ------- 246.62 N. E. Peterson________ 94.39
Walter H. Frank______ 276.37 Arnold Plonsky ------- 128.28
Frank Prosser_________ 161. 35 Phillip Schneider ----- 166. 63
Fred Prosser________ __ . 120.61 Harold Steinke________ 173. 50
Roy, Resheske_________ . 387.75 Charles Weiss_________ 251.87
Mennard Richter __ ____ 127.60 Leonard Wentland_____ 136. 10
Frank Sabl ___________ 207.77 Jacob Wettstein -------- 71.23
Senor Flores__________ 734.73 Alex Zulauf_______-___ 196. 39
Chas. Floyd_____:_____ 635.04 Arthur W. Pagel______ 629.24
Peter Ganacoplous_____ 834. 52 John Uelman--------- _ 674.19
Arnold Lueke --------- 668.45 I Arthur Ziebell_________ 635.71
(c) Withdraw all recognition from Fond du Lac Tannery Work-
ers Union as the representative of any of ' its employees for the pur-
poses of dealing with the respondent concerning- grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, aril completely disestablish said Union as such
representative; °
-(d); Post, and keep, visible, - in, conspicuous' places in its plants
and buildings in the city of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, for a period
1.118 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of sixty (60) days after receipt of a copy of this Order the following
notice :
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the. order of the National Labor Relations Board:
the Fred Rueping Leather Company is posting the following
notice to all its employees :
1. The Fred Rueping Leather Company will cease and desist
from in any way interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees .in the exercise of the rights of self-organization,' to
form, join, or assist the Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
or any other. labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own 'choosing, and, to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection;
- 2. The Fred Rueping Leather Company will cease and desist
from in any manner discriminating in regard to hire or,tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment in order
to discourage membership in Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee (C. I. 0.) or in any other union. All employees are
entirely free to join, belong to, and participate in the Textile
Workers Organizing Committee, or any other union, without
fear of any discrimination on the part of Fred Rueping Leather
Company.
3. The Fred Rueping Leather Company will cease and desist
from dominating or interfering with the administration of Fond
du Lac Tannery Workers Union or with the formation or ad-
-ministration of any other labor, organization of its employees
and from. contributing support to said Union or to any other
labor organization of its employees;
4. - The Fred Rueping Leather Company will cease and desist
from giving effect to its contract of March 1, 1938, with Fond,
du Lac Tannery Workers Union or to any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereof, or to-any superseding con-
tract with Fond du Lac Tannery Workers. Union which may
now be in force.
This notice will remain posted in conspicuous places for a
period of sixty ( 60) days.
Dated _________________, 1940.
FRED RIIEPINc LEATHIIt COMPANY,
By
(e) The Fred Rueping Leather Company shall inform the Re-
gional Director for the Twelfth Region of the National Labor Rela-
FRED RUEPING LEATHER COMPANY
tions Board within ten (10) days of the service of said Order, of
the steps taken to comply therewith.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint with
respect to the lay-offs or discharges of Gilbert Andrew and Salvador
Gusman, be dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.