Friedman Blau Farber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1937

4 N.L.R.B. 151 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of FRIEDMAN BLAU FARBER COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL No. 295
Case No. R,084.-Decided November 19, 1937
Ladies Knit Goods Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy
concerning representation of employees : rival organizations ; substantial doubt
as to majority status; existing collective agreement with one of rival organiza-
tions no bar to election ; current strike called by petitioning union in protest
against attempts of employer to coerce employees into joining the rival or-
ganization ; interference , restraint , and coercion by employer in choice of repre-
sentatives for collective bargaining-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargain-
ing: all employees in the plant except office and supervisory employees ; history
of collective bargaining in plant; desire of employees as evidenced by member-
ship in both of rival organizations-Election Ordered: employees on pay roll
for period immediately preceding strike eligible to vote.
Mr. Harry L. Lodish and Peter Di Leone, for the Board.
Frankel & Frankel, by Mr. Fred Frankel, and Stanley d Smoyer,
by Mr. Welles K. Stanley, of Cleveland, 0., for the Company.
Payer, Corrigan, Cook & Pilliod, by Mr. William J. Corrigan, of
Cleveland, 0., for the I. L. G. W. U.
Orgill, Maschke c€ Wickham, by Mr. John Orgill and Mr. H. Frank
Van Lill, of Cleveland, 0., for the A. F. of L. and Knit Goods Local.
Mr. Warren L. Sharfman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 15, 1937, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
Local No. 295, herein called the I. L. G. W. U., filed a petition with
the Acting Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland,
Ohio), alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Friedman Blau Farber
Company, Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the Company, and request-
ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. On August 5, 1937, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article III,
Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
67573-38-vol . iv-11 151
152 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized
the Acting Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On August 9, 1937, the Acting Regional Director issued a notice
of hearing to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, on August 16, 1937, copies
of which were duly served upon the Company, the I. L. G. W. U.,
and the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L.,
a labor organization claiming to represent employees in the unit
alleged in the petition to be appropriate. Thereafter, the parties
were notified by telegram of the postponement of the hearing to,
August 18, 1937. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on
August 18, 1937, at Cleveland, Ohio, before Tilford E. Dudley, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. Due to the illness
of the chief witness for the A. F. of L. the hearing was adjourned
until August 23, 1937. The hearing resumed on that date, and con-
tinued on August 24, and 25, 1937, before James C. Paradise, an-
other Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The A. F. of L., and Knit Goods Workers' Local No. 20868, herein
called the Knit Goods Local, together filed a motion to intervene
which was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the
I. L.'G. W. U., the A. F. of L., and the Knit Goods Local were all
represented by counsel, and participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all par-
ties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings 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.
At the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the parties a seven-
day extension of time in which to file their briefs and a stipulation
concerning the claims of the I. L. G. W. U. and the A. F. of L. to
represent a majority of the employees of the company. Pursuant
to this extension of time, briefs in behalf of all of the parties and
a stipulation, tabulating a Company pay-roll, and the applications
for membership in the I. L. G. W. U. and the A. F. of L., were
filed with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Friedman Blau Farber Company is an Ohio corporation with
its principal office and factory in Cleveland, Ohio. It also has a sales
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 153
office in New York City. The Company is engaged in the manufac-
ture of knitted outerwear. Its annual sales amount to $1,700,000 and
its annual purchases to $750,000. It is one of the ten largest manu-
facturers in the industry.
The Company purchases approximately 90 per cent of its raw mate-
rials, consisting principally of wool, cotton, and rayon, outside the
State of Ohio. Ninety per cent of its finished products are shipped
to points outside Ohio, one-half of them on special order.
During normal periods the Company has about 400 employees. In
addition-to carrying on the operations usually incident to the manu-
facture of knitted outerwear, the Company also makes its own paper
boxes, dyes its own materials, and operates a cafeteria.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
It admits as members, workers in the ladies knitted goods industry.
On June 16, 1937, it chartered Local No. 295 with jurisdiction over
the employees in the knitted goods industry in Cleveland, Ohio. At
this time the I. L. G. W. U. took over, with their consent, such of the
employees of the Company as had' previously joined the United
Textile Workers' Union.
The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization having
among its members, workers from almost all branches of American
industry. On June 18, 1937, it chartered Knit Goods Workers' Local
No. 20868 which admits to membership all of the employees of the
Company except office and supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In April 1937 a group of employees at the Company, dissatisfied
with the results of collective bargaining through the Employees'
Representative Plan existing at the plant, and spurred on by circulars
distributed by the United Textile Workers' Union, decided to join
an outside union. A number of these employees joined the United
Textile Workers' Union. Later on they were transferred to the Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union when it was determined
by the unions that the I. L. G. W. U. had jurisdiction over the pro-
duction workers at the Company. Subsequently, other employees
joined the I. L. G. W. U. On June 3, the I. L. G. W. U. wrote to
the Company requesting a conference for the purpose of negotiating
with respect to its members. No answer to this letter was received.
Late in April or early in May 1937, the American Federation of
Labor appointed a committee with Coleman Claherty as its chairman
to organize the knit goods workers in Cleveland for the A. F. of L.
154 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Claherty called upon Phillip Frankel, the secretary and -attorney of
the Knitted Outerwear Manufacturers of Cleveland, a trade associa-
tion to which the Company belonged, and urged upon him the advan-
tages which a union contract with the A. F. of L. would bring to
members of such association. Frankel arranged several meetings be-
tween Claherty and officials of the members of the association during
the month of May. At one of these meetings the Company agreed
to open its plant to A. F. of L. organizers and to enter into a contract
with the A. F. of L. if it succeeded in obtaining a majority of the
employees as members. At the time of this agreement the A. F. of L.
did not as yet have any members in the employ of the Company.
On June 7, 1937, the Company admitted four A. F. of L. organ-
izers into its factory. Mr. Friedman and Mr. Farber, officers of the
Company, introduced the organizers to the officers of the Employees'
Representative Plan, whom they had called together. The organizers
spoke of the advantages of the A. F. of L., and the officers of the Plan,
after calling in the remaining representatives, voted to disband the
Employees' Representative Plan and to disregard its contract with
the Company. They then decided to join the A. F. of L. and recom-
mend to the other employees that they do the same. Around noon
time, the organizers, accompanied by the representatives tinder the
Employees' Representative Plan, circulated throughout the factory.
Work was stopped in each department without objection by the fore-
man, and the employees were asked to sign up with the A. F. of L.
During this time the power in some of the departments was turned
off. The foremen or foreladies were present in all departments. In
some cases they advised the employees to sign the cards. Mr. Fried-
man, one of the officers of the Company, was present in the winding
department during this time, and testimony disclosed that he ex-
pressed himself as opposed to any union, but said that if there was
to be a union it would be the A. F. of L. It was further testified
that, after taking out his watch, he gave one employee, in the pres-
ence of others, five minutes to sign with the A. F. of L. or get out.
The organizers with the knowledge and apparent approval of the
Company told the workers that they would be fired if they refused
to sign. Three hundred and fourteen employees signed cards.
It is clear that the actions bT the officers and supervisory employees
of the Company created among the employees a well-founded feeling
of fear for their jobs if they did not sign the cards, and that the
Company, in total disregard of the provisions of the Act, interfered
with and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to join or assist labor organizations, and to choose repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining. This interference
and coercion on the part of the Company casts grave doubts on the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 155
question of whether a majority of their employees joined the A. F.
of L. free of employer interference and coercion.
In protest against these activities, and some allegedly discrim-
inatory lay-offs, the I. L. G. W. U. called a strike, at the Company on
June 28, 1937. The plant was closed down for approximately two
weeks. It reopened on July 12, with many new workers, as the
members of the I. L. G. W. U. remained on strike.
In the meantime the Company had continued negotiations with the
A. F. of L. On July 8, the members of the A. F. of L. approved,
at a mass meeting attended by approximately 300 employees of the
Company, the provisions of an agreement which had been drawn
up by Claherty and Frankel in May. These provisions were then
incorporated into a written contract and signed by the A. F. of L.
and the Company on July 9. This contract provided for recognition
of the A. F. of L. as sole bargaining agent for all of the employees
of the Company, except foremen, foreladies, overseers, office help,
and salesmen.
On August 11, the Knit Goods Local, chartered by the A.. F. of L.,
had a regular meeting at the Metal Trades Hall, at which time 137
of the employees of the Company signed a resolution declaring that
they were not coerced into joining the A. F. of L., that they approved
the contract entered into with the Company, and that they signed
the resolution of their own free will. The following day, 169 more
employees signed this resolution as they went to and from lunch
in the company cafeteria. Of the 306 employees who signed the
resolution, 212 were in the employ of the Company immediately
preceding the strike.
The A. F. of L. contends that the contract entered into with the
Company on July 9, is a bar to an election. However, as pointed
out above, the interference, intimidation, and coercion on the part
of the Company substantially negatives the contention of the A. F. of
L. that it had been freely designated as their representative by a ma-
jority of the employees at the time of the contract.' Furthermore,
the stipulation filed with the Board shows that 139 employees who
signed A. F. of L. cards on June 7, subsequently signed up with the
I. L. G. W. U. prior to July 9, when the contract was signed. It is
contended further, that even if the employees were coerced into
joining the A. F. of L. on June 7, the contract should nevertheless
be a bar to an election, inasmuch as a majority of the persons em-
ployed by the Company immediately preceding the strike, have, of
their own free will, signed a resolution declaring they were not co-
'In Matter of Stone Knitting Mells Company and American Federation of Labor; In
Matter of Bamberger Re,nthal Company and Federal Knitting M^.lls Company and Inter-
national Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Unson, Cases Nos. R-200, R-201, R-202, 3 N. L. R. B ,
257, decided August 7, 1937.
156 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
erced into joinng the A. F. of L., and.approving the contract entered
into between the A. F. of L. and the Company on July 9.
We find however, that the printed statements contained in the reso-
lution do not alter the conclusions as to coercion previously drawn.
In light of the Company's activities on June 7, the presentation of the
resolution for signature openly, and upon Company property, did not
afford to the employees an opportunity to express their desires in the
matter freely and without coercion. It is apparent that they have
vacillated between the A. F. of L. and I. L. G. W. U. because their
choice of representatives has been influenced by factors which should
be eliminated in choosing representatives under the provisions . of
the Act. It seems likely that a definitive expression of the em-
ployees' wishes will be obtained only after they are permitted to vote
by a secret ballot free from the fear of retribution for expressing
themselves adversely to the Company's wishes.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Friedman Blau Farber Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION Or REPRESENTATION ON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation, which has
arisen in connection with the operations of the Company described in
Section 1 above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several states, and has led and tends
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing the I. L. G. W. U. contended that the appropriate
unit for collective bargaining should include only those production
and maintenance employees whose work related to the production of
knitted goods, exclusive of office and supervisory employees. Thus,
it would exclude the workers employed in the box manufacturing de-
partment, in the shipping department, and in factory maintenance and
service (except the maintenance of productive machinery), and res-
taurant employees, designers, checkers, and inspectors, as not being
production employees. It would exclude also as supervisory em-
ployees all supervisors, foremen, and straw-bosses. The A. F. of L.,
on the other hand, would include in the appropriate bargaining unit
all employees except office employees and supervisory employees with
authority to hire and discharge. The Company favors an inclusive
bargaining unit similar to that advocated by the A. F. of L.
The Employees' Representative Plan, which was the only organiza-
tion that had previously bargained with the Company, was organized
on a plant-wide basis. An examination of the stipulation, filed with
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 157
the Board, which contains the names and occupations of the employees
and shows whether they signed up with the I. L. G. W. U. or the
A. F. of L., indicates that practically all of the employees in each de-
partment, and in every classification, signed up with one or the other.
It also shows that the I. L. G. W. U. has some members among the
groups of employees which they contend should be excluded from the
appropriate unit. We see no reason, therefore, for limiting the unit
in the manner suggested by the I. L. G. W. U.
Both the A. F. of L. and the I. L. G. W. U. would exclude super-
visory employees from the appropriate unit. The A. F. of L., how-
ever, only includes in this category employees with authority to hire
and discharge. The stipulation, referred to above, shows that the
supervisory employees, including supervisors, foremen, and straw-
bosses, in addition to those with authority to hire and fire, expressed
no desire to participate in the question concerning representation
inasmuch as they have not affiliated with either union. Furthermore,
the contract between the A. F. of L. and the Company excludes "fore-
men, foreladies, overseers, office help and salesmen", and thus seems
to negative their contention that only those employees with authority
to hire and discharge should be excluded from the appropriate unit.
In order to insure to the Company's employees the full benefit of
their right to self-organization and collective bargaining, and other-
wise to effectuate the policies of the Act, we find that the employees
of the Company, except office employees, supervisors, foremen, and
straw-bosses, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment and other conditions of employment.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Company can best be resolved by the
holding of an election by secret ballot to determine which of the
unions, if either, the employees in question desire to represent them.
Since the last period of normal operation was the week preceding the
strike, all persons who were employed in the appropriate unit during
the pay roll period ending June 26, 1937, shall be eligible to vote.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following conclusions of law:
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of Friedman Blau Farber Company, Cleve-
land, Ohio, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
158 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. All the employees of the Company, except office employees,
supervisors, foremen, and straw-bosses, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, it is
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with Friedman Blau Farber Company, Cleveland, Ohio, an elec-
tion by secret ballot shall be conducted within ten (10) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article
III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all persons
who were employed during the pay-roll period ending June 26, 1937,
except office employees, supervisors, foremen, and straw-bosses,2 to
determine whether they desire to be represented by International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union or American Federation of Labor
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
APPENDIX A
Albrecht, Opal
Branditz, A. W.
Bruder, Lula
Caplan, Max
Ellis, Charles
Fiedler, E. H.
Friedman, Sam
Herbst, Anna
Hoekman, Richard
Holst, Benjamin C.
Kelbach, Anton
Kolb, Helen
Limbacher, Willard
Neuman, Stanley J.
Petroff, Sam
Shuart, Lottie
Stell, Herbert
Strimac, Peter
Trutza, Nick
Vogt, Freda
Wrubleski, Helen
2 For the names of the employees thus excluded , see Appendix A.