Globe Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 278 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Flint Glass Workers contends in its brief that the petitions herein
are premature because of contemplated expansion in the Employer's
plant from 319 employees to an expected 800 employees within 1 year.
The record, however, shows that the present number of employees con-
stitutes a substantial and essentially representative proportion of the
expected complement. Moreover, further expansion is entirely con-
tingent upon increased sales of the Employer's product.
Under these circumstances, we see no reason for departing from our
usual policy of directing immediate elections a
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
c General Motors Corporation, 82 NLRB 8,76.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE Womcros or AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 7 CA-578.
January 15, 1953
Decision and Order
On June 18,1952, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
briefs in support thereof.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following additions:
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Ripley and Little were
discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. However, in addition to the findings, which we adopt, upon
which the Trial Examiner based his conclusions, we rely upon the fact
that Ripley and Little were selected as union representatives shortly
after the Union was organized in the Respondent's plant. These two
employees were thus identified to the Respondent as leaders in the
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
102 NLRB No. 35.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 279
Union after the Respondent's unlawful interrogation of its employees
on January 19, 1951, and the Respondent 's attempt at that time to get
its employees to give up the Union. We also rely, in Ripley's case,
upon Walter Soderman's singling him out for questioning concerning
conversation in the plant on the union-shop question.2
2. In connection with the Respondent's violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act, we also rely upon the testimony of Dorothy Haddix as
to an interrogation and threats by Soderman. Although the Trial
Examiner summarized Haddix's testimony at page 283, 284 of the
Intermediate Report, he did not specifically rely upon this evidence to
support his concluding findings.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Globe Products Corpora-
tion, Lansing, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and
other conditions of employment with International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, AFL, as the exclusive representative
of all employees at its Lansing plant, excluding Torsten Lavin, office
and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Dominating and interfering with the formation or administra-
tion of, or contributing financial or other support to, Globe Products
Employees Association, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees.
(c) Recognizing Globe Products Employees Association, or any
successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment.
(d) Giving effect to any and all arrangements or agreements with
Globe Products Employees Association.
(e) Discouraging membership in International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, AFL, or in any other labor organ-
ization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any
of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
The evidence as to this interrogation is set forth by the Trial Examiner in the section
of the Intermediate Report dealing with violations of Section a (a) (1) of the Act, and is
not specifically referred to in connection with Ripley 's discharge.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(f) Interrogating its employees in any manner concerning their
union affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or threatening them with
economic reprisal because of their union affiliation, activities, or
sympathies.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, AFL, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and embody
in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely
disestablish, Globe Products Employees Association, as the representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Re-
spondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or any other conditions of employment.
(c) Offer to Donald Ripley and Patricia Little immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole, in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
them.
(d) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amounts of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its plant in Lansing, Michigan, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 3
3 This notice, however , shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order ." In the event this Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pur-
suant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 281
Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges the
discriminatory discharge of Kenneth Blonshine, Fred George, and
Morrell G. Hakes, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, American Federation of Labor ,' herein called
the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
called respectively the General Counsel and the Board , through the Acting Re-
gional Director for the Seventh Region ( Detroit, Michigan ), issued a complaint,
dated October 19 , 1951 , against Globe Products Corporation , herein called the
Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1), (2 ), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947 , herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, the charge and the amended charge upon which the complaint was based,
together with notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon the Respondent,
the Union , and Globe Products Employees Association.'
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent : ( 1) From on or about November 21, 1950 , to the date
of the complaint , interrogated prospective employees concerning their sympa-
thies for or against labor organizations ; interrogated its employees concerning
their union membership , sympathies , and activities ; urged and persuaded its
employees to resign from the Union by signing a resignation form furnished by
the Respondent ; informed its employees ( a) that their conditions of employ-
ment would be less favorable if they continued their activities on behalf of the
Union; ( b) that the Respondent would discontinue its business before it would
recognize the Union ; ( c) that their conditions and terms of employment would
be more favorable if they joined the Association ; ( d) that the Respondent
would discharge employees who continued to engage in concerted activities on
behalf of the Union ; ( e) that individuals who had been discriminatorily dis-
charged would be blacklisted and refused jobs by other employers in Lansing,
Michigan , because of the concerted activities by said individuals among other
of the Respondent's employees; (2) from on or about March 15, 1951, to the
date of the complaint, encouraged , assisted , dominated , and interfered with
"The full name of the Union, as above set forth , has been conformed to the record.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the Association.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the formation and administration of, and contributed financial and other sup-
port to, the Association by (a) informing its employees that the Association
was to be formed and urging them to join and assist the Association; (b)
incorporating the Association under the laws of the State of Michigan; (c) recog-
nizing said Association as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining although
the Union was at the time the exclusive representative of said employees; (d)
conducting elections of officers of the Association on the Respondent's premises
during working hours; (e) contributing substantial sums of money to the Asso-
ciation for use of the Association ; (f) participating in, presiding at, and dom-
inating the meetings of the Association ; (g) making available to the Association
various facilities and properties of the Respondent for the purposes of further-
ing and facilitating the organization and administration of the Association;
and (h) compensating members of the Association for time spent in the attend-
ance of association meetings; (3) on stated dates discharged five named em-
ployees and has since failed and refused to reinstate them for the reason that
they had joined and assisted the Union in its organizational activities and had
engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection; (4) although requested by the Union to
do so, has refused since on or about January 17, 1951, to recognize, to meet
with, and to bargain with, the Union as exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit.
In its answer filed on October 29, 1951, the Respondent admitted certain
allegations of the complaint, denied that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.
No answer was filed nor appearance entered on behalf of the Association.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in Lansing, Michigan, from
November 13 to 19, 1951, inclusive. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and
the Union participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues.
At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondent moved
to strike from the complaint subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of paragraph 5;
subparagraphs (c) and (e) of paragraph 7; and paragraph 9. Decision was
reserved on the motion which is now denied, except that it is granted with re-
spect to paragraph 5 (g) of the complaint, which alleges that the Respondent
informed its employees that it would discharge those who continued to engage in
concerted activities on behalf of the Union. At the conclusion of the testimony,
the General Counsel's motion, in which the Respondent joined, to conform the
pleadings to the proofs in respect to minor variations such as to spelling, names,
and dates was granted. The General Counsel and the Respondent participated
in oral argument. A brief has been received from the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT s
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and at all times material hereto has been, a Michigan
corporation with its principal office and plant in the city of Lansing, State of
Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture of sheet metal stampings and
L In making the findings herein I have considered and weighed the entire evidence. It
would needlessly burden this report to set up all the evidence on disputed points. Such
testimony or other evidence as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 283
automotive parts. During 1950, the Respondent purchased raw materials and
equipment valued at more than $50,000, of which approximately 2 percent in
dollar value represented direct shipments to its place of business in Lansing,
Michigan, from points outside the State of Michigan. During the same period,
sales by the Respondent of the aforementioned materials were approximately
$200,000 in value, of which 8 percent in dollar value represented direct ship-
ments by the Respondent to customers at points located outside the State of
Michigan. The Respondent stipulated that, in 1950, approximately $70,000 in
value of sales were shipped to Plymouth Industries, Inc., in Detroit, Michigan,
and approximately $53,000 in value of sales were shipped to General Motors
Corporation in Lansing, Michigan, both of whom are engaged in interstate com-
merce. The Respondent does not controvert the above facts but contends that
the Board, as a matter of discretion, should decline jurisdiction for reasons of
policy on the ground that the operations of the Respondent had an insubstantial
impact on commerce, and maintains that the alleged unfair labor practices do
not actually threaten interstate commerce in a substantial manner. I find that
the Respondent is engaged in interstate commerce, its activities affect interstate
commerce, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, American Fed-
eration of Labor, and Globe Products Employees Association are labor organi-
zations as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES a
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Patricia Little was interviewed for employment on November 21, 1950, by
Walter Soderman who asked her if she believed in a union . Little replied that
she believed in one "only insofar as was necessary," but that she had no senti-
ments toward one at that time. Soderman informed her he would not have
a union there. While the subject of unions was being discussed, Soderman,
motioning toward the plant workshop, told her there were a couple of fellows
out there who were causing trouble and some heads were going to be "chopped
off."
On December 6, 1950, when Walter Soderman Interviewed Vivian Householder
for employment he asked her what she thought about unions . She replied that
she did not think anything of them-that she had never belonged to a union.
He informed her they had heard rumors of a union and did not like it.
On January 19, 1951, following receipt on January 18 of a letter dated January
17 and addressed to it by the Union, the Respondent directed its foreman , Robert
Ferguson , to send the employees to the company office where John Soderman , presi-
dent, and Walter Soderman, vice president , questioned them singly, and in small
groups, concerning their union membership and activities . After telling em-
ployee Dorothy Haddix that the Company had received a letter from the Union
stating that all the employees had joined the Union , Walter Soderman asked her
what was the idea of sneaking around behind his back to do a thing like that
and inquired , if she wanted a union , why she did not come to him and ask for one.
He also told her that he knew it was employee Kenneth Blonshine who had
+ At all times material hereto , John Soderman , president ; Walter Soderman, vice presi-
dent ; and Robert Ferguson , foreman , were supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The transcript of the record must be read in the light of several material corrections
contained in an order correcting the record herein.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
started it because Blonshine was "mad" that Robert Ferguson had been made
superintendent; that while Blonshine was a good boy he would never make a
good foreman and that now he would never get a job in the city of Lansing.
Soderman continued to state to Haddix that the Respondent had plenty of work
at that time, but if there is a union, it will not have that work. After he told
her that the Company had plenty of money and could afford to close the plant
for 6 months, he asked her if she could afford to do it. Whereupon he told her
that be had 4 or 5 signatures from other employees that they would "stay with
management" and if he could obtain sufficient names that the Union was not
wanted in the shop he could inform the Union that afternoon that it was not
wanted there. He then asked her what she wanted to do and when she replied
she would stay with the Union, he excused her and she returned to work.
Also on January 19, 1951, employee Patricia Little was summoned to the office
where John and Walter Soderman questioned her. Walter Soderman inquired
why she saw fit to sneak behind their backs and join the Union ; informed her
that employees Kenneth Blonshine and Fred George' had started "all this" ;
that he did not want and would not have a union ; that there was sufficient work
for all and she would never be out of a job. At about that time, John Soderman
interposed to remark that he knew what was wrong and it was that the em-
ployees did not trust them, to which Walter Soderman replied that was the first
hint as to the cause of the trouble, and, turning to Little, Inquired , "What's the
matter, Patricia, don't you trust us?" She answered that she would trust them
socially but it was not good business to trust them as far as business was con-
cerned. Whereupon Walter Soderman told her that he and his father were sole
stockholders and, having more money than she, were able to close the doors
of the plant and lay off everyone, if necessary. With that preamble, he asked her
if she would consider signing a paper, as others had, to withdraw from the Union.
Little refused. Asking her to reconsider her refusal, the interview ended.
Also on January 19, 1951, Walter Soderman asked employee Vivian House-
holder, whom he had summoned from her work to his office, why she had
signed the paper and inquired where this paper had come from. Householder
replied that she did not know from where it had comer-that it had just been
passed around. Walter Soderman told her it made no difference to him whether
she belonged to the Union or not. While she was there, employee Florence
Kennedy also came into the office and later John Soderman entered. Sub-
stantially the same procedure was had by Walter Soderman asking Kennedy
why she had signed up with the Union ; that no one would come in to tell him
how to run the business; that lots of orders would not be filled if there was,a
union ; that if the Union got in "it would be rough" ; and the plant would close
before it would permit a union.'
Also on January 19, 1951, employee Frank Emery was called from his work
and questioned in the office by John and Walter Soderman. Walter Soderman
asked why he had joined the Union, remarking that it was a dirty, lowdown
trick to go behind their backs to start a union. When Walter Soderman asked
him why the employees did not come to Soderman first, Emery replied that
would have been foolish. Emery was then asked how he would vote if the
matter came to a Board election and Emery told them that was his business and
6 Kenneth Blonshine, Fred George, and Morrell G Hakes had been discharged by the
Respondent on January 15, 1951.
6 Florence Kennedy testified she was asked by Walter Soderman if she had joined the
Union and when she answered in the affirmative he said that is perfectly all right if that
is what you want ; that he asked if the Company had been fair and square and she affirmed
that it had Kennedy denied that anything was said about closing the shop or that things
would be rougher if the Union came in Her denial is not credited.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 285
no one' else ' s. At that point , Walter Soderman recalled to Emery that he had
come to work for the Respondent bearing a very good recommendation from
Standard Tool Company and told Emery if he wanted to return to Standard
Tool, and it had a job for him, Emery could have it that day.
Also on January 19, 1951, employee Donald Ripley was called from his work to
the office where he was asked by Walter Soderman if Ripley wanted to have a
union and then told that anyone who would sneak behind Walter Soderman's
back to join the Union did not deserve to have a job. Ripley refused Walter
Soderman 's request to sign a statement that he did not want a union . Soderman
stated to him there was plenty of work for everyone but if there was a union
there would be a lot of trouble-that he could close the plant for 2 or 3 years,
go away and forget it . Soderman further informed Ripley that Kenneth Blon-
shine was using all of the employees as "pawns" to get back at the Company for
hiring Ferguson as foreman instead of Blonshine , who was responsible for
starting the Union. Soderman then asked if Ripley liked the work or had any
complaints about his job to which Ripley answered that he did, but since he
did not care for production work,' he hoped someday to have better jobs, such
as machinery repair or millwright work in the plant . Soderman informed him
the Company had nothing there except production work and then asked him again
to sign a statement that he did not want a union in the plant . Following
Ripley's second refusal to sign such statement , Soderman told him if he did
not like his work he better find another job. Upon hearing that statement, Ripley
immediately asked for his paychecks . Soderman answered that Ripley better
go back to his job for a few days and think it over. Several days later, at the
lunch table during lunch hour, the employees were discussing the provisions that
should be contained in a union contract and Ripley suggested the contract
provide for a union shop. He also told employee Arthur Ellsworth regardless of
whether a contract was arrived at, if he did not join the Union in 30 days,
Ellsworth would be let out. Two days following the luncheon discussion, Ripley
was called to the office again where Walter Soderman asked why he was telling
everyone in the plant he had to join the Union within 30 days or get out, and
which had all the employees riled. Ripley asked why Soderman had brought him
in to ask that when any employee in the plant could say the same thing because
they were discussing a proposed contract. Soderman then told Ripley he better
get another job.
Employees Mark Madden and Arthur Stachel were also called from their
work into the office on January 19 and asked by the Sodermans what they
thought about the Union. Madden, who was a member of the UAW-CIO,
replied that he was not interested in joining!
The foregong findings are based on the testimony of Little , Householder,
Emery, Ripley, and Madden , which I credit . By interrogating its employees
concerning their sympathies for, and membership in, the Union ; urging and
persuading them to resign from the Union by signing a resignation form fur-
nished by the Respondent ; informing them that conditions would be less favor-
able if the Union succeeded and that Respondent would discontinue its business
before it would recognize the Union ; and informing them that an employee who
had been discharged would be blacklisted for employment in the community,
7 By "production work" Ripley explained that he did not like to make one item all the
time on the drill press
B John and Walter Soderman denied making any threats to the employees on January 19,
1951, but did admit calling the employees to the office, informing them about the letter
dated January 17 from the Union, and asking them if the Company had done any wrong.
Walter Soderman admitted he may have inquired concerning union membership. John
Soderman admitted the employees told them on January 19 they had joined the Union.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby
violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
B. The discriminatory discharges
Kenneth Blonshine
Blonshine worked for the Respondent from October 1946 until his discharge
on January 15, 1951. His starting pay was $1.50 per hour and he received 4
annual increases of 10 cents per hour, so that he was receiving $1.90 per hour when
he was discharged. For the first 18 months of his employment, he made safety
guards for punch presses. Thereafter, he worked as diesetter and then worked
on "machine set-up." On January 9, 1951, the Respondent hired Robert Fergu-
son as plant foreman or superintendent. That same day, Blonshine, who had
entertained hopes of being promoted to foreman,° went to the office and asked
John Soderman what Ferguson was doing in the plant. Soderman told him
that Ferguson was the new foreman and henceforth Blonshine would take orders
from Ferguson instead of John Soderman. Blonshine asked why he had not
been given the job and Soderman replied that Blonshine was "too good of a
fellow." Thereupon Blonshine (as he admitted) told Soderman he would not
take any more responsibility as far as the shop was concerned. Blonshine then
walked out of the shop. He did not state to John Soderman that he was going
to organize the shop nor did Blonshine mention the subject of the Union." The
conversation lasted 5 minutes and Blonshine returned to his work. On January
10, while inside the shop, Blonshine asked employees Patricia Little and Fred
Blonshine testified that on 2 or 3 occasions prior to January 9 he had talked to John
Soderman about the supervisory job, and that Soderman had promised to make him super-
visor as soon as enough work came in to justify a full -time supervisor . John Soderman
denied that he had ever discussed such promotion with Blonshine. I find it is unnecessary
to resolve the conflict as to whether he had been promised the promotion.
111 do not credit Blonshine's testimony that he told John Soderman on January 9 during
their conversation in the office that he was going to organize a union in the plant, beginning
that day. After Blonshine testified that he had asked if Ferguson was to be full-time
supervisor and why he had not been given the job, he continued to testify as follows :
Q. And did you say anything else at that time?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Have you exhausted your recollection as to that particular meeting?
A. I told him I wasn 't taking any more responsibility as far as the shop was
concerned whatsoever.
Q. Did you mention anything to Mr. Soderman as to what you were going to do at
that time, if anything?
A. I told him-4.f I remember right I told him we were going to form a Union.
Q. Do you know approximately how long the conversation took place?
A. How long?
Q. How long, yes?
A. Five minutes.
Q. And what did you do then, if anything?
A. Went out to work at my job.
Q. And when you were talking to Mr. Soderman about a Union, did you say when
you were going to start a Union?
A. No.
Q. I beg your pardon?
A. Oh, yes, I told him as of today, now.
Q. And what did Mr. Soderman say at that time if anything?
A. He didn't have anything to say to my knowledge.
I credit John Soderman 's denial that Blonshine had said anything about organizing a
union in the shop. Blonshine 's equivocal and changeable testimony on such a crucial point
is not persuasive.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 287
George to obtain the names of those employees who were interested in joining
the Union. On the same day, Ferguson told Blonshine that his duties would
be setting dies, repairing dies, and general inspection. Blonshine replied that
he would take no responsibility and would not be an inspector. On January 12
(Friday), Ferguson, in another conversation with Blonshine, repeated what he
had said on Wednesday previous, that his duties were setting dies, general die
repair, and general inspection, i. e., to go around every once in a while and
inspect the parts on the bench and the machines. Blonshine refused to do any
inspection work and stated again he would take no responsibility whatsoever.
After working hours that same day, Ferguson conferred with John Soderman
and complained about Blonshine. Soderman told Ferguson that Ferguson was
the boss and if Blonshine did not want to work for him to let him go. Ferguson
inquired if he should do that Monday morning, but Soderman said not in the
morning-if he came in to let him work the whole day. Ferguson was hopeful
that upon reflection over the weekend Blonshine would change his attitude for,
as he testified, Blonshine was a good worker and he did not want to lose him.
He had no complaints about the work which Blonshine did but the difficulty
arose as to what duties Blonshine was to perform. On Monday, January 15,
Ferguson had another talk with Blonshine in which be again told him what his
duties would be. Blonshine again refused to do any inspection work. On
January 15, between 4 and 4: 30 p. m., Ferguson discharged him. After he had
obtained the list of names from employees George and Little, Blonshine met Leo
Coin, a union representative, at Blonshine's home and arranged for a meeting
to be held at the union hall on the evening of January 16. Blonshine, with
others, signed a union card at that meeting applying for membership in the
Union and designating the Union as bargaining representative."
Fred George
George worked as a punch-press operator from 1949 until his discharge on Janu-
ary 15, 1951. His starting rate was $1.25 per hour. Six weeks after he was hired,
at his request, he was paid on piecework basis. Approximately 1 year later, he
was given a base rate of pay. On November 3, 1950, his rate of pay was reduced
from 50 cents to 35 cents per hundred pieces. Before the cut, he averaged 4,500
pieces per day and on the day following the cut he produced 3,700 pieces. John
Soderman then called him to the office and inquired why his production had
dropped. George told him he did not feel "so good" about the cut and it would
not pay to work so hard at the reduced rate. However, he agreed to return to
work and try to run 4,500 pieces per day and thereafter he did maintain the same
production average as he had before the cut. On January 10, 1951, Blonshine
asked him to get a list of the male employees as he needed it to give to the Union.
Right after lunch, the paper listing the names was on his workbench where men
were signing it when Ferguson entered the plant. Noticing Ferguson's presence
when he was 10 feet away, George picked up the paper, folded it, and put it in his
" Blonshine's union card which is in evidence bears the date January 10, as do all the
other cards which were signed at the meeting on January 16 and one which was signed
on January 17. There is evidence in the record that the union representative directed
they be back dated to January 10 so that Blonshine, George, and Hakes would get their
back pay when they were reinstated. Other evidence is that they were back dated because
the union hall was not available on January 10, when the union representative had first
been contacted. I find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict as to the reasons for back
dating the application cards It is not necessary for the purposes of the complaint to
establish that Blonshine or the others had joined the Union before their discharges. It is
sufficient if they had engaged in concerted activity, protected by the Act, that the employer
had knowledge or belief of such concerted activity, and discharged them for that reason.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pocket" Ferguson said nothing . Sometime later in the afternoon , having ob.
tained the signatures of seven men , George gave the list to Blonshine . On Janu-
ary 14 he was told there would be a union meeting on January 16. On January
15 Ferguson told him he would have to lay him off, as the Company was unable
to ship the parts made for Oldsmobile and had no room in the plant in which
to store the parts. George did not attend the union meeting on January 16
because of his wife's illness , but he signed his union card on January 17. Three
weeks later , George telephoned to John Soderman and asked how much longer
he would be away from work . Soderman told him he was not coming back.
When George asked for a reason , Soderman inquired if Ferguson had not in-
formed him . Upon hearing from George that Ferguson had not given him the
reason , Soderman replied that Ferguson was supposed to have told him.
On January 12 Soderman had expressed his opinion to Ferguson that he did
not believe George could ever work with Ferguson , because before Ferguson was
hired several jobs were started and nothing suited George . Soderman thereupon
suggested that George be let go with Hakes and Blonshine at the close of work
on Monday , January 15. Soderman disclaimed knowledge of any union activity
in the plant prior to receipt of the Union 's letter dated January 17.
Morrell G. Hakes
Hakes, a diemaker for over 35 years and who had known John Soderman for
14 or 15 years , asked him for a job and was hired for tool and die repairs on or
about June 15, 1950. The sole evidence of concerted activity on the part of Hakes
prior to his discharge is that he signed the paper , above referred to, which Fred
George had about the time that Ferguson reentered the shop after lunch. Hakes
testified that Ferguson walked up close enough to touch them-about 2 feet away,
but Ferguson said nothing . Hakes did not attend the union meeting on January
16 because his automobile "broke down ." He signed a union card about 2 weeks
after his discharge . When John Soderman and Ferguson conferred after work-
ing hours on Friday , January 12, Hakes was included in the discussion by Soder-
man as to those who should be discharged . Soderman arrived at the decision to
discharge Hakes because he did not consider Hakes was proficient in his work
and for his past absences from work.
Conclusions
Because of the fact, and I so find , that the Respondent had no knowledge or
belief of any concerted activity on the part of Blonshine , George, and Hakes
prior to their discharges on January 15, 1951 , the evidence in the record is
insufficient to sustain the allegations in the complaint so far as it alleges that
Kenneth Blonshine , Fred George, and Morrell Hakes were discriminatorily
discharged. I shall accordingly recommend that the complaint to that extent
be dismissed.
Donald Ripley
The answer of the Respondent admitted that Ripley had been discharged on
February 14, 1951, but denied that his discharge was discriminatory. In its
oral argument and brief, the Respondent contended that he voluntarily quit his
employment. The General Counsel contended that he was constructively dis-
charged in violation of the Act.
is Hakes testified that Ferguson was only 2 feet away when George noticed his presence.
Ferguson testified that he saw no paper at any time to which George had referred , that
he had never noticed anything unusual during the first week of his employment nor any
undue excitement among the employees when he returned to the plant following his lunch-
hour, nor did he overhear any employees discussing union activity at any time.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 289
Ripley operated a drill press from February 14, 1949, until his employment
with the Respondent terminated on February 14, 1951. On January 16, 1951,
he attended the union meeting and signed a union card. On January 19 he was
interrogated in the office by John Soderman and Walter Soderman , as already
set forth supra . It is important to recall that in that interview after Ripley
was told in effect that since he had joined the Union he did not deserve to have
a job, he was then asked to sign a statement that he did not want a union.
After he refused to sign such statement, Walter Soderman asked if he liked
his work or had any complaints about his job. Ripley replied that he did, but
since he did not care for production work, he hoped someday to have a better
job, such as machinery repair or millwright work. He was then informed the
Company had nothing except production work and was asked again to sign a
statement renouncing the Union. When he refused for the second time, he
was told "if he did not like his work" he better find another job. Thereupon
Ripley immediately asked for his paychecks. Walter Soderman told him he better
go back to work for a few days and "think it over." Two days later, on January
21, Ferguson asked Ripley if he had found another job and he replied that he
had not. Ripley understood from that conversation with Ferguson that he was to
find another job. Several days later Ripley was again summoned to the office
where he was questioned by Walter Soderman concerning his later union activi-
ties, after which Soderman told him that he better get another job. On the day
following, while at work at the drill press, in the hearing of another employee,
Ferguson asked him if he had found another job, and why not. On 3 or 4 subse-
fjuent days, Ferguson repeated his questions whether he was going to, or intended
tt,1, get another job, and on each occasion Ripley replied that he had not found
another job. On the last day of his employment, February 14, employee Jane
Graves was told to work on the drill press with Ripley. Ferguson instructed
Ripley to show her how to run the champer. Graves was to run the champer
and Ripley was to run the drill. Up to that time, Ripley had done both the
champering and drilling operations. After Graves had worked about 1 hour
with him, Ripley inquired from Ferguson, who was 10 feet away, what rate of
pay Graves would get. Ferguson asked if Ripley could put a rate on the job.
He replied he could not as he lacked knowledge to put a rate on that job or any
job. Whereupon Ferguson asked him if he had found another job. Ripley
returned to his work for 15 minutes. He was angry following his conversation
with Ferguson for two stated reasons : (1) Ferguson had asked him so many times
had he found another job and when did he expect to find one; and (2) it was too
hard for 2 people to work at the drill press because the spindles were only 11 or 12
inches apart After working 15 minutes, Ripley quit his employment. The
reason he assigned was that he believed Jane Graves was being "broken in" on
the champering job and that he was going to be laid off or fired anyway. At no
time during his entire employment had any fault been found with his work, nor
any complaint made concerning his conduct prior to his joining the Union.
Conclusions
It is clear that Ripley's difficulties stemmed directly from the time on January
19 when the Respondent learned of his union membership and activities. On two
separate occasions, Walter Soderman told Ripley that he better quit. On the
first occasion, after he had been told he did not deserve a job because he had
joined the Union and following his refusal twice to disavow the Union, he was
told "if he did not like his job" he better quit. When Ripley thereupon asked
for his paychecks, Walter Soderman relented to the extent of telling him to
return to work and "think it over." On the second occasion after Walter Soder-
man had again questioned him for his union activities occurring since the first
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interview which Ripley admitted, Soderman told him that he better quit. This
time Soderman's direction was not conditioned upon whether Ripley liked his
job or not, nor was it accompanied by any further request "to think it over."
Thereafter, repeated questioning by the foreman as to whether he had found other
work, or if he intended to find another job, culminated in Ripley's resigning
his job.
On the foregoing state of facts, I find that on February 14, 1951, his resigna-
tion was the equivalent of a constructive discharge by the Respondent, who
thereby effected the termination of Donald Ripley's employment because of his
union membership and activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Patricia Little
The answer admitted that Little was discharged but denied it was for dis-
criminatory reasons. She was employed by the Respondent from November 22,
1950, until February 28, 1951.'8 Little was most active for the Union, beginning
on January 10, 1951, when employee Kenneth Blonshine asked her to obtain
a list of the female employees who would be interested in forming a union, and
her activity continued unabated thereafter. She attended the union meeting
on January 16 and signed a union card at that time. On January 19 the
Respondent knew of her membership and sympathies for the Union in view of her
interrogation on that subject by John and Walter Soderman. On that day,
during the course of her interrogation in the office, John Soderman observed to
Walter Soderman that he knew what the trouble was and it was that the employees
did not trust the Company. Then Walter Soderman directly asked Little if she
trusted them. She replied, socially, yes ; but that it was not good business to tru 4t
them in business matters. That reply angered the Sodermans. Neither spoke
to her thereafter, although prior to that time they had been friendly. On
February 28, 1951, four other employees were laid off for economic reasons who
later were recalled to work." Little testified that Robert Ferguson told her on
that day she also was laid off because of shortage of steel ; that she asked him how
long it would be and he replied he did not know-that possibly he would recall
her during the next week. Ferguson denied that he told her she was laid oft
His version was that he told her she was "through," when he gave her her check.
Employee Frank Emery testified that a few days prior to March 28, 1951, he
asked Ferguson when Little was coming back to work to which Ferguson replied
as soon as they had something for her to do. Three or four days later, Ferguson
told Emery that Little did not trust the Company and they did not want her back.
Ferguson continued immediately to tell Emery that he had nothing to worry
about his job, because Ferguson had talked with John and Walter Soderman and
they had nothing against him. Little testified that she had never been repri-
manded either for her work or conduct during her employment.
The Respondent's Defense
The Respondent contended that Little was discharged because she annoyed
other employees in the plant, made trouble for and between other employees,
failed to do her work properly, and because she was always screaming, "hollering,"
and throwing things about.
Robert Ferguson testified that she was an operator who ran a press machine
bending pins in hinges used for gasoline-tank covers for automobiles and also
P3 February 28, 1951 , is found to be the last day of her employment because of docu-
mentary evidence in the record that she applied for unemployment insurance benefits on
March 1, 1951.
u They were Haddia , Householder, Tanner , and Graves.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 291
cutting off the pins included in that operation ; that she pierced sun-visor covers ;
shaved sun-visor rods; and did most any job that Ferguson had set up in the
shop. For most of the time, however, her work was on the pin-assembly job on
the gasoline-tank hinge. He testified that no employee ever complained to him
about her singing on the job; that he was critical of her conduct in "hollering"
from one machine to another ; that she "hollered" whenever she felt like it,
which was approximately 50 times between January 9 and February 28. He
testified that he did not reprimand her for that, but on one occasion, he did tell
her that in the first part of February management had called him to the office
and told him the "hollering" in the shop between the press operators must stop.
He further testified that he never reprimanded her because of her operations on
the machine. When Little's machine was out of operation, it was testified to
by Respondent's witness, Michael Madden, that the cause of such breakdown,
including broken pins, was because of a faultily constructed die which the Com-
pany was unwilling to replace or correct as it was nearing completion of its
order for those parts.
Ferguson also testified that from January 9 until February 28 she had about
1,000 pieces of scrap material. Since there is no basis of comparison in the
record, such evidence is incapable of evaluation. John Soderman testified that
she was expected to produce 4,000 pieces per day, although she had never been
told what her production rate should be. On that point, the Respondent in-
troduced timecards for 3 days only which showed that on 2 days she produced
3,600 pieces each day, and 3,750 pieces on the third day. Those days represented
the only 8-hour days when Little worked exclusively on the press ; on other
u.}ys, she performed other operations in addition to running the press. With
respect to those particular 3 days, John Soderman admitted that there was no
way of knowing whether her machine was down for repairs on that day. Other
evidence was introduced into the record that Little was away from her machine
at times and talking to other operators, but again there is no evidence to indicate
whether her machine was down for repairs at those times. Madden testified that
it was necessary for him to repair her die from once to three times per day
because of the faultily constructed die, and during that time production had to
stop because there was no other die.
Little denied that she went unnecessarily to the restroom or was away from
her machine when she should have been working. She admitted that she had
thrown pieces of scrap at others but claimed it was a common practice among
the employees.
Conclusions
I find no merit to the Respondent's defense that Little was discharged for
cause. The uncontradicted and credible evidence of Frank Emery that Ferguson
had told him Little was not coming back to work because she had said she did
not trust the Company contains the real reason for her discharge. His testi-
mony also shows that the employees were discussed between the Sodermans and
Ferguson on a basis of what the Sodermans had against their employees. Emery,
too, was discussed but his job was safe because they had nothing against him.
But they did have something against Little and that was her remark that it
was not good business to trust the Company in business matters which they
elicited from her during her unlawful interrogation on January 19 as one of her
reasons why she wanted to have the Union as a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative for the employees . Clearly , if she had then and there been discharged
for uttering that reason for joining the Union, her discharge hardly could have
been defended. Is it any different that finally on February 28 she was dis-
charged for it? I think not. She was discharged because the Sodermans had
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
something against her-which had rankled and developed since January 19
and finally spelled her discharge on February 28, when an occasion presented
itself to include her with others (later recalled) who were laid off at that time.
The fact that Ferguson did not know until late in March that Little was not
coming back to work lends credence to Little's testimony that Ferguson did tell
her she was laid off on February 28 and that she possibly might be recalled the
week following; and renders suspect his testimony denying that he laid her
off and told her she was "through." His two conversations with Emery, above
referred to, prove conclusively that Little was discharged because the Respond-
ent disapproved of and resented the reason she had expressed to them for join-
ing the Union. I therefore find, upon consideration of the entire record, that
Patricia Little was discharged from her employment on February 28, 1951,
that the reasons advanced by the Respondent to explain her discharge were not
the real reasons, and that she was discharged by the Respondent because of her
known union membership and activities , in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
C. Dominating, interfering with, and supporting the formation and
administration of the Association
Following withdrawal on March 28, 1951, of the Union's petition for an election
which had been scheduled for that day, the employees of the plant met, after
working hours, at 4. 30 p. in on April 2 for a social party which had been
planned to celebrate the completion of 1 year's employment by Torsten Lavin.
John and Walter Soderman and Robert Ferguson also attended. Before the
social aspects of the occasion began, John Soderman told the assembled er-1-
ployees they could have their own organization; that everyone could be a member,
including John and Walter Soderman, Robert Ferguson, and Norma Higel ; "
that the Company would contribute money to the Association, matching em-
ployees' contributions "dollar for dollar," and that the Association could have
a contract with the Respondent. John Soderman, announcing there was no
need for an outside organization, promised that the employees could have "job
seniority" and discussion was had concerning the amount of the dues for the
Association. Nominations were made for officers in the Association and when
completed Walter Soderman announced an election would be held on the follow-
ing day. The next day, after Norma Higel had prepared ballots on company
time, using the company paper and typewriter, pursuant to Walter Soderman's
direction, the ballots were distributed to the employees by Walter Soderman and
Robert Ferguson during working hours. They were instructed to mark them
during the day and drop them in a box provided by the Respondent near the
time clock. Walter Soderman also was one of three watchers at the election.
The results were posted on the Respondent's bulletin board. On April 16, 1951,
the articles of incorporation for the Association were signed by employees
Florence Kennedy, Geraldine Eddy, and Norma Higel, following approval by
Walter Soderman and Robert Ferguson." On the same day a petition, in the
form of a letter, to the Board was prepared, in collaboration with the Respond-
ent's supervisors and attorney, and submitted to the employees during working
hours and all the employees signed it ." The bylaws of the Association , prepared
and approved by supervisors and Respondent's attorney, provided that the
a"Nnimn Higel was a clerical employee in the Respondent 's office
'" The articles of incorporation set forth the purposes of the Association to be , inter aria,
the securing and maintaining of good working conditions , reasonable hours and wages for
the e•oplovees, and to represent the employees in negotiations with the Respondent
"The letter, which was prepared on the company typewriter on company time, was ap-
proved by the Respondent ' s attorney
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 293
Respondent's vice president and foreman were ex officio members of the board
of directors. Thereafter, the Respondent's officers and supervisors conferred
with the Association's representatives in regard to working hours, conditions of
employment, and other benefits requested by the employees, including group
insurance . The Respondent purchased a Coca-Cola machine for the benefit of
the Association, the income from which went to the Association. A cigarette
machine was also supplied."
The Respondent's president, vice president, and plant superintendent were
dues-paying members of the Association. The Respondent arranged for the
opening of a bank account for the Association and Norma Higel, the secretary-
treasurer of the Association, was permitted on company time to use the company
typewriter and checkwriting machine to prepare financial summaries, to keep
the minutes, and to attend to the business of the Association. Notices of asso-
ciation meetings were posted on the company bulletin board. The Respondent also
posted a seniority list of its employees on its bulletin board, pursuant to the
Respondent's promise that the employees could have "job seniority."
The above facts are for the most part based on uncontradicted evidence. The
Respondent attempted to show that the suggestion for the Association initially
came from the employees. There is evidence that a few employees discussed
among themselves the possibility of having their own association after March 28.
Examination of that evidence discloses that some employees had in mind a
social organization and that the Respondent adopted and developed the idea so
that the Association was incorporated and functioned as a labor organization.
It is clear from the foregoing facts that the Association was directly instigated,
encouraged, and directly participated in by the Respondent's officials and super-
visors, and that the Respondent provided financial and other direct support to
the organization Accordingly, I find that the Respondent dominated, interfered
with, supported the formation and administration of, and contributed financial
support to, the Association, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. I
further find that by John Soderman's announcement to the employees that there
was no need for an "outside organization" ; his promises to them that the Com-
pany would contribute financial support to the Association ; that the employees
could have "job seniority" and the Association could have a contract with the
Respondent, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby directly
violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
D The Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with the Union
1. The appropriate unit
All employees of the Respondent, excluding Torsten Lavin," office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
11 The minutes of the association meeting held on May 4, 1951 , record :
New Business . The company bought the coke machine, thus saving rental charges
of $6 00 per month The company thus feeling that this would benefit the Employees
Association as well as the saving . The company receives a commission from the
other machines , paid quarterly. . . .
10 I have excluded Torsten Lavin because he is the nephew of the Respondent 's president
and was a graduate engineer who came to the United States for general engineering experi-
ence He worked in the shop as an apprentice to familiarize himself with American pro-
duction operations and possibly later would get an interest in the Company . His interests
are therefore distineuishahle from those of the employees here involved . See Signal Manu-
facturing Company, 89 NLRB 457.
250983-i of 102-53-20
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Union's majority
On January 16, 1951, 10 out of 12 employees in the unit, hereinabove found
appropriate, signed cards expressly authorizing the Union to represent them for
collective bargaining.20 The authenticity of those signatures was not challenged
nor was any question raised that the Union represented an uncoerced majority.
It is manifestly clear from this record that the 10 employees who signed did so
voluntarily and free from any suggestion of coercion. I accordingly find that
on January 16, 1951, and at all times thereafter, the Union was the duly desig-
nated collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in the
unit found appropriate. Pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was,
therefore, on January 16, 1951, and at all times thereafter, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to grievances, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
On January 17, 1951, the Union wrote a letter which the Respondent received
on January 18, 1951, the pertinent parts of which are:
Please be officially advised that a substantial majority of the employees
of your Company have designated our union as their representative for the
purposes of Collective Bargaining.
Therefore, please be advised that we are desirous of discussing the ques-
tion of your Company's recognizing the International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for all employees
of your Company in a unit appropriate for such purposes.
May we request for a conference be held, on or before Tuesday, January
23, 1951, at a time and place suitable to your convenience, and that you,
and/or your representatives, be available to meet with a committee repre-
senting the employees of your Company and Representatives of this Inter-
national Union, for the purpose of reviewing the above matter.
We will be pleased to hear from you as soon as possible in regards to
our request.
It is also our request that you respect the rights of the employees of
your Company, in this matter, as guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
The foregoing letter, upon its receipt, was construed by the Respondent as
a request that it meet with the Union as the bargaining representative of the
Respondent's employees. Walter Soderman admitted that on January 19 he
told the employees whom he had called to the office for interrogation ". . . I
had told the employees that we had received a notice from the AFL that they
had petitioned us to recognize them, according to the letter. . . ." On or about
January 22 Walter Soderman telephoned to the union representative, Edward
Donahue, to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to inform him that the
20 Those who signed were William Cusson , Geraldine Eddy, Frank Emery , Dorothy Had-
dix, Vivian Householder , Florence Kennedy, Patricia Little, Donald Ripley, Imogene Tanner,
and Kenneth Weston . Those who did not sign were Mark Madden and Arthur Stachel.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 295
Respondent 's attorney was unavailable before January 23." Soderman pro-
fessed his ignorance in such matters and asked Donahue what the procedure was.
Donahue asked him if he could recognize the Union voluntarily ; and if not, the
Union 's recourse was to file a petition with the Board and thereafter a consent
election might be agreed to. Soderman insisted on a Board election.
Upon receipt of the letter from the Union, the Respondent on January 18
advised Alvin Neller, Esq., its attorney, as to the contents of the letter.
On January 19, as already set forth, the Respondent had learned from direct
inquiries to its employees that a majority of them had joined the Union.
It further appears that the Respondent was willing to confer with the Union
and believed that a meeting had been arranged for February 2 which , through
misunderstanding, did not occur." Even though the Respondent had met with
the Union on February 2, it had no intention of recognizing the Union's claim
without an election, as was testified to by Neller and Walter Soderman.
On January 24, 1951. the Union filed its petition for certification of representa-
tives. On February 14 and 28 the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Donald Ripley and Patricia Little as set forth supra. On March 10 the Re-
spondent and the Union entered into a consent-election agreement. On the
morning of the scheduled election, March 28, the Union withdrew from the
consent-election agreement and no election was held. Thereafter, on April 13,
1951, the Union filed its charge herein of unfair labor practices. After filing
the charge on April 13, nothing further was heard from the Union until the
Respondent received a letter from the Union dated October 8, 1951, which re-
quested recognition and a bargaining conference ." On October 11 the Re-
spondent's attorney acknowledged receipt of the Union's letter stating that the
Respondent had no objection to an election to determine whether the Union was
entitled to represent the employees.
Uncontroverted evidence establishes that as of January 18, 1951, when the
Respondent received the Union's letter requesting recognition and bargaining,
ai With respect to fixing the date of Soderman 's telephone call , Donahue testified it was
after January 17 and prior to January 23. Soderman testified he was unable to state that
it was on January 18-the same date as he had received the letter . The Respondent's brief
states that the date was January 18. However , it appears from the petition filed by the
Union executed by Donahue on January 24, 1951 , that the Employer declined recognition
by telephone on or about January 22, 1981 . I have examined the Board 's informal file,
7-RC-1263, containing only the petition , agreement for consent election , and the Regional
Office closed case report.
22 Attorney Neller testified that between January 18 and 23 he telephoned to Donahue's
office and made arrangements with an unidentified individual to whom he spoke for a
meeting on February 2, at 3 p. m., at the Respondent 's plant. On February 2, after
waiting for three -quarters of an hour , and no one appearing on behalf of the Union, John
Soderman telephoned to Donahue 's office and told him they were waiting and inquired if
anyone from the Union were coming . Soderman was informed the Union had no knowledge
of the proposed appointment . Donahue testified that he had no knowledge that any meeting
had been arranged.
22 It is immaterial that by this time the Union 's support may have been dissipated. The
Respondent cannot rely on the Union 's loss of majority status to excuse a refusal to bargain
where the defections from the Union were caused by the Employer 's unfair labor practices.
(N. L. R. B. V. Bradford Dyeing Association , 310 U . S. 318 , 839-40 ; International Assocaa-
tion of Machinists v. N. L. R . B., 311 U. S. 72 , 82; Frank Brothers Company v. N. L. R. B.,
321 U . S. 702 ; N. L. R. B . v. Burke Machine Tool Co ., 133 F . 2d 618, 621 (C . A 6). Here,
any loss of the Union 's majority which may have occurred must be attributed to the
unlawful refusal to bargain and is no barrier to an order based on that refusal . ( Gitlin
Bag Company , 95 NLRB 1159, enforced 196 F. 2d 156 )
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union was in fact the duly designated representative of the majority of
the employees in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. Under
those circumstances , the Respondent 's refusal to recognize the Union and deal
with it was a clear violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, unless the Re-
spondent at that time had a bona fide doubt that the Union represented the
majority. The fact that the Respondent did not have such a doubt is amply
supported by the credible evidence.
The Respondent's action, beginning on January 19, the day after receipt of
the letter from the Union containing the Union's claim of majority representa-
tion, in initiating a campaign to destroy employee support for the Union through
means proscribed by the Act, as set forth in the unfair labor practices found
to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3), above, clearly demonstrates
that the refusal to recognize the Union and its insistence that the Union prove
its majority through a Board election were not based upon a bona fide doubt
of the Union's majority. It has long been held, where, as here, an employer
withholds recognition from a union which is entitled to it under the Act until
its status is established in an election, and at the same time proceeds by unfair
labor practices to undermine and destroy the union, that it may reasonably be
concluded that the employer's refusal to bargain stems not from an honest
doubt of the union's status but rather from a desire to avoid his obligation
under the Act." As already referred to above, the Respondent's activities in
connection with the letter of April 16 from the employees to the Board in which
they state that the Association "shall be the organization to represent them in
any controversy or contract" with the Respondent, violated the employees' rights
under the Act. Such a repudiation of the Union "was the expected harvest
which the respondent reaped in due season from what it had theretofore sown
and purposely cultivated until maturity." zb Employer sponsorship of such peti-
tions or letters has been uniformly condemned?" Such conduct is likewise an
important factor in concluding that the Respondent was motivated throughout
by a complete "rejection of the collective-bargaining principle." 27 The Re-
spondent's speedy recognition of the Association as the employees' representa-
tive in the face of the Union's claim herein was itself a refusal to bargain.
Upon the entire record, I find that on January 18, 1951,2s and at all times
thereafter, the Respondent failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the
duly designated representative of the majority of its employees in the unit here-
inabove found appropriate in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
24 See N. L R B v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp., 163 F 2d 376: N. L R. B. v.
Remington Rand, Inc, 94 F 2d 61 ; N. L R B. v Chicago Apparatus Co . 116 F 2d 753,
N. I. R B. v Morris P Kirk & Son, 151 F. 2d 49, 0, Joy Silk Mills, Inc N N L R B., 185
F 2d 732
25 N L R B. v. George P Pilling & Son Co , 119 F 2d 32, 39, 36-37
20 N L R B v The Good Coal Company, 110 F. 2d 501, 504, 505, cert denied, 310 U. S
630. Texarkana Bus Co. v N L R B., 119 F 2d 480, 483; American Enka Corp v. N. L
R B., 119 F 2d 60, 63; N L R B v. American Manufacturing Co , IN F 2d 61, 65;
F. W Woolworth Company v. N. L. R B, 121 F 2d 658, 661.
PIN. L. R. B. v The Good Coal Company, supra, 503-504; N L R B v American Manu-
facturing Co , supra; N L R B v. Lovvorn, 172 F. 2d 293, 294
221 fix the refusal to bareain began on January 18, 1951, the day on which the Union',,
request was received by the Respondent. See Intertown Corporation. 90 NLRB 1145;
Louisville Container Corp, 99 NLRB 81.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 297
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices vio-
lative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent on January 18, 1951, and at all times there-
after , has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative
of the majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, I shall recommend
that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive statutory representative of all the employees in the unit heretofore
found appropriate, and if an agreement is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Donald Ripley and
Patricia Little with respect to their hire and tenure of employment and the
terms and conditions of their employment because they had joined and assisted
the Union and had engaged in other protected concerted activities, I shall rec-
ommend that the Respondent offer to them immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Respondent also make each
of them whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discrimination against him, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
covering his loss of pay; such loss of pay to be computed on the basis of each
separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the Respond-
ent's discriminatory action to the date of the offer of reinstatement. The quar-
terly periods, hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of
January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting
from a sum equal to that which he normally would have earned for each quarter
or portion thereof, his net earnings,1' if any , in other employment, during that
period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-
pay liability for any other quarter. I shall further recommend that the Respond-
ent, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board, or its
agents for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the rights
of reinstatement under the terms of this recommended order.80
Having found that the Respondent formed, dominated, interfered with the
administration of, and contributed financial and other support to, the Associa-
tion , I shall recommend, because the existence of the Association and its recog-
nition of it by the Respondent constitute a continuing obstacle to the employees'
rights guaranteed by the Act, that the Respondent withdraw and withhold all
recognition from the Association as the representative of any of the Respondent's
employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment and disestablish it completely as such representative.
70 By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where. See, Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered
as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
10 See F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that there is insufficient evidence in the record to sustain the
allegations in the complaint that Kenneth Blonshine, Fred George, and Morrell
G. Hakes were discriminated against, I shall recommend that the complaint
as to them be dismissed.
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Respondent
are of such a character and scope that in order to insure the employees here
involved their full rights guaranteed by the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in their right to self-organization."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record as a
whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, American
Federation of Labor, and Globe Products Employees Association are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees of the Respondent, excluding Torsten Lavin, office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a' unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, American
Federation of Labor, was on January 16, 1951, and at all times since has been,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on January 18, 1951, and thereafter, to bargain collectively with
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, American Federa-
tion of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appro-
priate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the said refusal the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Donald Ripley and Patricia Little because they joined and assisted the Union
and engaged in other protected concerted activities, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
7. By forming, dominating, and interfering with the administration of Globe
Products Employees Association, and by contributing financial and other sup-
port to it, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
8. By interrogating its employees, and prospective employees , threatening
its employees with reprisal if they became or remained members of the Union,
promising benefits if the employees repudiated the Union, and otherwise inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
n See May Department Stores V. N. L. It. B., 326 U. S. 3T6.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 299
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
10. The Respondent did not discriminate against Kenneth Blonshine, Fred
George, and Morrell G. Hakes as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following bargaining
unit, with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement :
All employees excluding Tortsen Lavin, office and clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
WE HEREBY disestablish Globe Products Employees Association as the
representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it, or
any successor thereto, for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of, or contribute financial or other support to, Globe Products Employees As-
sociation, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any arrangements or agreements with Globe
Products Employees Association, or any successor thereto.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activ-
ities ; threaten to shut down the plant or that their conditions of employment
will be less favorable if they continue their activities on behalf of the union
or that their conditions of employment will be more favorable if they join
the Association.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or in
any other labor organization of our employees, or in any other manner dis-
criminate against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to Donald Ripley and Patricia Little immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By ------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
COASTAL PLYWOOD & TIMBER COMPANY and LUMBER AND SAWMILL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 2853, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR-
PENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
2O-RC-2051. January 15,19.53
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clement W. Miller, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:'
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
1 Separate counsel for both Fred G. Stevenot, trustee in reorganization of the Employer,
hereinafter referred to as the Trustee, and the Employer debtor, hereinafter referred to as
the Employer , appeared at the hearing . The Trustee contends that, as a result of a
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the
pending reorganization of the Employer under chapter X of the Federal Bankruptcy Act
dictates a finding that the instant petition is premature and moot. We find no merit in
this contention . There is no certainty that the Employer' s operations will cease or change.
Nor does the record disclose that any definite plans have yet been completed for closing
or selling the Employer's plant. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the Employer
will necessarily terminate its operations in the immediate future, we shall process the
present petition. Plywood-Plastics Corporation , 85 NLRB 265 ; see Clarostat Man sfac-
turing Co., Inc., 881 NLRB 723; Choctaw Cotton Oil Company, 84 NLRB 660. See also
11 U. S. C., Section 672, and Section 15 of the Act ; N. L. R. B. v. Baldwin Locomotive
Works, 128 F. 2d 39 (C. A. 3).
102 NLRB No. 34.