Hagerstown Leather Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1313 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of HAGERSTOWN LEATHER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
FuR AND LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
AFFIL. WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. C-2696 (5-C-1614).-Decided December 14, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 12, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
bad not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint herein
be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report an-
nexed hereto. Thereafter, on August 25, 1943, the Union filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the
exceptions.
On October 7, 1943, the Board issued its Decision and Order adopt-
ing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer, except those relating to the discharge of Olive Tritsch. The
Board found that Tritsch was discharged because of her concerted
and union activities, in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. On
October 12, 1943, the respondent filed a motion to vacate and set aside
the Board's Decision and Order, on the ground that the Union, in
violation of Section 33, Article II, of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, had failed to serve upon the respondent a copy of its exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and its brief in support thereof. The
respondent also asked for leave to argue the matter orally before the
Board. Because of the Union's failure to serve a copy of its excep-
tions and brief on the respondent, the Board on October 22, 1943,
issued an order withdrawing the Decision and Order of October 7,
1943, but providing that it stand as Proposed Findings of Fact, Pro-
posed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order; extending the time
for filing exceptions thereto and briefs in support thereof to Novem-
ber 8,1943; and setting the case down for oral argument on the merits
on November 16, 1943.
On November 8, 1943, the respondent filed exceptions to the Pro-
posed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed
53 N. L. R. B., No. 238.
1313
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order, and a brief in support of its exceptions. The Union filed no
additional exceptions or brief. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington,
D. C., on November 16, 1943. The respondent was represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union did not appear.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Union's exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and its brief in support of the exceptions, the Proposed Findings of ,
Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, the re-
spondent's exceptions to the Proposed Finding of Fact, Proposed
Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order and its brief in support of
the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed
hereto.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein against the
respondent, Hagerstown Leather Company, Hagerstown, Maryland,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert A. Levett, for the Board.
Mr. Robert H. McCauley, of Hagerstown , Md., and Mr. Lacy I. Rice, of
Martinsburg , W. Va., for the respondent.
Mr. Robert Herbin, of New York City, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on or about March 31, 1943, by International Fur
and Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called the Union , the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , by its Regional Director for
the Fifth Region (Baltimore , Md.), issued its complaint , dated July 3, 1943,
against Hagerstown Leather Company , Hagerstown , Md., herein called the
respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint , accompanied by notice of
hearing, were duly served upon the ' respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that the respondent , on or about March 17, 1943, discharged and thereafter
refused to reinstate Olive Tritsch, an employee , because said Olive Tritsch had
engaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent and
HAGERSTOWN LEATHER COMPANY 1315
because she had joined and assisted the Union; and (2) that the respondent
from August 1, 1942, down to the date of the issuance of the complaint, interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act by: (a) making statements and speeches express-
ing displeasure to its employees concerning their union activities and concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; (b) urging, persuading, and warning its employees to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of the Union, and from engaging in concerted
activities; (c) granting wage increases to its employees for the purpose, of
discouraging them from acting on behalf of the Union or engaging in con-
certed activities; and (d) urging its employees to deal with the respondent in-
dividually for the purpose of discouraging them from engaging in union activ-
ities and other concerted activities.
On July 12, 1943, the respondent filed an answer in which it denied that, it
had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged, and in addition set forth
certain affirmative averments by way of defense'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Hagerstown, Maryland, from July
15 to 17, 1943, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel and the Union by its representative' Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel
for the Board moved to strike, as irrelevant, certain affirmative averments set
forth in the respondent's answer! This motion was granted. At the close of
the hearing, motions by counsel for the Board and for the respondent to conform
the pleadings to the proof, insofar as formal matters were concerned, were
granted. Also at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board and for the
respondent each argued orally before the undersigned. Although afforded the
opportunity, none of the parties filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hagerstown Leather Company is a Maryland corporation, having its principal
office and place of business in Hagerstown, Maryland, where it employs approxi-
mately 100 persons and is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale
I The affirmative averments contained in the respondent's answer were in substance : (1)
that Tritsch was discharged because she had threatened a fellow employee; (2) that the
respondent had no knowledge that Tritsch was a member of the Union or that any union
existed at the plant at the time Tritsch was discharged; (3) that "the only purpose of the
charge being filed in this case and the resultant complaint against respondent is an effort
on behalf of" the Union "to secure the assistance of the National Laboi Relations Board in
its present organizational campaign to organize the employees of respondent 's plant" , (4)
that all union activities with respect to the respondent's employees occurred subsequent to
the discharge of Tritsch ; and (5 ) that "the charge in this case is a subterfuge made by said
union for the purpose of furthering its own interests in its attempted organization of the
employees of respondent's plant."
As noted hereafter, a motion of counsel for the Board to strike the third and fifth
allegations above set fori:h was granted at the commencement of the hearing.
2 The representative of the Union did not attend the last two days of the hearing, having
indicated at the end of the first day that he might not be present thereafter because of prior
engagements
3 The molion to strike was dliected to the this d and fifth allegations set forth in footnote 1,
si'vra.
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of leather and canvas goods and related products. The respondent annually
purchases raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, more than 50 percent of
which are secured from points outside the State of Maryland. The respondent's
annual sales of its finished products amount ,to a sum in excess of $100,000, and
more than 80 percent of the finished products so sold are shipped to States
other than Maryland. The respondent admitted at the hearing that it was
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it was subject
to the jurisdiction of the Board. °
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Fur and Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Prior to December 1942, no union attempted to organize the employees of
the respondent, nor does it appear that any of the employees were members of
a union . In the summer and fall of 1042, some discussions occurred among the
employees with respect to wage rates and the possibility of securing wage in-
creases. As a result of these discussions, Olive Tritsch, an employee in the
leather goods department of the respondent's plant,4 prepared a petition request-
ing the respondent to grant an increase in wages.
On September 1, 1942, Tritsch brought the petition to the plant. The petition
was not circulated by Tritsch, but instead was passed from one employee to
another in the leather goods department until it had been signed by all except
two of the approximately 42 employees then at work in that department." The
employees affixed their signatures to the petition in two vertical columns. The
first signature to appear at the top of the left-hand column was that of Helen
Fox,6 whose signature was followed by that of Tritsch.
4 Tritsch began to work for the respondent in September 1940.
B At that time , approximately 89 persons were employed by the respondent throughout
its plant.
6 The parties are In dispute regarding the contention of the Board that Helen Fox is a
supervisory employee and that therefore her knowledge of Tritsch 's concerted and union
activities is attiibutable to the respondent Tritsch testified that Fox was Tutsch's im-
mediate superior who laid out Tritisch 's woik, told her what work to do and which woik to
do first , inspected her work, transmitted order s from Superintendent Thomas, and recom-
mended employees for particular operations Fox testified that she has been employed by
the respondent for 15 years and is the oldest of 6 employees who operate the 3 printing and 3
creasing machines in the leather goods department ; that she assigns work and sets up
machines for new employees who can be taught to operate them in 15 minutes ; that 90
percent of her time is spent in production work, that she has no authority to hire or dis-
charge or to recommend the hire or discharge of other employees , and that she does not make
recommendations as to the ability of other employees. Superintendent Thomas and Presi-
dent Campbell testified substantially to the same effect , and further testified that Fox is
classified on the pay roll as a "creaser", i e , the operator of a creasing machine Thomas
also testified that he issues orders to Fox, together with Louise Ruddock and Mary Kretzer,
who are the older employees in the department , and that such orders are in turn transmitted
to the other employees , and that Fox on several occasions had reported to him that Tritsch
had refused to perform certain work assigned Ruddock and Kretzer are otherwise Identified
it the record as foreladies or as having supervisory positions . Since March 1, 1943, Fox and
Kretzer have each received a wage rate of 50¢ per hour , while Ruddock had received 52¢
However, since the same date , 9 other employees in the department"also have received 50t
per hour , while one has received 52¢. The record fails to show whether any of these 10
employees work on the printing and creasing machines , nor does it otherwise show their
exact duties , although in this latter respect President Campbell testified that Ruddock and
Kretzer are the only supervisory employees in the leather goods department , thus indicat-
HAGERSTOWN LEATHER COMPANY -1317
On the same day, the petition was delivered to Harry Thomas, superintendent
of the plant. Tritsch testified that she had requested Fox to bring the petition
to Thomas, but admitted that she did not know who actually delivered it.
Thomas, however, testified without contradiction, and the undersigned finds,
that the petition was deposited in the mail box in his office, and that he did not
know who had placed it there. Fox testified, likewise without contradiction, that
she did not know who had placed the petition in the mail box in Thomas' office.
On September 2, or shortly thereafter, notices were posted on the bulletin boards
in the plant, notifying all employees of a meeting to be held at 3: 45 that after-
noon. The normal end of the working day in the respondent's plant was 4 o'clock
in the afternoon. C. Merritt Campbell, president of the respondent, addressed
all the employees at this meeting which was held in the leather goods department
of the plant. Tritsch testified' that Campbell told the employees that some of
them would receive wage increases either on the next pay day or the pay day
following while some would not receive any increase ; that ". . . he didn't like our
method, and that his doors was open at all times for us to come in and talk any-
thing we had to say over." Campbell, who appeared as a witness for the re-
spondent, admitted that he mentioned receipt of the petition when he addressed
the employees, and also admitted that he told the employees that if they had
any questions they were free to bring them to him or to Superintendent Thomas
He testified without contradiction that it had always been the policy of the
respondent to encourage employees to talk to him or to Thomas about their
problems Campbell denied, however, that he had made any statement to the
employees to the effect that he did not like their method in requesting a wage
increase. His testimony in this respect was corroborated by Superintendent
Thomas and by employees Carrie Guillard, Helen Mazzo, Helen Fox, Nellie
Risling, Catherine Hull, and Anna Swain. The undersigned credits his denial
and finds that he did not make the statement so attributed to him by Tritsch.
Early in December 1942, Tritsch joined the Union. After she had joined the
Union and prior to her discharge on March 17, 1943, as related hereafter, Tritsch
sought to induce other employees to become members of the Union and to attend
its meetings. She also enlisted the aid of Ray Gruber, another employee in the
plant, to assist her in these activities. However, Tritsch was the only employee
in the plant who became a member of the Union prior to her discharge.'
In February 1943, Tritsch prepared another petition requesting wage increases.
The petition stated that if the request were not granted within one week, the
employees would be compelled to join the C. I. O. This petition likewise was
handed from one employee to another in the leather goods department and was
not personally eiiculated by Tritsch. Several employees signed this petition.
However, two of the employees who signed, erased their names, whereupon
Tritsch took the petition back into her possession and destroyed it several days
later.
ing that the 10 persons in question are regular production employees . As noted above, Fox
was the first employee to sign the petition of September 1, 1942, requesting a wage increase.
She was also one of the employees who signed and subsequently erased her name from a
similar petition in February 1943, as related hereafter. In addition, as found below, Fox
was one of the six employees who joined the Union shortly after Tritsch was discharged
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the evidence in the record does not afford a
sufficient basis to support the conclusion that Fox is a supervisory employee.
4 Tritsch and Robert IIerbin, representatives of the Union , were the only witnesses who
testified for the Board . Herbin's testimony related solely to his own efforts to organize the
respondent ' s employees and to Tritsch 's union activities . He did not otherwise testify
with respect to the issues raised in this proceeding.
8 Six employees , one of whom was Fox, Joined the Union shortly after Tritsch was
discharged.
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tritsch testified that this petition was circulated about the middle of February,
probably on February 17; that 2 or 3 days thereafter wage increases were given
to various employees in the department, and that Helen Fox and Catherine Hull,
the two employees who had signed and subsequently erased their names from the
petition, were the first ones to receive such increases
Fox testified that she was not certain but believed that the petition in ques-
tion was circulated on February 5 or 6 and that she received an increase in
wages sometime thereafter . Dorothy Knode , an employee in the leather goods
department, testified that she returned to work on February 15, following an
absence of 4 weeks because of illness , and that the petition was circulated 2
days after she had returned to the plant, thus corroborating Tritsch's testimony
on this point. According to the uncontradicted testimony of President Campbell,
the respondent granted wage increases to 26 employees in February 1943 °
Campbell further testified and the undersigned finds that of these increases, 14
were granted on February 3, 11 on February 10, and one on February 24, and
that Fox and Hull each received a wage increase on February 3.10
On the evening of March 16, 1943, Tritsch and Carrie Gaillard, an employee
in the leather goods department, met on the street and became engaged in an
argument. On the following morning, a few minutes after work began at 7
o'clock, Tritsch accosted Gaillard at the latter's machine. Tritsch testified as
follows with respect to this incident :
I walked up to Mrs Guillard, and I told her that it was a good thing she
had gotten in the shop that morning as soon as she did, because I intended
to get her before she got in the shop, because she had told lies about me
that I didn't intend to lay under, they were untrue, and I didn't intend to
lay under them, and I immediately walked away from her and walked to
my machine and went to work .
On cross-examination, Tritsch testified that she did not recall whether or- not
she had pounded her hand against Guillard's machine, and denied that she
had used profane language. However, Helen Mazzo, Dorothy Hahn, and
Carrie Guillard each testified that Tritsch had struck her hand against Guil-
lard's machine and referred to the latter as a "damned old lady," and a state-
ment to the same effect, which had been signed by Mazzo, was introduced in
evidence by counsel for the Board The undersigned finds that Tritsch did
strike Guillard's machine, and did refer to her as a "damned old lady."
Shortly after this incident, Gaillard reported what had occurred to Super-
intendent Thomas. Thomas requested Gaillard to return to work. Thereafter,
he called Tritsch to his office, told her what had been related to him by Guillard
and informed Tritsch that she was discharged. Tritsch testified that when
she arrived at Thomas' office, Thomas told her that she was a "trouble-maker,"
that she had struck' Guillard, and that she was discharged. Tritsch further
testified that she thereupon asked Thomas to go to Guillard with her and that
she would prove that she had not struck Guillard, but that Thomas refused to
do so.
Tritsch returned to Thomas' office on March 18, for the purpose of securing
a separation notice to submit to the State Unemployment compensation Board.
The notice given her contained the notation : "Discharged-quarreling with
c
9 Prior to the general wage increases granted to most of the employees in September 1942,
the respondent bad granted similar general increases in January 1941 and February 1942
i" Counsel for the Board was afforded an opportunity to examine the original books and
records of the respondent upon which Campbell based his testimony with respect to these
m age increases
HAGERSTOWN LEATHER COMPANY 1319
girls. " She protested the notation , asked Thomas why he had not stated the
truth, and told Thomas that the real reason for her discharge was because she
was "the instigator of petitions trying to organize this plant." According to
Tritsch's testimony, Thomas then replied that he knew that Tritsch was the
instigator of the petitions, that she was a "trouble-maker," that she had created
contention among the employees, and that he had been watching her for some
time.
Margaret Amsley, Thomas' secretary, was present in Thomas' office when each
of these conversations occurred on March 17 and 18 Both Thomas and Amsely
denied that Thomas had accused Tritsch on March 17 of striking Guillard or
that he had referred to Tritsch as a "trouble maker" on either March 17 or 18,
and both also denied that Thomas had stated on March 18 that he knew that
Tritsch had been the instigator of the petitions, that he accused her of causing
trouble among the girls or that he stated that he had been watching her for some
time. Thomas testified as follows concerning his conversation with Tritsch on
March 18:
She [Tritsch] mentioned that she was the instigator of the paper [petition].
I told her I knew nothing about who was the instigator of the paper. I knew
of the paper ; I didn 't know who had started it, and it didn ' t make any differ-
ence. I also told her I didn't even know her name was on it.
Thomas' testimony in this respect was in substance corroborated by Amsley.
In view of the fact that Thomas testified without contradiction that the petition
of September 1, 1942 was placed in his mail box by some unknown person, and in
view of the further fact that the record fails to disclose any knowledge on the part
of the respondent of the existence of the petition circulated in February 1943 or
of the part which Tritsch played in the preparation or circulation of either
petition ," the undersigned is convinced that the version of Thomas and Amsely
as to what occurred on March 17 . and 18 is credible and therefore finds that
Thomas did not make the statements attributed to him by Tritsch.
The record fails to show that the respondent was aware of Tritsch s member-
ship in or activities on behalf of the Union" Upon the entire record, the under-
signed concludes and finds that the respondent 's discharge of Tritsch was not
motivated by her concerted activities or by her union membership or activities.
The complaint alleges that the speech to the employees and the wage increases
granted to them constituted acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. ' The
undersigned finds that Campbell 's speech to the employees in September 1942
and the wage increases granted during that month and also in February 1943
did not, under the circumstances shown in this record, constitute unfair labor
practices . The undersigned further finds that the record fails to support the
remaining allegations of the complaint with respect to violations of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
11 As previously found, the record does not support a conclusion that Fox is a supervisory
employee, and therefore her knowledge of the concerted and union activities of Tritsch may
not be imputed to the respondent.
"As noted above , Tritsch was the only employee of the respondent who joined the Union
prior to her discharge . Moreover, President Campbell and Superintendent Thomas both
testified without contradiction that they had no knowledge of union activities or of the fact
that any of the employees were members of the Union until they were so informed by the
Board's Field Examiner on April 6, 1943 ; and Robert Herbin, representative of the Union,
admitted on cross -examination that lie at no time approached anyone from the management
for the purpose of discussing the Union or its activities
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case , the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The' operations of the respondent occur in commerce , within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. International Fur and Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent ha., not discriminated against Olive Tritsch because of
her union membership or activity or because of her concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not interfered with , restrained , or coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the complaint against Hagerstown Leather Com-
pany, Hagerstown, Md., be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
•National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended , effective October 28,
1942,-any party may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board , Rochambeau Building,
Washington , D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of
the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as
he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in
writing to the Board Within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order transferring
the case to the Board.
DAVID KARA SICK
Trial Examiner
Dated August 12, 194"