Heintz Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION #18454, AFFILIATED
WITH:'_TIIE A. F.-OF L.
Case No. 0-1316.-Decided June 26, 1940
Steel Stampings and Assemblies Manufacturvng Industry-Interference, Re-
straint, and , Coercion : charges of , not sustained-Company-Dominated Union:
charges of , not sustained-Complaint : dismissed.
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunniff and Mr. Vincent A. Burns, for the Board
Mr. Ira Jewell Williams and Mr. William H. Peace, II, of Phila-
delphia, Pa., for the respondent.
Syme cC Simons, by Mr. M. Herbert Syme and Mr. Maurice'
Abrams, and Mr. Thomas Killeen, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the-
Federal Union.
Mr. Joseph R. Stanton and Mr. Bernard J. Kelly, of Philadelphia,.
Pa., for the Association.
Mr. William R. Consedine, and Mr. Lester Asher, of counsel to-
the Board.'
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed February 20, 1939, .,by United Automobile
Workers Federal Labor Union #18454, herein called- the..Federal .
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Boar'd,.
by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia,.
Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated April 261 1939, against
Heintz Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, herein.
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affectin commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act..
. With respect to the unfair labor practices; the complaint alleged,.
in substance, that the respondent ('1) from about February 13, 1939,
to the date of the issuance of the complaint, dominated and inter-
24.•N. L. R. B., No. 109. 1011
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fered with the formation and administration of and contributed
financial and other support to Heintz Employees ' Protective Asso-
ciation, herein called the Association, in that the respondent, by its
officers, foremen , assistant foremen, and agents , assisted in the for-
mation and administration of the Association ; urged, persuaded,
warned, and threatened its employees to form, join , and' assist the
Association ; permitted the Association to solicit members and carry
on other activities in behalf of the Association during working hours
and within the plant, while denying similar privileges to the Federal
Union; and during April 1939 recognized the Association as the sole
collective bargaining agency for all its employees for the purpose of
interfering with the self -organization of its employees ; and (2) by
the afore-mentioned acts and by other acts interfered with, restrained,
and .coerced . its,employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. A copy of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent, the Federal
. Union, and the Association.
On May 4, 1939, the Association filed with the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region a petition, for leave to intervene in the pro-
ceedings. On the same date the Regional Director entered an order
granting the motion for leave to intervene. On May 5, 1939, the re-
spondent filed an answer to the complaint, denying that it had
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices, and a motion praying
that the complaint be made more specific and that certain portions of
the complaint be stricken.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Philadelphia,. Pennsyl-
vania, on May 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1939, before Howard Myers, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the re-
spondent, the Federal Union, and the Association were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. ' Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the
commencement of the hearing the Trial Examiner denied the re-
spondent 's motion to make the complaint more specific and to strike
certain . portions of the complaint . At the close of the Board's case
counsel for the respondent made a motion , in which counsel for
the Association joined, to dismiss the complaint . The Trial Ex-
aminer reserved his rulings on these motions , but subsequently
granted them in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the
hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on mo-
tions and on objections to the admission of evidence . The Board has
reviewed the rulings of, the Trial Examiner and finds that no prej-
udicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1013
After the hearing had been concluded, the respondent, the Federal
Union, and the Association filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On
June 24, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in which he
found that the respondent had not engaged in the alleged, unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
On July 14, 1939, the Federal Union filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
On November 16, 1939, pursuant to notice duly served upon all the
parties, a. hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before
the Board in Washington, D. G. The respondent, the Federal Union,
and the Association were represented and participated in the argu-
ment. The respondent and the Association filed briefs which the
Board has considered. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the
-findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the,
manufacture, sale, and distribution of stainless and mild sheet steel
stampings and assemblies, dies, jigs, and fixtures.. Its principal
place of business is located at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a
sales office is maintained at Detroit, Michigan. The respondent
employs, approximately 500 persons in its Philadelphia plant.
The principal raw materials purchased by the respondent consist
of flat sheet steel, stainless steel, bar steel, and castings. Approxi-
mately 70 per cent of these raw materials are transported to the
respondent's plant at Philadelphia from places outside the State of
Pennsylvania. Approximately 88 per cent of its finished products
are shipped by the respondent to points outside the State of Penn-
sylvania. During the year 1938, the gross business of the respondent
amounted to $1,948,301.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile- Workers Federal Labor Union #18454 is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees. of the respondent except those
in supervisory capacities.
283035-42-vol. 24 65
1014. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Heintz Employees' Protective Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent'1
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
2
The Federal Union was chartered by the American- Federation of
Labor in August 1933, and soon thereafter organized a majority of.
the respondent's employees. During 1935, 1936, and the beginning of
1937, the respondent recognized the Federal Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees.
In the early part of 1937, the. Committee for Industrial Organi-
zati6n,2 herein called'the C. I. 0., began organizing among employees
of the respondent. During June 1937, the respondent, , at 'the sug-
gestion of the two competing organizations, permitted an election by
secret ballot to be held in the plant to determine whether-the em-
ployees desired 'to be represented by the Federal Union or the C. I.
O The C. I. O. received a majority of the votes cast in this elec-'
tion 8 and was immediately recognized as exclusive representative of
the respondent's employees.
Following the election, the C..I..0. demanded that the respondent
discharge from its employment four officers of the Federal Union.
The respondent refused to comply with- this demand and, in July
1937, the C. I. O. called a strike. The strike, which lasted about, 2
months, was attended by considerable violence. Upon the unsuc-
cessful conclusion of the strike the CA. O. gave up the attempt to
maintain an organization among the respondent's employees. The
Federal Union also began to lose members after the strike and by
the time of the hearing its membership had been reduced to 30 em-
ployees. We find in accordance with the testimony of Thomas Kil-
leen, president of the Federal Union at. the time of. the hearing, that
as a result of the strike
There was resentment against the C. I. O. and there was re-'
sentment against the A. F. of L.• both . . . there was a bad feel-
ing, those men that stuck. with the C. I. O. had bad feelings
against the A. F. of L. and those men that' stuck with the
A. F. of L. had bad feelings against the C. L. O.
After the strike the respondent recognized the Federal Union as
bargaining representative for its own members and, during 1938 ,
1 The bylaws of the Association contain the following provision
All, but only , employees of the Heintz Manufacturing Company are eligible for
membership and may become members herein . (Company -officials and foremen eligi-
ble for honorary membership only for social activities , and the development of
mutually fair relations between employers and employes.)
2 Now Congress, of Industrial Organizations.
3 William J . Meinel , president of the respondent , testified that the election was dC-
cided by eight or nine ballots, the C. I. O. receiving about 389 votes and the Federal
Union about 380 votes.
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1015
and the beginning of 1939, the respondent and the Federal Union
met on numerous occasions for the purpose of discussing grievances.
However, during this same period officers of the Federal Union
approached William J. Meinel, president of the respondent, and in-
formed him of their desire to organize an unaffiliated union. We
credit the uncontroverted testimony of Meinel and find that shortly
after the, strike John Tierney, who was then president of the Federal
Union, told Meinel tl at
he [Tierney] was not making very much progress in get-
ting members in the A. F. of L., the boys did not seem warmed
up to it, and he thought it might be a good idea to start an
independent union.
Meinel replied, "You know that is a subject I can't discuss with yon
or give you any advice on." About May 1938, Albert Francis, an
officer in the Federal Union, said to Meinel :
I think it would be a good thing if we, had an independent
organization in this plant because we could get the boys together
in one group, whereas, the way we are now, we are not making
any headway. -
About January 1939, Francis told Meinel, "You remember I talked
to you before about an independent union, and I still feel that way
about it:" Concerning the. ,response which he made to these state-
ments by Francis, Meinel's uncontroverted testimony is as follow s :
On . both occasions I was, noncommital ; I made it very clear
that the company could not have any part in the formation of
any union.
On February 3, 1939, Charles Crosby, a lay-out and assemblyman
and a member of the C. I. O. during the time that it maintained an
organization among the respondent's employees, held a meeting with
a few of the employees regarding the possibility of forming an'inde-
pendent labor organization. This meeting, was held at a restaurant.
outside of the plant. Crosby. and three _ other employees 4 each
.agreed to contribute. $5 towards setting up the new organization.
Thereafter Crosby drafted a form of application card for membership
in the Association and arranged for the printing of a number of them.
The . application cards contained the. statement, "Monthly Dues 25
cents." On February 10, 1939, Crosby paid for the printing and
received the application cards. .
On February 13, 1939, the distribution of the applications for
membership in the Asspciation, was started. Anthony Bernard 8
* A. C. Davis. William Rival , and Frederick Nixdorf.
' Named in the complaint as Tony Bernardo.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
played an outstanding role in distributing the applications for mem-
bership in the Association to the employees of the respondent as they
passed through the gates at the beginning of the shift.
On February 19, 1939, the Association held a meeting at Pulaski
Hall in Philadelphia, at which about 200 employees were present. At
this meeting a constitution and set of bylaws was adopted, permanent
officers and representatives were elected, and an agreement which was
to be-presented to the respondent was approved by the membership.
On February 20, 1939, Crosby presented to the respondent a letter
which contained a demand "for bargaining rights, as we have the
vast majority of the employees in the Heintz plant enrolled as paid up tt
members in our Association." On February 21, 1939, representatives
of the Association met with representatives of the respondent, sub=
mitted their signed application cards, and renewed their demand for
exclusive recognition.
On March 9, 1939, the Association presented to the respondent a
petition signed by 356 employees which reads in part as follows :
We, the undersigned members of The Heintz Employees' Pro-
tective Association, present this petition, requesting that the Man-
agement recognize our Association as the collective bargaining
agency, for the Employees of this plant .. .
At this time the respondent employed approximately 390 persons,
exclusive of supervisory employees. By letters dated March 22 and
March 27, 1939, the Association again demanded that it be recognized
as the exclusive bargaining agent of the respondent's employees. On
March 29, 1939, the respondent granted the Association recognition
"as the sole collective bargaining agency for all of its employees."
It is contended that Frederick Nixdorf and Anthony Bernard, who
engaged in activity on behalf of the Association, and Ernest Cook,"
who allegedly made -statements tending to encourage membership in
the Association, represented management in such conduct. We can-
not agree with this contention. 'These three employees, designated as
working leaders, are experienced workmen who come under the super-
vision of the foremen and assistant foremen and for the most part
perform manual labor themselves. The-record discloses that Bernard
and Cook, while employed as working leaders, were members of the
Federal Union. We do not find that the respondent can be held
responsible for Nixdorf's, Bernard's,.or Cook's acts with regard to the
Association, since none of them held a supervisory position or other-
wise represented the respondent in its dealings with its employees.
We find that the respondent has not dominated or interfered with
the formation or administration of the Association, 'or contributed
Named in the complaint as Ernest Koch.
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1017
support to it. We further find that the respondent has not interfered
with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union #18454, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, and Heintz Employees'
Protective Association are labor organizations, within the meaning of
J Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The operations of the respondent occur in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) or (2) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against the respondent, Heintz Manufacturing Company, Phil-
adelphia, Pennsylvania, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.