J. Greenebaum Tanning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 672 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. and UNITED SHOE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 29 (C. I. 0.)
Case No. C-1339.Decided July 19, 1940
Jurisdiction : tanning industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In general: responsibility of employer for acts of supervisory employee without
authority to hire or discharge.
Company-Dominated Union: formation after validation of Act of successor organ-
izations similar in structure to predecessor organizations; failure of employer
to sever its relationship with the successor organizations ; participation in
formation of: soliciting members ; contribution of support to : furnishing office
facilities ; meeting place; bulletin board ; permitting activity on company time ;
assistance in connection with picnic; recognition of, without proof of authority.
Arrangement conjoining check-off of union dues and group insurance
premiums on same authorization card held support to inside union. Where
union is allowed to administer group insurance benefits on policies in part
paid for by respondent, held support.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Remedial Orders: disestablishment of company-dominated unions; abrogation of
contracts; reimbursement of dues checked off.
Mr. Frederick P. Mett and Mr. Morris L. Forer, for the Board.
Lam from, Tighe, Engelhard di Peck, of Milwaukee, Wis., by Messrs.
Leon B. Lwnfrem, 'E. W. Peck, and Albert C. Heller, for the
respondent.
Mr. Florian W. Kern, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the T. E. B. A.
Mr. N. Paley Phillips, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the I. T. W. A.
Mr. Max E. Geline, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Levine cQ Schlesinger
of Washington, D. C., by Mr. Sidney C. Schlesinger, for Local 29.
Mr. Edward Scheunemann, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Shoe
Workers of America, Local 29, herein called Local' 29, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued its
complaint dated March 22, 1939, its amendments to the complaint dated
25 N. L. R. B, No. 75.
672
J. GREEI\TEBAUM TANNING CO. 673
March 29, 1939, and its amended complaint dated May 18, 1939, against
J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (2), 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 notices of hearing thereon,
were duly served upon the respondent, Local 29, Independent Tannery
Workers of America, herein called the I. T. W. A., and Tannery Em-
ployees Benefit Association, herein called the T. E. B. A. Copies of
the amendments to the complaint and of the amended complaint were
served upon all parties at the hearing. All parties waived further
notice.
The amended complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent:
(1) in its Plant No. 2, dominated, interfered with, and contributed
support to the formation and administration of Employees Benefit
Association of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, herein
called the E. B. A., and its successor the T. E. B. A.; (2) in its Plant
No. 3, dominated, interfered with, and contributed support to United
Workers' Mutual Benefit Association, herein called the U. W. M. B. A.,
and its successor the I. T. W. A.; (3) terminated the employment of
LeRoy Schulz because he joined and assisted Local 29 and opposed the
I. T. W. A.; and (4) by these and other acts, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On March 27, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the answer would be
deemed to deny also that the respondent had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the amended complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
from March 30 to May 5, 1939, inclusive, before Gustaf B. Erickson,'
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
On April 3, 1939, the Regional Director granted a motion filed by
the T. E. B. A. for permission to intervene. During the hearing the
Trial Examiner granted the I. T. W. A. permission to intervene. The
Board, the respondent, Local 29, the I. T. W. A., and the T. E. B. A.
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 on the issues was afforded all parties.
On April 20, 1939, when the Board rested its case, the Trial Examiner
granted the respondent's motion for a continuance to April 24, 1939.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number
of other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence . The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On August 2, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties . He found
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the
Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
these violations , disestablish and withdraw recognition from the
T. E. B. A . and the I. T. W. A ., reimburse its employees for dues
checked off from their wages for the E . B. A., the T. E. B. A., the
U. W. M. B. A., and the I. T. W. A., and reinstate LeRoy Schulz with
back pay.
On August 23, 1939, the respondent , and on August 29, 1939, the
T. E. B. A. and the I. T. W. A., respectively, filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. On November 1, 1939, the respondent filed
amended exceptions , and a brief.
On March 12 , 1940, pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before
the Board in Washington , D. C., for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent - and Local 29 appeared by counsel , but only the
respondent presented argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs , and, save as
the exceptions are consistent 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 RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent is an Illinois corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It owns and operates tan-
neries in Chicago and Milwaukee, and a sales agency in Massachusetts.
This proceeding involves only the Milwaukee plants, known respec-
tively as Plant No. 2 and Plant No. 3. The respondent employs an
average of 515 employees in Plant No . 2, and 293 employees in Plant
No. 3.
The respondent purchases annually materials valued at more than
$1.268,035 for use in Plant No. 2, and it obtains approximately 91
per cent in value of such materials outside the State of Wisconsin.
It manufactures annually in Plant No. 2 products valued in excess
of $2,202,397 , and it ships approximately 77 per cent in value of such
products to States other than Wisconsin.
The respondent purchases annually materials valued at more than
$587,418 for use in Plant No. 3, and it obtains approximately 88 per
cent in value of such materials from outside the State of Wisconsin.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 675
It manufactures annually in Plant No. 3 products valued in excess
of $1,206,863, and it ships approximately 83 per cent in value of such
products to States other than Wisconsin.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Shoe Workers of America, Local 29, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits
to membership employees of the respondent.
Employees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Company,
Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association, United Workers'
Mutual Benefit Association, and Independent Tannery Workers of
America are unaffiliated labor organizations. They admit to mem-
bership employees of the respondent.
.III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Plant No. 2
1. The E. B. A.
In January and February 1934 the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the A. F. of L., began to organize the employees of the
respondent.
On or about February 27, 1934, Edward Deicrich, an employee
known as a shaver, undertook to form the E. B. A. He circulated
among the employees a petition, addressed to the respondent, calling
attention to the fact that the National Industrial Recovery Act, herein
called the N. I. R. A., gave employees the right to choose their own
representatives for collective bargaining, and advising the respondent
that the undersigned employees did not believe in "outside" repre-
sentation. The petition requested that the respondent grant the peti-
tioners permission to solicit votes in the plant for bargaining repre-
sentatives, and furnish them with a meeting room in the respondent's
premises. Deidrich obtained 15 or 16 signatures to the petition and
submitted it to Lewis J. Greenebaum, vice president of the respondent
and manager of Plant No. 2. On March 1, 1934, Greenebaum notified
Deidrich that the requests contained in the petition had been granted,
and that a small room in the plant would be made available for the
use of the petitioners.'
On or about March 8 and 22, 1934, pursuant to permission granted
by the respondent, Deidrich conducted meetings of all the employees
on the fourth floor of the plant during the noon hour in order to
1 The room , which was separated from the superintendent 's office only by a glass parti-
tion, was used thereafter by the E. B. A as its office . In 1935 the respondent granted the
E. B A. the use of another room further removed from the superintendent 's office
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
explain the proposed organization to them. He advertised the -meet-
ings by notices posted on the respondent's bulletin boards. The
respondent, at Deidrich's request, furnished a stenographer to record
his speech at the first meeting. At both meetings, Deidrich circulated
petitions, which read : "We want inside representation in all our labor
and wage disputes. We hereby make application to become members
of E. B. A." He obtained approximately 400 signatures by circu-
lating the petitions in the plant at these meetings and on other
occasions.
Shortly after the second meeting Deidrich consulted with Attorney
Florian Kern in respect to completing the organization in order, as he
expressed it in his "biography," 2 "to safeguard against an invasion
of radicals in our plant." He referred thereby to the organization
campaign then being conducted by the A. F. of L.
Early in April Deidrich conducted a third meeting of the employees,
by permission of the respondent, in the splitting room during the
noon hour. Pursuant to Greenebaum's permission, Kern attended
and addressed this meeting. The employees present then voted to
form the E. B. A.
On April 24, 1934, after two short conferences, the respondent and
the E. B. A. entered into a contract. By its terms the respondent in
substance agreed to bargain with the E. B. A., to allow the E. B. A.
Shop Committee to inspect the factory, and to give the Shop Chairman
access to any department; and the E. B. A. recognized that the power
to discharge employees rested with the management. The parties
agreed further that there should be no "stoppages of work" and that
"matters in dispute" should be submitted to arbitrators, who had power
to hear appeals and to interpret and apply the terms of the agreement.
The contract contained no other terms with respect to wages, hours,
or conditions of employment.
On or about April 30, 1934,3 Deidrich conducted a fourth meeting
of the employees, again held in the splitting room during the noon
hour. The employees present elected Deidrich as Shop Chairman of
the new organization. They also adopted a form of application for
membership ,4 Articles of Association, and bylaws. Kern had previ-
2 Deidrich 's "biography " is a record of his activities on behalf of the E B. A, which
he wrote shortly after the formation of the E B A
3 The record does not establish the date of this meeting precisely . Deidrich ' s "biography"
lists the date as "4/30/34 ." The "4" is crossed out and the number "3" is inserted In
pencil It is clear , however , from his testimony concerning the chronology of the meetings,
and from the substance of his "biography," that the meeting was held on or about April 30,
1934 It should be noted that in other instances the dates listed in the biography are
inaccurate.
4 The application pledges the applicant to observe the "constitution and bylaws," au-
thorizes the respondent to check off dues from the pay check of the applicant, and binds
him to submit "differences " to the Shop Committee and Supreme Council. It is identical
with the application set out in Matter of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co . and National Leather
J. GREENEBAUNI TANNING CO. 677
ously drafted these documents. The Articles of Association provided
for a Supreme Council composed of four persons elected by the mem-
bership,5 and a Shop Committee composed of representatives from
each department in the plant. They also provided,, as did the contract
previously entered into, that the chairman of the Shop Committee 6
was to have access to any department in the plant. Thereafter, the
respondent appointed Deidrich inspector in the shaving department,
and allowed him to divide his time equally between his duties as
chairman of the E. B. A. Shop Committee and his duties as an inspec-
tor for the respondent. The respondent kept records of the time spent
by Deidrich in performing both jobs, but paid him only for the time
he worked as an inspector. During the time he worked for the E. B. A.,
the respondent allowed him complete freedom to move about the plant.?
Deidrich testified that some supervisory employees were undoubt-
edly present at this and the other meetings since the meetings were
held on the open floor and he "had no power to keep them away."
Only a few supervisory employees denied that they were present at
these meetings. We find that supervisory employees attended these
meetings of the E. B. A.
Peter Kimmel was the first president of the E. B. A. The record
does not disclose how or when he was elected, but the E. B. A. minute
books show that he acted as president at least from May 25, 1934,
to December 1936. He was classified by the respondent as a sorter,
and is the oldest employee in his department. Although he does not
have power to hire or discharge, he gives instructions to the head
splitters and to the inspectors of the shaving machines. He deter-
mines the quality and type of leather that should be processed on the
setting machines, and transmits orders from Greenebaum or Frank
Reilly, plant superintendent, to the foremen of the other departments.
He has power to reprimand Deidrich, Frank Holton, Harry Miller,
and other inspectors, and to send helpers home when work is slack or
to transfer them to other jobs. He has a call bell connected directly
with the office, he signs requisitions for tools from employees in the
Workers Ass'n, 11 N. L R B 300, enf'd as mod., National Labor Relations Board V. J.
Greenebamn Tanning Co ., 110 F. ( 2d) 984 ( C. C. A. 7 ), involving the respondent 's Chicago
plant.
6 The Supreme Council was "under a duty to call into their meetings four ( 4) members
of the management to discuss with them any problem winch may arise or may have been
submitted to it by the Shop Committee "
E Section 4 (a) of Article 4 provided that, "The chairman of the Shop Committee shall
not during the term of his service be employed by said company or ieceive any compensa-
tion from said company when said position is on a full -time basis . However , when said
position is on a part -time basis be may be employed by said company and be shall be
compensated as beieinafter provided in the bylaws, and upon former position with said
company "
4 Later, in November 1934, after the E B A. became inactive , as noted below, the
respondent again changed Deidrich 's duties and made him an inspector stationed directly
behind the shavers.
2S3030-42-vol 25-44'
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
splitting and shaving departments, aiid distributes pay checks on pay
day to 45 other employees in the department. He is paid on a weekly
basis, whereas the other employees in the department are paid on an
hourly or piece-work basis. After the N. I. R. A. went into effect,
his time card carried the designation "supervisor." We find that
he is a supervisory employee and that he represents the respondent.8
Shortly after the formation, of the E. B. A., the respondent at the
request of the E. B. A. took out a group health and accident insurance
policy for the benefit of employees who desired to be covered by it.
The respondent, pursuant to the E. B. A.'s request, agreed to pay half
of the premium. The other half was to be borne by the employees
insured under the policy. The group policy was used as a device for
promoting the E. B. A. Thus a booklet, in respect to the policy,
printed by the insurance company and distributed to the employees
contained a letter from the respondent to its employees reading in
part as follows :
In answer to a request from some of our employees and in
cooperation with the Employees Benefit Association of J. Green-
baum Tanning Company, Plant No. 2, the following Group Sick-
ness and Accident Insurance Plan has been arranged. . . . Our
hope is that every eligible employee will take immediate advantage
of this splendid opportunity.
The E. B. A. and the insurance company printed the following
authorization blanks :
I, the undersigned being a member of the Employees Benefit
Association of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2,
authorize the company to deduct from my weekly pay check Insur-
ance for Health and Accident and an additional 5 cents dues in
the Association. It is understood that the 5 cents dues will be
turned over to the Treasurer of the Association.
The respondent, after once refusing the E. B. A.'s request for a check-
off of dues, later agreed to, and did, check off the stated sums from
the wages of employees who signed these double-barrelled authoriza-
tion cards. The respondent also administered the policy in close asso-
ciation with the E. B. A. Don Schaber, Jr., secretary of the E. B. A.,
maintained in the E. B. A. office in the plant, records of check-off
authorizations, insurance claims, and benefit payments. Schaber fur-
nished to the respondent records upon which the respondent paid out
insurance benefits. Foremen, not eligible for membership in the
E. B. A., often secured their insurance through the E. B. A; Schaber
BInt'l Ass'n of Machinists , et al v National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d) 29
(C C. A, D C.), cert . granted , 60 S Ct. 721 , enf'g Matter of The Rerrich Coropration and
Int'l Union , United Automobile Workers of America, Local 459, 8 N L. R . B. 621.
J. GREENEBAUI/ TANNING CO. 679
kept their insurance records as well as those of other non-member
employees. The respondent canceled the original group policy in
1936, and obtained another from a different company, at Schaber's
request. The E. B. A. solicited employees to come within the group
policy. The intimate relationship between the respondent and the
E. B. A. in respect to the group policy is further revealed by the fact
that many of the employees believed that participation in the insur-
ance scheme hinged. on membership in the E. B. A. The respondent
took no effective means to advise the employees otherwise until April
16, 1937, when it posted a notice informing the employees that the
insurance was available to all employees.
In May 1934 the E. B. A. began making loans to its members. The
respondent agreed to check off from the earnings due E. B. A. mem-
bers, payments on the loans made by the E. B. A. to them. The records
of loans and payments made were kept by the respondent during the
borrower's employment with the respondent. The E. B. A. kept no
independent records of such transactions, relying instead on those of
the respondent.
On or about May 24, 1934, the E. B. A. requested a loan of $400
from the respondent to enable it to pay its attorney's fees. The re-
spondent granted the loan. The E. B. A. repaid it in two installments,
on January 4, 1935, and August 22, 1935.
During the summer of-1934 the E. B. A. requested that the respond-
ent furnish a picnic for its employees. The respondent granted the
request and 'furnished transportation and benches. The picnic was
open to all employees, but the officials in charge were all members of
E. B. A. and the posters announcing it were signed by the E. B. A.
In September 1934 the E. B. A. was practically disrupted by a strike
called by the A. F. of L. It held no meetings, and the respondent in
December 1934, discontinued the check-off of E. B. A. dues. Deidrich
obtained an increase in wage rates for some employees after the strike,
but did so without authorization from the E. B. A.
In December 1934 the E. B. A. again became active. Nelson Van
Luven, an inspector, was elected Shop Chairman succeeding Deidrich.
Peter Kimmel was reelected president of the Supreme Council. The
respondent resumed the check-off of dues and loans on January 5,
1935, and continued such check-off until July 3, 1937. There was no
change in respondent's relations with the E. B. A. after July 5, 1935,
the effective date of the Act. Kimmel and Van Luven continued as
its two most important officers.
In April or May 1936 the E. B. A. began a monthly shop newspaper
called the E. B. A. Viewpoint. It carried shop news, sporting items,
announcements of picnics and social affairs, and occasional- items
soliciting'su pport for the E. B. A. as opposed to the "two large affiliated
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizations." It was frequently distributed in the watchman's
shanty on the respondent's property. The E. B. A. Viewpoint was
edited by Don Schaber, secretary of the E. B. A. Kimmel and Addison
Silverthorn, foreman of the finishing department, were members of
the editorial staff, and their names appeared on the,masthead.
During the summer of 1936 the E. B. A. held another picnic. The
respondent furnished transportation again for the employees. The
picnic was open to all employees, but the E. B. A. Viewpoint and the
bulletin boards of the plant advertised it as the "E. B. A. picnic."
The August 1936 issue of the E. B. A. Viewpoint carried an expression
of the E. B. A.'s gratitude to the respondent for its aid in connection
with the picnic. The respondent made no attempt to differentiate its
support of the picnic from support of the E. B. A.
In the annual election of December 1936, conducted in the plant,
Deidrich was elected chairman of the Shop Committee, and George
Schulz, an employee, was elected to succeed Kimmel as president of
the Supreme Council.
In January 1937 Local 29 began a campaign to organize the respond-
ent's employees. It approached them by the use of sound trucks sta-
tioned outside the plant, and by the distribution of handbills and
literature announcing mass meetings.
At the April 29, 1937, meeting of the E. B. A., shortly after the
Supreme Court decisions affirming the constitutionality of the Act,
Kern was instructed to see that the E. B. A. bylaws and Articles of
Association conformed to the "labor laws." A motion was also made
that the E. B. A. apply to the State Labor Board and to the National
Labor Relations Board to be listed as an independent labor organiza-
tion, but no such action was taken. Kern reported back at the next
meeting that the E. B. A. conformed to the "labor laws." When the
Supreme Court decisions were made clear to Deidrich, however, he
decided that the.E. B. A. "did reek a little of company assistance" and
resolved to reorganize it. At about the same time, the respondent
informed Deidrich, through Frank Reilly, superintendent of Plant No.
2, that "every iota pertaining to the E. B. A." would have to be removed
from the plant, and that the respondent would no longer allow the
use of the plant for E. B. A. meetings.
2. The T. E. B. A.
Deidrich called a meeting at a place known as Listwan's Hall for
May 6, 1937, to inform the members of the E. B. A. of his desire to
reorganize the inside organization. He testified that at the meeting :
I believe I asked the Association and told them of my deciding
to change from E. B. A. to the T. E. B. A, because the E. B. A.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 681
was "of the J. Greenebaum Tanning Co.," so the Tannery Em-
ployees Benefit Association was all that was put on the second.
Q. And if you got that change of name, it would be all right,
wouldn't it?
A. Well, I do feel, that after knowing, then I felt that it reeked
a little of company domination, and to sever ourselves I conceived
the idea that I would make it open for other tannery employees
to enter if they so desired.
Deidrich obtained consent at this meeting to proceed with the
formation of the T. E. B. A.
The first meeting of the T. E. B. A. was held on June 5, 1937. The
minutes recite that Articles of Organization, prepared by Kern, were
adopted, that a motion was made and carried that the Shop Com-
mittee of the E. B. A. should become the Board of Directors of the
T. E. B. A., and that application cards for membership in the T. E.
B. A. were signed.
The Articles of Organization, referred to, changed the name of the
organization to Tannery Employees Benefit Association and expanded
the eligibility rules so that employees of any tannery could become
members thereof: No members were ever obtained from other tan-
neries. With the exception of the above-mentioned changes the Ar-
ticles of Organization are substantially the same as the E. B. A.
Articles of Association.
The T. E. B. A. functioned exactly as had the E. B. A. On June
10, 1937, the Board of Directors met and elected the members of the
Supreme Council of the E. B. A. as the officers of the T. E. B. A.
Lorraine Reimer, secretary of the T. E. B. A., continued the clerical
work of administering the group insurance. The check-off of dues,
which, as we have noted, was begun for the E. B. A., continued after
the T. E. B. A. was formed, until July 3,1937, when it was discontinued
by the respondent. The E. B. A. Viewpoint continued until September
1937, with the same editorial staff under the name of T. E: B. A. View-
point. The T. E. B. A., as had the E. B. A, used company bulletin
boards, and solicited membership and dues and distributed copies of
the organization newspaper on company property.
The E. B. A. had $414.68 in its treasury upon the formation of the
T. E. B. A. With this money the T. E. B. A. financed a picnic, held
on August 17, 1937. The respondent, by request of the T. E. B. A.,
paid for the transportation of employees to the picnic. All members
of the old E. B. A. received 10 free tickets which were good for beer
and refreshments. Other employees were required to buy their re-
freshments. What remained of the money in the treasury of the
E. B. A. after the picnic, was transferred to the T. E. B. A. The
E. B. A. officers continued in control of the T. E. B. A. The T. E. B. A.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
used minute and account books of the E. B. A. and received payments
on loans made by the E. B. A.
On July 6, 1937, 1 month after the T. E. B. A. had been formed,
it entered into an exclusive bargaining contract with the respondent
covering the employees in Plant No. 2. The testimony is in conflict
as to how much proof the respondent required that the T. E. B. A.
represented a majority of-the employees. Lorraine Reimer, the sec-
retary, testified that the membership cards were never out of her
possession and that she had not submitted them to the respondent.
She later testified that "it was possible" Deidrich submitted the cards
to the respondent without her knowledge. Deidrich testified that
he showed the cards to Arthur Duwe, clerk of the respondent, in
Greenebaum's presence, but that he would allow Duwe only to shuffle
through the cards without looking at any names.' The T. E. B. A.
at about this time had only 129 paid-up members. The record does
not disclose other designations of the T. E. B. A. The average number
of employees in the plant was 515. We find that the respondent entered
into the exclusive bargaining contract with little or no proof that the
T. E. B. A. represented a majority of the employees. Kern prepared
the contract from a synopsis given him by Deidrich. Thereafter it
was discussed at several committee meetings, held during the noon
hour, at which not more than 5 or 6 committeemen out of the 19 elected
were present. The membership was never given an opportunity to
make suggestions or to approve the provisions of the contract 10
Christ Schmidt, an employee, testified that in the spring of 1937
Christ Trieber, foreman of the hide house, summoned him to the fore-
man's desk, that a number of T. E. B. A. application cards lay on the
desk, and that Trieber requested him to sign one. William Starkell,
an employee, testified that Trieber also solicited him to join the
T. E. B. A. Trieber denied both incidents, and further denied that he
had ever heard of either the E. B. A. or the T. E. B. A. Since Schmidt
and Starkell gave credible and mutually corroborative testimony, and
since E. B. A. and T. E. B. A. activities had.been carried on so freely
about the plant that they could not have escaped Trieber's attention, we
do not credit his denial. We find that Trieber solicited membership
in the T. E. B. A. substantially as described by Schmidt and Starkell.
Martin Taussan, an employee, testified that in August 1937, Marcus
Cesarec, foreman of the beam house, told him during working hours
to "go see Ludwig" Cesarec, his brother, who was standing by Marcus'
° In the light of the testimony of the T. E B A. representatives showing that at best
the respondent made only a cursory examination of the membership cards, we do not credit
Duwe's testimony that he checked the names on the cards against the respondent's pay
roll.
10 Cf. Matter of J. Greenebauin Tanning Co . and National Leather Workers Ass'n, supra,
footnote 4.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 683
desk in the beam house; and that when he did, Ludwig ordered him to
sign one of the T. E. B. A. membership cards, winch were lying on the
desk. Although Marcus denied generally that he had discussed unions
with anyone or that he ever kept T. E. B. A. application cards on his
desk, he did not deny, specifically the events related by Taussan.
Ludwig Cesarec admitted soliciting Taussan's membership, and also
admitted that' he kept application cards on Marcus' desk during the
noon hour. We find that Marcus cooperated with Ludwig in soliciting
Taussan's membership.
William Marquardt, a witness called by the respondent, testified, and
we find, that Peter Kimmel, a supervisor and president of the E. B. A.,
asked him to become a member both of the E. B. A. and the T. E. B. A.
His testimony is undenied.
On or about March 22, 1938, Local 29 requested the respondent to
grant it bargaining rights. Nathan Garfield, the organizer, told Reilly
and Greenebaum that Local 29 represented' 250 employees. Leon Lam-
from, attorney for the respondent, requested that the Union furnish
"proof of a majority sufficient to convince them." Garfield replied that
the membership cards were in the possession of the national organiza-
tion, with which Local 29 was affiliated, but that he would be willing to
submit them to a representative of the National Labor Relations Board
to substantiate Local 29's claim-of a majority. Lamfrom volunteered,
instead, to make a personal investigation to determine whether Local 29
represented a majority. He called Duwe and Reilly, clerk and super-
intendent of the respondent respectively, into his office and asked them
whether Local 29 had a majority of the employees. They told him
"they didn't think so," and he thereupon informed Local 29 that its
bargaining request was denied:
The T. E. B. A. has held no general membership meetings since its
organization. Monthly meetings of the Board of Directors have been
held in taverns close to the gates of the respondent. All employees may
attend the meetings of the Board of Directors, but no more than 10 em-
ployees, aside from members of the Board of Directors, have ever
attended and few members of that Board attended regularly. Sub-
stantially all the activities of the T. E. B. A. in its relations with the
respondent have been handled by Deidrich alone without the advice
or knowledge of the general membership of the T. E. B. A.11 The
T. E. B. A. discontinued dues payments entirely because interest in the
organization had waned, and because insufficient dues were received
to continue benefit payments which the T. E. B. A. had begun to' pay
shortly after its formation.
n Cf. Matter of J. G-reenebauna Tanning Co. and National Leather Workers Ass'n, supra,
footnote 4.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Concluding findings
The E. B. A. was formed in February 1934, shortly after the com-
mencement of, and in opposition to, the A. F. of L. campaign. The
respondent immediately came to the assistance of the inside organiza-
tion by granting a petition that it might solicit memberships and con-
duct meetings, on company property. The respondent engaged in
further support of, and interference with, the E. B. A. by lending it the
services of a stenographer; arranging for Deidrich to work only half a
day for the respondent so that he could devote the remaining half to
the E. B. A.; authorizing Kern to speak at an E. B. A. meeting on com-
pany property; loaning money to the E. B. A.; assisting it in connection
with picnics; helping it to maintain loan records; permitting the use of
company property 12; and participating, through supervisory employ-
ees, in E. B. A. activity, including presidency of the E. B. A., member-
ship on the editorial board of the E. B. A. publication, and attendance
at E. B. A. meetings. The respondent acquiesced in a check-off ar-
rangement which conjoined affiliation with the E. B. A. and insurance
under the respondent's group policy, thereby fostering 'the impression
among the employees that insurance benefits, in part donated by the
respondent, were contingent upon membership in the E. B. A. The
respondent also fostered this impression and manifested its approval of
the E. B. A., by its letter to the employees reprinted in the insurance
company's booklet; and by partially delegating administration of the
group policy and payment of benefits thereunder, to the. E. B. A. In
view of these circumstances, the facts in respect to the group policy at
Plant No. 3 noted below, and the respondent's other support of the
E. B. A., we find that the respondent utilized its group insurance policy
as a further method of encouraging membership in the E. B. A.13
The respondent executed a contract which granted organizational
privileges to the E. B. A. This contract contained no provisions
concerning wages, hours, or other conditions of employment which
are normally subjects of collective bargaining, and it was executed
even before the E. B. A. had completed its formal organization.
Under these circumstances, we find that the respondent entered into
this contract with the E. B. A. for the purpose of lending it further
12 Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in April 1937, sustaining the constitu-
tionality of the Act, the respondent purported to withdraw from the E. B. A. authority
to use company property It recognized thereby that such authority constituted unlawful
support of the E B. A.
13i1tatter of International Harvester Co. and Local Union 57, Int'l Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America , 2 N. L R B 310, where we said in an analogous situation,
"The impropriety would hardly be more obvious if the respondent were to inaugurate the
practice of Christmas bonuses and allot them to the employee representatives for distribu-
tion" , Matter of Electric Boat Co. and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, Local No. 6, 7 N. L R. B. 572; Matter of Titan Metal Mfg. Co. and
Federal Labor Union No 19981, 5 N L. R. B . 577, enf'd, Titan Metal Mfg . Co. v. National
Labor Relations Boasd. 106 F ( 2d) 254 (C C A 3), cert denied , 308 U. S. 615
J. GREENEBAli_?\1 TANNING CO. 685
aid. Pursuant to this policy the respondent arranged the duties of
the Shop Chairman so that lie was free to conduct E. B. A. activity on
the respondent's property during working hours. In view of the
respondent's other acts of support to the E. B. A., we find that the
check-off of dues, while normally a legitimate method of collecting
union clues, was here used by the respondent in connection with the
group insurance, as another device for fostering and supporting the
E. B. A .
The respondent's assistance to the E. B. A. began before the effective
date of the Act.15 The respondent did not, upon or after the effective
date of the Act, notify the employees that the respondent had dis-
associated itself from the E. B. A. On the contrary, it continued to
support this organization formed in opposition to outside representa-
tion. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in April 1937
sustaining the constitutionality of the Act, Deidrich, the leading
E. B. A. official, admitted that the E. B. A. "did reek a little of com-
pany assistance." We find, upon the entire record, that the respond-
ent interfered with, supported, and dominated the formation and
administration of the E. B. A.
The T. E. B. A. and the E. B. A. are identical except in name. The
respondent did nothing to sever its relationship with the E. B. A.
and the T. E. B. A. The respondent thus interfered with, supported,
and dominated the formation and administration of the T. E. B. A . 16
Moreover, the respondent assisted the T. E. B. A. in connection with a
picnic, and through solicitation by supervisory employees and the
continued authorized use of company property by the intramural
organization. The respondent's recognition of the T. E. B. A. follow-
ing a cursory examination of its right to such status, as contrasted with
the respondent's refusal to recognize Local 29 after an arbitrary de-
termination of its membership claims, constitutes further support of
the T. E. B. A.
14 Matter of Clinton Cotton Mills and Local 2182, United Textile Workers of America,
1 N L. R. B. 97; Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United
Office and Professional Workers of America, No. 24, etc, 14 N. L R. B. 1045.
15 The E B. A. and the T. E B A. have had a continuous existence from February 1934
to date Consequently, although the respondent's conduct occurring prior to July 5, 1935,
the effective date of the Act, does not constitute unfair labor practices, such conduct deter-
mines the significance of the respondent's acts, occurring after the effective date of the
Act, and also' the character of the E B A. and the T. E B. A. National Labor Relations
Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et at, 303 U S 261, rev g, 98 F (2d) 178
(C C. A. 3), and enf'g, Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, Greyhound Manage-
ment Company, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R. B. 1.
16 Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. V. National Labor Relations Board, 112
F. (2d) 657 (C C A 2), enf'g as mod -Matter of Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing
Co and United Radio and -Machine Workers of Amerca, Local #410, 18 N L R B 300;
Kansas City Power and Light Co, a Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board and
Association of Employees of the Kansas City Power and Light Company, 111 F (2d) 340
(C. C. A. 8), enf'g, as mod. Matter of Kansas City Power d Light Co . and Int'l Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-412, 12 N. L. R. B. 1414.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered With
the formation and administration of the E. B. A. and the T. E. B. A.
and has contributed support to them; that by its aforesaid acts, the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Plant No. 3
1. The V. W. M. B. A.
The U. W. M. B. A. was formed in December 1934 following the
A. F. of L. strike referred to above. LeRoy Schulz '17 an employee,
circulated a petition among the employees of Plant No. 3 similar in
substance to the one circulated by Deidrich in Plant No. 2.18 He
obtained approximately 15 ' signatures, and, together with Joseph
Dambrea, another employee, submitted the petition to Fred Grom-
bacher, manager of Plant No. 3. Grombacher informed them that he
would take the matter up with an attorney. Thereafter, Schulz,
Dambrea, and three other employees requested Grombacher to recog-
nize the U. W. M. B. A. Grombacher told them that, so far as he
was concerned, the respondent was still operating under a settlement
which the respondent had concluded with the A. F. of L., following
the above-mentioned strike.
11 Schulz testified before the Wisconsin State Labor Board on November 3 and 30, 1937,
and January 19, 1938. Such testimony purpoited to show the legitimacy of the U. W.
M. B A and the I T. W. A. At the present hearing he testified that the testimony he
gave before the Wisconsin Board was false and that it was given because he feared that
if he told the truth the respondent would discharge him. During the hearing in the present
case, he testified for several days as a witness for the Board on direct examination and
for half a day under cross-examination by the respondent. He did not appear on April
10, 1939, for further cross-examination although he had been instructed by the Trial
Examiner to do so Attorneys for the Board visited his home and advised him to return
to the hearing He refused because, he claimed, Local 29 had not fulfilled a promise to
provide him with transportation to the hearing On April 11, 1939, the Board obtained a
subpoena from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
requiring him to appear at the hearing He complied with the subpoena and resumed his
testimony-under cross-examination on April 12, 1939. On April 10, 1939, and at the close
of the hearing, the respondent moved to strike his testimony. The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling thereon and denied the motions in his Interco-liate Report. He stated therein
that he would not rely on the testimony of Schulz exe"ut in so far as "it is corroborated
or is not denied by the credible testimony of witnesses for the respondent- and for the
intervenor." The respondent excepted to the ruling Since the respondent had adequate
opportunity to cross-examine Schulz on all his testimony, we conclude that the Trial
Examiner properly denied the respondent' s motion to strike. The fact that Schulz gave
false testimony before the Wisconsin Board does not, of course, preclude the possibility
that he testified truthfully in the present proceeding. Moreover, since the circumstances
concerning which he testified at both hearings were clearly within his knowledge, if
his testimony at the Wisconsin Board hearing purporting to show that the respondent did
not contribute support to the I T W A , is false, then necessarily his testimony in the
present case purporting to show that the respondent did contribute support to_the I. T.
W A must be true. We have taken into consideration his admission that he testified
falsely before the Wisconsin Board, his conduct at the present hearing, and any incon-
sistencies in his testimony, in evaluating the weight to be attached to it. ,
11 Schulz testified that he circulated the petition at the request of William Reimer, fore-
man, and Fred Grombacher, manager of Plant.No. 3. Reimer and Grombacher, in sub-
stance, denied this testimony We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 687
Dambrea and Schulz continued to solicit members for the U. W.
M. B. A. They also consulted, with an attorney in respect to formal
completion of its organization.
In February 1935 they decided they needed a competent secretary
and, therefore, requested Grombacher to reinstate Arbutus McGinn,
an employee who had been secretary of the A. F. of L. during the
strike and who had not been reinstated at its close. Grombacher
said he "would see," and 2 weeks later reinstated her pursuant to the
request.19 McGinn became active in the U. W. M. B. A. immediately
upon her return to the respondent's employ.
In May 1935 Schulz, Dambrea, and McGinn arranged for an organ-
ization meeting at a place known as the South Side Armory. McGinn
prepared the notices and presided at the meeting. By pre-arrange-
ment between the three organizers a motion was made and carried
that Schulz be elected president, Dambrea, vice president, and McGinn,
secretary-treasurer.
Thereafter department representatives of the intramural organiza-
tion were appointed by Schulz and Dambrea. Dues Were fixed at
$1.00 per month, and were collected by Schulz during working hours,
on the respondent's property. During the entire organizing period
Schulz was allowed great freedom in the plant to carry on his
organizing activities.
On December 9, 1935, the U. W. M. B. A. incorporated. The
Articles of Organization, prepared by Attorney Charles Higgins,
provide for a Board of Directors of 13 members, and 3 officers, elected
by such Board. The Directors, previously appointed by Dambrea
and Schulz, continued to hold office.
In February 1936 McGinn resigned as secretary, Schulz took her
place, and Dambrea became president.
In December 1936 Dambrea and Schulz had difficulty in collecting
sufficient dues to continue operation of the U. W. M. B. A. They
informed Grombacher of this stringency and told him the organiaztion
was "falling apart."
Shortly thereafter, in January 1937, the respondent, after first
refusing, agreed to a check-off arrangement with the U. W. M. B. A.
The respondent agreed further to take out a policy of group health
and accident insurance to cover employees in Plant No. 3. After
several conferences, in which representatives of the U. W. M. B. A.,
the respondent, and the insurance company participated, the insur-
ance company printed authorization forms which, like the cards
used at Plant No. 2, combined a check-off, from each signer's wages,
of 15 cents a week for health and accident insurance and 5 cents
11 Dambrea and Grombacher testified that they "didn't remember" this incident we find,
as did the Trial Examiner , that this incident described by Schulz , occurred as set forth
in the text.
Egg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for U. W. M. B. A. dues. The cards were distributed among em-
ployees by the foremen. Although an employee could obtain the
insurance without being a member of the U. W. `M. B. A., many,
employees were not so advised. There was a widespread impres-
sion among the employees that it was necessary to be a member of
the U. W. M. B. A. to be eligible for the insurance. The U. W.
M. B. A. used the group insurance as an organizing device. The
respondent began the check-off, pursuant to this arrangement, on
January 24, 1937, and continued it until July 31, 1937.
2. The I. T. W. A.
Early in 1937 Local 29 began an organizing campaign among the
respondent's employees, by the use of a sound truck stationed outside
the plant, and the distribution of handbills at the gate. In March
and May Local 29 held mass meetings in an attempt to organize the
respondent's employees. On June 25,20 at a meeting and party
described below, the I. T. W. A. was formed to succeed the
U. W. M. B. A.
We have adverted to the prominent part played by Schulz and
Dambrea in the U. W. M. B. A. They were also the leaders in the
formation of the I. T. W. A. Schulz testified and the Trial Examiner
found that the respondent gave them money in connection with this
organizational activity. We shall consider first a payment of $500
and then one of $150.
On June 17 Grombacher 21 handed Schulz $250 and received in re-
turn a demand note for that amount. Schulz testified, and Grom-
bacher, Dambrea, and Evelyn Neassen, Grombacher's secretary,
.denied, that Grombacher also gave Dambrea $250 in return for a
demand note at this time.22 Schulz testified further, and Grombacher
and Dambrea denied, that by this $500 payment Grombacier sought
to finance the formation of the I. T. W. A. and to reward Shulz
and Dambrea for their organizational activity.
Schulz testified in substantial detail to the circumstances surround-
ing the transaction, and his testimony concerning material circum-
stances is undisputed or is corroborated by other evidence. Thus,
Schulz's testimony that the purpose of the contribution was to
aid Schulz and Dambrea in forming a new organization to succeed
the U. W. M. B. A., is corroborated by the following: Schulz and
20 See infra, footnote 23.
21 There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Greenebaum was present during this
transaction . We do not and it necessary to resolve this conflict.
22 The respondent introduced in evidence a note for $250 signed by Dambrea on Feb-
ruary 3, 1937 The fact that Grombacher loaned money to Dambrea on February 3 Is,
of course , no proof that he did not also loan money to him on June 17.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 689:=
Dambrea did form a new organization succeeding the U. W. M. B. A.,
shortly after June 17, 1937,-the date of the contribution ; the first
entry in the books of the I. T. W. A. was-
July 1-Capital per loan ( Joseph Dambrea )________________ $130
July 1-Capital per loan ( LeRoy Schulz) ------------------- 130
and when Attorney Charles Higgins, who was making an audit of the
books asked Dambrea and Schulz in January 1938 to explain the
entries , both told him that the entries represented part of a sum
which they had borrowed from Grombacher and had advanced to the
I. T. W. A.; Higgins testified that Grombacher also told him that he
had loaned .money to Schulz and Dambrea, and that Higgins under-
stood Gr,_giihacher to mean that he made;a.loah to them in cotiiiectioii
with their desire "to get the Union started." Schulz's testimony that
Grombacher told him at the time he advanced the money that it was a
loan only in name is substantiated, in part at least, by the fact that
neither the respondent nor Grombacher attempted to secure payment
on the note until after January 1938, that is, after Schulz had failed
to win reelection as I. T. W. A. secretary and the respondent had laid
him off . Schulz's testimony that Grombacher's contribution amounted
to $500 in cash is corroborated by Grombacher's admission that he
withdrew, $600 in cash from the bank on June 16, and that he used
part of this sum to make the payment on June 17. Schulz testified,
further, that immediately upon receipt of the $500 from Grombacher,_
he and Dambrea deposited $260 in the bank, and divided between them
the remaining $240 in cash; and that shortly thereafter they drew upon
the $500 contribution to pay the expenses of the party which they
held on behalf of the I. T. W. A. on June 25. This testimony is
corroborated by the bank statements showing the deposit by Schulz
and Dambrea jointly of $260 on June 17, by Dambrea's admission
that such a deposit was made, by the holding of the party referred
to by Schulz on June .2 3, by the fact that Schulz and Dambrea each
spent between $50 and $100 in cash at the party to defray some of
its expenses , and by Schulz's undenied testimony that the other ex-
penses were paid from the joint account opened on June 17.
Moreover, Grombacher and Dambrea offered incredible testimony in
support of their denials. Thus, Grombacher at first testified, con-
cerning his contention that he made only one loam to Dambrea-in
February 1937-that he obtained the money which he loaned to
Dambrea from a safety deposit box in his wife's name at a local bank;
then returned to the stand to testify that he obtained it from his wife
23 The respondent first stipulated at the hearing that the party was held on June 25.
Later, to rebut the testimony that the loan was made before the party , it produced wit-
nesses to show that the party was held in May In view of the stipulation , and the testa'
mony of Myron Polinski , the owner of the hall in which the party was held, taken by
deposition after the heating, we find that the party was held on June 25, 1937.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who kept it at home without his knowledge. Neither Grombacher
nor his wife kept a safety deposit box at this bank in February 1937.
He attempted to explain his withdrawal of $600 in cash from the
bank at the time of the loan to Schulz on the ground that his wife,
who ordinarily went to the bank to make deposits and withdrawals,
was away from the city, and that he did not wish to make repeated
trips to the bank for money curing his wife's absence. The explana-
tion is not credible in view of his subsequent admission that he made
deposits at the bank during the same period. Dainbrea's assertion,
that he thought the $260 with which he and Schulz opened a joint
banking account in their own names on June 17, 1937, was money
belonging to the U. W. M. B. A. which Schulz had in his custody, is
belied by the fact that he knew that the U. W. Al. B. A. was having
great difficulty in collecting any substantial sum in dues,24 and also
by the fact that be knew that the U. W. M. B. A. had had its own
banking accounts under its own name.
Dambrea testified that he was able to advance from $50 to $100 in
cash at the party on June 25; and that, although he had not expected
to advance any money at the party, he nevertheless had such a sub-
stantial sum on his person, because he had won $75 in a game of
dice several days before the party and he expected to play again at
the party. We are not impressed by this claim of fortuitous coinci-
dence. Moreover, we do not believe that Dambrea' would donate his
"own money to the I. T. W. A., in view of his individual financial
problems,25 his previous complaint concerning the status of the union's
treasury, and the fact that it was in arrears on his salary payments.
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Trial Examiner's find-
ing, and the respondent's other support of the inside organizations
at Plant No. 2 and Plant No. 3, we find that Grombacher paid money
to Schulz and Dambrea on June 17, 1937, in connection with their
organizational activity. This conclusion is reinforced by a consid-
eration of the $150 payment.
Greenebaum gave Schulz and Dambrea each $75 as a gift.211 Schulz
testified in substance that he told Greenebaum that "they were entitled
24 The respondent , in an attempt to show that Schulz borrowed the money to replace
U. W Al . B A funds which he had used personally , called some witnesses who testified
that Schulz had assured them the U . W M B A had a substantial sum of money. Schulz
denied making such statements , and the complaints of Dambrea and Schulz to Grombacher
concerning ' the lack of dues , the testimony showing the difficulty U W. M. B A. had in
meeting its expenses , and the records of dues payments , even after the check - off was
instituted, show clearly that the I T. W. A did not possess a substantial sum of money
collected from its own members
25 His loan from Grombacher in February 1937 will be recalled in this connection.
21 Schulz testified that the payment was made on June 26. the day after the I. T W. A
was formed . Dambrea testified that lie did not remember the date of the payment . Greene-
baum also testified to this effect at first, then returned to the stand to claim that the pay-
ment occurred in March . We need not resolve this conflict as to the date upon which
Greenebaum gave Schulz and Dambrea the $150
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 691
to something for their work" on behalf of the inside organization, and
that Greenebaum, agreeing thereto, paid them the $150. Dambrea
asserted at the hearing that he did not know why Greenebaum gave
them the money.'? Greenebaum, while admitting the gift, sought to
explain it on the ground that Schulz had claimed to be in need of
money. The Trial Examiner did not credit this defense. Schulz's
alleged financial embarrassment does not appear to be an adequate
motive for an outright gift of $75 by Greenebaum to him. -Certainly
it does not explain why Greenebaum should have,given $75 to Dam-
brea. On the other hand, the respondent's stake in the intramural
organization provides an entirely adequate inducement for its payment
of $150 to the leaders of that organization. In view of these consid-
erations and the other circumstances disclosed by the record, we find
that Greenebaum gave Schulz and Dambrea the $150 because of their
organizational activity.
The I. T. W. A. was formed at the meeting and party held on June
25, 1937. Dambrea presided at the meeting. Charles Higgins, attor-
ney for the U. W. M. B. A., read amendments to the Articles of Organi-
zation of the U. W. M. B. A. By these amendments, the organization
changed its name and expanded its eligibility rules so that employees
of any tannery could become members thereof. The amendments were
adopted. Here, as with the T. E. B. A., no members were ever ob-
tained from other tanneries. The meeting was followed by a stag
party for the men, at which sandwiches, beer, whiskey, and entertain-
ment were provided. A separate dinner, in charge of Clara Farina,
who aided Dambrea and Schulz in planning the I. T. W. A., was held
for the women employees. The stag and dinner cost approximately
$260. As indicated above, this money came from the $500 which
Dambrea and Schulz received from Grombacher on June 17.
zz Dambrea testified as follows in this connection :
Q Now will you try to recollect just what the discussion was between Mr Schulz
and Air. Gieenebaum that led up to the giving of $75 00 to each of you by AIT.
Greenebaum ?
A. I don't know I know it was something about work there. I don't know if we
were on shorter time at the time. I don't remember what that was. I know it had
something to do with the work. I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't know
what it was.
Q Now can't you tell us why you received the $75 00 from Air. Greenebaum along
with Schulz9
A No No, I don't know. I can't recall what was said there
Q What time of the day was that you and Schulz set out to go to the north side
plant on the day you received the $75 00 from Air Greenebaum? -
A. I am not sure whether it was just a little before noon oi-because we aiiived,
I am not sure whether it was just before noon or right after noon . I don't know.
I don't remember that.
Q Where did you start from?
A I think it was-that I am not sure of that either. I don't know whether we
went home and changed clothes and then called Mr Schulz, I think. I don ' t know.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter the I. T. W. A. continued to function in the same manner
and with the same officers as the U. W. M. B. A. The respondent con-
tinued the check-off until July 31, 1937. Without requiring that new
authorization cards be signed, it turned over to the officers of the
I. T. W. A. the money thus deducted from employees' wages.
Dambrea testified without contradiction that the I. T. W. A. was
formed because the Supreme Court had sustained the constitutionality
of the Act, because employees were criticizing the U. W. M. B. A.
"company union," and because its financial condition did not permit
continued benefit payment to its members which it had begun shortly
after its formation. He testified before the Wisconsin State Labor
Board, and reaffirmed this testimony at the hearing in the present case,
that-
there was no difference [between the U. W. M. B. A. and the
I. T. W. A.] that I know of. It was still the same. We had the
same bargaining, only we didn't want to be known as a company'
union or to be called a company union.
On July 27, 1937, a month after the I. T. W. A. was organized, the
respondent signed a contract, at the request of Attorney Higgins,
recognizing the I. T. W. A. as exclusive bargaining agency at Plant
No. 3. The contract, which provided inter alia for a 45-hour week
and an 8-hour day, time and one-half for overtime, minimum rates
for piece work, a 5-per cent general wage increase, specified holidays,
and arbitration of grievances, was signed after very short preliminary
conferences between Higgins, Grombacher, and Dambrea. The record
does not disclose that the respondent asked for, or that the I. T. W. A.
offered, any proof that the I. T. W. A. represented a majority of the
employees. There was no discussion of the terms of the contract
among the members of the Board of Directors of the I. T. W. A.
The members of the I. T. W. A. were given no opportunity to discuss
in any way the terms of employment which they desired to have incor-
porated in the contract, or to criticize the contract prior to its adoption.
Schulz, who signed the contract, knew nothing of its terms or of the
alleged negotiations which preceded its execution.28
In August the I. T. W. A., through Dambrea, requested that the
respondent finance a picnic for the employees. Grombacher agreed.
The picnic, although open to all employees, was advertised in the name
of the I. T. W. A. The picnic was planned and administered by com-
mittees which were appointed by Grombacher. They consisted of the
most prominent I. T. W. A. members, including Dambrea and Schulz.
Dambrea used the opportunity provided by the picnic to enroll new
members in the I. T. W. A.
28 Cf Matter of J G) eenebaum TanntnC Co and National Leather Workers Ass 'n, supra,
footnote 4
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 693
On March 22, 1938, Local 29 requested, and was denied, bargaining
rights from the respondent under. the circumstances which we -set
forth in discussing the events at Plant No. 2.
During 1938 interest in the I. T. W. A. waned. Seventy-five per cent
of the members were in arrears in paying dues. In January, 1939
.the Board of Directors decided, accordingly, to wipe out all arrears
and to begin anew the collection of dues.
3. Concluding findings
The U. W. M. B. A. was formed following a strike' conducted by the
A. F. of L. The respondent assisted the U. W. M. B. A. prior to the
effective date of the Act 29 by reinstating McGinn, and by permitting
the. U. W. M. B. A. to engage in organizational activity on company
1 ime and, property. The respondent did not disassociate itself from
the inside organization on or after the effective date of the Act. On
the contrary, the respondent contributed further support to it through
the group insurance plan and the check-off.30 The I. T. W. A. and-the
U. W. M. B. A. are identical organizations, except in name. The re-
spondent'did'nothiiig to sever its relationship with the U. W. M. B. A.
and the I.I. W. A.31 Instead, it gave Schulz aid ' Darnbrea' money
in connection with' their activity on behalf of the U. W. M: B. A. and
the I. T. W. A., and contributed further assistance to the -I. T: W. A.
in conducting its picnic. The above=mentioned facts, in connection
with the respondent's execution, of an exclusive- recognition contract
with the I. T. W. A. and its refusal to bargain with Local 29 under
the circumstances hereinabove set.forth, also-demonstrate-the unlawful
relationship obtaining between the respondent and the I. T. W. A.
We find that the' respondent has dominated and interfered' with
,the formation and administration of the U. W. M. B. A. and the
I.f"T. W. A. and has contributed financial and other support to them;
that by its aforesaid acts, the respondent has, interfered with, re-
strained,'aiid coerced its employees in the exercise of:rights guaranteed
in'Section 7 of the Act. . ,
C. LeRoy Schulz
The complaint alleged and the answer denied that the respondent
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy
Schulz. The Trial Examiner found that it had so discriminated and
the respondent takes exception thereto.
'Schulz was laid 'off on January 25, 1938. The respondent contends
'that it laid'him off because work was slack in the Quirin presses, which
29 'See supra, footnote 15.
30 See supra , footnote 14.
ffi See supra , footnote 16
2830 ' 6r-42-vol 25--45
694 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Schulz operated, and that it has since hired no one in his place. The
record supports the respondent's contention.
Approximately ^O employees were laid off or discharged early, in
1938 because of decreased production at the respondent's plant. Ten'
employees in the department in which Schulz worked were laid off.
Nine of them have since been reinstated as production increased.
Schulz has not been replaced. No one else is operating the machine
upon which he worked before he was laid off. He had less plant
seniority, and may have had less departmental seniority, than the nine
employees, who were reinstated.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the record does not
support the allegations-of the complaint that the respondent discrim-
inated in, regard. to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy
Schulz, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
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, 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
Since we have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom;-and'
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
We have found that the respondent dominated find interfered with
the formation and administration of the E. B. A., the T. E. B. A.,
the U. W. Al. B. A., and the'I. T. W. A., and contributed support to
them. Their continued existence is a consequence of violation of the
Act thwarting the purposes of the Act. In order to effectuate the
policies of the Act and to free the employees of the respondent from
such domination and interference, and the effects thereof, which con-
stitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the
rights guaranteed in the Act, we shall order the respondent to with-
draw all recognition from the E. B. A., the T. E. B. A.; the U. W. Al.
B. A., and the I. T. W: A., as respresentatives of any of its employees
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and to disestablish the E. B. A., the T. E.
B. A., the U. W. Al. B. A.. and the I. T. W. A. as such representatives.
J. GREENEBAUAI TANNII\TG CO. 695
Since the agreements between the respondent and the T. E. B. A. and
the I. T. W. A., respectively, embody recognition of the T. E. B. A.,
and the I. T. W. A.,. as exclusive representatives,' and since these
contracts and the contract with the E. B. A. represent the fruits of
the respondent's unfair labor practices and devices by which to per-
petuate their effects, we shall order the respondent specifically to cease
and desist giving effect to these or any other agreements it may have
entered into with the E. B. A., the T. E. B. A., or the I. T. W. A. in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of work.
The respondent, as we have noted above, deducted 5 cents per week
from the wages of employees who were members of the E B. A., the
T. E. B. A., the U. W. M. B. A., and the I. T. W. A. as dues for those
organizations. This check-off was a device utilized by the respondent
to insure the perpetuation of the results of its unfair labor practices,
namely, the prevention of the self-organization of its employees by
fostering and supporting these company-dominated organizations as
a buffer and an obstacle to self-organization. By use of the check-off,
the employees leave devoted part of their wages for the maintenance of
the very instrumentality which frustrates them in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in the Act and which thwarts the purposes
of the Act. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we will
order the respondent to reimburse its employees for amounts deducted
from their wages as dues for the above-named labor organizations
since July 5, 1935, the effective date of the Act.32
The evidence does not support the allegation of the complaint that
the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of LeRoy Schulz. We shall dismiss this part of the
complaint.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact'and' upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Shoe Workers of America , Local 29, ( C. I. 0.), Employees
Benefit Association of J., Greenebaum Tanning Co ., Plant No. 2,
Tannery Employees Benefit Association , United Workers' Mutual
Benefit Association and Independent Tannery Workers of America
are labor organizations , within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of Em-
ployees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No.
38 Matter of The Helier Brothers Co. of Newcomerstown and Int 'l Brotherhood of Black-
smiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L R B. 646; Matter of The Western Union
Telegraph Company, a corporation , and American Commumcatsons Association , 17 N. L.
R B 34
696" DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2, and `United Workers'- Mutual Benefit Association, and the forina:
tion and• administration of'Tiirinery Employees Benefit Associationl'
and Independent' Tannery Workers of America, and,by contributing
financial'and' other support to them, the respondent has engaged in"
and• is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By, interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor, practices, within'
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair' labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of,
the Act.
5. The respondent, ' by terminating the employment ' of LeRoy'
Schulz, did not engage in' unfair labor practices within the; meaning'
of Section 8 (3) of the Act:
ORDER
,Upon.tlie basis of the foregoing, findings of fact and conclusions pfd
law, and-pursuant to Section 10 (c), of the National Labor Relations
Act,. the National Labor ,Relations Board .hereby orders that the re ^,
spondent, ,J. ,;Greenebaum , Tanning Co.,. and , its officers, agents,)
successors,,and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
a) , Dominating, or, interfering with the a chnii,istration 'of Em-
ployees Benefit, Association of J. Greenbaum Tanning Co., Plant No.i
2, Tannery, Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual
Benefit Association or Independent Tannery Workers of America, or,
with •the,formation, or administration of any, other,.,labor organization
of its employees, and-contributing financial or other silpport; to ,Em, ,
ployees Benefit Association of J. Gr'enebaum Tanning Co,, Plant No.
2, Tannery Employees Benefit Assoc:ation, United Workers' Mutual
Benefit Association or Independent Tannery Workers of America,
or any other labor, organization of its employees;
'(b) 'Recognizing Employees Benefit Association of J. Greenbaum,
Tanniiig Plant, No. 9I Taiuiery Employees Benefit 'Association,
United''orkers' 1'Iutual Beiiefit Association, or Independent Tannery
Worllers of"Ainerica, as the representative of any of its'employees'
for,the purpose of dea}ling with the respondent concerning grievances,'
labor disputes, -,-ages,, rates of pay, hour's' of employment, 'or
conditions of work;
(c) Giving,, effect, to, any agreement, with, the, Employees Benefit
Association' of J."Gree`nebaum' Tanning Co:,. Plant No . 2, Tanner.
Em, p̂loyYees Beiiefit Association or' IndePeiident Tannery y Workers ol','',
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. 697
America in respect to wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage iri concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Employees Benefit Association
.,of -J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees
Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association and
Independent Tannery Workers of America, 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 conditions of work, and completely disestablish Em-
ployees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Plant No.
Tannery Employees Benefit Association, United Workers' Mutual
Benefit Association and Independent Tannery Workers of America,
%as such representatives; ,
(b) Reimburse, individually and in full, all employees who were or
`still are, members of Employees Benefit Association of J. Greenebaum
Tanning Co., Plant No. 2, Tannery Employees Benefit Association,
;United Workers' Mutual Benefit Association or Independent Tannery
Workers of America, for the dues, if any, which it has deducted from
their wages, salaries, or other earnings on behalf of the above-named
organizations since July 5, 1935;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
Plant No. 2, and Plant No. 3, and maintain such notices for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent
will, not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a); (b), (c), and (d) aboye, and that it will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2T (a)' and (b)-, of
this,, order;
(d) 'Notify the Regional ' Director; for the' Twelfth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days,from the date of, this Order what, steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith. '
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,, and it hereby. is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of LeRoy Schulz.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the con sideration of the
above Decision and Order.