L. H. Hamel Leather Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 760 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

-In the Matter of L. H. HAMEL LEATHER Co. and INTERNATIONAL FUR
AND LEATHER WORKERS OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA (CIO)
Case No. C-9290.-Decided November 26, 1942
-Jurisdiction : leather manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: disparagement, interrogation, and intimi-
dation by official and supervisory employees.
-Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair'labor practices
Practice and Procedure: settlement agreement entered into in bad faith and fol-
lowed by further violations of the Act, held of no effect.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 1, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his ^ Intermediate
-Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that, the respond-
ent had engagecl in acid was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate
-Report attached hereto. The respondent has not excepted to the
findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 Intermediate Re-
port and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner ex-
cept in the respects noted below.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the, exercise of the
:rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The evidence has estab-
lished and the Trial Examiner has found that the respondent has
violated the Act through the following conduct :
(a) By, statements of Superintendent Lawson, Foreman Hardi-
man, and Foreman Paul in October, 1940, to certain of its employees.
(b) By statements of the respondent's treasurer, Louis H. Hamel,
in a letter sent to its employees dated November 15, 1940.
45 N. L. R. B., No. 113.
760
L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 761-
" (c) By statements made by said Hamel in November 1940 to-
employees of-the respondent in certain departmental meetings called
at his direction.
(d) By statements made by said Hamel on October 14, •1941, to,
certain employees of the respondent at a meeting called at his.
direction. " ' '
Since the respondent, by its conduct of October 14, 1941, as de-
scribed in 1 (d) above, violated the Act subsequent to the settlement
made between the Board and the respondent in July 1941, respecting-
charges previously filed against the respondent' ' and pursuant to.
which settlement the respondent sent its letter of July 15, 1941, to-
its employees, in accordance with our established practice, the settle-
ment agreement is disregarded and the respondent's entire course of'
conduct both before and after the settlement must be considered.2
This course of conduct, as found by the Trial Examiner, constitutes
interference with, restraint, and coercion of the employees in the
exercise of the rights 'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Furthermore, the respondent by sending to its supervisory em-
ployees the letter dated July 15, 1941, in which, in effect, inter ilia,
the respondent directed them to continue their prior acts of inter-
ference and to disregard the letter of the same date, which it, sent to
the employees pursuant to the settlement above-mentioned, evidenced
such absence of good faith on the part of the respondent in entering-
into-said settlement, as to constitute in itself, sufficient ground for
disregarding the settlement.3
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 respondent, L. H. Hamel Leather Co.,
Haverhill, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
sh all : . "
1. Cease 'and desist fr"oln'in-anylnaniier interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the right to self-organization; to
form, join, or assist labor organizations; to bargain collectively
i On January 21, 1941, based in part upon conduct of the respondent involved herein ;
amended charges were filed on March 7, 1941, and May 3, 1941.
2 Matter of Corinth Hosiery Malls, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
16 N. L. R B 414, 426; Matter of Chamber, Corporation, and Ailaed Stove Mounters and
Stove Processors International Union, Local No. 36 (A F. of L ), 21 N L R. B. 808, 820;
Matter of Hawk and Buck Company, Inc. and United Garment Workers of America, Local
No. 229, 25 N. L. R. B 837, 842, 852 -
3 Matter of Marks Products Co , Inc. and Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, A. F. L, 35 N. L. R. B 1262, 1290 See also Matter of Sussex Dye & Print
Works, Inc., and Bernard R Armour and Federation of Dyers, Finishers, Printers and
Bleachers of America; 34 N. L R B 625, 647.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through representatives off their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activitie-s'for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or 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) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in
-Haverhill, Massachusetts, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
,(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees,
stliting that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is herein ordered to cease and desist; -
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston,
Massachusetts) within ten (10)- days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. William S Gordon, for the Board.
Mr. John J Ryan, Jr., of Haverhill, Mass., for the respondent.
Mr. Samuel Angoff, of Boston , Mass., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge' duly filed May 26, 1942, by International Fur
and Leather Workers of United States and Canada, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated June 10, 1942,
against L. H Hamel Leather Co., herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint and the amended charge accompanied by notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondent and the'Unioi. -
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) from about October 16, 1940, to the date of the com-
plaint, interrogated its employees as to their union activities, threatened to
cease operations at the plant or to discontinue part of such operations if the
Union was successful in organizing the plant, urged its employees to refrain
from joining the Union and to relinquish their membership in the Union,
uttered coercive and intimidatory statements to the employees singly and in
groups, and criticized the Union and its leaders; (2) on or about November
15, 1940, sent to substantially all of its employees a letter disparaging the
Union; (3) in or about October 1941, summoned certain employees to the
respondent's main office, interrogated them as to their union activities, urged
them to repudiate the Union, and made to them coercive and intimidatory
statements ; and (4) • by the foregoing acts, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the,Act. Thereafter the respondent filed an answer in which it denied
having engaged in any alleged unfair labor' practices, and additionally 'averred
in the nature of an affirmative defense,- that the charge filed with respect to
the November 15 letter, was by agreement with the Board, dismissed without
prejudice.
The original charge was filed with the Board on November 28, 1941.
L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 763
- Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on June 25 and 26, 1942, at Haverhill,
Massachusetts, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on°the issues was afforded all.parties At the-close of,the,hearing, the
undersigned, without objection, granted a motion by counsel for the Board to
amend the complaint to conform with the proof, as to minor particulars. No
oral argument was made by the parties. A memorandum brief was submitted
by counsel for the respondent.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observations of the witnesses, the
undersigned, in addition to the foregoing, makes the. following ;
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
L. H. Hamel Leather Co 'is a Massachusetts corporation, having its office and
place of business in Haverhill, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale and distribution of kid linings and other leather products.
'Respondent purchases annually raw materials-skins, chemicals and dyes-
valued at approximately one million dollars. Of these, approximately 95 percent
in value is transported through the channels of interstate commerce to the
respondent's plant, from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The respondent manufactures annually finished products-kid linings, sheep lin-
ings, and coat leathers-valued at approximately $1,500,000. Of these, approxi-
mately 95 percent in value is transported from the respondent's plant, through
the channels of interstate commerce to points outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Respondent admits that its business operations affect interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act. The respondent normally employs
approximately 500 persons in its plant.
11 THE ORGANIZATION INVOL\ED
International Fur and Leather Workers of United States and Canada, affil-
iated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coei cioa
During the fall of 1940, an organizational campaign among the respondent's"
employees was begun by the Union by the distribution of leaflets and by the
enrollment as members of a number of the employees. The respondent asserts
that the conduct of the Union in connection with' its membership drive was
improper ; that it bothered the employees by calling at their homes ; that it
resorted 'to misrepresentation concerning the strength of the Union ; and that
it made misleading statements-concerning the employees' rights under the Act.
The respondent, therefore, in order that its employees might not be deceived or
misled in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, on November 15, 1940,
sent a letter to all its employees and called departmental meetings for -the
purpose of pointing out to its employees "certain facts and truths" which fall
within the realm of legitimate comment and expression of opinion. The respond-
ent further asserts that on July 15, 1941, at the request of the Board and in
settlement of certain alleged unfair labor practices it sent a letter to its em-
ployees explaining to them their rights under the Act.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Contemporaneously with this campaign of the Union to organize the respond-
ent's employees, the respondent's officials and its supervisors evidenced their
hostility to the Union, by making anti-union statements to the respondent's
employees singly and in groups and by threatening to shut down the plant if
the employees joined the Union or continued to support it. The respondent's
attitude clearly was that the organizational activities of the Union was a chal-
lenge for a contest between itself and the Union On this basis the respondent
proceeded.
In October 1940 for the purpose of combating the effects of the Union's cam-
paign, several of the respondent's agents interfered in the organizational activi-
ties of the Union. Joseph Dobrowolski, a fleshing machine operator in the coat
leather department and a member of the Union, testified that in the course of a
conveisation with Harold M. Lawson, respondent's superintendent, on the day
following Dobrowolski's application for membership in the Union, the former
asked him if he had attended a union meeting and joined the organization; and
told him that if there was anything unsatisfactory about his work to see Louis
Hamel, respondent's general manager ; that the Union would not be interested
in the men after they were organized; and if there was any trouble (with the
Union), the department would be discontinued. Lawson admitted that he had'
talked with Dobrowolski at that time, but denied that lie had said anything
about closing the department, and stated that he could not recall any conversa-
tion about the Union. Dobrowolski is not now in respondent's employ.
According to the testimony of John C. Wholley, an employee in the kid leather
department, Lawson called him away from his work on the day following his
application for membership in the Union and stated that the Union was trying
to organize the plant, and that if the Union's organizational campaign was suc-
cessful the coat leather department would close, "which might put a lot of fel-
lows out of a job." Wholley also testified that during this conversation Lawson
said, "I don't care whether you have signed a card or not. I thought I would'
relate to you just how things stand but think it over before you do and be sure
that you know what you are doing." Lawson admitted a conversation with
Wholley in which there was some discussion about problems in the coat leather
department as a new department, but testified that he had no recollection of any
reference being made to the Union. Wholley is not now in the employ of the
respondent, was an unwilling witness, and testified under the compulsion of a
subpena.
Dobrowolski also testified that his foreman, Thomas J Hardiman, asked Win
if he had attended a meeting of the Union and signed a card to join and then
mentioned to him that Hainel was very charitable, that anyone could talk with
him and that if there was any trouble with the union or any labor organization,.
the coat leather department would close Hardiman testified that he spoke
with Dobrowolski'and told him that he was holding up production by visiting the -
smoking room too frequently.
Wholley also testified that Chester S Paul, foreman of the "beam house" de-
partinent, approached him and warned hint to be careful about unions because
the employees who had been involved in the strike at the respondent's plant in
1933, were now in less desirable jobs elsewhere or with the W P A Desire
Comeau, a fleshing machine operator, testified that Paul had asked him whether
he had heard of a union meeting or had been approached by the organizer
Paul also advised Comeau that he did not believe in unions. Paul made no
specific denial of these conversations although he generally denied talking with
any of the employees about the Union.
L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO.^ '765-
Notwithstanding the respondent's contention that it instructed the supervisory
force to refrain' from interfering with the employees on' matters pertaining to
unions, Lawson, Hardiman, and Paul persisted in discussing the Union with
those.working under them. Lawson and Hardiman were unable to recall any
mention of the Union. They admitted, however, holding conversations on the
occasions referred to by Board's witnesses. Paul denied ever discussing the
Union with any of the employees. The circumstances reflected in the record do
not, however, lend credence to their testimony, while the respondent's anti-union
attitude as shown by Louis Hamel's activities described below, together with
the mutually consistent testimony of the Board's witnesses in some respects sup-
ported by the respondent's testimony , justifies the undersigned in finding' that
Lawson, -Hardiman, and Paul' made the statements attributed to them by
Dobrowolski, Wholley, sand Comeau. The foregoing, statemens show that the re-
spondent, through its agents, interfered with, restrained, and coerced the em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 15, 1940, during the Union's organizational campaign, Louis
Hamel sent to the employees of the respondent a letter reading as follows:
To Our Employees :
During the past few weeks, several of you have complained to me that
you were being bothered at your homes and in other places by certain indi-
viduals who were trying to induce you to allow them to represent you in
your dealings with this company. Because of this activity, I feel that out
of fairness to those who have already been approached as well as to those
who might possibly hereafter be approached, I should make my, position
clear. It seems particularly important to do so at this time'in view of the
fact that many false and misleading statements appear to have been made
to some of you by these outside individuals.
In addressing you now I prefer to speak not so much as the General Man-
ager of the L H. Hamel Leather Company, but rather as a friend, and
fellow worker. The great majority of you have rendered loyal service to
this company for many years and I consider all of you, irrespective of the
length of time you have been associated with the company, as my personal
friends. During the years that we have been associated together in this
business, you know that the most cordial spirit of friendship and cooperation
has always prevailed between us. Because of this rather unusual relation-
ship, I feel justified in speaking to you frankly and openly.
The single suggestion of trouble in the past twenty-five years since I
have been in business, came from those who had absolutely no connection,
with or interest in the company, its business or its employees and who, as a
matter of fact did not even belong here in Haverhill. Today again it would
seem that a group of strangers are once more at work hoping that they can
STIR UP TROUBLE among us solely for the purpose of PROMOTING
THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS.
I neither wish nor intend to influence any employee in any decision he
or she may feel called upon to make for his or her own best personal inter-
ests. However, I do feel it is my,duty to warn you against certain possible
consequences -
I only ask each one of you before you elect to place your jobs, your living
and perhaps your entire future in the hands of these strangers and TO
8 Lawson has for 13 years been the superintendent of the plant and Hardiman and Paul
for several years have been departmental foremen. The respondent admits that these indi-
viduals have complete supervisory authority. With respect to the acts of these three super-
visory employees the doctrine of respondeat superior applies, and the respondent is respon-
sible for their acts related,herein.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SURRENDER TO THEM RIGHTS YOU HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED,
that you stop and think and weigh the possible consequences most care-
fully. In all sincerity I ask you to consider the record and reputation of
your company for steady employment, fair wages and working conditions. If
you reflect upon it, you must realize that they are not excelled by any other
factory in the city and are equalled by few factories in the entire industry.
I realize as well as you perhaps, that during the period from the clatter
part of March until September of this year, due to conditions beyond any-
one's control, there have been certain interruptions in employment for some
of our employees which have been most unusual for our factory. I have
regretted this;as much' as anyone, and I am glad I can now say that this
temporary condition has been corrected and that there is to be put into
operation a plan which we hope will insure a regularity and continuity of
employment which will even exceed anything we have every enjoyed in the
past.
In the light of all these things, STOP and THINK. If you sign with these
individuals who do not belong in Haverhill and have no knowledge of this
factory or the working conditions, they have got you, but what have you
got? (Italics supplied) If you only think you must know that it is not
necessary to PAY SOME OUTSIDER every month for the privilege of work-
ing here. Can you believe that any group of outside men can do more for
you, than is being done right now? We, have never had to bargain'WITH
ANY OUTSIDERS against our own employees and we do not expect to
begin now.
It hardly seems necessary to remind you that as in the past, I am always
prepared'to discuss matters relating to our work with any employee or group
of employees at any time. The door of my office is always open to any one
of you. This freedom and close association between us has always been a
source of the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to me. I hope that it may
never be interrupted.
It is obvious from reading the capitalized parts of the letter by Hamel-STIR UP
TROUBLE . . . PROMOTING THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS .. . TO
SURRENDER TO THEM RIGHTS YOU HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED . . . STOP
AND THINK . . . PAY SOME OUTSIDER . . . [bargain] WITH ANY OUT-
SIDERS-that the letter was not intended to be a mere expression of opinion.
The foregoing letter appeals to the employees individually to renounce the Union's
leadership if they are to avoid-placing their future in the bands of "strangers,"
surrendering rights the respondent has permitted them to enjoy in the past, and
paying to "outsiders" for the privilege of working in the plant-the "consequences"
of union adherence. It also constituted a thinly veiled threat of unemployment as -
a penalty for continuing support to the Union, by referring to the interruption of
business in the past by strangers who,are interested only in their own selfish
interests.' The letter was an unequivocal notice to the employees to choose be-
tween employment with the respondent and membership in the Union.
- A few days after the employees had received the letter referred to above, Hamel
instructed the respondent's foremen to call departmental meetings of the employ-
a The only such interruption in the respondent's business was in 1933 during the strike,
and it is clear that it was the same incident referred to by Paul when he told Wholley that
employees involved in the 1933 strike had less desirable . Jobs or were with the W. P. A.
Louis Hamel , testified : " . . a lot of our people . . . had some very unsatisfactory es-
periences with this group back in 1933."
L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 767
ees throughout the entire plant.' These meetings, extending over a period of
four days, were addressed by Hamel, who testified, in substance, that he discussed
the statements contained in the letter of November 15, 1940, and in addition stated
enter alia that the employees could not be forced to join a union, that he could
not do business in Haverhill with the Union, and that the employees would. earn
less each year if the Union came in. Camille Comeau testified that Hamel stated
that he would go out of business before he would sign up with the Union. Hamel
also testified that during these meetings he displayed to the employees the Novem-
ber 1940 issue of the Union's newspaper "Fur and Leather Worker," which
contained on the first page an article referring to the reversal by the Circuit Court
of Appeals of the convictions of Ben Gold, international president of the Union,
and other officers of the Union, and stated to the employees that they were the
type of men who represented the Union, and asked whether the employees wanted
that kind of men to represent them. Champagne, Desire and Camille Comeau,
and Fournier, employees who attended the departmental meetings, testified that
,Hamel in his talk referred to Ben Gold and the union representatives as persons
having prison records. The undersigned credits the testimony of these employees.'
The respondent's contention that the letter of November 15 was sent to the
employees and the departmental meetings held because of numerous employee
complaints against the Union that had been received directly by Hamel and
through the various foremen is rejected. Hamel's testimony with respect to,
the number of complaints and the names of the persons complaining was most
indefinite and, even if accepted as true, there is no contention by the respondent
that the Union was using other than peaceful persuasive means to secure mem-
bership in the Union. The undersigned also rejects the respondent's contention
in its brief that Hamel's statements in the letter of November 15 and his talks
to the employees in the departmental meetings "fall within the realm of legitimate
comment and expression of opinion." Unquestionably, Hamel had the right
to state to the employees the respondent's position with respect to the mis-
representation of any facts involving the wages or working conditions in the
plant, but, in making anti-union statements at the same time in the guise of
such defense, he'clearly interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 28, 1941, the Union filed charges against the respondent with the
Regional Office of the Board, alleging a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
Following several conferences at the Regional Office, the respondent, on July 15,
1941, sent a letter to all of its employees, the text of which was proposed and
approved by the Regional Office. This letter contained the terms of Section 7
of the Act, and also the following paragraphs :
We have instructed our supervisory force that it is to maintain. a hands
off policy in the matter of labor organization. The question of whether
or not an employee of the L. H. Hamel Leather Company should join or not
join any labor organization is a matter solely for each employee to decide for
himself. The company does not intend to influence the decision of any em-
ployee in any manner whatsoever.
4 Hamel was extremely vague as to the respondent's custom of assembling Its employees
at departmental meetings. He could not recall whether it was once a year or once in five
years. 'Significantly, Foreman Paul said that he remembered only two such meetings
in the past, one being an outing of employees, and the other a credit union organizational
meeting held 8 or 9 years ago, and Foreman Hardiman stated that during the past 5 years
such meetings consisted of "outing committees "
° Several of the foremen attended the departmental meetings in which Hamel referred
to the union paper and type of individuals representing the Union, none of whom were
called by the respondent to refute the testimony of the Board' s witnesses that Hamel re-
ferred to the union representatives as persons with records. The testimony of the Board's
witnesses , several in number, was consistent and substantially similar.
'768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, no employee of this com-
pany will be discriminated against in any manner because of his member-
ship or non-membership in any labor organization, or for his activities on
behalf of the labor organization. The Act leaves the decision as to union
membership to employees.,
This letter is sent you in order to dispose of the charges filed against us
and at the suggestion of the National Labor Relations Board.
The above letter was sent to all of the respondent's employees and "the
charges previously filed in reference thereto were dismissed by the Board with-
.out prejudice." 6
Although normally effect is given to agreements purporting to settle unfair
labor practices where Board agents have participated in such agreements, in
the instant case the employer continued to engage in unfair labor practices,
and it is therefore necessary to consider the subsequent conduct of the respondent
in order to determine the effect to be given to the sending of the letter of July 15.T
The record contains convincing proof that the respondent, while asserting to
its employees in the letter of July 15 the right to self-organization, and despite
its agreement to settle the alleged unfair labor practices charged by the Union,
advised the foremen of respondent's intention to continue the contest with the
Union. On the same day as the letter was sent to the employees, Hamel sent to
each of the supervisory force a letter stating that a claim had been made that
the letter of November 15, 1940, to the employees was misleading The letter to
the foremen further stated that unless the respondent agreed to send out the
:letter prepared by the Board there would be a hearing and that such hearing would
be unpleasant and give unfavorable publicity to the respondent. Among other
things the letter stated :
The fact that the Fur Workers' group had brought these charges DOES
NOT MEAN that we are guilty of violating the Wagner Act. It is simply
a complaint which they have brought against us for their own reasons.
We agreed to send out such a letter to avoid such a hearing because the
hearing would take considerable of my time as well as the time of- other
executives and it would be costly The question of whether we would
choose a hearing or send out the attached letter has been an open question
in our minds for some time. We had some fear that some of our employees
might misunderstand the letter., This letter is practically a form letter that
we were told to send to each employee who had received a copy of the
November 15 letter. It is not the intent of the Act nor of the National Labor
Relations Board to influence any employee and the purpose of this letter is
simply to undo any possible act of coercion which may unintentionally have
been implied.
The National Labor Relations Board leaves to ' every employee the right
to decide whether or not he wishes to join any organization. The purpose
of the L. H Hamel Leather Company's letter of November 15 was to let
every employee know that this is his right so that HE WOULD NOT ALLOW
ANY OUTSIDER TO INFLUENCE ANY DECISION THAT HE HAD TO
MAKE In other words, it is our intention to protect in every way possible
each employee's right to reach his own decision
There is a possibility that after this letter had been received by our em-
ployees, there will be attempts to misinterpret its contents and tryto, show
d See respondent ' s answer.
T Although the letter contained no express statement that the respondent would not
thereafter interfere with or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by the Act, such meaning must be implied from the language of the letter and the dismissal
, of the 8 ( 1) charges.
L. H. HAMEL LEATHER. CO. 769
that our letter is an invitation to our employees to join some organization.
Of course each of you foremen will understand that this is not the case and
no doubt most of our employees will also understand it. Nevertheless, we
want you , our foremen , to thoroughly understand every part of this situa-
tion , so that you will know all of the facts in case any attempts are made to
misinterpret them.
The foregoing letter to the foremen was notice to them that they were to prevent
any "outsider" from influencing the employees in any way.
In the fall of 1941 , the Union intensified its organizational activities amongst
the employees of the respondent . These activities were well known to the re-
spondent and, according to the testimony of Hamel , led him to believe that the
employees were again being misled by the Union. ' On or about October 14, 1941,
Hamel notified the foremen to send to his office Champagne , Desire and Camille
Comeau , and any ' three other employees working with them . Hamel testified
that he had considered Champagne as "the man inside trying to organize" the
plant for the Union , and that he selected Camille Comeau because Foreman
McLaughlin told him that unless respondent granted an increase in the togglers'
rate of pay , Camille Comeau would persuade the togglers to quit work. * The
respondent was represented at this meeting by Louis and Herbert Hamel and
Foreman McLaughlin . The meeting lasted for approximately two hours, and
there was no deduction from the wages of the employees attending the meeting.
Hamel did all the talking for the respondent . He testified that the meeting was
held for the reason that the Union had passed out leaflets to the employees
which contained false statements , and also because of some dissatisfaction
amongst the employees - with their rates of pay , particularly in the kid and
coat leather departments . It is clear that the real reason for calling the meet-
ing was to ferret out the activities of Champagne and the two Comeaus in
behalf of the Union , rather than to discuss wage rates. Although McLaughlin,
foreman of the toggling department , testified that he thought that the main pur-
pose of the October 14 meeting was to discuss wage rates in the toggling depart-
ment, it is significant that he did not participate in the discussion ; and that
Hamel did not solicit his opinion , concerning the wage rates of the department of
which he was in direct charge. Hamel also testified that he concluded that the
activities of the Union must be having an effect on the employees , because it
was unusual to have dissatisfaction in several departments at the same time.
It is thus evident , according to Hamel 's own testimony , that he employees were
assembled for the purpose of discussing a situation which Hamel thought was
due to the activities of the Union.
Hamel opened the meeting by pointing out to the employees that the amount
of dissatisfaction in the plant indicated that the employees must have some
grievances . Hamel 's testimony that there was some discussion concerning rates
of pay in the various departments is credited by the undersigned , but his denial
that there was any discussion concerning the activities of the Union is rejected.
The Board 's witnesses testified in substance as follows : During the course of
Hamel's talk , he stated that Champagne was the No. 1 man of the Union, and
he described Champagne and the two Comeaus as the three "key men" in the
Union's organizational campaign . Hamel, during the course of his talk, asked
the employees how, many persons had signed up with the Union , and what
connection Champagne and the Comeaus had with the Union ,, and whether
they were being paid by the Union for the work they were doing. In closing,
Hamel stated that he had enough money to live on for the rest of his life and,
rather than have anything to do with the Union , he would close up the business.
In view of the mutually corroborative testimony of the Board 's witnesses, the
493508-43-vol. 45--49
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
admission by Hamel that the Union's activities were, in part at least, instrumen-
tal in calling the meeting, and the further fact that Herbert Hamel and Foreman
McLaughlin, while present at the meeting, were not called to testify, with respect
to the 'statements of Hamel, the undersigned credits the testimony as above
related.
The respondent, in, its memorandum brief, contends that any [Union] com-
ments by Hamel were incidental and that in any event it has not been estab-
lished by the Board that anything Mr. Hamel said in this conference [of October
14, 1941] had the effect of coercing or dominating the employees. Without regard'
to whether the statements were incidental or expressions of opinion, the record,
in its entirety, establishes that the statements of Hamel to the employees.,were
made to dissuade' them from affiliating with the Union. In fact, .the state-
ments had the desired effect, for immediately thereafter, Champagne, whom
Hamel singled out as the "No. 1 man as an organizer working for the -Union"
stopped his union activities because he was afraid of losing his job. Desire
Comeau, too, stopped attending union conferences, and ceased talking about the
union among his co-employees, because of the meeting with Hamel. Camille
Comeau, after Hamel's threat to go out of business if the Union succeeded in.
organizing the plant, informed Hamel at the conclusion of the meeting that he
would stop his activities in the Union, and thereafter ceased all efforts in its
behalf.
As Champagne was leaving the meeting of October 14, Louis Hamel requested
him to stop in later. Some two weeks thereafter, Hamel approached Chain-
pagne and inquired how many employees had signed up with the Union.
The undersigned finds that the respondent, by the foregoing statements, of
Hamel, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In view of these violations of the Act, the undersigned cannot consider, the
previous unfair labor practices as having been settled by respondent's letter
sent to the employees on July 15, 1941.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that 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
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it
8 In view of this argument , the following language of the Circuit Court of Appeals 'for the-
Seventh Circuit is peculiarly applicable :
The position of the employer , where, as here, there is present , genuine and sincere
respect and regard, carries such weight and influence that his words may be coercive
when they would not be so if the relation of master and servant did not exist. N. L.
R. B. v. The Falk Corporation , 102 F. ( 2d) 383 (C. C. A. 7).
Notwithstanding the fact that Hamel's statements had a coercive effect, it is not necessary,
under the circumstances here indicated , to show that respondent 's statements and actions
were actually coercive in effect in order to constitute violation of Section 8 (1). It is
enough that they were reasonably likely to restrain the employees ' rights under the Act.
See N. L. R. B. v . Newport News Shipbuilding d Dry Dock Co , 308 U S 241, 25,1;
N. L. R. B . v. Link. Belt Go, 311 U. S. 584; N. L . R B. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass 'n, 310 U. S_
318 ; Heinz Co v N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 514; Atlas Underwear Co. v. N. L R. B, 116 F. (2d)'
1020, (C. C. A. 6) ; Triplex Screw Co. v N. L R B., 117 F. (2d) 858, (C C. A 6)
N. L. R B . v. Federbush Co., 121 F ( 2d) 954, (C. C. A. 2) ; Titan Metal Mfg. Co. V.
N. L R B , 106 F. ( 2d) 254, (C. C. A 3), cert. den 308 U S 615; ' Bethlehem Steel Co v
N. L R. B ., 120 F. ( 2d) *641 (App. D. C. ) ; N. L R. B v. New Era Die Co ., 118 F. ( 2d) 500,
(C. C. A. 3).
L. H. HAMEL LEATHER CO. 771
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the
undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. International Fur and Leather Workers of United States and Canada, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
of the Act. .
3. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the, meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, L. H. Hamel Leather Co. (Haverhill,
Massachusetts), and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any 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 in concerted activities for the purpose, of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid' or protection, as guaranteed in Section.
7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act ;
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in Haverhill,
Massachusetts, and maintain for a period of not less than sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices td its employees stating that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in
paragraph 1 of these recommendations ; and
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts)
within twenty (20) days'from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of the Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue'an order requiring the respondent to take-
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended-any party may within,
thirty (30) 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, Shoreham 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 permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within twenty (20) days after
the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
JAMES C. BATrEN,
Dated August 1, 1942. Trial Examiner.