New Idea, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 223 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of NEW IDEA, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS , DROP FORGERS
AND HELPERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
and INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF NEW IDEA, INC., ALSO
KNOWN AS INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT
Case No. C-1383.-Decided March 7, 1940
Farm Equipment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coer-
cion: maintenance of company-dominated union ; anti-union statements of super-
visory employees ; questioning employees concerning union status-Company-
Dominated Union: solicitation by supervisory employees, closing plant early to
encourage attendance at organization meeting; participation of supervisory em-
ployees in formation of ; use of company time and property by ; suggestions and
support by company officials to sustain membership in ; disestablished as collective
bargaining agency-Contract : with company-dominated union abrogated.
Mr. William R. Consedine, for the Board.
Hedges, Hoover & Tingley, of Columbus, Ohio, by Mr. H. R.
Tingley and Mr. George R. Hedges, Jr., for the respondent.
Cusack & Cusack, of Chicago, Ill., by Mr. John F. Cusack, for the
Association.
Mr. Alois J. Eberhardy, of Chicago, Ill., for the Brotherhood.
Mr. J. W. Ramsey, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Paul Hutchings, of
Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Edward Sch eunemann , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists , and an amended charge duly filed by the International Associa-
tion of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths,
Drop Forgers, and Helpers, both affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor and hereinafter jointly referred to as the A. F. of L.,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
21 N. L. R. B., No. 27.
223
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois),
issued a complaint dated May 26, 1939, against New Idea, Inc., herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce in its
Sandwich, Illinois, plant, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accom-
panied by notices of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent,
the A. F. of L., and Independent Employees Association of New Idea,
Inc:, herein called the Association.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that from August 1937 to
the date of the hearing, the respondent instigated the formation of
the Association, dominated and interfered with 'its administration,
and contributed, financial and other support to it; (2) that,,on-or
about September 28, 1938,- the respondent entered into an illegal
contract with the Association, and (3) that by these and other acts,
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in'the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On June
5, 1939, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying
that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices, and moving
that the complaint be dismissed.. The motion is hereby. denied.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Sandwich, Illinois,' from
July 6 to July 14, 1939, inclusive, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by;the Board. The Board, the respondent,
and the Association were represented by counsel, the A. F. of L. by
officials, and all, 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. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made,a number of rulings
on motions and on objections to the admission of " evidence.' The
Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On September 29, 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 within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act and recommended
that the respondent cease, and desist from these violations, and from
giving any effect to its contract with the Association or any modi-
fication and renewal thereof, and affirmatively disestablish and with-
draw recognition from the Association. He also found that the alle-
gations of, the complaint that the respondent interrogated employees
concerning their union membership, urged and threatened them to
refrain from becoming or remaining members- of -the-A. F. of -L.,
and threatened them with discrimination in wage rates if they re-
NEW IDEA, INC. 225
mained members of the A. F. of L., Were not supported by evidence
and recommended that they be dismissed.
On November 4, 1939, the Association and the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On December 11, 1939, the
Association and the respondent filed briefs with the Board. .
On December 12, 1939, pursuant to notice, a hearing was "held
before the-Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The Association, the A. F. of L., and the respondent were
represented by counsel and presented argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions and, save as they 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 Ohio corporation with its principal office in
Coldwater, Ohio. It is.engaged in the manufacture and sale of farm
instruments. It owns and operates two manufacturing plants located
at Coldwater, Ohio, and Sandwich, Illinois, and maintains ware-
houses in Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The
respondent employs approximately 179 employees in its Sandwich,
Illinois, plant.
In 1938 the respondent purchased materials for its Sandwich plant
valued at $475,000, and obtained 50 per cent in value of such materials
outside the State of Illinois. Its sales in 1938 totalled $675,000; and
it shipped over 75 per cent in value of manufactured products to
States other than Illinois.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and Internitional'Brother-
hood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers are labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. ' They admit
to membership certain production, employees of the respondent.
Independent Employees Association of New Idea, Inc., is an un-
affiliated labor organization. It , admits to membership production
employees of the respondent.
III. DOMINATION OF INTERFERENCE WITH, AND SUPPORT TO THE
ASSOCIATION
A. The sequence of events
On August 19, 1937, Richard L. Sidford, foreman in charge of the
stockroom, and Douglas Watt, an employee, initiated the formation
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Association. Pursuant to Sidford's suggestion they went to the
office of John F. Cusack, a Chicago attorney, who supplied them with
a constitution, bylaws, and application forms for the new organiza-
tion. The bylaws barred supervisory employees from participation
in the Association. Sidford, accordingly, withdrew from further
participation therein. Watt, however, proceeded with the plan of
forming the Association.
Watt arranged for a general meeting of the employees to be held
in the evening of August 23, at the City Hall, with Wallace E. Cock-
ran, mayor of the city, presiding. During the day of August 23,
Watt returned to Chicago to obtain further information from Cusack.
Herbert Eldred, assistant foreman in the paint department, and
Wilton Fish, an employee, accompanied him. Although Eldred and
Fish returned to work upon their return to Sandwich, Watt continued
preparations for the meeting. He spent some time circulating
through the plant to inform employees of the meeting. He con-
ferred with Harry Miller, plant superintendent, and pursuant thereto,
Miller ordered the departments working overtime to close early so
that the employees could attend the meeting. Edward Eagle, then
foreman in charge of the punch room, who was later made general
foreman in charge of production, notified each employee individually
that his department would close early. Jewell Summers, an em-
ployee, testified without contradiction that Wells Wilson, assistant
foreman in the welding department,' stated to him, "we are having
a meeting up at the City Hall, and I would like for you fellows
to go up."
Other testimony is in conflict as to solicitation by supervisory
employees to attend the meeting :
John Francis, an employee, testified that Ingvald Thorsen, assist-
ant foreman, asked him if he was going to attend the meeting and
stated, "We're going to organize a union of our own here to keep
out the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. because we don't want any trouble
out here." William Meilinger testified that his foreman, Ernest
Todd, told him, "You had better go and join their organization. We
don't want to see the C. I. O. or the A. F. L. come in here and
give us a lot of trouble." Bruce Hawkins testified that Frank
Webber, the yard foreman, told him, "We are going to have a meeting
at the City Hall tonight to form an independent union of our own.
I want all my men to be there because we want this union to keep
out other organizations, and I want all the men there if possible."
' Persons designated foreman and assistant foreman with the exception of Wilson
throughout this decision are those so designated by the respondent on a list read into
the record by Aloys Mueller, general manager. The testimony clearly shows that Wilson
was an assistant foreman and General Foreman Edward Eagle admitted that Wilson was
his assistant for 4 years.
NEW IDEA, INC. 227
Clifford Reinhart testified that Foreman Edward Eagle asked him
of he was going to attend the meeting and when he replied that he
was not, Eagle said, "You had better go and find out what it is
about," that an "independent" union was to be formed to avoid the
trouble with the C. I. 0. and the A. F. of L. Ralph Kaufman also
testified that Eagle told him, "I would like to have you go to that
[the meeting]. The purpose is to keep out the C. I. 0. and the
A. F. of L.," and that when he asked, "Do you have to go?" Eagle
replied, "Yes, you had better go." The named supervisory employees
denied having made the statements attributed to them.
Under the circumstances presented here, we credit the above-men-
tioned testimony and reject the denials. The Trial Examiner, who
had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, found
that the foremen and assistant foremen made these statements. By
closing departments early to facilitate attendance at the meeting,
Superintendent Miller made clear his support of the meeting. Ac-
cordingly, the fair inference is, and we find, that his supervisory
employees in substance made the above-mentioned statements further
to encourage attendance at the meeting.
The meeting was held as scheduled. Mayor Cockran had asked
Miller not to permit foremen and assistant foremen to be present at
the meeting. Miller stationed himself outside the City Hall and
asked Earl Walker, assistant foreman, not to enter the meeting hall.
Walker testified, and Miller denied, that Miller on this occasion
told him that "he would like to see the boys organize into a home
union and keep the outside unions all out." In view of the Trial
Examiner's finding crediting Walker, the presence of Miller outside
the meeting hall, and the other circumstances in this case, we reject
his denial, and find that he, in substance, made the statement attrib-
uted to him. Assistant Foremen Eldred and Thorsen attended the
meeting and occupied prominent positions, sitting at a table facing
the assembled employees. In substance the meeting consisted of a
speech by Mayor Cockran, in which he praised "inside organization"
and decried "outside organizers who disorganize the smooth-running
program you now have." At the close of the speech, all of_ the
employees present signed application cards for membership in the
Association. Assistant Foremen Eldred and Thorsen participated in
the procuring of these signatures.
Pursuant to an arrangement made at this meeting of August 23,
the Association held a second meeting at the hall of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, on September 9, to complete its organization.
Mayor Cockran presided again. The constitution and bylaws were
revised somewhat and adopted. Monthly meetings were provided
for. Watt was elected president and Eldred was elected secretary.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 21, 1937, the Association demanded recognition as
the exclusive bargaining representative. One Kirk, then general
manager of the respondent, checked the Association's cards against
the pay roll. On September 28, 1937, the respondent signed a notice
granting the Association exclusive recognition. Two days later copies
of the notice were posted throughout the plant. The Association
made no other substantial efforts to obtain collective bargaining con-
cessions until some 6 months later.
The Association frequently carried on its activities on the respond-
ent's time and property. It solicited new employees and collected
dues at the plant before, during, and after working hours, without
regard to the presence or absence of supervisory employees. Mem-
bers of the Association conducted two elections in the plant for
departmental representatives in the Association, one during the noon
hour, and one during working hours when a temporary lull in opera-
tions occurred.
In January 1938 Harry Erwin was elected president of the Associa-
tion to succeed Watt. He pledged himself that the Association would
"get out and fight for the boys."
On February 23, 1938, the Association drew up certain proposed
bylaws. Some of these dealt with terms of employment, which were
proper subjects for collective bargaining. The following-day, Super-
intendent Miller admittedly called Erwin into his office and interro-
gated him with respect to a meeting the night before "because he
wanted to know what happened at the meeting, how they were pro-
gressing, how things were going on." He also admitted that "from
time to time" he called Erwin in to "find out how things were going
on." Erwin testified and Miller denied that Miller also stated that
he, personally, was opposed to any organization but that he -was
forced to cooperate with the Association since Henry Synck, president
of the respondent, and stationed at Coldwater, "wanted" the Associa-
tion. In view of Miller's above-mentioned admissions and the other
circumstances in the case, we find that Miller in substance made the
statement Erwin attributed to him.2
On March 21, 1938, the Association submitted its proposed bylaws,
some of which, as we have noted, were proper items for collective
bargaining, to Synck, president of the respondent, "for approva].'
Erwin also wrote to Synck at Coldwater that the Association was re-
ceiving no cooperation from the respondent and that members were
refusing to pay dues until "such time that they are assured that their
organization is to be respected and considered as a collective bargaining
2 There is a further conflict in the testimony as to whether Miller accused Eiwln and
his cuppot.eis of being in the minority in the Association We need not resolve this
conflict.
NEW IDEA, INC. 229,
association." Synck replied on March 29, 1939, suggesting that "in
view of the by-laws the Association might prefer some sort of a con
tract," and suggesting also that "the Association might be interested
in a group insurance plan among its members." On April 26, 1938,
Synck wrote again to Erwin suggesting group insurance and stated :
It would give them [the members] some protection that they
wouldn't have and it would give them some advantages that they
would not have unless they belonged to that Union [i. e. the
Association]. Of course, as you understand, we, as employers,
cannot really give you much of any information along these lines
as we would not want the Labor Board to construe our good
intentions in a wrong light.
About August 26, 1938, Aloys Mueller, general manager succeeding
Kirk, submitted to the Association a contract which had been for-
warded to him from Synck.
On August 30, 1938, Erwin sent a telegram to Synck again com-
plaining of lack of cooperation and warning him that some members
of the Association were considering membership in other, national,
labor organizations. On August 31, •1938, Synck replied in part :
Your letter does not say anything regarding the reception of
the contract that we sent up, by the members. This contract
was worked out very carefully by us and the Coldwater union
and their respective attorneys and I believe it embodies every-
thing that is fair between the two parties and puts no undue
hardships on either . . . Our Coldwater Union is functioning
very nicely and there is no reason why the same cannot be done
in Sandwich . . .
On September 16, 1938, the Association submitted the proposed con-
tract to its members. Thereafter, the parties held a short conference
in regard to it and it was executed by them on September 28, 1938.
The contract as executed was in substance no different from the one
volunteered by the respondent. It provided, inter alia, for exclusive
recognition of the Association, methods of arbitrating grievances,
maintenance of existing wage rates, and a list of five factors, of which
seniority was the last, to govern retention of employees, lay-offs, and
rehiring:
As indicated above, members of the Association had previously
shown dissatisfaction with it. Their dissatisfaction was not allayed'
by respondent's suggestions of a group-insurance plan tied up with
membership in the Association and the contract. On February 3,
1939, the membership of the Association resolved to-invite A. F. of L.
representatives to speak at a subsequent meeting of the Association
and not to continue with the Association. At. subsequent meetings
2S3032-41-vol. 21-16
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,of the Association held on February 10, 20, and 24, 1939, A. F. of, L.
representatives were present. On February 20, 1939, Erwin became
a member of the A. F. of L., and the record discloses that other
members of the Association also joined the A. F. of L. at or about
the same time. There is no evidence, however, that the Association
dissolved. An attorney has appeared in this proceeding on behalf of
the Association.
Francis testified that he had the following conversation with
Emanuel Sandoval, assistant foreman in the forge department in
April 1939:
[Sandoval] said "I understand the men are having a little
trouble with the union [i. e. the Association]"
I said "Yes, they are. Some of them are even contemplating
calling in an outside organization because they are dissatisfied
with the present set-up."
He says, "Well, the A. F. of L. may be all right or any other
organization may be all right, but I think that the company has
treated the men pretty good here and, in order to avoid any
trouble, they ought to stick."
'Sandoval was not called as a witness and the foregoing is not denied.
We find that the conversation occurred substantially as set out.
B. Concluding findings
We find that the foremen and assistant foremen in supporting the
Association as set forth above were acting -for the respondent. We
predicate : this, finding on the following : They possessed distinct
supervisory responsibilities, such as laying out- and directing work,
'and transmitting orders to employees. The respondent designated
them as "foremen" and "assistant foremen," respectively, and they
were regarded by the employees as overseers and representatives of
management.' Foremen are in complete charge of their departments.
Assistant foremen transmit orders to the employees and report back
to the foremen. In the absence of the foremen, assistant foremen are
in complete charge of the various departments. Miller's instruction
to Walker not to attend the meeting of August 23 because he was an
assistant foreman and Miller's presence outside the meeting hall to
keep foremen and assistant foremen away from the meeting constitute
an admission that such supervisory employees do represent manage-
ment. Finally, the support given by the supervisory employees to the
s The Association recognized that the foremen and assistant foremen acted on behalf
of the management and not as ordinary employees Thus, watt advised Sidford that he
should not participate in the Association because he was a foreman. Sidford withdrew,
and Cochrane, for the Association, advised Miller to keep foremen and assistant foremen
from the organization meeting.
NEW IDEA, INC. 231
Association was in line with the respondent's policy, as revealed by
the closing of departments to enable employees to attend the organiza-
tional meeting on August 23, and by Miller's statement that Synck
"wanted" the Association.
We are convinced that the respondent sponsored the formation of
the Association. The respondent's motive was to forestall the forma-
tion of an outside organization. Thus the foremen and assistant
foremen in telling the employees to attend the August 23 meeting
informed them that the Association was "wanted" to keep out the
A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0. Foreman Sidford was one of the,two
persons who initiated the Association. He traveled with the other,
Watt, to Chicago to confer with an attorney about forming the
Association. An assistant foreman accompanied Watt on a similar
trip. Departments shut down so that employees could be present at
the crucial meeting of August 23. Watt notified them of the meeting
during working hours and on company property, and management
representatives told them to attend. At the meeting two assistant
foremen participated in the procuring of signatures and one of these
was elected secretary.
Subsequent to the formation of the Association, the respondent
allowed his activities to be conducted on company time and property,
interfered, through Miller, with its internal organization by interro-
gation of Erwin, and, through Synck, volunteered suggestions that
the Association might sustain its membership. Sandoval's statement
set out above further indicates respondent's continuing support.
Synck "wanted" the Association because he intended it as a barrier
to outside organization. Although it may not have served its pur-
pose completely, its continued existence and its contract constitute
present obstacles to genuine self-organization because the respondent
sponsored the Association in contravention of Section 8 (1) and (2)
of the Act.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed sup-
port thereto and by such acts, by the contract with the-Association,
and by other statements and activities set out above, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees' in the exercise of rights 'guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
States, and - tend- to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
11
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 , interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association, and contributed
support to it. Its 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
constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of
the rights guaranteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondent
to withdraw all recognition from the Association as it representative
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 Association as such representative.
Since the agreement between the respondent and the Association
embodies recognition of the Association as exclusive representative,
and represents the fruits of respondent 's unfair labor practices and
a device to perpetuate their effects, we shall order the respondent:
specifically to cease and desist giving effect to this or any other agree-
ment it may have entered into with the Association in respect to rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment, or other conditions of work.
The evidence does not support the allegation of the complaint that
the respondent threatened to withhold pay checks unless, and prom
-ised work if, the employees abandoned their union affiliations. We
shall dismiss this allegation. -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists and International,
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths , Drop Forgers and Helpers, both affili-