Reynolds Wire Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1940

26 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of REYNOLDS WIRE COMPANY, A CORPORATION and
LODGE 2086, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN,
WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, THROUGH STEEL WORKERS ORGAN-
IZING COMMITTEE, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS and REYNOLDS WIRE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF
DIXON, ILLINOIS, INCORPORATED, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT i
Case No. C-1362-Decided August 16, 1940
Jurisdiction : wire cloth manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements, declarations of union
preference. '
Company-Dominated Union: formation of, following respondent's continuously
and openly expressed hostility to outside labor organizations and preference for
inside labor organization-support: permitting circulation of petitions on com-
pany time and property; closing plant to enable employees to attend meeting-
discrimination: threatening two employees with discharge and discharging
another for their advocacy of the affiliated union.
Discrimination- discharge of one employee because of his joining and assisting
the outside labor organization.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment and abrogation of contract with company-
dominated union, ordered; reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. William R. Consedine, for the Board.
Dixon, Devine, Bracken and Devine, by Mr. Robert L. Bracken and
Mr. John P. Devine, of Dixon, Ill , for the respondent.
1111r. John J. Brownlee, of Chicago, Ill., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Gerald Jones, of Dixon, Ill., for the Association.
Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Lodge 2086,
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North
America, through Steel Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Amalgam-
i Incorrectly designated in the intermediate report and formal pleadings as "Reynolds Wire Em-
ployees Association "
26 N. L. R. B., No. 69.
662
,,REYNOLDS WIRE COMPANY 663
ated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illi-
nois), issued its complaint, dated February 15, 1939, and its amended
complaint,, dated March 21, 1g39, against Reynolds Wire Company,
a corporation, Dixon, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and .was engaging in unfairlabor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning 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,
amended complaint, and notice of hearing were duly. served upon the
respondent, the Amalgamated, and Reynolds Wire Employees Asso-
ciation of Dixon, Illinois, Incorporated, herein called the Association,
a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be dominated by the
respondent. .
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in,substance: (1),'that the respondent initiated, dominated,
and,interfered with. ,the administration of the Association, and con
tributed financial and other support to it; (2), that the respondent
discouraged membership in the Amalgamated by discharging George
Carlson and by transferring, and demoting Emery W. Johnson and
Cliff McConnaughay to less remunerative positions, because they had
joined and assisted the Amalgamated; and (3) that by the foregoing
and other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
On March 10, 1939,, the respondent filed its answer to the, com-
plaint. On March 25, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the
-amended complaint denying the unfair labor practices, and affirma
tively averring that Carlson was discharged for cause and that Johnson
and McConnaughay were transferred because of inefficiency. On
May 15, 1939, the Association filed an answer to the amended com-
plaint denying that it is a company sponsored or dominated union
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act and denying that it
entered into illegal exclusive bargaining contracts with the respondent.
Pursuant to notice, and after a postponement, a hearing on the
'amended complaint was held from May 15 to 24, 1939, at Dixon,
Illinois, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were
represented by counsel, and the Amalgamated by a representative;
all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hear-
ing counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the allegations of the
complaint as to Emery W. Johnson and Cliff McConnaughay. The
motion was granted. Thereafter, counsel for the respondent moved
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to dismiss the entire complaint . The Trial Examiner reserved de-
cision on this motion and subsequently denied it in his Intermediate
Report. The Trial Examiner granted a motion made by counsel' for
the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof . Numerous other
rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence, were
made by' the Trial Examiner during the' course of the hearing. The
Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. ' The rulings are hereby
affirmed'.
On September ' 14, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed ' his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on all parties , wherein he
-found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor Iractices affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 8
(1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the, respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices , reinstate George Carlson with back pay, and disestablish
and withdraw all recognition from the Association . Exceptions to
the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed by the' respondent and
the Association. '
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held ' before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on June 27, 1940 , for the purpose of oral argument.
'The respondent appeared ' by counsel and participated in the argu-
ment. The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respond-
ent and the Association and the arguments advanced at the oral
argument and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions, and ' order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit. -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Reynolds Wire Company is an Illinois corporation , having its
principal office and place of business at Dixon, Illinois, where it
operates two closely adjacent plants , known as plant No. 1 and plant
No. 2. The two plants are engaged in related processes necessary in
the manufacture of wire cloth . The respondent employs approxi-
mately 300, hourly and piece-rate workers and, approximately 50
supervisory and clerical employees
, During 1938 the respondent purchased raw materials, consisting
principally of rods, zinc , tin, paint , and varnish , valued at approxi-
mately $250,000, of which approximately 45 per cent were received
from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period the
respondent sold finished products , principally wire cloth , valued at
approximately. $700,000, of which approximately 82 per cent,were
shipped to destinations outside the State of Illinois.
REYNOLDS WIRE COMPANY,
II. THE- ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ,
665 .
Lodge 2086 , Amalgamated Association of Iron , Steel and Tin
Workers of North America is a labor organization affiliated , through
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations . It admits to membership all'producti "on andmainte-
nance employees of the respondent except clerical and supervisory
employees. ' 1
Reynolds Wire Employees Association of' Dixon, Illinois , ' Incor-
porated, is an unaffiliated ' labor organization admitting to member=
ship all employees of the respondent except supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, aid coercion
In the summer of 1936 Harold Bay 'and three other weavers em-'
ployed by the'respondent called upon Charles Trotter, then plant'
superintendent,2 to request a wage increase for the-weavers. During
the conversation which ensued the subject of union arose. Trotter
stated that he had been involved, in,labor disputes at Peoria Illinois,
--and had seen employees lose their homes and jobs, and advised Bay
and his fellow employees to stay out of all, "outside" unions. He
added that the respondent would have no objection if the employees
formed a union among themselves. After subsequent negotiations a
raise was granted to the weavers. '
Joseph Koepeck testified that in February 1937 Foreman Barton
told him that the men in one of the two 'plants wanted a union and
were becoming "radical as hell," and that if a union, organized ` the
plant the respondent, which was operating only in order to give the
men work, would cease operations. Barton testified but did not deny
this statement. We accept Koepeck's testimony in this respect as
true. '
Early in 1937 Bay met with John Ralston, then president of the
respondent,3'in an effort to obtain another raise for the weavers. In
reply to an inquiry by Ralston, Bay told him that there was some talk
of union activity in,the plant and that he; Bay, favored an American
Federation of Labor organization. Ralston replied that he had nothing
against the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of
L., but that he would not want the employees `4o' get mixed up with
John L. Lewis," allegedly because the latter was too radical, and was
trying to be a dictator. Ralston added that -be saw no need for a
union among the respondent's employees inasmuch as the respond-
ent's plant was small and all the employees were acquainted with one
2 Trotter was discharged on January 15, 1939 , allegedly for his inability to cope with the respondent's
personnel problems
3 Ralston died on September 22, 1937. -
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR I RELATIONS BOARD
another; that there was no need to get outside organizers to foment
trouble at the plant; but that if the employees formed "a little union
of [their] own" and kept their money in town, that would be satis-
factory, to Ralston. Shortly after this conversation ,a general wage
increase was put in effect at the plant.
Subsequently Ralston called Bay to his office and asked him if the
men were satisfied. Bay replied in the negative, stating that the
employees still wanted a union and were considering affiliating with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. O.
Thereupon Ralston disparaged the C. I. O. and its leadership and
elicited Bay's promise to inform Ralston about union activities in the
plant and to consult with him if the employees desired to form a union.
Shortly after the constitutionality of the Act was upheld on April 12,
1937,} a safety meeting was held in plant No. 1, attended by approxi-
mately 100 employees and by foremen and officials of the respondent.
Ralston addressed the meeting and discussed the Act, stating that
although the Act permitted the employees to join a union he did,not
see the need for an outside union in a-small plant like the respondent's.
After warning the employees to be careful in the selection of a union
he stated that -"a little committee" among the employees of the
respondent "would be sufficient."
In July 1937 Bay and several other employees decided to organize
a local union affiliated with the A. F. -of L. After conferring with •a
local representative of the A., F. of L., Bay obtained an application
for a Federal charter in that organization. ' However, before attempt-
ing to perfect an organization, Bay and, about 15 other interested
employees called up Ralston, in accordance with Bay's previous
promise to confer with Ralston about union activity. When Bay
told Ralston of their plan to form an A. F. of L. organization, the.
latter stated that he did not see any need for a union at the-plant.-
He repeated his previous declaration of preference for an inside organ-
ization and suggested that such an organization could incorporate
under the Illinois law and obtain a charter. After Ralston's affirmance
at this conference of his previously declared opposition to an affiliated
labor organization, Bay discontinued his efforts and took no further
steps to organize an A. F. of L. union at the plant.
The above findings concerning Ralston's statements are based in
large part upon the testimony of Bay. In considering the weight to be
given Bay's testimony concerning the statements of Ralston, who is
dead, we are mindful that evidence of statements of deceased persons
is subject to the closest scrutiny and should be received with caution.
However, the testimony of Bay in this connection was positive, clear,
and unequivocal,5 and was substantially corroborated in many in-
4 National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, and companion cases.
5 At the heaung counsel for the respondent stated in the record that he gathered " the impression that
[Bay is] disposed to be fair and that [Bay is] trying to tell the truth as near as [Bay] can remember it, in
connection with this whole matter."
REYNOLDS WIRE COMPANY 667
stances by other witnesses , including some of those called by the
respondent. L. E. Dunkelberger, factory manager, admitted that at
the safety meeting in April 1937 Ralston stated to the employees and
supervisory staff that there was no need for a union at the plant, and
that, although he, Ralston, preferred not to have a union at the plant,
his second preference was for an independent union. Foreman Del-
bert Rinehart similarly testified that Ralston there stated that there
was no need for a. union. We agree with the conclusion of the Trial
Examiner that no reason exists for doubting that the above statements
attributed to Ralston by Bay were made, and we accept Bay's testi-
mony in that regard as substantially true.
Other statements indicating the respondent's hostility toward
affiliated labor organizations were made by Dunkelberger and Rine-
hart during the summer of 1937. After asking Campbell, an employee,
whether he had discussed unions during working hours , Dunkelberger
stated that , Ralston did not want an affiliated union in the plant but
that he had no objection to an inside organization . Bay testified
that in a conversation with Rinehart he, Bay, stated that he knew
that as between the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. organizations the
respondent would rather deal with the A. F. of L., whereupon Rinehart
replied, "yes , of the two evils [the respondent ] would prefer the lesser."
Rinehart admitted having discussed the Act with Bay, but denied
this statement attributed to him by Bay. We do not credit his denial.
Bay's testimony is entirely consistent with the respondent 's anti-
C. I. O. attitude previously expressed by Ralston.
We find that the respondent , through the foregoing statements of
Trotter, Foreman Barton, Ralston, Dunkelberger , and Rinehart, its
,officials and supervisory employees, indicated to its employees that it
was hostile toward outside labor organizations and that it favored an
inside labor organization , and that the respondent thereby interfered
with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Domination of the Association
1. Formation of the Association
One Sunday , early in September 1937 , Fred Yates, Parker Barton,
and two other employees of the respondent met with , an organizer
for the United Automobile Workers of America, a labor organization
affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the U. A. W., and discussed
the formation of a unit of that organization in the plant . Membership
application cards were distributed to those present , including Parker
Barton, in contemplation of a U. A. W. organizational drive at the
respondent 's plants.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the Monday following this meeting Parker Barton began' cir-
culating throughout plant No. 1 several petitions reading substantially
as follows:
VOTE BY- SIGNING-NAME UNDER COLUMN AND
MARKING X UNDER YOUR CHOICE
Shall we organize a Company
Union and give it a fair trial be-
fore inviting an outside organiza-
tion in
Yes No Sign here if you
prefer to remain
as we are
Glen Laidig, who at'about this time served as•a substitute foreman and
who at the time of the hearing was a regular, foreman, and Albert
Spinden, an employee, obtained similar petitions from Barton and
circulated them in.plant No. 2.
The language in which the petitions are couched and the arrange-
ment of the. choices, which they present clearly indicate that the pur-
pose of the petitions was to 'instigate and record opposition to an
outside organization by canalizing support for an organization restrict-
ing its membership to employees of the respondent.
With the petitions as an instrument, Parker Barton, Spinden, and
;Laidig for several'days actively campaigned for an inside union in the
plant during regular working hours. During a lunch period Barton,
in cooperation with Ed Beard, a checker in the bobbin room in plant
No. 1, met with all,the female employees of Beard's department in the
office of Foreman : Meeks, where, in the foreman's absence, Barton
addressed them and secured their signatures to the petition. Meeks
subsequently learned of this incident, obtained the petition which
Barton was circulating, reprimanded Barton, and reported the matter
.to Dunkelberger. The latter; however, took no.disciplinary action.
Laidig prevailed upon a group of employees working in the diamond-
die department to sign the petition and, a,fter'disparaging the C. I. 0.,
stated that a company union was being formed to keep the C. I. O.
out of the plant. Arthur' Vick, while acting as substitute foreman,
signed a petition at Laidig's solicitation. Spinden obtained the signa-
tures of a number of employees in plant No. 2 to the petition. When
Spinden asked Emery Johnson 'to sign the petition Spinden stated
that its 'purpose' was to form a company union. Johnson, however,
refused to subscribe until Foreman Guise assured him that he thought
it was 'all right for Johnson to sign such a petition.
Upon learning'of the circulation of the petition's by Barton,'Yates
called on Dunkelberger in his office and requested him to suppress
Barton's activity in' the plants. During this conference Barton
entered and participated in the discussion.
According to Yates, Dunkelberger stated that he knew of the cir-
culation of the petitions by Barton but had no right to reprimand
REYNOLDS , WIRE, COMPANY 669.
Barton and , in the discussion which followed Barton's entry , asserted,
his opposition to an outside union and his preference .for, an inside,
union, and asked Yates whether he ,would go along . with the .company
union then in process , of formation . , Concerning the same discussions
Dunkelberger testified that he , told Yates ' he could not reprimand
Barton ,-for union activities because there had been no complaint that,
Barton's,activities occurred during working hours, .that , he told Bar-
ton that the circulation of the petition by Barton was. inconsistent with,
the respondent 's policy of neutrality and was not a•fair method for,
determining the,desires of the employees , and that a discussion ,of, the
legality of inside unions followed , ' Thus„ Dunkelberger 's testimony'
to some degree, corroborates and in no material , respect -, contradicts ^
Yates ,'. version of, what occurred . Barton, too , testified at the 'hearing;
but failed to contradict this testimony , of Yates. We credit , the, ver
sion given by Yates. • , •,
Dunkelberger testified that ,after .Yates complained he notified all;
foremen that petitions were being ; circulated without permission; and
should be taken up, wherever found. Two foremen testified , however,
that they , heard no comment concerning , the petitions prior , to ,the,
hearing.
During September 1937 the proponents of the rival unions at the
plant engaged in considerable organizational activity . Ralston died on
September 22. On the next day Dunkelberger called Bay to his office
and asked if, he , had been circulating an A. F. of , L. petition. Bay_
replied in the negative and stated , that he had lost - interest in, the.
A. F. of L. and that even if lie were still interested h e ,would, , out ,of
respect to the memory of Ralston, not be organizing at that time.,
The conversation then turned to- -the . existing rivalry between the
U. A. W. and the "company union .'" Bay stated that Foreman
Delbert Rinehart had previously told him that the respondent would
prefer the A. F. of L. to the , C. I. 0., whereupon Dunkelberger replied
that the , respondent did not want any union, but if the employees
desired , an organization an inside union would be satisfactory . Dunkel-,
berger added that if the C. I. O. organized the plants the respondent
might shut down. . Upon the close of,this , conversation two employees,
Emmert and Botts, , entered Dunkelberger 's office and at,their sugges
tion it was agreed by all, present that out , of respect for Ralston all
'organizational activity among , the rival groups at the, plants should_
cease for a period of 30 days. , Dunkelberger - said he would see that
Parker. Barton abided by the truce . if. the employees present ,would;
get Yates to do the same . Barton and Yates agreed to this under-
standing and the truce was effected. ,
Within 2 weeks after the truce agreement had been reached, how-
ever, Barton and , Spinden notified Dunkelberger that , they,,. were
withdrawing from the truce because Yates bad violated its -terms.
670 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL ,LABOR RELAbIONS BOARD
Dunkelberger did not verify, this accusation and no evidence was
adduced at the hearing to substantiate it. Spinden testified that it
was based on rumor. In any event, Dunkelberger notified Bay and
Yates of Barton's withdrawal from the agreement.
11 Shortly thereafter, on, about October 7, Parker Barton or Spinden
informed Dunkelberger that a meeting of the employees was being
called for Saturday, October 9, at the Moose Hall,- to permit' the
employees to select an i organization -to, represent them, and'obtained
Dunkelberger's permission to post notices of the meeting on the
respondent's bulletin board. Such: notices were posted. Shortly
before October 9 Foreman Delbert Rinehart told Yates that Dunkel-
berger had requested Rinehart,to inform Yates that there would be
an election at, Moose' Hall on Saturday to permit the employees to
select a'union, About the same time Dunkelberger"stated to'Bay,
"we have decided to get this thing settled about the unions-There
will be an election, Saturday morning at the Moose Hall and we will
get•it all settled." Bay 'immediately protested to a number of em-
ployees, including Cyril Wilson, about the unfairness of holding an
eleetion at that time in view- of the truce agreement, and stated that
the employees did not have sufficient time to consider what organiza-
tion they preferred. In reply Wilson, who then sometimes served as a
strawboss and since the fall of 1938 has served as a full-time strawboss,
observed that if, an outside union were to organize the plant the re-
spondent would shut down. Thereafter Bay related his conversation
with Wilson to Foreman Gerdes;'who made no comment. When Bay
added that according to the Act an employee could ,not be discharged
for joining the union he preferred, Gerdes said; "if the [respondent]
wants to get rid- of you, it is easy because they can fire you for some-
thing else. It's like having a dirty neck." Later, that day Bay told
Gerdes that the "company union" was bound to win the election as
the rival organizations were not prepared; whereupon Gerdes suggested
that Bay assist the "company union," and stated that it would be
just as effective as an outside union and would not be as expensive.
Dunkelberger closed down the plant on Saturday, October 9, to
permit the employees to attend the meeting at Moose Hall which had
been arranged and called for that morning by' Spinden and Barton.
It appears that the employees were not paid for the time so spent.'
Several employees were' encouraged by supervisory employees to
attend this meeting. Barton presided over the meeting and informed
the 'employees present that a vote `would be taken to determine
whether they desired the, A. F. of L., the C. I. 0., an independent
union, or no union. Barton refused a request to discuss the matter
under consideration; appointed a teller committee consisting" of
several employees in favor of an independent union, one in favor•of
6 Two men, Mondlock and Wolf, were paid, in error, for time spent at the meeting.
REYNOLDS ;WIRE COMPANY. 671
the A. F. of L., and none favorable, to the C. I. 0., prepared the
ballots; and proceeded with the balloting. On the first ballot no
organization received a majority vote. A run-off election was, held,
in which the choice was restricted to an,independent union and an
A. F. of L. union:. The employees chose an independent union, by, a
vote of 134 to 85. ,
A second meeting of the employees was,held in the Moose Hall on
the following Saturday,. October 16. The record does not indicate
whether the plant was closed during this second meeting as ' it had
been for the first one. At this meeting the organization of the
Association, was perfected, and Spinden,,and Barton were elected
president and vice president, respectively. Thereafter,the Associ-
ation applied for and obtained a State charter, of, incorporation.
Dues for the Association were collected from employees during working
hours at the plant. . ,
Pursuant to a written request by the Association on about December
15, 1937, for the. bargaining rights and the execution of a contract,
,and after several 'conferences between the parties, the respondent
entered into a contract with the' Association for its members, dated
February 1, 1938, and expiring July 31, 1938.
Despite the formation of the Association, a substantial number of
the respondent's employees sought representation through an affili-
ated union. In January 1938 the Amalgamated was chartered. Bay
was elected president, and an intensive membership campaign by the
Amalgamated was begun. During this period; on 'the day on which
Koepeck first wore his Amalgamated button, Foreman Meeks,
finding Koepeck out of his department and talking to Carlson,
instructed Koepeck , to ' report to Dunkelberger. Dunkelberger
accused Koepeck of ' soliciting "members for the Amalgamated on
company time, which Koepeck denied. After severely reprimanding
Koepeck for this activity Dunkelberger'said he would give Koepeck
another chance but he did hot want to hear of any further" a'githtion"
on his part. During the same period' Trotter told Paul Mondlock,
an employee who had joined the'Ama,lgamated, that if he engaged
in union activities at the plant he would be discharged. In the fall
of 1937 Mondlock had joined the Association. Theretofore 'Trotter
had encouraged him to lend his efforts to the inside-union movement -
at the plant.
The drive of the Amalgamated met with much success until the
respondent and the Association entered into contractual relations.
For a period of time thereafter few new members' were obtained.
However, in the early part of May 1938 the Amalgamated inaugurated
another membership campaign, attempting to obtain majority repre-
sentation prior to the expiration of the Association's contract. Al-
though the membership doubled during the first week of the campaign,
'672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELAT'IONS BOARD
it I slowed' up after the • respondent's discharge of George Carlson,
discussed hclo .'
Pursuant to"al r'eq`uest on July' 27 by the Association for new con-
,tract; grid after'several short conferences, the-respondent, on July' 30,
1938,'' executed'another 'contract with'the Association `providing for
exclusive recognition for a period of a year beginning August 1: E. S.
Wfidsvorth; a notary public; verified the Association's majority repre-
sentation by comparing its membership list with the' respondent's pay
roll. By letter dated July 30'Wad9worth informed the respondent that
'the Association had 159 members which constituted more than 51 per
'cent'of the respondent's employees. In reply 'to a letter dated July 29
froni'the Amalgamated, requesting bargaining rights, the 'respondent
by letter 'dated' July 30 informed the Amalgamated that, having re-
ceive'd'proof of the As"socia"tion's majority representation, the respond-
ent had executed a new contract with the Association. There is 'no
evid'en'ce showing that the respondent had' received the letter from the
,notary public prior to its' reply'to the Amalgamated.
Eli ! 'l' . , • • ;^
2. Conclusions regarding the Association, ' •
We have shown that the respondent, through- its officials and super-
visory , personnel, repeatedly and openly, over a long period, voiced its
opposition to nationally affiliated labor organizations and stated its
preference that its employees should forma union which would restrict
its,membership to employees of the,respondent. The respondent never
repudiated this conduct nor took any steps to counteract its, effect.
The Association came into existence in the atmosphere thus created
by the respondent's hostility,to outside unions.' Its formation neces-
sarily reflects the respondent's wishes and not the independent desires
of the employees."
When the first steps toward the organization of the Association were
under way, the respondent, in the face of complaints by an advocate of
an affiliated union, accorded the union, activities of the proponents of
the inside union on company time and property a tolerence amounting
to encouragement, and utilized the occasion again to state its prefer-
ence for unaffiliated employee organization.
A little later, when known leaders of the inside-union movement
called a meeting of employees for the purpose of determining their
wishes in an election, the respondent, without consulting equally well-
known advocates of an affiliated form of union, closed the plant in
7 See•_1Tatter of Texas Nfinzng & Smeltering Company and Internat,on2l Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter
Wor Hers, Local No 412, 13 N L . R B 1163, Matter of Joe Feinberg ITos,erq Mails, Inc and American Fede, a-
tion of hosiery Workers, North Carolina Distract, 19 N L R B 667, Matter of Fcrd Motor Company and
['nited Automobile Workers of America , Local No 325, 23 N L R B 342, ,Matter of Crawfo, d Nlanufactu:-
ing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , S N L R B 1257S
\W'e note that the Association , in choosing to incorporate , followed a suggestion made by Ralston on
one of the several occasions on which he advised employees to form an inside qn}on,
REYNOLDS WIRE • COMPANY,1 673
order to enable the employees to attend.' The conclusion is; inescap-
able, in view of the character,of the sponsorship of that meeting, that
the, respondent's action in suspending production so, that, the em-
ployees might attend had the purpose; and effect of assisting the
organization; of, an inside union.9 1 • 1
The sharp contrast in the respondent's • attitude toward the two,
kinds,of employee self-organization is further illustrated by the .facti
that, while a number of employees were urged by supervisors to join
the Association, at least two, Mondlock'and Koepeck, were threatened;
with discharge for their advocacy of the Amalgamated, and one,,Carl-
son, was discharged upon a pretext, as we find below, because of his
membership and activity in that organization.
Upon the entire record we find that the respondent dominated and
interfered with the.formation and administration of the Association,
and contributed support to it, and that the respondent thereby inter-_
fered with, restrained, and,coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights, guaranteed iri -Section 7 of the Act. We find further that the
Association is incapable of serving the respondent's employees i as,
their genuine bargaining representative. I , .
C. The discharge of Carlson
George Carlson was-first employed by; the'respondent in July 1933 ,
in• the bobbin department. He was later transferred to the weaving
department, where he worked steadilytas a weaver for over 2;12 years.:
On May.22, 1938, Foreman Gerdes discharged Carlson, allegedly for
writing an obscene remark on the toilet door. At. the time of the
hearing Carlson was 23 years old. • .
Carlson joined-the Association in October 1937,'attended onemeet-
ing, and paid 2 months' dues. In December 1937 Carlson's foreman,
Gerdes, approached Carlson at the plant and stated that be under-
stood Carlson was no longer a member of •_the''Association. • Gerdes-
then urged Carlson to rejoin the Association, adding that, Car'lson's'
brother was a member. Carlson; however, failed to comply • with'
Gerdes' request. Instead, he joined the Amalgamated during its .
organizational drive in January 1938. "At that time •he. was elected.,-
its secretary, and subsequently was placed, on the bargaining corn- '
mittee. Carlson's activities in the Amalgamated were well known to
the respondent. ' Carlson, testified' that the day he first worei.his
Amalgamated button at the 'plant Foreman' Lacks 'called 'Foreman
Gerdes' attention to the button, and. Gerdes remarked to Carlson in,
the presence of Lacks,, "Why you Swede, son-of-a-bitch." Gerdes
admitted'-that Lacks'first called his attention to.Carlson's button,
but denied making the remark attributed to him by Carlson. -Lacks.
7 Sec Matter of Burry Biscuit Corporation and Cracker & Biscuit Workers Unton Local 411 of th'e Bakery &'
Confectionery Workers International Union of America, affiliated with the A F of L et at , 24 N L R B. 1053
674' DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified he did not -hear Gerdes make the'remarl:. We need not
resolve the conflict! -It clearly appears that Gerdes, whose request
to-rejoin the Association' Carlson'had ignored, was aware of Carlson's
espousal of the Amalgamated.
During the night of May 21, 1938, Carlson,-with pencil-in longhand,
wrote an obscene remark on the toilet door of a men's washroom in
plant No. 1. The door had recently been painted and the remark
obscenely characterized' the paint job'. 'Later that night Foreman
Gerdes discovered the writing-and 'attempted to learn the identity of
the writer. He obtained specimen; writings from 'a number of em-
ployees, including Carlson, and accused' the latter of writing on the
door. At first Carlson denied the act, but upon Gerdes' promise to
forget the incident Carlson' admitted his guilt and offered to erase the
pencil writing on the door. Gerdes refused this offer and on the next
day discharged 'Carlson. At the hearing Gerdes denied that he
promised leniency or that Carlson offered to erase the writing. We
accept the Trial Examiner's finding on the conflict of evidence and
do not credit Gerdes' denials.
In its answer the respondent- asserted that Carlson was discharged
solely for defacing its property by writing an obscene statement on
the door of the men's toilet. We do not condone Carlson's act. Yet,
while the'respondent may well have desired-to eliminate such prac-
tices among, its employees, it published no rule, prohibiting them.
Under the circumstances, the imposition of such an extreme penalty
causes : us, to question the' good, faith of the respondent's asserted
reason for the discharge.
The inscription of obscene remarks in the, men's toilets of the
respondent's plants had. occurred from time to time, over a period of
years. Although certain employees had been interrogated from time
to time about writing in the toilet, the employees were never,warned
in writing or orally ,that, they would be, discharged or subjected to-
other disciplinary action for p'articipating•in this-practice. Moreover,
Foreman ,Gerdes, had on one or, two occasions posted in the toilet a
piece of wrapping paper on ,which was written an appeal,to use the
paper„to write, on instead of the walls, thus indicating that Gerdes,
who discharged Carlson, was 'not concerned primarily with obscenity
as such:
The respondent sought to establish its consistency in discharging
Carlson by showing that several years previously certain employees
were discharged, but subsequently, reinstated; for posting on the
bulletin board anonymous criticisms of certain foremen, and that in
April 1938 McDonald instructed Foreman Rinehart to discover and
discharge the person who had openly written a lewd remark on the
blower pipe on the third weaving floor. Rinehart, however, was
unable to learn the, identity of this person. The first of the above
REYNOLDS, WIRE COMPANY 675
writings was an, offense against the dignity and discipline, of the
respondent, while the second constituted an indecent remark written
where it could have easily been observed by the female'employees, at
the plant. These incidents are not comparable to the writing by
Carlson in ,the privacy of the men's toilet. - .. ,
The, respondent's explanation' of its discharge of Carlson is unsatis-
factory. 1n our opinion the true reason for the discharge, lies in
Carlson's union activities. Carlson refused the request of Foreman
Gerdes that he rejoin the employer-dominated Association. Becom-
ing, instead, an active member and officer of the, Amalgamated, he
was a special mark for the respondent's hostility. Carlson's writing
on the toilet door could easily have been erased. In any event, such
writing was a fairly common occurrence at the respondent's plants
and had,not been specifically prohibited. In our opinion Carlson's
act served the respondent as a pretext for discharging, an active
member of the Amalgamated at the, height of that organization's
second membership drive. ; , ,
We find that the respondent, discharged Carlson because. he had
joined and assisted the Amalgamated and that it thereby discrimi-
nated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, discouraged
membership in the Amalgamated, and interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of The rights, guaranteed 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 respond-
ent described, in Section I above, have • a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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 unfair labor
practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed''to' effectuate the policies of the
Act.
We -have- found than the respondent has, dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration: of, the Association and has
contributed support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of the
Act and free the employees of the respondent from such domination
and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute a continu-
ing 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 the representative of any of the
'676 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent's empl'oyees'for-the purpose of dealing with the respondent
'concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,'rates of pay, hours of
employment, and conditions of work, and completely to disestablish
it as ' such representative. 'We shall further 'order the respondent
to cease and desist from giving effect to its contract of August 1,
1938,' with' the Association, as -well ' as' 'to any extension,, renewal,
'modification, or supplement thereto, and any superseding contract
with 'the 'Associatio'n which may now- be in force.
We have ' found that the respondent' discriminatorily discharged
and refused to, reinstate George Carlson. We'shall order the respond-
ent to offer George Carlson immediate and full- reinstatement to
his former position and to make him'whole for any loss of pay he has
suffered 'by reason of, the respondent's discrimination by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally
have earned as wages from the date of the termination of his employ-
ment to • the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period.10
' 'Upon the' foregoing findings •of fact, and' upon the entire record in
the 'case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
' ` ]_`Lodge 2086, Amalgamated' Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers of North America,, through Steel Workers Organizing
,Committee affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
and Reynolds Wire Employees Association of Dixon, Illinois, In-
' corporated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2- (5) - of the Act. ' '
-2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and'tenure of employ-
ment- of 'George- Carlson, and thereby discouraging membership in
Lodge 2086, Amalgamated Association of Iron,-Steel and Tin Workers
of North America, through Steel Workers Organizing Committee
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 -(3) of the Act.
1 3. By, dominating and' interfering with- the formation and adminis-
tration- of Reynolds Wire Employees Association of Dixon, Illinois,
Incorporated, and contributing support to it, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within 'the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) of 'the Act. •
10 By "net earnings" is meant earnings legs expenses , such as for transportation , room, and board , incurred
by an employee iniconnection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent, which
would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge , and the consequent necessity of his seeking
employment elsewhere' See Algtter of Crossett 'Luriiber' Cornpany and'Lnited Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Gnion ,-Lee ,l9590, 3 N L R B. 440 Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects are not considered
as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order ; shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and,the
amount thereof shall,be'paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects
REYNOLDS WIRE COMPANY 677
4. 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.
5. The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)` and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions •of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
Reynolds Wire Company, a corporation , Dixon, Illinois, and- its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Lodge 2086, Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron , Steel and Tin Workers of North America , through
Steel Workers Organizing Committee affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , or. any. other labor organization of its
employees , by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard , to hire or ten-
ure of employment;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Reynolds
Wire Employees Association of Dixon, Illinois, Incorporated, or the
formation or administration of any other labor organization of its
-employees, or contributing support to Reynolds Wire Employees
Association of Dixon, Illinois, Incorporated , or any other labor
organization of its employees;
(c) Recognizing Reynolds Wire , Employees Association of Dixon,
Illinois, Incorporated, as the representative . of any of its employees
for the purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other
conditions of work;
(d) Giving effect to its contract of August 1, 1938, with Reynolds
Wire Employees Association of Dixon, Illinois, Incorporated, or to
any extension , renewal, modification , or supplement thereof, or to any
superseding contract with Reynolds 'Wire Employees Association of
Dixon , Illinois , Incorporated;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self -organization, to
form, join, or asisst labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities 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:
323429-42-vol 26-44
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT'1ONS BOARD
(a) Offer, to George Carlson immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges;
(b) Make whole George Carlson for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from May 22, 1939, the date of the illegal termination of his employ-
ment, to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, pursuant
to the terms of this Order, less his net earnings during that period;"
provided that the respondent shall deduct from the back pay due to
said George Carlson a sum equal to that received by him during said
period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or
other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to
the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other government or governments which supplied the funds for
such work-relief projects;
(c) Withdraw all recognition from Reynolds Wire Employees
Association of Dixon, Illinois, Incorporated, 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
work, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestab-
lish Reynolds Wire Employees Association of Dixon, Illinois, Incor-
porated, as such representative;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plants
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees, stating (1) that the re-
spondent will,not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to
cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; and (3) that the
-respondent's employees'are free to become or remain members of the
'Amalgamated, and the respondent will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
11 See footnote 10, supra.