Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1938

7 N.L.R.B. 269 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of SWIFT & COMPANY, A CORPORATION and AMAL.--
GAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMER-
ICA, LOCAL No. 641, and UNITED PACKING HOUSE WORKERS LOCAL
INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 300
Case No. C-355.-Decided May 20, 1938
Meat Packing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-Company-
Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and adminis-
tration ; support ; suggestion that employee-representation plan be continued ;
circulation of petitions for, during working hours ; intimidation and coercion
to join ; activities of supervisors in soliciting membership ; discrimination in
favor of, in recognition as representative of employees ; disestablished, as agency
for collective bargaining.
Mr. Aaron W. Warner, for the Board.
Hughes & Dorsey by Mr. Montgomery Dorsey, of Denver, Colo.,
and Mr. E. B. Kixmiller, and Mr. W. N. Strack, of Chicago, Ill., for
the respondent.
Mr. Sylvester Garrett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 641, herein called
the Amalgamated, and by United Packing House Workers Local
Industrial Union No. 300, herein called the United, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by George O.
Pratt, Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City,
Missouri), issued a complaint, dated September 15, 1937, against
Swift and Company, Denver, Colorado, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2), and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
269
270 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent, by and
through its officers, agents, and persons acting directly or indirectly
in its behalf, dominated and interfered with the formation and ad-
ministration of a certain labor organization. of its employees known
as Packing House Workers Security League, hereinafter called the
League; that it encouraged, allowed, and permitted its supervisory
employees to organize, promote, and encourage membership in, said
organization; and that it threatened and coerced its employees into
joining it.
A copy of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, was
duly served upon the respondent on September 16, 1937. The Amal-
gamated, the United, and the League also were duly served. The
respondent filed an answer, dated September 21, 1937, in which
it denied all of the material allegations of the complaint. The
respondent likewise on the same date filed a motion asking that
the charge be made more specific or the complaint be dismissed
on the ground that the charge failed to state with sufficient par-
ticularity the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices,
thereby precluding the respondent from properly preparing for
the hearing.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Denver, Colorado,
on September 28, 29, and 30, and on October 4, o, 6, and 7, 1937,
before Alvin J. Rockwell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
all parties.
At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved that
the complaint be made more specific in order to enable it to prepare
for the hearing, and at the same time pressed its earlier motion.
The Trial Examiner denied both motions, reserving to the respondent
the right to renew them, or either of them, at the end of the pres-
entation of the Board's proof, or to move for a continuance of the
hearing at that time if necessary to prepare its case. The Board
completed its proof during the afternoon of September 30, 1937.
Thereupon, counsel for the respondent moved for, and the Trial
Examiner granted, a continuance of the hearing until October 4,
1937, pursuant to the earlier ruling. On October 4, 1937, the hearing
was resumed. The respondent repeated both of its previous motions
and requested a further adjournment. These were denied by the
Trial Examiner. The respondent then proceeded with its case.
In the light of the record and the nature of the evidence presented
at the hearing the Board finds that the respondent was afforded
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 271
adequate opportunity for preparing its case and was not prejudiced
in that regard by the rulings of the Trial Examiner.
During the , course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made various
rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence , to some of which
rulings exceptions were made. He also ruled upon the motions of the
parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On November 16, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II,
Section 37 ( c), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, as amended , ordered the proceeding transferred
from the Seventeenth Region to the Twenty -second Region ( Denver,
Colorado).
Thereafter , the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, a
copy of which was served upon the respondent on December 30,
1937, finding that the respondent had committed unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(2), and Section 2 (6) and ( 7), of the Act , and recommending that
the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, with-
draw all recognition from the League as representative of its em-
ployees for collective bargaining , and take certain other action to
remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor practices.
Upon motion of the respondent , its time for filing Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report was extended until January 20 , 1938. On that
date the respondent filed its Exceptions and requested oral argument
before the Board. Notice of the hearing of such oral argument on.
February 8, 1938, was served upon the parties . The respondent
moved for, and the Board allowed, a postponement of said hearing
until February 15, 1938. On February 15, 1938, oral argument
on the Exceptions and record was had before the Board in Washing-
ton, D. C., by the respondent.
The Board has reviewed the Exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and finds them to be without merit . The Exceptions are hereby
overruled.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Swift and Company is an Illinois corporation,' having its mail)
executive office at Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged chiefly in the busi-
ness of purchasing and slaughtering livestock, and marketing the
1 Swift and Company was incorporated in 1885 . It has an authorized and fully issued
capital stock of $150,000,000.
272 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
products aiid byproducts thereof. In addition, it purchases, processes,
and sells dairy, poultry, and other food products.2 The size of its
business ranks it as one of the world's largest distributors of meat,
produce, and other foods. Its operating facilities in the United States
and Canada include approximately 50 packing plants, 125 produce
plants, and 400 refrigerated branch houses. These numerous prop-
erties are owned either directly by the respondent, or by wholly owned
subsidiary companies.'
The principal livestock, slaughtering, and processing plants oper-
ated by the respondent are located in Chicago and East St. Louis,
Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Evansville, Indiana; Kansas City, Kan-
sas; Omaha, Nebraska; St. Joseph and St. Louis, Missouri; South St.
Paul and Winona, Minnesota ; Watertown, South Dakota; South San
Francisco and Vernon, California; Cleveland, Ohio; Portland, Ore-
gon; Detroit, Michigan; Nashville, Tennessee; Montgomery, Alabama;
Atlanta and Moultrie, Georgia; New York City; Brooklyn, New
York; Newark, Harrison, and Jersey City, New Jersey; Baltimore,
Maryland; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Springfield, Somerville, and
East Cambridge, Massachusetts; New Haven, Connecticut; Sioux City
and Des Moines, Iowa; Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, Texas;
and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In all matters of general business policy,
these plants are subject to the direction of the respondent's Chicago
office.
This proceeding is concerned only with the plant of the respondent
located at the Union Stock Yards in Denver, Colorado, herein called
a
2 A statement filed by the respondent with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 16, 1933, states that the respondent is engaged in. "the general business of acquiring
and slaughtering livestock, processing and marketing products produced or derived from
livestock, acquiring, processing and marketing poultry, manufacturing or acquiring butter,
cheese, margarine, ice cream, milk products and eggs and marketing the same, tanning
and preparing hides and skins and marketing the same and products produced or derived
therefrom, pulling wool skins, acquiring and marketing wool, maintaining and operating
cotton gins, crushing cotton seed, peanuts and other products for the extraction of vege-
table oils, refining, manufacturing and marketing vegetable oils, including cotton seed,
cocoanut and peanut oils, manufacturing and marketing cooking oil and other oils, mining
and marketing rock salt, mining and marketing phosphate rock, manufacturing or pie-
paring and marketing fertilizer, animal feeds, sulphuric acid, glue, gelatine, glycerine,
soap and ice, operating farm lands and properties, growing, feeding and bedding live•
stock, maintaining and operating facilities for the storage, refrigeration and tran,porta-
tion of some of the above-mentioned products, and in addition thereto, the storage and
mefiigeration of some products of other persons, and operating and maintaining facilities
for the distribution and marketing of some of the above-mentioned products and, in some
foreign countries, the products of other persons" In addition, it appears that the re-
spondent, through wholly owned subsidiaries, on though companies in which it holds
large controlling interests is engaged in the preparing, canning, and marketm"e of canned
foods, in the operation of public stockyards, and in the conduct of an insurance business
3 The respondent maintains at least 55 wholly owned subsidiary companies in the
United States, as well as 13 wholly owned foreign subsidiaries In addition, the re-
spondent retains large controlling interests in a number of important companies Among
these is Libby, McNeill & Libby, which itselt maintains at least IS wholly owned sub-
sidiary companies.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 273
the Denver plant. Although this is regarded by the respondent as
one-of its important processing and slaughtering plants, the respond-
ent contended at the hearing that the Denver plant was operated in-
dependently and that, in this view, evidence relating to the business
and activities of the respondent in places other than Denver was
irrelevant. The record show's, however, that all of the respondent's
plants are under unified control, and operated in close coordination.
Indeed, such coordination is but the natural outcome of the applica-
tion of large-scale methods to the meat packing industry.
The Denver plant, located in the heart of one of the world's leading
sheep raising areas, plays an important part in the vast business of
the respondent. It employs about 780 persons. Through it are made
large purchases of live sheep and lambs for direct shipment to other
units in the respondent's organization.4 More important, large quan-
tities of the animals are slaughtered and processed at the Denver
plant, and shipped eastward to the other plants of the respondent in
such States as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey.
To a lesser extent, the same is true in the case of dressed beef and
pork. On the other hand, the Denver plant obtains commodities from
other plants of the respondent, in order to meet demands of cus-
tomers in the territory surrounding Denver.
The respondent has assigned to the Denver plant exclusive sales
jurisdiction within the "Denver Region," a territory embracing Colo-
rado, Wyoming, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Mon-
tana, and Nevada. In supplying the needs of this region, as well as
in carrying on its other functions, the Denver plant required within
a given 10-month period over 100,000,000 pounds of raw materials.
About 80 per cent of this amount consisted of livestock purchased
through the local stockyards, a substantial part of which, in turn, was
brought in from outside Colorado. Sixty per cent of the hogs deliv-
ered at the Denver plant for processing come from Nebraska.-' Apart
from the livestock slaughtered, and excluding coal which is obtained
in Colorado, at least half of the remaining raw materials necessary
to the operation of the Denver plant are derived from sources outside
Colorado, in many instances, from other plants of the respondent. In'
the ordinary course of its business, the Denver plant ships nearly two-
thirds of its product to destinations outside of Colorado. During a
10-month period ending September 4, 1937, its total sales amounted
to $10,544,000.
"All such purchases are made on instructions from the respondent's Chicago office
An official of the Denver plant stated • "Our sheep buyers get their instructions every
day as to what to buy ; and they are shipped to various points east, largely Chicago, and
hi lied these"
5
The exact weight of live hogs thus brought into the plant does not appear in the
record
274 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North Amer-
ica, Local No. 641, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. It admits to membership production workers
in the meat packing industry employed-in the State of Colorado, in-
cluding employees of the respondent at the Denver plant.
United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No. 300,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization, likewise admitting to membership production employees
in the meat packing industry throughout the State of Colorado,
including workers at the Denver plant.
Packing House Workers Security League is a labor organization
drawing its membership from the employees of the respondent in
Denver.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. 'Background of the unfair labor practices
In November 1936, representatives of the Amalgamated commenced
organization activities among the respondent's Denver employees.
By the end of April 1937, over 400 had joined. About July, a number
of the members of the Amalgamated withdrew and joined the United.
A charter was granted the United by the Committee for Industrial
Organization on July 8, 1937.
At the time the Amalgamated first enlisted members among the
respondent's employees, and for many years prior thereto, there
existed at the Denver plant an employees' representation plan known
as the "Assembly Plan." The Plan had been adopted and put into
operation by the respondent in pursuance of a general policy regard-
ing its relations with employees. Similar plans had been adopted by
the respondent in over 100 of its other plants. The salient features
common to these plans are to be found in the Plan as it operated at
Denver. Noteworthy was the direct participation of the plant man-
agement in the administration of the Plan. The Plan provided for
the selection of eight employee representatives, chosen by the em-
ployees in the various departments at elections supervised by the re-
spondent, and eight representatives designated by the management.
These 16 persons met at regular intervals to discuss employment prob-
lems as they arose from time to time. Meetings were held during
working hours in the respondent's office building. There was no
provision for separate membership meetings.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 275
B. Interference with, and domination and support of, Packing House
Workers Security League
On April 20, 1937, a special meeting of the Assembly Plan was
called at the Denver plant, upon orders by Middaugh, the plant man-
ager. The sole purpose was to inform the representatives of the
dissolution of the Plan. As was customary, the meeting was held in
an assembly room adjoining the main offices of the plant.
At this meeting, Young, the plant superintendent, read to the group
a notice which had been received from the Chicago office. The same
notice was posted on bulletin boards throughout the plant. It stated :
On Monday, April 12, the United States Supreme Court made
public its decision on several cases under the National Labor
Relations Act (the Wagner Bill) and held the Act valid.
It is Swift & Company's intention to comply with the law as
the court has now construed it and it is not possible to continue
the present Representation Plan.
Whether you wish to establish an employees' representat,on
plan for collective bargaining, that will comply'with terms of the
law, is a matter for you to decide: If you wish to adopt a plan
for negotiating with the company on wages, hours, and working
conditions, it should not include' management participation in
elections of employee representatives, the furnishing of printed
material by the company, nor company compensation to em-
ployee representatives for time spent away from their work, ex-
cept when conferring with management, as this latter is not
prohibited by law.
It shall be the policy of the company to continue to consult
with its employees on all matters of mutual interest in an honest
effort to find the proper solution to problems. Finally; the com-
pany earnestly desires that the understanding growing out of our
relationships during these past'many years will be the basis upon
which the continued good relations between employees and the
company will be maintained.
Upon the completion of.the reading of the notice Young and the
management representatives retired from- the meeting, leaving the
employee representatives remaining in the room. Young gave them
a digest of the Act previously prepared by the Chicago office. The
employee representatives then discussed by themselves the situation
presented, in the light of the notice and the digest. One Sheldon
Schafer assumed leadership. A majority of those present expressed
a preference for establishing some form of independent- labor organi-
zation at the plant rather than one affiliated with any national body.
276 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No immediate action was taken, and it was decided that employee
representatives would meet again to consider the problem further.
That same day, Schafer made arrangements with Young for the
use of the respondent's facilities for a meeting the following morn-
ing. He telephoned Young and asked whether the old employee repre=
sentatives might rent the plant cafeteria for such a meeting. The
amount of rental was not discussed. A few days later, the respond=
ent sent the old employee representatives a bill making a rental
charge of 1 dollar. After arranging for the meeting, Schafer
informed the representatives about it and told them that they would
be docked for time spent at, the meeting.,
The following morning, at 10 o'clock, the meeting was held.
Schafer acted as chairman. The old employee representatives de-
cided to 'circulate a certain petition, hereinafter described, amcng
the employees; and Schafer proceeded to dictate the form thereof.
They further decided that the new organization should be known as
"Employees Security League of Swift and Company."
The meeting ended at about 10: 45. Fifteen minutes later, the
group met with Middaugh and Young, and with one Woolley, the
head of the Dairy and Poultry department. Schafer informed the
respondent's officials that, "the sentiment of the old Assembly was,
by unanimous vote, that we wished to start an independent union
and that we had assumed a temporary name and had elected tempo-
rary officers, which we felt was in compliance with our Wagner Bill."
Young objected to the use of "Swift and Company" in the name of
the new organization. While in his testimony, Young failed to recall
having suggested a substitute name, another witness stated that he
had. The old employee representatives asked several questions,
among others whether their proposed organization "would be con-
sidered a bargaining agency." They also inquired if they might use
the respondent's premises for their meetings and whether they would
be permitted to solicit members during working hours. Middaugh
told them that the respondent would be willing to furnish a meeting
place if rent were paid but would not allow solicitation during
working hours.
Following the meeting with the officials, the old employee repre-
sentatives prepared "petitions," in accordance with the form dic-
tated by Schafer, for circulation through the plant. The evidence,
conflicts as to the contents of these "petitions". One witness stated
that the "petitions" were designed to enlist members, that the repre-
sentatives were supposed to take them to their respective departments
and secure the signature of any employee who wished to join. Other
witnesses, testifying for the respondent, asserted that the sole pur-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 277
pose of the petitions was to discover whether the employees wished
to be members of an independent or of a nationally affiliated union.
In view of the fact that the old employee representatives already had
determined upon forming the League, it is difficult to see why at
that stage they should have been interested in circulating such a.
questionnaire. At the hearing, Schafer, called as a witness by the
respondent, was asked by the respondent's counsel to give the sub-
stance of the petitions. Schafer proceeded to reply that the petitions
had stated, "We, the undersigned, of the Employees' Security
League . .." At this point counsel for the respondent interrupted
his own witness, and Schafer's statement was never completed. We
cannot but observe that the language of the petitions, to the extent
stated by Schafer, is inconsistent with any theory that the petitions
aimed merely to inquire whether the employees wished to join an
independent or a nationally affiliated labor organization. In the
light of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we are satisfied,
and find, that the petitions were prepared for the purpose of securing
members for the League.
During the afternoon of April 21 the old employee representatives
commenced their circulation of the petitions. A number of them
testified, and the evidence establishes, that this took place during
working hours. The circulation not only was widespread but con-
tinued for several days. While various foremen and supervisory
employees, called as witnesses for the respondent, stated that they
had not observed such circulation, others stated that they had and
cautioned the men to stop, which was done. The petitions were writ-
ten on ordinary full length sheets of typewriting paper.
Within a few days after April 20 other organization activities on
behalf of the League were undertaken. Four of the respondent's
witnesses, Brennan, Brooks, O'Brien, and Schafer, all employees,
admitted that during a period of several weeks they solicited mem-
berships for the League. O'Brien and Schafer further testified I hat
these activities took them through at least three departments. It
will be noted, with respect to O'Brien, that his duties as a cattle
skinner ordinarily would not have permitted him to roam at will
through the plant. Foremen and supervisors of the respondent,
however, testified that they had observed no such solicitation during
working hours. We are of the opinion that the testimony, in this
regard, of the four employees is entitled to credence; that they in
fact did solicit memberships for the League during working hours.
A number of other employees,' called as witnesses for the respond-
ent, denied that in late April and in May they had done any solici-
e Prominent among this group were Gerlock, Marsaglia , and Vandergriff.
278 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tation during working hours. They testified that they had only
"talked to" employees requesting information about the League.
However, the evasive character of the responses of these` witnesses,
as well as the nature of their admitted activities, convinces us, and
we find, that their "talking to" employees was actual solicitation.
One of these witnesses, Brennan, admitted that it had been his prac-
tice, further, to walk about the plant asking employees to attend
League meetings. Another of the witnesses, Vandergriff, concededly
collected dues for the League during working hours and distributed
notices of League meetings. We entertain no doubt that Brennan
and Vandorgriff carried on these other activities as well.
The evidence with respect to two incidents is worthy of considera-
tion in connection with the denials of the respondent's supervisory
.employees that they noticed any League activities.
Malone, an employee, testified that on one occasion he found Brooks
in a cooler soliciting a number of other employees. Malone further tes-
tified that he then went to the foreman, Fling, and persuaded him to
go to the cooler, where they both found Brooks in the midst of his
activities, that Fling then took Brooks to the assistant superintendent,
Horwich, who, in the presence of Malone and Fling, reprimanded
Brooks. Fling was a witness at the hearing. Although he remembered
having gone to the cooler with Malone, he denied finding Brooks en-
gaged there in solicitation. However, Horwich also was a witness and
supported Malone's testimony entirely, stating that not only had he
reprimanded Brooks for soliciting in the cooler but that Fling, him-
self, had reprimanded Brooks. Malone's version is fully established
by the record.
During one lunch hour, the girls in the sliced-bacon department were
solicited in a body, by Schafer, to become members of the League. The
girls were taken into the foreman's office and detained there for at
least 15 minutes after work should have been resumed. Throughout
-the time, the power was shut off and the machinery could not be
operated. Fugit, the foreman, was absent, and testified that lie knew
nothing of the occurrence until after it had happened. However, he
also testified that there was always someone in the department man-
aging affairs, and that on that occasionl, his assistant, Brunson, must
have been iii charge. The record shows that ordinarily Brunson tended
to the task of switching on the power. One witness stated that Brun-
son, in fact, had observed the entire incident. The respondent did not
put Brunson on the stand. We are of the opinion that Brunson or
Fugit had knowledge at that time of Schafer's activity. No discipli-
nary action was ever thereafter taken against Schafer with respect
to it.
The evidence shows that supervisory employees of the respondent.
-participated in the League's drive for members. Several employees
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 279
testified to having been called to the office of Fugit, the foreman, or
drawn aside at work, and threatened by Fugit with loss of vacation,
of bonus,`and of seniority rights, unless they joined the League. Fugit
admitted at the hearing that he had talked "more or less" with the girls
in his department but stated that his conversations related merely to
requests for information on the subject of unions , or to matters of
business. His description of a typical conversation was : "I asked
them if they had joined any union yet and possibly they said `No,' and
I said `Well, you better think it over seriously.' " IIowever, in view of
the general•nature of his responses, and the record, we conclude that
Fugit in fact did systematically canvass the employees in his depart-
ment in an effort to have them join the League, and that he intimidated
and coerced them to that end.
Petsch, the assistant foreman in the smoke house, also was active in
enlisting members. On one occasion , he asked Wilson, an employee,
where his Security League button was, and upon being told that Wil-
son was a member of the Amalgamated , proceeded to comment on both
unions, concluding with the statement, "Don't you know that this com-
pany union would be better for your job and for yourself?" Petsch,
on cross-examination, agreed that he had asked Wilson where his
green button (Security League emblem) was; indeed, he went on to
say that he had asked the same question of the other employees in his
department.
There is substantial evidence that Knauss, the foreman in the beef
cutting department, was similarly interested in the buttons worn by
the men. In addition to "razzing " the Amalgamated members about
their affiliation , Knauss, in one instance , at least, pulled an Amalga-
mated button from an employee's coat and threw it on the floor.7
Knauss said: "So you joined the . . . damned outside Union."
Knauss' testimony in respect to this incident was :
Q. Did you ever take off a button from a man?
A. Yes . . .
Q. What kind of a button was it?
A. Plain button. If there had been any inscription of any kind
on it, it had-been scratched off .. .
Q. What did you do with that button?
A. I throwed it on the floor.
Q. Why?
A. Oh, just fooling around, I guess.
The greatest pitch of activity on behalf of the League continued
during the month succeeding April 21. Throughout this period the
."The record is somewhat confused with respect to the identification of the employee
whose button Knauss removed
106791-38-vol vi[-19
280 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amalgamated repeatedly protested to the respondent about solicita-
tion by League members and officers during working hours. These
protests were without avail. The respondent contends that` it was
unable to prevent such solicitation because of the rivalry existing be-
tween the Amalgamated and the League. Early in the period, on
April 25, Horwich, the assistant superintendent , cautioned the lead-
ers of both the League and the Amalgamated against solicitation
during working hours. There is no showing, however, that any
activity by the Amalgamated occurred comparable in extent with
that of the League. Charges of such activity , in some instances af-
firmatively established as unfounded, were the object of prompt
attention by the respondent. On one occasion, before work, had
begun, two members of the Amalgamated inquired of another em-
ployee, one Cook, whether he had solicited for the League during
working hours. Upon Cook's complaint to Horwich that he had
been interfered with after work had commenced, Horwich threatened
the Amalgamated members with discharge. On another occasion,
an order by Horwich to the Amalgamated to stop soliciting admit-
tedly was proved to have been without cause. Indeed, the respond-
ent's supervisory employees reprimanded the Amalgamated for pro-
testing against League activity. After two members of the Amalga-
mated spoke with Fugit, before working hours, about his aiding the
League, one of them was reproved severely by Horwich for having
done so, and was told to "quit interfering with the bosses." Horwich
never interrogated Fugit about the truth of the matter.
The Amalgamated also protested against the activities which the
supervisory employees of the respondent carried on in the interest
of the League. Three times prior to mid-June, protests were lodged
directly with Middaugh , the plant manager.
The respondent urges that Middaugh, Young, and Horwich took
all reasonable steps to prevent the respondent 's supervisory em-
ployees from soliciting members for the League , showing partisan-
ship towards it, or otherwise aiding in its organization. In the brief
filed with the Board, the respondent sets forth four successive occa-
sions when it is alleged to have ordered its foremen not to engage in
such activities. The record shows that on April 20 Young instructed
Horwich "to notify the foremen of the same information that I was
giving to the Assembly." The reference was to the above-mentioned
meeting had with the old representatives the same day . Horwich
thereafter met with the foremen. According to Knauss, Horwich
conveyed only this information , and Horwich 's testimony is, corrobo-
rative. We are of the opinion that on April 20; Horwich merely told'
the foremen of the matters presented that day to the old representa-
tives. Most of the instructions to foremen were given by'Iiorwieh.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 281
On such occasions he "just read the Wagner Act," "kept repeating
it," and let the men draw their own conclusions as to its meaning.
At a meeting of supervisory employees held on April 29 Young
read parts of the Act to the men and informed them "that -we did not
want any violation of the Wagner Bill . .." He also interrogated
Foremen Brandt, Fugit, and Wilson about their alleged activities,
telling them "that their names had been mentioned and I wanted to
know if they had violated any of the Wagner Bill Act." Upon
receiving a negative answer from them, he was satisfied that they
had in no wise interfered with the self-organization of the employees.
The evidence establishes that the assistant superintendent, Hor-
wich. entertained a degree of hostility towards the Amalgamated
which he took little pains to conceal. He openly "kidded" the leaders
of the Amalgamated during working hours about their affiliation,
accused one of them of being a "Red", and told another that there
were "ways" of getting him into the League.
During this period membership in the League achieved a mush-
room-like growth while that of the Amalgamated declined. The first
meeting of the League was held on the evening of April 28. Two
"gang bosses" were elected its president and vice president, respec-
tively. Because "gang bosses" were. considered supervisory employees
by the men, the election gave rise to considerable criticism of the
League as a "company union." The two officers thereupon resigned
and successors were chosen. On May 13 the League was incorporated
under the laws of Colorado. On May 25, 1937, it requested the re-
spondent to recognize it as representative of "all of the employees"
at the Denver plant for purposes of collective bargaining.
Upon the request being made, Middaugh instructed the timekeeper
to verify the League's claim that it represented a majority of the
employees. The timekeeper thereafter met with the secretary of the
League, and together the two checked a list of "members" against
the respondent's pay roll. The timekeeper reported to Middaugh
that 70 per cent of the employees had joined the League. On May
27, 2 days after the request, the League was granted recognition as
the exclusive bargaining agency for all of the Denver employees.
Earlier, on May 7, and again on May 17, the Amalgamated had re-
quested the respondent to recognize it as collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees, excluding the supervisory force. Mid-
daugh replied that the matter would have to be referred to Chicago
before any action by the respondent could be taken. Subsequently,
on several occasions, the Amalgamated communicated with Middaugh
to ascertain what position the Chicago office had taken, and was told
that the request had not yet been considered. Middaugh inquired
whether the Amalgamated would submit its books to the respondent
to determine whether it represented a majority of the employees
282 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Amalgamated refused, suggesting, however, that an election of
representatives be held at the plant.
At the time that the League asked for recognition, the respondent
neither advised nor consulted with the Amalgamated respecting the
granting of the League's request. The respondent's officials testified
that they were then satisfied that the Amalgamated's claim to repre-
sent a majority was unfounded. Their opinion was based upon a,
report made by Young who arrived at his conclusion respecting the
strength of that organization from the number of Amalgamated but-
tons he had observed while walking through the plant in the course
of his duties.
Shortly after its recognition, the League tendered the respondent
a list of the names of certain employees, called "grievers," selected
to present employee grievances to the management . Thereafter,
Norwich went through the plant informing the employees, without
explanation, of the name of the particular "grievers" through whom
grievances were to be submitted.
The affairs of the League are "under the control of" a Board of
Directors consisting of 10 persons, most of whom are former repre-
sentatives of the old Assembly Plan. Under the charter and by-
laws of the League, the Board is empowered to make such bylaws
as it, in its discretion, may deem proper. There is no provision for
regular meetings of the members of the League. other than senii-
annual meetings for the election of officers. Supervisory employees
are not excluded from membership . The bylaws expressly caution
the "grievers" with respect to the propriety of their conduct in deal-
ing with the respondent, by admonishing them not to resort to
"bluffs" or use the League as a "club." They also provide that :
"Each griever shall familiarize him or herself with the working
rules or agreement of our employer , use extreme caution in not
violating this agreement." The president of the League testified that
the words "working rules or agreement" referred to the rules of the
respondent relating to working conditions , either presently existing
"or any that may follow."
Upon the foregoing facts, and the entire record, we are satisfied that
coincident with its decision to dissolve the old Assembly Plan, the re-
spondent, through its officers and supervisory force, embarked upon a
course of action designed to encourage and dominate the formation
and administration of the League, and lend support to it. Viewed in
its entirety, the evidence shows that the respondent had resolved that
the method of employee representation to succeed the old Plan should
be one as congenial to its will as the old Plan, itself, had been.
The circumstances attending the meeting of the representatives on
April 20 mark it as the first step. By unilateral action, the respondent
already had dissolved the old Plan' and posted throughout its plant
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 283
the very notice which was read. The language of the notice, considered
in the light of how the old employee representatives, as reasonable
men, must have understood it, is significant. After setting forth that
the provision of the Act barred a continuance of the old Plan, the
notice proceeded to state that the employees themselves might adopt an
employee-representation plan, and cautioned as to what modifications
would be necessary to free it from company domination. Such notice,
under the facts, was well calculated to reveal the favorable disposition
of the respondent towards an `independent" organization, patterned
after the old Plan. The retirement of the management representatives
upon the conclusion of Young's reading of the notice, coupled with his
leaving the old employee representatives a copy thereof and the pre-
pared digest of the Act, was an invitation for the old employee repre-
sentatives to proceed.8 The ease with which Schafer, later in the day,
secured the use of the plant cafeteria for an organizational meeting
evidences the manner of management cooperation which the repre-
sentatives could anticipate; indeed, the incident, along with other facts
appearing in the record, casts suspicion on the singleness of Schafer's
own interest in the matter.
The meeting of the old employee representatives with the plant
officials on April 21 is of relevance chiefly because it discloses how
the representatives, themselves, accepted as matter of course the in-
terest of the respondent in the League. Although at that time they
had no authority to speak for any of the plant employees but them-
selves, the representatives nevertheless deemed it of importance to
report to the respondent that "the sentiment of the old Assembly was,
by unanimous vote," that an "independent" union be set up. The as-
sumption that such a matter was then of concern to the respondent, as
well as the inquiries of the representatives as to whether the League
would be accorded recognition as a collective bargaining agency and
whether they might use the plant premises for solicitation of members
and for meetings, point to a tacit assumption that the wishes of the
respondent had entered into the formation of the League.
We have already indicated the extent and nature of the support
which the respondent lent to the formation of the League. No effective
measures were taken to stop the League from circulating membership
petitions, soliciting members, distributing notices of meetings, col-
lecting dues, or engaging in other organizational activities, during
working hours. The respondent's own supervisory force enlisted
8In a consolidated case decided by the Board today, In the Matter of Swift it Company
and United Automobile Workers of America , Local No 265, Case No C-484 ; In the Mat-
ter of Swift it Company and United Pacting Houce Workers, L I Union No 328 Affiliate
C I 0 , Case No R-605 , 7 N L. R B 287. It appeared that a similar procedure was fol-
lowed at the Evansville , Indiana, plant of the respondent with respect to the calling of a
meeting of the old representatives , the reading of a notice identical in language with that
here involved , and the withdrawal of the management representatives upon the conclusion
of the reading.
284 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members for the League, intimidated employees who would not join it,
and otherwise aided in its formation. The assistant superintendent of
the plant displayed marked partisanship. Throughout the period, the
announced policy of the respondent against organizational activity
during working hours was vigorously enforced against the Amalga-
mated, and its protests regarding the activities of and support given
the League were unavailing.
Upon the record, the respondent's contention, heretofore mentioned,
that it was unaware of League activities at the plant, that it sought
to prevent such activities, and that it warned its supervisory force on
several occasions against assisting the League, is not persuasive. We
are convinced that the respondent's officials and supervisory em-
ployees were well aware of the extensive activities carried on by
League members during working hours, and that by their neglect
to curb such activities, at the same time withholding from the Amal-
gamated an opportunity to engage in similar activities, they sought
to encourage the growth of the League at the expense of the Amal-
gamated. We are equally convinced that the respondent's super-
visory employees, especially Fugit, Knauss, and Petsch, solicited on
behalf of the League. We attach little weight or importance to the
alleged warnings given the foremen by the respondent about their
solicitation of employees, for the evidence thereof, in view of the
authority of the respondent in such matters, shows that the respondent
could not have seriously believed that it had taken effective means
to prevent such practices. Moreover, the respondent, under the cir-
cumstances, cannot disavow the support which its supervisory em-
ployees accorded the League. There is no showing that the em-
ployees understood, or that the respondent sought to make clear to
them, that its foremen were acting without the acquiescence, if not
pursuant to the direction, of the respondent.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the League, and has contributed
support to it; that by its aforesaid acts, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, and to form, join, and assist labor organi-
zations.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE 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
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
V. THE REMEDY
285
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the League and has con-
tributed support to it. Under these circumstances, the League can-
not and does not offer to the respondent's employees the free repre-
sentation for collective bargaining which is guaranteed by the Act.
We shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw from • the
League all recognition as representative of the respondent's em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining, and to disestablish
it as such representative.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local No. 641; United Packing House Workers Local In-
dustrial Union No. 300; and Packing House Workers Security League
are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5), of the
Act.
2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), of the Act.
3. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Packing House Workers Security League,
and by contributing support to said organization, has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the 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,
Swift and Company, and its officers , agents , successors , and assigns
shall:
1. Cease and desist:
(a) From in any manner dominating or interfering with the ad-
ministration of Packing House Workers Security League, or the for-
mation or administration of any other labor organization of its
286 -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, and from contributing financial or other support to Pack-
ing House Workers Security League or to any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees;
(b) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Packing House Workers Secu-
rity League, as a representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and completely disestablish said Packing House Workers
Security League as such representative;
(b) Post immediately , and keep posted for a period of at least
thirty ( 30) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its
employees in conspicuous places throughout the Denver plant stating
that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in
1 (a) and ( b), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in
2 (a), of this order; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,
in writing , within ten ( 10) days from the date of this order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.