The Verplex Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 15, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 472 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE VERPLEX COMPANY and UNITED FURNITuRL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 105 (C I O )
Case No C-2126 -Decided July 115).19.19
Jurisdiction . lamp manufacturing industry
Unfair Labor Practices
In General employer held responsible for activities of head designer who was
regarded by both management and employees as more than an ordinary
employee
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion anti-union statements, encouraging and
condoning interruption of union meeting, ridiculing employee personally,
threat to close plant
Company-Dominated Union first organization domination of,- by activities of
supervisory employees who participated in its formation and administration-
second organization found to be a successor to the first organization which
was not disestablished but superficially reorganized, similar support afforded
as given to predecessor, precipitate and unquestioned recognition thereto, in
contrast to outspoken hostility to "outside" union
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of both predecessor and successor dominated
organizations, ordered, contract with successor dominated organization.
abrogated
Mr. Albert J. Hoban, for the Board.
Mr Julius Schneller, of Essex, Conn, for the iespondent
Mr Harry 1W17einstock, of New York City, for the United.
Mr Herman Sezd, of Syracuse, N Y, for the Verplex Union
Mr Cecil F Poole, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended chaige duly filed on January 15, 1942,'
by United Furniture Workers of America, -Local 105, affiliated with
the Congiess of Industiial Organizations, herein called the United,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts),
issued its complaint dated January 21, 1942, against The Verplex
Company, Essex, Connecticut, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in-unfair
I A charge and a first amended charge were filed on September 20, 1941, and Decem-
ber 2, 1941, respectively
42NLRB,No99
472
THE VERPLEX COMPANY 473
labor practices affecting commerce; 'within the meaning of Section 8
(1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and, (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint
and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent-and the United, and'upon^ Verplex-Employees Association,
herein called the Association, and Verplex Workers Union, herein
called the Verplex Union, labor oiganizations alleged in the com-
plaint to have been dominated by the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that the respondent (1) on or about August 26, 1941,
and at various times thereafter, questioned its employees individually
concerning their membership in and activity on behalf of the United,
expressed to its employees its hostility toward the United- and its
approval of the Association and the Verplex Union, and urged cer-
tain of its employees, including supervisors, to attend a meeting of
the United for 'the purpose ^of, interfering with its conduct; (2) on
of about August 26, 1941, and thereafter, dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association, and con-
tributed suppoit to it; (3) on or about Septembei 6, 1941, and
at all times thereafter, dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of the Verplex Union and contributed sup-
port to it, and, for the purpose of discouraging membership in the
United and encouraging membership in the Verplex Union, on or
about Octobei 1, 1941, entered into an agreement with the Verplex
Union recognizing it as the exclusive baigammg representative of
the respondent's employees, and (4) by these acts, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guar anteed in section 7 of the Act
The respondent did, not file an answer to the complaint.
By letter dated January 25, 1942, counsel for the Verplex Union
requested postponement of the hearing from February 5 to Feb-
ruary 26 or 27, 1942, on the ground of prior engagements. The
Regional Director denied the requested' delay, but on January 31,
1942, postponed the hearing to February 16 On February 6, 10
and 11, counsel for the Verplex Union requested further postpone-
ment of the hearing, which the Regional Director denied. The
Veiplex Union contends that this denial of the request for post-
mentment of the hearing was a denial of due process This con-
tention is without merit, and the rulings of the Regional Director
are hereby affirmed.2
2 Cf National Labor Relations Board v Ancerscan Potash and Chemical Corp, 98
F (2d) 488 (C C A 9), enf'g 3 N L R B 140, cert den 306 U S 643 , Matter of Ronns
Parfum Inc, and Ey-Teb Sales Corp and United Mine Workers of America , District No 50,
Chemical Division, successor to Chemical Workers Local Industrial Union No 33 , affiliated
wtith 0 1 O, 8 N L R B 323, enf'd 104 F (2d) 1017 (C C A 2)
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Puisuant to notice, a hearing was held at Essex, Connecticut,
on February 16 and 17, 1942; before William F Guffey, Ji , the
Trial Examiner duly' designated by the Chief Trial Examiner
The Board and the United were represented by counsel, the iespond-
ent was represented by its president, and all participated in the
hearings The Veiplex Union did not actively palticipate, although
its former president was present throughout the hearing 4 Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties
At the last session of the hearing the respondent for the first time
iequested a 2-day postponement, which was denied by the Tiial Ex-
aminer At the close of the healing, the Trial Examiner gianted a
motion by counsel for the Board to amend the pleadings to conform
to the proof During the heaiing the Trial Examinei made various
rulings on other motions and on the admissibility of evidence The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed The rulings are heieby afhimed
None of the parties argued of ally before the Trial Examinei or filed
briefs with him, although given the opportunity to do so
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
dated March 2, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon th'
respondent, the United, and the Verplex Union The Trial Exami-
nes found-that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commeice, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist theiefiom, that it' com-
pletely disestablish the Association, and that it withdraw recognition
from the Verplex Union and completely disestablish it
On April 6, 1942, the Verplex Union filed with the Boaid its ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report, a brief in suppoit of its excep-
tions, and a motion that the iecord be reopened foi the taking of
s The respondent was not represented at the hearing by counsel Julius'Schneller, the
respondent ' s president , appealed at the beginning of the hearing but refused to enter a
written appearance of record on behalf of the respondent Schnellei was present through-
out the hearing , except for the afternoon session on February 16, and participated in the
heating by testifying at length, making numerous statements for the record , and calling
one witness who, upon Schnellet s inquest , was examined by the Trial Examiner Schneller
stated that he was not an attorney and that lie felt unqualified to present matters "in legal
form" Cf National Labor Relations Board v Newberry Lumber and Chemical Company,
123 F (2d) 831, and cases cited in footnote 2 supra
* Thornton H Brown was president of the Verplex Union until about Febtu'try 7, 1942,
when he submitted his resignation At the time of the hearing his iesignation"had not
been accepted , nor had his successor been elected Brown appealed at the hearing in
response to the Board' s subpena daces tecum, but failed to produce the documents requested
in the subpena and refused to answer any questions relative to the issues in the case He
was present throughout the hearing but refused to enter an appearance of record on behalf
of the vetplex Union and participated in the beaming only to the extent of testifying briefly
and asking one question of one witness -See cases cited in footnotes 2 and 3, supra
THE VERPLEX COMPANY 475
evidence on its behalf 5 Thereafter, at the request of the Verplex
Union and pursuant to notice duly served on all the patties, a hearing
was held before the Boaid in Washington, 'D C, on April 14, 1942,
foi the puipose of oial argument The United and the Verplex
Union were represented by counsel and participated in the argu-
ment, the respondent did not appear.
The Boaid has considered the exceptions and the brief filed by
the Veiplex Union, and hereby finds the exceptions to be without
merit, insofar as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below
Upon the entire record in -the case, the Board makes the
following -
FINDINGS OF,FACT
I IHE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Veiplex Company is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Connecticut , having its pimcipal office and a single
plant at Essex,' Connecticut , wheie it is engaged in the manufacture.
sale, and distribution of lamps, lamp shades , wire goods , and novel-
ties The materials used by the respondent consist principally of
paper, steel wire, lacquers , paints, and corrugated containers Dur-
ing the pet iod from January 1 , 1940, to June 30; 1941 , the respondent
used approximately $45,000 worth of such niateiials at its Essex,
Connecticut , plant, approximately 90 percent of, which were imported
by the i espondent from outside the State of Connecticut Duiing the
same peiiod , the respondent manufactured finished products valued
at appioxmnately $300,000, approximately 75 perecent of which were
shipped by the respondent to points outside the State of Connecticut C
II THE ORG tNIZATION S INN OLVED
United Furnituie Woikeis of Anieiica, Local 105, is a labor oigan-
ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad-
mitting to membership, among otheis, production and maintenance
employees of the respondent
Verplex Employees Association and Verplex Workers Union ate
unaffiliated labor organizations, admitting to membership employees
of the respondent.
G The basis of the motion vv as the alleged denial of due process in the Regional Duector's
iefusal to giant the postponement considered above The motion is hereby denied
The findings with respect to the respondent s operations are based upon a stipulation
between the respondents president and counsel for the Boaid , including a stipulation
that the respondent is engaged in commerce i iIlin the meaning of the Act -
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In August 1941, some of the respondent's employees began to mani-
fest interest in the United Dorothy Ressler, one of the first em-
ployees to join the United, actively solicited other employees to join.
She also distributed to the employees leaflets setting forth the benefits
of membership in the United, urging the employees to join, and con-
taining blank applications for membership Several of the respond-
ent's employees signed application blanks and thereafter conducted
small meetings in pi ivate hones On August 26, 1941, as Ressler was
leaving the plant, Helen Schneller, the respondent's vice president
stated to Ressler that she understood that Ressler "was head of the
C 10 " asked Ressler if "she could not do anything to keep the C I 0
out" of the respondent's,plant,,,and remarked that "it's too bad we
could not have peace" in the plant Olive Drake, forelady in the
drumpack department,-' was standing neaiby and joined Vice-piesi-
dent Schneller in the expression of a desire for "peace " -
During the evening of August 26, the United held a meeting at its
hall in Deep River, a nearby town This meeting was attended by
almost all of the 25 employees in the iespondent's wire room, by
Foreman Knapko of that department, and by several employees from
other departments of the respondent's plant, including Thornton H
Brown, the respondent's head designer, and Foreman Hyatt, of the
respondent's silk-screen department At this meeting, Brown de-
fended the respondent's labor policies and the working conditions in
its plant, and stated that President Schneller "told him that if the
C. I 0 came around, why, he would close up the plant " Foreman
Knapko spoke of the satisfactory conditions in the wire Ioom The
employees from the wire room "brought up such a rumpus" that the
United "could not carry on the meeting " Foreman Hyatt, who
admitted that he helped create the disturbance at the meeting, testi-
fied at the hearing that he and the wire room employees were "op-
posed" to the C I 0, and that he and many of those who attended the
meeting were not interested in joining the United, but were merely
curious "to see what they had to say."
Foremen Knapko and Hyatt and Head Designer Brown are clearly
supervisory employees for whose conduct the respondent is iespon-
7 Helen " Schneller also "supervises the quality of work in the factory , helps along with
the different foreladies , and also helps along occasionally on the designing "
'Drake ii as also secretary of the respondent until replaced by President Schneller's
daughter about 2 years prior to the hearing
THE VERPLEX COMPANY 477
sable a We find, as did the Tilal Examiner, that Knapko, Hyatt, and
Brown attended the United's meeting of August 26, 1941, for the
purpose of inteiruptingg and interfering with its peaceful conduct,
and that while there they engaged in conduct, which tended to ac-
complish their purpose.'°
On the following day, when Ressler was giving out work to other
employees, Vice-Piesident Schneller approached ,her and said "We
had enough union business today I guess we will get down to work "
On August 29, 1941, during the lunch hour, Ressler distiibuted to
the employees one of the United's leaflets in the form of a letter to the,
respondent stating that the respondent had committed ceitain unfair
labor practices When work %i as resumed after the lunch period, the
employees were assembled in the plant and President Schneller, hold-
mg one of the leaflets in his hand, told the employees that he wanted
no more union activity in the plant u On September 5, Ressler dis-
tributed to the employees another union leaflet, and shortly thereafter
Forelady Drake returned to her one of the leaflets bearing in long-
hand the maiginal notes ",Dot-Jennie 11 if you don't like it here
The respondent concedes that Olive Diake, Maiy Tucker, Harty Chodak, bled Bauei,
Richard Hyatt, Louis Knapko, Helen Schneller, and F M Massey, are supervisory employ-
ees It seeks to minimize the supervisory status of Drake by contending that she is a
working forelady The fact that a supervisor perfoinis some of the operations lie super-
vises does not detract tiom his status as a management representatrie International
Association of Machinists v N L R B, 311 U S 72, 79-80 , H J Heinz Co v N L R 'B ,
311 U S 514, 518-520 Brown is the head lamp-shade designer He supervises the
making of samples From his designs, explains how the designs should be copied, and sees
that the fist sample shade is correct He has his own office in the plant, and about
twice a year needs two of three girls to assist him for a few weeks at a time He selects
- the girls and, tells them what to do ,His working time is, not closely checked upon
he could stay away from the plant a whole day without peimission , we find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that Brown sometimes acts in a supervisory capacity, that both the
management and the employees consider him to be more than an ordinary employee, and
that his position in the plant is such that the respondent is responsible for his conduct
in matters of labor relations we further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that all the
other employees named above are supei n isory employ ees_f or whose conduct the respondent
is responsible International Association of Machinists v N L R B, 311 U S 72
3i The complaint alleges that the respondent urged its supei'isors and other employees
to-attend this meeting for the purpose of interfeiing with' its orderly progress Jennie
Bombaci testified'that, during the day of August 26r tliere was a constant and unusual
"parade" of wire-roomn employees through her department, which is between the wire
room and the office of the respondent s president She and Resslei testified that, following
the United's meeting that esenmg, a group of employees, including Foreman Hyatt, went
to a local club where Hyatt stated to the group that the wire-room employees had been
called to the office and told to break up the United's meeting Hyatt denied making that
or any similar statement He did, howeu er, testify that lie and the Nine-room employees
"did not want" the United and that "we were pretty strong for our own union," although
at that time no other union had been organized in the plant The Trial Examiner, with
whom we agree, noted this conflict and found that Vie allegation of the complaint is not
supported by the evidence we do, however, find that the respondent, through its super-
visors, encouraged and condoned thennteiruption of the meeting
ri This admonition is significant in 'view of the extensiu e activity looking toward the
uformation"of an>"inside" union"which"had occurred in the'jilarit'onrthe previous day without
interference from the respondent See infra'
'These names obviously referred to employees Dorothy Ressler and Jennie Bombaci
478 DECISIONS OF NA110NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
why don't you go where they have C I 0 Olive Di ake and 9/10 of
the shop " At about the same time , Foielady Diake remarked to a
group of employees , of w horn Resslei was one, that she "thought us
girls foolish to start the C I 0 , as they were short of mate rials and
they ai e going to close down anyhow " Jennie Bombaci also dis-
tilbuted copies of thislleaflet to some of the employees just before
working horns Immediately 'thereafter , Vice-President ' Schnellet
called her to Brown 's designing room where , in the piesenee of Biown
Old Vice President Schreiner , President Schnellei told Boinbaci that
she was "not wanted here' and asked her why she did not quit Brown
called Bombaci a "rat" and said that she "was not any good , that they
did not need [her] thei e , everyone else seemed to be satisfied " Bonn-
baci had been in the respondent '-, employ moi e than 6 years , there had
never been any complaint about liei work, and nothing was said cou-
cerning her work that moi. inng -
We find, as did the Tiial Examinei , that by the above -desciibed
statements and conduct of Piesiclent Schnellei, Vice -President Schnel-
ler,rFoiemen Knapko , and Hyatt. Foielady Di ake, and Head Designer
Brown, the respondent interfeied with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guiiianteed lit Section 7 of the
Act
B Interference evzth, and doznz'lation and support of the Aasoeii-
tion and the Verplex Unzon
While the respondent, as stated above, was endeavoinlg to prevent
the United from oiganizing its employees, the Association and, later,
the Veiplex Union were organized
On August 28. 1942,1 all the respondent's employees, including su-
pervisors, and excepting only President Schnellei, Vice-President
Schneller, and General Foiei ran Chodak, were assembled in the die'
cutting room of the respondent's plant duitug^ working hours The
machines' wei e stopped, and the employ ees in, the backing depai talent
were instructed by. Foielady Drake to attend this meeting, which
lusted about 40 minutes At the time, some of the iespondent's em-
ployees were paid on a piece-work basis, others oil an hourly basis, and
still others on a salaiy basis The salaried and hourly panel employee,
and some of the piece-work employees, were paid for the time-spent
at this meeting
y 1
13 This was dust 2 days iftei Vice Piesident S(hnellei s anti-union remarks to Resslei,
and the United' s meeting at Deep Rnei '
"Ressler testified that, upon her return to the backing depaitment from the meeting
sae put a half hour time work on her caid , although she was then on piece late and
that the other gals in hei depaitment dtl likewise , so that they all iecei'.ed the day late
fm time spent at the meeting
THE VERPLEX COMPANY 479+,-
The meeting was conducted uncles the direction of Forelady Drake
and Head Designer Brmwii Drake and Brown spoke of the high
salaiies of the United's paid representatives which the employees
^+ould have to pay if they domed the United Sales Manager Mas-