American Pearl Button Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 1113 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY AND WASHINGTON
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , WASHINGTON, IOWA, and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C-2668 .-Decided October 4, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union,
against American Pearl Button Company, Washington, Iowa, herein
called the Company, and Washington Chamber of Commerce, Wash-
ington, Iowa, herein called the Chamber of Commerce, a hearing was
held before a Trial Examiner at Washington, Iowa, on June 17 and
18, 1943, in which the Board, the Company, the Chamber of Com-
merce, and the Union participated by their representatives. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made on mo
tions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 9, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, finding that the Company had engaged in violations of Section
8 (1) of the Act, but recommending that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the Chamber of Commerce engaged in unfair
labor practices. The Company and the Union thereafter filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Company filed a brief,
all of which have been considered by the Board. Oral argument
was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on August 19, 1943.
The Company and the Union were represented by counsel and partic-
ipated in the oral argument. Upon consideration of the entire rec-
ord, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, a copy of whose report is attached hereto, except
insofar as they are inconsistent with our findings and conclusions
hereinafter set forth.
A. The Company
The record is clear and we are convinced that the Company en-
gaged in the unfair labor practices found by the Trial Examiner.
52 N. L R. B., No. 185.
1113
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union began organizing the Company's employees in February
1943, and thereafter the Union and the Company agreed to the hold-
ing of an election on April 9, 1943. The Trial Examiner has found,
upon what he states was the undenied testimony of Wilson, that a
short time before the election Jungbluth, president of the Company,
told a committee of employees that if the Union was successful the
plant would work only 40 hours a week.' The record shows that
Jungbluth denied having made this statement. However, in view of
similar statements attributed to Jungbluth and the Company's fore-
men by other witnesses, we credit Wilson's testimony in this respect
and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Jungbluth made the state-
ment in question.
The Trial Examiner has also characterized as undisputed the testi-
mony of Beulah Vinton that about a week before the election Jung-
bluth questioned her about her attendance at a union meeting and
asked whether other employees had attended. Although Jungbluth
in his testimony purported to state his entiie conversation with Vinton
and did not mention the statements testified to by her, we do not credit
this implicit denial, especially in view of the particularity with which
Vinton testified. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that
the conversation occurred as testified by Vinton. We also credit,
despite Foreman Bey's denial, the testimony of Vinton that Bey ques-
tioned her shortly before the election as to her reasons for joining the
Union, and told her the plant might close. We affirm the Trial Ex-
aminer's finding that Bey made the statements attributed to him by
Vinton.
The Trial Examiner has further found that Foreman Bey made
other anti-union statements to employees Carrie Rabenold and Harriet
Shaw just before the election, and we agree with his findings in these
respects as well as with his findings, based largely upon undisputed
testimony, as to the anti-union statements of Foreman Murdock, Fore-
man Burham, Plant Superintendent Brown, and Foreman Enslin.
Foreman Burham denied having told employee Mildred Garrett that
"he didn't think that there should be a union because so much was being
taken out of our wages now that if we had to pay union dues there
wouldn't be much left; . . . if any member of the union had sickness
in the family, if it would take all their money and couldn't pay their
union dues . . . they would be kicked out." Although the Trial Ex-
aminer does not mention this denial and treats Garrett's testimony
as undisputed in this respect, he discredits Burham in resolving a
conflict in testimony between the latter and employee Hill. We find
' The employees were then working 50 hours per week and were receiving time and one-half
for overtime.
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1115
that Garrett, whom the Trial Examiner credited, correctly stated
Burham's anti-union remarks, and we do not credit Burham's denial.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Blodgett is a supervisory
employee for whose statements and acts the Company is responsible.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Company, by the above-
mentioned statements and conduct of its president, plant superinten-
dent, and foreman, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The Chamber of Commerce
The record shows, as the Intermediate Report points out, that simul-
taneously with the Company's anti-union activities prior to the elec-
tion of April 9, 1943, the Chamber of Commerce engaged in a parallel
campaign to dissuade employees of the Company from voting for the
Union. Thus, the Chamber of Commerce called a meeting on April 3
to discuss the contention made by the Union that the wages paid by the
Company were not as high as those paid by competitors in Muscatine,
Iowa. It was upon this claim that the Union apparently based its
principal organizing appeal to the Company's employees. In order
to make a comparison of wage rates, the Chamber of Commerce ob-
tained from Jungbluth a statement of the Company's wage scales,
and he attended the meeting of April 5 for the purpose of explaining
these rates. At this meeting, the Chamber of Commerce decided to
publicize the information thus obtained from Jungbluth and other
sources. Jungbluth testified that he "presumed something along that
line was coming," when the rates were requested of him.
On the following day, April 6, 1943, 3 days before the election,
the Chamber of Commerce published in the local newspaper a full
page message "To the employees of the American Pearl Button Com-
pany," the avowed purpose of which was "to bring to public attention
certain information which should have a bearing upon your decision
Friday" (i. e., in the election). Cutting department wages, which
represented a substantial part of the Company's pay roll, were stated
in the advertisement to "vary so greatly" that a direct comparison
between the Company's scale and that of its competitors in Muscatine
was "difficult." But, the message went on to say, a new scale of
cutting wages had been presented by the Company "to the War
Labor Relations Board for approval," and this scale would be on a
par with the cutting scale of most finishing plants at Muscatine."
This was, of course, an admission of the truth of the Union's conten-
tion as to the Company's wage rates, at least in the cutting depart-
ment. At the same time, it informed the Company's employees that
they could expect an increase in wages without the intervention of
the Union. That this was one of the purposes of the advertisement
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is made clear by a subsequent statement in it that local wage rates
were "frozen by law" and could not be "changed or adjusted except
by appeal to the War Labor Board." 2 Furthermore, echoing' the
warnings then being given to the employees by the Company's presi-
dent and foremen as to the possibility of a reduction in working
hours or even of a complete shut-down of the plant, the advertisement
pointed to the fact that employees were working "50 hours a week
or more, with time and a half for overtime," and stated that "working
hours are not governed by law, neither is the right of an owner to
operate or not operate his plant." The advertisement closed with
an appeal to the employees to "Be sure to vote !" since "Failure to
vote . . . is in reality a vote for the union."
In addition, it is clear from the record, and particularly from the
testimony of I. Rothschild, a local merchant and a member of the
Chamber of Commerce, that the members of the Chamber of Com-
merce who were present at the April 5 meeting decided to engage
individually in attempts to discourage employees from voting for
the Union. Rothschild first testified that "it was common talk all
around the street" that if the Union won the election Jungbluth
would close the Company's plant, although he later qualified this
testimony. In any event, Rothschild testified without qualification
that he had had reason to believe that, if the Union won the election,
the plant would be closed. He also testified that at the meeting on
April 5 means were discussed for making the influence of the Cham-
ber of Commerce felt among the employees of the Company, and
that "our final decision was to use the newspapers as well as to make
personal contacts. "Rothschild admitted that he thereafter advised
Grace Havel, an employee of the Company; to vote against the
Union.
Employee Carrie Rabenold testified without contradiction that
George Breitenbach, a real estate dealer, called on her at her home
and stated that "he'd been to a meeting at the `Y' the night before
and he understood that if the union got into the factory that Mr.
Jungbluth was going to shut the factory down . . . it is to our
interest to keep the union out." When Rabenold replied that Breit-
enbach might feel differently if he talked to some of the employees,
he replied, "Maybe I would . . . and I really shouldn't be talking
to you because I don't know a thing to talk about but I was asked to
call on you and some others and I am just doing what I was asked
to do." H. M. Rabenold, the husband of Carrie Rabenold, and not
an employee of the Company, testified that Floyd Millets, a local
automobile dealer and lifelong friend whom he met on the street a
2 Cf. Matter of Martin Food Products , Inc., 52 N L R. B. 1131.
I
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1117
few days before the election, said, "he didn't know how I felt about
this coming election but . . . this button factory meant quite a
lot to this town and there was a big pay roll, and it could be such
a thing if it happened to go over with the Union it would be closed
down. . . ." Millets was a member of the Chamber of Commerce and
of its special committee appointed to gather and publish information
as to the Company's wage scales. He did not testify at the hearing.
We think it is clear from the foregoing, and we find, that the
activities of the Chamber of Commerce were motivated by its oppo-
sition to the Union and that the actions of Rothschild, Breitenbach,
and Millets were taken upon direction by, and are attributable to,
the Chamber of Commerce.
That the anti-union campaign of the Chamber of Commerce was
approved and acquiesced in by the Company also seems clear to us.
Jungbluth's attendance at the meeting of April 5,3 for the purpose
of providing data with which the Chamber of Commerce could oppose
the Union's election campaign, demonstrates his agreement with its
purposes. He admitted that he was aware of the use to be made of
such data. Thereafter, the Company, through Foreman Blodgett,
,gave approval to the advertisement of the Chairlber of Commerce
by posting it in the plant just prior to the election and permitting
it to remain posted for several days.' Nor did the Company take any
steps to disavow the rumor, which was "all over town," that its plant
would shut down if the Union won the election. On the contrary, the
Company added weight to the rumor by repeating it through super-
visory employees in the plant. Under the circumstances, and par-
ticularly in view of the Company's connection with the Chamber of
Commerce, we are of the opinion that the Company was under a
duty to inform the employees that the rumor was untrue.
Upon all the facts, we are convinced and we find that the Chamber
of Commerce, in its activities set forth above, was acting in the in-
terest of the Company, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the
Act.' We find further that, by these activities, the Chamber of
Commerce interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees of
the Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
8
Although the Company held a membership in the Chamber of Commerce, Jungbluth had
never before attended its meetines.
' It is significant that, when Blodgett thereafter posted a notice of a union meeting at
the same place in the plant, be was called to the office about 20 minutesilater and ordered
to remove the notice.
5In Matter of Roberts & Oake, lite, 50 N. L. R. B. 494, we were not convinced either
that the anti-union activities there involved were attributable to the Chamber of Com-
merce as an organization or that there was any connection between the Chamber of
Commerce and the employer.
11
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents , American Pearl Button Com-
pany and Washington Chamber of Commerce, Washington, Iowa,
have engaged in unfair labor practices , we shall order each of them
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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 Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Washington Chamber of Commerce , Washington, Iowa, is an
employer of the Company 's employees, within the meaning of Section
2 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the Company's
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, the Company and the Chamber of Commerce have engaged in
and are engaging in 'unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) 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 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 :
A. That the respondent, American Pearl Button Company, Wash-
ington, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, 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 purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual 'aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act : '
a. Post immediately in conspicuous places at 'its Washington, Iowa,
plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive
days from the date of posting , notices to its employees stating that
the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered
to cease and desist in paragraph A, 1, of this Order;
11
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY
b. Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writ-
ing, within. ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent, American Pearl Button Company, has taken to comply
herewith.
B. That the respondent, Washington Chamber of Commerce, Wash-
ington, Iowa, and its members, officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
acting in the interest of the respondent, American Pearl Button Com-
pany, or in the interest of any other employer, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing the employees of the Company, or of any other em-
ployer, in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. Immediately send notices in writing through the United States
mails to all its members and contributors, including American Pear
Button Company, and to all employees of American Pearl Button
Company, stating that it will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph B, 1, of this Order;
b. Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writ -
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent, Washington Chamber of Commerce, Washington, Iowa,
has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds , for the Board
Mr. W. A. Rvnckhoff and Mr. Harvey B. Rector, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mr.
Theodore B. Bailey, of Washington, Iowa, for the American Pearl Button Com-
pany.
Mr. Carlton C. Wilson, of Washington, Iowa, for the Washington Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. E. D . Schultheis and Mr. Wm. D. Randall, of Muscatine , Iowa, for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on Apii1 13, 1)43 , by Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , herein called
the Union , the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region ( Minneapolis , Minnesota ), issued
its complaint dated May 21 , 1943, against the respondents , American Pearl Button
-Company, herein called the Company and Washington Chamber of Commerce
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIO NS BOARD
Washington , Iowa, herein called the Chamber of Commerce , alleging that the
respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449; herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accom-
panied by notices of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondents and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance:
(1) that the respondents jointly and severally , by their officers and agents, from
on or about March 9, 1943, to the date or the issuance of the complaint, made
and caused to be published and circulated derogatory and disparaging statements'
about unions and union leaders; warned and discouraged employees of the Com-
pany against affiliation with, or activities on behalf of, the Union ; questioned em-
ployees concerning their union activities ; and solicited them to resign from the
union; and ( 2) that by the aforesaid acts, the respondents jointly and severally
interfered with, restrained , and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act . The complaint further alleged that
the Chamber of Commerce is an employer of the Company 's employees within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 2) of the Act.
On May 28 and 29, 1943, respectively , the Company and the Chamber of
Commerce filed separate answers, admitting some of the allegations of the
complaint , but denying that they had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
The Chamber of Commerce further denied that it is an employer , within
the meaning of the Act , and averred by way of defense that if "anything was
said or done by any of its members," contrary to the provisions of the Act, it
"was said and done" without the knowledge or consent of the Chamber of
Commerce, and not as representatives of the Chamber , but as private individuals
in the exercise of their constitutional right of free speech.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Washington , Iowa, on June 17 and
18, 1943, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondents were represented by counsel;
the Union by its representatives . All participated in the hearing . Full oppor-
tunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Company moved to exclude
all witnesses from the hearing room until they were called to testify. The
motion was denied by the Trial Examiner.
A motion by Board's counsel , made at the conclusion of the Board's case, to
conform the pleadings to the-proof in respect to minor inaccuracies as to dates
and the spelling of names, was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection.
At the close of the Board's case , counsel for the Company moved to strike
from the record all testimony with reference to the Chamber of Commerce
insofar as it related to the Company ; all testimony relating to the Deputy
Sheriff Kiesey; all testimony of the various members of the Chamber of Com-
merce relating to any statements which they may have made to witnesses or to
employees of the Company ; and to dismiss the complaint in its entirety . Counsel
for the Chamber of Commerce joined in the motion to dismiss the entire com-
plaint. All of these motions were renewed at the end of the hearing by counsel
for both the Company and the Chamber of Commerce . Ruling on these motions
was reserved ; they are hereby denied. However , the motion to dismiss the
complaint, insofar as it relates to the Washington Chamber of Commerce, Wash-
ington, Iowa, is hereby granted.
At the conclusion of the hearing, opportunity to make oral argument before
the Trial Examiner and file briefs with the Trial Examiner was afforded all
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1121
parties. No oral arguments were made. On July 1, 1943, briefs were filed
with the undersigned by counsel for both the Company and the Chamber of
Commerce.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
A. The Company
The American Pearl Button Company is an Iowa corporation, having its
principal office and place of business in Washington, Iowa, where it is engaged
in the manufacture, sale and distribution of pearl buttons. During the calendar
year 1942, the Company purchased about 2,000 tons of mussel shells for use
at its Washington plant, of which, approximately 50 percent was purchased and
shipped to the plant from points outside of Iowa. During the same period, the
Company sold finished products, manufactured at its Washington plant, to the
approximate value of $900,000, of which about 90 percent was sold and shipped
to points outside of Iowa. The Company admits, for the purpose of this pro-
ceeding, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
B. The Chamber of Commerce and its relationship to the Company
The Washington Chamber of Commerce, Washington, Iowa, is a non-profit
Iowa corporation, having its principal office in the City of Washington, Iowa.
It is composed of business men and other citizens of Washington, Iowa. It is
interested in local civic improvements and the general welfare of the business
community. There is no evidence that the Company has any interest in or
control over the Chamber of Commerce, other-than being a subscribing member
thereof. The complaint alleges that the Chamber of Commerce is an employer,
within the meaning of the Act, of persons employed in the Company's plant
at Washington, Iowa. The record fails, to show, however, that the Chamber
of Commerce has any connection with or financial interest in the Company,
any voice in the conduct of the Company' s business or the formulation of its
labor policies, or any authority to act for the Company in any way. Nor does
the record establish that its activities in respect to the Union were instigated
by the Company. According to the undisputed testimony of Ralph E Shannon,
Editor of the Washington Evening Journal and member of the Chamber of Com-
merce, 0 E. Schmitt, Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, and I Rothschild,
a local merchant, which is credited by the undersigned, the Chamber of Com-
merce and its members actively opposed the Union prior to the consent election
which was held on April 9, 1943, because they believed that the Company's
plant in Washington might close down if the Union won the election and that
the business of the local merchants would suffer if the employees of the Com-
paiiy were out of work. The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that in
thus opposing the Union neither the Chamber of Commerce nor its individual
members were acting "in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly,"
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
The undersigned finds from the entire record in the case that the Chamber
of Commerce, Washington, Iowa, is not an employer of the Company's employees,
within the meaning of the Act. The undersigned finds therefore that the Cham-
ber of Commerce has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced said employees
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.
II. THE O1:GANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union began organizing the employees of the-Company during the early
part of February, 1943.' The campaign was conducted by E. D. Schultheis,
national representative of the Union. Weekly meetings were held in the local
Knights of Pythias Hall. As a result of this campaign, a number of the Com-
pany's employees joined the Union.' On or about March 9, Schultheis called on
Jungbluth, president and general manager of the Company, and requested recog-
nition of the Union as the collective bargaining agency for the employees. Jung-
bluth suggested an election. The next day the Union filed a Petition forlInvesti-
gation and Certification under Section 9 (c) of the Act with the Regional Director.
On March 22 the Union and the Company agreed to a consent election to be held
on April 9' under the supervision of the Regional Director. The Petition was
then withdrawn by the Union.
On April 3 a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce was held to discuss the
report alleged to have been circulated by the Union that the pearl button manu-
facturers at Muscatine, Iowa; some of which were under contract with the Union,
were paying higher wages than the Company at Washington. At this meeting
a committee was appointed to secure the facts and to publish them "as they find
them" in the, local newspaper, The Evening Journal! Another committee was
appointed to notify the business and professional men to attend the next meeting
of the Chamber of Commerce to be held on April 5. At the meeting on April 5 the
Committee reported that according to the schedule of wages received from Musca-
tine, the Company was paying higher wages in' most lines of work than the
Muscatine manufacturers, which was contrary to the report alleged.to have been
circulated by the Union. At this meeting it was decided to-publish the facts in
the local newspaper at the expense of the Chamber of Commerce. On April 6 a
full page advertisement addressed to the employees of the Company and signed
by the Chamber of Commerce appeared in the Evening Journal. It stated in
substance: that an election would be held in the plant on April 9 to determine
whether or not the Union would be selected as the bargaining agent ; that "prompt-
ed only by a desire for fair play" it was desired to bring to the attention of the
public certain information ; that by comparing the wage scales of several pearl
button manufacturers at Muscatine which had contracts with the Union, with
the wages paid by the Company, it was ascertained that the wages of the latter
compared very favorably wih the Muscatine rates ; that the Company worked
i All of the following dates refer to the year 1943 unless otheiwise specified.
2 The Union had already established two locals in Muscatine , Iowa, which is considered
to be the center of the fresh water pearl button industry No local had then been estab-
lished in Washington , although at the time of the bearing application had been made
for a charter.
i The election was held on April 9 and resulted in 96 votes for, and 118 against the
Union.
4 Shannon testified that the Committee secured the wage scales of the Muscatine
Manufacturers and also of the Company.
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1123
50 hours a week-.with time and a half for overtime as against 40 hours a week
at Muscatine ; that "Statements, therefore, that the local wage rates are' lower
than the average rates in the industry, we find, are untrue,"; that "The Chamber
of Commerce is deeply interested in the American Pearl Button plant as a coin-
munity institution. You, as employees of the enterprise, constitute an extremely
important part of this community's citizenship, therefore your welfare is closely
related to the welfare of Washington." The advertisement closed with the fol-
lowing special request :
BE SURE TO VOTE!
Since you have been asked for a decision in the matter of C I . 0 member-
ship, it is very important that each of you vote . 51% of the votes cast
will determine the election ( not 51 % of the total number of employees )
Failure to vote, therefore , is in reality a vote for the union . The ballot will
be secret and you have the right to vote as you wish. The Chamber of Com-
merce urges that you exercise that right, voting exactly as you please. You
are not bound by anything you may have signed, or by any statement you may
have made . THIS IMPORTANT DECISION IS IN YOUR HANDS ! .. .
In respect to the last part of the advertisement relating to the election , Ralph,
E. Shannon , editor of the Washington Evening Journal and a member of the
Chamber of Commerce, testified as follows :
Well, that was included in the statement for the purpose of being fair-
of trying to get the members of the Union , or the members of the Pearl
Button group to see the importance of voting ;-not to stay away from the
polls. We wanted and we felt that from the community standpoint that it
should be a majority expression . There was no effort made to tell them
how to vote, or anything of the kind . . . . We are a small community
here, and we are trying to look after the interests of the community as best
we can. The Chamber of Commerce functions along that line, and here was
something we thought ought to have our attention . . . . Well, the
Chamber of Commerce thinks a great deal of the American Pearl Button
group. They are a part of our organization here; they are a part of our
community, and I believe, as a Chamber of Commerce , that we have a right-
if another organization were coming in here to locate, the Chamber of
Commerce would be very active toward getting them to locate ,-we would
pass the hat-we would raise money,-in order to get that done ; and we
feel it is just as important to take care of those we have . . . To look
after their interests as much as we possibly can. It was the feeling of the
Chamber of Commerce that statements were made that were false.
1. Rothschild , a local merchant , testified that he was a member of the Chamber
of Commerce but was not a member of the Board of.Directors of that body;
that he attended the meeting on April 5 to hear the report of the committee,
which had been appointed by the Board of Directors at the meeting on April 3
to investigate the rumor that the Company was paying lower wages than its
competitors at Muscatine ; that it was decided to publish the facts as found by
the committee ; that due to the rumor which was "all over town " that the plant
would close if the Union won the election , a number of the members of the
Chamber of Commerce agreed to ask individuals to personally contact em-
ployees of the Company and urge them to vote ; that he spoke to one employee,
Miss Grace Havel , when she was in his store and told her that it was "common
talk around the street" if the Union won the election and demanded higher
wages than the Company thought were reasonable , the plant would be closed
549875-44-vol. 62-72
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that she should vote against the Union. Rothschild further testified that
he was not representing the Chamber of Commerce or the Company in this
:action but was endeavoring to protect his personal interests as his business de-
pended largely upon the trade of the Company's employees, and he did not
wish to see the plant close. The undersigned credits the testimony of Roths-
child and finds that his action in this respect cannot be attributed to-the
-Chamber of Commerce or the Company.
It appears from the facts related above and from other credible evidence that
the Chamber of Commerce as a civic body was very active in disseminating the
information secured by it in respect to the rumor that the Company was paying
lower wages than its competitors in Muscatine. Also it appears that the Chamber
,of Commerce was eager to have all of the employees vote in the election so that
the result would reflect the sentiment of a majority of the employees in the plant.
'It further appears that the activities of the Chamber of Commerce were motivated
by its opposition to the Union. However, in view of the foregoing finding that
-the Chamber of Commerce is not an employer of the Company's employees, within
the meaning of the Act,` the undersigned does not consider the anti-union activities
of the Chamber of Commerce or that of its members, except as they show the
background against which the unfair labor practices charged to the Company
took place.
B. Interference, restraint and coercion
A short time prior to the election Jungbluth tQ;d a committee of the cutting
department' that if the Union was successful in getting into the plant;. the hours
would be reduced to 40 a week and there would be no more overtime.' Jungbluth
also told employee Hubert Wilson, Sr., who was a member of the cutters' com-
mittee, that he "had three or four buyers for his shells." In reference to this
incident, Jungbluth testified that he told the cutters that the Company had
niade only a nominal profit and if any demands were made upon the Company
which would preclude its making a profit that "the only recourse then would be toy
sell our shells and blanks to competitors and eventually, even close down,
because we could not run and could not afford to run without a profit." Jung-
bluth further testified that, on the whole, he was not opposed to unions, but
he had never been favorably disposed towards this particular Union.
According to the undisputed testimony of employee Beulah Vinton, which is
c-redifed by the undersigned, about a week before the election Jungbluth called
her into his office and asked her if she had attended the Union meeting on the
night before. She replied in the negative. Jungbluth then said he "wanted to
-nd out We straight of some things that was going around." Jungbluth also
.asked her if any of the other girls had gone to the Union meeting. Vinton did
not reply to this question, and Jungbluth said "If it embarrasses you Beulah, you
don't need to answer." Jungbluth also said to Vinton, "Mr Schultheis told
you that I couldn't go to 40 hours; I can too. I can go to ten hours if I want to."
Jungbluth testified that Vinton came into his office and wanted to see the
wage scale of some of his competitors and he showed them to her; that she
then said she had heard that if the Union won in the election the plant would
have to continue working 50 hours a week; and that he replied that lie would not
have to work 50 hours, 40 hours, or 80 hours, or "even run at all, if conditions
didn't warrant it, or if we didn't see fit to do so "
See Section I-B, supra
This committee was selected by the cutters at the request of Jungbluth, piior to the
advent of the Union in the plant
This finding is based upon the undenied and credible testimony of employee IIubeit
Wilson, Sr.
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1125
A short time before the election employee Beulah Vinton told Foreman Fred
Bey 8 that she had signed an application for membership in the Union. Bey
replied "What did you want to do that for? Don't you think this Company
has been treating you pretty good around here? ... Mr. Jungbluth didn't
tell me this, I read between the lines. They might even close this place down."
Bey also told Vinton that she would make less money as the week would be
cut to 40 hours.'
Carrie Rabenold testified that she had been employed in the plant ever since
she was old enough to work and was still employed there ; that prior to the
election she was talking to her foreman, Fred Bey, and she asked him why
he took 168 buttons for the test I' instead of 144, and she also asked him about
the price ; that Bey replied "This is where your damn union comes in"; that
Bey told her that he did not want the Union in the plant and if it did get in,
all of the employees would be looking for other jobs; that Bey further told
her that Jungbluth said if the Union got into the plant he would "shut the
damn factory down." Carrie Rabenold further testified that on the day before
the instant hearing she told Bey that she was going to testify at the hearing
and that she would tell what he had said to her about the Union, and that
Bey denied that he had said Junghluth would close the plant down if the Union
won, and she then told him that she would tell the truth whether he liked it
or not; and that Bey replied "Then it's going to be too bad for you."
Bey denied having made any of the aforesaid statements to Carrie Rabenold.
However, the undersigned was not impressed with the testimony of Bey. On
the other hand, Rabenold's testimony was convincing. The undersigned there-
fore finds that Bey made the above statements, substantially as testified to
by Carrie Rabenold.
Employee Harriet Shaw testified that a few days before the election she had
an argument with Foreman Bey in regard to weighing her buttons; that she
said to him "Fred, I would like to know how does it come we have to give
168 buttons and breakage. . . . besides I thought this 168 would take care of
all breakage" ; that Bey replied "That's what this union is going to do for
you. . . . you ought to know, you have been to every one of the meetings" ; that
she replied "How does it come you know so much?" Bey denied that he had
ever talked to Shaw about the Union. As stated above, the undersigned was
not impressed with Bey's testimony and credits the testimony of Harriet Shaw.
The undersigned finds that Bey made the statements substantially as testified
to by Shaw. -
According to the undenied testimony of employee Francis Singleton, which
is credited by the undersigned, a week or two before the election Singleton
had a conversation with Foreman Murdock about the price of buttons. He
said to Murdock, "Well, there ought to be more money for them smaller shells."
Murdock replied "Well, . . . after you get your union in here it will be cut
down, forty hours a week. Maybe we will both be out of a job for good."
Singleton further testified that the day after he had attended a meeting of the
Union, Murdock said to him "After that guy sells you what he wants to sell
you, why, he will up and quit you, and that's the way he makes his living";
and that Murdock was referring to Schultheis, the Union organizer. Murdock
testified that he told Singleton "that as soon as he was organized here Mr.
Schultheis would leave them alone unless they called him, that is just what I
8 The Company admitted that Fred Bey, Floyd Murdock,. Oscar Burnam and Rudolph
Schmidt were foremen in the plant, and that Theodore Brown was superintendent
9 This finding is based upon the credible and undenied testimony of employee Beulah
Vinton.
10 This is the weight test which is used by the respondent to determine wage rates.
1126 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told Mr. Singleton." The undersigned finds that Murdock made the above
statements substantially as testified to by Francis Singleton. -
In March employee Robert Peters had a conversation with Foreman Murdock
during working hours in which Murdock said to him, "Bob, I don't believe but-
ton cutters can hold together in the union. I've been in a union before and
they have never stuck together " Peters ' replied "Well, this is a diff erent prop-
osition and I think where all the other manufacturers are in the union I believe
it would be better for all of us if we were all in the union." Murdock then re-
plied "Well, I don't believe so. If the union comes in, Bob, you won't be making
as much money as you are I will be making the same but I will have more
time to go fishing and work in the garden, but yours will not be the same and
you will not have any overtime and the job will go to forty hours.""
Employee Hubert Wilson, Sr., testified that he had several conversations with
Foreman Murdock about, the Union ; that on one occasion in March Murdock
told him that if the Union came into the plant the hours would be reduced to 40•
a week ; that he said to Murdock "If they reduce the hours, they will be dis-
criminating against the Union"; that Murdock replied "Well then, they will shut
;t down. Carl [Jungbluth] told me they would"; that Murdock further told him
that it would make no difference in his, Murdock's, pay if the hours were re-
duced to 40 a week, that it would just give him more time to go fishing. Murdock:
denied having made these statements to Wilson. However, the undersigned'
was favorably impressed with Wilson as a witness and finds that Murdock made
the statements substantially as testified to by Wilson.
A few days before the election Foreman Murdock told employee Marshall. -
Shaw that if the Union won the election the Company would cancel the em-
ployees' insurance and would also stop selling coal to the employees at cost price.
These were privileges then enjoyed by the employees. Murdock also told Shaw
that if the Union won the election any employee who wanted to talk to Jungbluth
would have to do it through the union steward'2 Murdock testified that he told,
Shaw he did not "think" the Company would continue the insurance and the coal
privilege. Murdock also testified that in respect to the election "the only in-
struction I ever gave them [employees] was to know what they were voting for.
I did tell them that, . . . to know,what they were voting for, and then to suit-
themselves "
On the day following a union meeting Foreman Oscar Burham said to Mrs.
Hill, an employee, "Mrs. Hill, where are your buttons? . . . . I thought you,
would be all covered with buttons this morning. .- There is just this much
about it. If you get mixed up with that bunch in Muscatine every time they go out
on a strike, you will go out on a strike, and you are going to lose a lot of time." 13
Employee Gertrude Murphy testified and the undersigned finds, that on the-
day before the election Burham said to her "If this thing goes through, you will
have to get a new foreman because I won't work in here and have any woman
show me how to run this place " In connection with this incident Burham,
testified as follows : "I possibly made a remark at one time. That was quite a
bit before the election ;-that I didn't think I would work under anybody's juris-
diction except the foreman or the management that I am hired out to; that it
n This finding is based upon the credible testimony of employee Robert Peters . Murdock-
made no substantial denial of these facts.
12 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of Marshall Shaw. Murdock made-
no substantial denial of these facts.
13 This finding is based upon the credible testimony of employee Gertrude Murphy who.
worked with Mrs Hill . Mrs. Hill did not testify . Burham was not questioned about
this on direct examination . However, on cross -examination he denied having spoken to,
Mrs Hill about the buttons . His denial is not credited by the undersigned.
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1127
might be necessary at some time, if somebody was in there and told me my orders,
I would refuse, except to follow Mr. Jungbluth."
According to the undisputed testimony of employee Mildred Garrett, which
is credited by the undersigned, just before the election Foreman Burham told
her that "he didn't think that there should be a union because so much was
being taken out of our wages now that if we had to pay union dues there
wouldn't be much left ; . . . that another helper in there had belonged to
a union once and . . . if any member of the union had sickness in the family,
if it would take all their money and couldn't pay their union dues, . . . they
would be kicked out" ; that Burliam also said to her just before the election
that if the Union won and there was a stewardess in that department, it would
be necessary to get a new foreman because he would not work there any more.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Wilbur G. Nicholson, which is
credited by the undersigned, while he was employed at the plant just before the
election Theodore Brown, superintendent of the plant, told him that he "should
know how to vote to keep the Company going." Also on the day before the
election Brown went to his home and told him that he "should know how to
vote to have a job." Brown did not testify.
According to the undisputed testimony of Mary Eatinger; which is credited
by the undersigned, Walter Enslin, foreman of the sorting department, posted
a notice of the election in the sorting room, and while so doing made the remark
"Well, we may all be going on a vacation some of these days sitting on a
river bank, fishing. It isn't all gold that glitters." Enslin did not testify at
the hearing.
William H. James" testified that when he first went to work in the plant he
was hired by John Blodgett, foreman of the shell sorting department ; " that
lie did not talk to anyone except Blodgett with respect to the job before going
to work ; that during February and March and up to the time of the election
in, April he had almost daily arguments with Blodgett about the Union ; that
Blodgett told him on one occasion "that the union was no good among button
workers" ; but it might be all right in other industries ; that the button manu-
facturers in Muscatine wanted the Union to get into the plant so that the
Company would have to raise its selling prices to a level with Muscatine prices
since it would have to raise wages ; that on April 7 Blodgett posted on the
door of the shell sorting department a copy of the advertisement published
by the Chamber of Commerce, and that it remained posted until 1 or 2 days
after the election; and that Blodgett told him that the 'advertisement. was
posted "for whoever wanted to read it." James further testified that just prior
to the election Blodgett was talking about voting and that he told Blodgett
he would not be permitted to vote because he was a supervisory employee;
that he asked Foreman Murdock if Blodgett was a foreman and Murdock said
that he was, and that therefore, Blodgett could not vote in the election ; that
on one occasion after the election Blodgett posted on the door of the shell
sorting department a notice of a meeting of the Union, and said that the reason
he did so was to "show the boys that he was not on either side" ; that Blodgett
told him that in about 20 minutes after the notice was posted, Blodgett was
called to the plant office and told to take it down immediately ; and that
Blodgett also told him he did not want a union in the plant as he was making
plenty of money for himself. The Company contended that Blodgett was not
a
14 James had been employed in the plant intermittently since 1936 . His last employment
ended on June 12, 1943.
15 The shell sorting department consisted chiefly of an open yard where shells were
received and sorted . The number of employees in the shell sorting gang varied from about
2 In the winter to 18 or 20 in the summer.
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a foreman . However, the evidence convinces the undersigned to the contrary.
Blodgett was boss of the shell sorting gang and sometimes this gang worked
in two shifts . Blodgett was boss of the day shift and also instructed the night
shift force . Also Blodgett sometimes went to the plant at night to see-how
the night shift work was progressing . The wage scale of the shell sorters was
42 cents an hour . Blodgett received 55 cents an hour. Blodgett kept the time
cards of the sorters in the same manner that other foremen kept similar records.
Jungbluth testified that Blodgett could recommend the hiring and disciplining
of employees under him . Jungbluth further testified that in arranging with
Schultheis about the consent election , Schultheis contended that Blodgett should
not be permitted to vote because of his supervisory status and that he, Jung-
bluth, agreed . Blodgett admitted that he hired James . In respect to his
employment status, Blodgett testified that he had authority to discipline men
working under him "in a mild sort of way" when they got careless and did not
sort the shells properly; that he kept track of the shells that were sorted and
it was his job to see that the shells were put into the right bins and in the
right pits ; that he made up weekly reports of employees ' time who worked
under him and sometimes he turned them in to Murdock , foreman of the cutting
department , and sometimes delivered them direct to Jungbluth ; that occasionally
the sorters had tools that were badly worn , in which case he would go direct
to Jungbluth for new ones and not to Murdock ; that the shell sorters who worked
under him always did what he told them to do and they never refused to obey his
orders; and that when it was necessary to reduce the number of the gang, he
recommended to Murdock those to be laid off. The undersigned finds that
Blodgett was a supervisory employee , and the undersigned credits the testimony
of James and further finds that Blodgett made the statements substantially as
testified to by James.
The Company contends that not a single employee has been discharged since
• the Union began its organizational campaign in the plant ; that the Company in-
structed its foremen and other supervisory employees not to interfere with or
coerce the employees in their right to vote for or against the Union ; that the
anti -union statements which might have been made by foremen and supervisory
employees should be considered as "spontaneous expressions of their personal
opinions"; that such statements did not interfere with or coerce any employee
in casting his ballot in the election ; and that over 100 witnesses would have
testified if they had been permitted to do so, that they voted in the election
according to their own free will and choice . The undersigned finds these conten-
tions are without merit.
The undersigned finds that the Company , by the statements and acts of Carl
Jungbluth , Fred Bey, Floyd Murdock, Oscar Burham, Theodore Brown, Walter
Enslin and John , Blodgett , described above, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The record discloses that about a week or 10 days prior to the election , George
F. Morrison, a local attorney and acting county attorney , sent anonymous letters
through the mail to a number of the Company 's employees and some others in
town, containing two excerpts from The Evening Journal , both of which were
of anti-union tenor. In reference to this incident , Morrison testified as follows :
I sent them out, and I paid for them , and I did it of my own volition for
the good of the community , and I still have more interest in the community
than I do in some other things . . . . I don't believe there is anything in
either one of those articles against labor or against an honest labor organi:
zation. I don't believe there is, because if there is, I missed it when I read
AMERICAN PEARL BUTTON COMPANY 1129
it ; and it was my opinion, and it still is, that the people of this community
should do a little more thinking than they have in the past.
Although Morrison had done some legal work for the Company from time to time,
he was not at the time of sending out these letters retained or in the employ of
the Company. Jungbluth testified that the letters were sent out without his
knowledge or consent and that he only learned of it some time after it was done
Morrison was not a member of the Chamber of Commerce. The undersigned
finds that the aforesaid acts of Morrison cannot be attributed to either the Cham-
ber of Commerce or-the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Company 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 buidening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate-
the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record-
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Chamber of Commerce is not an employer of the Company's em-
ployees, within the meaning of the Act.
5. The Chamber of Commerce has not engaged in unfair labor practices as
alleged in the complaint herein, within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, American Pearl Button Com-
pany, Washington, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
I.' Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organ-
izations, to bargain collectively through representatives,of their own choosing,,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the ndersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post 'immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Washing-
ton, Iowa, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the American Pearl
Button Company will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended
that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) of the aforesaid recommendations.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith. -
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the Washington Chamber of Commerce, Washington, Iowa, engaged in un-
fair labor practices, as alleged in the complaint herein, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such, exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
W. P. WEBB, '
k Trial Examiner.
Dated July 9, 1943. -