Ansin Shoe Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 929 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of ANSIN SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and SHOE
WORKERS' PROTECTIVE UNION, LOCAL No. 80
Case No. C-26-Decided June 12, 1936
Shoe Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion : by citizens committee;
denial of right of employees to be represented by non-employees-Condition of
Employment: join company-dominated union - Company-Dominated Union:
domination and interference with formation and administration ; financial or
other support; initiation and sponsorship ; discrimination in favor of, in : check-
off, employment, benefits and privileges ; disestablished as agency for collective
bargaining.
Mr. RaZph H. Cahouet for the Board.
Mr. Saul A. Seder , of Worcester , Mass ., for respondent.
Mr. Marc J..Robinson , of Boston , Mass., for the Union.
Mr. Louis L. Jaffe, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On December 11, 1935, Local No. 80, hereinafter referred to as
the Union, of the Shoe Workers' Protective Union, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the International, filed with the Regional Director for
the First Region, a charge that the Ansin Shoe Manufacturing Com-
pany, of Athol, Massachusetts, hereinafter referred to as respondent,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices contrary
to the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, here-
inafter referred to as the Act. On the same day the Board issued a
a complaint against respondent. The complaint was signed by the
Regional Director for the First Region, and alleged that respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (2) and Section 2,
subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that respondent had dominated and interfered with the
administration of a labor organization of its employees known as
the "Progressive Shoe Workers' Union", and had contributed finan-
cial and other support thereto. The complaint as amended subse-
quent to the hearing charged respondent also with dominating and
interfering with the formation of the "Progressive Shoe Workers'
Union."
929
930 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served
on the parties in accordance with Article V of National Labor Re-
lations Board, Rules and Regulations-Series 1. On December 30
and 31, 1935 and January 16 and 17, 1936, a hearing was held at
Worcester, Massachusetts, before Trial Examiners designated by
the Board. Counsel for respondent appeared specially to object to
the jurisdiction of the Board on the grounds that the Act is "un-
constitutional and in violation of the rights granted to the citizens
of the United States as provided in the Constitution and its amend-
ments thereto ;" counsel announced that he reserved "the right, .. .
in the event that the Act is declared constitutional by the United
States Supreme Court, to submit such evidence as we have with re-
spect to the charges made as alleged in the complaint." Counsel then
withdrew formally from the hearing but remained at hand in the
hearing room and was heard occasionally to interpose objections to
certain questions for which purpose he would request permission to
reenter the hearing ad hoc and again withdraw. These objections
were passed upon by the Trial Examiner. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties.
. By order of the Board dated January 11, 1936, the proceeding was
transferred to and continued before the Board in accordance with
Article V, Section 35 of said Rules and Regulations-Series 1.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the pleadings, the
stenographic transcript of the hearing, and the documentary and
other evidence received at the hearing, the Board makes the fol-
lowing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY
Respondent, the Ansin Shoe Manufacturing Company. is a Massa-
chusetts corporation, engaged in the sale and manufacture of ladies'
shoes, having its factory and principal place of business at Athol,
Massachusetts. Respondent employs approximately 500 persons.
Respondent purchases about 25% of its raw materials in states other
than Massachusetts. The principal material requirement is leather.
Though Boston is the market center for the sale and purchase of
leather, so that respondent may make its purchases there, practically
all of the raw hides, tanned and distributed from Massachusetts, are
imported into Massachusetts from other States and from foreign
countries. Respondent ships 85% of its finished product to other
States. Some of this product, consisting of parts of shoes, it ships
to manufacturers all over the United States for further processing
by them.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 931
We find that the aforesaid operations of respondent constitute a
continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States.
II. LABOR RELATIONS OF RESPONDENT
R'espondent's business is conducted in conjunction with the Anwelt
Shoe Manufacturing Company, which is a respondent in a case before
us known-as C--27 in which the Union here in question has charged
the Anwelt Company with having discharged certain Union men
because of their organizational activity. Respondent and the An-
welt Company occupy the same factory building and have the same
manager, Sidney Ansin, who is treasurer of respondent. Until the
rise of the Progressive Shoe Workers' Union in the Ansin Plant, both
companies dealt with the combined employees of the Ansin and An-
welt Companies as a single group. The labor relations of the two
companies were in part governed by a single contract between the
companies on one hand and the workers on the other. This agree-
ment had been negotiated under the auspices of the State Board of
Arbitration of Massachusetts. It was to expire on December 31,
1935, and was in operation for about two years. Though the Union
was not formally a party to this agreement, a provision in it for the
settlement of disputes designates a certain "executive board" as the
representative of the workers for that purpose; the only existing
executive board in these factories was the executive board of the
Union.
The contract provided that the Code hours under the National
Industrial Recovery Act should prevail. After the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act was declared invalid by the Supreme Court of
the United States, a question arose whether under the terms of the
agreement the Code hours were still in effect. On August 27, 1935,
Leo Bergeron,' shop chairman, and an active Union member, ap-
proached Sidney Ansin, the treasurer and general manager, to discuss
the hour question. Ansin refused to discuss the question. He
ordered Bergeron out of the office. The following day, a Wednes-
day, Ansin called the cutters together and gave his interpretation of
the agreement. Bergeron objected to it. "This is none of your
business", said Ansin, "I want you to get out of this factory ; I don't
want you to come back in again. I am firing you." Bergeron left.
By Friday practically all of the workers had walked out as a protest
against Bergeron's discharge. On September 7, 1935, Sidney Ansin,
a committee of workers, and officers of the International met with the
State Board of Conciliation and Arbitration. That Board recom-
mended a return to work. All of the workers including Bergeron
1 Bergeron is among those whose discharge by the Anwelt Company has given rise to
the case against it.
932 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
returned. On September 25 the State Board acting as arbitrator
heard the hour question, and on September 28 decided that the Code
hours should prevail.
On September 30, a committee of shop stewards and David Carey,
an organizer for the International, attempted to take up with Ansin
other outstanding questions. Ansin refused to meet the committee.
The employees refused to work unless such a meeting took place.
Ansin acceded and in the course of the meeting all current issues
were resolved.
On October 10 Ansin discharged four Anwelt employees, among
them Bergeron, the shop chairman. Ansin refused to arbitrate the
question of these discharges. He told Carey, the organizer, that
"he wouldn't deal with the Union or any other group, that he would
close up his business first . . . I am going to run this business to
suit myself and I will not have any interference whatsoever." The
Chairman of the State Board of Arbitration asked Ansin to
arbitrate. Again he refused.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Shortly afterward the Ansin and Anwelt Companies announced
that they were going to leave Athol. Prominent citizens organized
a banquet at which Ansin, upon invitation, spoke. A Citizens' Coin-
mittee was formed. This committee addressed a letter to Charles
McAdams, clerk of the Union, and requested that "a committee of
workers from the Ansin and Anwelt Factories be appointed" to meet
with the Citizens' Committee. The following day, the Reverend
Barker, chairman of the Citizens' Committee, asked McAdams which
workers had been chosen to meet with the Committee. McAdams
named, among others, David Carey, the organizer. The Reverend
Barker stated that they would refuse to it with the union committee
:f Carey were on it. An employee of Anwelt was selected in place
of Carey. A group of non-union employees also was called to the
meeting, and finally, Sidney Ansm, who knew that invitations had
been extended to the union and non-union groups. During the
period of the meetings and negotiations considered below the Rev-
erend Barker called upon Ansin a number of times. Ansin reports
the purpose of his calls as follows : "He wanted to know if the
directors (of the two companies) would continue to stay in business
there, if he could definitely determine from the workers that we
(the companies) were going to be permitted to work harmoniously
and continue operations there without having legal agreements
unjustly broken."
At a meeting in which all committees and Ansin were present, a
Mr. Pregent of Keene, New Hampshire, read and explained an
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 933
agreement in force in that city between a shoe factory and its em-
ployees, who were organized on a one-plant basis. Ansin said that
with few minor changes , the agreement would be satisfactory to
him. At a meeting the following day Ansin read the Keene agree-
ment with substantial variations proposed by him. He had added a
provision for collecting dues for the union-whatever union it was
to be-by shop stewards in the factory . To this there was objection :
dues, it was said, should be collected by a business agent of the
union. Ansin said that the dues collector must be responsible; that
if his workers were forced to pay dues he wanted to know who was
taking them, and what they were going to be used for. He suggested
instead a check-off by the companies . During this conversation, in
which Ansin participated , there was an assumption that a new union
would be formed . A question arose as to the choice of business agent.
Ansin insisted that the business agent must be a resident of Athol.
He would not tolerate Carey or Nolan , the president of the Inter-
national . These "outsiders" were "interferers ." "Our relations with
our employees", Ansin testified at the hearing , "were always very
harmonious . We never had any trouble in the life of our two-year
contract that amounted to anything , and all differences were adjusted
until August of this year , when Mr. Nolan came to Athol and told
the workers that by having 51 per cent of those workers he could
have a closed shop." McAdams was suggested as a business agent.
Ansin approved the suggestion. McAdams, himself, made no
comment.
Ansin testified at the hearing that whether the companies stayed
in Athol depended upon "the success of the plan ", which was dis-
cussed at these meetings . Ansin at this time offered $1,000 to start
a hospitalization and welfare fund for the employees . This fund,
too, depended upon the assurance to the companies that they could
get along without "interference." Similarly, Ansin stated that he
would take back the four discharged Anwelt workers, if the agree-
ment were accepted.
The Citizens' Committee called a mass meeting of Anwelt and
Ansin workers on Tuesday, November 11. At this meeting printed
ballots appeared . There were two sets of ballots . One carried the
names of candidates for officers of a new organization . Among these
candidates was McAdams for business agent. McAdams had not
given anyone authority to use his name in this manner. He was told
that the Committee and the shop workers had picked him and that,
this was agreeable to Mr. Ansin . He insisted that these ballots be
destroyed . The second set of ballots carried the question of choice
between the existing Union and a new organization.
934 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Reverend Barker presided. He told the workers that Ansin
would contribute a sum of money to start off the new organization.
At the beginning of the meeting about 400 were present-there were
about 1,000 employees in both factories, though at this time the
Ansin plant was idle. The question of choosing between organiza-
tions was put to a vote. By this time only about 250 persons re-
mained in the meeting. Of these a majority voted for a new organi-
zation. The vote was loosely conducted, without a check-list or
identification of voters. Someone suggested that a Mr. Austin, an
employee, take the chair, which he did. Meanwhile, Mr. Tyler, a
member of the Citizens' Committee, telephoned to Ansin with respect
to a question which had arisen concerning the proposed agreement.
A disagreement arose between Ansin and Tyler and at the suggestion
of the Citizen's Committee, the meeting was adjourned to the follow-
ing Friday. During the entire meeting the Citizens' Committee was
present, though its members, after the vote in favor of the new
organization, had announced that " they had done their duty " and
that they would retire from the hall and leave the workers to carry
on their business. Mr. Ansin's secretary was also present taking
notes; an employee noted her presence; upon request she withdrew.
A second meeting was held on the following Friday. About 250
persons were present. Austin continued as chairman. He read the
proposed agreement. It contained a provision permitting a 50 hour
work week. McAdams objected that the State law forbade more
than 48 hours work for women. After more of the agreement had
been read, Ferris, an Anwelt employee, protested that the agree-
ment was "nothing more or less than a company union" and
he moved that " the thing be torn up and discarded." The motion
was carried by a large vote. The following Tuesday McAdams and
Ferris 2 were laid off and have not yet been reemployed.
Some days after the Friday meeting, a mass meeting was held of
Ansin workers alone. At this meeting about 100 persons were
present. The Reverend Barker opened the meeting. " You people
are suffering the consequences of the trouble in the Anwelt Depart-
ment." He suggested the formation of an independent organization
of Ansin workers. After 25 or more workers left the hall, the re-
mainder agreed to form a new organization, the " Progressive Shoe
Workers' Union." Officers were then nominated and elected from
the floor. The Reverend Barker and one Barnes, an Ansin employee,
approached Ansin and asked him if the new union might meet in
the factory. Previously Ansin had refused to allow the use of his
factory, but he now permitted it and two meetings of the new
g These two men are among those whose lay-off has given rise to the case against the
Anwelt Company.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 935
organization were held in the factory. Respondent and the Pro-
gressive signed an agreement. Article I read : " The purposes of our
organization will be to promote a better understanding between the
employer and the employees of the Ansin Shoe Manufacturing Com-
pany." Respondent checks-off the Progressive dues-10¢ per week-
from the wages of employee-members. The pay envelope has a
printed item noting the deduction. The agreement contains a pro-
vision for a " union shop ": after two weeks employment it is com-
pulsory for the employee to become a member of the Progressive
union. The new union takes as members only employees of the Ansin
Company. The Progressive union is a labor organization.
The charge against respondent is that it dominated and interfered
with the formation and dominates and interferes with the adminis-
tration of the Progressive union and contributes financial and other
support to it. Sidney Ansin, testifying at the hearing, sought con-
sistently to give the impression that respondent was purely passive
in all the events described above ; it did not call the meetings, write
the by-laws, or propose the form of the new organization. It did
not, in other words, actively take a part in initiating or forming the
specific organization, here attacked.
We do not so narrowly interpret Section 8, subdivision (2) of the
Act, as to require this direct and immediate link between the em-
ployer and the outlawed organization. This section does not stand
alone; its meaning is derived not solely from its words but from
related Sections and from the purposes of the Act. This Section
makes specific one of the ways in which an employer can interfere
with the broad right of the employees under Section 7 to bargain
collectively through representatives of " their own choosing ", and is
to be construed so as to further the intention of Section 7. Its object
is to protect the rights of employees from being hamstrung by an
organization which has grown up in response to the will and the
purposes of the employer, an organization which would not be, in the
sense of Section 7, an organization of the employees' choice. The
workers may be aware of their employer's antipathy to union organi-
zation and seek to propitiate him by acceptable conduct. This may
be unavoidable. But the employer can be prevented from engaging
in overt activity calculated to produce that result. If labor organi-
zations are to be truly representative of the employees' interest, as
was the intention of Congress as embodied in this Act, the words
"dominate and interfere with the formation of any labor organi-
zation" must be broadly interpreted to cover any conduct upon the
part of an employer which is intended to bring into being, even
indirectly, some organization which he considers favorable to his
interests.
97571-36-vol i-60
936 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Of such conduct by respondent the record is full. When the
president of the ,International announced , as Sidney Ansin says, that
the Union would seek a closed shop , respondent countered with a
threat to leave town . It is quite possible that Ansin did not arrange
the intervention of the Citizens ' Committee ; that may have been
quite unnecessary . Ansin had laid down an ultimatum : if we are to
stay here , see to it that our labor relations are satisfactory. Thus
advised of their danger , the employees and even more the business
interests of the community , whose primary interest was to keep the
factories in town on any terms , might well be expected to seek an
acceptable solution. But Ansin 's intervention did not stop at this
point. He participated in the meetings between the Committee
and his employees : meetings which were in essence labor organiza-
tion meetings . His alleged role at these meetings was that merely
of negotiator of the labor contract . This position is disingenuous.
Though Ansin may have made very few suggestions as to the form
which the organization was to take, his positive insistence that the
business agent of the new organization be a resident of Athol re-
vealed his demand that the new organization must not be a national
organization ; and the Committee's statement to McAdams that Carey,
the outside organizer , must not be on the Union delegation showed
at the very least that the Committee comprehended Ansin 's views
and that the whole problem of these meetings was to find a labor
organization acceptable to Ansin. Ansin 's vague offer of $1,000
for hospitalization, which in the speech of the Reverend Barker to
the mass meeting became an offer of funds to the new Union-an
offer which up to the time of the hearing had never been fulfilled
in any form-was both a further pressure, and an attempt to give
all of this pressure a benevolent aspect.
The "lay-off" of McAdams and Ferris after they had thwarted
the organization of the combined Ansin-Anwelt workers was a
pointed reminder of what the employees were expected to do.
Thereupon 75 out of 500 Ansin workers formed, under the Rever-
end Barker 's auspices , the new union . With this newly formed
organization , Ansin signed an agreement embodying the "union-
shop", an arrangement almost as drastic as the "closed shop", the
suggestion of which by Nolan had caused Ansin to announce that
the companies would leave Athol.
Thus has Ansin 's original ultimatum borne fruit . Cautiously and
discreetly reinforced from time to time by a suggestion , a show of
power easily understood-yet combined always with the forms of
aloofness and disinterestedness-it has brought forth a union re-
stricted in membership to respondent's employees, and by the "union
shop" clause, has ousted the old Union and its membership from
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 937
the plant. This outcome does not flow from that free choice which
our Act is designed to foster and protect. It is the result of fear
deliberately provoked and a sufficient suggestion as to how the dis-
pleasure might be appeased. We find that respondent has dominated
and interfered with the formation of the Progressive Shoe Workers'
Union.
We find that respondent, by such Acts, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced, and continues to interfere with, restrain, and coerce
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form, join, and assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection.
The experience in respondent's plant and in other plants is that
the denial of the employees' rights leads to strikes and stoppages.
We find that the aforesaid acts of respondent tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
The Progressive union represents the will and the purpose of
respondent, not of its employees. This is true though we do not
find that respondent is at the moment interfering with its adminis-
tration. But, this union, as we said In the Matter of the Wheeling
Steel Corporation, "will, if permitted to continue as representatives,
provide the respondent with a device by which its power may now
be made effective unobtrusively, almost without further action on
its part. Even though he would not have freely chosen the (union)
as an initial proposition, the employee once having chosen, may by
force of a timorous habit, be held firmly to his choice. The em-
ployee must be released from these unlawful compulsions." Conse-
quently respondent must affirmatively withdraw recognition from
the Progressive union as an organization for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining upon behalf of its employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Progressive Shoe Workers' Union is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. By its domination and interference with the formation of Pro-
gressive Shoe Workers' Union, respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 3,
subdivision (2).
3. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, respond-
938 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
( 6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of law, and pursuant
to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that respondent,
Ansin Shoe Manufacturing Company, and its officers and agents,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the forma-
tion or administration of any labor organization of its employees or
contributing financial or other support thereto.
3. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Progressive Shoe Workers'
Union, as representative of its employees, for the purpose of dealing
with respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work;
(b) Post notices in conspicuous places on each floor of the fac-
tory, stating (1) that the Progressive Shoe Workers' Union is so
disestablished, and that respondent will refrain from any recogni-
tion thereof, and stating (2) that such notices will remain posted
for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date
of posting.