Anwelt Shoe Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 939 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of ANWELT SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and SHOE
WORKERS' PROTECTIVE UNION, LOCAL No. 80
Case No. C-27.-Decided June 12, 1936
Shoe Industry-Interference , Restraint or Coercion : by citizens ' committee;
denial of right of employees to be represented by non-employees-Discrimina-
tion: discharge ; non-reinstatement following temporary lay-off-Reinstatement
Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Ralph 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 November 25, 1935, Local No. 80, hereinafter called the Union,
of Shoe Workers' Protective Union, hereinafter called the Inter-
national, filed with the Regional Director for the First Region a
charge that Anwelt Shoe Manufacturing Company of Athol, Mas-
sachusetts, had engaged in unfair labor practices prohibited by the
National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter
referred to as the Act. On December 11, 1935, the Board issued a
complaint against Anwelt Shoe Manufacturing Company, herein-
after referred to as respondent, the complaint being signed by the
Regional Director for the First Region and alleging that respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (2) and (3), and Section 2,
subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. In respect to the unfair labor
practices, the complaint alleged in substance :
1. That respondent had discharged Leo Bergeron, John Webber,
Sam Sahagian and Robert Peterson and had laid off for indefinite
periods Charles McAdams and George Ferris for the reason that they
had joined and assisted the Union, and in order to discourage mem-
bership in the Union.
2. That respondent had dominated and interfered with the ad-
ministration of a labor organization of its employees known as the
939
940 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Progressive Shoe Workers' Union and had contributed financial and
other support thereto.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served in accordance with Article V of National Labor Relations
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 jurisdic-
tion of the Board on the grounds that the Act is "unconstitutional
and in violation of the rights granted to the citizens of the United
States as provided in the Constitution and its amendments 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 respect 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 following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
T. THE COMPANY
Respondent, the Anwelt Shoe Manufacturing Company, is a Massa-
chusetts corporation, engaged in the manufacture of men's shoes, hav-
ing its factory and principal place of business at Athol, Massachu-
setts. Respondent employs approximately 400 persons. It purchases
most of its materials within the State. However, the principal mate-
rial is leather, and though Boston is the chief market in the United
States for dealings in leather practically all of the hides are im-
ported into Massachusetts from other States and from foreign coun-
tries. Respondent ships 85% of its finished product to other States.
We find that the aforesaid operations of respondent constitute a
continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
II. THE DISCHARGES OF OCTOBER 10
941
Respondent 's business is conducted in conjunction with the Ansin
Shoe Manufacturing Company, which is a respondent in a case before
us known as C-26 in which the Union here in question has charged
the Ansin Company with having dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of an organization of its employees,
the Progressive Shoe Workers Union. Respondent and the Ansin
Company occupy the same factory building and there is sometimes
an interchange of operations between the two. Until the rise of the
Progressive Shoe Workers Union in the Ansin plant, both companies
dealt with the combined employees of the Ansin and Anwelt com-
panies 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 agreement 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
ctesignates 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 , one of the complainants here, shop chairman, and an
active Union member, approached Sidney Ansin , the manager of
respondent , to discuss the hour question . Ansin refused to discuss
the question . He ordered Bergeron out of the office . The follow-
ing day, a Wednesday , 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 In-
ternational met with the State Board of Conciliation and Arbitra-
tion. That Board recommended a return to work . All of the
workers including Bergeron returned. On September 25 the State
Board acting as arbitrator heard the hour question , and on Sep-
tember 28 decided that the Code hours should prevail.
942 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 until he would meet. Ansin acceded
and in the course of the meeting all current issues were resolved.
On October 10 respondent discharged the four employees here in
question, 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 interfer-
ence whatsoever." The Chairman of the State Board of Arbitration
asked Ansin to arbitrate. Again he refused.
III. THE DRIVE FOR A NEW UNION AND THE LAY-OFFS OF NOVEMBER 19
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' Com-
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 sit with the union com-
mittee if Carey were on it. An employee of Anwelt was selected in
place of Carey. A group of nonunion employees also was called to
the meeting, and finally, Sidney Ansin. During the period before
and after these meetings, Ansin testified "the Citizens' Committee
continued to function, continued to be in touch with me and we
continued to see what could be done to assure ourselves and our
directors that the business could be conducted without unnecessary
interference ;" by "interference" Ansin meant, as he testified, the
activity of "officials or members of a labor 1 organization who do
not actually work in (the) factory."
At a meeting in which all committees and Ansin were present, a
Mr. Pregent of Keene, New Hampshire, read and explained an agree-
ment in force in that city between a shoe factory and its employees,
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 agreement with
1 The word , "later", appearing in the transcript is obviously a mistake of transcription.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 943
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: clues, 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. McAdams was suggested as a business agent. Ansin ap-
proved the suggestion. McAdams, himself, made no comment. An-
sin at this time offered $1,000 to start a hospitalization and welfare
fund for the employees, if the companies were enabled to stay in
Athol. He stated that he would take back the four discharged
workers, if the agreement 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.
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
organization. , The vote was loosely conducted, without 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 agree-
ment. A disagreement arose between Ansin and Tyler and at the
suggestion of the Citizens' Committee, the meeting was adjourned
to the following Friday. During the entire meeting the Citizens'
Committee was present, though its members, after the vote in favor
944 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, George Ferris, an employee of respondent, protested that
the agreement was "nothing more or less than a company union"
and he moved that "the thing be torn up and discarded." The mo-
tion was carried by a large vote. The following Tuesday McAdams
and Ferris 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 pres-
ent. The Reverend Barker opened the meeting. "You people are
suffering the consequences of the trouble in the Anwelt Department."
He suggested the formation of an independent organization of Ansin
workers. After 25 or more workers left the hall, the remainder
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, ap-
proached 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 organi-
zation were held in the factory. The Ansin Company and the
Progressive 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
Company." 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
provision for a "union shop" : after two weeks employment it is
compulsory for the employee to become a member of the Progressive
union. The new union takes as members only employees of the
Ansin Company.
The complaint charges that respondent has dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of a labor organization of its em-
ployees. We believe that respondent did attempt but failed to
bring about an organization of its employees,2 but since the charge
2 In the companion case against the Ansin Company ( C-26, decided June 12, 1936) we
found that the Ansin Company dominated and interfered with the formation of the Pro-
gressive Shoe Workers ' Union, a labor organization of its employees.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 945
was not made we need not set. forth the analysis on which we base
this conclusion in any greater detail than has already been done.
The charge of dominating and interfering with the administration of
a labor organization will be dismissed.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges on October 10
The employees of respondent work on a piece time basis. The
supply of work is not constant. When no work is at hand, the fore-
man customarily lets the men off with orders to return at a certain
time. On the morning of October 10 the men were let off and told
to return in an hour. Bergeron, Peterson, Sagahian, Webber, the
four men discharged, and a fifth, Pence, met at the Leonard Hotel,
at which Webber lived. They had a glass of beer together. The
men decided that they did not wish to return to the factory until
one o'clock. Bergeron telephoned to the foreman. The foreman was
reluctant to grant permission but it was Bergeron's impression that
after persuasion he did. They returned at one o'clock. The fore-
man said, "You guys don't want to work. Take the afternoon off."
They replied, "0. K.", except Pence who stayed in and got work. The
four men returned at seven the next morning, a Friday. The fore-
man said, "You fellows don't want to work, so take the day off."
Bergeron asked if they should come in Monday and was told that
they should. On Monday they were given their pay and discharged.
In his testimony Sidney Ansin claimed that these men were dis-
charged because they had stayed away from work without permission
and were drunk when they returned.
The men deny both of these charges, but even if they are true, we
do not believe that they account for the discharges. When the men
returned on Thursday afternoon they were told to return to work the
following day, which they did. It is not claimed that they were
drunk the following morning. Furthermore, Pence, one of them,
was put to work. Sidney Ansin testified that such was his friendship
for Bergeron that a number of times he had helped him out of diffi-
culties and had reemployed him after he had left respondent's em-
ploy. It must be pointed out that because the work was paid on a
piece basis and furthermore was slack, the offenses charged by Ansin
against Bergeron and his companions were not serious. Granting
Ansin his professed solicitude and personal interest in Bergeron's
welfare, it is difficult to believe that he would discharge him for
such comparatively trivial reasons.
On the other hand, the discharge becomes completely understand-
able in the light of Bergeron's union and organizational activity.
946 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bergeron was the shop chairman for the Ansin-Anwelt workers.
When in August he protested against Sidney Ansin's interpretation
of the hour provision in the contract , Ansin discharged him on the
spot. When Ansin paid Bergeron off he said , "Leo, why don 't you get
out of town ? You have got all your money now. Why don't you
get out of town and save yourself a lot of trouble ? . . . If you
don't get out of town I am going to make more trouble ." After
the first discharge respondent ripped out the machines worked by
Bergeron and Webber and shipped them away. Bergeron and Carey
protested but were told nothing could be done. The two men were
offered jobs at hand cutting , which paid far less. After ten or twelve
days Bergeron was taken back but only after a strike. These
events, of course, marked Bergeron as the symbol of Union strength.
The other three men, Peterson , Webber, and Sahagian , were Union
members. Peterson was a steward-representative for presenting
grievances-of the cutting department , Webber was on a committee
which protested Bergeron 's first discharge before the State Board
of Arbitration . These men, apparently , were neither more nor less
prominent than some other Union men but they had the misfortune
to take part with Bergeron in the events which served as,the pretext
for his discharge . Ansin had determined that he would break the
influence of the Union or leave town ; for this purpose there is no
more effective weapon than the discharge of a few men , among them
a prominent leader.
The subsequent conduct of Sidney Ansin makes it clear that-these
discharges were simply part of his struggle with the Union. He was
asked to arbitrate the discharges . He refused . He stated that " he
intended to run his business to suit himself and that he wouldn't
deal with the union or any other group." In the meetings with the
Citizens ' Committee he said, "I haven't got anything against the
cutters ( referring to the four men). Any time they want a letter
of recommendation of the highest kind , as faithful workers and
good shoe cutters." He said then that he would put them back
to work if the agreement under consideration was signed.
We conclude that respondent has discriminated and continues to
discriminate in regard to the hire of Leo Bergeron , Robert Peter-
son, John Webber, and Sam Sahagian in order to discourage member-
ship in. the Union.
B. The lay-offs on November 19
On November 19, Charles McAdams and George Ferris were laid
off and have not since been called back to work. Sidney Ansin
testified that these men were laid off because of lack of work, in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 947
the case of Ferris, specifically, because his machine had been moved
out. It does not appear from Ansin's testimony that anyone else
was laid off. Ansin's reasons are vague and unconvincing and do
not overcome the strong inferences of discriminatory action which
arise from the circumstances surrounding the lay-offs. Everyone'
including Ansin recognized McAdams as the leader not only of the
Union, but of the Ansin-Anwelt employees generally. Ansin and
the Citizens' Committee had sought by flattery and persuasion to
induce him to lead the movement away from the Union and become
leader of the new union. During the meetings of the Citizens'
Committee McAdams apparently held back. He neither refused
nor accepted the proffered place. At the first mass meeting he
insisted that ballots bearing his name as business agent of a new
union be destroyed. Still he held back and let the question of
a new union go to a vote. At the second mass meeting on Friday,
November 15, McAdams began the movement which led to rejec-
tion, at least by the Anwelt workers, of the proposed agreement
and of the new organization. McAdams first raised the point that
a new chairman should be elected to replace Austin, chairman of
the previous meeting. He then objected to a clause in the proposed
agreement. Finally Ferris claimed that the agreement was "nothing
more or less than a company union." He moved that it be "torn
up and discarded." The motion was carried. The following Tues-
day McAdams and Ferris were laid off. Nothing could be better
calculated to show respondent's displeasure at the breakdown of
the plans for a new organization and we believe that that calculation
was the basis for these lay-offs.
We find that Charles McAdams and George Ferris have been and
are being discriminated against in regard to hire and tenure of
employment to discourage membership in the Protective and encour-
age membership in the Progressive union.
Respondent, by discharging and laying off its employees as found
above, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
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 and 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.
948 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONOLusIONs OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law :
1. Shoe Workers' Protective Union and Progressive Shoe Workers
Union are each labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2,
subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. Respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Leo Bergeron, Robert Peterson, John Webber, Sam
Sahagian, Charles McAdams, and George Ferris, and each of them,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, 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 of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Anwelt Shoe Manufacturing Company, and its officers
and agents shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From discouraging membership in the Shoe Workers' Protec-
tive Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging, threatening to discharge, or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees for joining or assisting the Shoe Workers' Protective
Union or any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) From in any other manner discriminating against any of its
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment for joining the
Shoe Workers' Protective Union or any other labor organization of
its employees; and
(c) From in any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organi-
zation, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 949
(a) Offer to Leo Bergeron, Robert Peterson, John Webber, Sam
Sahagian, Charles McAdams, and George Ferris immediate and full
reinstatement, respectively, to their former positions, without preju-
dice to any rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole said Leo Bergeron. Robert Peterson, John Web-
ber, Sam Sahagian, Charles McAdams, and George Ferris for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of its discharge, lay-off, or
unlawful failure to reinstate Leo Bergeron, Robert Peterson, John
Webber, Sam Sahagian, Charles McAdams, and George Ferris by
paying to each, respectively, a sum of money equal to that which each
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the
unlawful discharge or lay-off, to the date of such offer of reinstate-
ment, less the amount each earned during such period, except that
there shall not be deducted from that sum amounts earned by such an
employee at occupations in which he had simultaneously and regu-
larly engaged while employed by respondent and in which he con-
tinued to engage after the unlawful discharge or lay-off.
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
on each floor of its factory, stating (1) that respondent will cease
and desist in the manner aforesaid and stating (2) that such notices
will remain posted fora period of at least thirty (30) consecutive
days from the date of posting.
The charge that respondent violated Section 8, subdivision (2)
of the Act in the manner described in the complaint is herewith
dismissed.