Blanchard Bro. & Lane, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1271 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of BLANCHARD BRO. & LANE, INC. and LEATHER
WORKERS UNION No. 21687 ESSEX & HUDSON COUNTIES, N. J. OF THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-986.-Decided September 27, 1938
Leather Tanning and Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representa-
tives: controversy concerning representation of employees : rival organizations;
doubt raised as to majority status by change of affiliation by employees to rival
organization ; refusal by employer to recognize either union as exclusive repre-
sentative of employees until certification by Board-Unit Appropriate for Collec-
tive Bargaining : factory, maintenance , and shipping employees , excluding super-
visory and clerical employees and salesmen ; stipulation as to-Representatives:
proof of choice : comparison of petitioning union's membership application cards
with pay roll ; comparison of signatures on cards with signatures on pay-roll
vouchers of company ; claim of company interference in behalf of petitioning
union found without merit-Certification of Representatives: upon proof of
majority representation.
Mr. Will Maslow, for the Board.
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman d i Hays, by Mr. James S. Hays, of New
York City, for the Company.
Mr. Harold Forgang, of Newark, N. J., for the -Leather Workers
Union.
Mr. Joseph H. Goodwin, of New York City, for the N. L. W. A.'
Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 15, 1938, Leather Workers Union No. 21687 Essex and
Hudson Counties, New Jersey, of the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the Leather Workers Union, filed with the Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen -concerning the
representation of employees of Blanchard Bro. & Lane, Inc., Newark,
i The Company was improperly designated in the pleadings as Blanchard Bros. & Lane,
Inc., but the pleadings were amended upon motion of counsel for the Board, to designate
the Company properly.
8 N. L. R. B., No. 157.
1271
1272 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New Jersey, herein called the Company, and requesting an investi-
gation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49. Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. On July 26, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On August 3, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Leather
Workers Union, and upon Tannery Workers' Local No. 27, affiliated
with the National Leather Workers Association, herein called the
N. L. W. A., a labor organization claiming to represent employees
directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a hear-
ing was held on August 11 and 12, 1938, at New York City, before
James C. Paradise, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the Company, the Leather Workers Union, and the
N. L. W. A. were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the beginning of the hearing the N. L. W. A. appeared and
filed a motion for leave to intervene. This motion was unnecessary
for the N. L. W. A. had previously been made a party to the proceed-
ing. The N. L. W. A. also filed a motion to consolidate the pro-
ceeding with Case Number II-C-1817, arising upon charges which
the N. L. W. A. filed with the Regional Director on August 10, 1938,
charging that the company had committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, by intimidating and
coercing its employees to join the Leather Workers Union. This
motion was later withdrawn by the N. L. W. A., and it filed a third
motion, requesting adjournment of the proceeding on the grounds,
first, that decision should be withheld until determination had been
made of Case Number II-C-1817, and, second, that the N. L. W. A.
had retained new counsel who had had insufficient time to prepare its
case. The parties thereupon stipulated that if the Board should
issue a complaint in Case Number II-C-1817 within 30 days and
consolidate the proceeding upon the complaint with the proceeding
upon the petition, any evidence introduced in the proceeding upon
the petition which was relevant to such complaint should be deemed
evidence in Case Number II-C-1817. On August 27, 1938, the Re-
gional Director refused to issue a complaint on the afore-mentioned
charges and his refusal was subsequently affirmed by the Board on
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1273
appeal. The Trial Examiner denied the motion on the first ground,
but granted an adjournment of one day on the second ground. The
Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner during
the course of the hearing on these and other motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence, and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE COMPANY 2
Blanchard Bro. & Lane, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation engaged
in the manufacture of leather for the use of the automobile, railway
coach, bus, airplane, shoe, luggage, and furniture industries. It owns
and operates a plant and warehouse in Newark, New Jersey, and
normally employs 235 workers.
In its manufacturing operations, the Company uses animal hides,
coal, fuel oil, and tanning and finishing materials, costing approxi-
mately $1,000,000 annually. Approximately 85 per cent of these raw
iaterials are shipped to the Company from points outside New
Jersey. Of its finished leathers, which have an approximate annual
value of $1,500,000, approximately 90 per cent are sold and shipped
by the Company to purchasers outside New Jersey.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 2
Leather Workers Union No. 21687 Essex and Hudson Counties,
New Jersey, of the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to its membership employees of the Company.
Tannery Workers' Local No. 27 is a labor organization affiliated
with the National Leather Workers Association, which is in turn
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. Its mem-
bership includes employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION 3
On August 20, 1937, the Company recognized the N. L. W. A. as
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees and entered
into a contract with it concerning hours, wages, and other conditions
of employment. This contract was to remain in effect until August
11, 1938. In a letter dated July 6, 1938, the Company notified the
N. L. W. A. that pursuant to a provision in the contract, it desired
2 At the hearing all the parties stipulated the facts set out in this section.
3 All the parties stipulated that a question had arisen concerning the represen *ation of
the Company's employees within the appropriate unit. See Section V, infra.
1274 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to amend or terminate the agreement. On July 11, 1938, the N. L.
W. A. sent a letter to the Company requesting a conference. On the
same date, the Leather Workers Union served notice upon the Com-
pany that it represented a majority of the Company's employees.
Because of its inability to determine the relative merits of the claims
of the rival organizations, on July 13, 1938, the Company addressed
letters to both organizations, stating that it believed it improper
for any bargaining negotiations to commence until the representation
issue had been determined by the Board.
We find that a question concerning representation has arisen con-
cerning representation of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States;
and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com,
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing all the parties stipulated that the factory, main-
tenance, and shipping employees, excluding supervisory employees,
clerical employees, and salesmen, constitute an appropriate bargain-
ing unit. We see no reason to alter the agreed unit.
We find that the factory, maintenance, and shipping employees
of the Company, excluding supervisory employees, clerical employees,
and salesmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of
the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the
Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company's pay roll of August 5, 1938, the week preceding the
hearing, showed that there were 168 employees within the unit agreed
to be appropriate. A list of the names of the 168 persons was pre-
pared by the parties and introduced into evidence. The Leather
Workers Union claimed to represent a majority of these employees
and submitted in evidence 147 membership application cards to sub-
stantiate its claim. Canceled pay-roll vouchers were also submitted to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1275
demonstrate the genuineness of the signatures upon the cards. Offi-
cials and members of the Leather Workers Union testified without
contradiction that they personally solicited and secured the applica-
tions for membership, referring by name to a great number of the
employees whom they had signed up, and further testified that each
applicant who had formerly belonged to the N. L. W. A. signed a
Iesignation slip from that union before signing an application to
become a member of the Leather Workers Union.
We have made a check of the cards against the list of employees
within the appropriate unit and find that there are signed cards for
115 of the 168 persons named thereon. We were unable to check the
signatures on 2 of the 115 cards for the reason that no corresponding
pay-roll vouchers were found. We have, however, compared the sig-
natures upon the remaining 113 cards with the identification signa-
tures and endorsements upon vouchers submitted, and find that the
signatures on 95 cards correspond with those on the canceled vouch-
ers. A witness for the Leather Workers Union testified that he had
signed up George Magle and Vincent Ignacuinos,4 whose cards are
numbered among the 95, but that he had heard the 2 men had since
joined the N. L. W. A. Some doubt is felt concerning the signatures
upon the remaining 18 cards, partly due to the fact that some signa-
tures are printed. Since at least 93 of the 168 employees within the
appropriate unit, a clear majority, have signed cards of the Leather
Workers Union, it is not necessary to determine the validity of the
cards with doubtful signatures, the 2 upon which we could make no
check, and the cards of the 2 men who were reputed to have left the
Leather Workers Union to rejoin the N. L. W. A.
In 1937 the claim of the N. L. W. A. to represent a majority of its
employees was not disputed by the Company. The N. L. W. A.
asserted at the hearing that the claim of the Leather Workers Union
to represent a majority of the employees at the present time cannot
be sustained for the reason that the Company interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, in that the Company by
various means discouraged their affiliation with the N. L. W. A.
and encouraged their membership in the Leather Workers Union.
The N. L. W. A. charged that any of its members who resigned to
join the Leather Workers Union did so through fear of loss of
employment and that therefore applications for membership in the
latter union constituted no basis for certification of that union. It
further claimed that it still represented a majority of the employees
by reason of the fact that many of its former members had rejoined
A This individual is sometimes designated in the recoi d as Vincent Igonimus
1276 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its ranks, in turn resigning from the Leather Workers Union. No
evidence was introduced in support of the latter claim, but testimony
was introduced by the N. L. W. A. in an attempt to substantiate its
charges of interference by the Company.
Joseph J. Fisher, a witness for the N. L. W. A. and a former em-
ployee of the Company testified to the following incident : While
working at the plant, he. was approached by William McHugh, a
fellow employee, who asked him to sign a Leather Workers Union
card. Karl Koeniger, director and superintendent of the company,
walked over and asked what was going on. McHugh handed Koe-
niger an application card, and after having inspected it, Koeniger
slapped Fisher on the back, saying, "Go ahead and sign . . . fine,
that is good."
Frank Veliky, an employee and a member of the N. L. W. A.,
testified that when standing in the plant yard one day, he overheard
a statement made by a foreman in one of the plant workrooms. He
stated that he could not see the speaker, but recognized the voice of
Bill Flaherty, alleged foreman of the strop department, addressing
the following remark to a person whom Veliky could not identify :
"If we get rid of the C. I. 0. Union [the N. L. W. A.] we are going
to have a big party in the shop." Veliky testified further that he
overheard another statement through a partially opened door, ad-
dressed to an unseen person. He claimed that he heard Buck Taylor,
foreman of the finishing department, speak the following words :
"You are going to join this. If not, you see what is going to happen,
the shop is going to be shut entirely or you might lose your job.
)'on had better sign because everybody has signed." Veliky stated
that the unknown individual was being advised to join the Leather
Workers Union.
Martin Halmo, another employee and a member of the N. L. W. A.,
testified that a stranger approached him at work, asked him to sign
a paper, and when Halmo refused to sign, stated : "And you don't
want to sign the Ameircan Federation [the Leather Workers Union].
If you don't you are going to lose your job." Halmo testified further
that he later found out that the stranger was the Company's time-
keeper, and at the hearing identified him as Frank Deckert.
This is substantially the evidence submitted by the N. L. W. A. to
support its claim that the Leather Workers Union is not the free
choice of a majority of the Company's employees. Cross-examina-
tion and rebuttal testimony, which we shall now review briefly, ren-
der the affirmative testimonial evidence unworthy of credence. Three
witnesses, McIlugh, Koeniger, and George Penny, a worker who was
standing nearby at the time of the alleged incident, effectively contro-
verted Fisher's testimony as to Koeniger's conduct, establishing
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1277,
clearly that while Fisher was signing a card Koeniger approached,
asked what the men were doing, and, on being informed, merely told
McHugh that he could not solicit members during working hours
or upon the Company's premises. The record indicates that Veliky
was an unreliable witness. Flaherty, who, Veliky claimed, was a
foreman, is in fact one of the employees upon the list of those in the
appropriate unit prepared by the parties, which, according to the
stipulation , contained no supervisory employees. Further, Veliky
admitted that he had never at any time engaged in conversation
with Flaherty and was unable to lay a foundation for his alleged
ability to recognize his voice . The circumstances reveal , moreover,
that from the distance at which he was standing, Veliky could not
have heard any words spoken in the workroom to which he referred,
particularly in view of the operation therein at the time of several
noisy machines , fans , blowers, a spray , and a rolling jack. In the
light of this patently unreliable testimony, we cannot credit Veliky's
further account of the statements of Foreman Taylor. Deckert,
identified by Halmo as the individual who threatened him, is not the
Company's timekeeper but only an employee on the prepared list of
those within the appropriate unit. Deckert admitted at the hearing
that he had requested Halmo to sign an application card but denied
that he had threatened him or had any power to enforce such a
threat.
The N. L. W. A. sought to prove that members of the .Leather
Workers Union were permitted by the Company to go through the
plant soliciting membership applications on company time and at
company expense. From the record it is apparent that the plant is
an old building occupying three city blocks, cut up into many small
rooms on many different levels. There is no regularized system of
delivering work to the benches, as a result of which the employees
frequently leave their own rooms and go to others to collect mate-
rials. Close supervision is not maintained over their comings and
goings. McHugh is the only witness who admitted having signed
up any members during working hours. He testified that he knew of
no rule against talking to workers in the shop and asserted that it was
continually done. He further testified that when he was N. L. W. A.
assistant shop chairman he consistently collected dues on the premises
and for that reason felt that there was no impropriety in soliciting
in behalf of the Leather Workers Union. He is a'piece worker and
stated that any time so spent was not company time. According to
his testimony, he had talked to 20 or 25 workers, some in the shop
and some outside the plant, and Koeniger was the only supervisory
official who observed his activities . We have noted that Koeniger
forbade the continuance of these efforts . The record also indicates
that Koeniger later made inquiries and found that McHugh was
1278 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
obeying his instructions. Other witnesses denied that they had so-
licited in the plant during working hours and there is no evidence
that any conduct of this kind came to the attention of any foreman
or company official other than Koeniger, in the incident described
above. In our opinion the evidence does not sustain the assertion
that the Company was aware of or knowingly permitted solicitation
in behalf of the Leather Workers Union in the plant during working
hours.
It may also be noted that the N. L. W. A. attempted to establish
the fact that several officials and members of the board of trustees
of the Leather Workers Union, who were active in the Union's mem-
bership campaign, were employed by the Company in positions which
allied their interests with those of the management. We find that
each one of these persons is named upon the list of employees within
the appropriate unit, prepared by the parties.
We conclude that the evidence adduced does not support the
N. L. W. A.'s assertion of company interference with the employees'
choice of bargaining representatives and does not affect the validity
of the proof of such choice submitted by the Leather Workers Union
in this proceeding.
We find that the Leather Workers Union has been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as
their representative for purposes of collective bargaining. It is,
therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION'S OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Blanchard Bro. & Lane, Inc., Newark,
New Jersey, within the -meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
- 2. The factory, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Com-
pany, excluding supervisory employees, clerical employees, and sales-
men, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act. .
3. Leather Workers Union No. 21687 Essex and Hudson Counties,
New Jersey, of the American Federation of Labor, is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
1279
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Leather Workers Union No. 21687
Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey, of the American Federa-
tion of Labor, has been designated and selected by a majority of
the factory, maintenance, and shipping employees of Blanchard Bro.
Lane, Inc., Newark, New Jersey, 'excluding supervisory employees,
clerical employees, and salesmen, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Leather Workers Union No. 21687 Essex
and Hudson Counties, New Jersey, of the American Federation of
Labor, is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.