Carpenter Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1941

29 N.L.R.B. 60 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, MICHAPA
CARPENTER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, M. CARPENTER BAKING COM-
PANY, A CORPORATION, JOSEPH J. CARPENTER, INDIVIDUALLY, JOSEPH M.
CARPENTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND M. H. CARPENTER, INDIVIDUALLY arnd
AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS JOINT COUNCIL No. 50 (A. F. L.) -
Case No. C-1664.-Decided January 16, 1941
Jurisdiction : baking industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General
Held: changes in corporate name and structure not to have resulted in
a change in the employer-employee relationship and that the respondents
are so interrelated as to be jointly and severally liable for the unfair labor
practices involved.
Company-Dominated Union: after suggesting the formation of, to forestall legiti-
mate labor organization, respondents subsequent to the effective date of the
Act engaged in anti-union conduct to maintain the dominated labor organiza-
tion as the only union in the plant and to defeat attempts by "outside organiza-
tion" to obtain members-support to: check-off of dues; profits from cigarette
vending machine turned over to inside organization ; premises and office facil-
ities used with knowledge and consent of respondents; funds kept in the
office and under the control of the respondents ; credits on return of sweet
goods liberalized after it appeared that employees might join the outside or-
ganization in an attempt to secure such credit; carrying on open warfare
against outside organization in connection with respondents' campaign for
the enactment of a State Act forbidding stranger picketing and instructing
employees as to the positions they were to taken in the matter ; entering into
contract granting exclusive' recognition to inside union.
Discrimination: charge alleging discriminatory discharge of one employee, dis-
missed.
Remedial Orders : disestablishment of company-dominated union; reimburse-
ment of dues checked off. -
Mr. Frederick P. Mett and Mr. Jacob I. Karro, for the Board.
Sluzw, Muskat cf Paulson, by Mr. James D. Shaw' and Mr. Van B.
Wake, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the respondents.
Padway, Goldberg cQ Tarrell, by Mr. A. G. Goldberg, Mr. I. E.
Goldberg, and Mr. David Previant, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Joint
Council.
Miss Marcia Hertzmeark, of counsel to the Board.
29 N. L. R. B., No 13.
60
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 61
DECISION,
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Auto Truck
Drivers Joint Council No. 50 (A. F. L.), herein called the Joint Coun:
cil, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin), issued its amended complaint' dated March 18, 1940,' against
Carpenter Baking Company, a corporation, Michael Carpenter Com-
pany, a corporation, M. Carpenter Baking Company, a corporation,
Joseph J. Carpenter, individually, Joseph M. Carpenter, individually,
and M. H. Carpenter, individually, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, herein
called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
-(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. The amended complaint and notice of hearing were duly
served upon the respondents,2 upon the Joint Council, and upon Broth-
erhood of Bakery Salesmen, Local No. 1, herein called the Brother-
hood, an organization alleged in the complaint to have been dominated
by the respondents.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint
alleged in substance (1) that on or about October 1, 1934, the re-
spondents dominated and interfered with the formation of the
Brotherhood and thereafter, and until July 5, 1935, dominated and
interfered with and contributed support to it; (2) that from and
after July 5, 1935, the respondents dominated and interfered with
the administration of and contributed support to the Brotherhood
(a) by compelling their employees to become members of the
Brotherhood and by urging, persuading, and warning them to remain
members of the Brotherhood; (b) by calling, participating in; and
controlling the meetings of the Brotherhood; (c) by granting the
Brotherhood the use 'of' the respondents' premises for holding its
meetings and conducting its business; (d) by recognizing the Brother.
hood, as the exclusive bargaining representative of their sales drivers
and by entering into illegal contracts with it; (e) by retaining pos-
session of the Brotherhood's. records and funds, and by directing,
influencing, and controlling the disposition of the Brotherhood's
funds; (f) by controlling Lawrence Winkel in the exercise of his
' The complaint was issued on March 6 , 1940, against M Carpenter Baking Co.
2 Counsel for the respondents waived the full 10-day notice to each respondent.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duties as president of the Brotherhood; (g) by deducting $1.00'per
month from the salary of each sales driver as Brotherhood dues,
whether or not he had made application for membership therein;
and (h) by certain described conduct in connection with a labor
dispute between the respondents and the American Federation of
Labor during the early months of 1939; (3) that the respondents,
on or about May 14, 1939, discharged"*and thereafter refused to rein- -
state Lawrence Winkel because of his membership in and activities
on behalf of the Joint Council and in order to discourage member-
ship in the Joint Council, the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, and the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor; and (4) that the respondents interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by urging, persuading,
warning, and threatening their employees not, to join the Joint
Council and by other enumerated acts.
On March 13, 1940, the respondents filed an answer 3 denying that
they were engaged in interstate commerce, denying the commission
of the unfair labor practices alleged in the amended complaint, and
alleging that Lawrence Winkel had left the employment of the
respondents 4 voluntarily.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
from March 25 through April 11, 1940, before Gustaf B. Erickson,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondents, and the Joint Council were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. ' Full opportunity to be heard, to examine-
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the Board's
case and at the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the respondents
moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the re-
spondents were not engaged in interstate commerce. The Trial
Examiner took the motions under advisement. In his Intermediate
Report he denied them. At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial
Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the
pleadings' to conform to the proof. During the course of the hear-
ing the.Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
3 The answer was filed by Carpenter Baking Company. At the hearing counsel for all the
respondents was permitted to adopt the answer to the amended complaint on behalf of all
the respondents.
9 The term "respondents ," in addition to being used to designate all the respondents, will
hereafter be used as a designation of the particular corporation or corporations in existence
at the time referred to.
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 63
The respondents filed a brief with the Trial Examiner subsequent
to, the hearing. The Trial Examiner thereafter issued his Inter-
mediate Report, dated August 17, 1940, copies of which were duly
served upon all the parties, finding that the respondents had engaged
in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and
recommending that they cease and desist from such practices, that
they cease interfering with the Brotherhood and withdraw all recog-
nition from it, and that they reimburse their employees for all
monies deducted by reason of a check-off of Brotherhood dues. He
found further than the respondents had not discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Lawrence Winkel and recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed as to him. The respondents
and the Joint Council filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The M. Carpenter Baking Company, a Wisconsin corporation, was
organized in 1901, with its place of business in Milwaukee. It was
engaged in a general baking business. On January 17, 1937, this
corporation was dissolved and its assets, purchased by Carpenter
Baking Company, which was organized as a Delaware corporation
in December 1936. In December 1939 the successor corporation
changed its name to Michael Carpenter Company. Early in January
1940 a second Carpenter Baking Company was organized and it pur-
chased all of the operating assets of the Michael Carpenter Company
which retained title to the real estate and has since operated as a
renting corporation. Since 1934 Joseph J. Carpenter 5 has been
president; Joseph M. Carpenter, vice president; and M. H. Carpen-
ter, secretary-treasurer of each of the above-named corporations.
The Board of Directors of such corporations has at all times been
comprised of their officers and two other members of the Carpenter
family. The stock in the Michael Carpenter Company is held by
the Carpenter family, and Joseph M. Carpenter owns all except a
few qualifying shares of the stock in the second Carpenter Baking
Company. The operations of the corporations named have been
5 Joseph J . Carpenter died during the hearing in this case.
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continuous and since 1934 have been at the same location in
Milwaukee , Wisconsin.
On the basis of the facts set forth above, we find that, for the
,purposes of the Act , Carpenter Baking Company ( No,4l) and Michael
Carpenter Company are successors of The M. Carpenter Baking
Company; that Carpenter Baking Company (No. 2) is the operating
successor of Michael Carpenter Company; and that each must be
held responsible for the unfair labor practices of the other. The
changes in corporate name and structure resulted in no change in
the employer -employee 'relationship which is our chief consideration
here. Under these circumstances , therefore , we find that the re-
spondents are so interrelated as to be jointly and severally liable
for the unfair labor practices involved.
In the operations of the business the respondents expend approxi-
mately $200 ,000 annually for raw materials used in baking , gasoline,
coal , fuel, and operating expenses . Of the total amount expended
for raw materials , which is approximately $104,000, , about $65,000
to $70,000 represents the cost of flour , the major portion of which is
obtained from outside the State of Wisconsin . Salt is obtained from
Massachusetts in carload lots, and the respondents use one to two
carloads annually at an approximate value of $400 a carload. The
respondents use annually approximately $17,000 worth of shortening,
$6,000 worth of milk and milk powder , and $10,000 worth of yeast,,
all of which are purchased in Wisconsin. Also purchased within the
State are raisins, seeds , wrapping paper, and about 50 per cent of
the sugar used by the respondents . Gasoline and coal are purchased
locally but originate outside the State of Wisconsin . The respondents
own about 50 per cent of the bags in which flour is packed for ship-
ment to them and these bags are returned to the vendors of flour
outside the State one or more times to be refilled.
The respondents ' gross sales approximate $500,000 annually, none
of the products being sold or shipped outside the State of Wisconsin.
They employ about 100 persons , of whom 28 are sales drivers.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stablemen
and Helpers of America, Ice and Coal Drivers and Helpers, Local
No. 257, affiliated with the Auto Truck Drivers Joint Council No. 50,
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stablemen
and Helpers of America , are labor organizations affiliated with the
American Federation of, Labor, admitting to membership sales driv-
ers of the respondents.
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 65
Brotherhood of--Bakery Salesmen , Local No. 1, is an unaffiliated
labor organization , admitting to membership sales drivers employed
by the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , restraint , and coercion; domination and interference
with, and support to, the Brotherhood
1. Background
In about 1933 the respondents posted in their plant a notice which
stated in part:
the N. R . A., under which we operate, as well as our own
policy for sixty years , is your guarantee that you will not lose
your position here because you do or do not belong to a group,
union or organization.
For your information you do not have to join, or refrain
from joining , any union and no one can force you to do so.
William Hesselbach , Marion Wampler, and Nobel Heller, sales
drivers called by the Board as adverse witnesses , admitted that the
general understanding of employees prior to 1935, partly as a result
of the above notice, was that the respondents were opposed to an out-
side union. Wampler testified that in about 1932 there was posted
in the plant a notice stating that the respondents would not deal
with any outside labor organization , but that this notice disappeared
about the , time of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.
Clement E. Nickerson , cashier, a witness called by the respondents,
stated his belief that prior to 1935 it was common knowledge around
the plant that the respondents were opposed to dealing with outside
unions. Heller stated , "I don't know how we gained the impression,
but we were under the impression that Matt [ Carpenter] would
rather we didn't" deal with outside unions.
During 1934 the American Federation of Labor, hereinafter called
the A. F. of L., called strikes in the plants of some of the respondents'
competitors , and the respondents ' bakers picketed the plant of the
respondents . Shortly thereafter M. H. Carpenter , the respondents'
general manager, called a meeting of the sales drivers and told them
it would be beneficial to them to form an organization of their own,
that they would thereby derive the benefits from any money collected
instead of turning it over to an outside organization. Thirteen of
the respondents ' sales drivers had made application for membership
in the A. F. of L. prior to this time but none of them completed their
membership , and it was rumored throughout the plant that J. J.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenter, president of the respondents, would refund any money
paid out as application fees.
Within a few days after the talk by M. H. Carpenter a group of
sales drivers made an attempt to organize and, at the suggestion of
William Baker, a sales driver, hired an attorney to assist them. On
August 22, 1934, an organization meeting was held at which, in addi-
tion to the sales ,drivers, the Carpenters, Stephen D. Pierce, sales
manager, and the sales supervisors were present. Pierce suggested
that Baker should be chosen as an officer and he was elected vice
president. At a meeting held shortly thereafter a question arose as
to whether sales supervisors should be permitted to sit in at the meet-
ings, and a vote of 19 to 9 was cast to permit their attendance. They
were frequently present at meetings thereafter. The Brotherhood
received a charter from the State of Wisconsin on September 24, 1934,
and,commenced having regular meetings in a room in the respond-
ents' plant. It continued to function as a labor organization of the
respondents' sales drivers and was so functioning on July 5, 1935.
We find- that the respondents dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Brotherhoods
2. Events subsequent to July 5, 1935
William Baker became president of the Brotherhood shortly after
its organization because of the disinterest and inactivity of its first
president. In May 1935 he was discharged but, because of family
exigencies he was permitted to continue in the employ of the respond-
ents until July 10, 1935. He was a member of the A. F. of L. On
August 24, 1935, after securing permission of the Brotherhood for
their attendance, Baker introduced three representatives of the A. F.
of L. who addressed the Brotherhood members. Baker's discharge
was discussed and presented as a grievance. Thereafter a vote was
taken to determine whether the sales drivers should affiliate with the
A. F. of L., the result of which was 12 for affiliation and 12 against.
It was thereupon decided that another meeting' should be held in
2 weeks.
Two days later M. H. Carpenter called a meeting of the sales driv-
ers during which he informed them that he knew of the meeting with
representatives of the A. F. of L., and the vote which was taken, that
he was not interested in whether the men joined the A. F. of L. or not,
but that he could not,see why it was necessary to join the A. F., of L.
° Since the National Labor Relations Act became effective On July 5, 1935, none of the
foregoing activities constitute violations of that statute. They are important , however, in
considering the significance of the respondents' actions since that date." See N. L. R. B. v.
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., 303 U. S 261.
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 67
and that "if you join the A. F. of L., before I will be dictated to by
an outside union or by the A. F. of L., we will close this place up
and you can take your chances of getting employment through the
A. F. of L.; or you can remain here, and if you conduct yourselves
properly, your jobs will be secure." He also promised that the sales
drivers would "always be paid more than any union is paying." 7
Carpenter's warning had the desired effect for, when the next meeting
of the Brotherhood was held 2 reeks later, another vote was taken
which was against affiliation with the A. F. of L. -
At one of the early meetings of the Brotherhood William Hessel-
bach, who became treasurer of the Brotherhood upon its organization,
complained of the inconvenience of collecting dues and it was decided
that the respondents would be requested to check off dues from em-
ployees' pay checks. J. J. Carpenter, who was approached concerning
the proposed action agreed that it was a "good idea" and, at the instruc-
tion of Sales Manager Pierce, the Brotherhood prepared individual
authorization slips which were signed by the sales drivers. Beginning
in May 1936 the respondents deducted $1.00 each month from the pay
checks of sales drivers and turned it over to the Brotherhood. The
Brotherhood had no application cards and sales drivers automatically
became members upon entering the employ of the respondents. We
find that in maintaining the check-off, the respondents gave financial
aid to the Brotherhood. '
At about the same time J. J. Carpenter, who had frequently loaned
money, to, the employees, suggested that, since the Brotherhood had
funds of its own, it take over the lending of money. Thereafter, the
Brotherhood made loans to sales drivers and supervisors in amounts
not to exceed $50. Requests for loans were made to the Brotherhood's
secretary who thereupon secured from Katherine Mulligan, the, re-
spondents' office manager, promissory notes which she kept in her
office and which, when filled out by her and signed by the borrowers,
were returned to her custody. At the same time Mulligan was given
a slip authorizing her to deduct $5 a week from the salary of the bor-
rower. She thereafter made such deductions and performed the book-
Carpenter did not deny specifically that he made these statements or others of similar
import which are set out hereafter .in this section . He did deny that he ever told the em-
ployees that if they were to Join the A F of L and seek to employ it as their bargaining
agent , he would close the plant or refuse to deal with them lie also denied that lie had
any connection with the formation of the Brotherhood or that lie was consulted about it,
or inspired it, urged it , or had anything to do with it. He also testified that "at every
opportunity I plainly told our men that they were at [sic ] a perfect right to join any organ-
ization they wished , but so far as the company was concerned we would not join or sign up
with any organization without the permission of our men . .11
The Trial Examiner , who had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses,
found that the statements attributed to Carpenterun this section were made by, him In
view of all the circumstances we find that lie made them we shall only indicate hereafter
specific denials made by Carpenter.
413602-42-N of 29--fl
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
keeping transactions incident thereto. When a loan had been repaid
in full, Mulligan paid the full amount to the Brotherhood by check of
the respondents . The respondents insured the loans to a maximum
of $50 and , since the respondents held back 2 weeks' wages of each
sales driver and had on deposit a $50 cash bond from each one, the
Brotherhood was secured to a much greater extent than the amount
of the loan. In thus handling the making of the loans, preparing
promissory notes and authorization slips , performing the bookkeeping,
assuming the responsibility for, and insuring the collection of, the
loans, the respondents gave financial and other support to the Brother-
hood.
The Brotherhood continued to hold regular meetings, sometimes at
one of the hotels in Milwaukee, but most frequently on the third floor
of the respondents' plant. Although the respondents contended that
the room in which the Brotherhood met was primarily furnished and
maintained for the purpose of holding sales meetings , and that they
had, on several occasions, told the Brotherhood to meet-outside, Car-
penter admitted that he did not prohibit the Brotherhood from meet-
ing in the plant and the Brotherhood was given free use of the room
for Brotherhood purposes. The meeting room, which had originally
been without chairs, was supplied with chairs purchased by Sales
Manager Pierce with funds obtained from a candy vending machine
in the plant. A cigarette vending machine was also installed and its
profits turned over to the Brotherhood. Lunches were often served
after meetings for which the respondents donated bread and cooking
facilities and in which supervisors participated.
Meanwhile representatives of the A. F. of L. and the Joint Council
constantly renewed their efforts to organize the respondents' sales
drivers. Their lack of success in these efforts was due to the ex-
pressed hostility of M. H. Carpenter, Pierce, and other supervisory
employees, who prior to various meetings extolled the virtues of the
Brotherhood and urged its members to "stick together" and to be loyal
to their employer.
- In February 1938 Lawrence Winkel became president of the Broth-
erhood. His term in that office was devoted almost completely to
carrying out the desire of M. H. Carpenter to keep the Brotherhood
members from affiliating with the A . F. of L . Practically every action
taken by the Brotherhood especially as it affected the continuance of
the organization was promptly reported to Carpenter, principally by
Winkel. Winkel testified that there was no necessity for receiving
orders from Carpenter, that, "The men had that thoroughly under-
stood before I took office . . . about what they should do and' what
they shouldn't do about regarding to going into any outside union.
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 69
That was the only understanding and the only order that was ever
carried out." The evidence shows that, whether or not the men under-
stood what position they were expected to take on the question of
affiliation with an outside organization, Winkel did not let the matter
stand at that but repeatedly urged them to vote against affiliation and
reported, to them Carpenter's wishes in the matter, especially prior to
the taking of votes at Brotherhood meetings. Winkel's practice of
meeting with M. H. Carpenter with reference to Brotherhood business
without authorization finally became so obnoxious to its members that
in May 1939 the executive board wrote Winkel a letter stating that it
had found him guilty of "gross negligence of office duties . . . and
failure to conduct the office of president to the best, of one's ability."
Marion Wampler, who was a member of the executive board of the
Brotherhood testified that "he was continually going into the office
which he had no authority to do.. . . We were a little suspicious
of his actions." Wampler, who was called as an adverse witness by the
Board, also testified that Winkel assumed an attitude of being close to
the management-that he was the "king pin"-and that he was known
to be-capable of "selling out" the other employees to the management.
Roland Tounier, a sales driver, testified that he got_ so tired of
Winkel's,telling him what he must do that he would have "appreciated
'it far better if Matt [Carpenter] or some accredited representative of
the company would have said it direct, rather than having it go
through somebody else . .." -
It is clear that Winkel used his office as president of the Brotherhood
to influence its members and that his actions came from a desire to
ingratiate himself with Carpenter and carry out the latter's wishes.
Among the many Brotherhood meetings at which affiliation with
the A. F. of L. was discussed was that of May 5, 1938. ' The occasion
for taking a vote on the question arose because of the discharge of
Herbey Sherbrook, a sales driver, without previous notice to the griev-
ance committee of the Brotherhood in violation of the respondents'
agreement. Some of the members wished to join the A. F. of L.
"in order to protect Sherbrook" but the vote was 18 to,8, against affilia-
tion. Because of an agreement which the members had with each other
that they would not join individually, none of the Brotherhood mem-
bers joined the A." F. of L. In addition, it was suggested at the
meeting that the Brotherhood had not received a full report on the in-
cident from the respondents. Winkel and- a committee called on M.
H. Carpenter, who said he would "take care" of Sherbrook. Later
Sherbrook reported to the Brotherhood that he was "well taken care
of," and no further action was taken by the Brotherhood with refer-
ence to' affiliation with the A. F. of L. - ' ,
70 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
' In the fall of 1938 the A. F. of L. began an intensive campaign to
secure members among the respondents' sales drivers. Elmer Johnson,
an A. F. of L. organizer, addressed a meeting of the Brotherhood on
September 1, 1938, and at his request another meeting was scheduled for
October 13-for the purpose of discussing affiliation with the A. F. of L.
On the afternoon before the meeting Roland Tounier was discussing
with Ernie Wirth and Elmer Barnhardt, sales supervisors, the meet-
ing and its purpose. Wirth suggested that the men "stick together
because [they] were all being taken care of satisfactorily . . . and,
that it would be advantageous for all of [them] to stay as [they]
were and not become affiliated with any outside union." Barnhardt
also stated that it would be better if the men did not affiliate with any
outside union, that "everything was running harmoniously out there."
Wirth did not testify and Barnhardt did not deny the truth of the
statement attributed to him.
The meeting resulted in a vote of 12 for affiliation with the A. F. of L.
and 14 against but Johnson elicited the Brothe'rhood's promise to hold
another meeting on October 18 at which Ritchie, another A. F. of L.
representative, would be present. Winkel and a committee of the
Brotherhood returned to the plant after the meeting and reported the
result of the ballot to M. H. Carpenter who stated, "I don't know why
you boys had to call Mr. Johnson in at the meeting. I dont know why
you men want to join up with the A. F. of L. You have got a nice
set-up here. You are getting along all right. You get everything
you, want here." He also stated that the men could bargain better
for themselves than through an outside union.
One-of the principal topics for discussion at the Brotherhood's meet-
ings prior to this time had been with reference to receiving from the
respondents full credit for returns of stale "sweet goods"-cakes, dough-
nuts, etc.-instead of the 5-per cent credit which they were allowed.
After the meeting of May 5, 1938, the allowance was increased to 10,per
cent but the sales drivers continued their attempt to secure 100 per cent
credit. On May 23, 1938, the respondents and the Brotherhood entered
into a contract,8 retroactive to November 27, 1937, and expiring on
January 1, 1939, which provided, among other things, that full credit
would be given on returns of sweet goods. The respondents make no
contention that this provision was complied with immediately but
contend that at least by August 1938 full credit was being given. • The
Board's witnesses insisted that such credit was not given until
after the meeting with the A. F. of L. organizers on October 13, and
that the failure to receive the credit was one 'of the reasons for holding
8 The contract provided for a fixed wage scale to be paid "unto all members of the party
of the second part" ( the Brotherhood), etc.
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 71,
that meeting. Carpenter told the committee which called on him after
this meeting that if there was anything the Brotherhood wanted, they
could come in and get it,'and stated, "You get everything you want
here." Winkel thereupon replied, "We haven't got our sweet goods
-credit yet"; and Carpenter said, "Oh, hasn't that been taken care of
yet . . . I will see that it is taken care of right away." Full credit
_oin.sweet.goods'was.given thereafter.
Although the respondents introduced in evidence some "pink'slips"
for Winkel's route, dated August 23, 24, and 26, 1938, which purport
to show that full credit was given him for sweet goods returns, Winkel
denied that he actually received full credit. The minutes of the
Brotherhood's meetings on July 28, 1938, and on September 1, 1938,
would seem to bear out Winkel's version of what occurred. The July
28 minutes include the statement, "Credit on sweet goods to be looked
into." In the minutes of September 1 there appears the following :
"Credits which was held up wk. of June 29th to be taken pup with
officials, to get full credit up to date." Winkel testified that the com-
mittee which was appointed pursuant to the July 28 resolution re-
ported at the next meeting, on September 1, that they had not yet
succeeded-inrobtaining full credit. Certainly, if the sales drivers were
receiving full credit on returns of sweet goods in August, there would
have been no occasion for discussing the question at the meeting on
September 1.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondents granted
the credit after October 13, 1938, and further, that they did so in order
to counteract the growing sentiment for affiliation with the-A. F. of L.
as indicated by the vote on that date.
Winkel did not inform M. H. Carpenter that he had arranged a
meeting for October 18 but a few days prior thereto Carpenter told
him that it was not necessary to have so many meetings and stated, "I
am not doing business with any outside union. I'll bargain with you
boys, but you are the only boys I'll bargain with. I will not sign
up with any other union or I'll close the plant down. . . . Have your
men stay together 100 per cent and I will see that there is nobody loses
their jobs and I'll see that you fellows have a nice contract. I'll see
that you boys are paid more than the union scale."
On October 18 the scheduled meeting was held and Johnson and
Ritchie were present. Prior to their arrival, however,, Winkel ad-
dressed the Brotherhood and told them what Carpenter had said.
After Johnson spoke to the group another vote was taken. It resulted
in a vote of 24 to 4, against affiliation with the A. F. of -L.
Winkel reported the results of this meeting to M. H. Carpenter. He
also told Carpenter that Johnson, the union organizer, was going to
call on him and demand that the contract then in existence be turned
72 DECISIONS'. OF, NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
-over to the A. F. of L. Carpenter informed Winkel that he would
not consent to an assignment of the contract and that he expected the
Brotherhood to live out-the term of the contract with the respondent.
Some time later Winkel advised Carpenter that "the boys were satis-
fied to stay as we are" until after the first of the year, but that when-
their contract had expired they expected to look at a contract. pre= '
pared by the A. F. of L. Carpenter replied that when that time came
he would present a contract to the Brotherhood and that he would
guarantee them "more money than Mr. Johnson from the A. F. of L.
could present" them.
At a meeting of the Brotherhood on December 20, 1939, a committee
of five was appointed to call on M. H. Carpenter to discuss a new con-
tract. However, on the evening of December 19 Nickerson, the re-
spondents' cashier, handed Winkel a letter addressed to the Brother-
hood which stated in part :
In compliance with your request to confer relative to terms of
renewing the contract existing between your Brotherhood'and the
Carpenter Baking Company, be advised that as per our confer.
ence of November 22, December 6th and December 19th, as we
understand your request you feel there should be:
There followed items' about which bargaining conferences were al-
legedly held on the dates stated. It was Winkel's undenied testimony
that those conferences were never held. It is a fair inference that the
respondents were anticipating that the A. F. of L. would continue its
demands for a contract and that, to forestall such demands, the re-
spondents were seeking to hurry a contract with the Brotherhood. We
so find. - However, on January 3, 1939, after some negotiations, a con-
tract was executed which was to expire on December 31, 1939, and con-
tained no renewal provision. This contract, unlike the one which
preceded it, provided for wage rates applicable to all sales drivers
instead of to members of the Brotherhood only.
During the latter part of December 1938 and early in January
1939 the A. F. of L. representatives met with M. H. Carpenter on
two or three occasions, on one of which they left with Carpenter a
copy of a contract which they advised him was in,force throughout
the baking industry. Because the sales drivers were afraid of losing
their jobs if they were seen talking to A. F. of L. organizers and
were avoiding meetings with them, the A. F. of L. representatives
were demanding, under threat of applying economic pressure, that
they be permitted to organize the sales drivers without interference
from the respondents and Carpenter promised to give them a written
statement as to the respondents' position. On January -11 there
appeared in a local newspaper an advertisement by the respondents
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 73
which, after_ stating in, small type and in parentheses that "This
statement is made pursuant to the assurance of the Company to
Union representatives that the Company would state its position to
its employees and others concerned," recited, in substance, that rep-
resentatives of a bakery salesmen's union were proposing that the
respondents force their employees to join their union and that if
the respondents failed to agree to do so their business would be
subjected to economic pressure. The advertisement continued with
the decision that the respondents refused to "sell out" their employees
and that, if picketing resulted from the refusal, the respondents
would be forced to cease operating the business.
On January 13, 1939, after several attempts to communicate with
Winkel for the purpose of holding a meeting with the Brotherhood,,
A. G. Goldberg, attorney for the A. F. of L., telephoned M. H. Car-
penter, who promised to transmit a message to Winkel. It is un-
disputed that Winkel was called off his route that morning and told
by Carpenter, "Now, you go and call Mr. Goldberg. If he asks for
a meeting, tell him that you will see your attorney." Winkel called
Goldberg and when the latter insisted upon a meeting Winkel re-
plied according to Carpenter's instructions. After reporting to Car-
penter, Winkel went to see Frank P. Burke, who had been employed
as the Brotherhood's attorney some time previously, at the suggestion
of J. J. Carpenter, and Burke arranged for a meeting that after-
noon. At the meeting Winkel addressed the members of the Brother-
hood and, according to Tounier's uncontradicted testimony, told them
that it was Carpenter's desire that "the boys stick together, to stay as
they were in the Brotherhood of Bakery Sales Drivers." After
Goldberg had spoken to the men and he and the other A. F. of L.
representatives had left the room, Winkel said "Boys, you know the
score." A vote was then taken and -its result was 28 to 0 against
affiliation with the A. F. of L.
On January 16, pickets were placed around the respondents' plant
but were removed the following evening as a result of a truce ar=
ranged by the Wisconsin State Labor Board. Winkel was again
called off his route on the morning of January f8 and was told by
Carpenter that a representative of the State Labor Board wanted
a meeting with him and the other officers of the Brotherhood. Car-
penter did not deny that he also told Winkel, "Of course, he will
try to sell you on the idea of going into the A. -F. of L., there is
no doubt about that; but don't pay, any attention' to that. Don't
go on a stampede. Just go down there and think nothing' of it."
Winkel, Hesselbach, and Roy Ressler, a Brotherhood member, met
with Voyta Wrabits and Norman Moe, representatives of the State
Labor Board, and agreed to let the latter know, -after they, saw
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their attorney, whether they would call a meeting of the Brother-
hood. After reporting to M. H. Carpenter and receiving his advice
to see Burke, Winkel, Hesselbach, and Ressler went to see Burke
and a meeting was arranged to be held on January 18 with two
A. F. of L. organizers, the, State Labor Board representatives, and
the Brotherhood. Prior to the meeting the sales drivers were stand-
ing around in groups in the shipping room and a supervisor was
with each group. As they walked out' of the room O'Keefe, the
shipping clerk, advised, "Well, don't join the A. F. of L." Sales
Manager Pierce told Winkel "I hope you stick together and keep
them together. I hope they vote to stay out of it and I hope they
don't slip up." The men went to the meeting in a body and agreed
,among themselves to "give them the same vote as last time." After
Ritchie and Johnson, A. F. of L. organizers, spoke to the assembled
group on the merits of affiliation with the A. F. of L., another vote
was taken and all of the 28 sales drivers voted against affiliation. '
Pickets were again placed around the respondents' plant and on
January 23, 1939, the plant was closed. Carpenter called a meeting
of the sales drivers that morning and told them to stay at home and
take care of their families and not to have any meetings with the
A. F. of L. representatives. On the same day the respondents pub-
lished a second advertisement in the public press, stating, among
other things, that the respondents' "refusal to force our employees
to join a union against their will has brought the `economic pressure'
with which the union representatives threatened us . . . We have
no alternative but to close, and we will close until such a time as
the laws of Wisconsin will permit a law-abiding firm to conduct
a legitimate business and 'will guarantee American Citizens their
God-given right to work and make an honest living rather than be
at the command of men who say `you must."'
All the respondents' employees received their regular, pay for
approximately 10 weeks during which the plant was closed, and
most of them spent a portion of their time in the plant. In addi-
tion, they were kept occupied to some extent by participation, upon
M. H. Carpenter's instructions, in the respondents' campaign to
secure the passage of the Catlin Act, a bill to forbid "stranger
picketing," among' other things, which was then pending before
the legislature of the State of Wisconsin. Employees were in-
structed to see their senators and assemblymen 'and urge the bill's
passage; they were provided with postal cards to be sent to a local
radio commentator commending his speeches in sympathy with the
respondents' position ; petitions urging the passage of the bill were
prepared for the signatures of the employees and others; and letters
were written by the respondents to friends and relatives of the em-
ployee throughout the State, whose names had been furnished at the
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY '75
request of M. H.. Carpenter, asking them to urge the passage of the
Catlin Act.
The public was further impressed with the plight of the sales
drivers by an advertisement which appeared on February 1, 1939,
and read as follows :
The undersigned sincerely thank the many friends who have
so sympathetically expressed their interest in the unfortunate
turn of events that has closed the Carpenter Baking Company
and deprived us of work. We are especially grateful to the
group of Milwaukee doctors who have so generously offered, to
ourselves and families, free medical service during the period of
unemployment and to the number of union men who have ex-
tended their moral and, in some cases, financial support.' We
are particularly thankful to them for we realize it is extended
at some risk to themselves. ,
We appreciate the good wishes and moral support of our
friends and, if the hardships we are suffering help free others,
we will feel repaid.
Although the above statement was signed "Employees of the Car-
penter Baking Company," it was actually inserted and paid for by
Mr. Long, a friend of the Carpenters and president of the W. E. Long
Company, Chicago, a company engaged in the general bakery serv-
ice, accounting, and advertising business. M. H. Carpenter and
Frank Posak, superintendent of the baking department, were the
only other persons who knew anything about its insertion. Since
the respondents' employees were receiving their regular pay, the ad-
vertisement was, to say the least, misleading in an attempt to gain
public sympathy for the respondents' position.
Shortly before the Catlin Bill was called up for committee hearing,
the sales drivers were assembled by Sales Manager Pierce and told
they were going to Madison. Pierce, two supervisors, and Winkel
arranged transportation for all. Winkel, Hesselbach, and Francis
Cantine, a sales driver, were requested by M. H. 'Carpenter to pre-
pare speeches for delivery before the committee and each submitted a
draft to Carpenter for correction before having it"typed in the re-
spondents' office. However, Cantine was the only sales driver who
spoke. M. H. Carpenter addressed the committee and declared,
among other things, that if the Catlin Bill.was not passed "he would
spend the rest of his life defeating labor."
At no. time during the exercise of "economic pressure" was 'the
picketing by the A. F. of L. anything but peaceful and orderly.
Carpenter's 'statements were clearly calculated to leave an erroneous
impression of the aims of the A. F. of L. with his listeners. We
conclude that the events participated in by the respondents in which
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD
they required the sales drivers to take part , were acts of interference,
not only in the rights of the employees to ' self-organization , but also
interference and domination in the administration of the Brother-
hood.
The Catlin Act became the law of the State : of Wisconsin on or,
about March 30, 1939. The plant reopened on April 4, 1939, free
from the "economic pressure" of the Union.
While the plant was closed a fund was collected from the bakers to
help defray the costs of attorneys ' fees incurred by the Brotherhood,
and, at the suggestion of Pierce to Winkel , the Brotherhood assessed
its members $5 to be deducted at the rate of $1 a week from the pay
of the sales drivers when they cashed their checks. This money was
turned over to Katherine Mulligan, the office manager, who
deposited it in her own account in a bank. Hesselbach had opened
a bank account for the Brotherhood in March 1936 , but in February
1938 he made a personal account of,it, "having cleaned up with the
Brotherhood," according to his testimony, although he remained
treasurer until March 1, 1939. It appears from the record that after
February 1938 the Brotherhood 's funds were kept in the respondents'
office, in charge of Mulligan . In the minutes of the Brotherhood's
meeting of March 22, 1939; there appears " the following notation :
"Suggestion made that we take in money from office and put in check-
ing account at the bank." After the plant reopened on April 4,
1939, Hesselbach requested the funds from Mulligan who refused to
turn them , over. . Thereupon Winkel, Hesselbach , and Wampler, the
newly elected treasurer , called on J. J. Carpenter and told him the
Brotherhood wished to set up a new bookkeeping system and open a
hank account . Carpenter asked if they had the bills for the money
the Brotherhood owed and when, he was shown the bills he asked,
"What's your hurry in paying these bills ? . . . I wouldn't be in a
hurry about that stuff, let them wait ." When Winkel insisted upon
getting the matter straightened out, Carpenter said, "We have got
something to say about this. It's a company union isn 't it?" Winkel
agreed that it was, ' and Carpenter declared, "Well, then we have
something to say about it." Winkel replied, "If that's the way you
feel about it, all - right. The two of us can't run it, it's too small."
The committee then went to M. H . Carpenter who arranged with
'Mulligan to turn over the Brotherhood funds. However, Mulligan
insisted that she have the'bills and she made out checks to the cred-
itors of the Brotherhood for the amounts owing.
On the afternoon of May 12, 1939 , M. H. Carpenter called a meet-
ing of the sales force and addressed them as follows :
Gentlemen, I have been informed that you have been sold
out to the A. F. of L. for a large sum of money. If any man
CARPENIER BAKING COMPANY 77
here-has signed up with the A. F. of,L. or is going to join the
A. F. of L., I will close this plant down the first of June and
keep it -closed down. I will not do business with any outside
union." 8
The facts recited above cause us to conclude that the respondents
dominated and interfered with, and gave support to, the Brother-
hood.' After suggesting the formation of the Brotherhood in order
to forestall organization of their employees by a legitimate labor
organization , the respondents, subsequent to July 5, 1935, the effective
date of the Act, successfully exerted every effort to maintain the
Brotherhood as the only union in their plant and to defeat attempts
by the A. F. of L. to gain members. Each , time there appeared
among the sales drivers a substantial sentiment in favor of throwing
off the yoke of domination by the respondents, M. H. Carpenter,
Sales Manager Pierce , and other supervisory employees were quick to
make clear the respondents' attitude in order to avert action in con-
formity with such sentiment. The results of the respondents' re-
iteration of their policy are evident in the votes taken upon the
question of affiliation with the A. F; of L.- before and after speeches
by M. H. Carpenter to the sales drivers. No opportunity was ever
afforded the respondents' employees to make a free, choice of a labor
organization to represent them. M. H. Carpenter denied that he
ever told employees that if they joined the A. F. of L. and sought
to employ it as their bargaining agent he would close the plant
or refuse to deal with them. He denied generally that he was con-
sulted with regard to the formation of the Brotherhood, or that he
"inspired it, urged or had anything to do with it." However, in view
of all the testimony, and the conclusions of the Trial Examiner as to
what occurred, we cannot credit these denials.
The evidence discloses that sales drivers automatically become
members of the Brotherhood and that they had no alternative but to
sign authorization slips for the check-off of dues upon their employ-
ment. The respondents thereby gave financial support to the Broth-
erhood. In addition, the Brotherhood received the proceeds of a
cigarette machine installed in the plant' and were thus further aided
financially by the respondents. The respondents, by their officers,
and agents, participated in and controlled the activities of the Broth-
erhood. The Brotherhood used the respondents' premises and office
0 The above finding is based on the testimony of Tounier , Winkel , and Nobel Heller who
was called as an adverse witness by the Board . Carpenter denied making these statements
and testified that he told the men that " there was some undercurrent ,that was disturbing
the entire sales organization . . . and that . . '. someone or some group was doing their
best to undermine the organization , were double-crossing some of the men and causing the
difficulty ." The Trial , Examiner found that Carpenter made the statements quoted by the
witnesses named.
9
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facilities with the knowledge and consent of the respondents and,
during the period from February 1938 to April- 1939 at least, the
respondents kept the Brotherhood's funds in their office and under
their control.
In furtherance of their policy of discouraging membership in the
A( F. of L. and the Joint Council, the respondents liberalized their
credit on returns of sweet goods after it appeared that employees
might join the A. F. of L. to attempt to secure such credit. They
carried on open warfare against the A. F. of L. in connection with
their campaign for the enactment of the Catlin Act and instructed
the sales drivers as to the positions they were to take in the matter.
By entering into contracts with the Brotherhood in which it was
recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of the sales
drivers, the respondents gave support to the Brotherhood, and dis-
couraged membership in a legitimate labor organization.
We find that the respondents, by the above-described course of con-
duct, dominated and interfered with the administration of, and gave
support to, the-Brotherhood,' and that they thereby, and by the other
acts hereinabove described, interfered with, restrained, and coerced
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharge
The complaint alleged that the respondents discharged Lawrence
Winkel on May 14, 1939, and thereafter refused to reinstate him,
because he had joined and assisted the Joint Council. The respond-
ents' answer denied the allegation and alleged affirmatively that
Winkel had voluntarily resigned and that the respondents' refusal to
rehire him thereafter was not connected with his union activity. The
Trial Examiner found, in his Intermediate Report, that the evidence
did not sustain the allegations in the complaint as to Winkel's
discharge. The Joint Council filed exceptions to this finding.
Lawrence Winkel was employed by the respondents in November
1935 as a sales driver., He became a member of the Brotherhood
shortly thereafter and in February 1938 was elected president. His
activities in connection with the Brotherhood are detailed above and
it is clear that he was the most powerful influence within the
Brotherhood for its continued existence.
After the plant reopened on April 4, 1939, the sales drivers ex-
perienced difficulty in rebuilding their routes because of the shut-
down and the economic pressure which had been exerted by the A. F.
of L. Four drivers whose sales were low were assigned to ride with
other drivers while their own routes were operated by supervisors.
When the grievance committee of the Brotherhood called on M. H. Car-
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 79
penter he assured them that the change was only temporary and was
for the purpose of permitting the men to observe the sales methods
of more successful drivers. Nevertheless, the employees became ap-
prehensive about losing their jobs and on May 5 Winkel called a meet-
ing of 12 or 14 drivers at his home to discuss what action should be
taken. Affiliation with the A. F. of L. was again suggested and
those present decided to have a second meeting on May 12, to which
each would bring another sales driver, and to invite Johnson and
Ritchie, the A. F. of L. organizers, to attend. , Winkel was instructed
to get in touch with Johnson and Ritchie and ask them to be present
at the meeting. Winkel met Ritchie the following day, assured him
that he was not being given "the run-around," and secured his promise
to attend the meeting.
On May 8 one of the sales drivers told Winkel that he was "on the
spot," that Pierce and the supervisors knew of the meeting which had
been held at his home. Winkel applied for membership in the
A. F. of L. that night upon the advice of Ritchie.
On May 11, 1939, Winkel was called into J. J. Carpenter's office
and asked for his route book."' According to Winkel's testimony,
he replied that he had left it at home that day but had duplicate
slips. Carpenter then told him, "You never did keep a route book
and I have a good notion to pull you off your route." Winkel
promised to bring in his route book the next day and Carpenter then
discussed with him various vacation trips he had taken and other
matters. Pierce and Joseph M. Carpenter, the son of J. J. Carpenter
gave a different version of what occurred ,between Winkel and J. J.
Carpenter. Joseph M. Carpenter testified, and Winkel denied, that
he was present in the room during the conversation. Pierce stated
that he was in an adjoining office and heard it. Both testified that
when Winkel was asked for his route book he said that he did not
like Co keep- a route book but that the requirement made no difference
to him because he was "turning in his time anyway"; that J. J. Car-
penter declared, "If that is the way you feel about it I will accept,
your time." Leo B. Tylock, a sales driver, testified that he saw
Winkel shortly after he came out of J. J. Carpenter's office and that
Winkel told him he had been discharged. Winkel denied having
told Tylock he was discharged. Winkel had threatened to resign
on two or three previous occasions but his threats had been made to
10 Prior to the reopening of the plant the rule as to keeping route books had not been
strictly enforced by the respondents Winkel admitted that he had not attempted to keep
his route books properly but stated that Pierce had excused him from this duty because of
the size of his route. When the plant reopened a new order was issued that route books
must be kept.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pierce rather than to any of the respondents' officers. Under, the
circumstances, and considering his previously expressed intentions to
resign, as well as the subsequent events set forth below, we do not
credit Winkel's story of what occurred.
On the following day Winkel was informed by the cashier that
M. H. Carpenter wanted to see him. As to what happened at the
meeting thereafter between M. H. Carpenter and Winkel, there is
also a direct conflict in the evidence.. According to • Winkel's testi-
mony, Carpenter said that he understood Winkel had told J. J. Car-
penter he was going to resign ; that in reply Winkel denied" express-
ing such an intention but told M. H. Carpenter that J. J. Carpenter
had threatened to "pull him off his route." Winkel also testified
that M. H. Carpenter then stated that since the passage of the Catlin
Act employees would have to be very careful about what they said
with regard to quitting, and that for Winkel's protection he should
write out a resignation and come back the next day when he would
be rehired.
On the other hand, M. H. Carpenter testified that. when he asked
Winkel if it was true that he had resigned, Winkel replied that he
had, that he was working hard and not getting any credit for it,
that some of the men -did not like him, and that he was tired and
was going to quit. Carpenter said. "I think you are making a mis-
take," but Winkel stated he had been thinking of quitting for some
time. Thereupon Carpenter told Winkel that he should put his
resignation in writing in order to comply with the provisions of the
contract with the Brotherhood which required written notice of
resignation. Winkel wrote a resignation dated May 12, 1939, effec-
tive,as of that date. 'Carpenter denied that he mentioned the Catlin
Act to Winkel on this occasion or that he promised to rehire Winkel.
The sales drivers had, been notified by Pierce that morning of a,
meeting to be held in the plant after working hours. In addition
to the sales drivers, J. J.' Carpenter, M. H. Carpenter, Joseph M.
,Carpenter, Pierce, and the sales supervisors were present. M. H.
Carpenter addressed the group and stated, among other things :
Gentlemen, I have been informed that you have been,sold out
to the A. F. of L. for a large sum of money. If any man here
has signed up with the A. F. of L. or is going to join the A. F.
of L.,,I will close this plant down the first of June and keep it
closed down. I will not do business with any outside'union . . .
There has been some dissension among the men relative to pos-
sible discharges. Now I said that no one, would be discharged
and no one is going to be discharged.
CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY 81
He mentioned that Roland Tounier, who was one of the four sales
drivers who had been taken off his route, had been "taken care of."
After M. H. Carpenter had concluded his remarks, J. J. Carpenter
asked Winkel if he (J. J. Carpenter) had discharged Winkel.11
Winkel testified at one point in the hearing that he said, "Yes, you
did" and in another that he replied, that J. J. Carpenter had said he
would "pull him off his route." He also testified that J. J. Carpen-
ter then said, "You say that again and I will punch your nose."
Several other witnesses, who testified that they heard Winkel's an-
swer, stated that Winkel said that J. J. Carpenter had not discharged
him. Others stated that they could not hear Winkel's reply because
of the confusion in the room following J. J. Carpenter's outburst.
On the following day Winkel asked M. H: Carpenter if he could
see him, but because it was late in the day Carpenter suggested that
Winkel come to the office the following morning, Sunday. On the
morning of May 14, according to Winkel's testimony, M. H. Carpen-
ter accused him of having embezzled $3.60 through a transaction
with one Martin Bayer, a bakery owner, and told him that he had
better not come to work the next day because there would be friction
between him and J. J. Carpenter. He testified also that M. H. Car-
penter told him of opportunities for employment in other cities and
offered to help Winkel find a job. Winkel stated also, and Carpen-
ter did not deny, that on the next day, when he came for his wages;
M. H. Carpenter told him "not to get nasty about things" and that
he should not talk "union" to the other employees.
M. H. Carpenter denied that he knew of or mentioned the Martin
Bayer incident to Winkel and was corroborated by Pierce who testi-
fied that it occurred in April and that M. H. Carpenter had no
knowledge of it until after Winkel left the respondents' employ.
M. H. Carpenter further testified that Winkel came to the plant
on May 14 and told Carpenter that be (Winkel) had made a mistake
in resigning and that he wilnted to come back to work but that Car-,
penter had stated this was impossible after the scene at the meeting
on May 12 and refused to reemploy Winkel. He denied also 'that he
had offered to help Winkel find a job but explained that Winkel
had told him it would be difficult to get a° position in Milwaukee
because he was not a member of the A. F. of L. and had asked Car-
penter if he would give him a reference.
In view of all the evidence, we do not credit Winkel's testimony
as to the termination of his employment. We find that Winkel vol-
untarily resigned and that the respondents made no promise to re-
hire him. , Winkel testified that he did not think he was discharged
"This question was apparently occasioned by the fact that rumors were going around
the plant that Winkel bad been discharged or had resigned.
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on May 11 after his talk with J. J. Carpenter, and that he made no
request to be rehired at any time thereafter. Although several wit-
nesses testified that Winkel said he had been discharged, he denied
having told anyone that he was discharged. Winkel had threatened
to resign on two or three previous occasions when conditions around
the plant were not to his liking. However, on these occasions he
had not made his threat known to any of the Carpenters. _ It is ap-
parentthat on May 11, 1939, when he told J. J. Carpenter he was
going to resign, he was taken seriously and his resignation accepted.
Although the circumstances indicate that the respondents were
pleased to accept Winkel's resignation because of his interest in the
A. F. of L., the evidence does not sustain the allegation that he was
discharged.
We find that the respondents have not discriminated with regard
to the hire and'tenure of employment of Lawrence Winkel.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III A above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed 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 burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.12
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices'we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that, the respondents have dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of the Brotherhood and have contrib-
uted support to it. We shall order that the respondents cease and
desist from dominating and interfering With the administration of,
and contributing support to the Brotherhood and that they with-
draw all recognition from the Brotherhood and disestablish it as a
representative of their employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
11 See Matter of Taystee Bread Company, Nashville, Tenn, and Purity Bakeries Corpora-
tion, Chicago, Ill, and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America,
Local #128, 27 N L R B' 1240; Matter of Schmidt Baking Co, Inc and Local 622,
Rakeiy Drillers and Salesmen, affiliated earth the A F of L, 27 N L R B 735. Matter
of Cook Coffee Company and Central Tea Company and Home Tea Company and United Tea
and Coffee Workers Union, Local 155, affiliated with United Retail and Wholesale Employees
of Ames tea, 22 N L. R B. 967
CARPENTER BAKING COMP:_YY 83
The check -off of Brotherhood dues by the respondents from the
wages of , its employees was, as we have found, a part of the respond-
ents' support of the Brotherhood . These deductions for the benefit
of a dominated labor organization may not, even in those cases in
which authorization was given , be regarded as voluntary on the
part of the employees affected. To restore the status quo in this
respect , we shall order the respondents to reimburse their employees
for all amounts deducted from their wages as dues for the Brother-
hood.
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: International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stable-
men and Helpers of America, Ice and Coal Drivers and Helpers,
Local No. 257, affiliated with the Auto Truck Drivers Joint Council
No. 50; International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stable-
men and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor; and Brotherhood of Bakery Salesmen, Local No. 1,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the
Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of,
and contributing financial and other support to, the Brotherhood
of Bakery Salesmen, Local No. 1, the respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. the
respondents 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.
5. The respondents have not discriminated with regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Lawrence Winkel within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings ' of fact and conclusiori,^ of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor, Relations Board hereby orders that the,
respondents , Joseph M. Carpenter and M . H. Carpenter , their agents,
successors, and assigns , and the respondents Carpenter Baking Com'
41 3003-42-vol 2q--7
84 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany and Michael Carpenter Company, their officers , agents, suc-
cessors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, and
contributing financial or other support to, the Brotherhood, or any
other labor organization of their employees;
(b) Recognizing the Brotherhood as the representative of any of
their employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents
concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment , or conditions of work ;
(c) In any other manner interferring with, restraining ,, or coerc-
ing their 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 purposes of collective bargaining and
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 purposes of'the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from, and completely disestablish,
the Brotherhood as the representative of any of their employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances,
labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other
conditions of employment;
(b) Reimburse all employees for any dues deducted by the re-
spondents from their wages on behalf of the Brotherhood;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their plant and
maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive days from
the date ' of posting , notices to their employees stating ( 1) that the
respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a),, (b),, and ,, ( c) of
this Order; and ( 2) that the respondents will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps , it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges , with regard to Lawrence Winkel,
that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. Mims took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.