Cating Rope Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 1100 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of MATING ROPE WORKS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS'
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, C. I. O.
Case No. 'C-2.96.-Decided January 21, 1938 •
Rope Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion.: anti-union
statements ; sponsorship of internal organization ; initiating and fostering com-
pany-dominated organization of employees ; expressed opposition to labor organ-
ization ; engendering fear of loss of employment for union membership and
activity-Collective Bargaining: refusal to negotiate with representatives ; re-
fusal to recognize representatives as bargaining agency representing employees-
Company-Dominated Unions: sponsorship, domination, and interference with
formation and administration ; support of ; organization and domination by
supervisory employees ; soliciting and encouraging membership during working
hours; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Individual Contracts
of Employment: with labor organization assisted and fostered by unfair labor
practices, not representing free choice of employees, void ; respondent ordered to
cease and desist giving effect thereto-Discrimination: discharge; charges of,
as to one employee, dismissed-Strt7ees-Reinstatement Ordered: upon applica-
tion for reinstatement of employees who struck because of unfair labor practices.
Mr.' John T. McCann and Mr. Lester Levin, for the Board.
Fitzpatrick • Bell, by Mr. Bernard H. Fitzpatrick and Mr. William
J. Bell, of New York City, for the respondent.
Mr. Sidney L. Cahn, of New York City, for the Union.
Miss Anne E. Freeling, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board , by Elinore Morehouse Herrick, Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York City ), issued its com-
plaint, dated July 20, 1937 , against Cating Rope Works, Inc.,' Mas-
peth, Long Island, New York, herein called the respondent , alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), (3), and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor
1 Incorrectly designated as Cating Rope works in the charges.
1100
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 110E
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint.
and an accompanying notice of a hearing to be held in New, York
City on July 29, 1937, were duly served upon the respondent and the-
Union.
On July 26, 1937, the.respondent filed an answer to the complaint,.
in which, in substance, it alleged that the Act was unconstitutional
and denied most of the allegations of the complaint, admitting, how-
ever, those concerning its incorporation and business. '
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York City on
July 29, 30, 31, August 2 and 3, 1937, before James C. Paradise, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the
respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and'
cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all the parties.
At the close of the Board's case, the attorney for the Board moved
to conform the, pleadings to,the proof adduced at,the hearing. This.
motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. At the opening and
close of the hearing, and at various times during the hearing, counsel
for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Exam-
iner denied these motions, reserving decision, however, on the ques-
tion whether Ruth Hildebrandt was discharged for union activities
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has'
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On August 30, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate-
Report finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce in violation of the Act as alleged in
the complaint, but recommending that so much of the complaint as
relates to the discharge of Ruth Hildebrandt be dismissed. On Sep-
tember 17, 1937, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate-
Report and requested an opportunity to argue the exceptions before-
the Board. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board
on October 5, 1937, in Washington, District of Columbia, for the
purpose of such oral argument. Only counsel for 'the respondent
participated. Counsel for the Union filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Cating Rope Works, Inc., is a New York corpora-
tion having its principal office and place of business in Maspeth, New
York, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution,
1102 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of rope and rope products for agricultural, maritime, and industrial
use. William B. Cating and his son, William C. Cating, are the presi-
dent and vice-president, respectively. The respondent employs ap-
proximately 58 employees, exclusive of clerical employees, and has a
total annual pay roll of about $26,000. It advertises by means of cir-
culars which it mails to its customers throughout the country. The
respondent's principal customers are located in Louisiana, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Florida, and include, in addition,
the United States War Department and Coast Guard Service.
The respondent purchases all of its necessary raw- materials from
outside 'the United States. These materials, which include manila
and sisal hemps, are purchased from the Philippine -Islands, Java,
Mexico, and East Africa, and are brought to the plant by steamer
and truck. Approximately 50 per cent of the respondent's' finished
products are shipped outside the State of New York by truck, rail-
road, and steamer. In 1936 the respondent purchased 2,297,938 pounds
of various raw materials, having a value of $159,527.54, all of which
was imported from outside the United States. The respondent's gross
sales for the year 1936 amounted to 1,471,670 pounds, having a value
,of $192,961.88, of which $95,526.22 worth was shipped to points out-
side of New York.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce.
II. THE UNION
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to membership all production and maintenance employees of the re-
spondent, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of organization of the respondent's employees
On or about June 4, 1937, several of the respondent's employees,
including Joseph Carini and Ruth Hildebrandt, began to talk to
the other employees about the advisability of joining a union. On
June 11, these employees went to an office of the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization, signed tentative application cards for mem-
bership in the Union, and requested that the Union send an organ-
izer to the respondent's plant. Meetings were held at a hall in
Maspeth on the evenings of June 17 and 18 which were addressed
by Union organizers. By the close, of the, second meeting, 52 em-
ployees of the respondent had become members of the Union. A
Shop Committee'was elected at the second meeting, of which Carini
was made chairman.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1103
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On or about June 17, 1937, William C. Cating discussed with Ken-
neth Crossman, superintendent of the plant, the organization activi-
ties of his employees, and instructed Crossman to keep him informed
about these activities. To this end Crossman, in turn, enlisted the
services of Thompson Schuler, a supervisory employee. Later on
the same day, but still during working hours, there was a confer-
ence in the respondent's office, attended by both of the Catings, Cross-
man, Schuler, two of the Lay brothers, all three of whom are super-
visory employees, and several "loyal" employees, at which the union
question was discussed. Thereafter those present at the conference
went among the employees, as they had been instructed by the Cat-
ings to do, repeating the arguments advanced at the conference as
to the advantages of a company union, chief among which were the
elimination of dues and assessments and the assurance that no one
who joined such a union would be discharged. Following closely
upon this missionary work, a meeting of all the employees was held
in the plant that afternoon, which was addressed by William C.
Cating. The meeting subsequently moved outside the plant, where
it was addressed by a Union organizer, who came in response to a
telephone call from one of the employees. In addition to Schuler
and the Lay brothers, a stenographer was present at the outside
meeting, who took notes of the proceedings, and refused to leave even
after Carini accused her of being a "boss's stooge." She had been
sent to the meeting by the respondent at the request of Schuler and
an employee named Gordon Williams. Schuler urged the forma-
tion of a company union. However, when those present finally took'
a vote, a decided majority indicated their preference for the Union.
Schuler, meanwhile, had been attempting to dissuade Carini from
continuing his activities on behalf of the Union, but was unsuccess-
ful. Schuler then became a member of the Union. He was elected to
the Shop Committee despite the protestations of several employees
that he was a foreman, a charge which lie denied. He reported to the
respondent what took place at the Union meetings. The respondent
was thus able to maintain surveillance over union activities.
The respondent had stated to the "loyal" employees, and to the
assembled workers at the June 17 meeting, and stated again at an-
other meeting of all its workers held on June 21, that one of its
reasons for refusing to recognize any C. I. O. union was the fact
that it would have shipping difficulties because the American Fed-
eration of Labor unions controlled the docks and the shipping com-
panies. The respondent suggested to its employees that it would
be advisable to ascertain what advantages an A. F. of L. union might
have over a C. I. O. union. Accordingly, about June 21, Schuler
1104 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
telephoned A. F. of L. headquarters, and, at his suggestion, repre-
sentatives of the A. F. of L. called at the plant and talked to Schuler
and to one of the Catings, who invited them to return to the plant
later to address the employees. However, before returning, they
learned from some of the employees that the Union had already
organized a majority of the plant. They did not return and there-
after apparently made no effort to organize the respondent's,
employees.
We find that the respondent, by the acts above set forth, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of-
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own-
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The respondent's formation and domination of a labor organization
1. The first "Collective Bargaining Committee"
On June 21, 1937, Bernard Herman, one of the Union organizers,
telephoned to the respondent and requested a conference for the pur-
pose of negotiating a collective agreement. He was told that the
respondent needed time to examine its books in order to ascertain how
large a wage increase it could afford to grant. An appointment
was made for June 23 at 3: 00 P. M.
Apparently immediately after this telephone conversation, a meet-
ing of all the employees was called by the respondent. Both of the
Catings addressed the employees, warning them to proceed with great
caution in taking a step so serious as joining a union. The employees
were told that in the more than 70 years the respondent had been in
business its employees had never organized a union, and that, if they
now wanted to do so, they should first consider the desirability of
their own company union, or the possible advantages of an A. F. of L.
union. The following morning, June 22, William C. Cating called
on L. L. Balleisen, Industrial Secretary of the Brooklyn Chamber of
Commerce, of which the respondent is not a member, to seek his ad-
vice'about the' formation of a union. Balleisen explained his method
which, in substantially the same form, has appeared in numerous cases
before the Board, in-which Balleisen, acting in the interest of the
employer, has given counsel which has resulted in deliberate violations
of the Act. ' Balleisen gave the respondent the forms he had used in
organizing other company-dominated unions.2
a,The Balleisen system of organizing company-dominated unions is described and dis-
cussed In Matter of Atlas Bag ¢nd Burlap Company, Inc, 1 N L R. B.'292, and in
Matter of Mett opolitan Engtineering Corporation, 4 N. L R. B 542.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1105
That afternoon the respondent called another meeting of all the
-employees, at which the Catings reiterated the sentiments , expressed
by them on previous occasions and repeated by William C . Cating on
-the stand at the hearing , that the C . I. O. was an irresponsible organ-
ization and that, rather than deal with it, the respondent would close
-the plant down for six months; that it would not sign a contract with
any outside union ; that it would never have a closed shop in the
plant; that it did not want any union organizers sitting around with
-their feet on a desk, smoking big black cigars , and collecting dues
from its employees ; and that they ought to have their own company
union and thus eliminate dues and assessments . William C. Cating
then read aloud a "Statement to Our Employees ," 3 the nature of
which is best indicated by the following excerpts :
We would be pleased to bargain collectively with a committee
,of your fellow workers of your own choosing , provided a ma-
jority of our employees so desire . If you elect and choose such a
committee , we would be glad to negotiate and enter into a writ-
ten contract with this Committee on your behalf, and with each
one of you individually.
While the Company is willing to enter into a written contract.
-with its own employees , it has come to the conclusion that it will
not sign a contract with any union or have a closed shop in its
plant. It will not have a closed shop because the Company,
after due deliberation, has come to the conclusion that a contract
with outsiders and a closed shop would be against the best in-
terests of both the Company and the workers. The Wagner Act
does not require the employer to have a closed shop nor to sign
a contract with a union, nor to agree to any terms the Union may
ask. The Act simply makes it a duty of the employer to nego-
tiate and confer with a duly accredited representative of a ma-
jority of its employees . This we aro always willing to do.
The type of contract that we would negotiate with a committee
of your fellow workers would contain the rate of pay, the num-
ber of hours 'of work, no lockouts , no strikes , and the peaceful
settlement of all disputes by mediation between ourselves, and,
if we cannot agree, by arbitration . All of these conditions, if
satisfactory to both sides, would then be incorporated into a
written contract that we would like to have with our employees.
This type of contract will insure lasting peace and eliminate
industrial warfare. * * *
8 Board Exhibit No. 4.
1106 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This contract will contain the following points for you people:
1. 10% increase in pay * * *.
2. Time and a half for overtime.
3. Nine holidays a year * * *.
4. Seniority rights.
This Statement is in the form prepared by Balleisen, with the addi-
tion of the paragraph containing the specific provisions of the re-
spondent's offer. After it had been read aloud, mimeographed copies
were distributed to the employees by Schuler and Williams. William
C. Cating then produced another Balleisen document in the form of
a letter of authorization addressed to the respondent for signature
by the employees.4 This letter read as follows :
We, the undersigned employees of the Cating Rope Company,
hereby notify you that we have this day elected five 5 of our fel-
low workers as our representatives in collective bargaining with
you. We authorize these representatives to enter into and sign
a contract with the employer provided it contains substantially
the provisions outlined to us by the Management.
You are also notified that we have not given this authority to
any other group, organization or individual, and no one else is
authorized to represent us in collective bargaining.
William C. Cating told his workers he hoped they would all sign
this letter so that he would be in a position to tell Herman that the
Union did not represent a majority of the employees and therefore
could not be recognized as their bargaining' agency. Then, after
assuring the.employees that as soon as a "Collective Bargaining Com-
mittee" had been elected he would enter into negotiations with it,
he left the meeting. However, several of the supervisory employees
remained and urged the reluctant employees to sign. Schuler and
Williams were especially active in this respect, Williams, in fact,
being the first to sign. Tne Statement and letter, and the respond-
ent's actions in connection therewith, were obviously calculated to,
and did, coerce and intimidate the respondent's employees. Prac-
tically all the employees present, including Carlni, signed the letter.
Several employees testified that they signed through fear of losing
their jobs, and because they were convinced that the respondent would
never recognize the Union.
Carini and Schuler then called a meeting to order for the elec-
tion of a "Collective Bargaining Committee". Carini was nominated
for chairman, but before he could be elected Schuler suggested that
an older, more responsible person be chosen, whereupon he w^ls nomi-
' Respondent Exhibit No 1.
5 The Committee, when elected, had six members.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1107
mated and elected. Carini was elected a member of the Committee.
In accordance with the respondent's suggestion, the Committee went
at once to the office to commence negotiations. However, the re-
spondent again found an examination of the books to be necessary;
so the Committee was told to come back four days later, on June 26.
When this was reported to the employees, they expressed their
dissatisfaction so vehemently that the Committee called on the re-
spondent again the following day, Wednesday. June 23. The re-
spondent made substantially the same offer as was contained in the
Statement, except seniority rights, the Committee's requests for a
15 per cent raise and a week's vacation with pay being refused.
Carini said the Committee could reach no decision until it had con-
sulted with the employees. The conference thereupon ended at 11: 30.
A meeting of all the employees in the day shift was held in the
plant at 12:00. The employees were so dissatisfied with the terms
they had been offered that they did not return to work when the
lunch-hour ended. The meeting moved out of the plant to the street,
accompanied by the respondent's stenographer, who took notes of the
proceeding.. The night-shift workers arrived about 2: 10, and joined
the meeting When Herman arrived at 2: 15 to keep his appointment
with the respondent, he found all the workers on the street outside
the plant. While discussing the situation with them, Herman an-
nounced that he wanted any foremen or stooges present to leave,
whereupon the Lay brothers took their departure. Schuh r, how-
ever, remained, and, despite the fact that he was a member of the
Union, continued to urge the employees to adhere to the company
union plan which had been foisted upon them. It was finally agreed
that a vote should be taken. An overwhelming majority indicated
a preference for the Union. The assembled employees then author-
ized Herman and the Union Shop Committee to continue to repre-
sent them. The first "Collective Bargaining Committee" never func-
tioned again.
Herman and the Committee went in to keep the appointment with
the respondent. However, the respondent, as set forth in Section
III-E-3 below, refused to deal with Herman and the Shop Commit-
tee as the representative of its employees. When Herman and the
Shop Committee reported this to the employees, they voted to strike.
The ensuing strike brought all business operations to a standstill. As
it continued, the respondent, instead of dealing with the Union, ap-
proached the employees individually, seeking their return. William
,C. Cating and Fitzpatrick spoke to several of them, urging them to
return to work and to forget the Union. Cating made personal
visits to the homes of employees and showed them a list of those who
were ostensibly going to return on July 19. The respondent thus
1108 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
influenced a large number of employees to return to work, and the-
strike was, broken. A number of employees who were not in when-
the respondent visited their homes, or who stated that they chose to-
remain on strike, received letters G dated July 19 requesting them to-
return to work. Approximately 43 employees returned to work on.
July 19.
2. The second "Collective Bargaining Committee"
On the morning of July 19, Gordon Williams informed an em-
ployee named William Walters that Walters was chairman, and in-
formed four other employees that they were members, of a new
"Collective Bargaining Committee", and gave Walters a list of
"demands" to be submitted to the respondent. It is clear, and in fact
the respondent concedes, that the employees did not choose this Com-
mittee. Nor did the employees have any voice in determining what
the "demands" should be.
The Committee proceeded at once to a conference with the two
Catings, Crossman, and Bernard Fitzpatrick, the respondent's at-
torney. The Committee participated in the conference only to then
extent that Walters read his list of demands. The respondent then
repeated its previous offer, except for a flat $2.00 increase instead of
the 10 per cent. After. the conference the Committee discussed with a
small group of workers, individually the terms offered by the re-
spondent. The Committee then reported back that the employees
were satisfied.
On the following day, July 20, all the employees were called to the:
office, where they were given individual contracts,7 which they were
told to take home, read, and return by mail in the envelopes supplied
for the purpose. Although the Statement and letter of authorization
had indicated that the respondent would be willing to 'negotiate a
collective contract or individual contracts, it was clearly indicated by
his subsequent actions, and in fact William C. Cating testified at the
hearing, that he had never really intended to negotiate any other
than individual contracts with his employees.
That there was no real bargaining in any sense of the term is
clearly evident. There were several vital provisions in the contracts
to which even the hand-picked Committee had not agreed. Until he
read portions of the contract while on the stand at the hearing,
Walters was of the belief that the contracts provide for the mainte-
nance of discipline by suspension for a maximum period of two weeks,
for arbitration in the event of suspension or discharge, for the installa-
tion of a piece-rate system, and for seniority rights. The contracts,
9 Board Exhibit No. 6
'Board Exhibit Nos 7 and 9
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1109)
in fact, provide that the employer may maintain discipline by suspen-
sion, without specifying any time limit, and that such suspension may
be submitted to arbitration "if the employer so choose"; makes no
provision for arbitration in case of discharge; provides that "the.
Company may at its election install a piece-work basis of operation in
any department"; and does not provide seniority rights. On the con-
trary, it is expressly provided that the respondent may, during slack
periods, lay off any employee. The contracts also contain a provision
that grievances may be presented "through the committee by whick
this agreement was negotiated", naming the members thereof, which
indicates that the respondent contemplated that this Committee should_
continue to function.
Some of the employees who were dissatisfied with the contracts de-
cided to go on strike again. The following testimony of one of the
employees is indicative of their reaction to the contracts:
* *• * We come out of the building after we received the
contract. And Mr. Cating saw my brother and I marching on
the picket line and he stopped his car in the middle of the
street and asked us what is the reason for staying out again.
He said; "Come up in my office and I will straighten it out."
I said, "Once I am out here I will stay down, because I don't.
want to get fooled again."
Several of these recalcitrant employees received new contracts 8
in the mail, accompanied by letters 9 stating that there had been an
error, and offering them a slightly increased wage rate. Other
employees received letters 10 dated July 22 asking why their signed
contracts had not yet been received, and suggesting that "if the con-
ditions are not satisfactory, please come in and discuss the matter or
discuss it with our attorney, Mr. Fitzpatrick * * *."
Approximately 40 employees, including foremen, signed and re-
turned their contracts.1' Some, though they could read a little, could
not read enough to understand the contracts. The employees who
had not returned to work on the 19th continued to picket the plant.
Many of those who had returned quit after working a day or two,
some because of the picket line, others because of dissatisfaction
with their proposed contracts. The attitude of the members of the
"Collective Bargaining Committee" is illustrated by the fact that
only one of the members went out on strike, and by Walters' testi-
mony that he had joined the Union, accepted money, sandwiches, and
cigarettes from it during the strike, but considered his membership
terminated, although he had never given the Union any notice to
° Board Exhibit No. 10.
° Board Exhibit No. 11.
10 Board Exhibit No. 8.
11 Respondent Exhibit Nos . 4 and 5.
1110 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that effect, because, "to tell you the truth I was never in favor of the
C. I. 0." Also of interest in this connection is the circumstance that
Williams received five cents more per hour than 'any other hourly-
paid employee, which fact did not appear on the face of his con-
tract. And Schuler, who was not a member of the Committee, but
who had in various ways aided the respondent's efforts to ' form a
company-dominated union, was rewarded by being given the highest
salary of all the weekly-paid employees.
This second "Collective Bargaining Committee"'may be looked
upon as an outgrowth or continuation of the first. One is tainted
with the illegality of the other. They are both part of a plan, de-
vised by Balleisen and the respondent, to circumvent the respondent's
duty to bargain collectively with the Union. We -find that the re-
spondent's instigation and sponsorship of the two "Collective Bar-
gaining Committees," and all its activities in connection therewith,
-constitute domination and interference with the formation and ad-
ministration of a labor organization or plan of its employees. The re-
spondent encouraged and, in fact, ordered these Committees to confer
with it, and to call meetings of all the employees, in the plant during
-working hours; furnished for their use its stenographer and its
,office; and bore all the expenses incurred for mimeographing the
various forms supposedly issued by the Committees, for postage, or
otherwise, thereby contributing its financial support to a labor organ-
ization. The nature" and purpose of the respondent's conduct is em-
phasized by the fact that its activity in connection with these Corn-
mittees followed so closely after the respondent had been approached
for the purpose of collective bargaining by the Union organizer,
representing a clear majority of its employees as we find below, whom
the respondent had obviously put off upon a false pretext in order
to have an opportunity to undermine and dissipate the Union's
strength.
D. The respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with the Union
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, and the respondent agrees that all the em-
ployees of the respondent, exclusive of clerical and supervisory
employees, constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose, of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All such employees are eligible to membership in the Union. The
only dispute is as to who are supervisory employees. The only
employee whose supervisory authority is conceded by the respondent
is the superintendent of the plant, Crossman. However, although
-other employees are paid on an hourly or piece-rate basis, Schuler and
the three Lay brothers, in addition to Crossman, are paid a weekly
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1111
salary. And although they assist to some extent in the production
and maintenance work, they also give orders and instructions to the
-other employees, keep their production records, and criticize their
work. The Board finds that their duties are supervisory in nature
and they should therefore be excluded from the appropriate unit.
We find that the respondent's employees, exclusive of clerical and
supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
,of collective bargaining and that such unit insures to the re-
spondent's employees the full benefit of their right to self-organiza-
tion and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies
of the Act.
:2. Representation by the Union of the employees in the appropriate
unit
On June 18, 1937, 52 of the respondent's employees had joined the
Union. By June 23 the Union had signed up practically every em-
ployee in the plant, excepting clerical and supervisory employees. The
Union put in evidence a list 12 of the names of its members in lieu of its
signed application cards. The respondent conceded the authenticity
,of the signatures on the cards, that the names on the list were the
names that appeared on the cards, and that those signing the cards
were employees of the respondent as of the date of signing.
We find that on June 18, the Union was the duly designated repre-
sentative of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit: Any
.subsequent change of designation to either of the Collective Bargain-
ing Committees was the result of the respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices, and not an expression of free choice on the part of the em-
ployees. We, therefore, give no weight to such change, and hold that
-the Union remained the designated representative of the majority.
By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was, and is. therefore, the
'exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
When Herman and the Shop Committee arrived to confer with the
respondent on the afternoon of June 23, both of the Catings and Cross-
man were present. Fitzpatrick arrived shortly after the conference
-began in response to a telephone call from the respondent. Herman
.stated that he represented not only a majority, but practically every
production and maintenance worker in the plant. He expressed the
hope that the matter might be speedily settled in order that the em-
' Board Exhibit No 5.
67573-38-vol iv=71
1112 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees could return to work that same afternoon. But the respondent
replied that Herman's authority to represent its employees had, been
superseded by the "letter of authorization" that the employees had
signed. Herman pointed out that, even if that document were valid,
three members of the Union's Shop Committee were also members
of the respondent's Collective Bargaining Committee, and that he and
the Shop Committee had just been designated by the employees as
their collective bargaining agency. To all his arguments the respond-
ent replied that rather than deal with a C. I. O. union or have a closed
shop, it would prefer to close the plant down for six months. The
conference ended on this note, the respondent flatly refusing to bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the representative of its employees.
We find that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees.
E. The discharge of Ruth Hildebrandt
Ruth Hildebrandt was employed by the respondent from September
1935 to June 14, 1937. Beginning on June 4, she sought to interest the
respondent's women employees in unionization. On June 11, she was
one of the group of respondent's employees who went to union head-
quarters, signed application cards, and requested that an organizer be
sent to the respondent's plant. She was discharged three days later.
The respondent gave as the reason for her discharge the number of
accidents she had sustained. She had three accidents in 1936. Al-
though she lost no time and collected no compensation as a result of
these accidents, she did require medical attention. On May 21, 1937,
a representative of the State Insurance Fund notified the respondent
that because of the large number of accidents which had occurred in
the respondent's plant in 1936, the State Fund was considering rais-
ing the respondent's insurance rate 25 per cent. The representative
specifically criticized Ruth Hildebrandt's record, the nature of her
accidents indicating that they were due to carelessness. On June 10,
she had another accident requiring medical attention. She was dis-
charged four days later.
Ruth Hildebrandt's case is not free from doubt. However, upon
the whole record, the Board is of the opinion that the undue propor-
tion of seemingly careless accidents she had sustained, rather than
union membership or activity, was the cause of her discharge. We
accordingly find that the respondent, in the case of Ruth Hildebrandt,
did not discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of employment for.
the purpose of discouraging membership in a labor organization.
The allegations of the complaint with respect to Ruth Hildebrandt
will therefore be dismissed.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1113
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, commerce, and transportation among the
several States and with foreign countries, and tend to lead and have
led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The actions of the respondent described in Section III above cul-
minated in strikes on June 23 and July 20, 1937.13 Both of these
strikes were called to protest against the respondent's interference
with, restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The June 23 strike was
called to protest also against the respondent's refusal to bargain col-
lectively with the Union. The first strike resulted in a complete
cessation of operations. Although some of the striking employees
returned to work on July 19, the plant was still not operated with its
full complement of workers. Those employees who had not returned
to work continued to picket the plant and are still out on strike.
Hence the first strike, although partially broken, never really ended,
and is, therefore, a current labor dispute. Those employees who were
induced to return to work on July 19, but who went out on strike
again within a day or two as a result of the respondent's continued
unfair labor practices, are also still out on strike, and are, therefore,
also engaged in a current labor dispute. Since the strikes were
caused by the respondent's unfair labor practices, the respondent is
under a duty to restore the status quo which existed prior to the com-
mission of the unlawful acts. The respondent must, therefore, upon
application, offer to its employees who went on strike on June 23 or
July 20, 1937, or thereafter, reinstatement to their former positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights or privileges,
dismissing, if necessary, employees hired since July 20, 1937.
Since both of the "Collective Bargaining Committees" were as-
sisted by the respondent's unfair labor practices, and did not represent
the free choice of the employees, the Union, which had been designated
by a majority of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit,
continued to be the duly authorized representative of the respond-
ent's employees, and we shall order that the respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with it. The individual contracts discussed un-
These stokes might be considered as one continuing labor dispute or as two separate
labor disputes In this case the result would be the same
1114 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
der Section III-C-2 above, which were "negotiated" with the second
"Collective Bargaining Committee," are void. We shall therefore
order the respondent to give them no effect. We shall also order the
respondent to withdraw all recognition from both of the organiza-
tions named "Collectiv8 Bargaining Committee" and disestablish
such organizations as representative of its employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
iecord in the proceeding, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The two "Collective Bargaining Committees" are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All of the employees of the respondent, exclusive of clerical and
supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
4. Textile Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., was on June
18, 1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with Tex-
tile Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
R (5) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by its domination and interference with the
formation and administration of the two "Collective Bargaining
Committees", and by contributing financial and other support thereto,
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8- (2) of the Act.
7. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise or their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
9. The respondent, by discharging Ruth Hildebrandt, has not en-
gaged in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8
(3) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS - 1115-
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Cating Rope Works, Inc., and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Or-
ganizing Committee, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all
its employees, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees ;
(c) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of the second "Collective Bargaining Committee" or with the
formation and administration of any other labor organization of its
employees, and from contributing financial or other support to said
Committee or to any other labor organization of its employees; and
(d) Attempting to enter into individual contracts of employment
with its employees, or in any manner giving effect to such individual
contracts heretofore entered into.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from both of the organizations called
"Collective Bargaining Committee", by whatever name now known,
as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of deal-
ing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and completely disestablish such organizations as such
Iepresentative;
(b) Upon application, offer to those employees who went on strike
on June 23 or July 20, 1937, or thereafter, immediate and full re-
instatement to their former positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights or privileges, dismissing, if necessary, all
persons hired since July 20, 19371 to perform the work of such
employees ;
(c) Make whole all employees who went on strike on June 23 or
July 20, 1937, or thereafter, for any losses they may suffer by reason
of any refusal of their application for reinstatement in accordance
with paragraph 2 (b) herein, by payment to each of them, respec-
1116 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lively, of a sum equal to that which each of them would normally
have earned as wages during the period from the date of any such
refusal of their application to the date of offer of reinstatement, less
the amount, if any, which each, respectively, earned during said
period ;
(d) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its place of business, stating: (1) that the respondent
will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; (2) that the "Collective
Bargaining Committees" are disestablished as the representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and that the respond-
ent will refrain from any recognition thereof; (3) that the respond-
ent's employees are free to join or assist any labor organization for
the purpose of collective bargaining with the respondent; and (4)
that the respondent will, upon request, bargain with Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., as the representative of all its em-
ployees, exclusive of clerical and supervisory employees;
(e) Maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty (30) con-
secutive days from the date of posting; and
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered -that the allegations of the complaint
with respect to the discharge of Ruth Hildebrandt be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.