Crosby Chemicals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 791 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. and LOCAL LODGE 1225,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS and LOCAL 1530, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL
In the Mattel' of CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL and BEAUREGARD CHEMICALS ASSOCI-
ATION and LOCAL 1530, UNITED BROTIIERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL
In the Matter of ' CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. and LOCAL LODGE 1225,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS -
Cases Nos. 15-C-1298,15-7C-1367, and 15-CA-341, respectively.-
Decided August 21,194.9
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 4, 1949, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices 1 and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
and Local 1530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL, hereinafter referred to as the Carpenters, each filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report with a supporting brief. In
addition, the Respondent requested oral argument. However, be-
cause the record and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is
hereby denied.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
' As appears in the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the unlawful
conduct of the Respondent violated Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and ( 5) of the Act, and
Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), (3 ), and (5 ) of the Act, as amended.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
85 N. L. R. B., No. 139.
791
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the Respondent
and the Carpenters, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the
Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent with our find-
ings,' conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. We agree with this conclu-
sion. However, we limit the grounds of our finding to the following
incidents :
(a) In the summer of 1946 the Respondent discharged employees
Allston and Rainwater, upon orders of R. H. Crosby, president, be-
cause of their activity on behalf of the CIO; 4
(b) During the latter part of 1946, Crosby, Sr., and R. H. Crosby,
Jr., vice president of the respondent corporation, warned employees
that their wages would be cut if the plant were unionized;
(c) At a meeting With a group of employees in March 1947, Crosby,
Sr., warned that wages would be cut and a bonus customarily paid,
withheld, if the employees joined a union then organizing the plant;
(d) In March 1947, Crosby, Sr., (1) told employees that he did not
want Local 1225, International Association of Machinists, herein called
the IAM, in the plant and urged them to join the Carpenters, promis-
ing to pay their dues in that organization until its contract with the
Respondent expired; (2) instructed employees to go to a meeting
of the Carpenters and vote for an extension of the Carpenters' contract
with the Respondent; 5 (3) threatened to cut employees' wages if they
3 The Intermediate Report contains certain misstatements of fact and inadsertences.
Accordingly , we note the following corrections : ( 1) The Lake Charles Building and Con-
struction Council strike against the Respondent was terminated on August 29, 1945, and
not in April 1945, as the Trial Examiner finds; ( 2) the letter in 1946 from the Respondent's
labor relations consultant Logan to white, the Carpenters ' representative , was dated
March 8, and not March 6, as the Trial Examiner inadvertently states; ( 3) the record
fails to demonstrate , as the Trial Examiner finds, that only members of Beauregard
Chemicals Association , herein called the BCA , returned to work when the plant reopened
on April 23 , 1947 ; and (4 ) the Trial Examiner found that during the period prior to
January 1948 , BCA dues were openly collected by "at least two foremen ." As indicated
hereinafter , the record shows that only one foreman collected such dues.
4 We find no merit in the contention that no violation of the Act can be predicated on
these discharges because the Respondent was thereby "simply keeping its contract with
the Lake Charles Building Trades Council ." For even if we assume , as the Respondent
contends , that the contract with the Council was a valid closed-shop contract, the record
fails to show that the preconditions for discharge under the contract were met.- Thus, for
example , there is no showing that the two employees had, at that time , lost their status as
members in good standing of the contracting union.
' We have made no findings , as did the Trial Examiner , based on this so-called contract
between the Respondent and the Carpenters . In our opinion, the record falls short of
establishing that the dealings between the Carpenters and the Respondent , memorialized
by the letter of March 8 , 1946, symbolized a closed -shop relationship , or a variation
thereof, between them.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 793
joined any union other than the Carpenters; and (4) interrogated
employee Langston concerning his union affiliation and told Langston
that when the Respondent's contract with the Carpenters expired, he,
Crosby, would have no union in the plant;
(e) In March 1947, Crosby, Jr., in conversation with employee
Kidd, interrogated Kidd with respect to his union affiliation and
suggested that he and others communicate with the Respondent's labor
relations consultant for the purpose of forming an "inside" union;
(f) On April 2, 1947, Crosby, Jr., urged several employees to
get the Respondent's war veteran employees together and "break up"
the picket line of International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL,
herein referred to as the Operating Engineers;
(g) On April 26, 1947, Crosby, Sr., ordered the preparation of
a "Do Not Reemploy" list containing the names of all employees then
on strike, and caused that list to be distributed to supervisors of
the Respondent;
(h) On April 26, 1947, Plant Superintendent Brondum told em-
ployees Shirley and Swearengen that Crosby, Sr., would not have
"any .part" of the IAM and that the striking members of the TAM,
including Shirley and Swearengen, could return to work only by
making individual application for employment at the Respondent's
personnel office; 6
(i) In April 1947, Foreman Allston told employees that they would
have to join the Beauregard Chemicals Association to keep their
jobs with the Respondent; and
(j) During May 1947, Foreman Martin collected dues on behalf
of the BCA.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that in its dealings
with the BCA the Respondent violated Section 8 (1) and (2) of
the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (a) (2) of the Amended Act.
At the close of the hearing the Respondent admitted, without fur-
ther explication, that its supervisors "interfered with the affairs of
B. C. A.," and it amended its answer to admit the allegations of the
complaint in this connection. The Respondent argues in its brief,
however, that the Trial Examiner "made findings and conclusions
which are clearly outside. and beyond the record and the carefully
limited scope of the Respondent's admission." 7 As the Trial Ex-
aminer's findings and conclusions in this respect are set forth in rather
general terms, and as the scope of the admission is, in our opinion,
6 Cf. Matter of Harris-Woodson Co., Inc., 77 N. L. R.' B. 819; Matter of National Con-
tainer Corporation , 57 N. L. R. B. 565.
7 The Respondent does not take issue with the Trial Examiner 's recommendations " Nyith
respect to the disestablishment of B. C. A. ; the vitiation of the B. C. A. contract ; or the
posting of appropriate notices in connection therewith."
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
somewhat vague, we shall set forth in greater detail the evidence upon
which we rely and the conclusions which flow therefrom.
The Respondent began to encourage the formation of an "inside"
union in March 1947. At that time, Crosby, Jr., suggested to Kidd,
who was later to become treasurer of the BCA, that he and others
engage the services of the Respondent's labor relations consultant
'in forming an "inside" union. Also, about the same time Crosby, Sr.,
suggested the formation of an unaffiliated labor organization to a
group of employees. Organizational activity on behalf. of the BCA
actually began on or about April 10, 1947. It commenced during
the period when the plant was closed down because of the strike
called by the Operating Engineers. Significantly, management rep-
'resentatives played an important part during the strike in getting
employees to sign. a petition requesting the Respondent to bargain
with the BCA. Active in this connection were Personnel Manager
Hanchey, Foreman Scalfi, and Supervisor Skipper. The record
shows, for example, that Hanchey induced several employees to sign
the BCA's petition by telling them that they had better join the BCA
if they wanted to return to work; 8 that Scalfi persuaded employees
to sign the petition by promising them their jobs back if they signed,
and by warning them that "If you don't, you know what it means";
and that Skipper sought to encourage employees to join the BCA
by telling them that it had "something good" and that "You-all ought
to go up there and join up with them." Furthermore, during the
period following the plant's reopening on April 23, other representa-
tives of- the Respondent engaged in like activity. Thus, Supervisor
Johnson told an employee that "in all ways . . . Beauregard
Chemicals was a fine thing"; Foreman Allston, an active member of
'the BCA, solicited membership therein, even to the extent of telling
employees that they had to join the BCA to retain their jobs with
the Respondent; ° Crosby, Sr., instigated the establishment of a BCA
'picket line for the stated purpose of disbanding the Operating Engi-
neers' picket line which was then-almost 2 months old; and Foreman
Martin took part in the BCA's picketing activity, and solicited mem-
bership in, and collected dues for, that organization. And there-
after, notwithstanding the Respondent's awareness of the pendency
before the Board of a representation petition by Lake Charles Metal
Trades Council, which had requested but had been denied bargaining
Hanchey 's conduct would he attributable to the Respondent even if we were to find, as
the Respondent urges, that he was not in fact the Respondent ' s personnel manager, for
the uncontradicted evidence in the record shows that Hanchey engaged in the described
activity at the instance of Crosby, Jr.
9Like the Trial , Examiner, we do not credit Allston ' s denial that he engaged in this
activity . In all other respects , the. evidence set forth in. this section is virtually uncon-
tradicted.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 795
rights by the Respondent for the same employees, and the pendency
of unfair labor practice charges, filed by the Operating Engineers
alleging that the BCA was company dominated, the Respondent ac-
corded exclusive recognition to the BCA and entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with it.
In the view of the foregoing and the findings made in the Inter-
mediate Report, it is clear that the "interference" by the Respondent
shown by the record consisted of active participation in the formation
and administration of the BCA; assistance in the enrollment of mem-
bers in the BCA; instigation of, and assistance with, the BCA picket-
ing activity directed at the picketing activity of the Operating Engi-
neers; and, finally, the recognition of the BCA and execution of a
contract with it, in the face of an outstanding representation petition
and an unresolved charge of company domination of the BCA 10 This
clearly constituted not only interference and support of the BCA, but
also domination of the BCA, as well, and we so find.
3. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding. that the Re-
spondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the IAM on and after
April 8, 1947.
The complaint alleged that, on and after March 27, 1947, the Re-
spondent refused to bargain with the IAM in violation of the Act.
As noted above, the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent has
unlawfully refused to bargain with the IAM since April '8, 1947.21
The General Counsel has filed no exceptions herein, but the Carpenters
and the Respondent attack the Trial Examiner's finding on various
grounds. We shall concern ourselves here only with the contention
which both the Carpenters and the Respondent argue with consider-
able vigor, viz, that the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the
IAM on April 8 and thereafter was rightfully predicated on the exist-
ence of conflicting claims for recognition made by other labor
organizations.12
The Trial Examiner concluded that, notwithstanding these con-
flicting claims for recognition, a finding that the Respondent violated
the Act by its refusal to bargain with the IAM is warranted because it
(id not "actually . . . rely in good faith, upon any or all of those
30 For the reasons stated hereinafter , we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that
the Respondent , by its check-off of BCA dues, rendered unlawful financial assistance to the
BCA.
11 Although we 'concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the IAM claimed majority
representation among the machine shop employees when it sought recognition on their behalf
on April 8 , we do not subscribe to the Trial Examiner ' s characterization of the testimony
of Logan in this connection . And, contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find it unnecessary
in fixing credibility on this issue to appraise Logan's testimony against his experience as a
Regional Director of the Board ; consequently , in not crediting Logan we also do not sub-
scribe to these comments of the Trial Examiner.
u We find it unnecessary to pass upon any of the other contentions addressed to this
aspect of the case, in view of our conclusions hereinafter.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
claims as reasons for declining to bargain with or to recognize I. A. M.
for the employees in the machine shop." 13 While it is true, as the
Trial Examiner finds, that the record demonstrates the Respondent's
anti-JAM animus; its preference, until early in April, for preserving
the status quo vis-a-vis the Carpenters and the Pipefitters; and its
shift, thereafter to the active fostering of the dominated BCA, we are
unable to attach such overriding significance to these factors under
the circumstances of this case. For the record also shows that several
unions, including the Operating Engineers, were seeking bargaining
rights shortly before and during the period in question. Indeed, in
March 1947 the Operating Engineers demanded, and was refused,
recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative for all em-
ployees of the Respondent. Thereafter, on April 1, 1947, it called a
strike and set up a picket line which was not withdrawn until sometime
in July 1947. The claim of the Operating Engineers, the bona fide
character of which is undoubted, the strike, and the picketing activity
constituted, in effect, a continuing demand for recognition in a unit
embracing the one contended for by the IAM in its request on April
8, 1947. To have unilaterally resolved the representation question
raised by the conflicting claims, and accorded recognition to the IAM
in these circumstances was to act at the risk of violating the Act;
an employer need not decide such an issue at his peril.-
Accordingly, assuming, but not deciding, that the Respondent's hos-
tility to the IAM and its disregard of the Act in other respects sug-
gests a predisposition on its part not to bargain with the IAM, we
are constrained to conclude on this record that the presence of a legiti-,
irate reason for the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the IAM pre-
cludes a finding that the Respondent violated the Act in such refusal.
We therefore find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent did not violate the Act in refusing to bargain with the IAM
on and after April 8, 1947.
In the light of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar
as it alleges that the Respondent refused to bargain within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (5) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (5) of the amended.
Act.
13 Although tile record shows that the IAM had been designated by a majority of the
employees in the machine shop as their bargaining representative , we need not decide for
purposes of this case that the IAM was in fact the duly designated bargaining agent of a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit . We note in this connection that there is
no support in the record for the Trial Examiner ' s finding that "Logan voiced agreement
with the leader of I. A. M.'s bargaining committee that the machine shop employees consti-
tuted an appropriate unit."
14 Cf . Matter of Lift Trucks, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 998; Matter of Bluefield Garment Manu-
facturers, 75 N. L. It . B. 447 ; Matter of Radio Corporation of America, 74 N. L. It. B. 1729;
Matter of I. Spiewak & Sons, 71 N . L. It. B. 770 Matter .of rMidwest Piping ' f Supply Co.;
63 N. L. It. B. 1060; Matter of Elastic Stop Nut Corporation, 51 N. L . It. B. 694, enfd.
142 F . 2d 371 (C. A. 8), cert. den . 323 U . S. 722.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 797
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions that the Re-
spondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the individuals listed in the complaint.15 However, for the
reasons hereinafter stated, we fix the time of the discrimination as
May 2, 1947, rather than April 26, 1947, as found by the Trial
Examiner.
As already indicated, the Operating Engineers began its strike for
recognition, and established a picket line about the Respondent's
plant, on April 1, 1947. Employees of the Respondent, including
those assigned to the machine shop, virtually all of whom are the
complainants herein, thereupon refused to cross the picket line 16 On
April 10, however, after the Respondent had on April 8 refused to
negotiate with the IAM on their behalf, the machine shop employees
met and decided to consider themselves as on strike for recognition;
they agreed that they would return to work only if the Respondent
reemployed the entire machine shop crew and recognized the IAM
as their bargaining representative. Thus, by April 10, 1947, the
machine shop employees were on strike for economic reasons of their
own.
However, the economic strike status of the afore-mentioned em-
ployees did not long continue. For, as has been noted, when the
BCA made its appearance on April 10, the Respondent immediately
began to assist and support that organization. We find that this con-
duct of the Respondent, favoring, as it did, the BCA over the union
representing the striking employees, was manifestly designed to de-
plete the ranks of the latter organization and thereby to frustrate
the striking employees' efforts for representation by a labor organiza-
tion of their own choosing. This unwarranted intrusion by the Re-
spondent upon the desires for representation of its employees
inevitably served to prolong their strike. Consequently, that which
theretofore had been an economic strike was transformed into an unfair
labor practice strike by the Respondent's illegal conduct. When, there-
fore; an unconditional request for reinstatement was made on May 2,
1947, on behalf of the employees involved,'7 the Respondent was obliged
"George G. Buchanan , T. E. Downs, T. L. Dans, C. F. Fleming, Roy Grantham, Fred
Henderson , J. E. Langston , R. J. Lester , Calvin \liers, J. Al. Offutt , R. 0. Sells , Carl Shirley,
J. H. Swearengen, and W . D. Woodley.
36 Although not directly in issue, it may be noted that these employees thereby became
economic strikers . See Matter of Columbia Pictures Corporation, et at ., 82 N. L . R. B. 568.
" The fact that the machine shop employees subsequently reverted to their original position
and conditioned their demands for reinstatement upon the Respondent ' s recognition of the
IAnl, does not, of course , affect in any way the unconditional character of the May 2 request,
which only included the legitimate condition that all strikers return en ma8se.
We are unable to accept the contention , advanced by the Respondent for the first time in
its brief, that the offer to return to work was also conditioned ' upon the Respondent's
willingness to agree to a consent election. The following statement made at the hearing by
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to reinstate them."' The Respondent's response , however, was an offer
of jobs only to those who had not been replaced by that time.19
We are mindful , in this connection, that the Respondent offered
reemployment to all its striking employees on April 21, 1947, and that
the machine shop employees on April 25 countered with an offer to
return. to work only if the Respondent recognized the TAM as their
bargaining representative. Although the Respondent was not obliged
to accede to this proposal, it was not thereby relieved of its obligation
to rehire them on. May 2 when the unconditional request for reinstate-
ment was made. Particularly is this so in the light of the Respond-
ent's insistence that its offer of April 21 has never been withdrawn.
Moreover, we have reason to doubt the bona fide nature of the April
21 offer. In our opinion, it is impugned by the Respondent's promul-
gation on April 26 of the "Do Not Reemploy List," 20 by its position
on April 25 21 and 26 that jobs were then available to only one or two of
the striking machine shop employees, although none had yet been re-
placed, and by its continued efforts after April 21 to defeat the pur-
poses of the striking employees by assisting and supporting the BCA.
Accordingly, when written application for reinstatement was made
on May 2, 1947, on behalf of the employees then still on strike, includ-
ing the complainants herein, the Respondent, in the absence of some
valid reason for discharge which is not present here, .was duty bound
to reinstate them, even though other employees had been assigned to
fill certain of the jobs in the machine shop in the interval between
April 28 and May 2.22 By failing, as it did, to reinstate the com-
plainants under the circumstances herein, the Respondent penalized
Respondent 's counsel shows quite plainly that the position now taken by the Respondent is
,an afterthought designed to bolster its case :
. . . what I am trying to clear up is that at no time was there a demand for a consent
election attached to this [the employees ' application for reinstatement ] and we, the
'Company , declined to agree to an election. . . .
'e The Respondent did not begin to replace these employees until April 28, 1947, by which
time they had already become unfair labor practice strikers.
19 Unlike the Trial Examiner , we attach no significance to the fact that the Respondent's
reply was not made directly to the IAM Representative Shirley.
.20 Although we have found that the Respondent violated Section 8 ( 1) of the Act by the
preparation and circulation of this list , we find it unnecessary to decide whether, as the
Trial Examiner found, the Respondent also thereby effected a discharge of the complainants
herein in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act . And for this reason we also need not pass
upon the validity of the Trial Examiner 's evidentiary rulings in that connection.
21 The evidence is disputed as to what transpired at the April 25 meeting with the
Respondent . However, we are of the opinion that the testimony of witnesses Shirley,
Swearengen , and Langston reflect most accurately what was said on that occasion. We
have therefore credited their testimony wherever the subject matters of this meeting
have any relevance.
22 Black Diamond Steamship Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 94 F . 2d 875 ( C. A. 2), cert. den.
304 U. S . 579; N . L. R. B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. 2d 862 ( C. A. 2), cert. den. 304
U. S. 576 : Matter of Dalton Telephone Company , 82 N. L . R. B. 1001 ; Matter of E. A.
Laboratories, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 625; Matter of Vogue -Wright Studios , Inc., 76 N. L. R. B.
773 ; Matter of Lettie Lee, Inc ., 45 N. L . R. B. 448, enfd. 140 F. 2d 243 ( C. A. 9) ; Matter of
Manville Jenekes Corporation , 30 N. L. It. B. 382.
0
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 799
them for their concerted activity in striking and thereby discriminated
in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment.23
In the light of the foregoing, eve find that on May 2, 1947, the Re-
spondent, by refusing to reinstate and thereby discharging George
B. Buchanan, T. E. Downs, T. L. Pans, C. F. Fleming, Roy Grant-
ham, Fred Henderson, J. E. Langston, R. J. Lester, Calvin Miers,,
J. M. Offutt, R. O. Sells, Carl Shirley, J. H. Swearengen, and W. D..
Woodley discriminated against these employees with respect to their
hire and tenure of employment within the meaning of Section 8 (3)i
of the Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
4. The Trial Examiner found that Jack Dempsey Cochran was
unlawfully discharged on December 31, 1947. Both at the hearing
and in its brief before the Board, the Respondent conceded that
Cochran's discharge was discriminatory. Accordingly, like the Trial
Examiner, we find this discharge to be violative of the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor
practices set forth above, we shall order that it cease and desist there-
from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found further that the Respondent's conduct has exceeded
the bounds of interference and support and constituted d onlination of
the BCA, as well. In accordance with our policy as announced in
Matter of Carpenter Steel Company,24 we shall order the Respondent
to withdraw all recognition from and disestablish the BCA as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. We
shall also order the Respondent to cease giving effect to its contract
with the BCA, or to any modification or extension thereof. Nothing
herein shall be taken, however, to require the Respondent to vary those
wages, hours, and other substantive features of its relations with the
,employees which it has established in. the performance of any agree-
ment as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded.
Although the Respondent dominated and assisted the BCA in viola-
tion of the Act and was largely responsible for the adherence of some
23 The Respondent ' s contention that the names of Buchanan and Lester should be stricken
from the complaint has no merit . Although they did not testify at the hearing , uncontri-
dicted evidence shows that Buchanan and Lester were machine shop employees who joined
the other complainants herein in the concerted activity noted above , and were among the
group on whose behalf reinstatement was requested and refused on May 2. We see no,
reason , therefore , to differentiate between them and the ' other complainants in the case..
24 76 N. L . R. B. 670.
0
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees to this organization, we are unable to find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the Respondent's action in this respect was tantamount
to coercing all employees into joining that organization and support-
ing it by either paying dues directly to it or by executing authoriza-
tions to the Respondent to check off dues for its benefit.25 Nor do we
agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the authorizations to the
Respondent in the foregoing connection were irrevocable for an un-
limited period of time and hence violative of Section 302 of the
amended Act.2e We have examined these authorizations, the text of
which is fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, and the other
relevant evidence in the record. The authorization is silent as to term
and therefore affords little or no guidance as to the intent of the parties
involved. In such circumstances, canons of construction call for an
interpretation consistent with legality wherever possible.27 In the
light of the foregoing, and in view of the other relevant evidence in the
record, we are of the opinion, and find, that the authorizations to the
Respondent are revocable at the will of the employees executing
the same.
Accordingly, we shall not order the Respondent, as the Trial Ex-
aminer recommended, to reimburse its employees for either the dues
which the employees paid directly to the BCA since its formation or
which were collected by management representatives and forwarded
to' the BCA during the same period, or for the dues which the Re-
spondent has checked off from the employees' wages on behalf of the
BCA since January 6, 1948.28
We have found further that the Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices prolonged the strike at the Respondent's plant which began on
April 1, 1947, and that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of 14 striking employees who uncon-
28 For instance, the record shows that in November 1947, about 6 months after the peak
of the Respondent's illegal activity, approximately 100 employees signed BCA cards at a
regular BCA meeting.
28 Insofar as is material herein, Section 302 provides that the restrictions contained
therein against payment or delivery of money by employees shall not be applicable :
With respect to money deducted from the wages of employees in payment of member-
ship dues in a labor organization : Provided, That the employer has received from
each employee, on whose account such deductions are made, a written assignment
which shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one year, or beyond the termi-
nation date of the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs sooner.
21 "An interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all mani-
festations of intention is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part of such manifes-
tations unreasonable, unlawful, and of no effect." Restatement, Contacts § 236. Cf.
Matter of Decker Clothes, Inc., 83 N. L. It. B..484. In view of our finding herein, we
need not, and do not, decide whether the Board may order the reimbursement of dues
checked off in violation of Section 302 of the amended .Act.
28 Cf. Virginia Electric and Power Company v. N; L. if. B., 319, U. S. 533 ; Matter of,Tlhe
Louisville- Railway Company, 69 N. L. It. B. 691; Matter of H. J. Daniels Poultry Co., 65
N. L. R. B. 689'; Matter of Remington Arms Company, Inc., 62 N. L. R. B. 611; Matter of
Kresge Department Stores, et al, 77 N. L. R. B. 212.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 801
ditionally applied for, and were denied, reinstatement on May 2,
1947.29 To remedy that violation we shall order that the Respondent
offer these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's dis-
crimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to
that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period
from the date of the Respondent's discrimination against him on
May 2, 1947, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during said period.
We have also found that the Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Jack Dempsey Cochran on December 31, 1947. We note,
however, .that on November 19, 1948, at the hearing in the case, the
Respondent made a bona fide offer of reinstatement to Cochran 30
which he appears to have declined. We shall therefore revise the
recommended order as to Jack Dempsey Cochran, and provide merely
that the Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which
he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the
date of the discrimination against him to the date of the Respondent's
offer of reinstatement.31
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying
purpose, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are
persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be antic-
ipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive
purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive
with the threat, In order, therefore, to make more effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
we shall order.the Respondent to cease and desist from infringing
in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the amended
Act.*
"The credible evidence in the record fails to establish that a definite offer of reinstate-
ment was thereafter made to any of these employees.
$0 The record does not disclose whether Cochran was then present in the hearing room.
However , the offer was made in the presence of his representatives.
81 Member Murdock does not believe that an effective offer of reinstatement was made here,
or that there is warrant for concluding that Cochran "appears to have declined it."
Cochran was not present at the hearing, which was attended only by lay representatives of
the union , and there is no showing that Cochran ever actually received the offer . Accord-
ingly , Diember Murdock . would allow the Trial Examiner's recommended order to stand with
respect to Cochran.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
, Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Crosby Chemicals
Inc., De Ridder, Louisiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating and interfering with the formation or administra-
tion of, or contributing financial or other support to, Beauregard
Chemicals Association or any other labor organization of its
employees ;
(b) Recognizing Beauregard Chemicals Association, or any succes-
sor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor dis
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions,
of employment;
(c) Giving effect to the contract of January 6, 1948, with Beaure-
gard Chemicals Association, or-to-any amendment, extension, or re-
newal thereof, or to any other contract, agreement, or understanding
entered into with this labor organization or any successor thereto
Provided, however, That nothing herein shall be construed to re-
quire the Respondent to vary any substantive provisions of such.
agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights.
that they may have thereunder;
(d) Encouraging membership in Beauregard Chemicals Associa
tion, or any other labor organization of its employees, and discourag
ing ,membership in International Association of Machinists, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing.
to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminat-
ing as to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition.
of their employment;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to 'form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of
Machinists, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively-
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid'.
.or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring:
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 803
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish
Beauregard Chemicals Association, or any successor thereof, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Offer to George G. Buchanan, T. E. Downs, T. L. Dans, C. F.
Fleming, Roy Grantham, Fred Henderson, J. E. Langston, R. J.
Lester, Calvin Miers, J. M. Offutt, R. O. Sells, Carl Shirley, J. H.
Swearengen, and W. D. Woodley immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole the persons named in the preceding paragraph for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discriminatory refusal to reinstate them and the Respondent's dis-
cll arge of them on May 2, 1947, by payment,to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount said employee normally would
have earned as wages from the date he was refused reinstatement to
the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the employee's
net earnings during such period;
(d) Make whole Jack Dempsey Cochran for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
:him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount
which he normally would have earned as wages during the period
from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
said period;
(e) Post at its plant in De Ridder, Louisiana, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 32 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
-shall be inserted in the notice, before the words "A DECISION AN.D,y ORDER," the words
"A DECREE OF,THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS aNFORCING."
857829-50-vol. 85 52
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the International
Association of Machinists, and insofar as it further alleges that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of
the amended Act by conduct other: than that found to be violative
in this Decision and Order, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EITPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or ad-
ministration of, or contribute financial or other support to, Beau-
regard Chemicals Association or any other labor organization of
our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize Beauregard Chemicals Association, or
any successor thereto, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of our employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any agreement with Beauregard
Chemicals Association, or any successor thereto : Provided, how-
ever, That nothing in the Decision and Order requires us to vary
any substantive provisions of any such agreement or to prejudice
the assertion by an employee of rights acquired thereunder.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Beauregard Chemicals
Association, or any other labor organization of our employees,
or discourage membership in International Association of' Ma-
chinists, or any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or
in any other manner discriminating as to their hire and tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in, any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Interna-
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 805
tional Association of Machinists, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent
that such right be affected by an 'agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH Beauregard Chemicals Association as
the representative of any of our employees for the purpose, of
dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto
for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
George G. Buchanan
T. E. Downs
T. L. Dans
C. F. Fleming
Roy Grantham
Fred Henderson
J. E. Langston
R. J. Lester
Calvin Miers
J. M. Off utt
R. 0. Sells
Carl Shirley
J. H. Swearengen
W. D. Woodley
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE the employees named in the preceding
paragraph and Jack Dempsey Cochran for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Inter-
national Association of Machinists or any other labor organization.
We will not discriminate in regard. to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment against any employee. because
of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC.,
Eik loyer.
By ----------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated--------------------
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Richard C. Keenan and Victor H. Hess, Jr., for the General Counsel.
Messrs. *C. H. Logan and L. M. Earl, of New Orleans. La., and Allen Le
Compte, of De Ridder, La., for the Respondent.
Messrs. Fred G. Koenig, Sr., of Birmingham, Ala., and John Howat, of Shreve-
port, La., for the Carpenters.
Messrs. t. J. Winko, of Shreveport, La., R. L. Bruce and J. M. Fagen, for the
I. A. M.
Mr. Paul Baker, of Lake Charles, La., for the Lake Charles Metal Trades
Council.
Mr. Lee M. Nichols, of De Ridder, La., for the B. C. A.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed in Case No. 15-C-1298 by Local Lodge
1225, International Association of Machinists, herein called I. A. M.; upon a
third amended charge duly filed in Case No. 15-C-1367 by International Union
of Operating Engineers, herein called Operating Engineers; upon a charge duly
filed by I. A. M. in Case No. 15-CA-34; and upon an order consolidating these
three cases issued on August 30, 1948, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, the General Counsel of the Board,' by said Regional Director, issued a
complaint dated August 31, 1948, against Crosby Chemicals, Inc., De Ridder,
Louisiana, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) (2) (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act,' herein called the Act, Section 8 (a) (1) (2) (3) and (5) of the Act as
,amended,' and Section 2 (6) and (7) or the Act and the amended Act. Copies
of the charges, the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the Respondent, I. A. M., Operating Engineers, Beauregard Chemicals
Association, herein called B. C. A., and United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, A. F. L., Local 1530, herein called Carpenters.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint as amended' alleges,
in substance, that the Respondent: (1) in March 1947, and since then, has
refused to bargain with I. A. M., although it was the duly authorized representa-
tive of all employees in an appropriate unit; (2) in April 1947, discriminatorily
discharged and refused to reinstate certain employees, listed in Schedule A,
attached hereto, at a time when said employees were on strike, said strike having
been caused or prolonged by certain alleged unfair labor practices on the part of
the Respondent; (3) in December 1947, discriminatorily discharged and there-
after refused to reinstate Jack Dempsey Cochran, an employee, because of his
activities on behalf of I. A. Al.; (4) by certain named officers and agents threat-
ened, coerced, and made promises of benefit to its employees tending to dis-
The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are herein referred to as
General Counsel.
2 49 Stat. 449.
3 By Public Law 101, 80th Congress, first session, Chapter 120.
* On September 24, 1948 , the Regional Director issued to all parties an Amendment to
Complaint.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 807
courage membership in I. A. M. and Operating Engineers, and to encourage
membership in B. C. A.; (5) since April 1947, dominated, interfered with, and
supported the formation and administration of B. C. A.; (6) in November 1946,
entered into an illegal contract with the Carpenters, requiring as a condition of
-employment membership in that labor organization; and (7) by these acts has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer duly filed and amended, the Respondent admitted certain alle-
gations relating to the nature of its business, but specifically denied commission
of each of the unfair labor practices alleged. In its answer duly filed, B. C. A.
denied allegations of the complaint relating to it.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from November 8 to 20, inclusive, at De
Kidder, Louisiana, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel or official
representatives, all participated in the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of the presentation of the
case-in-chief of General Counsel, counsel for the Respondent moved that: (1) the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety, and (2) certain names be stricken from
Schedule A, referred to above. Ruling was reserved. Thereafter, during the
presentation of his case, counsel for the Respondent moved to amend the Re-
spondent's answer to admit the allegations of the complaint concerning the
domination of B. C. A., the discriminatory discharge of Cochran, and violations
of Section 8 (1) and 8 (a) (1) inherent in said allegations. The motion was
,granted, thus disposing in part of the motion previously made, upon which ruling
was reserved, seeking dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. The remaining
portions of the unruled-upon motion are disposed of by the findings of fact and
conclusions of law below.
At the conclusion of the hearing General Counsel and counsel for the Re-
.spondent joined in a motion, which was granted, to conform their pleadings to the
Proof, in minor particulars such as spelling of names, dates, etc.
All parties waived opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner.
Leave was granted to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
'briefs with the Trial Examiner. Briefs and/or findings of fact 6 have been
received from General Counsel, the Respondent, and Carpenters.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 0
Crosby Chemicals , Inc., is a Mississippi corporation having its principal office
and place of business in Picayune , Mississippi , and a plant in De Ridder , Louisi-
ana. These proceedings are concerned only with operations at the latter plant.
During the course of business at its De Ridder plant, and during the year end-
ing December 31, 1947, the Respondent made and sold finished products, con-
sisting principally of naval stores, valued at more than one million dollars, of
which 80 percent was sold and shipped to customers outside the State of Louisiana.
6 General Counsel submitting proposed findings relating to alleged violations of Section 8
(1) (2) and (3) and 8 (a) (1) (2) and (3), admitted by the Respondent during the hear-
ing. Many of these proposed findings are adopted, verbatim or in substance, in this Inter-
mediate Report.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Lodge 1225, International Association of Machinists; International Union
of Operating Engineers, AFL ; Beauregard Chemicals Association ; and Local
1530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, are labor
organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A.' Background and issues 9
The Respondent began construction of its De Ridder plant early in 1945.
Actual operations, in producing naval stores from pine stumps, was begun in
November 1940.
During the period material to these proceedings, R. H. Crosby , Sr., and his
son, R. H. Crosby, Jr.. have been president and vice president, respectively, of
the corporation and have actively guided management-labor relations. Since
1944 or 1945 Charles H. Logan, formerly a' Regional Director for the Board,
has been employed by the Respondent as a labor relations consultant.
Following a strike in April 1.945, the Respondent entered into an oral agree-
ment with the Lake Charles Building and Construction Council, of which Local
1530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners was a member. This agree-
ment, according to Logan's testimony, was to cover the construction of the plant,
and under 'it the Respondent secured its employees through the Building and
Construction Council and its affiliated unions. The evidence concerning this
contract is insufficient to determine whether or not it was' in fact a closed
shop agreement or valid under the Act before amendment.
Another agreement was entered into in March, 1946, between the Respondent
and Carpenters. The only documentary evidence offered, revealing its nature,
was the following letter, dated March 6, 1946, from Logan to L. G. White, a
representative of Carpenters:
This confirms the agreement that was reached in our conference with
you at De Ridder on March 6.
It is our understanding that you will, through your organization, under-
take to furnish us with such millwrights and helpers as we may require
in the construction of the Crosby Chemicals, Inc., plant at De Ridder,
Louisiana, and that, you will further supply us with such millwrights and
helpers as may be required in the shop for the-operation of the plant for
a period of at. least one year after the plant goes into production.
The record contains no reasonable explanation as to why this separate "agree-
ment" was considered necessary, since the Carpenters local was at the time a
member of the Building and Construction Council, with which the Respondent
already had, according to Logan's testimony, a hiring agreement. Logan said
that he wrote the above letter because White. 2 days before its writing,
asked him for assurance that men sent to the Respondent as construction workers
could remain as "permanent employees." If White made this request, then
only by inference may it be read into the above letter that Logan thereby acceded
to it. On its face, it is merely a unilateral agreement on the part of Logan
to hire through the Carpenters all millwrights and helpers for at least a year
after the plant went into production. It was made at least, S months be-
fore productions began,. and therefore long before there were any production
O Findings in this section are based upon undisputed evidence , unless otherwise noted.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 809
employees at the plant. The agreement is in issue, and is discussed more fully
below.
An apparent resolve on the part of the Respondent to prevent its employees
from joining or becoming active on behalf of any other union except one affiliated
with the Building and Construction Council was demonstrated in the summer
of 1946, when Crosby, Sr., ordered the superintendent of the pipefitters and
steamfitters, H. A. Nail, to discharge two employees because they were "C. I. 0.
men," and Crosby did not "want any C. I. O. organization in his plant." ° Nail
obeyed Crosby's instructions ; the two men were discharged.8
Also, in September or October, 1946-before actual production was begun,
Crosby, Jr., told A. D. Hulett, machine shop foreman, that he did not want
I. A. M. in the plant. At about the time operations began, in November 1946,
Crosby, Jr., called all operators together and warned them that if they joined
a union he would cut their wages down to meet the "union scale" at another
plant.
The desire of management that the operators should form their own, inside
union, was made clear to them. Early in March 1947, Crosby, Jr., after berating
operator Robert Kidd for signing a pledge card in an outside union, said to him,
"If you fellows want to organize the operators why don't you get in contact
with Charlie Logan. You can come down to the office and get hold of him by
telephone and he can tell you how to organize."
Despite discharges, threats of loss of pay, and the requirement that em-
ployees join Carpenters or some other union affiliated with the Building and
Construction Council, both before and after production began, by the early
spring of 1947 many employees displayed interest in and. activity on behalf of
other labor organizations, including Operating Engineers and I. A. M.
In March Operating Engineers demanded and was refused recognition by
the Respondent as the bargaining agent for all employees in the plant, and
I. A. M. demanded and was refused recognition as the bargaining agent for em-
ployees in the machine shop. On April 1, Operating Engineers called a strike,
and set up a picket line. Members of I. A. M., among others, declined to cross
the picket line, and the plant was closed until April 23.
During the shut-down, B. C. A. was formed; as admitted by the amended
answer it was dominated, fostered, and supported by the Respondent. Crosby,
Jr., advised certain employees to get war veterans together and break the picket
line.
On April 23 the plant was reopened, and B. C. A. members returned to work.
Employees who had not joined before were required to join B. C. A., after re-
turning to work. Operating Engineers continued to maintain its picket line,
however, for several weeks after April 23.
As noted above, I. A. M. demanded recognition a few days before the strike,
for all machine shop employees. Although its officers, as witnesses, admitted
that this group did not strike on April 1 because recognition was denied them,
but only for the reason that they would not cross the picket line, by the time the
plant was reopened all machinists in this unit took the position that unless they
could be reinstated as a unit, and be recognized as such in any future collective
bargaining, they would not return. Management refused to grant these terms,
and none of the machinists in this unit, listed in Schedule A, have been re-
instated. From this situation, described more fully below, arise the major
7 The . quotations are from Nail 's undisputed testimony.
8 These discharges were not raised as 8 (3 ) issues in the complaint.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issues in ' the proceedings which remain contested by the Respondent : -whether
or not the Respondent refused to bargain with I. A. M. within the meaning of
the Act, and whether or not the employees listed in Schedule A have been dis-
criminated against.
In December 1947, the Respondent discharged employee Jack Dempsey Coch-
xan because he had solicited membership in I. A. M. In its amended answer,
the Respondent admits thus violating the Act.
Despite its claim that it would not recognize any of the contending outside
labor organisations, unless and until certified by the Board, early in January
1948, the Respondent entered into a collective bargaining contract with B. C. A.,
granting it exclusive recognition for all production and maintenance employees.
Recognition was given after the Respondent checked B. C. A. cards against its
pay roll, and at a time when it well knew that charges had been filed with the
Board alleging that B . C. A. was company -dominated.
In summary , the following major issues raised . in the complaint were ad-
mitted during the hearing as violations of the Act by the Respondent , and as to
them only brief findings of fact will be made below : ( 1) company domination,
:support and interference with B. C. A.; (2 ) the discriminatory discharge of
.Cochran ; and (3 ) interference , restraint , and coercion stemming from the fore-
going. There remain , for more detailed discussion , the following issues: (1)
the alleged refusal to bargain with I. A. M.; (2 ) the alleged discharge and
refusal to reinstate I. A. M. members listed in Schedule A ; ( 3) the contract
with Carpenters ; and (4 ) other alleged items of interference , restraint, and
coercion.
B. The Respondent 's domination and interference with the formation and
administration of B. C. A.
Early in -larch 1947, Crosby, Jr., openly offered employees the services of
the Respondent 's labor relations consultant in forming an independent union.
Organization of B. C. A. began on or about April 10, at a public meeting in
which several supervisors participated . Personnel Manager Hanchey and sev-
,eral other management representatives actively participated in obtaining sig-
natures to a petition requesting recognition by the Respondent of B. C. A. and
in urging and requiring employees to join the organization.
Following its formal organization , B. C. A. was assisted and supported by the
following acts, among others, attributable to the Respondent : (1) advice by
Crosby, Sr ., and members of his supervisory force to employees that they join
B. C. A.; (2) permitting open collection , by foremen and employees, of B. C. A.
dues and solicitation of membership on company time and property , although
discriminatorily discharging an I. A. M. employee adherent for passing a card
to another employee on company property ; and (3 ) in January 1948, entering
into an exclusive collective bargaining agreement with B . C. A., and thereafter
-checking off dues for membership in B. C. A. from employees.
This contract , entered into on January 6, 1948, contains the following pro-
visions :
The Union [B. C. A.] shall be the sole and exclusive bargaining agency
for all production and maintenance employees of the Company , inside the
De Ridder , Louisiana , plant, for the purpose of collective bargaining, with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment. . . .
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 811
The Company agrees to deduct from the first pay check of each member
of the Union, dues in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) per month. These
dues will be forwarded promptly by the Company to the financial secretary
of the Union, provided, the Company shall make the aforesaid deduction
only after it has received from the employee desiring such deduction, a
written authorization, assigning said amount to the Union in payment of
his dues.
The dues assignment authorizations bear the following text :
I hereby assign to the Beauregard Chemicals Association a sum of one
dollar ($1.00) per month from my wages, and hereby authorize and request
Crosby Chemicals, Incorporated, De Ridder, Louisiana, to deduct this amount
each month. from my wages, and to pay same to the Financial Secretary
of the said Union as my membership dues in said Union.
These cards contain no text or reference as to revocation of such authoriza-
tion by an employee.
'Since the above-quoted contractual provision relating to the check-off of
dues became effective in January 1948, Section 302 of the Amended Act applies.
Relevant excerpts from that section are:
It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to
pay or deliver, any money . . . to any representative of his employees . . .
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable ... . (4) with respect
to money deducted from the wages of employees in payment of membership
dues in a labor organization : Provided, That the employer has received
from each employee, on whose account such deductions are made, a written
assignment which shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one
year, or beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement,
whichever occurs sooner . . .
In this case the authorization card used by the Respondent appears irrevocable.
There is no evidence that any employee was advised, by the Respondent or
B. C. A., of his rights in this respect, under the Amended Act. The contract
involved contains an automatic renewal clause. Under all the circumstances,
including the fact that both the contract and authorization cards stem from
the Respondent's own coercive acts of domination of B. C. A., it is found that
the authorization cards are, in effect, irrevocable for an unlimited period of time,
and therefore violative of Section 302 of the Amended Act. It will be recom-
mended that the Respondent be required to reimburse all employees, whose dues
in B. C. A. have been checked off by the Respondent, for the amount thus de-
ducted from their wages since January 6, 1948.
Moreover, under the circumstances herein described, the Trial Examiner is
convinced that the Respondent should be required, in order to effectuate the
purposes of the Act, to reimburse all employees who have paid dues to B. C. A.,
since the organization was set up by the Respondent, for the amount of dues
paid directly by them to B. C. A. The evidence is unchallenged that employees
in many instances were given to understand, by foremen, that membership in
B. C. A. was a condition of employment on and after April 23, 1947. Before the
check-off, dues were openly collected by at least two foremen.
In the absence of proof to the contrary (which was incumbent upon the
Respondent, and not General Counsel, to adduce, if such proof existed), it must
reasonably be inferred that all employees joining B. C. A. were, in effect, coerced
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into such membership , and thus into paying dues, by the illegal conduct of respon-
sible, agents of the Respondent . In effect , since the formation of B. C. A., the
Respondent has required employees to pay monetary tribute to an organization
inaugurated ; established , and continuously dominated , interfered with, and sup-
ported by the Respondent itself . It will be recommended , therefore , not only
that the Respondent be required to reimburse employees for dues checked off
from their wages , but also for all dues which they may have paid directly to
B. C. A. since April 1947.
In conclusion , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds : ( 1) that in April 1947,
the Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and since then has
dominated and interfered with the administration of B. C. A., and has contributed
financial and other support thereto ; ( 2) that in January 1948, the Respondent
entered into an invalid collective bargaining agreement with B; C. A ., providing
for check-off of dues and granting it exclusive bargaining rights for all production
and maintenance employees , said contract being still observed and in effect at the
time of the hearing ; ( 3) that said check -off of dues is violative of Section 302
of the Amended Act; and ( 4) that by these acts the Respondent assists B. C. A.
and interferes with, restrains , and coerces the Respondent ' s employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
C. The Respondent's discriminatory discharge of Jack Dempsey Cochran
On December 31, 1947, employee Jack Dempsey Cochran was discharged by.
Operating Superintendent Elwood Hanson for passing an I. A. M. card to another
employee on company property. At that time, as noted in the section above, the
Respondent by its supervisors was openly taking part in B. C. A. activities, on
both company time and property.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds, on the basis of the foregoing facts
and admissions in its amended answer that the Respondent: (1) discriminatorily
discharged Cochran because of his activity on behalf of I. A. M. and in order to
discourage membership in that organization; and (2) thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
D. The- refusal to bargain with I. A. M.
1. The appropriate unit
Neither at the hearing nor in its brief has the Respondent taken the position
that a unit of machine shop employees, alleged in the complaint as being appro-
priate, was or is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Its answer on this point is merely a
denial "for lack of sufficient information to justify belief." It is undisputed,
however, that in late April 1947, Logan voiced agreement with the leader of
L. A. M.'s bargaining committee that the machine shop employees constituted an
appropriate unit.
The complaint alleges, as an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act; the following:
. . . . all employees regularly assigned to the machine shop at Respondent's
De Ridder Plant, exclusive of supervisory employees and all other employees.
By stipulation of General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, the following
facts bearing upon the unit were established at the hearing, as existing in early
1947 and at present:
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 813
Machine shop employees work under separate supervision, in a building
separate and apart from other employees. Work performed by such em-
ployees consists of making and repairing mechanical equipment used in
the plant. Except in cases where equipment cannot be removed to the
machine shop, all such work is performed in the machine shop. Work re-
quired of employees in the machine shop is of a highly skilled nature, tradi-
tional in the machinist craft.
Other undisputed evidence establishes that, at least since November 1946,
when the plant went into production; there has been no interchange between
machine shop employees and employees in other departments.
The Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that in March 1947, and at all
times thereafter, the unit described above constituted, and now constitutes, a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Majority representation
In March 1947, there were 15 employees working in the machine shop under
the supervision of the machine shop foremen. By March 27, 1947, all but one
of these employees had signed cards authorizing I. A. M. to represent them as
their collective bargaining agent in negotiations with the Respondent. There
is no evidence that at any time since then have any of these 14 employees
revoked these authorizations. It is found that on March 27, 1947, and at all
times thereafter, I. A. M. has been the duly designated bargaining agent of
the majority of employees in the above-described appropriate unit.
3. The refusal to bargain
Although machine shop employees had been required by the Respondent, when
employed, to join the Carpenters, by March 1947, a number of them informed
Crosby, Sr., that they were unsatisfied with this arrangement, and wanted to be
represented by Local 1225, of their own union, I. A. M. Crosby told the em-
ployees, however, at two meetings or more called by himself, that he did not
want I. A. M. in his plant, but desired only Carpenters and Pipefitters, the latter
also a member of the Construction Council. He threatened that if any other
organization except these two came into the plant he would cut wages.° At no
time, nevertheless, did Crosby question the claim by these employees that a
majority of them wished to be represented by I. A. M.
Uncontested proof establishes that by March 27, 1947, I. A. M. represented
an overwhelming majority. At a formal meeting of the local on that date a
special committee was selected to demand formal recognization. The commit-
tee, headed by Carl Shirley, went to Crosby, Jr., and requested that I. A. M.
be recognized. Crosby disclaimed authority, and referred Shirley to Logan.
Shirley telephoned to Logan, in New Orleans, and was instructed to make the
request in a letter. On the same day Shirley and the other two committee
members sent Logan the following letter :
This is to advise that the men employed in machine shop at Crosby Chem-
icals, Inc., located at De Ridder, Louisiana, desire to select the labor
organization of their choice for the purpose of collective bargaining.
We request that you take no steps to negotiate with any organization
claiming to represent us until our committee has been consulted.
These findings are based upon undisputed testimony of many witnesses.
814 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Logan, as a witness, admitted receiving this letter on April 1.
As noted above , because of the strike called on April 1 by the Operating Engi-
neers , the plant was closed until April 23 . Apparently Logan sent no formal
reply to the committee 's letter , but met with them on April S. On that occasion,
according to Shii •ley's testimony , corroborated by Logan, the latter refused to
bargain with I. A, M. Logan testified , "I told them that our position was the
same as it was with everybody else, that we had no intention of signing any
contract with anybody as a result of this strike until such time as the claims
of all the unions involved were properly heard by the Board ...." Since
April S , 1947, the Respondent has maintained this position of refusing to bargain
with I. A. M.
Logan denied , at one point in his examination , that the I. A. M. committee
claimed to represent a majority of the machine shop employees , or that there
had been any discussion on this point. His testimony as to this matter is
found to be somewhat short of accurate . According to his earlier testimony,
it was he, himself , who dictated over the telephone , to Shirley the text of the
letter written by the committee, above quoted . Although the letter does not
'specifically mention the word `majority," it is reasonable to infer that Logan,
formerly a Regional Director of the Board , well knew that no claim of represen-
tationwould be valid in the absence of a majority . Furthermore , neither at the
'hearing-nor in its brief has the Respondent claimed that it has ever questioned
the fact that I. A. M. on March 27, 1947, and thereafter, represented a majority
of the employees in the machine shop.
In substance , the Respondent 's position is that it refused and failed to bargain
with I. A. M. for the following reasons : ( 1) before receiving the request from
I. A. M. the Respondent had received claims from ( a) the Operating Engineers
that it represented all employees on an industrial plant basis , and (b ) the Lake
.Charles Metal Trades Council that it represented a majority of employees in
the maintenance a nd operation department ; ( 2) the strike of April 1, called by
Operating Engineers to obtain recognition for all employees; (3) the request of
B. C. A. about April 21 to represent all employees ; ( 4) the claim of interest in
April , among maintenance and production employees , by United Mineworkers
and the C . I. 0. ; and ( 5) the existence of a valid contract between the Respondent
and the Carpenters covering the machine shop employees.
It is unnecessary to review , in detail, the evidence submitted to support the
Respondent 's claim that in March and April it was actually faced with several
opposing and conflicting claims of representation . It is found that this condi-
tion, in general , existed . The sole question to be resolved is whether or not
the Respondent actually relied, in good faith, upon any or all of these claims
as reasons for declining to bargain with or to recognize I. A. M. for the employees
in the machine shop.
Severe doubt as to the validity of any claim of good faith is raised by un-
contested evidence that in March , before any formal request for recognition
had .been made . by I. A. M., Crosby told the machinists flatly that he did not
want the I . A. M. in the plant , and would cut wages if he had to deal with any
organization but the Carpenters and the Pipefitters . Additional discredit upon
such claim is cast by the uncontroverted fact, described more fully below, that
in April and thereafter , the Respondent refused to reinstate striking machinists
as a group and, in effect , discharged them. And the validity of a good-faith
contention is wholly dissipated by the Respondent 's formation and domination
of B. C. A. in April , and, by its entering into an exclusive agreement with B. C. A.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 815
Without recourse to Board procedure at a time, moreover, when it well knew
that the very legality of the organization was being investigated by the Board.
Under the circumstances plainly established by uncontested evidence, and by
admissions of the Respondent in its amended answer, it is concluded and found
that there is no merit in the Respondent's claim of good faith in refusing to
recognize or bargain with I. A. M.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that on April 8, 1.947, and at all
times thereafter, the Respondent has refused to bargain with I. A. M. as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit described above
and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
E.. The discharge and refusal to reinstate eniplogees listed in Schedule A
All 14 employees listed in Schedule A were regular machine shop employees
of the Respondent and were members of I. A. M. on March 27, 1947; all declined
to cross the picket line on April 1, 1947, and none has been reinstated by the
Respondent.
On April 10, 2 days after Logan had refused to deal with I. A. M., the local
held a formal meeting and decided that none of its members would return to
work until the Respondent recognized I. A. M. and all were permitted to return
as a unit, or group.
On April 21 Crosby, Sr., sent the chairman of the I. A. M. committee a tele-
gram containing the following relevant message:
You are hereby advised that effective Wednesday, April 23, at the start-
ing time for the 7: 00 AM shift, the Crosby Chemicals, Inc., plant at De Rid-
der, Louisiana, will resume operations and offer employment to all those who
were employees as,of the closing of the plant on Tuesday, April 1, 1947, with-
out favor or discrimination... .
None of the machinists returned to work on April 23. Two. days later the
I. A. M. committee met with Logan, and informed him they would return only
as a group and with recognition of their bargaining rights.. Thus the Respon-
dent was then made plainly aware that what had been, so far as the Machinists
were concerned, an economic strike, on that day, if not on April 23, became an
unfair labor practice strike. Logan refused recognition, and further said that only
one or two machinists could be used at the time, and it might be many months
before others would be recalled.'0 None of the machinists returned to work
following this conference.
On the following day, April 20, Plant Superintendent Pete Brondum, in the
presence of Maintenance Superintendent Red Skipper, told Shirley and Swearen-
gen, of the I. A. M. committee, that the company could "hire a couple men back
now," but that they must put in their applications through the personnel office,
and that "if anybody was hired it would be through that office." Shirley told
Brondum that all would go back if they could be reemployed as a unit and recog-
nized as such. Brondum replied that the "old man" (stipulated in the record
to mean Crosby, Sr.) was sore at I. A. M. and was "not going to have any part
of it." Brondum added that the only way any of the machinists could get back
10 Logan denied telling the committee on this occasion that only a few would be em-
ployed at once. The findings rest upon the more credible testimony of the four committee
members and undisputed testimony that on the following day Plant Superlnten' dent
Brondum told members of the same committee that 'oiily a "couple " of machinists would
be then reemployed.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be to file applications at the employment office, and some would never
be reemployed "
On the same day, upon instructions of Crosby, Sr., Personnel Manager Hanchey
prepared a typewritten list, headed "Do Not Reemploy," of all employees who
had been on the pay roll just before the strike but who had not returned by
April 26. The names of all machine shop employees were on this list.' Iln-
mediately after the plant reopened, Crosby, Jr., required the personnel manager
to submit employment applications to him and on several occasions rejected
them, saying, "We do not want this man, he is affiliated with the union or his
folks are."
On May 2 Shirley and representatives of other unions sent Crosby, Sr., the
following telegram :
In order to restore industrial peace to De Ridder, Louisiana, earnestly
request that your company restore all employees who were on your pay roll
as of April 1, 1947, back on your pay roll. In return the unions will rest the
matter of representation before the N. L. R. B. and will abide by their findings.
On the same day Crosby replied to this wire, stating in effect that only those
former employees would be rehired as were needed to fill existing vacancies, and
that these must report to the employment ofce.
On May 5, Crosby met three of the machinists, including Shirley, near the plant,
and said he would like to have "some" of them at work. They informed Crosby
that all would go back if he would agree to bargain with them and would take all
back without discrimination. Crosby declined, and made it clear that any of
them must return, if at all, as individuals, and only if and when needed. He
offered none of the three employees their previous jobs. None of the machinists
has been reinstated.
As to the factual situation described above, the General Counsel takes the
following alternative positions :
(1) that what had been an economic strike on April 1 became an unfair
labor practice strike, so far as the machinists were concerned, on April 8,
because of the Respondent's unfair labor practices in refusing to recog-
nize I. A. M.;
(2) that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged all employees in the
machine shop group by refusing to accept their offer to return to work as a
group and with bargaining rights," by the preparation of Crosby's "Do Not
Reemploy" list, and by Brondum's interview with Shirley and Swearengen;
(3) that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged all machine shop
employees on May 2, by not accepting Shirley's unconditional offer to return,
set out in the above-quoted telegram of that date ;
(4) that if not discriminatorily discharged, the machine shop employees
are entitled to reinstatement upon application, even if reinstatement re-
quires the discharge of replacements."
It is the Respondent's position, in substance, that the offer to return as a
group constituted a conditional offer to return, and that any finding of refusal
11 The testimony of Shirley and Swearengen on this point was undisputed.
12 Hanchey's testimony on this point was not disputed.
13 To this connection General Counsel cites Black Dia.mo.nd Steamship Corporation, 3
N. L. R. B. 84,.and Draper Corporation, 52 N. L. R. B. 1477-1478.
24 In this connection , General Counsel cites Phelps-Dodge, 313 U. S. 177.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 817
to reinstate must be based upon a showing of an 2tnconditional offer to return.16
The Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary here to determine the respective
merits of all alternative positions of General Counsel. The Respondent's
conduct and motives only are in direct issue, raised by the complaint. It appears
to be unnecessary to seek beyond them.
Undisputed-even uncontested, testimony establishes that on April 26 Crosby,
Sr., in effect instructed his personnel manager to refuse employment to all
employees, among others, listed in Schedule A. These instructions not to
reemploy the strikers were distributed by the personnel manager to at least
eight foremen,-two of whom were witnesses for the Respondent but who
were not questioned on the point. In the opinion of the Trial Examiner the
burden of proof rested upon the Respondent to submit proof, if such existed:
(1) that no such orders were in fact issued on April 26, (2) that if issued they
were thereafter rescinded, or (3) that if not formally rescinded they were not
invoked. No substantial proof as to any of these possible factors was adduced.18
On the contrary, the Respondent admitted at the hearing that a few months
later it discharged an employee, not of the machine shop crew, for no more
than passing to another employee an I. A. M. card.
Even if there were evidence to support a claim or surmise that Crosby's
stand on April 26 was taken because of I. A. M.'s "conditional" offer to return,
expressed to Logan the preceding day, the telegram from Shirley, among others,
of May 2, plainly informed Crosby that I. A. M. was then making an un-
conditional offer to return. Yet Crosby made no reply direct to Shirley, accept-
ing the offer, but clearly implied in his general wire that the machinists must
return as individuals. His failure to reply directly to Shirley was, in effect,,
a demonstration of the "Do Not Reemploy" instructions given by him on April
26, particularly when viewed in the light of the new hiring policy of rejecting
known union members.
The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that by instructing his personnel
manager to prepare the "Do Not Reemploy" list, Crosby discriminatorily dis-
charged the employees listed in Schedule A. Supporting this conclusion is
the unchallenged fact that on the same day the plant superintendent informed
two members of the I. A. M. committee that the only way the group would ever
be employed would be to file individual applications at the employment office..
In a similar situation (Spencer Auto Electric, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B. 1421), the
Board found that ". . . isolating each applicant from the group and treat-
ing each application on an individual basis . . . amounted to a denial of their
continued employee status and of the right to group reinstatement which they
enjoyed." It was found that this conduct constituted discrimination.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that on April 26, 1947, the Respond-
ent discriminatorily discharged the employees named in Schedule A, in order
to discourage membership in I. A. M., and because they engaged in concerted,
activities protected by the Act, and that by such discharges the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed by the Act 17
11 On this point, the Respondent in its brief cites Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306
U. S. 240.
10 Crosby , Sr., attended most of the hearing sessions, but was not called as a witness..
17 In its brief , the Respondent contends that one machine shop employee , T. E. Downs,
was actually offered, but declined, reinstatement after April-23. 1947. By'implication it
appears that the Respondent claims any responsibility it may have had as to Downs no.
longer exists . There is no merit in this position . No date is established as to when the
8 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. The illegal contract between the Respondent and the Carpenters
0
The complaint alleges. that the so-called agreement of March 8, 1946, was
invalid. The complaint refers to it as a "contract . . . requiring as a condition
of employment membership in the Carpenters." In his brief, General Counsel
refers to it as a "closed shop contract." In his testimony, Logan claimed it to
be a "closed shop contract," and in a memorandum submitted by him to the
Regional Director in 1947 called it a "maintenance-operations agreement,"
tinder which men thus obtained were required to join Carpenters. In his
testimony, an officer of Carpenters claimed it was a "closed shop contract," by
which his organization was to furnish "all millwrights and machine shop em-
ployees." It is deserving of note, however, that at no point in his brief does
counsel for the Respondent term it a "closed shop contract."
The document itself, quoted in full in Section III A, above, has been found
to be no more than a unilateral agreement on the part of Logan, acting for the
Respondent, to hire millwrights and helpers through the Carpenters for a year
after the plant went into production. The Trial Examiner is unable to find in
it, or in any oral evidence adduced at the hearing, any language establishing the
document as a "closed shop contract."
Whatever its classification, in the light of the Respondent's later and admitted
conduct with respect to B. C. A., it appears to have been a device gratuitously
extended by the Respondent whereby it might restrict the freedom of its present
and future employees, particularly in the machine shop, in selecting their own
union and bargaining representative. There is no evidence that Carpenters ever
requested Logan to bind the Respondent as to future employment, but only
asked, as noted in Section III A, above, that he give assurance that construction
workers, then being furnished by the Carpenters, could remain as permanent
employees.
In any event, undisputed testimony of several witnesses makes it abundantly
plain that management required machine shop machinists, welders, and iron-
workers, as well as millwrights and carpenters on construction work, to join
the Carpenters.
The Respondent thus precluded its machine shop employees from making their
own choice of a collective bargaining agency, and foisted upon them the Re-
spondent's choice 1B
This conduct on the part of the Respondent was coercive, and deprived its
machine shop employees of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
offer was made, or by whom. From the state of the record, it is as reasonable to suppose
that the offer was made before April 26, as after. Nor is there merit in the contention
of the Respondent that the names of Buchanan and Lester should be stricken from Schedule
A because they were not called as witnesses. Credible evidence establishes that these two
employees were in the machine shop group, discriminated against as a whole, and that
their names were included on Crosby's "Do Not Reemploy" list.
1e See Angelica Jacket Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 451.
19 There is no convincing evidence that the agreement of March 8, 1946, was still in effect
at the time of the hearing, although Hagan, a Carpenters' official, claimed that in March
1947, Crosby, Sr., told him that he would consider the previous agreement in effect for
from 1, to 4 years more. In view of Hagan's testimony, and the claim of the Respondent
that the existence of this agreement in April 1947 was one of the reasons why it refused
to recognize the I. A. M., it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from giving effect to the contract of March 8 , 1946, or any extension or renewal of it
unless or until the Carpenters has been certified by the Board as the representative of the
machine shop employees.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC.
G. Interference, restraint, and coercion
819
The record is replete with uncontroverted evidence of coercive remarks by
management officials and foremen. The Trial Examiner considers it unnecessary
to describe each instance revealed by the record, some of which have been noted
above.
In summary, however, it is found that the Respondent must be held accountable
for the following conduct and remarks of its officers and agents :
(1) In the summer of 1946 Crosby, Sr., discriminatorily discharged two em•
ployees because they were "C. I. 0." men.
(2) In the latter part of 1946, Crosby, Sr., called all operators together, and
warned them that if they joined a union he would cut their wages back to
union scale, At about the same time Crosby, Jr., made the same threat' to a
meeting of operators.
(3) In March 1947, Crosby, Sr., called members of the company's labor gangs
to-his office and, in the presence of their foremen, told the employees that he had
heard rumors of a union being organized, and that if the plant should be or-
ganized, he would reduce wages. He also told the men that he would no longer
pay the customary bonus to them until "after this thing is all cleared up."
Because one of the employees remarked that to make a "decent living" a man
should receive 95 cents an hour, Crosby ordered his foreman to discharge him,
so he could find a "95-cents" job. The employee was discharged.
(4) In March 1947, Crosby, Sr., convened all machinists, told them he did not
want I. A. Al. in the plant, told them to join Carpenters and he would pay their
dues for them ; instructed them to go to a Carpenters' meeting and vote for ex-
tension of a labor agreement between Carpenters and the Respondent ; and
warned them that if any other union came into the plant he would cut their
wages.
(5) In March 1947, Crosby, Sr., called machinist Langston into his office and
asked him what unions he belonged to. When Langston told him he carried
cards in both I. A. M. and Carpenters, Crosby told him he would only recognize
the Carpenters, and that after the current contract had expired he would have
no union in the plant.
(6) In March 1947, Crosby, Jr., offered the services of the Respondent's labor
relations consultant to employees if they wished to form an inside union.
(7) In April, Crosby, Jr., called several employees by telephone and asked
them to get war veterans together to "break up the strike."
(8) In April, Plant Superintendent Brondum told two employees that Crosby,
Sr., would have "no part" of the I. A. M.
(9) Immediately after the plant reopened in April 1947, Crosby, Jr., altered
hiring policies. When applications were received he required the personnel
manager to bring the applications to him, and on several occasions discarded
them by stating: "We do not want this man, he is affiliated with the union or
his folks are." On April 26, Crosby, Sr., required the personnel manager to pre-
pare a list of employees who had not by then returned to work, to head the list
"Do Not Reemploy," and to distribute it to at least eight foremen.
(10) Labor Foreman Barney Martin collected B. C. A. dues:
(11) When the plant reopened in April, Foreman Billy Allston told employees
that in order to keep their jobs they must join B. C. A?°
w Allston denied requiring employees to join B. C. A. He also denied ever paying dues
for his own membership in B. C. A. When confronted with documentary evidence that
857829-50-vol. 85-53
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(12) Plant Superintendent. Brondum told an I. A. M. committee on April 26,
the same day Crosby placed I. A. M. members upon a "Do Not Reemploy" list,
that the only way the machinists could return to work would be to file applica-
tions for employment at the employment office.
(13) Crosby, Sr., instructed the machine shop foreman, in April, in effect
to get his men signed up in B. C. A., and warned him that lie did "not want to
have to clean house" for him. The foreman declined, and has not been rehired.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by the above-described conduct
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found 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, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead and have
led to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated against Jack Dempsey
Cochran and the 1.4 employees listed in Schedule A. It will therefore be
recommended that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of his dis-
crimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period.
It has been found that the Respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of Beauregard Chemicals Association, and
has contributed financial and other support thereto. The effect and consequences
of the Respondent's domination of, interference with, and support of B. C. A.,
as well as the continued recognition of B. C. A. as the bargaining representative
of its employees, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its
employees of the rights guaranteed in the Act. Because of the Respondent's
illegal conduct with regard to it, B. C. A. is incapable of serving the Respondent's
employees as a genuine collective bargaining agency. Accordingly, the Trial
Examiner will recommend that the Respondent disestablish and withdraw
all recognition from B. C. A. as the representative of any of its employees for the
purposes of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
It has also been found that the agreement entered into between the Respondent
and B. C. A. has been a means whereby the Respondent has utilized an em-
he had paid dues to B. C. A. from April to September 1947, Allston changed his testimony
to the extent of admitting having paid at least 1 month's dues. Under these circum-
stances, and the undisputed testimony that another foreman collected B. C. A. dues, the
Trial Examiner cannot accept Allston's denials as true.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 821
-ployer -dominated labor organization to frustrate self -organization and defeat
genuine collective bargaining by its employees . Under these circumstances any
continuation , renewal, or modification of the current agreement would perpetu-
ate the conditions which have deprived employees of rights guaranteed them
by the Act and would render ineffectual other portions of these remedial recom-
mendations . It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease giving
effect to any agreement between it and B. C . A., or to any modification or ex-
tension thereof . Nothing in these recommendations , however, should be taken
to require the Respondent to vary those wage, hour , and other substantive fea-
tures of its relations with the employees themselves , if any, which the Respond-
ent established in performance of the agreement as extended , modified, supple-
mented, or superseded.
The Trial Examiner is also of the opinion that , under the circumstances of
this case, the Respondent should, as a means of restoring the status quo and
remedying the unfair labor practices found , reimburse each employee for the
amount of fees and dues paid by him directly to B. C. A. or which were checked
off his wages and paid over to B. C. A., since April 1947 . It will be so recom -
mended.
It has also been found that by its agreement with Carpenters , dated Marche
8, 1946, the Respondent precluded its machine shop employees from making
their own choice of a collective bargaining agency , and foisted upon them the
Respondent ' s own choice . It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from giving effect to this agreement , or any extension or renewal
thereof, unless or until the Carpenters has been certified by the Board as the
representative of the machine shop employees.
It has also been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with I. A. M. as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent , upon request,
bargain collectively with I. A. M.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Lodge 1225, International Association of Machinists ; International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL; Beauregard Chemicals Association; and
Local 1530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating as to the hire and tenure of employment of Jack Dempsey
Cochran and the fourteen employees listed in Schedule A, attached hereto,
thereby discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended
Act.
3. All eiiiployees regularly assigned to the machine shop at the Respondent's.
De Ridder plant, exclusive of supervisory employees and all other employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within,
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By refusing on April 8, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with International Association of Machinists, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (5) of the Amended Act.
5. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Beauregard Chemicals Association, and by contributing support thereto, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (2) of the Amended
Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respond-
ent, Crosby Chemicals, Inc., De Ridder, Louisiana, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Recognizing Local 1530, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL, as the representative of any of its employees in its machine
shop, at its De Ridder, Louisiana, plant, for the purposes of collective bargaining
unless and until that organization shall have been certified by the Board as the
representative of such employees ;
(b) Giving effect to its agreement of March 8, 1946, with Local 1530, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract with
that labor organization, in respect to wages, working hours, or any condition of
employment of machine shop employees, unless and until that organization shall
have been certified by the Board as the representative of such employees ;
(c) Encouraging membership in Beauregard Chemicals Association, or any
other labor organization of its employees, and discouraging membership in
International Association of Machinists, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating as to their hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of their employment ;
(d) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Beauregard Chem-
icals Association, or the formation or administration of any other labor organi-
zation, and from contributing financial or other support to Beauregard Chemicals
Association, or to any other labor organization of its employees ;
(e) Recognizing Beauregard Chemicals Association, or any successor thereto,
as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(f) Giving effect to any and all contracts with Beauregard Chemicals Asso-
ciation, or to supplements thereto, or modifications thereof, or any superseding
agreements ;
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC. 823
(g) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association of Ma-
chinists as the exclusive representative of all employees regularly assigned to
the machine shop at its De Ridder plant, exclusive of supervisory employees and
all other employees ;
(h) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist International
Association of Machinists, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted acti-
vities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 1530, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, as the representative of any of
its machine shop employees, for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, grievances, labor disputes, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment, unless and until that organization shall have been
certified by the Board as the representative of such employees ;
(b) Withdraw, all recognition from and completely disestablish Beauregard
Chemicals Association, by whatever name it may be known, as the representa-
tive of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the Respondent
concerning rates of pay, wages, grievances, labor disputes, hours of employment
or other conditions of employment;
(c) Reimburse all employees who have paid dues and fees to Beauregard
Chemicals Association since April 10, 1947, for the amount of money thus paid
by them directly to Beauregard Chemicals Association and the amount checked
off from their wages for such purposes since January 6, 1948;
(d) Offer to Jack Dempsey Cochran and to all employees listed in Schedule
A, attached hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(e) Make whole Jack Dempsey Cochran, and all employees listed in Schedule
"A" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's.
discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period from the date of discrimination to the date of the Respondent's offer
of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period ;
(f) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Association of
Machinists, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit described herein, with respect to wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment and other conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement;
(g) Post immediately at its plant at De Ridder, Louisiana, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix." Copies of such notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(h) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the (late of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.40 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) clays from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report or to any part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon
.all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together, with the original and six
copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period,
file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
immediately upon the filing of such statement or exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the por-
tions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and
if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties
,of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section
203.85. As further provided in Section 203.46, should any party desire permis-
sion to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing
to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transfer-
ring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations herein
contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all ob-
jections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 4th day of February 1949.
C. W. R HITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
SCHEDULE A
Buchanan, Geo. G.
Downs, T. E.
Dans, T. L.
Fleming, C. F.
Grantham, Roy
Henderson, Fred
Langston, J. E.
Lester, R. J.
Miers, Calvin
Offntt, J. Al.
Sells, R. O.
Shirley, Carl
Swearengen, J. H.
Woodley, W. D.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
825
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours
of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is: All employees regularly assigned to the machine shop at our
De Bidder, Louisiana, plant, exclusive of supervisory employees and all
other employees.
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH BEAUREGARD CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION as the rep-
resentative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us
concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any
successor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
Buchanan, Geo. G. Lester, R. 3.
Downs, T. E. Miers, Calvin
Dans, T. L. Offutt, J. M.
Fleming, C. F. Sells, R. O.
Grantham, Roy Shirley, Carl
Henderson, Fred Swearengen, J. H.
Langston, J. E. Woodley, W. D.
Cochran, Jack Dempsey
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 1530, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, as the representative of any of our machine shop
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining unless and until that
organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . All our em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other
labor organization . We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee
because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
CROSBY CHEMICALS, INC.,
Employer.
By -----------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------------
Nom-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces.
This notice must remain posted for 00 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.