George W. Bollman & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1941

29 N.L.R.B. 663 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of GEORGE W. BOLLMAN & COMPANY and WOOL HAT
WORKERS LOCAL 99, AFFILIATED WITH THE UNITED HATTERS, CAP &
MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AND WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-1517.-Decided February 17, 1941
Jurisdiction : hat manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices.
In General: held: that certain employees were not supervisory employees and
that the respondent was not responsible for their 'anti-union activities; anti-
union activities of a physician, who is one of three to whom the respondent
sent injured employees, held not attributable to the respondent
Discrimination: alleged discriminatory discharge of three employees, dismissed.
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed.
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunniff , for the Board.
Drinker, Biddle ci Reath, by Mr. Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., of
Philadelphia, Pa., for the respondent.
Syme c0 Simons, by Mr. Maurice Abrams, of Philadelphia, Pa.,
for the Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Wool Hat Work-
ers Local 99, affiliated with the United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers International Union, and with the American Federation of
Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region - (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint, dated
January 18, 1940, against George W. Bollman & Company, Adams-
town, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged, in' and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat,
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and accompany-
29 N. L. R. B., No. 115.
663
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, (1) that the • respondent had interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act; and (2) that the respondent, on or about August
25, 1939, discharged Luther Dietrich, Robert Beck, and John Klassen,
because of their membership and activity in the Union. On January
,26, 1940, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint, denying
that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and alleging that Luther Dietrich, Robert Beck, and John
Klassen were discharged because the respondent was informed and
believed that they were guilty of dishonesty in connection with the
performance of their work.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Reading, Pennsylvania,
from February 5 to 9, 1940, before Webster Powell, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and
the Union were represented by counsel and all participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded to all parties. At the close of the Board's case and at the
close of the hearing the respondent moved that the complaint be dis-
missed. The Trial Examiner denied this motion at the close of the
Board's case, reserved ruling upon it at the end of the hearing, and
granted the motion in his Intermediate Report. At the end of the
hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be con-
formed to the proof as regards dates, spelling of names, and similar
matters. This motion was granted without objection. During the
course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous other
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence,
and in "his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner ruled upon mo-
tions as to which he had reserved ruling during the hearing. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On April 20, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were served upon the Company and the Union,
finding that the respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor
practices affecting commerce and recommending that the complaint
be dismissed. Thereafter the respondent and the Union filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and the Union filed a brief in sup-
port of its exceptions. The respondent filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's recommendations. Pursuant to request therefor
by the Union and notice served upon the parties, a hearing for the
GEORGE W.. BOLLMAN, & COMPANY 665
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington,
D. C., on August 1, 1940. The respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel who participated in the argument.
The Board has considered-the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and, save as the exceptions are consistent with the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, George W. Bollman & Company, is a copartner-
ship, consisting of George W. Bollman, Fred G. Bollman, Paul W.
Bollman, Richard G. Bollman, and George C. Bollman, organized
under the laws of Pennsylvania, and having its office and plant in
Adamstown, Pennsylvania. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of ladies' hat bodies and men's finished hats. Among
other raw materials, the respondent uses wool, dyestuffs, chemicals,
silk, trimmings, linings, and paper. Approximately 75 per cent of
these raw materials are transported to the respondent's plant from
points outside the State of Pennsylvania. Annually the respondent's
products have a value of more than $1,000,000. Of such products,
75 per cent are transported from the respondent's plant to and through
States other than the State of Pennsylvania.
II. THE' ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Wool Hat Workers Local 99, affiliated with the United Hatters,
Cap & Millinery Workers International, Union, and with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to its
membership production employees of the respondent. -
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
In 1938 the Union made an unsuccessful attempt to organize the
respondent's employees. In May,1939 the Union -began another
organizational campaign and, by the first part of August 1939, had
obtained about 250 applications for membership from the respondent's
employees.
On July 10, 1939, George C. Bollman, one of the two principal
partners in charge of production and the general business of the re-
spondent, learned of the Union's organizing campaign. Upon the
advice of counsel, Bollman conferred with the respondent's various
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
supervisory, employees during the following day and instructed them,
in substance , not to interfere with organizational efforts among the
employees and not to discuss with employees the matter of labor
organizations . On September 1 Boliman reiterated these instructions
to'the supervisory employees.
In the latter part of July or early in August 1939 John Klassen,
a night presser , solicited another employee to join the Union in the
plant during working hours. This employee reported the solicitation
to Rudolph Brossman, the night foreman . Klassen testified that
Brossman then questioned him concerning his solicitation of the em-
ployee, instructed him to cease solicitation for the Union during
working hours since such activity was improper, and added that "it
wasn't very wise if [Klassen ] considered [his] job worth anything."
In his testimony , Brossman , in substance , denied having made these
remarks, or having spoken to Klassen about unions. We credit
Brossman's testimony in this regard, as did the Trial Examiner.
Stella Spitler , an employee , testified that in July 1939, during work-
ing hours, Henry Dietrich, her "boss" told her that he had seen her
at a meeting of the Union, and warned her that she might lose her
job because of such activity. Spitler further testified that on another
occasion when she asked Dietrich for some thread, he asked her
whether she wanted union-made thread and stated, "You had better
take, the other kind, it is best in the long run." Dietrich denied hav-
ing made the, remarks attributed to him by Spitler. We credit
Dietrich's testimony in this regard, as did the Trial Examiner. More-
over, we find, as did the Trial Examiner , that it is not clear from
the record that Dietrich is a supervisory employee.
Klassen and Luther Dietrich , a presser, testified concerning, cer-
tain allegedly anti-union remarks made to them by Nathan Hause-
knetch, an inspector in the - pressing department . The respondent
disclaims responsibility for Hauseknetch 's remarks. It appears that
Hauseknetch is one of several inspectors in the men's finished hat
department . There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether he
exercised any authority over, or gave orders to, employees in the
pressing division of that department. According to witnesses for
the respondent , his duties merely consisted of inspecting hats, to see
that they were properly pressed. If he found a hat creased or
crooked, he would return it to the presser for repressing . If he con-
sidered that hats needed repressing for other reasons, he would con-
sult with the superintendent,, Wilbur Glass, and upon the latter's
instructions , he would inform the pressers to repress the hats. A
number of pressers testified that Hauseknetch gave them orders in
the pressing department . Wilbur Glass , in his testimony , denied
that Hauseknetch gave any , orders except with regard to repressing
GEORGE W. BOLLMAN & COMPANY 667
and then only, upon his instructions, and testified that no employees
worked under Hauseknetch. The Trial Examiner found that Hause-
knetch had no authority to give orders to the pressers except regard-
ing matters on which he had previously received instructions from
the superintendent. We accept Wilbur Glass' testimony regarding
Hauseknetch's position and authority and find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Hauseknetch is not a supervisory employee. We find
that the respondent is not responsible for the remarks attributed to
Hauseknetch by Klassen and Luther Dietrich.
The record discloses considerable anti-union activity on the part
of Fred Glass, a shipping-department employee and brother of Wil-
bur Glass. Fred Glass' duties consisted of filling missing parts of
orders in preparation for shipment. In the course of his duties he
moved through various divisions of the men's finished hat depart-
ment as well as other departments.- The evidence shows that in the
course of delivering hats upon orders from Wilbur Glass, Fred Glass
transmitted instructions from his brother to a number of employees,
including a foreman in the finishing department, regarding the work
to be done on such hats. There is also testimony that Fred Glass
gave "orders" to certain employees. ' It does not appear, however,
that employees to whom Fred Glass transmitted instructions or gave
"orders" considered him to be a supervisory employee. Wilbur
Glass testified that his brother had no authority of his own to give
instructions to employees and Fred Glass testified that he gave no
instructions on his -own authority. The evidence shows that some
of Fred Glass' anti-union activity took place in the plant during
working-hours. However, some solicitation in behalf of the Union
also occurred during working hours. Nor-does it appear that any
of the respondent's supervisory employees were aware of Glass' anti-
union activity during working hours. We find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Fred Glass is not a supervisory employee. We fur-
ther find that the respondent is not responsible for his anti-union
activity, because of his asserted supervisory status or for any other
reason. ,
The record also discloses that one Dr. Ziemer, a physician practic-
ing in Adamstown, made a number of anti-union remarks to two of
the respondent's employees. Dr. Ziemer is one of three physicians 1
to whom the respondent sends employees, who are injured in the
course of their work, for treatment. The respondent does not pay
Ziemer a salary or retainer, but pays him fees of not more than $200
annually for such treatment of employees. Dr. Ziemer is the family
doctor of certain of the respondent's employees, as well as of George
i Two of these physicians are the only physicians in Adamstown . The third is located at
Reading, Pennsylvania.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Bollman, his father George W. Bollman, and his, brother Paul W.
Bollman. Luther Dietrich testified that on one occasion ' when Dr.
Ziemer made anti-union statements to' him, Ziemer spoke as follows :
"I talked to the Bollmans this morning and they told me they might
not say anything about it [the Union], but for him [sic ], that he
should." Ziemer did not testify at the hearing . In their testimony,
each of the five Bollman brothers who are active in the respondent's
business,-and four-of whom are partners therein, in substance denied
ever having any conversation with Ziemer about the Union . George
C. Bollman testified that his father, who did not testify, was no longer
active in the respondent's business , because of illness, and that he had
no knowledge of organizational efforts by the Union among the em-
ployees. Under all the circumstances, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Ziemer's anti -union activities are not attributable to
the respondent. -
There were , introduced in evidence a number of typewritten state-
ments, reciting , in narrative form, and in the third person, certain al`
leged conversations between Adam . Dietrich , an employee , and his
foreman, Eugene Fritz , in which Fritz is alleged to have made anti-
union remarks . According to the testimony of Earl Booth, district
manager of the Union , Adam Dietrich orally reported such conversa-
tions in July 1939 at meetings of the Union and Booth wrote down
the reports . Thereafter , sometime between the middle of September
and the middle of November , the statements were placed in their
present typewritten form and Adam Dietrich affixed his signature to
them to a meeting of the Union. Luther Dietrich, Adam Dietrich's'
brother, corroborated Booth's testimony as to the signing of -the
statements by Adam Dietrich . Adam Dietrich 's testimony was eva-
sive and unreliable . He admitted that the signatures looked like his,
but denied or could not recall having made or signed the statements.
He further denied that any foreman ever spoke to him about the
Union and testified that he could not recall the conversations in ques-
tion . The Trial Examiner found that "The manner in which the
statements signed by Adam Dietrich were secured ; the length of time
which elapsed between the' date they were given to Booth and the
date they were signed ; the general -unreliability of Adam Dietrich's
testimony ; and his denial that any foreman had ever talked to him
on the subject of unions make it impossible to rely on these state-
ments, and no credence is given to them. " We agree with the Trial
Examiner and find that the statements cannot be relied-upon.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent has not
interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
GEORGE W. BOLLMAN & COMPANY - 669
-B. Alleged discrimination in regard to hire and 'tenure of
employment _
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged Luther
Dietrich, Robert Beck, and John Klassen, because of their member-
ship and activity in the Union. In its answer the respondent alleges
that these employees were discharged because the respondent believed
that they were guilty of dishonesty in connection with the per-,
formance of their work.
-
Prior to their discharge on August 25, 1939, Luther Dietrich had
worked for the respondent off and on for 13 or 14 years, Beck steadily
for over 5 years, and Klassen for about 1 year. At the time of his
discharge each of these employees was engaged in pressing hats in
the pressing department. Dietrich and Beck worked on the day'
shift, as did two other pressers, James Brendle and Edwin Moyer.
Klassen worked on the night shift, as did one other presser, Austin
Hartranft.
Dietrich, Beck, and Klassen were among the most active members
of the Union. Dietrich was chairman, Beck was assistant to the
chairman, and Klassen was secretary. Brendle and Moyer were also
active members of the Union ; and Hartranft was a member. -
There is no credible evidence, however, that the' respondent knew
at the time of their discharge that Dietrich, Beck, and Klassen were
members of the Union or active therein. Luther Dietrich testified
that on the evening of August 24, he, Booth, and Earl Blimline, an
employee, were distributing union leaflets on the main street of Adams-
town when George C. Bollman drove up in his car, slowed down
when he drew opposite the men, pulled over to the curb, looked at
them, and continued on his way. Bollman denied the incident. Al-
though both Blimline and Booth testified, neither of them was ques-
tioned as to the occurrence. We credit Bollman's, denial as to this,
as did 'the Trial Examiner. Beck testified that during the latter
part of August he was distributing union leaflets in front of the
respondent's plant and was seen doing so by Foreman Fritz and Paul
Bollman, a partner in the respondent's business. Bollman denied
ever having seen ' Beck distributing leaflets. Fritz did, not testify.
There is no showing that the incident occurred prior to Beck's
discharge.
For some time prior to August 25, the pressers worked on a piece-
rate basis and each-presser kept his own daily tally of the number
of dozens of hats pressed by him and marked such number on his
time card. In the middle or the latter part of July Superintendent
Wilbur Glass suspected that discrepancies existed between the number.
of hats reported by- the pressers as having been pressed by them and'
the number actually pressed. His suspicions derived from the fact
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he observed a variance between the reports of the pressers and
similar reports made by employees on the trimming lines, to which
the pressed hats moved from the pressing department. Later that
month Herbert Beam, the rack boy, who supplied the pressers with
hats, confirmed Wilbur Glass' suspicions when he told him that he,
Beam, thought that the pressers were reporting more dozens of hats
than they were pressing. Glass and Beam then conducted a check
on the pressers for 2 days and on July 25 Glass reported to George'
C: Bollman that there were discrepancies between the pressers' re-
ports and the number of hats pressed by them. Bollman told Glass
to continue the check. Since discrepancies continued to appear, Boll-
man, on August 1, ordered a more detailed check to be made. Glass
instructed Beam and Night Foreman Brossman to keep track of the
dozens of hats given to each presser, by shape and order number.
The records kept by Beam and Brossman were transferred by Wilbur
Glass daily to more permanent records, and Glass also noted on his
records the number of hats reported to him by the pressers, as having
been pressed by them. A 'systematic check was kept in this fashion
from August 1 to 25, 1939, on the six pressers then in the respondent's
employ. The pressers knew that they were being checked during this
period.
On August 25 George C. Bollman summoned Dietrich to his office,
informed' him that the respondent's records showed that he was
handing in "crooked reports" and asked for an explanation. Diet-
rich denied having reported more hats than he had pressed and asked
whether represses had been taken into account. Bollman replied in
the affirmative and then discharged Dietrich. • Beck and Klassen were
discharged by Bollman on the same day under similar circumstances.
Glass' records, upon which George C. Bollman relied in discharging
Dietrich, Beck, and Klassen, indicate that for the period from August
1 to 25, inclusive, Dietrich, Beck, and Klassen_ credited themselves
vvith approximately 134, 90, and 40 dozen more hats, respectively,
than were actually pressed by them.' During this period, according
to Glass' records,, the three other pressers, Moyer, Brendle, and Hart-
ranft, credited themselves with approximately 13, 4, and 4 dozen more
hats, respectively, than were actually pressed by them. George C.-
Bollman testified that it was a reasonable margin of error for a
presser to credit himself on any one day with one dozen more hats
2 Glass' records contain'a mathematical error regarding the total number of bats pressed
by Klassen on August 1. As a result of this error, Klassen is credited by Glass with hav-
ing pressed more hats than the figures Indicate he did. Another mathematical error
appears on the slip containing Brossman's original check of Klassen's work on August
24. By this error Klassen is credited with having pressed fewer hats than he did on
that day. However, in discharging Klassen, Bollman relied on Glass' records which
incorporate Brossman's error. Moreover, Brossman's error does not appear to have
been deliberate.
GEORGE W. BOLLMAN & COMPANY 671
than he pressed. Glass' records indicate that Moyer exceeded this
reasonable margin of error on only 2 days, when he credited himself
with 9 dozen and 21/2 dozen more hats, respectively, than he pressed ;
Brendle, on only 2 days, on each of which days he credited himself
with' 2 dozen too many hats; and Hartranft, on only 1 day, when he
credited himself with 2 dozen too many hats. Dietrich, Beck, and
Klassen, according to Glass' records, repeatedly exceeded the reason-
able margin of error, in substantial amounts, as indicated by the
totals noted above. -
At the hearing the three discharged pressers denied having re-
ported more hats than they had pressed and testified, apparently in
explanation of the discrepancies' between their reports and the num-
ber of hats pressed, as shown by Glass' records, concerning instruc-
tions allegedly received by them and the other pressers to repress hats
which, in their judgment, were defectively pressed' through no fault
of their own, to take extra credit for such repressing, and to take
extra credit whenever a die was changed for the pressing of a dozen
or fewer hats. The respondent denies that any such instructions
were given by it. It appears that pressers did not repress hats de-
fectively pressed through.no fault of their own, unless the hats were
delivered to them for repressing upon authorization by Glass and.
Glass' records show credits for such represses as were authorized by
him. Moreover, Glass' records show that on only one occasion, dur-
ing the period of the check, was a die changed to press a dozen or
fewer hats. Furthermore, although the other three pressers, accord-
ing to the testimony of the discharged pressers, received the same
instructions regarding the taking of extra credit, their reports as to,
the" number of hats pressed by them do not differ substantially from
the number shown by the respondent's check.- Under all the circum-
stances, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that it is impossible to
credit the explanations offered by the three discharged pressers for
the differences between their reports and the respondent's records.
The Trial Examiner, who had the opportunity to observe the wit-
nesses and judge of their credibility, found that the respondent relied
in good faith upon the records compiled by Glass, in discharging
Dietrich, Beck, and Klassen. In view of the facts that the records
relied upon indicate that the discharged employees were dishonest
in their work; that there is no showing of bad faith or anti-union
motivation in the preparation and keeping of the respondent's rec-
ords; that other employees, including Brendle and Moyer, who were
also active in the Union, were not discharged; and that the respondent
.is not shown to have, opposed or interfered with organization by the
Union among its employees, we are of the opinion, as was the Trial
Examiner, that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complaint that the respondent discharged Dietrich, Beck, and Klas-
sen because of their membership and activity in the Union.
Since the allegations of unfair labor practices are not supported
by the evidence, the complaint will be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. George W. Bollman & Company, Adamstown, Pennsylvania, is
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Wool Hat Workers Local 99, affiliated with the United Hatters,
Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, and with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning
,of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) or (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act;.the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against the respondent, George W. Bollman & Company,
Adamstown, Pennsylvania, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MuLLIs took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.