Goodyear Footwear Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION and UNITED
RUBBER, CORK , LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. O.
Case No. 13-C-3095.-Decided November 24, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On August 27,1947, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not violated Section 8 (1) or (3) of the Act' as
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint against
the Respondent be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, counsel for the Board and the Union filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report. The Union filed a supporting brief and
the Respondent filed a reply thereto. The Union also requested oral
argument. Because the record and the exceptions and briefs, in our
opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties,
the request for oral argument is hereby denied.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner
only to the extent that they are consistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order hereinafter set forth.
1. We disagree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Re-
spondent closed the plant on December 4, 1946, for economic reasons
and that therefore the employees who were laid off on that date were
1 The provisions of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the Trial Examiner found were not violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and (3)
of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended , the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the
undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
80 N. L. It. B., No. 126.
800
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 801
not discriminated against within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
Although it was undoubtedly true, as discussed in the Intermediate
Report, that the Respondent was faced with adverse climatic and other
conditions in the operation of its partially completed plant, we do
not believe that these circumstances precipitated the decision to shut
down the plant on December 4. The uncorroborated testimony of
Jack Baker, the Respondent's president, that because of these condi-
tions it was decided "about the middle of November," which was a few
days prior to the Union's request for recognition, to give the employees
2 weeks' notice and close the plant, is not a convincing explanation of
the Respondent's shut-down of the plant on December 4. Admittedly,
the Respondent did not actually close the plant until after it had
learned of the organizing activity, nor did it give the employees, con-
trary to its alleged previous decision, advance notice of any intent to
suspend operations. In our opinion, it is of paramount significance
that at no time prior to the hearing herein did the Respondent assert
that it was closing the plant because of physical conditions over which
it had no control. When the employees were suddenly laid off on
December 4, they were given no explanation. Two days later, upon
inquiring as to the reason for the shut-down, the Respondent merely
referred the employees to its statement of "Our Policy," which ap-
peared as a paid advertisement in a local newspaper on the day follow-
ing the lay-off. This public statement, set forth in full in the Inter-
mediate Report, contained no reference to the physical difficulties now
relied upon to justify the cessation of operations, but instead made
it unmistakably clear to the employees and the public that the advent
of the Union was the real cause of the shut-down. Thus, "Our Policy,"
in effect, assigned specifically the following reasons for closing the
plant:
(1) Before we have a roof over our heads [the Union] start[s]
shooting and trying to dictate to us. (2) It is obvious that we
cannot afford to and will not be bound to a wage pattern as estab-
lished with the Big Four tire companies. (3) Without adequate
bonded assurance, we will not bargain with any Union which has
broken faith with a predecessor company entailing great loss to
that company. We cannot afford to risk it. (4) When we cannot
bargain and conclude a contract in good faith with our own em-
ployees at our own plant and economic level, we are certain it will
be less costly for us to suspend operations entirely than to operate
at a loss.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the
Respondent closed its plant and laid off its employees on December'
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4,1946, to discourage union activity, and thereby discriminated against
its employees, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
2. We also find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that certain state-
ments appearing in the Respondent's "Our Policy" were violative of
Section 8 (1) of the Act. The statement that "it will be less costly
for us to suspend operations entirely" than to bargain with the Union,
contained an implied threat of economic reprisal against the employees
if they remained members of the Union, and was therefore not pro-
tected free speech. The further statement to the effect that the Re-
spondent would not bargain with the Union without bonded assurance
of the Union's behavior, was calculated to defeat the employees' organ-
izational activities. By this statement, the Respondent warned its
employees that, because of its fixed determination not to bargain un-
conditionally, they could never expect to achieve real collective bar-
gaining through the Union,3 thereby indicating the futility of joining
or remaining members of the Union. We believe that this remark
was intended to, and did, coerce the employees in the selection of a
bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act 4
3. In early April 1947, when applicants for employment were being
interviewed in contemplation of reopening the plant, the Respondent
interrogated them with respect to their position on "Our Policy," as
set forth in the Intermediate Report. The effect of this interrogation
was to ascertain whether the returning employees subscribed to the
Respondent's anti-Union policy or whether they were loyal to the
Union. We have frequently held, and it is hereby found, that such
interrogation is per se violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act.5
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act. The nature of the Respondent's unfair labor practices, as dis-
closed in our findings of coercion and discrimination with respect
to the closing of the plant, exhibits the Respondent's determination
to discourage self-organization by its employees and otherwise to
defeat the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, it will be ordered that
the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with,
We have heretofore held that an employer 's insistence upon the execution of a bond
as a condition precedent to concluding an agreement constitutes a refusal to bargain within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act . Matter of Jasper Blackburn Corporation, 21
N. L. R. B . 1240; Matter of Scripto Manufacturing Company, 36 N. L. R. B . 411 ; Matter
of Benson Produce Company , 71 N. L. R. B. 888.
4 See Matter of Bergmann 's, Inc., 71 N. L. R B. 1020, 1034.
°H. J. Heinz Company v. N. L R. B., 311 U. S. 514 , aff'g 110 F. (2d) 843 (C. C A. 6),
enf'g 10 N. L . R. B. 963; Matter of General Shoe Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 124 ; Matter of
Wytheville Knitting Mills, 78 N. L. R. B. 640.
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 803
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily laid off and
discharged all of its employees on December 4, 1946, we shall order
the Respondent to take the following affirmative action: (1) offer all
the persons whose names appear on Appendix "A" attached hereto
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions,7 without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make all of them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during the
period from the date of discrimination to August 27, 1947, the date of
the Intermediate Report herein, and during the period from the date
of this Decision and Order to the date of the Respondent' s offer of
reinstatement," less his net earnings 9 during said periods; (2) make
whole Francis Jordan and Robert Darlington 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 he would normally have earned as wages during the period
from the date of discrimination to the date on which other employees
similarly employed were recalled to work 10 less their net earnings
during said period; and (3) as Frank Lovett testified that he did
not desire reinstatement, we shall merely order that the Respondent
make Lovett whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the Respondent's discrimination, 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 discrimination to the date
6 May Department Stores Co . v. N. L. R . B., 326 U. S. 376.
' In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation , the expression "former or
substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position " wherever pos-
sible, but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent
posi',on . See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the Otty of New York , San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch , 65 N L R B. 827.
8 This abatement of back pay for the period between issuance of the Intermediate Re-
port and our Decision and Order follows our practice where, as here, we have reversed
a Trial Examiner 's finding that the allegations of discrimination were lacking In merit.
See Matter of Gibson County Electric Membership Corp., 74 N. L . R. B. 1414, and Matter
of Capital City Candy Company, 71 N. L . R. B. 447.
By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
,i here than for the Respondent , which would not have been incurred but for this unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Co ., 8 N. L R B 440 . Monies received for work performed upon
Federal , State, county , municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings See Republic Steel Corporation V. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
11 We, like the Trial Examiner , accept the Respondent 's explanation made at the hear-
ing that it refused to recall Jordan and Darlington when other employees were recalled,
for reasons unrelated to their union activity. Therefore, we will not order them rein-
stated and will limit their back pay as set forth above.
817319-49-vol. 80-52
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the commencement of the hearing, less his net earnings during said
period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
C. I. 0., is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of the persons listed on Appendix "A", and of Francis Jordan, Robert
Darlington, and Frank Lovett, and thereby discouraging membership
in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
C. I. O., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
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, Goodyear Foot-
wear Corporation, Clinton, Illinois, and its officers, agents , successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, C. 1. 0., or in any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by locking out and discharging any of its
employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of their em-
ployment;
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 805
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer the persons listed on Appendix "A", if it has not already
done so, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole the persons listed on Appendix "A" and Francis
Jordan, Robert Darlington, and Frank Lovett for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its plant at Clinton, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked Appendix "B".11 Copies of such notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
Virginia Anderson Lottie Hitt Hoye Buchanan
Tesso Breighner Cleo Huffman Eleanor Claflin
Frances Brewer Mary Jordan Mabel Clary
Elsie Bush Olive Klein Marie Devore
Haldene Cisco Joseph Knutzi Laveta Edwards
Bertha Conroy Mattie Long Helen Griffin
Edna Cooper Harold Scott Mary Hooten
Ada Cooley Reatha Smith Otelete Kerse
Gednah Crosno Helen Snyder Mabel Kinder
Dorothy Dalton Doris Summers Mary Lamkin
Donald Donahower Daisy Thorp Janice Lane
Eva Foundersmith John Wainwright Ernestine Miller
Mattie Glenn George Biscan Imogene Miller
Harold Goin Bernice Bourne Verta Peters
Samuel Hayes Margaret Brewer
71 In the event that 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 AND ORDER," the
words: "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations , to join or assist UNITED RUBBER,
CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed , and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Virginia Anderson Lottie Hitt Hoye Buchanan
Tesso Breighner Cleo Huffman Eleanor Claflin
Frances Brewer Mary Jordan Mabel Clary
Elsie Bush Olive Klein Marie Devore
Haldene Cisco Joseph Knutzi Laveta Edwards
Bertha Conroy Mattie Long Helen Griffin
Edna Cooper Harold Scott Mary Hooten
Ada Cooley Reatha Smith Otelete Kerse
Gednah Crosno Helen Snyder Mabel Kinder
Dorothy Dalton Doris Summers Mary Lamkin
Donald Donahower Daisy Thorp Janice Lane
Eva Foundersmith John Wainwright Ernestine Miller
Mattie Glenn George Biscan Imogene Miller
Harold Goin Bernice Bourne Verta Peters
Samuel Hayes Margaret Brewer
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Francis Jordan, Robert Darlington, and
Frank Lovett for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization . We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 807
or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
--------------------------------
Employer.
Dated ------------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE : 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 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Max Rotenberg, for the Board.
Mr. William C. Waring, of Providence, R. I., for the respondent.
Mr. Ray Reasoner, of Decatur, Ill., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge, duly filed on June 17, 1947, by United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, herein call the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
(Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint, dated June 19, 1947, against Goodyear
Footwear Corporation, Clinton, Illinois, 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 the amended charge, accompanied by notice
of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that
the respondent, (1) since October 1946, has engaged in a continuous course of
conduct of interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by the Act by persuading, warning, threatening, and
intimidating its employees to resign from the Union, to refrain from joining the
Union, and to refrain from engaging in legitimate concerted activities; and (2)
on or about December 4, 1946, for the purpose of discouraging membership in the
Union or any other concerted activity, locked out and discharged, and thereafter
refused to reinstate, all the persons then employed by the respondent at its Clin-
ton, Illinois, plant.
The answer duly filed by the respondent on June 26, 1946, admitted the allega-
tions of the complaint concerning the corporate existence of the respondent and
the nature, character, and volume of business conducted by it, but denied the
commission by it of any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Clinton, Illinois, on July 9, 10, 11, 21
and 22, 1947, before Howard Myers, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel; the Union by a representative. All parties participated in the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion
of the Board's case-in-chief, the respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the com-
plaint for lack of proof. The motion was denied. Although afforded an oppor-
tunity to do so none of the parties argued orally for the record nor did any of
the parties file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, except
that a brief has been received from the respondent's counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Goodyear Footwear Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has its principal
offices at Providence, Rhode Island. The respondent owns and operates plants
at Providence, Rhode Island, and at Clinton, Illinois. It is engaged in the manu-
facture, sale, and distribution of rubber footwear. During all the times material
herein, the respondent's annual purchases of raw material for the Providence,
Rhode Island, plant exceed more than $500,000, of which approximately 90 percent
is shipped to that plant from points located outside the State of Rhode Island.
During the same period, the annual sales of the Providence plant exceed $1,000,000,
of which 95 percent is shipped to customers located at points outside the State
of Rhode Island. Since the establishment of the Clinton, Illinois, plant, in May
1946, the respondent purchased raw materials valued in excess of $20,000, about
90 percent of which was shipped to that plant from points located outside the
State of Illinois. No finished products have been shipped from the Clinton,
Illinois, plant. This proceeding involves the employees of the Clinton, Illinois,
plant only. The respondent conceded at the hearing that it is engaged in com-
merce, within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
For many years last past, the respondent and its predecessor, The Phillips-
Baker Rubber Company, were engaged at Providence, Rhode Island, except for
the period during the last war, in the manufacture of rubbers, rubber boots,
tennis shoes, and the like. Early in 1946, the respondent had a survey made of
the Mid-West industrial area and then decided to locate a plant at Clinton,
Illinois. A group of Clintonians formed the Clinton Community Association,
herein called the Association,' an Illinois non-profit corporation, for the sole pur-
pose of selling bonds to the inhabitants of Clinton and of the neighboring towns,
for the purchase of land and the erection of a factory. The respondent and the
Association then entered into a contract by the terms of which the Association
1 An associate of the engineering firm which conducted the above- mentioned survey was
one of the Association's incorporators and C. H. Baker, the chairman of the respondent's
board of directors, became a member of the Association's initial board of directors.
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 809
agreed to build the factory and the respondent agreed to purchase it and the
factory site, payment to be made in 10 equal annual installments.
Work on the construction of the factory was started on May 20, 1946. The
respondent, being desirous of getting the plant in operation at the earliest possible
date, erected a temporary wooden structure on the cement floor which had been
laid for the main factory building, hired people z for training purposes, and on or
about October 15, opened its training program. This program did not fare as
expected due to climatic conditions and delays in obtaining supplies and neces-
sary equipment. About the middle of November, due to the fact that there was
no roof, except a tar-paper covering on the main building, water was leaking
into the building in which the trainees were working, lack of machinery to
properly vulcanize the 1,000 or 1,200 shoes the trainees made, the only heat
obtainable was that furnished from a locomotive engine loaned by a railroad
company, threatened reduction of coal to sufficiently operate the locomotive en-
gine, cold weather approaching, and the employees, due to lack of heat, several
times were unable to work a full 8-hour day, the respondent decided to close
the plant until the factory was completed. This decision to close the plant was
also based on the fact that, although the trainees were in the respondent's
employ for approximately 2 months, not one shoe had been completed so as to
be saleable. The closing actually took place on December 4, and each trainee
was given 2 weeks' separation pay.
In the meanwhile, the Union commenced an organizational drive among the re-
spondent's trainees and on November 18, addressed a letter to the respondent
advising that the Union represented a majority of the respondent's production
and maintenance employees and requesting an appointment to discuss and ne-
gotiate a contract with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employ-
ment.' The letter concluded with the statement that if the respondent failed
or refused to comply with the Union's request, the latter proposed to file a petition
with the Board seeking certification as collective bargaining representative of the
respondent's employees in the claimed appropriate unit.
On November 27, the respondent wrote the Union as follows :
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 20, 1946.
The plant of the company at Clinton, Illinois is still in the process of con-
struction and as yet there is not even a roof on the building. Such workers
as have been hired are on a training basis.
It may be months before the company actually gets into production in
this plant, and it will be quite a while before the company has hired its full
quota of workers to operate this plant up to its capacity.
Under these circumstances, we must decline your suggestion that we meet
for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining negotiations.
2 Royal Taylor, an incorporator of the Association, a businessman of Clinton, and head
of the committee which sold the Association's bonds, secured many applicants for trainees'
jobs. Because of Taylor's connection with the Association, Board's counsel contended at
the hearing that Taylor's action was attributed to the Association and therefore that
organization was responsible for his actions. The undersigned cannot and does not concur
in this contention. Whatever Taylor did with respect to securing applicants for jobs
with the respondent and whatever else he did, save as an incorporator of the Association
and chairman of its bond drive committee, he did as an individual citizen anxious to help
foster the welfare of the respondent's business in Clinton. Moreover, Taylor, his wife,
and their son were holders of the Association's bonds and therefore he had a financial
stake in the outcome of the respondent' s business.
B An identical letter was sent to the Providence , Rhode Island, plant on November 20,
but referred to the employees of the Clinton plant.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We note that you state that you will file a petition with the National
Labor Relations Board seeking certification of your union as the exclusive
bargaining agent for the employees at the Clinton plant . Even if such a
petition is filed , it will be the position of this company that no election can
properly be held until such time as the company is in production and knows
what its full complement of workers will be.
On December 5, the day following the closing of the plant , the respondent
inserted a paid advertisement in a newspaper published daily in Clinton. This
advertisement contained , besides a copy of the Union's letter of November 20,
and the respondent 's reply thereto , the following:
OUR POLICY
Due to a recent happenstance we bring to the citizenry of Clinton a state-
ment of policy so there will be no misunderstanding , and we use this paid
ad as the best means for doing so and not for the purpose of publicly trying
a case in the press.
We selected Clinton as a place in which to locate a mid-western plant, not
because of cheap labor but because our tests showed us a supply of labor
that was fair, reasonable , intelligent , dependable and good producers.
In seeking to locate in your city , we made it clear at the outset that we
could not pay automotive -parts or similar wages and remain in the business
of producing Rubber Footwear , nor could we hope to abide by working con-
ditions set for such industries . We did say-and we mean it-that we would
pay the highest wages possible for good work and high productivity that
would permit us to compete and provide full -time steady jobs with a fair
return to us.
We hope we shall be able to become a real asset to Clinton by supplying
steady work at the best possible wages, and that the Reciprocal Trade Agree-
ment action being started in Washington next month will not return us
to a foreign competitive situation which tumbled our wages before.
Now to the point : Below are appended two letters which speak for them-
selves. Among other reasons, we have in mind that ( 1) Before we have
a roof over our heads they start shooting and trying to dictate to us. (2) It
is obvious that we cannot afford to and will not be bound to a wage pattern
as established with the Big Four tire companies . ( 3) Without adequate
bonded assurance, we will not bargain with any Union which has broken faith
with a predecessor company entailing great loss to that company . We can-
not afford to risk it. (4) When we cannot bargain and conclude a contract
in good faith with our own employees at our own plant and economic level,
we are certain it will be less costly for us to suspend operations entirely
than to operate at a loss.
While we do not encourage employees to attach themselves to any national
organization , we are not opposed to such organization when full consideration
is given to our economic limitations and when it conforms strictly to "at plant-
level relations". This is fully evident from the fact that our Providence
Plant has a completely autonomous membership in the AFL.
At the sacrifice of much time and expense we have endeavored , by tem-
porary arrangements , to supply jobs to the greatest number of people at the
earliest possible moment, and to speed the time when they could earn maxi-
mum pay by training them ahead of the time when the building would be
completed . Apparently this has given the exaggerated idea that we are
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 811
desperately in need of production , rather than motivated solely by the desire
to supply maximum jobs and incomes , as quickly as possible . Since we have
apparently been mistaken in our ideas as to what was wanted we have decided
to quit operations.
We recommend that anyone seeking employment with us that they only
seek such employment with this-our policy-firmly in mind , and one which
we expect to live up to and expect others to do so, as well. We are not going
to all the expense of training anyone only to find out that we cannot later
work together . We believe a vast majority will see the fairness of and need
for such policy and will actively help us to maintain it.
Next day, December 6, pursuant to appointment , employee Lavita Edwards,
her daughter , and two other employees called upon Resident Manager Cressinger
to ascertain why the plant closed. According to Edwards , Cressinger gave them
no direct answer but asked whether they had "read his policy," which had been
published in the newspaper the day previous . Edwards also testified that during
the course of the meeting Cressinger asked if she had joined the Union and that
she replied that she had signed a membership application card . Throughout the
entire morning, Cressinger met with practically every employee in groups of
four or five.
Bertha Conroy testified that during the conference which her group had with
Cressinger , the latter asked her if she had joined the Union ; that when she replied
in the affirmative , Cressinger stated that the employees were "wrong about
signing up" with the Union because the respondent had "trouble " with the Union
in the past which had cost the respondent "quite a bit of money." Mary Jordan,
the wife of Francis Jordan , the chairman of the Union 's local , testified that
when she and Mary Hooten asked Cressinger, during their meeting with him,
why the plant closed down , Oressinger pointed to the Union 's letter requesting
recognition , and said "This threatening letter from the Union is what caused the
trouble." Jordan also testified that Cressinger asked her and Hooten whether
they had joined the Union ; that each of them replied in the affirmative ; that
Cressinger then said "Well, you are in the same boat with the rest of them";
and that Cressinger also stated that "the company would not have anything to
do with the CIO."
Regarding the meeting her group had that day with Cressinger , Mabel Kinder
testified as follows :
Q. Will you please state the substance of the conversation between your
group of employees and Mr. Cressinger , indicating who said what?
A. Well, we walked in, so I spoke up and I said, "Well, we just come up,
and we wanted to find out if we could , why the plant is closed ." He said,
"Did you read `Our Policy"'?
Q. (By Trial Examiner MYaas. ) Who said that?
A. Mr. Cressinger said, "Did you read `Our Policy"', and I said that I
had. But he placed one on the table anyway, and he said, "Did you under-
stand it?" And I said I did. Then he asked the others , and I believe they
answered yes.
The next thing that he asked us was, he said , "Have you signed a union
card?" And I said that I did. Then he asked the others , but I forget what
they said. I believe they said they did.
Then he asked me if I had attended any meetings, and I said no, that I had
not, and he asked me why, and I told him that I had a boy, that I had a
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
child at home , and I had to stay home in the evenings and take care of him.
He asked me whether I was asked to the union meetings , but I forget what I
answered to that.
He asked me who gave me the union card to sign . Well, I said that I did
not remember . I said that I did not know the girl . That was it . I told him
I did not know who the woman was. And he said, well , he said, "It is all
right for you to tell me." And I said, "Well, I don't know the woman." And
he said, "Is she in the next office?"
There was some more who had come in by that time, and I don't remember
how I answered his question then, but then Mr. Reasoner ( the Union's field
representative ) drove in, and our conversation stopped for a few minutes
while he talked to him, and then after he left-
Q. After who left?
A. After Mr. Reasoner left, why, Mr. Cressinger said that a company, in
order to keep in business , had to make a profit, and that the Goodyear
Footwear Corporation would not operate under the CIO.
We asked him, we said , "Well , when is the plant going to open, and if it
does, are we going back to work?"
He said, "That is entirely up to the citizens of Clinton ." He said-no-
he said, "It is entirely up to you and the citizens of Clinton."
We asked Mr . Cressinger , myself and the others asked him what we could
do to help open the plant , and he said , "You can do that by getting out and
spreading the rumor that the Goodyear plant has treated you fairly."
And then we left.
Frank Lovett testified that his group conferred with Cressinger on the day in
question for approximately 2 hours, that during that conference , Cressinger
asked each member of the group whether he or she had signed union cards;
that each , except one , replied in the affirmative ; that Cressinger then asked the
employees if they had read the newspaper advertisement containing "Our
Policy" and whether anyone had any questions to ask regarding the meaning
of "Our Policy" ; and that toward the close of "the discussion we asked him
(Cressinger ) when he thought the plant would be reopened , and he said , `Well,
they would not reopen under the CIO, or they would not have any dealings
with the CIO.' " Lovett further testified that Cressinger also said at the con-
ference that the respondent "would not deal with anyone that had broken
faith with their predecessor." Francis Jordan , the chairman of the Union's
local, testified that Lovett and he were members of the same group and that
Cressinger , after asking each member of the group whether he or she had
signed union cards, discussed the advertisement containing "Our Policy" and
answered questions propounded to him about it; and that the following then
ensued:
So it went along, and I asked him , "Well , when are you going to open up,
when are we going to get back to work?"
Q. (By Trial Examiner MYmis.) You mean you asked Mr. Cressinger that?
A. Yes. And he said , well, with his finger right here ( indicating the
Union 's letter ), he said , "When you repudiate the union that wrote this
threatening letter, you people will probably get back to work , but I would
advise you right now to go ahead and butter your own bread . If you can get
another job , take it."
Ada Cooley testified that she attended one of the group meetings with Cres-
singer on December 6; that he asked each member of the group whether she
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 813
had signed a union card ; that each one, except Mrs. Clary, admitted having
signed a card ; that Cressinger then asked Clary why she did not sign one ; that
Clary replied that "she did not want to"; that she (Cooley) told Cressinger
that the previous evening Royal Taylor had told her that he had meetings with
Jack Baker, the respondent's president, on December 4 and 5, and that Taylor
told her that Baker had remarked to him during these meetings that the re-
spondent "will not tolerate the CIO" and that "so long as the CIO tries to get
in" the respondent "will not open up in Clinton," and that Taylor further told
her that the respondent "would admit a company union, or they would tolerate
the A. F. of L." but not the CIO because the respondent "disliked" the CIO
because the respondent "had trouble with them in years past. In fact, it had
cost them $800,000 worth of damage to their plant in Providence in the past,
and they would not have anything to do with the CIO in Clinton"; and that
Cressinger remarked "Mr. Taylor is not speaking for the Goodyear Company.
He is only speaking for blr. Taylor."
Cressinger admitted that during the conferences with the various groups of
employees on December 6, he discussed with them "Our Policy." He denied,
however, that he questioned any employee regarding his or her union affiliations.
He also denied making the anti-union remarks attributed to him by Francis and
Mary Jordan, Edwards, Conroy, Kinder, Cooley, and Lovett. William Potterton,
who is the head of the respondent's research department, testified that he was
present when Cressinger held the various group conferences on December 6, and
that at no time did he hear Cressinger question any member of the groups re-
garding his or her union affiliation. He also testified that he did not hear Cress-
inger make any mention of the CIO or the Union during these conferences, nor
did he hear Cressinger make any of the anti-union statements attributed to
Cressinger by the various witnesses who testified regarding these group confer-
ences. Cressinger and Potterton were forthright and honest witnesses. Francis
and Mary Jordan, Edwards, Conroy, Kinder, Cooley, and Lovett did not so im-
press the undersigned. Most of the last named witnesses, if not all of them,
testified that Cressinger referred to the Union's letter of November 20, as a
"threatening letter." It is inconceivable to the undersigned how Cressinger or
anyone else could label the letter as such. The letter, such as usually used by
this and other unions when seeking initial recognition, as collective bargaining
representative, requests the respondent to recognize the Union as the sole col-
lective bargaining representative of the respondent's production and mainte-
nance employees, by virtue of the fact that the majority of such employees had
designated the Union as their bargaining representative. The letter then pro-
ceeds to advise the respondent not to deal with any other union until the question
of representation had been settled. It is true that about 10 years ago the Union
and the respondent, or the latter's predecessor, did have some disagreements
with each other, but there is no credible evidence in the record which would war-
rant a finding that the respondent was hostile to this or any other union. This
finding is buttressed by the testimony of Francis Jordan who testified that in
the latter part of October 1946, his wife, Mary, asked the respondent's president,
Jack Baker, during a course of a conversation at which Jordan, Potterton, and
three other officials of the respondent were present, if the respondent was "going
to have a union" and that Baker replied "That is up to the people's choice. We
have no right to dictate to the people as to what their choice will be-we prefer
a company union, because we think we can do more for you than any union can
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do."' The undersigned finds that Cressinger's and Potterton's versions of what
was said by Cressinger during the above mentioned group conferences to be sub-
stantially in accord with the facts. The undersigned further finds that Cress-
inger did not make the anti-union remarks attributed to him by Edwards, Conroy,
Kinder , Mary and Francis Jordan, Cooley, and Lovett.
During the afternoon of December 6, the employees drew up and signed a
petition bearing the following legend :
We, the employees of the Goodyear Footwear Corporation, take this means
of expressing the good faith and will of our employers. We wish to cooper-
ate to the fullest extent with said corporation. We wish to say also that
this company has treated us fairly as trainees, and, due to a misunderstand-
ing and misrepresentation of facts by certain people, we were led to take
certain actions which now appear to have been wrong.
We are anxious for the citizens of Clinton to know that we are desirous to
reenter the employ of the Goodyear Footwear Corporation in our former
capacity upon the reopening of the plant, and we wish the business men and
community of Clinton would continue to cooperate with the Goodyear people
and help us to reopen the plant on their stated policy.
Under date of December 11, the following letter, bearing the signatures of 29
employees, was sent to the Union's field representative :
This is to advise you that we do not wish to be affiliated with your union
or organization, and we hereby withdraw any request for membership in the
same, and further notify you that you are not to represent us in collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other
conditions of employment, as employees of the Goodyear Footwear Corpo-
ration.
A letter, dated December 16, reading as follows and bearing the signatures of
32 employees, was sent the Board's Chicago Regional Office :
During the month of October, 1946, when the Goodyear Footwear Corpo-
ration started its work at its factory site in Clinton, Illinois, several of the
undersigned began work making tennis shoes. The company intends to
make other footwear but had not done so during the time we worked. There
were about forty of us altogether working at the shop. We were trainees
as the company had not started their manufacturing proposition in earnest.
We understand that when the Company gets its buildings completed and in
full production they intend to work five hundred or more people. We were
at work at 50¢ an hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days per week, in a temporary
building on the site of the main building. A great deal of work has been
done on the main building but it as yet has no roof and it is not, of course,
completed inside.
Shortly after we began work, Leonard Jordan, who is called "Red", his
wife, Mary, and Mrs. Ada Cooley, all of this place, exhibited cards for all
of the employees to sign to join a labor organization. It was represented to
us that the job would be all unionized and that every one who worked would
be compelled to join the union to hold his job, and that no one not joining a
union could have employment, and that if we did not join the union it would
4 Baker denied that he added to the above statement, and the undersigned credits his
denial , "we prefer a company union , because we think we can do more for you than any
union can do."
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 815
cost us more money or we would not be allowed to work. We signed the
cards but do not remember what was on them and have requested the return
of these cards from a Mr. Reasoner, who was the organizer, but they have
not been returned up to date.
We are not ready to join the union, or any union, as yet until we learn
more about the work to be done and the unions.
The employees of the company have had no previous experience with the
kind of work we were doing and were being taught the work by the com-
pany. We have not been working since the organizer made certain demands
on the company and the company has paid us in full for our services. We
were perfectly satisfied with our employment and thought we were getting
along well and would now like to continue our employment and let the
matter of the union or organization to which we desire to join be postponed
until the job gets up to something like full production and we know more
about what the work is going to be.
We have paid no dues to any union. Some of our members attended
two union meetings.
We desire to have the organizer return our cards and postpone the
consideration of unionizing the members until a later date as mentioned
herein.
This letter arrived at the Board's office on January 2, 1947, and a copy thereof
was printed as a news item in a Clinton daily newspaper on January 4.
On or about January 3, the Association sent copies of the following letter
to about 2,200 citizens of Clinton and of the surrounding towns:
This May Look Long and Dry But It Is of Vital Importance to Every Citizen
of Clinton and Community.
About one year ago a representative of The Goodyear Footwear Corpora-
tion, Mr. W. S. Callander, came to Clinton to see whether or not our
Community was suitable for the manufacture of Rubber Footwear. Upon
finding that our water was cool enough, that we had enough man power
available and that we had a suitable building site, the President and Chair-
man of the Board, Mr. Jack Baker and Mr. C. H. Baker, respectively, came
to Clinton to look over the town and to talk business.
Messrs. Baker were well pleased with the set-up we had to offer and
presented the following proposition, in substance, "We will build in Clinton
a plant to manufacture Rubber Footwear to cost in excess of half a million
dollars, when fully equipped, that will employ between 550 and 600 people,
if the citizens of Clinton and its trade area will show they really want
us here by purchasing $200,000 worth of 31/2% bonds, to be guaranteed by
us, to help construct the building. We want no gifts, only the moral support
of the Community. We want to be part of the Community and we want
the Community behind us."
At this point the Clinton Community Association, a nonprofit corpora-
tion, was formed solely to raise the $200,000, pay out the semi-annual inter-
est and retire 1/10 of the bonds each year. With the untiring efforts of
dozens of interested citizens $219,000 was raised.
Construction started in early spring but was hampered by lack of ma-
terials, strikes and incessant rains. By November the floor was poured
and the Messrs . Baker, feeling chagrined to think that so many months
had passed and still no one working, ordered temporary housing built on
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the factory floor so they could start at least a few people on a training
program until the steel would arrive and the roof could be placed on the
building.
A few days after Goodyear started their training program the C. I. O.
union "organized" the approximately 46 men and women working and pro-
ceeded to notify the company that they ( C. I. 0.) were to be the sole bar-
gaining agent for all its Clinton employees.
It so happened that at this particular time the plant lacked sufficient air
pressure to operate its vulcanizer , the coal strike was in full swing and
the freight embargo was only a few days away . In view of these factors,
the Company decided to suspend operations.
Now you have the story , in brief, as it is today. If and when the company
re-opens it will do so under its stated policy as outlined in our local news-
papers on December 5, 1946. It is up to we citizens of Clinton and trade
area, to prove to Goodyear that we are behind them and want their plant in
operation under their policy so that our little City and its people, and Good-
year may both prosper.
We are requesting that you write a letter stating your feelings about
accepting employment under the terms of Goodyear 's announced policy. It
is imperative that everyone in this area over the age of 18 years send in
his feelings in writing so we can show Goodyear what the citizens of this
community think of them. Write today . Address replies to Box 3 Clinton,
111. More than one signature to a letter is perfectly O. K. and your letters
will be held in strict confidence regardless of your views. No signatures
will be published nor your name exposed in any way. The signatures are
simply to give us a count as to how many people are interested and to show
that the letter is genuine.
If you are a bond holder in Clinton Community Association your first
interest checks are now ready for you at the office of the Secretary in the
North West corner of the square. Please stop in his office and pick up your
check next time you are on the square.
CLINTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
The Association received a "large number of" replies , each expressing "support
of the Goodyear Company's stated policy."
Contrary to Board's counsel contention , the undersigned finds that the re-
spondent cannot be held responsible for the drafting , execution , and publication
of the above -mentioned letters and petitions . Admittedly , the letters were not
drafted, executed , or published at the instigation, connivance , or suggestion of
the respondent . The letters and petitions bearing the signatures of certain of
the employees were the result of the spontaneous action of the signatories thereto.
There is some evidence that Royal Taylor and his son played some part in
the preparation of some of the petitions and that they asked some employees to
sign some of the petitions and letters , but, as found above, the actions of the
Taylors cannot properly be charged to the respondent . The Taylors had no
connection with the respondent except as bondholders . A great many of the
employees were likewise bondholders. The Taylors were seeking to safeguard
their investments . Likewise the letter of the Association , described above, de-
spite the fact that nothing contained therein is innocuous to, or in contravention
of, the Act, cannot properly be chargeable to the respondent. The respondent did
not know of the existence of this letter until copies thereof had been mailed to
the addressees . The respondent had no connection with the preparation or pub-
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 817
lication of any of the letters or petitions, above referred to, and, in fact, knew
nothing of them until they were published. It was not incumbent upon the re-
spondent to make a public disavowal of the actions of the Taylors or of the
Association, as contended by Board's counsel. The employees knew that the
respondent had no connection whatsoever with the authorship of the petition
or of the letters and they also knew that the respondent's managerial staff had
no knowledge of the existence of the letters and petitions until after their execu-
tion and publication. Moreover, Cressinger informed Cooley and her group on
December 6, "Mr. Taylor is not speaking for the Goodyear Company. He is only
speaking for Mr. Taylor."
On April 2, the respondent inserted an advertisement in a Clinton daily paper
that it would, the following day, start hiring "men and women for training in the
manufacture of rubber footwear." The advertisement was inserted in the news-
paper instead of requesting the former employees to return to work because,
as testified to by Cressinger, the respondent did not have the home addresses
of all of its employees and for the additional reason it did not know which of
them had employment elsewhere. Nonetheless, all the employees of the respon-
dent who desired to again work for the respondent answered the advertisement
and filled out the following "Interview":
1. You have had an opportunity to read our Statement of Policy ; have
you done so? ------------ Is there anything about it you do not under-
stand? -------------- Do you agree that it is fair and just and should be
upheld? ------------- Will you help us do so? ----------
2. Do you agree that the company can only live if it makes a fair profit
and that under the laws the company has a right to suspend operations at any
time that it feels it is not making such a profit? ----------
3. We may from time to time have problems which we will acquaint you
with and also inform you of our position. We will do this by newscasting
or by written memo and would like to know if you will give these problems
your careful attention and cooperate with us fully in solving such matters.
------------
4. a. Will you abide by legitimate working rules? ------------
b. Will you do your utmost to be punctual, work steady, and use all of
your ability so that we may produce the greatest quantity and highest quality
of product possible? ---------- Will you cooperate with fellow work-
ers? ----------
c. Will you accept refresher or new training whenever necessary? --------
d. From time to time it will be necessary for us to introduce new proc-
esses and designs, etc., and we ask you to share these improvements with
the company and customers. This will also entail the necessity of estab-
lishing new rates for new processes. Will you accept these new methods
and rates? ------------
5. Do you understand that you must pass a physical examination by the
Company Doctor before you can be accepted for employment?____________
6. Do you fully understand the statements made and questions asked
herein, and do you subscribe to them without reservation? ------------
On or about July 1, the plant was reopened and every employee who was in
respondent's employ on December 6, 1946, except two ° who applied for work
5 The respondent refused to recall Francis Jordan because, as Cressinger's credible testi-
mony reveals, he drank intoxicating liquor during his previous employment with the re-
spondent. The other employee was not recalled because of his low production record.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was recalled and given a physical examination. Those who passed the physical
examination were either put to work immediately or informed that they would
be given work as soon as work became available.
The concluding findings
It is evident from a mere recital of the facts in this case, as epitomized above.
the respondent did not interfere with or coerce its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by the Act nor did the respondent close its plant on De-
cember 4, 1946, in order to discourage membership in the Union as alleged in
the complaint. It would serve no useful purpose to set forth here at length
the evidence, already summarized above, to which Board's counsel points as
supporting his contention that the respondent, in closing the plant and discharging
its employees, was motivated by anti-union animus. The summary shows its
substance. The undersigned is convinced, and finds, that the respondent closed
the plant on December 6, 1946, for economic reasons and not for the reasons
alleged in the complaint. The composite background of the climatic and other
conditions that existed at the time of the plant's closing clearly reveals that it
was absolutely impossible for the respondent to keep the plant in operation.
With respect to the advertisement appearing in the newspapers on December
5, 1946, Board's counsel argues that they contained statements which are violative
of the Act. With this argument the undersigned disagrees. Under the Act,
mere words ascribable to an employer do not constitute unlawful interference
with the legal rights of the employees unless the words amount either to an actual
threat of economic punishment for engaging in collective activities, or, when
interpreted in the light of other proven facts, to an implied threat of the same
character; hence the discussion of facts and arguments, or the expression of
opinions, preferences, or dislikes on the subject of labor relations, do not violate
the Act.' The advertisement, standing alone, is not sufficient basis for a finding
of a violation of the Act since the advertisement does not contain any coercive
matter. An employer may, as here, express opinions "as to labor unions or as
to anything else, so long as his expressions do not constitute or contribute to
acts or threats of discrimination, coercion, or intimidation in denial of his
employees' free and untrammeled exercise of their rights as guaranteed by the
Act." Under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned finds that the
statements are thus protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Nor are the statements coercive when evaluated in the context in which they
were published. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that nothing contained in
the advertisement is violative of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned is convinced, and finds,
that the respondent did not violate the Act as alleged in the complaint. The
undersigned further finds that there is no credible evidence that the respondent
closed its plant on December 6, 1946, for the reason alleged in the complaint. The
undersigned also finds that the statements and activities of Royal Taylor,
Richard Taylor, and of the Association cannot be attributed to the respondent.
6 See N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469 ; N. L. R. B. v. J. L.
Brandeis , 145 F. (2d) 556 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward, 157 F. (2d) 486
(C. C. A. 8).
7 Budd M fg. Co. v . N. L. R. B., 142 F. ( 2d) 922 , 926 (C. C. A. 3) ; see also
Continental
Box Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F. (2d) 93 (C. C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Brown-Brookmeyer Co.,
143 F. (2d) 537 (C. C. A. 6).
GOODYEAR FOOTWEAR CORPORATION 819
Accordingly , the undersigned will recommend that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent , Goodyear Footwear Corporation , Clinton,
Illinois, occur in commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22 , 1947, any party may, within
twenty ( 20) days 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 Intermediate Report
or to any other 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. Immedi-
ately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs , the party
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. 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 said Section 203 46,
should any party desire permission 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 transferring 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 , recommendations and recom-
mended order 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 objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
Dated August 27, 1947. HOWARD MYERS,
Trial Examiner.
817319-49-vol. 80-53