Harris-Langenberg Hat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

HARRIS-LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY 961
HARRIS-LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY and UNITED HAT-
TERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, A.F.L. Case No. 14-CA-1048. January 28, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 9, 1953, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices 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 filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respond-
ent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record,
including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the
issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Harris-
Langenberg Hat Company, its officers , agents , successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Hatters, Cap
and Millinery Workers International Union, A. F. L..
(b) Interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations , to join or assist United Hatters , Cap and
Millinery Workers International Union, A.F.L., or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, or to refrainfromany or all of such
activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Hatters,
Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, A.F.L. as the
107 NLRB No. 205.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit herein found.
(b) Post in its plant at Mascoutah, Illinois, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix A.'
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Fourteenth Region, shall, upon being signed by the
Respondent's representatives, be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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 material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
I This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event
that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be
substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a De-
cree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATtMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union,
A.F.L., herein called the Union, on August 4, 1953, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri),
issued its complaint dated August 5. 1953, alleging that Harris-Langenberg Hat Company,
herein called the Respondent, had refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees within the appropriate bargain-
ing unit and was thereby engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and the notice of
hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
The Respondent duly filed its answer wherein it admitted certain allegations of the com-
plaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 14, 1953, at St. Louis, Missouri,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent
were represented at the hearing by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties. On October 5, 1953, the Respondent filed a brief to which it attached its brief in Case
No. 14-RC-2222, the representation proceeding.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Harris-Langenberg Hat Company is a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri with its principal office at 1112 Washington Ave.,
St. Louis, Missouri, and factories at Mascoutah and Lebanon. Illinois, and Marthasville,
New Haven, and Berger, Missouri, where at all times material hereto, Respondent has been
HARRIS-LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY 963
continuously engaged in the manufacture of men's hats and caps. The Respondent, in the course
and operation of its hat and cap factories, annually sells and ships men's hats and caps in
excess of $25,000 in value from its Missouri factories to points outside the State of Missouri.
The Respondent admits, and the undersigned finds, that the Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, A.F.L., is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
On July 7, 1953, the Board held inCase No. 14-RC-2222,i the representation case involving
these same parties at the Respondent's plant at Mascoutah, Illinois, that the appropriate bar-
gaming unit was: "All production and maintenance employees at the [Respondent's] Mascoutah,
Illinois, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act."
Respondent has raised, as the sole issue here, the same question decided by the Board in
Case No. 14-RC-2222, namely, the appropriateness oftheunit found by the Board to constitute
the appropriate unit. Respondent contended here, as in the representation proceeding, that the
appropriate unit should be the production and maintenance employees at all of its five
factories --not just those at the Mascoutah plant. This exact question was decided adversely
to Respondent's contention in the representation proceeding.
Respondent presented at the instant hearing--as newly discovered evidence--4 pamphlets
circulated subsequent to the election at Mascoutah by the Union to the employees of all 5 plants,
indicating that the Union desired to organize the employees of Respondent at all 5 plants,
together with a newspaper article indicating that union officials ultimately desired to bargain
with Respondent on behalf of the employees at all of the plants. These prove, according to
Respondent, "that the Union recognizes a strong interdependence and mutuality of interest
among all the employees of the five plants of Respondent and furthermore is definitely holding
out to the employees, although not the Board, that they are being organized as a single five-
plant bargaining unit."
The Respondent's brief in Case No. 14-RC-2222 shows that a union pamphlet expressing
similar sentiments was introduced therein and the sameargument as made here was made to,
and considered by, the Board in making its decision in that case. Thus the evidence produced
at the instant hearing is merely cumulative evidence and the decision in Case No. 14-RC-2222
is res adjudicata of the issue Respondent raises again here.
In addition to the fact that the undersigned is bound by the decision of the Board in Case No.
14-RC-2222 by the doctrine of res adiudicata, the evidence presented does not prove the unit
found by the Board in Case No. 14-RC-2222 to be inappropriate but only that a 5-plant unit
may also become appropriate. 2 Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act does not prevent a determination
that the single-plant unit is appropriate because the geographical considerations existing here
with plants as far separated as 102 miles is sufficient to justify the finding so that the extent
of organization is not the controlling factor in that determination. 3
The undersigned, therefore, finds, in accordance with the Board's decision, that all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Mascoutah, Illinois, plant, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
It was stipulated by the parties that on August 7, 1953, the Regional Director, based upon
an election held on July 30, 1953, certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the above-found appropriate unit in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the
Act. As no evidence to the contrary has been produced at this hearing, the undersigned,
1106 NLRB 19.
2Norfolk Southern Bus Co. , 159 F . 2d 516 (C. A 4),
3 L Wieman Company , 106 NLRB 1167
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore, finds that on August 7, 1953, and at all times thereafter, the Union was, and still
is, the duly certified exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent
in the aforementioned appropriate unit.
It was stipulated at the hearing that, on August 14, 1953, and at all times thereafter, the
Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the aforementioned appropriate unit. At the instant hearing the Respondent
indicated that its refusal to bargain was based upon its desire to test the question of the
appropriateness of the unit above found in the courts.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that on August 14, 1953, and at all times thereafter, the
Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the above- found appropriate unit in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of
the Act. It is further found that thereby the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
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 to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that on August 14, 1953,
and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with United Hatters,
Cap and Millinery Workers International union, A.F.L., it will be recommended that the
Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with said Union.
In the opinion of the undersigned, the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
in the instant case are not such as show an underlying intent to evade the responsibilities of
the Respondent under the Act and hence the undersigned will not issue a broad cease-and-
desist order in this case.
Upon the basis of the above foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, A.F.L., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent's Mascoutah, Illinois, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. At all times since August 7, 1953, the Union has been and now is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing on, and at all tunes since, August 14, 1953, to bargain collec-
tively with United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, A.F.L., as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the undersigned has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
SOUTH TEXAS CHAPTER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
965
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 NOT in any manner intereferewith , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, A.F.L., or any
other organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to . engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or ' all of such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union 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 under-
standing is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining
unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the Company's Mascoutah, Illinois,
plant excluding office clerical employees , professional employees , and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
HARRIS -LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ................ By................. ............. .................. .. ....... ..........
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
SOUTH TEXAS CHAPTER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CON-
TRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC. and LODGE 1276, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL
LOCAL UNION NO. 1423, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR-
PENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL
LOCAL 1423, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Cases Nos. 39 -CA-266,
39-CB- 31, and 39-CB-29. January 28, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 29, 1953, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceedings,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
107 NLRB No. 190.