International Shoe Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1939

12 N.L.R.B. 728 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY and LOCAL UNIONS
No. 248 AND 709 BOOT & SHOE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-773.-Decided May 8, 1939
Shoe Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-Com-
pany-Dominated anon: domination of and interference with formation and
administration ; support ; dependence of community upon employer ; previous
vigilante activity induced by fear of loss or curtailment of pay rolls ; employer
knowledge and notice thereof ; effect of, on employer's duty ; employer encourage-
ment of formation of "inside" union ; employer's suggestion to "inside" union
organizers to consult advisers some of whom were known to have been hostile
to past organizational attempts by national unions; adoption by "inside" union
of constitutional provision for giving such advisers a vote on matters in dis-
pute with employer ; statements of supervisory employees favoring "inside"
union and expressing hostility to national organization ; disestablished, as agency
for collective bargaining-Discrimination: charges of, dismissed as to all em-
ployees named in complaint, without discussion, following Trial Examiner's
recommendation, not excepted to-Espionage: charges of surveillance of union
activities dismissed for want of evidence.
Mr. Alan F. Perl and Mr. Gordon T. O'Hanlon, for the Board.
Mr. Richard 0. Rumer and Mr. R. E. Blake, of St. Louis, Mo., and
Mahan, Mahan & Fuller, by Mr. Dulany Mahan and Mr. Ezra T.
Fuller, of Hannibal, Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. Charles E. Rendlen and Mr. Branham Rendlen, of Hannibal,
Mo., for the Brotherhood.
Mr. Richard A. Perkins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Locals 248 and 709, herein called the
Affiliated Locals, of Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, herein called the
B. & S. W.,1 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
1 The charge and certain other formal papers designate the B . & S. W. as Boot &
Shoe Workers ' International Union . The name given in the text is taken from its con-
stitution ( Board Exhibit 38).
12 N. L. R. B., No. 81.
728
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 729
Board, by Dorothea de Schweinitz, Regional Director for the Four-
teenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated Feb-
ruary 28, 1938, against International Shoe Company, Hannibal,
Missouri, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A
copy of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the respondent, the Affiliated Locals, and Western Brotherhood
of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, herein called the
Brotherhood, a labor organization alleged in the complaint to have
been dominated by the respondent.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent had by
discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guthrie, Earl Kroger, and James McQueen,
encouraged membership in the Brotherhood and discouraged mem-
bership in the B. & S. W., had dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Brotherhood, and had by these
and other means, including threats and espionage, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
On March 4,1938, the Brotherhood filed with the Regional Director
its motion for leave to intervene. On March 5, 1938, the respondent
filed its answer, together with motions to dismiss the complaint or to
make the same more definite and certain.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was begun before David F. Smith,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, on March 7, 1938,
at Hannibal, Missouri. The Board, the respondent, and the Brother-
hood were represented by counsel and 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 all
parties. On March 7 the Trial Examiner granted leave to the
Brotherhood to intervene and denied the respondent's motions to
strike the complaint and make the same more definite and certain
and a motion by counsel for the Board to strike certain matters from
the respondent's answer.
On March 22, 1938, the Trial Examiner allowed a motion by counsel
for the Board, to amend the charge and complaint so as to allege the
commission of unfair labor practices by discrimination in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Thomas Carter, Ora Black=
ston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, and Francis Burrell. The Trial
Examiner thereupon continued the hearing to March 28, 1938, when
the hearing was resumed and the respondent, pursuant to leave
granted for that purpose, filed an amendment to its answer so as to
meet the allegations added to the complaint by amendment.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the conclusion of the Board's case in chief, counsel for the
Board moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged dis-
crimination with respect to Earl Kroger. The motion was allowed.
On motion of the respondent, the Trial Examiner dismissed the com-
plaint in so far as it related to the alleged discrimination with respect
to Herbert Beadle. On the same day the Trial Examiner overruled
other motions of the respondent and the Brotherhood to dismiss the
entire complaint and various specific allegations thereof.
On May 7, 1938, at the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner, on
motions made by the respondent and the Brotherhood, respectively,
struck certain allegations from the respondent's answer and from
the Brotherhood's motion to intervene. The respondent and the
Brotherhood at the same time renewed their several motions to dis-
miss the entire complaint and certain specific allegations thereof.
The Trial Examiner reserved decision on these motions.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence.
One of the grounds originally advanced by the respondent in
support of its motion to dismiss the complaint was that there was a
prior complaint pending in Case No. XIV-C-119 relating to sub-
stantially the same matters alleged in the complaint in this pro-
ceeding. Prior to the commencement of the hearing in the instant
case, the complaint in Case No. XIV-C-119 had been on March 5,
1938, dismissed without prejudice by James C. Batten, the Trial
Examiner duly designated to conduct a hearing on that complaint.
This objection is therefore without merit.2
As another ground for dismissal of the complaint the respondent
set forth that it had entered into an agreement with the Affiliated
Locals providing, among other things, for the settlement of grievances,
and that the Affiliated Locals, having omitted to use the remedies
alleged to be available under their agreement, were estopped to charge
the respondent with the commission of unfair labor practices. This
contention is counter to Section 10 (a) of the Act, which defines the
Board's jurisdiction as exclusive, subject to being affected by no
other means of adjustment. This objection is without merit .3
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
2 See Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, 5 N. L. R. B. 908.
8 Matter of Maryland Distillery, Inc. et at. and Distillery Workers Union 20270 et al., 3
N. L R B 176; Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organ-
izing Committee, 5 N. L. R. B. 908.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 731
On July 6, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging- in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but not within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. He ruled accordingly on
the motions made at the hearing. He recommended that the respond-
ent cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the forma-
tion or administration of the Brotherhood, recognizing the
Brotherhood as bargaining representative, and interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its'employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and that the respondent dis-
establish the Brotherhood as bargaining representative and post notice
of compliance. The Trial Examiner also recommended dismissal
of the complaint so far as it alleged the commission of unfair labor
practices in encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor
organization by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
Pursuant to an extension of time granted for that purpose, the
Brotherhood on July 28, and the respondent on July 30, 1938, filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice, a hearing
was held before the Board on November 1, 1938, in Washington,
D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the
Brotherhood participated and filed briefs. The Board has reviewed
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and save as they are
consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds them to be without merit, and they are hereby overruled.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, International Shoe Company, a Delaware corpora-
tion with principal offices at St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of leather, canvas, and rubber shoes and other
types of footwear. It operates 45 shoe factories situated in Missouri,
Illinois, Kentucky, and New Hampshire, 9 tanneries located in Mis-
souri, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire;
a rubber plant in Missouri, a cotton mill in Arkansas, and sales
branches in New York City and Boston, Massachusetts. The re-
spondent sold goods to the value of $88,278,810.29 during its fiscal
year ending November 30, 1937. The respondent claims to be the
largest manufacturer of shoes in the United States.
The complaint relates to the respondent's alleged unfair labor
practices in the operation of its three factories at Hannibal, Missouri,
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
namely, the Seventh Street factory (also known as the International
or Hannibal factory) employing about 1,395 persons, the Bluff City
factory, employing about 810, and the rubber and canvas footwear
plant, employing about 593. The first two above-named factories
produce leather shoes; the last produces canvas and rubber shoes as
finished products and rubber soles and heels which are attached to
shoes made at the respondent's other shoe factories. The total
value of the finished products manufactured at the Hannibal factories
for the year ending November 30, 1937, was $10,767,142.
Raw materials valued at $4,146,666 were used in the manufacturing
processes carried on at the respondent's Hannibal plants during the
year ending November 30, 1937. The immediate source of most of
these raw materials was the respondent's St. Louis, Missouri, ware-
house, but more than 90 per cent of such materials originated in
States other than Missouri and in foreign countries. Cloth is ob-
tained from Arkansas, crude rubber from New York City and Singa-
pore, and reclaimed rubber from Illinois, New York, and Ohio. Most
of the sole leather, upper leather, and pigments used come from
outside Missouri.
The products of the Hannibal factories are initially distributed
approximately as follows : 57 per cent to the respondent's St. Louis,
Missouri, warehouses ; 21 per cent, being rubber soles and heels, to
various of the respondent's shoe factories in Missouri for use in
further manufacturing processes; 17 per cent to the St. Louis, Mis-
souri, warehouses of the J. C. Penney Company; and 4 per cent
to the respondent's branches located in Illinois, Kentucky, New
Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts.
The products shipped from the Hannibal factories to the re-
spondent's St. Louis warehouses are there combined with products
from its other factories. The respondent's sales agencies fill orders
for merchandise from this common stock. The six sales agencies-
Roberts, Johnson & Rand, Peters Branch, Friedman-Shelby Branch,
Continental Branch, Jefferson Branch, and Export Department-
which distribute shoes made in the respondent's Hannibal factories
through its St. Louis warehouses, sold a total of $71,320,702.76 worth
of goods during the respondent's fiscal year ending November 30,
1937. Of this total over 94 per cent was sold to purchasers outside
the State of Missouri, in various places throughout the United
States.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Locals 248 and 709, Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, are labor or-
ganizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 733
called the A. F. of L. The B. & S. W. admits to membership "any
male or female boot or shoe worker over 16 years of age and actively
employed at the craft." Local 248 admits to its membership the
respondent's employees who work at the Seventh Street and Bluff
City plants. Local 709 admits employees of the respondent who work
at the rubber- and canvas-footwear plant.
Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated,
a Missouri corporation, is an unaffiliated labor organization. Its
constitution provides that "any person employed or engaged in any
process in the manufacture of shoes or rubber products, excepting
persons employed in a supervisory office or administrative capacity
may become a member of the organization subject to such rules and
bylaws as may hereafter be adopted." The Brotherhood has not in
fact admitted to membership any person not employed in the re-
spondent's Hannibal factories. The Brotherhood has set up local
unions as follows : Local No. 1, for employees of the Seventh Street
plant; Local No. 2, for employees of the rubber- and canvas-foot-
wear plant; and Local No. 3, for employees of the Bluff City plant.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Domination of the Brotherhood
1. The respondent's position in Hannibal-events preceding the for-
mation of the Brotherhood
Since the significance of the various events hereinafter related de-
pends materially on the relationship of the respondent's Hannibal
factories to the community in which they are located, it is necessary
first to describe that relationship. Hannibal is a city of about 23,000
inhabitants situated on the Mississippi River in northeastern Mis-
souri. The respondent is the largest employer of labor in the city,
employing approximately 3,000 persons. Mercantile establishments
dealing in consumers' goods in Hannibal to a large degree depend
on the purchasing power of the respondent's employees for the main-
tenance of a retail market. Control over all but details of the opera-
tion of the respondent's Hannibal factories is lodged in the respond-
ent's executive offices in St. Louis, which is about 120 miles from
Hannibal.
There are many shoe factories, including both those of the respond-
ent and those of its competitors in the St. Louis area, eastern Mis-
souri, and southwestern Illinois. Shoe manufacture, especially in
novelty lines, which form a substantial part of the respondent's
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hannibal production, is seasonal. The peaks of production are in
the spring and in the fall. Much of the machinery employed in mak-
ing shoes is leased rather than owned by the actual manufacturers,
and is readily removable from the buildings in which it is housed.
Inhabitants of Hannibal have closely followed reports on the activity
of shoe factories in other communities in the same area. Compari-
sons of such activity have been noted by the townspeople, and there
has been speculation as to the reason for each variation in the volume
of production.
Throughout the period here under consideration, a substantial
number of Hannibal residents-not only the respondent's em-
ployees-were alert to discover an actual or fancied inverse causal
relation between union activity in nearby shoe-manufacturing com-
munities and the regularity of employment in the shoe factories in
those communities. The union activity which went on at Pittsfield,
Illinois, and Moberly, Missouri, the locations to which local interest
chiefly attached, included, not strikes, apparently, but rather, mere
organizational attempts on the part of nationally affiliated trade
unions. In particular, it was thought by some that slack production
at several of the factories of the Brown Shoe Company was due to
a deliberate curtailment of operations by that company in order to
discourage organization by national or "outside" unions. Whether
such was actually true is without the scope of this proceeding. The
fact is that such an impression was prevalent in Hannibal. It was
likewise assumed that the respondent was likely to adopt similar
measures in order to avoid the organization of its employees.
Whether or not this assumption was true at the beginning of the
period here considered, it definitely existed as a factor by which many
persons calculated their future conduct.
The combination of the foregoing factors, namely, the economic
dependence of Hannibal trade upon the respondent's pay rolls, the
readiness with which so large an enterprise could shift its opera-
tions, and its supposed hostility to "outside" labor organizations,
resulted in an attitude of watchfulness on the part of many Hannibal
tradesmen and some of the respondent's employees. It was felt by
some that it was ordinary prudence, if not a positive civic duty, to
discourage efforts by "outside" labor organizations to reach the re-
spondent's employees for the purpose of enrolling members and
bargaining collectively. There seems to have been no articulate
public opinion exerting pressure upon the respondent to relax its
supposed hostility toward labor organizations. Rather, for some
reason, possibly because of the size and power of the respondent, it
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 735
seems to have been assumed that the respondent's policy was un-
changeable, and that the only way in which pressure could be effec-
tively applied so as to avert a conflict and preserve Hannibal's chief
industry was to harass union organizers and sympathizers in order
to prevent them from gaining access to the respondent's employees.
The whole emphasis was upon placating the respondent by assuring
it of a supply of tractable labor.
That this general fear and this readiness of outsiders to interfere
with the organization of labor were originally inspired by the re-
spondent does not appear. But specific instances to which we shall
advert below have been brought forward to show that the respondent
had knowledge of these conditions and by acting upon them, tended
to continue their existence in such a manner as wholly to adapt them
to its purposes. That issue is our principal concern in what follows.
Prior to the year 1933 there was no labor organization among the
respondent's Hannibal employees, so far as the record shows. At
some time in that year H. E. Jenkins, then superintendent of the
Seventh Street factory and possessed of some control over the other
two Hannibal factories, announced at several meetings of employees
that a ballot would be taken to determine whether the employees pre-
ferred a national or a local union. He remarked that a local organiza-
tion would be cheaper and that the money collected by outside or-
ganizations would be taken out of town. He said that if he could see
any advantage to unions he would haul the employees "down there."
He added that the law now said how many hours they could work
but not whether or not they had to work, and made some reference
to not "sinking the ship." C. F. Nerlich, another supervisor, spoke
to the same effect. G. B. Britton made similar remarks to a meeting
of employees in the rubber plant, of which he was superintendent.
A ballot presenting a choice of a local and national organization
(apparently not specifying any particular unions ) was thereupon
conducted under the supervision of the management . Tellers from
among the employees reported to the management the result, which
in several departments ran at least 85 per cent in favor of a national
organization. The total result was never announced by the manage-
ment. A few days after the election Jenkins announced that he had
been incorrectly advised by counsel as to the requirements of the
National Industrial Recovery Act,4 and ' that it was not in fact
necessary to have any labor organization.
Shortly after this poll was taken, two rival national shoe workers'
organizations , the B. & S-. W. and the Shoe W orkers' Protective
Union, herein called the Protective, attempted to organize the re-
spondent's employees . The Protective was the more successful at this
k 48 Stat. 195.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time, and in about 2 months' time claimed a membership of about
1,600. The Hannibal local of the Protective soon declined, however,
and ultimately disappeared. By the end of 1933 no labor organiza-
tion existed among the respondent's Hannibal employees.
During the 1933 organization campaign there occurred events
which demonstrate the attitude of some elements of the community
toward "outside" labor organizations. On one occasion, one Turner,
a Protective organizer, was met on his arrival at a railway station
in Hannibal by a mob which included some of the respondent's em-
ployees. The leaders of the mob demanded that Turner leave town
forthwith, but he refused to do so, and continued his activity for
the time being. The leaders of this mob later took part, as we
shall see, in the formation of the Brotherhood.
During the Protective campaign, Wallace Chaney, a Protective
sympathizer, applied to J. B. Robinson, then mayor of Hannibal,
for permission to hold a meeting of shoe workers in a municipal
park. Robinson said he would have to ask Jenkins, the respondent's
Hannibal superintendent, about it. Chaney inquired whether Jen-
kins "owned the city park"; Robinson replied "Well, if I let you
have a meeting down there Jenkins might move his factory out of
Hannibal and there will be grass growing up and down the street
on Broadway." Chaney by way of subterfuge suggested that Robin-
son tell Jenkins that "we are against the organization they are talk-
ing of here." Robinson followed this suggestion and later the same
day informed Chaney that Jenkins had told him it would be all
right for Chaney's group to meet in the park since the group was
"against the other organization," evidently meaning the Protective.
M. H. Moore, foreman of the Seventh Street packing room and
in charge of about 150 employees, on one occasion in 1933 gathered
a group of employees from his department and advised them against
joining any union. This incident together with the NIRA election
episode, and Jenkins' remarks favoring an "inside" union, and his
directions to Mayor Robinson, indicates that the general opinion con-
cerning the respondent's hostility to "outside" unions had some
foundation in fact in 1933.
During the period in 1933 when the Protective was active in Han-
nibal, several of the respondent's employees, led by William Broad-
dus, consulted C. F. Nerlich, then in some supervisory capacity in
the Hannibal factories, regarding the possible formation of a local
"independent" union among the respondent's employees for the pur-
pose of combating the Protective. Broaddus' testimony as to Ner-
lich's advice is self-contradictory; at one point he said Nerlich was
opposed to the formation of such an organization; at another he
said Nerlich told the delegation that it was entirely up to the em-
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 737
ployees. After this meeting with Nerlich the employees in this
group abandoned the idea of forming a local organization for the
time being. Broaddus' attitude toward the management was at all
times such, as we shall later see, that it is likely that his former
story was correct, and that Nerlich expressed opposition to the pro-
posed organization. Broaddus subsequently acted accordingly.
The next attempt by a national labor organization to organize
the respondent's Hannibal employees was made by the B. & S. W.
early in 1935. One Carlin, an organizer, and William Cox, a former
employee of the respondent and secretary of a B. & S. W. local then
established and chartered in Hannibal, were active in this campaign.
One day in March 1935, Carlin and Cox were called to the lobby
of the hotel where Carlin was staying in Hannibal and accosted by
Mayor Robinson and a mob of 35 or 40 shoe workers who had just
come from a meeting in a city park. Robinson exhibited a petition
which he stated had been circulated in the shoe factories and bore
the names of 2,000 shoe workers who had authorized him to act for
them. He said that the shoe workers were strongly opposed to the
A. F. of L. and that there was likely to be violence. He advised
Carlin to leave town immediately. One of the mob threatened the
organizers. Carlin did not then comply with Robinson's demands.
Later the same day Carlin and Cox learned from the janitor of
the Marion County courthouse in Hannibal that the judge who had
control of the building had directed that the courthouse be closed
that evening, despite previous permission granted the B. & S. W.
to hold a meeting there. Arch Leonard, sheriff of Marion County
during 1935, testified that on one occasion in the spring of 1935-
probably the day referred to by Cox in his testimony, although it is
not clear-he refused the use of the courthouse to a shoe workers'
union on demand of a Chamber of Commerce group represented by
one Hodgdon, who stated to Leonard, "if you let them fellows or-
ganize up there ... Jenkins will shut down the factory and don't
you know we can't stand that." The respondent was a member of
the Hannibal Chamber of Commerce. Hodgdon was cashier of the
Farmers & Merchants Bank where the respondent maintained a pay-
roll account.
On the same evening that the projected B. & S. W. meeting was
canceled, Carlin moved from his hotel under police protection against
a mob of shoe workers, and a few days later he left town. Cox con-
tinued his organizing work. Later in March Cox attended a meeting
of the Hannibal City Council to investigate a report that a group
of shoe workers intended to petition the Council to run the union
organizers out of town. After the meeting, which was the scene of
some disorder, Mayor Robinson told Cox that he was in danger of
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
violence, and offered him the shelter of the city jail, but Cox de-
manded and received a police escort to his home.
On April 5 the Hannibal Courier-Post, a daily newspaper of
general circulation in Hannibal, carried a half-page advertisement
which attacked the motives and methods of union organizers and
stated that in opposing the current attempts to organize-
For assistance we appealed to Mayor J. B. Robinson, and are
proud of his cooperation and determined efforts, not only in our
behalf but in what we know to be the best interests of our entire
city.
We appreciate the fine support given us by Sheriff Arch Leon-
ard and the many business and professional men that have
recognized the seriousness of this latest form of racketeering and
have encouraged us in every way.
With the help and cooperation of most of the citizens of Han-
nibal we feel we have at least for the present forestalled the
trouble, strife, hatred and possible bloodshed in our community
that has been experienced and even now is taking place in several
cities because of radical organized pressure by outside organizers
that make their living off of honest working men and women.
We thank you and shall expect your continued moral support
and cooperation in the future that our present "happy situation"
may continue indefinitely.
The above written and paid for by employes of the three
plants of the International Shoe Co., in Hannibal.
The authorship of the advertisement does not appear in the record,
nor does it appear who ordered it. After its publication Alvia
Hines, Harry King, Ezra Treaster, Dorse Adrian, and Roy Farmer,
employees of the respondent, took up a collection to pay for it from
among employees in the respondent's Hannibal factories. We have
seen what "cooperation" Mayor Robinson furnished the anti-union
forces. The "many business and professional men" referred to are
evidently those of the Chamber of Commerce group represented by
Hodgdon.
Carlin returned to Hannibal. On April 7, 1935, a mob besieged
him in his hotel. He telephoned Cox for help. Cox started toward
the hotel but was set upon and severely beaten by a group of shoe
workers and others. Various members of the mob suggested lynching
Cox, but it was finally agreed to take him home on the condition
that he would tear up the B. & S. W. local charter and throw the
pieces out the window. When Cox reached his home he telephoned
the city police and the sheriff and prosecuting attorney of Marion
County, but all refused to furnish protection. Cox then telephoned
the Governor of Missouri, who sent State police to escort Carlin out
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 739
of Hannibal and restore order. Cox remained in Hannibal, and a
few days later signed a criminal complaint against two of his assail-
ants Charles Giles and Robert McIntyre. They were not taken into
custody. Walter Stillwell, the county prosecutor, notified the de-
fendants by telephone to appear before a magistrate. They pleaded
guilty to common assault and were fined $5 each.
Meanwhile a city-election campaign proceeded in Hannibal. Rob-
inson, the incumbent mayor, had been refused renomination by the
city Democratic caucus. Sinclair Mainland, the Republican nominee,
campaigned on a platform of preserving Hannibal's industry by con-
tinuing Robinson's policy of "cooperation" with local anti-union
forces. Early in Mainland's campaign he was visited by a delega-
tion of shoe workers, including three who were identified as partic-
ipants in the assault on Cox of April 7, who asked him how he
"stood on unions." He replied, according to his testimony, that
"they would have to take it at their own risk. I had only one thing
in mind and that was the best I could do for the city of Hannibal,
mainly to keep all the industries we had here and to keep them
going." During the height of the campaign a Mainland sound wagon
cruised the streets of Hannibal repeating the slogan "Vote the Main-
land ticket and keep your meal ticket in Hannibal."
On April 29, May 1, and May 4, 1935, there appeared in the Han-
nibal Courier-Post a series of political advertisements r, in support
of Mainland's candidacy. These asserted that shoe-manufacturing
communities near Hannibal had flourished where local authorities
and townspeople had suppressed union activity and had declined
where such activity had been permitted. The advertisements also
recounted some of the incidents of the vigilantism directed against
Cox and Carlin in Hannibal, and complimented former Mayor Robin-
son and his chief of police for their conduct, which was said to have
kept the pay rolls at the shoe factories going. Finally, the advertise-
ments promised that Mainland would maintain a firm policy toward
union organizers so as to preserve Hannibal's chief industry."
Board Exhibits 29, 28, 30, and 21.
e Board Exhibit 30, an advertisement printed on May 1, 1935, after relating incidents
at Centralia, Illinois, and Moberly, Missouri, stated the following under the caption
"DOES HANNIBAL WANT TO KEEP ITS SHOE FACTORIES?":
It does no good to lock the barn after the horse is stolen.
Centralia lost its factory ; Moberly is drying up.
Can this community fail or falter in support of its major industry?
Other communities yearn to get some of our shoe industry.
The owners of the Hannibal factories operate factories in 42 other places where
shoes can be made that are now made in Hannibal.
Surely, paid outside agitators and those who do not work in our shoe factories,
who are sticking their noses and meddlesome fingers into the affairs of the Hannibal
169134-39-vol. 12-48
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mainland's campaign was successful. After his election, but be-
fore he took office, he and Morris Shea, the newly elected city marshal,
called on Nerlich, who had succeeded to Jenkins' position as general
superintendent over the Hannibal factories and in direct supervision
over the Seventh Street plant, to ascertain Nerlich's views on "union-
ization." According to Mainland, the only person who testified con-
cerning this conversation, Nerlich said "whatever his employees
wanted to do was their own business, and that he had no attitude
in the matter at all." What is important here is that Mainland
sought to ascertain Nerlich's views on "unionization" of the respond-
ent's employees presumably for use as a guide in the formulation of
municipal policy.
Soon after Carlin was expelled from Hannibal the B. & S. W.
renewed its organization campaign through J. W. McGonigal, an-
other organizer. Early in June, after Mainland took office as mayor,
Shea, chief of police, sent McGonigal to see Mainland, who informed
him that there was "some argument" in Hannibal as to the activity
of the B. & S. W., and advised him that it would be best for him
to attend a meeting at the City Hall the same evening. Shea told
McGonigal that there had been threatened and actual mob violence
directed against B. & S. W. representatives in the past, and offered
to protect McGonigal on his way to the meeting from his hotel.
McGonigal then refused assistance. But when the time for the
meeting drew near, a mob congregated in the hotel lobby, and the
desk clerk sent for the police. Shea and another officer escorted
McGonigal to the City Hall.
A. J. Mulvihill, vice president of the Hannibal Chamber of Com-
merce, and later mayor of the city, presided at the meeting. Others
present included Mainland, Robinson, Stillwell, J. E. McNally, a
plumbing contractor, and two shoe workers. There were about a
dozen persons there, five or six of whom were members of the Cham-
ber of Commerce. Mainland had gathered the group, except for the
shoe workers, whose presence is not satisfactorily explained. The
sense of the discussion was that McGonigal's presence was a threat
to the continued operation of the respondent's shoe factories in Han-
nibal, that McGonigal was likely to suffer mob violence if he remained
in the community, and that he had better leave. Robinson remarked
shoe factories , should be given to understand by all our people to let our shoe factories,
employers , and employes alone. Quit their efforts to stir up strife.
The workmen concerned have shown in no uncertain way that they want to be left
alone. It is Hannibal's interest to do no act that give encouragement to these trouble-
makers, whose activities will hurt the entire city.
In 1934 our shoe factories paid to employees in its HANNIBAL factories $10,000 a
week in WAGES! Two and a Half MILLION DOLLARS to workers in 1934 all spent in
Hannibal. '
That means much to every man , woman, and child in Hannibal . Shall we permit
meddlers to disturb or threaten its loss?
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 741
in the presence of the police chief that it would be a good idea to
take McGonigal out to the edge of town, give him a beating, and
send him on his way. The shoe workers present made threatening
remarks to McGonigal. McGonigal would not agree to leave town.
As the meeting broke up James Spencer, one of the shoe workers,
stated to the chief of police "Mr. Shea, I am leaving it up to you to
see he leaves town and if he doesn't we will take care of the matter."
As he left the meeting, again under police protection, McGonigal
was met by a mob. He decided to leave town after all, and was
furnished a convoy of automobiles by Mainland and Shea on his way
out.
The motive of those who threatened McGonigal at the City Hall
meeting is well revealed in Mainland's testimony, which is in part as
follows :
Q.... These well-known citizens were, for the most part,
am I not correct, afraid something might happen to the shoe
factory?
A. I believe they were. I can't tell you what they thought,
but I gathered that from what I could hear around town.
Q. That was your motive too, was it not? You, as mayor of
the city, took it upon yourself to protect the industries of the
city as you understood it?
A. Yes, sir.
Although Mainland testified he had heard no direct threat by the
respondent relative to moving its factory, and in fact had received
some sort of assurance to the contrary in the conference with Nerlich
prior to the induction of the new city administration, yet Mainland
proceeded on the assumption that the respondent would remove its
plant if threatened by union activity. Thus :
Q. I do not quite understand why you were afraid there might
be further difficulty with Mr. McGonigal?
A. Well, I do not suppose there was much sense to it maybe,
but I just had it.
Q. And you still had those groundless fears that the Interna-
tional Shoe Company might remove its plant from Hannibal?
A. I had known positively that riots and things like that would
not help it any.
Q. I understand that, but I mean so far as the fear of the Inter-
national Shoe Company removing their plants from Hannibal,
you had Mr. Nerlich's assurance that would not happen?
A. Nobody in any way connected with i he factory has threat-
ened to move or close it down, to my knowledge.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. That was general talk around?
A. I gathered my feeling from hearsay.
Q. . . . you are talking about this talk around town about the
shoe factory closing down. Was that extensive talk among shoe
workers and employees?
A. Yes, sir, it was. Everybody seemed to be afraid of it.
McGonigal left Hannibal with the understanding that he might
return to wind up his personal affairs but for no purpose connected
with further union organizing. He returned' on the evening of June
10, 1935, to meet one Baxter, general representative of the B. & S. W.
At 9 a. in. on July 11, McGonigal and Baxter were accosted in a hotel
lobby by a policeman who stated that Mayor Mainland had directed
him to invite Baxter to a meeting of city officers and Chamber of
Commerce members. Baxter refused to attend the meeting. He and
McGonigal left town the same day. McGonigal returned in July
1935 to take up the charters of the Hannibal B. & S. W. locals, and
did not return to engage in organizing work until more than 2 years
later.
This last incident, which illustrates Mayor Mainland's effective in-
telligence service, is of a piece with his general policy. Referring to
union organizers, he'testified: "I told Chief of Police Shea if any-
body came to town to bring them to see me."
In the spring or summer of 1935, while the B. & S. W. campaign of
that year was on, a group of shoe workers considered forming a local
"independent" labor organization as a counter-attack upon nationally
affiliated unions. The first and only thing they did pursuant to their
plan was to call upon Nerlich. Nerlich testified concerning this
meeting in part as follows :
Q. And who came in at that time?
A. Oh, twelve or fifteen men, and asked what I thought about
it, and I advised them at that time it might be well for them not
to do it, to postpone it, that it was their right if they cared to,
but at that time the Boot and Shoe Workers were attempting to
organize, and they had better wait and see what they got into and
what the employees want there, and wait at least several months.
If they wanted to do it, it was their right, but I advised them to
postpone it.
On June 18, 1937, Nerlich characterized the proceedings of the 1935
discussion by saying to members of the group "I put you off two
years ago . . ."
The employees' delegation also asked Nerlich to discharge several
employees who were thought to be sympathetic toward the B. & S. W.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 743
This Nerlich refused to do. The committee, upon learning Nerlich's
attitude toward their suggestions, abandoned the notion of forming a
local organization and did not revive it until 2 years later.
In the meantime, however, there occurred an incident which indi-
cates that the respondent kept itself informed of incipient union
activity with a view to eliminating it. Early in 1936, Foreman Moore
told L. W. Robinson, an assistant foreman in the packing department,
that the respondent had discovered through one of its St. Louis attor-
neys that one Roman, employed in the Hannibal factories, had writ-
ten to a union to ask that an organizer be sent to Hannibal. Moore
instructed Robinson to watch Roman's work in order to discover a
pretext to discharge him, and thereafter Roman was discharged.
This we learn from Robinson's testimony. Moore testified on an-
other issue and was not questioned on this incident.
2. The formation of the Brotherhood
In the spring of 1937, newspapers circulated in Hannibal carried
accounts of events which caused a renewed local interest in labor
organizations. Among them were organization drives carried on by
trade unions throughout the country, and the occurrence in some
localities of disorder attendant upon such organization campaigns or
upon employer or community resistance to them. The merits of these
controversies are of course not of concern here. Some of them have
been brought before the Board for decision. It is sufficient to note
here that the Hannibal public became aware of them through the
press. One consequence of the publicity was that some of the re-
spondent's employees became convinced that a renewal of union ac-
tivity among Hannibal shoe workers was imminent. The idea of
forming a local "independent" organization was revived.
On June 5, 1937, Spencer, King, and Treaster, shoe workers em-
ployed by the respondent, consulted Stillwell, Marion county prose-
cutor whose activities have been noted above, for advice concerning
the formation of a local organization. Stillwell advised them to see
a private practitioner, stating that he was not conversant with labor
law and that his official duties occupied his full attention. He asked
whether the group had been to see Nerlich yet. They replied that
they had not. He told them "Well, I believe if I were you I would go
and tell him what you are going to do before anybody else goes down
there and tells him a lot of things you are not doing."
During the following week King discussed labor matters with
Robinson and Mainland, former mayors (the latter having just com-
pleted a 2-year term and lost his campaign for reelection). They
told him it was a shame the way people were forced into national
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizations. King asked them what they thought of forming a lo-
cal organization. One of them replied "Under the Wagner Act if you
get them lined up you drive out whatever it might be . . ." It ap-
pears from the context that this statement referred to the formation
of a local organization in order to forestall action by national unions.
On June 12, Broaddus, Spencer, King, and Treaster met Robinson
and Mainland to ask them for advice concerning the formation of a
local organization. Either one or both the ex-mayors said they
thought it a good idea, but stated they could not furnish legal advice,
and suggested names of several lawyers. Mainland (and possibly
Robinson also) advised them to go to Nerlich with their plan.
At about 4:30 p. m. on June 18, a group of 16 shoe workers col-
lected by Broaddus, King, Spencer, and Treaster called on Nerlich.
Those present, besides those just mentioned, were: Charles Giles, Dan
Mack, Harry Beadle, Edward Riney, Carl Gilbert, Marvin Smith,
Alvia Hines, Charles Overton, Robert, McIntyre, Harrison Hull, Red
Mahood, and W. E. H. Herrin, shoe workers, and Charles Myers,
employment manager in the Hannibal factories. The following is
a stenographic report of the proceedings:
HANNIBAL MO., Friday, June 18, 1937.
Sixteen employees of the three plants came in and asked to see
Mr. Nerlich. After W. C. Broaddus stated the purpose of the
meeting Mr. Nerlich stated that the suggestion was one that
recent legislation made it necessary for him to be very careful
about expressing himself and asked their permission to call in
a stenographer who could make a record of the entire meeting.
After the stenographer was called in Mr. Broaddus repeated the
purpose of the men's visit.
Mr. BROADDUS. About two years ago practically this same group
of men were here and asked how the company felt about their
organizing at that time an independent union among the em-
ployees and at that time they were neutral on the subject. How-
ever, it has now come to a "show down" and they have come in
to ask how you feel about their organizing an independent union
at this time.
Mr. NERLICH. I am glad to talk with you about anything that
is on your mind and unfortunately I cannot say a great deal on
this subject. Recently laws have been passed regarding this sub-
ject so that we cannot advise you. In other words, I will say that
it is a matter entirely up to you men. We haven't a thing in the
world to say about it or against it and, of course, we can't say
anything for it as it is a matter that is entirely up to you. I would
lika to say too that we have never had any trouble getting along
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. ET AL. 745
with our people here and if you find it to your advantage to
organize an independent group that is up to you. I am sure that
our Aid Society has proven that you can do a good job of it and if
you feel that it has come to a "show down", as Mr. Broaddus
says, and that it is to your best interest, I think certainly it would
be an all right thing to do.
I would like to say if you decide to do this, do a good job of it
like you try to make good rubber soles, heels, and shoes.
We have always been glad to cooperate with you and will be
now.
It is, of course, against the company's wishes to have a company
union, but if you feel it is best to organize an entirely independent
group I think that is up to you. The company of course will have
nothing to do with it. It might be a good thing for you to do.
However, as manager of the plant I can't say very much on the
subject, but I would like to suggest that you talk with several
business men and get their ideas. I am sure you men realize a
thing of this kind is of very vital interest to the community and
it is a matter to be seriously considered and I think you would do
well to see men that you know and have confidence in and sit
down and talk to them about it. Mr. Hodgdon, Mr. Sparks, Judge
Bigger, Father Fox, Rev. Schwehn, J. B. Robinson, and Sinclair
Mainland would be good men to see and many others I might
mention in this group. Let a few of you talk with them about
it and see what they think concerning it.
Mr. BROADDUS. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Nerlich, we
came down to see you. We want to keep out of the C. I. 0. and
the A. F. of L. and such organizations. We realize this is a
very serious thing and we knew we could sit down and talk our
problems over with you.
I don't believe it would be advisable for us to have a union
here that could be managed by a group 1,000 miles away. We
don't want things to happen here that took place in Clarksville,
Missouri, a few days ago or in the Hershey Company Plant or
such things that happened here several years ago.
I have been in this office several times myself when I thought
things were not running smoothly and have always felt better
after talking with you. I have been employed by the Interna-
tional Shoe Company for some time and am loyal to them and will
be so long as I remain with them.
Mr. W. HERRIN. When Charles Giles suggested to me to come
down here I thought about it all afternoon trying to think what
should be done.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Now, men, I don't know whether the organization of an inde-
pendent union would be just exactly the thing or not. You all
remember about two years ago how our outside friends started
to organize here and that there was so much trouble and it seems
to me this might have the same effect. They thought they were
the right ones to organize us and such a thing might happen
again if we were to organize an independent union.
We want to have a place where we can work and make a living
and where we can settle our own difficulties. I feel that the em-
ployees of the International Shoe Company have enough com-
mon sense to realize what they are up against. I feel that if four
or five of the Rubber Plant men want to strike because they are
dissatisfied for some reason that would be their own business and
that we shouldn't have to strike. I feel that if something could
be done along this line then we would really have an organization.
Mr. NERLICH. Mr. Herrin, as I said before, that will be a matter
that you men must work out, but for goodness sake do the thing
you feel confident is the thing to do and get together and sit down
and talk it over among yourselves and with some of the men down-
town and tell them the things you feel in your heart will give you
the best results. I must assure you I feel we will get along.
Mr. DAN MACK. I have two nephews working in Michigan and
they tell me of the serious trouble they have had and the way the
C. I. 0. has conducted its organization and the interfering man-
ner in which their elections have been held. We certainly don't
want anything of that kind in Hannibal.
Mr. MCINTYRE. There is the question of two or three men being
dissatisfied and wanting to call a strike. We will have an arbi-
tration agreement that no strike will be called unless all agree.
Mr. NERLICH. Men, the more I hear you talk the more I am im-
pressed with your determination and I am sure you will try to do
the right thing.
I put you off two years ago because at that time I thought it
would foster more trouble. Conditions have changed since then
and we are having labor trouble all over the country.
I believe you realize the seriousness of the situation enough and
if you plan an independent organization I am sure you will work
out your own problems and still keep in mind what is best.
Mr. BROADDUS. Mr. Nerlich, we are not coming to you this after-
noon as superintendent, but as a friend we know and we would
not do anything that you did not think best. We don't want to
do anything that would cost us our job with the company or any-
thing that is not best for the company.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 747
Mr. NERLICH. Men, I want you to know that the company ap-
preciates your loyalty far more than you think and I am pleased
and happy that you have come here. We have always agreed and
I feel that we will on this. I want you to feel that you can always
come in and talk over your problems with me.
Under the present conditions I want to say that our company
has tried diligently to keep the plants going and to give all of
you work, but we want to run our business peacefully and for the
best interest of all concerned. I feel, men, that we can settle all
of our problems coming up bearing in mind the welfare of our
employees, realizing they are closely related with the welfare of
our company and the community in general.
Mr. HARRISON HULL. It seems something will have to be done
and we want to do what you think best and I am sure you are
right, but with the present union conditions I feel we would be
one jump ahead of outside union agitators.
Mr. NERLICH. I will try to answer as far as possible all ques-
tions coming up. I know you are going to have problems and
questions to settle and I will, of course, try to answer any of your
questions that the law will permit. You must remember what
you do will be of your own accord and entirely independent of the
company. I want you men to know that we have no fear of deal-
ing with you fellows.
It is hard for me not to be able to talk with you more freely,
but I feel sure if you will make up your minds ana get together
on it you will work it out so it will be satisfactory with all
concerned.
Our company, of course, will have no company union, but if
you feel you want an independent organization the company will.
of course, cooperate with you.
I want you to know that the International Shoe Company has
always kept your welfare in mind and will continue to do so
always. I appreciate your friendship and confidence in coming
to me and I want to say you are all free to feel at liberty any
time to come in with your problems and we will talk them over.
Mr. BROADDUS. Mr. Nerlich, we want to say again that we ap-
preciate your courtesy and privilege that we have always had in
coming to you with whatever was on our minds and we want you
to know that no matter what we do or how we do it that we extend
you the same courtesy to come to us with anything that you may
feel is not to the best interests of the International Shoe Company
and its employees.
Mr. NERLICH. Mr. Broaddus, we appreciate that statement and
the spirit that prompts it.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Immediately after meeting with Nerlich most of the 16 gathered
outside the Seventh Street plant to consider their next step. They
decided to meet the following Sunday, June 20, at Broaddus' home.
On Saturday, June 19, King invited Mainland and Branham Rendlen,
an attorney, to attend the meeting the next day. Broaddus also talked
to Mainland on June 19.
On June 20 a group of about 20 shoe workers, together with Main-
land, Robinson, Rendlen, and Homer Hammett, a druggist, met at
Broaddus' home. Robinson and Mainland told those present that the
formation of a local organization was a good idea and that it would
be a good thing for the community. Rendlen offered to wait for his
fee for advising the organizers until the new organization should get
well under way. The group elected temporary officers as follows :
Broaddus, president; Treaster, vice president; Harold Jaeger, secre-
tary; Russell Trail, treasurer.
The organizers met again on the evening of June 21 in Rendlen's
office. There the new organization was named Western Brotherhood
of Shoe and Rubber Workers. Membership application cards were
ordered from a printer and delivered on the following day, when the
Brotherhood organizing campaign started in earnest. Brotherhood
organizers actively solicited members in the factories. The conclusions
to be drawn from this activity are discussed in Section III-A-3
below.
The news that a group of men had been to discuss with Nerlich
the formation of an independent or "inside" union spread rapidly
through the factories. In soliciting applications for membership some
of the promoters of the Brotherhood related the incident to prospective
members.
On June 25 the Hannibal Courier-Post reported an interview with
Nerlich, who was quoted as follows :
We have learned recently that some of our employees are spon-
soring a local employees' association for the purpose of repre-
senting the employees of the company in dealing with us on prob-
lems of mutual interest.
Choice of representation is a matter which must be settled by
the employees themselves. For many years the finest kind of rela-
tions has existed between us and our employees. We are anxious
to preserve that relationship and are confident that our employees
share the same feeling in the plan that they are trying to work
out.
It is gratifying to us to recall our experience of more than 30
years in Hannibal; and any plan designed to serve the best inter-
est of our employees and the best interest of the city of Hannibal
is entitled to thoughtful consideration by all.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 749
On June 28 the Brotherhood held a mass meeting in the Orpheum
Theater, the use of which was donated by its owner. Broaddus,
Jaeger, Branham Rendlen, A. J. Mulvihill, the incumbent mayor,
Mainland, Hodgdon, Leo Bonham, a merchant, and two clergymen,
the Reverend Mr. Schwehn and either Father Fox or Father Ernest,
sat on the platform. Broaddus spoke and among other things said,
referring to the Brotherhood, "This is not a union. It is an organi-
zation to keep unions out of Hannibal. I hate the word `union."'
Branham Rendlen explained the aims of the organization, stating
that in view of the labor unrest prevalent over the country, the
Brotherhood was being formed to keep unions out of Hannibal, and
it was the general idea to "lock the barn door before the horse got
out." Mulvihill announced that he was for the Brotherhood "100
per cent."
The Brotherhood met July 8 at a school building where there was
an attempt to select permanent officers but for some reason the matter
was postponed until July 13, when the Brotherhood held a meeting
at the courthouse. At one or the other of these meetings the Brother-
hood constitution, drafted by Branham Rendlen, was adopted, and at
about this time the Brotherhood caused it to be printed in full in a
local newspaper. The constitution provides, in part, as follows :
SEC. 7. The administrative power of this brotherhood is vested
in an Executive Board, composed of seven (7) members. The
Executive Board shall consist of the President, Vice President,
Secretary, Treasurer of the Brotherhood, and three (3) addi-
tional members .. .
SEC. 9. The Executive Board shall solicit and obtain the serv-
ices of five (5) citizens of the highest integrity, honesty, and
character, (residing in Hannibal, Missouri), no one of whom
shall have any interest in or connection with employers of shoe
and rubber workers in any manner whatsoever, to serve as an
advisory committee to the brotherhood, the members of the ad-
visory committee shall each serve for a term of five (5) years.
The original five (5) members of such committee shall be selected
one for one year, one for two years, one for three years, one for
four years, and one for five years, and each year a member thereof
shall be selected for a five-year term to take the place of the
member whose term expires. Date and manner of selection of
such member other than the first committee shall be fixed by by-
laws. Vacancies occurring upon such advisory committee shall
be filled by the Executive Board, such appointee to serve until
the term of the member thereof whose vacancy is thus filled,
would have expired.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No action shall be taken by the Executive Board affecting this
brotherhood until such proposed action shall be approved by a
majority of the full Executive Board and the full Advisory
Committee acting jointly, provided that in the event the Execu-
tive Board has agreed with the employer on any matter the
Advisory Committee shall not be required to advise thereon ...7
The executive board of the Brotherhood later considered several
persons for appointment to the advisory committee. Among them
were several mentioned by Nerlich on June 18, including Mainland,
Robinson, Bigger, Hodgdon, and Father Fox. The only one actually
asked to serve was Mainland. The committee never was organized
and never functioned. Witnesses for the Brotherhood testified that
the notion of an advisory committee, although quite popular in the
beginning, later fell out of favor and the constitutional provision for
the same was never executed. The abandonment of the provision for
an advisory committee seems to have occurred about September 1937,
when it became known in Hannibal that the. Board's agents had
begun to investigate the respondent's dealings with the Brotherhood.
That the advisory committee did not function is not determinative of
the significance of the provision. The important fact is that, after
the incorporation of Nerlich's advice regarding business advisers into
the organic framework of the Brotherhood, the persons whom the
Brotherhod considered for membership on the advisory committee
included five of the seven whom Nerlich suggested.
On July 16, 1937, the Brotherhood applied to the respondent for
recognition as representative of its own members. This the respond-
ent granted by letter dated July 21.
On September 16, 1937, the Brotherhood was granted a corporate
charter by decree of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The
idea of incorporating originated in a suggestion made by Ray Camp-
bell, president of one of the Brotherhood locals, by Bigger, probate
judge-one of the advisers suggested by Nerlich on June 18.
On September 20, 1937, the respondent entered into a contract with
the Brotherhood. The agreement, although in terms applicable only
to such of the respondent's employees as were members of the Broth-
erhood, contained certain provisions, such as a seniority rule, the
application of which was extended in practice to all the respondent's
production employees.
By its contract of September 20, 1937, and amendments thereto, the
Brotherhood secured some concessions from the respondent. In the
spring of 1938, however, the respondent promulgated a notice of a
wage reduction after giving the Brotherhood only 1 or 2 days' warn-
7 Italic supplied.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 751
ing. Ten days thereafter, the Brotherhood ratified the respondent's
action.
3. The B. & S. W. campaign-competition between rival organiza-
tions-activities of foremen
The B. & S. W. commenced its latest organization campaign among
the respondent's employees about August 1, 1937, when McGonigal
returned to Hannibal. The incumbent city administration, like its
predecessors, was vigilant for signs of union activity, and soon after
McGonigal's arrival, Mayor Mulvihill approached him and demanded
his credentials. The city officials' chief animus was apparently di-
rected against the Committee for Industrial Organization, for the
mayor consented to let McGonigal remain in the city after he had
satisfied the authorities that he was not acting in the interest of that
organization.
Those of the respondent's employees who joined the B. & S. W.
were organized into the Affiliated Locals as described in Section II
above. On October 4, 1937, Local 709 applied to the respondent for
recognition as bargaining agent, and the respondent recognized that
local as representative of its members on October 6. Local 709 did
not claim exclusive bargaining rights. Local 248 on October 23 asked
and on October 26 received recognition in the same manner as had
Local 709. On November 29 the Affiliated Locals presented a pro-
posed contract to the respondent, but the respondent, by its industrial
relations manager, refused to consider any agreement at the time.
Later the respondent reversed its policy in this matter and after some
negotiation executed a contract on February 19, 1938, with the Affil-
iated Locals. The contract covered such of the respondent's em-
ployees as were members of the B. & S. W. and was in general similar
to the Brotherhood contract.
A large quantity of evidence was adduced at the hearing upon the
extent and character of membership solicitation in the factories by
the Brotherhood in order to establish the inference that the respond-
ent, by permitting such activity to proceed, impliedly gave its ap-
proval to it and thereby favored the Brotherhood. But the B. & S. W.
also, according to many witnesses for the respondent and the Brother-
hood, and to admissions from witnesses called by the Board, engaged
in some such activity in the plant. So far as any quantitative com-
parison is legitimate, it seems reasonable to conclude that the volume
of Brotherhood activity was greater; however, that may be explained
by the fact that the Brotherhood was first in the field and at all times
probably had more members-and consequently more promoters-in
the factories.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Evidence was also adduced upon the activities of the respondent's
foremen in the membership campaign of the two organizations. Much
of the evidence brought forward to establish that foremen had advo-
cated membership in the Brotherhood and threatened reprisals
against the B. & S. W. is equivocal and much of it is contradicted to
the extent that the commission of unfair labor practices is not estab-
lished. But one supervisor, D. J. Matteson, admitted such activity
and similar evidence as to another, Assistant Superintendent Palmer,
admits of no doubt.
Matteson, general foreman of the stock-preparation department in
the Rubber Plant, and in charge of about 75 employees, told Clyde
Strickland in July or August 1937, in response to a question whether
employees were required to join the Brotherhood, that employees
had the right to join either organization but that he thought any
employer would prefer to deal with his own employees rather than
with "outsiders." The foregoing is Matteson's account of the incident.
He also testified that sometime later he informed Superintendent
Britton what he had said, and that Britton replied that it would
have been better had he kept still. But it does not appear that the
respondent ever disavowed Matteson's statement.
The testimony of 9 witnesses involves Clifford G. Palmer, assistant
superintendent of the Bluff City plant, in making statements deroga-
tory to the B. & S. W. Some of the remarks he is said to have made
are equivocal and some were apparently made in the course of joking
familiarly with employees. Palmer denied some of the remarks at-
tributed to him and as to others he admitted the general nature of the
conversation but put the words in the mouth of the employee with
whom he had conversed. We cannot prefer Palmer's account in every
instance. L. Pabst testified that while the Bluff City plant was shut
down in the fall of 1937 Palmer came to the Seventh Street plant,
where Pabst worked, and after asking a group including the latter
where their B. & S. W. union buttons were, said "You see what it
got us. We are not turning a wheel"-apparently referring to the
Bluff City plant which was then shut down.
W. B. Atterbury testified that in August 1937 Palmer, after dis-
cussing with him conditions at a Moberly, Missouri, shoe factory, said,
"Don't you know that the International Shoe Company will never
have a union here, and furthermore if they can't make shoes here they
will make them somewhere else." Palmer admitted discussing the
B. & S. W. with several workers in a joking manner and admitted
speaking of shut-downs in shoe factories elsewhere. He denied the
specific statements attributed to him by Pabst and Atterbury but
agreed with them as to the fact of the conversations and as to some
of the subjects therein mentioned. Palmer's admitted readiness to
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 753
discuss the B. & S. W. with the employees, together with the unlikeli-
hood that he stood as mute as he claimed while the employees did most
of the talking, render it probable that he made the remarks, and we
find in accordance with Pabst and Atterbury's versions.
The activities of Matteson and Palmer tended to confirm the gen-
eral impression that the respondent was hostile to nationally affiliated
trade unions, and thereby contributed support to the Brotherhood,
which was organized for the purpose of combating affiliated unions.
There is evidence that foremen were instructed not to interfere
with union activity and that Matteson and Palmer were later
reprimanded by higher authority, but such instructions were ineffec-
tive to restrain these men. Their positions were such as to give them
the apparent authority to represent the respondent in dealing with
the rank and file of workers."
4. Conclusions with respect to the Brotherhood
We have given an account of the sequence of events which form the
subject of the complaint, commenting only where the events required
explanation. It now remains for us to decide whether a fair interpre-
tation of the whole leads to the conclusion that the respondent domi-
nated or interfered with the formation or administration of the
Brotherhood or contributed support thereto within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
The first important fact to be considered is the attitude toward na-
tional labor organizations prevailing in important Hannibal groups
on and after July 5, 1935. Much of the evidence relates to occur-
rences prior to that date. The respondent strenuously objected to the
reception of such evidence. Here, as in our previous cases, we con-
sider such evidence not for the purpose of giving retroactive effect to
the Act, but to determine the existence of attitudes and modes of
behavior which give clearer understanding of events taking place
after the effective date of the Act." The respondent did not reor-
ganize its factories on July 5, 1935, nor was Hannibal resettled on
that date. The state of public opinion is a fact like any other fact.
Caution is required in affirming the existence of so elusive a fact, to
be sure. But the fact must be stated as accurately as the nature of
the subject matter permits; to overlook it would be to omit an im-
portant ground of interpretation of the events which we have re-
8 Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A. F. of L. Federal Union No. 31164, 9
N. L R B. 117.
O Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., Greyhound Management Company,
Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Elec-
trio Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1 N. L. R . B. 1, enforcement
ordered in National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U. S.
261.
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counted. The content of community opinion has been referred to.
There was present the fear that the respondent would cease or curtail
operations at its Hannibal factories in order to forestall organization
of employees. This we learn from the testimony of Mainland, for-
merly mayor of Hannibal, who was certainly well qualified to testify.
In the Hannibal political campaign of 1935 local politicians em-
phatically played upon this fear, thus tending to confirm the existing
belief that the respondent would penalize the community if its em-
ployees joined national trade unions.
The hostility existing in Hannibal in certain quarters toward "out-
side" unions probably resulted from a complex of several factors.
The most important of these we believe to be the fear that the re-
spondent would curtail its operations to check union activity. The
violent means used by Hannibal city officials, tradesmen and shoe
workers to deport the "invaders" suggests the intensity of this
hostility.
We must inquire what significance attaches to this community fear
of a cessation of the respondent's operations. That the respondent
had knowledge and notice of the existence of such a fear we conclude
from several circumstances. Jenkins, formerly superintendent of the
Seventh Street plant, to whom Mayor Robinson had applied for per-
mission to allow shoe workers to meet in a city park in 1933, was
vice president of the respondent in charge of industrial relations in
1937. Counsel for the respondent stated at the oral argument before
the Board that the mob activity of 1933 and 1935 was public knowl-
edge in Hannibal. L. B. Brown, assistant director of industrial rela-
tions for the respondent, testified that for many years prior to the
hearing he had regularly received a newspaper clipping service relat-
ing to all matters wherein the respondent was mentioned in publica-
tions of the communities where the respondent operated factories.
This being so, it is plain that the contents of the newspaper adver-
tisements referred to above could not have failed to come to the atten-
tion of the respondent's St. Louis officials. And of course the re-
spondent's Hannibal officials could not have been ignorant of the
Mainland campaign and the barrage of newspaper publicity. Nerlich
was a lifelong resident of Hannibal. Mayor Mainland's visit to Ner-
lich to get instructions at the beginning of his term of office must have
apprised Nerlich of the community attitude if he knew it no earlier.
In reference to the community Nerlich said at the conference of
June 18: ". . . I am sure you men realize that a thing of this kind
is of very vital interest to the community . . ." And again, "I feel,
men, that we can settle all our problems coming up bearing in mind
the welfare of our employees, realizing they are closely related with
the welfare of our company and the community in general." In his
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 755
press statement of June 24 Nerlich said, ". . . It is gratifying to us to
recall our experience of more than 30 years in Hannibal ; and any
plan designed to serve the best interest of our employees and the
best interest of the city of Hannibal is entitled to thoughtful con-
sideration by all." He could hardly have made such statements with-
out having clearly in mind, and knowing that his audience would
likewise have in mind, the fact that in the past, powerful forces in
the community had translated their recognition of the respondent's
local importance into efforts to eradicate all attempts to organize
shoe workers. With this knowledge, Nerlich's remarks emphasized
the importance of organizational activity in relation to community
welfare and did not in any way attempt to dispel the prevailing
community opinion that organization by outside groups might result
in the curtailment or withdrawal of the respondent's pay rolls.
It is worth noticing also that the "welfare of the community" and
the "best interest of Hannibal" were phrases adopted by the authors
of the Mainland campaign advertisements, in which these interests
were conceived to be such as required the suppression of union ac-
tivity. Herrin, the nominal sponsor of the advertisements, was pres-
ent at the conference of June 18 and took part in the discussion. The
welfare of Hannibal had a special meaning to the anti-union forces
of that community-a meaning which excluded certain values which
the Congress has seen fit to protect, namely, workers' rights to
organize and bargain collectively.
It is plain that the respondent by its -agents had notice and actual
knowledge of the community state of mind to which we have re-
ferred. That being so, we are required to consider whether and to
what extent the respondent's knowledge affected its duty under the
law. The respondent was not absolutely bound to correct any mis-
taken impression concerning its motives which might have existed.
But it was bound to act, when it did act, with due regard to the sus-
ceptibilities of the community,1° realizing that fearing the result of
the respondent's hostility toward unions, generally reputed to exist,
and indicated by the previous actions of Jenkins, Britton, and Moore,
many of its employees and others would be alert to discover its wishes,
however casually expressed, and would carry them out.
When the 16 Brotherhood founders conferred with Nerlich on
June 18, 1938, it was incumbent on the respondent to act with cir-
cumspection in view of the considerations just mentioned. The testi-
mony of those in this group together with all the evidence concerning
the past behavior of these men points to the conclusion that the
group applied to Nerlich for advice regarding their tentative plan of
10 See Matter of Elkland Leather Company, Inc. and National Leather Workers' Associa-
tion, Local No 37, 8 N. L R B 519.
169134-39-vol. 12-49
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forming an "inside" union. Several of the 16 did testify that they
went to announce to Nerlich a decision already made, but the tenor
of the conversation as reported negatives such an interpretation of
their visit. Their spokesman, Broaddus, in his opening remarks said,
"However, it has now come to a `show down' and they have come in
to ask how you feel about their organizing an independent union at
this time." King testified that Broaddus had on his own initiative
abandoned their common plan of announcing a fixed intention, and
had made the suggestion in a tentative manner contrary to their
wishes. But Hull said to Nerlich "We want to do what you think
best," and none of the others objected to Broaddus or Hull's state-
ments while at the conference. After the meeting the Brotherhood
organizers proceeded with a despatch which, in view of the delibera-
tion characterizing their former actions in the matter, can only be
accounted for by their construction of Nerlich's remarks as being
favorable to their suggestion.
The past activities and allegiance of the several of the 16, known to
Nerlich, made it plain to him how likely they were to take the re-
spondent's part in any controversy and to carry out the community
mandate toward conciliating the respondent. As appears from the
report of the conference, Broaddus had consulted Nerlich twice before
in regard to forming an "inside" union, and receiving no encourage-
ment had abandoned the plan. Other members of the 16, namely,
Spencer, Hines, and King, had accompanied Broaddus on his call
upon Nerlich in 1933, and Mack, Herrin, King, McIntyre, and Treaster
were present at the similar conference in 1935. Herrin signed one
of the Mainland campaign advertisements which approved the
vigilante attacks on B. & S. W. organizers and stated that the con-
tinuation of the respondent's operations in Hannibal depended on the
maintenance of a firm policy toward "trouble-makers." King's par-
ticipation in the assault on Carlin in the spring of 1935 was referred
to in another of the advertisements. Several of the 16, it is true,
had belonged to the Protective in 1933, but by 1935 had evidently
turned against nationally affiliated unions. The 16 were employees
of 8 to 25 years experience in the respondent's plants. The antipathy
these men bore toward national labor organizations undoubtedly in-
spired them as well as their fear of a lock-out. They had the privi-
lege of expressing such opposition through the formation of an organi-
zation for mutual aid and protection or in any other manner, free
from the respondent's domination, interference, or support. But the
propensities of the 16, ready as they were to take the respondent's
part against "outside" labor organizations, were such that the re-
spondent, being advised of the same, knew that the 16 would adopt
a course of action in any way suggested by the respondent, and that
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 757
the respondent's approval given to a tentative plan of action put for-
ward by the 16 would bring into actuality that which hitherto had
only potential existence.
Nerlich's remarks were guarded. His statements were made con-
ditionally. ". . . If you feel that it has come to a `show-down,'
as Mr. Broaddus says, and that it is to your best interest, I think
certainly it would be an all right thing to do." ". . . If you plan
an independent organization I am sure you will work out your own
problems and still keep in mind what is best." But his statements
are to be read in connection with the prior expression of the delega-
tion, who had stated tentatively their desire to form an "independent"
organization subject to the respondent's approval. By thus adopting
their premise ("if you feel, etc." and "If you plan, etc.") and giving
his approval conditioned on the group's wish (already expressed in
tentative form), Nerlich effectively gave the plan the respondent's
sanction.
The respondent and the Brotherhood urge that Nerlich's remarks
evinced a strict abstention from .interference on his part, and that
his expressions of apparent approbation were merely the friendly re-
marks to be expected from an executive dealing with employees of
long service, several of whom were known to him. If this were a
correct interpretation of most of the colloquy (and our analysis in-
dicates that it is not), it nevertheless fails as a justification for
Nerlich's advice to the Brotherhood organizers to "see men that you
know [Hodgdon, Sparks, Bigger, Father Fox, the Rev. Mr. Schwehn,
Robinson, and Mainland] and have confidence in and sit down and
talk to them about it." This advice, which Nerlich reiterated, was
a suggestion as to means of obtaining the support and assistance of
powerful community groups." Thus while telling the organizers
that the respondent could not help them, Nerlich told them where they
could go for help. It is true that 4 of the 16 organizers had already
consulted Robinson and Mainland, but Nerlich and Mainland denied
having any previous understanding and there is no showing that
Nerlich knew of the prior conference between the ex-mayors and the
original 4 organizers. The previous conference between the ex-
mayors and the inner-group organizers had left the latter still un-
decided, as appears from the opening remarks of Broaddus to Nerlich
on June 18. The prior participation of the ex-mayors in the plan
was, then, insufficient, up to June 18, to give the inner group of organ-
izers the impetus actually to form an organization. Thus to refer
U See Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and
Tin Worker8 of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N. L. R. B. 654, ordered enforced in
National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation , 102 Fed. ( 2nd) 383 (C. C. A. 7,
March 7, 1939 ), where the employer furnished the name of an attorney to employees
who were considering the formation of an "inside" union.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the original four organizers back to the ex-mayors was not simply to
echo a decision already formed or to mirror a fixed design. 'It was
to send them back with the assurance of the respondent's approval of
a plan hitherto only conditionally arrived at and tentatively ex-
pressed. And as to the 12 who had not consulted the ex-mayors and
who had just been gathered to go to Nerlich's office, Nerlich's recom-
mendation of the advisers tended to operate with even greater force.
As we have seen, most of the 16 met with the ex-mayors on June 20
and organization proceeded apace. The group took Nerlich's sug-
gestion so seriously that they provided a constitutional basis for the
participation of Hannibal business men in Brotherhood affairs and
in partial execution of that provision discussed naming as permanent
advisers some of the persons originally suggested by Nerlich.
The views concerning labor organization and the past participation
in vigilante activity of some of those mentioned by Nerlich as ad-
visers must have been known to both Nerlich (or his superiors) and
the Brotherhood organizers. Nerlich admitted knowing that Robin-
son had some trouble with union organizers during his term of office
and had on at least one occasion induced them to leave the city.
Nerlich or his superiors were charged with notice, through Brown's
clipping service at least, of the Mainland election campaign. It is
likely that the respondent was aware of the anti-union activity of
Hodgdon in the local Chamber of Commerce of which the respondent
was a member. There is no showing as to Sparks or Judge Bigger
or to the clergymen, whose participation was apparently limited to
appearing at Brotherhood public meetings. Several of the Brother-
hood organizers, on the other hand, had collaborated previously with
Robinson and Mainland in ejecting union organizers from the city.
When, therefore, Nerlich endorsed these men he was endorsing the
practices which they were known to have engaged in and the opinions
they were known to have. The organizers did not need to have ex-
plained to them the suggested advisers' attitude; they knew even
as Nerlich spoke. The organizers asked Nerlich for advice. In effect
he told them that he could not advise them directly but that they
might get proper advice from a certain source; the kind of advice he
meant was obvious. Considering that the advisers might reasonably
have been presumed to hold the same opinions they formerly enter-
tained, it is as if Nerlich, being asked for advice, had declined to com-
mit himself directly but had referred instead to a book or pamphlet set-
ting forth anti-union views and had given it his endorsement. The
history of Robinson and Mainland was not such as to mark them as
specially qualified to aid in forming a genuine organization; rather
their experience with shoe workers' unions was limited to opposing
them. Such an organization as Robinson and Mainland would help
to form would probably be a sham designed to meet the exigencies of
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 759
new legislation which rendered the cruder devices of the past im-
politic-an organization which would be negative in character, a
mere buffer against organization of a more spontaneous sort. These
were the implications of Nerlich's recommendation.
The Brotherhood was at its inception considered by its organizers
and sympathizers as an organization designed merely to impede the
imminent progress of nationally affiliated organizations among the
respondent's employees. Several of the 16 promoters so stated at the
hearing. It is clear most of them originally had no conception of
the purpose or method of collective bargaining and that they were
not interested in it except in so far as they were compelled to simulate
typical union activity in order to forestall established labor organi-
zations. This appears from the proceedings of the first public meet-
ing of the Brotherhood, held on June 28, 1937.
In the constitutional provisions for community representation on
the Brotherhood advisory committee emerged Nerlich's suggestion,
made June 18, that the organizers of the yet unnamed Brotherhood
take local business leaders into their counsel. Thus, firmly embedded
in the constitution is the principle that in effect assures the dominant
business interests of Hannibal a voice and a vote in the government
of the Brotherhood on any question upon which the respondent and
the Brotherhood should differ. Upon what side the business ad-
visers would probably find themselves in the event of such a difference
is apparent. The theory that labor's right to organize and bargain
collectively should be sacrificed in exchange for an assured continuity
of pay rolls would be likely to actuate the business advisers of the
Brotherhood in the future as it had in the past.
Nerlich said at the June 18 conference, "... Under the present
conditions I want to say that our company has tried diligently to
keep the plants going and to give all of you work, but we want to
run our business peacefully and for the best interest of all concerned."
Thus he adopted the thesis put forward by the Brotherhood organ-
izers, that the advent of national trade unions might result in dis-
order, and he implied that the respondent's continued operation of its
factories might be jeopardized thereby. The only violence which
had arisen in connection with shoe workers' unions in Hannibal had
proceeded from mobs in which several of the conferees of June 18 were
participants. Yet Nerlich said, "I want you men to know that we
have no fear of dealing with you fellows."
Finally, at the conference Nerlich made it plain that his attitude
was different then from what it was when Broaddus and others asked
his advice in 1933 and 1935. He said :
I put you off two years ago because at that time I thought it
would foster more trouble. Conditions have changed since then
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and we are having labor trouble all over the country. I believe
you realize the seriousness of the situation enough and if you plan
an independent organization I am sure you will work out your
own problems and still keep in mind what is best.
Here the organizers plainly were told to proceed. The respondent
urges that the reason for Nerlich's reversal of his former advice not
to form an independent union was that such advice, while lawful in
1933 and in 1935 prior to July 5, was unlawful in 1937 by virtue of
the Act. This explanation is disingenuous. The ground for the
change of policy in 1937 as plainly shown in Nerlich's own words was
the "labor trouble all over the country" and "the seriousness of the
situation" resulting therefrom. Thus in rescinding his former in-
structions he did not merely withdraw the respondent's influence; he
exerted it in respect to an existing condition which, his listeners
would readily infer from his remarks, demanded the sort of remedy
they had tentatively advanced.
We have discussed above some of the particular aspects of the
conference of June 18, 1937. In evaluating these expressions, some
of which might appear to be noncommittal rather than hortatory, we
have taken into consideration, as the participants must have, the
recent community history and the conferees' familiarity with it and
with each other. In our interpretation of this conference we have
recognized and accorded due weight to the relationship of employer
and employees subsisting among the conferees.12 We find that the
effect of Nerlich's discourse taken as a whole was to encourage the
employees present to form an "inside" union and consult the sug-
gested advisers to that end.
Nerlich's announcement to the press on June 24 gave the Brother-
hood something in the nature of official sanction. He said, comment-
ing on the Brotherhood,
For many years the finest kind of relations has existed between
us and our employees. We are anxious to preserve that relation-
ship and are confident that our employees share the same feeling
in the plan that they are trying to work out.
Here the respondent asserted that the Brotherhood, although officially
designed to carry on collective bargaining with the respondent, was
likely to introduce no real change in the relation between the respond-
ent and its employees. And the respondent expressed confidence in
the motives of the Brotherhood-this in a situation wherein it had
12Virginian By. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, et al., 84 Fed. (2nd) 641, aff'd 300
U S. 515 ; National Labor Relations Board v. The Falk Corporation , 102 Fed . (2nd) 383
( C. C. A. 7, March 7, 1939).
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 761
been generally supposed that the respondent was hostile toward
unions. Nerlich concluded :
... Any plan designed to serve the best interest of our em-
ployees and the best interest of the city of Hannibal is entitled
to thoughtful consideration by all.
Taken alone this statement is the expression of a generous sentiment,
nothing more. But the words were not uttered at random; the state-
ment was made with specific reference to the Brotherhood, which was
the only labor organization then existing among the respondent's
Hannibal employees and which was at that moment in the process
of formation. In its context the statement is a plain endorsement
of the Brotherhood and a certificate to the effect that it would not
suffer the displeasure which Hannibal residents feared the respondent
would visit on any nationally affiliated union.
Our analysis indicates that the respondent gave the vital impetus
toward the formation of the Brotherhood, which otherwise would
likely have remained only a subject of discussion as it had been prior
to June 18, 1937. The respondent also helped to secure public accept-
ance of the Brotherhood by Nerlich's announcement and by steering
the Brotherhood organizers to a group of business advisers who could
and did bring novel respectability to a labor organization among
Hannibal shoe workers. The character of the Brotherhood was at
its outset one of quasi-official status. By making effective an organi-
zation which had only the most tenuous form prior to the respondent's
interference, by securing it local acceptance, by fixing upon its growth
the influence of the business advisers, and by permitting Palmer and
Matteson to encourage membership in the Brotherhood and discour-
age membership in the B. & S. W., the respondent is chargeable with
the formation, the structure, and the growth of the Brotherhood.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Brotherhood and contrib-
uted support thereto.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges that the respondent by threatening em-
ployees, keeping them under surveillance, and otherwise, had inter-
fered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We have considered
above the activity of Palmer and Matteson. The proof concerning the
alleged espionage does not bear out the allegation with respect
thereto. There is evidence of some moneys paid out by the respond-
ent for under-cover work as late as 1936, but the exact nature of
this activity is not in evidence nor does it appear that any of it took
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
place in the Hannibal factories. The testimony of Robinson men-
tioned above does tend to implicate the respondent in espionage
carried on in 1936 in St. Louis but relating to the Hannibal factories.
Robinson's testimony on this point is not sufficiently specific to sup-
port a charge of espionage, although we have accepted his testimony
concerning the same transaction for another purpose. We shall dis-
miss the complaint so far as it relates to the alleged espionage.
The acts set forth in Section III A 2, 3, and 4 above which we have
found to constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act are likewise unfair practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. We find that by the acts set
forth in Section III A 2, 3, and 4 above the respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged discrimination
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent had dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of nine
employees. We find that the evidence does not sustain the allega-
tions of the complaint in this respect and we concur in the Trial
Examiner's recommendation that they be dismissed. Since no excep-
tion has been taken to the Intermediate Report in this respect, we will
not discuss the alleged discrimination in detail.13
We find that the respondent has not by discrimination in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment of Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guth-
rie, Earl Kroger, James McQueen, Thomas Carter, Ora Blackston,
Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, or Francis Burrell, encouraged or
discouraged membership in any labor organization.
1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III A 2, 3, and 4 and Section III B 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
We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Brotherhood and contrib-
12 Matter o f Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates, and Pilots of A+nerica,
No. 9, 8 N. L. R B. 730.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 763
uted support thereto. These practices are reflected in the structure
and character of the Brotherhood, so that it would not be an effective
remedy merely to order the respondent to cease and desist from such
practices.14 In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall
order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from the Brother-
hood and completely disestablish it as a representative of the re-
spondent's employees.
The respondent's contract with the Brotherhood of September 20,
1937, was, in view of our finding as to the respondent's relation to
the Brotherhood, unlawful and void. Since the contract expired on
September 30, 1938, and had no provision for automatic renewal or
negotiations looking toward a renewal, we do not find it necessary
to order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect thereto.
Since we have found that the respondent has interfered with, co-
erced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order the respondent
to cease and desist from such practices.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record of the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Locals 248 and 709, Boot and Shoe Workers Union, and Western
Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers,
Incorporated, and by contributing support thereto, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in the unfair practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (2) 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
respondent 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.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by encouraging or discourag-
ing membership in any labor organization by discrimination in re-
gard to the hire or tenure of employment of Herbert Beadle, Alvin
Guthrie, Earl Kroger, James McQueen, Thomas Carter, Ora Black-
ston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, or Francis Burrell, nor in unfair
14 Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, supra, footnote S.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act in
respect to the alleged espionage charged in the complaint.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, International Shoe Company, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating and interfering with the formation or adminis-
tration of Western Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incor-
porated, or of any other labor organization of its employees, and
from contributing support to Western Brotherhood of Shoe and
Rubber Workers, Incorporated, or to any other labor organization
of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Western Brotherhood of Shoe
and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, as a representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish Western
Brotherhood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, as such
representative;
(b) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its Hannibal, Missouri, plants, and maintain such notices
for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating: (1) that
the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and (2)
that the respondent withdraws all recognition from Western Brother-
hood of Shoe and Rubber Workers, Incorporated, as a representative
of its employees, and completely disestablishes it as such repre-
sentative;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing with ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY 765
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by
encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organization
by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of
Herbert Beadle, Alvin Guthrie, Earl Kroger, James McQueen,
Thomas Carter, Ora Blackston, Vivian Purdy, Hollie Johnson, or
Francis Burrell, and so far as it alleges the commission of unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, by keeping
the union activity of its employees under surveillance.