Irving Air Chute Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 201 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of IRVING AIR CHUTE CO., INC., and PARACHUTE WORKERS,
LOCAL OF UPHOLSTERERS ' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
A. F. OF L.
Case No. 0-2659.-Decided August 27, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 29, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondent and the Inde-
pendent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the respond-
ent submitted a brief in support of its exceptions. On July 22, 1943,
the respondent, with the consent of counsel for the Board, filed a
motion to correct the record herein in certain respects; the motion is
hereby granted, and the corrections are ordered made in the record.
The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the following exceptions and additions : .
1. The Trial Examiner has found that Supervisor Willis' antiunion
statement to employee Sebastian did not constitute an unfair labor
practice, on the ground that the latter's solicitation of Willis to join
the A. F. of L. "evoked the remark." We are not without doubt as to
this finding, but the A. F. of L. has not excepted to it, and we deem
it unnecessary to pass on the question since there is sufficient other
evidence in the record to support the Trial Examiner's ultimate find-
ing, which we adopt, that the respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondent discrimi-
natorily discharged Jane Bowsher because of the union activity of her
52 N. L R. B., No. 31.
201
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
husband, and we agree with the finding as far as it goes. However,
it is admitted by General Manager Rogers that Bowsher was dis-
charged also because he believed she had been placed in the plant to
obtain information which would aid the A. F. of L.'s organizing cam-
paign among the respondent's employees. There is no showing in
the record that Bowsher was expected to act as a spy or to obtain
confidential information. It therefore seems clear, and we find, that
Bowsher was discharged not only because of the union activity of her
husband, but also because of her own potential usefulness to the A. F.
of L.. Although Bowsher was not a member of the A. F. of 'L., it is
apparent, and we find, that her discriminatory discharge discouraged
union membership among the respondent's employees, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner has made no findings as to the respondent's
responsibility for the activities of Dock Adams and William Wither-
spoon on behalf of the Independent. There is evidence which tends
to indicate that at least Adams might be regarded as identified with
management,' but, inasmuch as the record shows that a number of su-
pervisory employees, for whose conduct the respondent is clearly
responsible, joined, supported, and participated in the formation of
the Independent, we find it unnecessary to determine whether or not
the activities of Adams and Witherspoon constitute further support
of the Independent by the respondent.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in `tke case, and,pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Irving Air Chute Co., Inc.,
Lexington, Kentucky, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall : .
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or' interfering with the administration of Inde-
pendent Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington, Ken-
tucky, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to
Independent Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington,
Kentucky, or to any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing Independent Lexington Parachute Worker's Un-
ion of Lexington, Kentucky, as the representative, of any of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment;
(c) Giving effect to the contract of April 3, 1943, with Independent
Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington, Kentucky, or to
any extension, renewal, or modification thereof, or to any superseding
agreement ;
IRVING AIR CHUTE Co., INC. 203
(d) Discouraging membership in Parachute Workers, Local of Up-
holsterers' International Union of North America, Affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, or 'm any other labor organization of
its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of any of its employees, or any term or condition of their
employment;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
.its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from, and completely disestablish,
Independent Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington,
Kentucky, as the representative of any of its employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment;
(b) Make whole Jane Bowsher for any loss of pay she has suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment
to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she would normally have
-earned as wages from January 15, 1943, the date of her discriminatory
discharge, to February 8, 1943, the date on which the discrimination
was discontinued, less her net earnings during that period ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its two plants at
Lexington, Kentucky, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (<
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c),
(d), and (e) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the af-
firmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become and remain
members of Parachute Workers, Local of Upholsterers' International
Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any em-
ployee because of membership in or activity on behalf of that organ-
ization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN fILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
204 DECZSWNS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. James A. Shaw, for the Board.
Mr. William H. Townsend and Mr. John L. Davis, of Lexington, Ky, for the
. respondent.
Mr. John Y. Brown, of Lexington, Ky, and Mr. William Lohrumn, of Cincinnati,
Ohio, for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Lawrence C. Jenkins, of Lexington, Ky., for the Independent,
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed by Parachute Workers, Local of Uphol-
sterers, International Union of North America, A. F. of L, herein at times called
the A. F. of L., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
its Regional Director for the Ninth Region 2 (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its com-
plaint dated April 6, 1943, against Irving Air Chute Co, Inc., 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of
hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the A F. of L. and Independent
Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington, Kentucky, herein called the
Independent, alleged in the complaint to be dominated by the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) since in or about December 1942, through its officers,
agents and employees has engaged in a course of conduct which has interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees in their rights to self-organization, to
form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection; (2) since
December 1942 through its officers, agents and employees has interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act by questioning employees as to their union affiliation and
l1I'nion matters; stating to its employees that they would be preferred with respect
to security of employment and other conditions thereof if they did not join or
assist the A. F. of L. and did not engage in other concerted activities relating to
self-organization; threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if
they became or remained members of the A F. of L ; urging, persuading and
warning its employees to refrain from-A. F. of L membership ; imposing penal-
ties upon A. F of L. members for minor and common mistakes for which other
employees were not penalized; vilifying, calumniating and maligning the A. F.
of L. and its leaders ; threatening removal of the plant if an appreciable number
of employees joined the A. F. of L.; offering its employees better working condi-
tions if they would refrain from A. F. of L. membership and join the Independ-
ent; employing agents to go through its plants during working hours and dis-
courage A. F. of L. membership; employing labor spies to inform it of A. F. of L.
activities and to discourage its employees from becoming A. F. of L. members;
employing agents to call on the spouses of its employees and warn them of dire
consequences if the employees should become unionized and to cause them to dis-
suade their spouse-employees from becoming A. F. of L. members; (3) in Febru-
1 The amended charge was filed in the Regional Office on April 6, 1943
z Reference in this report to the Regional Office and the Regional Director in all instances
have application to the Board's Ninth Region.
IRVING AIR CHUTE CO., INC. 205
ary 1943 initiated, formed, sponsored and promoted the Independent and since
that time has assisted, dominated, contributed to the support of and interfered
with the administration of the Independent; (4) on or about January 15, 1943,
discharged or laid off Jane Bowsher and refused to reinstate her until on or about
February 22, 1943, in order to discourage the A. F. of L. The respondent filed
an answer' in which it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Lexington, Kentucky, from April 20
to May 20, 1943, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the A. F. of L 4 and the
Independent were represented by counsel The' Independent at the beginning of
the hearing moved for leave to intervene. The motion was granted with respect
to these allegations of the complaint which arise out of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
All parties participated in the hearing and were granted full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues.
At the commencement of the hearing the respondent renewed a motion, denied
without prejudice by the Regional Director prior to the hearing, to dismiss the
complaint as failing "to comply with Section IV of Article II of the Rules and
Regulations of the Board." It also reneni'ed a motion, denied without prejudice
by the Regional Director prior to the hearing, to make the complaint more
definite, specific and certain with respect tr names and certain other matters.
The undersigned denied the motion to dismiss and granted in part the motion
to make more definite, specific and certain by requiring that counsel for the Board
furnish the respondent with the names of its officers, agents and employees
referred to in certain parts of the complaint 6 At the close of the hearing a
motion was made that the pleadings be amended to conform to the proof with
respect to such matters as dates and names' The motion was granted The
parties were given opportunity to file briefs with the undersigned Only the
respondent has availed itself of this privilege.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS or FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Irving Air Chute Co . Inc., a New York corporation, has its office and principal
place of business in Buffalo, New York. This proceeding is concerned with
its Lexington, Kentucky, operations where it has two manufacturing plants
and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of parachutes One
of its Lexington plants. herein at times called the old plant, has been in operation
since in or about Nobeniber 1941. The other Lexington plant, herein at times
called the new plant, has been in operation since in or about February 1943 The
respondent has about 560 employees at the old plant and about 760 at the new
plant. The principal raw materials used at these plants are nylon and canvas.
3 The answer here referred to was an amended answer filed on or about April 20, 1943
h Counsel for the A F of L entered an appearance after the first week of the hearing.
Prior to that time an A P of L representative appeared for it
'The undersigned indicated at the time of the ruling on this motion that in event the
respondent should feel unfairly suipiised by the Board's evidence, the undersigned would
consider allowing the respondent time during which to make piepaiation of its case Some
recesses were allowed luting the hearing for this purpose
Counsel for the Board, the respondent, the A F of L, and the Independent joined
in this motion.
206 DECIS2ONS OF NATfO`AL LABOR RE'L ATIOl S BOARD
All of the raw materials used in its Lexington operations are shipped to Lexington
from outside the State of Kentucky and all of the finished products from these
plants are delivered outside the State. These products are sold to the United
.States Government and the total value of such products sold in 1942 was $50,000
The respondent agrees that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Parachute Workers, Local of Upholsterers' International Union of North
America , is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees at the respondent ' s Lexington plants
Independent Lexington Parachute Worker ' s Union of Lexington , Kentucky, is
an unaffiliated labor organization , admitting to membership employees at the
respondent 's Lexington plants.
V
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
I
A The drive by the A. F. of L. to organize the respondent's Lexington employees;
interference, restraint, and coercion
During August 1942 while the respondent's'operations in Lexington were still
confined to the old plant the A F of L. began a drive to organize the employees
in that plant. At that time William Lohrum, organizer for the A F of L,
called on Harold G. Rogers, the assistant treasures' of the respondent corpora-
tion and its general manager in Lexington, Lohrum telling Rogers on this occa-
sion that he intended to organize the employees and that he didn't want Rogers
to interfere.
In the testimony regarding events which followed during the A F of L
organizational drive repeated mention is made of a group of employees who are
commonly known to both the respondent and the employees as supervisors.
Because of the repeated mention in the evidence of this class of employees, it is
necessary to consider their position in the respondent's organization of its
Lexington plants The production employees in each of these plants are as-
signed to about ten departments. The plants operate on a two-shift basis.
About 10 supervisors, one for each department, direct the work of each shift.
There are thus, about 40 supervisors in the 2 plants. The supervisors on each
shift are responsible to a floor supervisor or head supervisor? Each of the
four floor supervisors is responsible to the manager's assistant and the latter
in turn is responsible to the manager. The undersigned credits the testimony
of Louise Clarke, the manager's assistant, that the number of employees directed
by supervisors varies about 8 to 35, according to the size of the department.
It is not customary for supervisors to engage in production work. Some of
them do such work occasionally, however, by operating the machines of absent
employees in their respective departments. Each supervisor keeps a daily
record book showing the work done by the employees in the department and
their record of attendance, and this record ii^ kept available for inspection by
the general manager at all times These records are used in considering what
employees should be promoted. The supervisors have authority to excuse em-
ployees from work, and it is their duty to caution employees who ai e repeatedly
absent or tardy. In case of an error on the time card of an employee, it is
at times necessary for the supervisor to "okeh" the employee's card in order
' Rogers at one point in his testimony referred to these employees as the supervisors and
to the heads of departments as the assistant supervisors. All other witnesses, however,
referred to the department heads as supervisors, and this Report uses such terminology.
TRVI\ G AIR CHUTE CO., iI[N C. 207
to correct the matter on the company records Supervisors have the power to
recommend the discharge of employees in their respective departments, the
recommendation being made to the floor supervisor who in turn presents it
to the personnel director. Most of the supervisors are paid by an hourly rather
than a weekly rate, but it is the practice to pay them a higher rate than that
paid the other employees in their respective departments.'
In the A. F. of L. organizational drive which continued after the conference
between Lohrum and Rogers, as detailed above, one of those employees most
active on its behalf was John Sebastian, a shroud line ° maker and tester. Sebas-
tian, secretary of the A. F. of L. local union, was active both in distributing A. F.
of L. literature and in soliciting memberships. In November one day after work
on a parking lot near the plant, Sebastian, who was unaware that supervisors
were not supposed to join labor organizations. solicited Ober D Willis, a super-
visor of the hand sewers, for A. F. of L membership.10 Sebastian testified that
Willis stated on this occasion, "You're gonna get in a jam over this, Johnny, and
you'll get fired if you keep fooling with it." Willis stated a different version of
this conversation, testifying that he told Sebastian the two of them might get
into trouble if the subject was discussed on company time Although Willis testi-
fied that Sebastian solicited his membership both on this and several other occa-
sions, he did not specify any occasion when Sebastian did so on company time
Sebastian denied that he engaged in solicitation on company time. The under-
signed credits the testimony of Sebastian about this conversation as stated above.
Albert Smith, supervisor of the night shift in the harness department,11 in De-
cember 1942, spoke to several employees in the department on the subject of the
A F. of L. James B Cobb, an employee at that time, testified that Smith called
him during working hours from a sewing table in the department to a desk and
inquired whether Cobb knew "anything about this Union"; that Smith told him
that anyone who had anything to do with it was likely to lose his job;, also that
Smith said Waite had stated he would move the plant before he would "see this
union take effect." Lewis Hughes, another employee in the department, who re-
turned to employment at the old plant in January 1943, after several months
leave of absence, testified that soon after his return to work in January, Smith
spoke to him and several other employees in the department, telling them that
those who joined the A. F..of L. would lose their jobs. Smith admitted having
engaged Cobb and some other employees in conversation about the A. F. of L.,
but gave a different version of the matter. He testified that one night in Decem-
ber 1942 he talked to Cobb and the others after he had heard rumors that the
8 The scheme of organization prior to the opening of the "new plant in February was
substantially the same as that here described for the two plants. Before the new plant
opened, however, the old plant operated on a three-shift basis. Moreover, until April the
old plant had a plant superintendent , M. L Smith . He was above the floor supervisors in
authority He is now serving in the armed forces of the United States
° The shroud lines are a sort of suspension cord which connect the canopy or chute proper
and the harness
10 A number of supervisors joined or lent assistance to the Independent as detailed below.
This is in contrast with the fact that there is no evidence of supervisors having joined or
lent assistance to the A. F. of L., except in one instance . Louise Clarke , assistant to the
general manager, testified that Joseph B. Hendricks, an employee who was promoted to the
position of supervisor early in 1943, was reprimanded after such promotion because he
remained active for the A F. of L Although Hendricks gives a decidedly different version
of the incident , the undersigned resolves the doubt in favor of the respondent and credits
Clarke's testimony as set forth above Employees in the instant case were quite naive about
unions and on a few occasions asked supervisors to join the A F. of L , apparently fiom
lack of understanding
11 Since the events herein detailed about Smith he has been transferred ,to the new plant
where he supervises the morning shift in the harness dcpai tment
208 DE'CIiSiIONS OF NATIONAL LAB-OR RE'LA'TIONS BOARD
A. F. of L was going to call a strike; that he was against strikes in war times;
that he went to some employees personally and advised them they would be out
of work in case of a strike . On cross -examination Smith stated an inability to
remember the source of the strike rumor. He also testified that he would neither
admit nor deny having stated that the plant might be moved if the A. F of L
organized the employees , as he was not sure ' whether he had so stated or not 12
Under all the circumstances the undersigned credits the testimony of Cobb and
Hughes regarding the remarks of Supervisor Smith as set forth above.
As stated above, the remarks of Supervisor Willis to Sebastian were made
at a time when the latter , under a misapprehension regarding the propriety of
supervisors joining the A. F. of L., solicited Willis for membership . Since the
solicitation of Willis for such membership evoked the remark , the undersigned
will not find it to be an unfair labor practice. His remark on this occasion,
however„as a display of his opposition to the A F. of L. organizational drive, has
been considered by the undersigned in determining that certain other acts and
statements of supervisors as detailed herein were also designed to hinder
A. F of L. activities and constituted unfair labor practices.
The undersigned finds that by the remarks of Supervisor Albert Smith as de-
tailed above , the respondent has interfered with , restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discrimination against Bowsher ,
The complaint alleges that in order to discourage the A F. of L , the respondent
on or about January 15 , 1943, n terminated the employment of Jane Bowsher
and refused to reinstate her until on or about March 12, 1943. The respondent
alleges in its answer that it did not discharge Bowsher , but that she was a new
employee and that it laid her off because of a slack period in the department.
Bowsher began work for the respondent on or about January 9, 1943 She
was assigned to work operating a sewing machine at which she sewed into
parachute harness a sort of reinforcement known as a U.
On the evening of January 14, after Bowsher had begun work 5 days before,
a woman who refused to state her name telephoned Rogers This woman told
Rogers that a picket line was about to be placed around the respondent's plant
and that Bowsher, whose husband was president of a union of employees at
the telephone company in Lexington, had been placed in the plant "to see if
she could get information for the Union "
About 9 p. in., after Rogers had received this telephone call, he in turn tele-
phoned Ethel Clements, the respondent's personnel director, at her home in
Lexington. After inquiry from Rogers, Clements told him that she remembered
having employed Bowsher a few days before, and Rogers asked Clements
to ascertain whether Bowsher's husband was president of the union men-
tioned above. Clements then talked by telephone to Bowsher's brother-in-law,
Edward Gaines, and ascertained from Gaines that Bowsher's husband was a
member of the union of telephone company employees. Although Clements
i
-12 Plant Superintendent M L. Smith heard Supervisor Albert Smith tell one of the
employees with whom the latter admitted he discussed unions in December that employees
who joined a union might find themselves out of work Superintendent Smith cautioned
Supervisor Smith after this incident not to discuss union natters with employees The
next day Superintendent Smith reported to Rogeis that he had so cautioned Supervisor
Smith . Rogers then also cautioned Supervisor Smith not to discuss the subject of unions
with the employees It is obvious fiom the findings , made above that Smith continued
his remarks in opposition to the A F of L. after these wainings . See Conclusions regarding
the Independent, infra
13 All dates refer to the year 1943 unless indicated otherwise.
IRVING AIR CHUTE CO., INC. 209
apparently did not succeed in verifying whether he was president of that union,
a short time after her conversation with Gaines she met Rogers in a drug store
in Lexington and reported to I1i1n what she had ascertained about the affilia-
tion of Bowsher's husband with it. This labor organization was known as the
National Federation of Telephone Workers . Bowsher's husband in fact was not
only a member , but also president of this labor organization . Moreover , Rogers,
during the . evening, ascertained from some - source the - fact that he was presi-
dent of this labor organization 14 Rogers then instructed Clements during the
conversation in the drug store to lay off Bowsher. Clements did so the next
morning, telling Bowsher that the plant could not use her for a while because
of a shortage of the material needed in her work. Clements also stated that
she would communicate with Bowsher when the respondent could again use
her services. _
After Bowsher left the plant that day she learned in a telephone conversation
with her sister , Gaines' wife , about the conversation of Gaines and Clements
the evening before. Bowsher then telephoned Clements and stated that although
her husband was president of the union of telephone company employees she
herself was not a member of a union . She told Clements that she could not
understand why she was "let out of work." Clements told Bowsher that she
would take up the latter's case with Rogers.
During the month of February the respondent moved a portion of its personnel
and machinery from the old plant to its new plant in Lexington . About that
time Bowsher telephoned Rogers. She asked him for reemployment and re-
quested an appointment . Rogers did not give Bowsher an appointment, but he
told her that because of the difficulties incident to moving, the respondent was
not adding any employees at the time . Bowsher also telephoned Clements about
reemployment on several further occasions , but without success until on or about
March 12, when Clements reemployed Bowsher, assigning her work at the old
plant in a different department from that in which she had been employed in
January.
As stated above, when Clements terminated Bowsher's employment on January
15 the former indicated that she was laying off Bowsher because of shortage of
materials Moreover , Rogers testified at the hearing that shortage of materials
was a cause of Bowsher's employment termination. It is significant, however,
that in Rogers' conversation with Clements on the evening of January 14 he did
not mention shortage of material , but only the question of the union relation-
ships of Bowsher's husband. After learning that he was president of the Na-
tional Federation of Telephone Workers, Rogers, without waiting to make further
investigation in the matter, told Clements to discharge Jane Bowsher. Although
Clements mentioned shortage of materials when she discharged Bowsher, her
own testimony shows that she was not instructed by Rogers to mention the
subject. That there was some work done on her machine soon after her em-
ployment termination, regardless of the material shortage, is shown by the
testimony of Jamie Miller, who was called as a witness by the respondent. This
employee, who worked in Bowsher's department, testified and the undersigned
finds that "there was a girl brought up from downstairs and put on the machine"
about 2 weeks after Bowsher's employment termination." Moreover, Lillian
14 Rogers ' testimony shows that he learned such fact that evening Although he attributed
the information to Clements , there is doubt that he obtained it from her The testimony
of both Clements and Gaines indicate that Clements did not verify through Gaines whether
Bowsher's husband was president of the union at the te1eP '' 1one company
11 See Mexsa Textile Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , 11 N L R B 1167,
enf'd , Maria Textile Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 110 F (2d) 565 (C C. A. 5) ;
Memphis Fuintiture Manufacturing Company and Furniture Workers Local Union No 117)
210 D'ECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RIELAMIONNS BOARD
Tucker, supervisor of the department in which Bowsher worked in January, tes-
tified without contradiction, and the undersigned finds, that the shortage of
material on Bowsher's operation had existed before Bowsher began work.
Furthermore, Rogers testified that as a result of the telephone call and the in-
formation he had secured about Bowsher's husband he would have directed her
lay-off irrespective of any material shortage. Under the circumstances, although
it is obvious that some material shortage existed on Bowsher's operation, the
undersigned is convinced and finds that the union affiliation and activity of
Bowsher's husband and not the shortage of material was the cause of her
employment termination. A more effective method of discouraging union
activity could hardly be devised than to discriminate against those in the family
of one who engaged in such activity 10
The undersigned finds that in terminating the employment of Jane Bowsher
on January 15,-1943, the respondent discriminated in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organi-
zation and interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It is necessary to determine, however, whether the discrimination against
Bowsher continued until the time she was reemployed on or about March 12.
As stated above; Rogers indicated to Bowsber over the telephone that the
difficulties incident to moving part of the equipment and personnel to the
new plant prevented her reemployment at the time she inquired of him con-
cerning the matter. The machine operated by Bowsher during her 5 days of
employment in January was one of those moved to the new plant. During
this period of adjustment in February there were a number of lay-offs of em-
ployees at the old plant. Ethel Johnson, for instance, who, like Ilowsher,
sewed a kind of reinforcement in the parachutes, in January operated the
machine adjacent to that used by Bowsher. Johnson, soon after January 15,
was transferred to some work in another part of the plant and was thereafter
laid off from on or about February 8 until about middle of March. Her testi-
mony shows that a material shortage existed at the time It is reasonable
to conclude that in the event Bowsher's employment had not been terminated
by the discrimination against her on January 15 she would have been laid off
for the reasons indicated above at about the time Johnson was laid off. The
undersigned finds that the discrimination against Bowsher did not continue
after February 8, 1943.
C. The activities of Sutter; fm titer interference, restraint and coercion
A prominent citizen in Lexington is C. W. Sulier, who since January 22,
has been president of the Lexington Board of Commerce. Sulier represents
several insurance companies , and in January, February and March he entered
the plants and talked to certain employees about purchasing policies of group
insurance under a plan sponsored by one of the companies which he represents.
Witnesses called by the Board gave testimony designed to show that one of
the purposes of Sulier in visiting the plants and in calling at the houses
of certain employees, as discussed below, ostensibly as an insurance salesman,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , 3 N. L. R . B. 26, enf'd, Memphis
Furniture Manufacturing Company v. N. L R. B, 96 F. (2d) 1018 (C. C. A 6), cert denied
305 U. S. 627. The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company and The International Woodworkers of
America, Local Union No. 15, 30 N. L. R. B. 1093, enf'd, as mod. N. L. R. B. v Cleveland Clefs
Iron Co, 133 F. (2d) 295 (C. C. A. 6)
16 Jamie Miller , as stated above, was called by the respondent and this testimony was
given in response to questions asked by the respondent ' s counsel.
MR.VING ALE CHUTE 00., INC. 211
was to assist the respondent in combatting the A. F. of L.; that he and the
respondent had an understanding that he was to render such assistance and
that Sulier was allowed to visit the'-,slants and talk to the employees during
working hours pursuant to this un6!standing. As Sulier sold about $360,000
worth of insurance to the respondent's employees during the canvas he made
of them early in 1943, it is clear that one purpose in soliciting them was to
sell insurance. The testimony as detailed below, however, makes it necessary
to determine whether another purpose in his campaign of solicitation was to
oppose the A. F. of L. and, if so, whether such opposition was with the
knowledge and approval of the respondent.
Sulier paid a visit to employees in the old plant on January 12. He there-
after made about five further visits to that plant, the last such visit being
on March 15. On February 15 and March 15 he similarly visited employees
in the new plant. On these occasions he circulated freely among the em-
ployees, talking to both production and supervisory employees.
As the respondent's Lexington plants are engaged entirely in production
for the war effort, it is not customary for the ordinary layman or citizen
to enter the plants. Armed guards are maintained at the plant entrances,
visitors are supposed to "sign in" and to enter the plant pursuant to per-
mission. The proper procedure for strangers who wish to enter the plant is
for them to explain the purpose of the proposed visit to Alton W. Graeff,
Armed Air Forces Inspector in Charge, and obtain his permission. This pro-
cedure is not always strictly followed, however.
Before Sulier entered the old plant on January 12 he obtained such per-
mission from Graef.17 Graeff noticed Sulier in the plant talking to employees
on some of his further visits, however, when Sulier had failed to obtain his
permission. Graeff testified that on one such occasion Ethel Clements, per-
sonnel director, referring to Sulier, stated that he was in the plant to see
if he couldn't help them with "this union mess. Moreover, Eleanor B. Omer,
a stenographer employed by the "Army Air Force" and under the supervision
of Graeff, testified in corroboration of Graeff that she was present in the old
plant in January or February on an occasion when Clements made such a
statement to Graeff." Clements denied that she had any such conversation with
Graeff.
Furthermore, Ethel Johnson, an employee mentioned above, testified that Sulier
talked to her at her place of work in the old plant at the time of his visit there on
January 12. Johnson testified that when she first saw Sulier on this occasion
he was talking to Supervisor Levy of the silk department; that later she saw
him talking to Supervisor Tucker and Personnel Director Clements ; that Tucker
brought Sulier to Johnson's place of work where Tucker introduced him ; that
Tucker then walked away and Sulier talked to Johnson. Johnson testified that
Sulier, after asking Johnson if she would be interested in the purchase of such
an insurance policy, told her that he had sold some insurance at the Hub Tool
Company ; 30 that its plant came nearly being moved from the town when an
attempt was made to organize the employees; and that the plant 20 could be
11 Graeff testified that Sulier never obtained his permission to enter the plant. The
undersigned is convinced on the basis of Sulier's testimony and the "visitor register,"
however, that Suller obtained, such permission on the occasion described above, but did not
again obtain permission at the times of his later visits.
19 Graeff placed the date of Clements' remark at a much later date than Omer, but the
undersigned is convinced that their testimony referred to the same occasion.
19 This firm operates a plant in Lexington.
201t is not clear from this portion of the testimony whether reference was made to the
respondent's plant or that of the Hub Tool Company.
549875-44-vol. 52--15
212 I}ECISTONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
moved within 72 hours if the employees should be organized . Sulier testified
that his visits to the respondent 's plants were only for the purpose of selling in-
surance and that on none of these occasions did he advise with employees about
union matters . He admitted having had the conversation with Johnson in the
plant under the circumstances described in her testimony as set forth above, but
denied having discussed with Johnson at the time of his talk with her in the plant
anything except the subject of insurance . He testified that his only reference to
the Hub Tool Company was as a plant where he had sold insurance.
Graeff and Omer are not on the respondent 's payroll . Moreover , there is no
evidence that they are adherents of either of the 'labor organizations involved
in these proceedings. It is likely they would be less interested in the events of
this case than employees of the respondent, who are eligible to membership in
these labor organizations.
The respondent contends in its brief that substantially all the evidence adduced
by the Board with respect to the unfair labor practices consisted of perjured
testimony. The respondent is especially vehement in its attack on the credibility
of Graeff, whose testimony with respect to Clements' remark regarding Su-
lier's presence in the plant to help the respondent "with this union mess" has
been credited above. This contention about Graeff is based on the testimony
of Clements that Graeff held a decided animus toward Rogers and for that reason
gave testimony, designed to injure, the, respondent. The undersigned has con-
sidered this contention. Although Graeff expressed 'dissatisfaction with the
way some outsiders were allowed to enter the plant without first obtaining clear-
ance through his office, he displayed no animosity toward Rogers in his testi-
mony. He testified under subpena and impressed the undersigned as testifying
somewhat reluctantly , but truthfully u Moreover , the witness Eleanor B. Omer,
who corroborated Graeff with respect to Clements ' remark , impressed the under-
signed as a truthful and forthright witness. The undersigned finds no merit
in the contention that the testimony of these witnesses was discredited."
Under the circumstances the undersigned credits their testimony as set forth
above. Since Johnson's testimony regarding Sulier's visit with her in the plant
is consistent with the testimony of Graeff and Omer, the undersigned also
credits her testimony 'regarding that event.
On or about January 11 the respondent discharged John Sebastian, men-
tioned above. About 4 days after Sebastian 's discharge , Sulier called at
the home of this employee. A few days later he called also at the home
of Ethel Johnson, mentioned' above. It is necessary to consider the details
of these two visits. Sebastian was absent when Sulier called at his home,
but Sulier talked on this occasion to Edna Sebastian, John Sebastian's wife
and a former employee of the respondent. He inquired of her regarding where
Sebastian was and learned that the latter was at a hotel in Lexington with
Lohrum, the A. F. of L. representative. Sulier during the call went to his
21 The respondent contends that Graeff 's testimony that Sulier on one occasion was in
the plant without being properly "signed in" is discredited by the "visitor register" sheets
which show Sulier 's signature at each of the times he visited the plants . Graeff 's testimony
showed that he considered a visitor improperly registered if the visitor had not "cleared"
through his office. Although register sheets indicate that Sulier spoke to Graeff on the
first occasion when lie was in the plant, they fail to indicate that he did so on subsequent
occcasions The "visitor register " sheets are therefore corroboration of Graeff's testimony
that Sulier was not properly registered as they indicate his failure to see Graeff on all but
his first visit.
22 The undersigned has also considered the respondent 's attack on other witnesses referred
to in this Report and finds no reason for discrediting their testimony. A number of the
findings that there were unfair labor practices are based on the testimony of supervisors,
' ho were called as witnesses by the respondent.
IRVING AIR CHUTE CO., INC . 213
automobile and returned to the house with his insurance rate book, discussing
with Edna Sebastian the possibility of selling insurance to the respondent's
employees. According to Edna Sebastian's testimony, she asked Sulier if he
was the insurance man who had been at the plant "talking against the Union" "
and he replied in the affirmative. She also testified that Sulier stated he
was interested in keeping the respondent's plant in Lexington, but that it was
to be moved ; that she told Sulier about her husband, John Sebastian, having
been discharged, and stated that she believed the discharge was for union activ-
ity ; that Sulier stated, "Well, why didn't he get hold of Mr. Smith 24 and talk
to him about the union, and whether he should join" ; that Sulier told her the
respondent could not raise wages, that he asked her the names of the A. F. of L.
Committee ; that she gave him the names of Jewell Lowther and Ethel Johnson,
and he made note of them.
Sulier's call at Johnson's home was on January 20, 8 days after his discussion
with her in the plant, as detailed above. Johnson testified that on this occasion
Sulier said substantially the same things he had said to her at the plant; that
he also stated that he had received several complaints about working conditions
in the plant and that he would see Waite, the respondent's president, about having
such conditions improved ; that Johnson told him she would like for the re-
spondent's employees to have job security but that she was not seeking any
better job; that Sulier said, "Whenever there is a better job down there for you
I am going to see that you get one.",
Sulier testified that he called at these homes, but that these calls; like his
conversations in the plants, were only for the purpose of selling insurance.
He denied having stated to Edna Sebastian at the Sebastian home that he had
been in the plant "talking against the union" or having discussed that the plant
was to be moved. He testified that at the Sebastian home he learned from
Edna Sebastian that John Sebastian had been discharged and that Edna Sebas-
tianclaimed the discharge was because of union activity; that he suggested
that the A. F. of L. effect Sebastian's reinstatement ; that Edna Sebastian then
gave him the names of Ethel Johnson and Jane Bowsher as union organizers ;
that he then made note of the matter, as he intended to see Ethel Johnson con-
cerning it. He denied having inquired of Edna Sebastian why her husband
had not talked to Smith regarding whether he should join the A. F. of L. Sulier
testified that at the Johnson home she volunteered the statement that the
A. F. of L. was going to obtain Sebastian's reinstatement and that for such
reason Stiller did not mention to Ethel Johnson his discussion with Edna Sebas-
tian. Sulier also testified that Johnson's mention of reinstatement for Sebastian
was the only way in which job security was discussed on the occasion of the
call at her home.
In explanation of why he called at these two homes Sulier also stated that he
called on Mrs. Johnson because she asked him to do so at the time of his discus-
sion with her in the plant. He stated that Sebastian's name had been left him
with a list of other prospects by an insurance salesman in his office who had
joined the armed forces of the United States. In considering Sulier's explanation
regarding why he called at these homes, the undersigned is impressed by the fact
that both of these employees were prominent in the A. F of L. John Sebastian
was secretary of the A. F. of L. local and more than any other employee is men-
tioned in the evidence as having been active in Its organizational drive. Ethel
23 The A. F of L was the only union which was then organizing the respondent's
employees
u Apparently this testimony refers to M. L. Smith, who was at that time Plant
Superintendent.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Johnson was an adviser of the A. F. of L. local.2S Surlier knew before he called
at her house that she held an official position with the A. F. of L., because Edna
Sebastian had so informed him. The undersigned interrogated Sulier as to
whether during January and February he made calls at the homes of any other
employees of the respondent. Sulier replied negatively. During this time more
than 500 employees were working at the old plant. After the new plant came
into production in February about 400 additional employees were added to the
respondent's payroll. If Sulier's sole interest was the sale of insurance it is
unlikely that he would have confined his calls to these two homes. The under-
signed finds inadequate his explanation of why in January and February he
singled out the homes of Sebastian and Johnson and called only at them. Under
the circumstances the undersigned credits the testimony of Edna Sebastian and
Ethel Johnson, as set forth above, about the calls of Sulier at their homes.
As found above, Clements' remarks as to why Sulier was in the plant signified
that such activity was with her knowledge and approval. Since she has been
the personnel director for the respondent in' Lexington from the time it began
•operations there and in such capacity has had charge of hiring and discharging
employees, the undersigned finds that her knowledge and approval of'these activi-
ties, as detailed above, should be imputed to the rspondent. Moreover, since the
calls of Sulier at the Sebastian and Johnson homes were during the same time as
his activities in the plants, and his conversations on these occasions were designed
to the same end, it is reasonable that they also were with the respondent's knowl-
edge and approval. The undersigned so finds.
The undersigned finds that the remarks of Sulier to Edna Sebastian and Ethel
Johnson, as detailed above, were parts of activity conducted by Sulier to assist
the 'respondent discourage A. F. of L. support by its employees and his activity
was with the knowledge and approval of the respondent. The undersigned finds
that by his remarks to Edna Sebastian 28 and Ethel Johnson the respondent has
interferred with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. Interference with, domination and support of the Independent
1. The organization of the Independent; its contract with the respondent
Early in February one Martin, International 'Organizer for the A. F. of L,`
Lohrum, Vernon R. Chambliss and another A. F. of L. representative called at
the new plant and held a conference with Rogers and George Waite,28 president
of the respondent corporation. Martin, acting as spokesman for the A. F. of L.,
requested that the respondent execute a collective bargaining contract with that
labor organization. Chambliss testified that Martin made a claim on this oc-
casion that the A. F. of L represented a majority of the respondent's employees.
Waite and Rogers both denied that Martin made such a claim. However, there
is agreement in this testimony that methods of determining the majority ques-
tion were discussed. It is unlikely that methods of determining the question
would be discussed unless the A. F. of L. representatives made such a claim. The
undersigned is convinced that Waite and Rogers were mistaken as to this part of
the discussion, and finds that the A. F. of L. claimed a majority.
26 Johnson referred to the advisers as something like a board of directors. '
29 Although Edna Sebastian was not herself at the time an employee of the respondent,
since her husband was an employee the undersigned has found that the remarks made to
her constituted an unfair labor practice. See footnote 15, supra.
' Martin is an organizer for the Upholsterer's International Union of North America,
which is the charging labor organization in the proceeding.
28 Waite is located in Buffalo, New York, where the respondent has its principal place of
`business and operates another plant. He is in Lexington only occasionally.
1RVING AIR CHUTE CO., .INC. 215
Although there is disagreement in the testimony regarding some of the things
that were said about determining the majority question, it is clear that Waite
suggested a check of the A. F. of L. membership list against the payroll by a
representative of the respondent. Martin refused to agree to this suggestion
and proposed that it be done by a representative of the Board. Waite, however,
stated that he did not regard the matter as something which should be presented
to the Board. Before conclusion of the conference he stated that he would con-
sult counsel in Buffalo about the matter. Waite returned to Buffalo and after
a few days Martin telephoned him. Waite told Martin that he had not yet had
opportunity to consult with counsel. Thereafter on or about February 15, Martin
sent a telegram to Waite, stating to Waite that the A. F. of L. had fled "addi-
tional charges." Apparently Martin referred to the filing of a petition for in-
vestigation and certification of representatives because such a petition was filed
about that time and on February 17 the Regional Director wrote a letter to
Waite which notified the latter of this fact. Waite's testimony, moreover, indi-
cates that he understood Martin's telegram referred to the petition for investi-
gation and certification of representatives.
On February 20 Waite wrote in answer to the Regional Director that the re-
spondent would not recognize any labor organization as the sole bargaining
agent of its Lexington employees until such organization had "established its
right to be recognized in the manner provided by the National Labor Relations
Act and the rules adopted by the National Labor Relations Board." Also on
February 20 the Regional Director wrote the respondent at Lexington and Field
Examiner David C. Finlay wrote Waite at Buffalo, New York. The Regional
Director in his letter mentioned the fact that a charge that the respondent had
violated Section 8 (3) of the Act had been filed by Bowsher, mentioned, above,
Field Examiner Finlay mentioned in his letter to Waite the Bowsher charge,
which the two previously discussed by telephone, and expressed the expectation
of seeing Waite in Cincinnati later the next week. Field Examiner Finlay also
mentioned the matter of the petition which had been filed and expressed hope
to receive a copy of the payroll by the following Tuesday in order to have an
early hearing in event a consent election could not be arranged S° Rogers, pur-
suant to instructions from Waite, mailed the Regional Office a copy of the re-
spondent's Lexington payroll for February 12 with a letter in which he stated
that it was for the personal and confidential use of the Board.
Meanwhile, an employee by the name of Anna H. Wilder, who had begun
work for the respondent in December 1942, early in February 1943 spoke to a
few of the other employees about the possibility of having an unaffiliated labor
organization. For some months prior to September 1942 Wilder had worked
at a plant of a firm in Lexington known as Karpen Furniture Company. While
she worked there she had helped organize an unaf&iliated union, and in some
of her talks with employees of the respondent she mentioned with approval her
experience with that unaffiliated union.
Two employees to whom Wilder spoke about the possibilities of forming an
unaffiliated union were Dock Adams, a mechanic, and his wife Nora Adams,
who worked in the "repair, reinforcement and taping department." About
ze There was disagreement in the testimony as to whether Waite suggested and Martin
refused during the conference having a neutral person check the membership cards against
the payroll ; also as to whether Martin suggested and Waite refused having the A. F. of L.
and the respondent each select a representative and those two a third to make such a check.
As the determination of these controverted matters is not vital to the issues in the case the
undersigned has not resolved these conflicts in evidence.
01 On February 22 Waite wrote Field Examiner Finlay a letter in which he expressed
an intention to stop in Cincinnati the latter part of the week.
216 IYEJCTSSONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOMID '
February 10 Wilder and Dock Adams 31 conferred with Lawrence C. Jenkins, an
attorney in Lexington , who had acted as counsel in effecting the organization of
the unaffiliated union at Karpen Furniture Company. Jenkins informed these
two employees that an unaffiliated union could be organized if a majority of the
employees wished to become members. Jenkins then had typed by his stenog-
rapher for signature by the employees some copies of a petition which contained
the following recital:
WE THE FOLLOWING UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE WILL JOIN THE
INDEPENDENT LEXINGTON PARACHUTE WORKER 'S UNION. THAT THE MEMBERSHIP
FEE WILL BE $1.00 AND THAT DUES IS TO BE 25 CENTS PER MONTH UNTIL FURTHER
ACTION BY THE MEMBERS HEREIN: THIS UNION IS TO,BE A CORPORATION AND ITS
CONTROL WILL BE BY ITS MEMBERS ONLY AND OUTSIDE CONTROL WILL NOT BE AC-
CEPTED IN ANY WAY.
Wilder, Adams, and a few other employees circulated copies of this petition
among the employees for signature. After about 500 signatures had been obtained
those who had circulated the papers turned them over to Adams and he reported
to Jenkins that more than 50 percent of the employees had signed them. Jenkins
then prepared for execution some articles of incorporation, and on or about
February 22 in front of the plants in excess of six hundred signatures of em-
ployees were appended to these articles of incorporation as incorporators of the
Independent Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington, Kentucky.
In connection with both the copies of the petition and the articles of in-
corporation, mentioned above, it is significant that certain employees who signed
these documents had the rank of supervisors. Mildred Smith and Mae Harris `2
both signed these two documents on or about February 22. Smith has been
employed at the old plant from the time it began operations and has always
been a supervisor except for the first 2 weeks of her employment. She directs
the work of about 28 employees on one shift, who operate double needle machines.
Harris became a supervisor at the old plant in June 1942. She directs the work
of about 18 to 20 employees who operate the four needle machines on one of
the shifts. Smith and Harris on the same occasion signed the petition at a
lunch period in the plant upon solicitation of William A. Witherspoon, who
later was elected president of the Independent as discussed below. Later during
the same day these employees on separate occasions signed the articles of incor-
poration in front of the old plant. Smith testified without contradiction and the
undersigned finds that most of the employees on the morning shift were present
when she signed the document. Similarly the undersigned credits the uncon-
tradicted testimony of Harris that a group of 25 to 30 employees or more were
present when she signed it ; also that several supervisors whose names she did
not recall were in the group.
Eugene Crase, supervisor of about 20 employees who are in the harness
department on the morning shift in the old plant , also signed both a copy of the
petition and the articles of incorporation of the Independent Crase signed the
petition when it was presented to him by Wilder on the street. He professed an
inability to remember the signing of the articles of incorporation, but conceded
in his testimony that a signature on the document appeared to be his. The
record is silent as to the circumstances under which he signed it.
Supervisor Lillian Tucker, mentioned above, who directs the work of about
25 employees on the morning shift at the old plant, also signed the articles of
31 Mention of Adams hereinafter, refers to Dock Adams unless otherwise stated
81 This employee is also known as Mattie May Harris Mary Harris , mentioned below,
is also known as Mary Edith Harris.
IRVING AIR CIiUTE 00., INC. 217
incorporation of the Independent in front of the old plant. A portion of the
uncontradicted testimony of Tucker on cross-examination about signing the
document was as follows :
Q (by Mr. Shaw). And when you went down the steps were some of
girls who work with you or under you, were they with you?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they line up and sign like you did?
A. That is right.
When asked how she happened to stop in front of the building and sign the
articles of incorporation, Tucker testified, "Well, my goodness, there was a crowd,
you couldn't help but know something was going on." The undersigned credits
Tucker's testimony as set forth above. Another supervisor who signed the
articles of incorporation was Gladys Wright, who directs the work in the khaki
department on the morning shift in the old plant. This is the largest department
at the respondent's Lexington plant, Wright having about 35 employees under
her supervision. Moreover, Supervisor Mary Harris signed a copy of the petition
and on February 28 attended a meeting with about 300 other employees at which
officers were elected for the Independent. Harris is "supervisor over hems". on
the morning shift at the new plant. Prior to that time she held a similar position
on the night shift at the old plant. As a supervisor she had had from 5 to 14
employees under her direction. Three other supervisors, Ann Hostetter, Mary
S. Peel, and Leva G. Barnette, paid the initiation fee and dues and were issued
membership cards in the Independent in or about March 1943. Peel's name also
appears on the articles of incorporation as one of the incorporators.
Witnesses called by the Board testified, moreover, that at about the time the
Independent was being organized certain supervisors made statements and
engaged in conduct which assisted the Independent and signified employer
support of that labor organization. Violet Smith, an employee under the direction
of Supervisor Mildred Smith, mentioned above, testified that about mid-January,
soon after the bell which indicated the time to begin work had rung, she had a
conversation with Supervisor Smith at a basket where the employees in the
department at the commencement of the shift obtained the materials on which
they worked. ' Violet Smith testified that on this occasion she told Supervisor
Smith that she understood the A. F. of L. was about to organize the respondent's
employees ; that when questioned by Supervisor Smith as to whether she was a
member she answered negatively and said that she saw no reason for joining
because, working conditions were splendid; and that Supervisor Smith then said,
"That damned A. F. of L. is trying to organize. If it gets in here we will all
catch hell." This witness testified that later in January or early February at
about the same place in the plant she mentioned to Supervisor Smith that "the
union" was soliciting employees as they entered the plant ; that upon inquiry she
again told Supervisor Smith that she had signed nothing and saw no reason to
do so ; that Supervisor Smith then said, "It will keep that God damned A. F. of L.
out of here." The same witness testified that 2 or 3 days later at the close of
.work after she had gone downstairs at the plant she told Virginia Jordan, an
employee, in answer to a question by the latter that there was no use to pay
money to the Independent or to join it. as the employees would get nothing out
of it"; that Supervisor Smith who was present said "if that damn A. F. of L. gets
in here we will all catch hell." Violet Smith testified that Virginia Jordan
mentioned above, who was an employee and sister of Supervisor Smith, was
33 It is not clear from the evidence how many employees these three supervisors have
in their respective departments.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
present at all three of these conversations ; also that Mary Courtney an employee
and cousin of Supervisor Smith by marriage, and Pearl Burnette, an employee,
were present at two of them " Supervisor Smith denied that the conversations
detailed in the testimony of Violet Smith as set fourth above took place.
Courtney, Jordan and Burnette denied hearing any such conversations.
Supervisor Smith's activity in signing the petition and articles of incorporation
on behalf of the Independent has been set forth above. Her own testimony shows
her complete support of the Independent, in that she placed her signature on the
articles of incorporation without solicitation. Furthermore, she testified that she
paid the initiation fee and dues to the Independent. Such affirmative action by
her in support of the Independent makes it likely that she also made remarks
such as those testified to by Violet Smith. The undersigned, moreover, in evalu-
ating the testimony of Courtney, Jordan and Burnette has considered the fact
that two of them are related to Supervisor Smith and that all three are members
of the Independent. Moreover, it is possible they were in the vicinity of the
conversations as detailed by Violet Smith, but did not hear Supervisor Smith's
remarks even though made as testified to by Violet Smith. Violet Smith im-,
pressed the undersigned as a truthful witness. The undersigned finds that the
conversation between her and Supervisor Mildred Smith at the approximate
times ' mentioned in her testimony took place as detailed by her.
Lottie Ray, a former employee in the silk department at the old plant, testi-
fied that in February Mae Harris, mentioned above, supervisor of some em-
ployees who operated machines near where Ray worked, asked Ray, upon a
return to work after an absence, whether she had signed "the charter." Accord-
ing to Ray she then asked Harris to explain "what charter" and Harris replied,
"Oh, we are having a company union." Ray further testified that Harris told
her in reply to a question "that Witherspoon and a couple of ladies from down
in the office were getting it up and she said they were forming the company union
to the keep the A. F. of L. out." Harris denied that this conversation as testi-
fied to by Ray took place. Maury Ross, mentioned by Ray as having been present
during the conversation, was not called as a witness. Harris' activity in
signing both the petitions on behalf of the Independent and its articles of in-
corporation has been discussed above. Under the circumstances the under-
signed credits the testimony of Ray as stated above regarding the conversation
between himself and Mae Harris.
Ethel Robinson, an employee in the silk department, testified that in February
when she was working on the night shift at the old plant she had a conversation
with,Supervisor Mary Harris, mentioned above, and Hazel Bruce, whom Robinson
characterized as also a supervisor. Although Bruce had in the past exercised
supervisory authority over about 10 employees in the harness department, she in
fact had been discontinued from supervisory duties on February 1. Thereafter,
Bruce with other employees was laid off on February 18 and her lay-off con-
tinued until March 1 when she resumed work at the new plant. On Febru-
ary 19 during this lay-off Wilder solicited and obtained her membership in the
Independent. Bruce at once became active In solicitation for it and on the
night of February 19 entered the old plant with one of the petitions mentioned
above, at about 10:15 p. in. when a 15 minute intermission between shifts begins.
8' Violet Smith 's testimony was that Courtney and- Jordan were present at the first,
Jordan and Burnette at the second, and all of them at the third conversation
I" Violet Smith was confused regarding whether conversations referring to the organiza-
tional activity of the Independent took place in January or February. The failure to
recollect that the activities of the Independent began in February was common with various
witnesses during the hearing.
TRUING AIR CHUFM 00., INC. 219
She showed the petition to some of the employees in the repair department and
then went to a department in another part of the plant to discuss it with some
of the employees there. Robinson was seated at a machine between these de-
partments and as Bruce passed her the conversation took place. Robinson
testified that she was at her machine and had already begun work. She further
testified as follows about the conversation which she says both Bruce and Super-
visor Mary Harris had with her on this occasion :
Miss Bruce brought a paper up there and asked me if I had signed it
and I said, "No, what is it?" Mary Harris said, "It is a good thing, Ethel.
You better sign it." So Miss Bruce said, "well, I've got to go over there and
see this other woman. I am not supposed to be doing this now." So I
said, "Well, bring the paper back when you see her and I'll sign it." . . . .
Well just about that time Miss Clarke came back and started talking with
Mary and I went on with my work and then Mary said, "Ethel, Miss Clarke
said that you would be safe."
Clarke, as stated above, is the assistant to the general manager. Bruce agreed
in her testimony that she talked to Robinson about joining the Independent on this
occasion. She testified, contrary to Robinson, that she did not have the petition
with her at the time, but had temporarily left it with the employees to whom
she spoke when she had been in the repair department. She testified that
Harris was present when she spoke to the girls in that department, but that
she did not hear her say anything. She did not deny that Harris was also
present when she spoke to Robinson. Harris, who with others signed the pe-
tition which Bruce brought into the plant on this occasion, testified that she
spoke to Clarke when Bruce brought this petition into the plant. Harris testi-
fied that Clarke said she knew nothing about, the paper and for the employees
to do as they pleased about signing it. She denied telling the employees that
Clarke had said it was safe to sign. She did not deny the other remarks at-
tributed to her by Robinson, however. Although Bruce was not a supervisor at
the time of these events, it is necessary to resolve the conflict in the evidence
set forth above regarding the conduct of herself and Supervisor Mary Harris
inasmuch as Bruce's conduct on the occasion affords the setting for the remarks
made by Harris. Furthermore, the fact that Supervisor Harris signed the peti-
tion circulated by Bruce on this occasion and was present as the latter talked
to Robinson and some of the other employees signified management approval
of Bruce's activity. It is therefore important to resolve the issue as to what
was said. Bruce not only was active in the campaign for the Independent, but
also showed a definite animus toward the A. F. of L. during her lay-off by sug-
gesting to some of the employees on an occasion when Sebastian was passing
out handbills for that labor organization to throw them in his face.' As stated
above, Harris signed the petition circulated by Bruce. She stated that she
did so because "if the A. F. of L. got in, maybe the plant would close" and
she didn't know when the employees would go back to work. Harris also paid the
initiation fee in the Independent and dues for the month of March. Moreover,
she attended the organizational meeting of the Independent which took place
on February 28 and took part in the election of officers. Under all the cir-
cumstances the undersigned credits the testimony of Robinson as set forth above
regarding what was said to her by Bruce and Harris on February 19.
mAlthough Bruce denied that she knew the nature of the literature being passed out
by Sebastian , she failed in her testimony to assign any other reason for making the suggestion
than the fact that it was union literature . Under the circumstances the undersigned finds
that Bruce knew the nature of the literature when she made the suggestion.
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On February 27, the A. F. of L. filed with the Regional Office a charge that
the respondent had violated and was violating Section 8 (2) of the Act. On
the same day the Regional Director wrote the respondent in Lexington, men-
tioned the fact that this charge had been filed, that Field Examiner Finlay would
soon communicate with it about the matter, and that meanwhile a statement of
the respondent's version of the facts would be appreciated. On the next day
a group of about 300 of the respondent's employees, who apparently had signed
the Independent's articles of incorporation, held a meeting in a hall across the
street from the old plant and elected officers of the Independent. Jenkins,
attorney for the Independent, presided at this meeting. He had on both Febru-
ary 20 and 27 prior to the meeting written letters to the -respondent on behalf
of the Independent, which he read at the meeting. The first of these letters
stated that "outside influence" was being pressed upon the employees and "in
order to preserve the same conditions, treatment, and cooperation" -they were
forming an "independent union." The letter further stated that the Independent
represented a majority of the employees, and that its object was to continue
"friendly cooperation ... without having outside interference." It requested
that the respondent communicate with it before contracting with any other labor
organization. The letter of February 27 also stated that the respondent
represented a majority of the employees, and that the Independent would soon
present the respondent with a contract as to wages, hours-and working condi-
tions of the respondent's Lexington employees.
On March- 1, Waite and two attorneys representing the respondent met in
the Board's Regional Office, and held a discussion with the Regional Director,
Field Examiner Finlay, and an attorney for the Board regarding Bowsher's
,charge of discrimination and the A. F. of L.'s charge that the Independent was
company dominated.37 Both of the charges were discussed at the conference
and Waite stated that he would investigate them and report his findings to
the Regional Director. Waite thereafter went to Lexington and talked with
some of the supervisory employees regarding whether they had been con-
ducting themselves in a manner derogatory to the A. F. of L. They all denied
any such conduct except Albert Smith whose activity has been discussed
above. Waite instructed Smith to refrain from involving himself in union
matters. Waite also ascertained from Rogers that Bowsher would be re-
instated soon, although he did not inquire why Rogers had discharged
Bowsher?
On March 23, Attorney Jenkins and William A. Witherspoon, the latter hav-
ing been elected president of the Independent at its meeting on February 28,
wrote the respondent a letter in which they stated that the Independent had
grown from about 600 to about 800 members since its formation, and that
at a directors meeting there had been a vote that the Independent obtain a
contract with the respondent regarding wages and working conditions at its
Lexington plants. The letter stated a willingness by the Independent to fur-
nish the respondent with a list of its members and requested the respondent
or its representatives to communicate with the Independent about the proposed
contract. On March 26 Rogers answered this letter from Jenkins and Wither-
spoon, stating that the respondent was willing to deal with any labor organi-
zation which represented a majority of its employees and that it would be
glad to examine any evidence of majority which the Independent might produce.
w Although the charge filed ,by the A. F. of L did not refer to the Independent by name
it, obviously had reference to that labor organization.
31 Waite instructed one of the , respondent 's attorneys who attended the conference in the
Regional Office to communicate these developments to the Regional Director. Presumably
he did so.
IRVING AIR CHUTE CO., INC. 221
On the next day Jenkins, Witherspoon and some of the other officers of the
Independent 80 met with Rogers, Louise Clarke, assistant and secretary to
Rogers, and William H. Townsend and John L. Davis, ' attorneys for the re-
spondent, at the new plant. Rogers and one of the respondent's attorneys in-
quired whether the Independent could prove its majority. Jenkins stated that
it could do so and it was agreed by those present that the Independent's
membership list should be checked against the payroll of the previous week.
Rogers, Clarke, Witherspoon, and Wilder spent from late that afternoon until
About 11:30 p. m. making such a check. The respondent agreed on the basis of
this check that the Independent had the claimed majority.40 Representatives
of the Independent and the respondent thereafter held contract negotiation
meetings on March 30 and April 1, 2, and 3.
On March 30 Jenkins submitted a form of contract as a basis for discussion. 41
He and the other representatives of the Independent asked for a closed shop
and the check-off. The respondent refused to accede to these two demands.
On April 1 these requests were renewed, but were again refused. The re-
spondent's representative then also refused to agree to a request by the
Independent that its membership should be "frozen" as of the date the contract
was signed. The negotiators agreed on a compromise, however, to the effect
that employees who were members of the Independent 15 days after date of
the contract and who joined later should as a condition of employment remain
members during the life of the contract. At this conference also the re-
spondent's representatives refused a request to provide in the proposed con-
tract that the members of the Independent should be given preferred considera-
tion in the hire and reinstatement of employees, but agreed to a provision
whereby the respondent would furnish the" Independent from time to time with
the names of new employees. There was also discussion at this conference
on wage increases. Except for wage increases the negotiators reached sub-
stantial agreement before the end of this meeting on April 1 as to the provi-
sions of the contract. On April 2 at a• further conference there was con-
tinued discussion of wage increases and the negotiators that day agreed on
this final matter in the negotiations subject to approval of Waite, who was
at the respondent's principal place of business in Buffalo. Efforts were made,
but unsuccessfully, to telephone him that afternoon. On April 3 Rogers and
one of the, attorneys for the respondent succeeded in talking by long distance
telephone to Waite. Waite stated that he would not accede to the demand
made by the Independent with respect to one item" of wages concerning which
there had been disagreement, but stated that he was willing to comprouiiee
the matter at a stated figure. The respondent's representatives informea the
Independent's representatives of Waite's position. The latter group thereupon
held a short meeting and decided to accept the compromise offer proposes by
Waite. The contract was signed a few minutes later. This contract is stilt in
effect. It has never been submitted to the members for a vote of approval, but
3 At all the bargaining conferences between the Independent and the respondent , discussed
below, William Witherspoon, Dorothy Broakshire, and Dock Adams as officers or directors
of the Independent, were in attendance on its behalf with Attorney Jenkins. Also Tommy
Tompkins , Jimmie Young, and Noia Adams, who were also officers and directors attended
one or more such meetings.
+0 Rogers testified that of about 980 employees 825 to 840 had affiliated with the
Independent.
° The contract submitted by Jenkins appears to have been a copy of one used between
an A. F. of L. union and another employer.
*= The Independent was asking a wag rate of 60 cents an hour for employees who worked
on main , seams. Waite refused this demand, but offered 57th cents, which was , accepted as
stated below.
222 DE 'CLSQONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at a meeting of about 200 to 300 members on April 11 Its provisions were read
by Attorney Jenkins and those present were afforded opportunity to make
objections.44
2. Conclusions regarding the Independent
It is obvious that the activities of certain supervisors, as detailed above, are
definitely identified with the events which initiated the Independent.
The actions of Supervisors Mildred Smith, Mae Harris and Eugene Cruse in
signing both copies of the petition and the articles of incorporation, the action of
Tucker and Wright in signing the articles of incorporation, of Mary Harris in
signing the petition and attending the organizational meeting on February 28,
and of Supervisors Ann Hostetter, Mary S. Peel, and Leva G. Barnette in joining
the' Independent were overt acts which signified employer approval of the move
to organize the Independent.
All evidence regarding the signing of the petition and the articles of incor-
poration shows that groups of employees were present on such occasions. As
found above, most of the employees on the morning shift were present when
Mildred Smith signed and a group described by Tucker as "a crowd" was present
when she signed the latter document. This presence of groups or crowds of
employees at such times made the conduct of the supervisors mentioned above in
affixing their signatures to these documents tantamount to an express announce-
ment of employer support of the Independent. The attendance of Supervisor
Mary Harris at the organizational meeting on February 28 was conduct of similar
effect. The remarks, moreover, of Supervisors Mildred Smith, Mae Harris, and
Mary Harris, when viewed in connection with the other conduct by them and
Supervisors Crase, Hostetter, Peel, Barnette, Tucker, and Wright, as detailed
above, left the employees with no escape from the conclusion that the respondent
favored the Independent. The remarks and conduct of Mary Harris when
Bruce circulated the petition in the plant on February 19, as detailed above, were
such as to signify management approval of Bruce's activity on that occasion.
Certain of the supervisors, as mentioned above, also paid an initiation fee and
dues to the Independent. Supervisors Mildred Smith, Mary Harris, Ann
Hostetter, Mary Peel, and Leva G. Barnette all made such payments. Of ap-
proximately forty supervisors in the two plants, nine thus in some way lent it
assistance. Furthermore, the effect of their conduct becomes still more signifi-
cant when considered in connection with the remarks of Supervisor Albert Smith,
the discrimination against Bowsher, the activities of Sulier, and the circum-
stances under which the respondent executed the contract with the Independent
as considered below.
After the general organizational meeting of the Independent on February 28
the officers and directors also held a meeting. Attorney Jenkins on this occasion
advised them that supervisors should not be admitted to membership. It was
then decided that applications for membership from supervisors should,be re-
voked and that initiation fees and dues payments from any of them should be re-
turned. After this action there is no evidence that the names of supervisors were
carried-on the Independent's membership list and refunds were made of initiation
fees and dues paid by them. The refunds, however, were not in all instances
made promptly. That to Mary Harris, for instance, was not made until during
the hearing.
*'Although Witherspoon indicated in his testimony that a motion signifying approval
of the contract was acted upon at this meeting, others who were present did not so testify
and the minutes of the meeting do not so indicate. It is clear from the evidence, however,
that opportunity to make objections was afforded . The undersigned is convinced and has
,found above that this is the only form of approval the members of the Independent gave
the contract.
IRVING AM OHUTE CO., INC. 223
The respondent and the Independent contend that the action of the latter
in refunding initiation fees and dues paid by supervisors and in refraining from
carrying them on the membership list dissipated the effect of their prior conduct
in support of the Association. The undersigned finds no merit in this con-
tention. Discussion of the matter was not had before the general membership
of the Independent and no announcement of the action of the officers and direc-
tors was made either to the membership of the Independent or to the employees
generally. The situation, therefore, remained that the influence of the super-
visors as detailed above, had been exercised in support of the Independent and
nothing was thereafter done to nullify it as far as the rank and file of em-
ployees were concerned. For aught that they could know the support of these
supervisors for the Independent continued unabated. Under the circumstances
the undersigned finds that the effects of their support were not dissipated."
There remains for consideration the circumstances surrounding the execution
of the contract with the Independent. As stated above, the A. F. of L. early
in February asked the respondent to execute a collective bargaining contract
with it. When the A. F. of L. request was not acceded to it filed a petition on or
about February 17 for investigation and certification of representatives. The
Regional Director immediately notified the respondent of the pendency of this
petition. Three days later Field Examiner Finlay in A. letter urged the respond-
ent to submit a copy of its payroll promptly in order that the election matter
might be handled with dispatch. As there is no evidence of anything said or
done that should have caused the respondent to think the petition had been
dismissed or withdrawn, the undersigned concludes that the respondent knew
or should have known that the petition was pending at all times after receipt
of the letter of February 17 from the Regional Director. The Regional Director
also on February 20 and 27 notified the respondent by letters written on those
dates about the respective charges which alleged discrimination against
Bowsher and violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act with respect to the Independ-
ent.96 These charges were not disposed of and the respondent knew of their exist-
ence at the time of the contract negotiations. The prompt execution of the con-
tract with the Independent after these events and after the conduct by certain
supervisors in support of it, as detailed above, can reasonably be viewed only
as a further act of assistance to the Independent. Under all the circumstances
the contract was not executed with a labor organization which represented
an uncoerced majority, regardless of what its membership may have been.
The undersigned finds that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Independent and had contributed
support to it, and that it has in this and by the remarks and conduct of Super-
visors Mildred Smith, Mae Harris, Eugene Crase, Lillian Tucker, Gladys Wright,
Mary Harris, Ann Hostetter, Mary Peel, and Leva G. Barnette, as detailed above,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights, guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.`e
"The respondent contended, also, that it had instructed its supervisors to remain aloof
from union matters. On the basis of the testimony of a number of supervisors , however,
who testified that their superiors had never discussed the matter with them , the undersigned
finds that the respondent made no consistent effort to advise all supervisors on the subject.
The respondent also contends that the notice posted by it on or about January 27, 1943
was evidence to its employees that they were free to exercise their own choice in matters
of union membership and activity . Since the unfair labor practices detailed herein
continued after the posting of this notice, the undersigned finds no merit in the contention.
45These charges were later consolidated in the amended charge filed on April 8.
"Besides the evidence discussed in this Report there is testimony that there were numerous
other acts and statements in opposition to the A. F. of L. by various employees identified
with the management . All such acts and statements are denied and, although the under-
224 DECLSIONS OF NATIONAL,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in con-
nection 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 tand to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Independent and has contributed
support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act and free the employees
of the respondent from such domination and interference and the effects thereof
which constitute a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the
rights guaranteed them by the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the
respondent withdraw all recognition from the Independent as the representative
of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the re-
spondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment and other conditions of employment and completely disestablish it as
such representative.
Since the contract of April 3, 1943, between the respondent and the Independent
represents the fruits of the respondent's unfair labor practices, the undersigned
will recommend that the respondent cease giving effect to it or to any existing
contract between the respondent and the Independent and to any modification,
renewal or extension thereof. Nothing in the undersigned's recommendations,
however, shall be construed as requiring the respondent to vary its wage, hour
and other substantial features of its relations with the employees themselves, if
any, which the respondent has established in the performance of the contract as
extended, renewed, modified, supplemented or superseded.
The undersigned has found that the respondent has discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Jane Bowsher. The undersigned will
recommend that the respondent make her whole by paying her the wages she
would have received from respondent from the date of the discrimination against
her on January 15, 1943 until the discrimination against her was 'discontinued
on February 8,1943, less her net earnings 47 during that period.
. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Parachute Workers, Local of Upholsterers' International Union of North
America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and Independent Lex-
signed is gravely suspicious that some of these events took place as testified to by Board
witnesses , he has credited the denials and has made no findings of unfair labor practices,
on the basis of such evidence.
47 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere
than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge
and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter, of Crossett"
Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lu1mber
and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work per-
formed upon Federal, State , county , municipal ; or other work -relief projects shall be
considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
IRVING AIR CHUTE 00., ii& 225
ington Parachute Worker's Union ' of Lexington , Kentucky , are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section ' 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Independent Lexington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington , Kentucky, and
contributing support thereto the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 2) of the Act.
3. By, discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jane
Bowsher, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization , the respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the un-
dersigned recommends that the respondent , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Independent Lex-
ington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington , Kentucky , or with the forma-
tion or administration of any other labor organization of its employees or from
contributing support to the Independent or any other labor organization of its
employees ;
(b) Recognizing , or in any manner dealing with Independent Lexington
Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington , Kentucky , as the representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes , rates of pay , hours of employment or other conditions
of employment ;
(c) Giving effect to the contract of April 3 , 1943 with the Independent Lex-
ington Parachute Worker's Union of Lexington , Kentucky , or to any extension,
renewal or modification thereof, whether written or oral, or to any other agree-
ments, understanding arrangements entered into with that labor organization ;
(d) Discouraging membership in Parachute Workers, Local of Upholsterers'
International Union of North America, affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor , or any other labor organization of its employees by discriminating in
regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form, join or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Independent Lexington Parachute Work-
er's Union of Lexington , Kentucky , as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances , labor dis-
putes, wages , hours of employment , or other conditions of employment and
completely disestablish said labor organization as such representative ;
226 DEC SIIONS OF NAMIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Make whole Jane Bowsher for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to her hire and tenure
of employment and the terms and conditions of her employment by payment to
her of a sum of money equal to that she would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination against her to the date such discrimination' was
discontinued, less net earnings during said period;
(c) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places in its
two plants at Lexington, Kentucky, and maintain such notices for a period of
not less than sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating (1)
that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended
that it cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) hereof and
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph
2 (a) and (b) hereof;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days after the date of the order transferring the case to the
Board.
Wm. B. BARTON,
Trial Boaminer.
Dated June 29, 1943.