J. Greenebaum Tanning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 161 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO. and NATIONAL LEATHER
WORKERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 43, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. C-1199.-Decided November 2, 1939
Leather Tanning and Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and
Coercion :. charges of, dismissed-Discrim4nation : charges of, dismissed-Testi-
fying.,.Undcr Act: . charges .of, dismissed-Complaint : dismissed.
Mr. Herbert N. Shenkin, for the Board.
Mr. John L. McInerney, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Rudolph J. Burkey, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Ray Johnson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by National Leatther
Workers Association, Local No. 43, affiliated with the C . I.O., herein
called the Union, the ,National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
(Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint on December 27, 1938, against
J. Greenebaum Tanning Co., Chicago,. Illinois, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting. commerce,. within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing
thereon, and notice of postponement, were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent laid off Joseph Krzankowski on or
about December 8, 1937; (2) that the said Joseph Krzankowski
testified on February 19, 1938, before a Trial Examiner of the Board
in Matter of J. Greenbaum Tanning Company and National Leather
Workers- Association; Local'. No.' 43, affiliated with the C. I. 0.;1
111 N. L. R. B. 300.
17 N. L. R. B., No. 9.
161
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) that the respondent on or about May 16, 1938, refused to employ
Joseph Krzankowski because he gave testimony under the Act and
because he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection;, and (4)
that by the foregoing and other acts the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On January 9, 1939, the respond-
ent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on
January 9, 1939, before Herbert Wenzel, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were rep-
resented by counsel and the Union by its representative and all
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear,-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On February 23, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the re-
spondent reinstate Krzankowski with back pay. Thereafter, the
respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. None of the
parties requested oral argument before the Board. The Board has
considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and, except
as they are inconsistent with the findings herein, hereby sustains
them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes-the-follow,ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is an Illinois corporation engaged in the tanning
of hides and fabrication of finished leather. Its principal office and
place of business is located at Chicago, Illinois, and it owns and
operates plants in Chicago, Illinois, and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The respondent also owns all the stock in J. Greenbaum Tanning
Company of Massachusetts, a Massachusetts corporation, which acts
as a sales agent for the respondent. This proceeding relates to the
respondent's Chicago plants.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING COMPANY 163
Animal hides constitute the' principal raw material purchased by
the respondent. During the year 1937, 71 per cent of the hides
processed at the Chicago plants were shipped to these plants from
foreign countries and States other than the State of Illinois. The
other principal raw materials used by the respondent during the
same period were dyes, chrome, fat, liquors, salt, and lime, 90.5 per
cent of which were shipped to the Chicago plants from States other
than the State of Illinois.
During the year 1937, the respondent manufactured at its Chicago
plants finished leather valued at $3,827,808, of which 75 per cent was
sold d shipped to purchasers outside Illinois.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Leather Workers Association, Local No. 43, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion.2 The Union was formerly known as United Tannery Workers
Union and also as Tannery Workers Organizing Committee. It ad-
mits to membership production employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Joseph Krzankowski was employed as a tacker by the respondent
from March 25, 1929, to December 1937 , except for about one month
in 193& ` On. December 2, 193'7 , business conditions necessitated the'
lay-off of 12 tackers . Krzankowski had seniority over the 12 tackers
laid off , and the respondent , according to its usual custom , assigned
Krzankowski to scraping work.
Krzankowski was unable to work on December 6, 1937 , because of
large blisters on his hands , which would have prevented him from
holding a scraper . On the morning of December 7, he went to the
home of Jacob Kopala, a neighbor and fellow employee . The testi-
mony concerning the conversation between Krzankowski and Kopala
is conflicting . Krzankowski testified that he requested Kopala to
notify ' Erulio Hajanacki , the foreman, that he would not be abTe 'to!',
work that day, but that he would return to work on the following
day. Kopala testified that Krzankowski said to him , "I don't care
about my job. I don't want to kill myself because I got two sons
working and they will support me." We need not, however , resolve
this conflict . On December 7, 1937 , Kopala told the foreman that
Krzankowski did not want his job.
When Krzankowski returned to work, he was told that his *services
were not needed and was given his check . According to the rule
of the respondent , an employee is considered to have quit when he
is abscnV - for three consecutive working days without notifying the
2 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
management of the reasons for his absence. Krzankowski testified
that he returned to work on December 8, 1937, and stated that since
he was absent only two working days he could not be deemed to have
quit. The respondent, however, contended that Krzankowski did
not return to work until the week ending December 18, 1937. It is
conceded that Krzankowski received his pay check on the. day he
returned to work. The check was dated December 7, 1937, and after
one endorsement in addition to Krzankowski's, was cashed by a bank
on December 15, 1937. We find that Krzankowski did not return to
work, before the week ending December 18.
In February 1938, Krzankowski testified for the Board in Matter
of J. Greenebaurn Tanning Company and National Leather Workers
Association, Local No. 43, affiliated with the C. I. O.,s in which the
Union charged that the respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices.
In May 1938, the respondent employed 12 tackers, over whom
Krzankowski had seniority, unless he be deemed to have quit in
December 1937. No new tackers were employed. Krzankowski
made numerous requests for work between May and August 15, 1938,
but was refused employment.
Krzankowski stated that he applied for work about July 20, 1938,
and that Martin Samp, the timekeeper, told him that the superin-
tendent did not want him. Samp denied making the statement.
Krzankowski testified that he applied for work. about ' a week later
and that Samp sent him to see Roy Breen, Chester Grabowski; and
Demski, the officials of Rockwell-Warsaw Leather Workers Associ-
ation, herein called the Association, which the Board found to be
company-dominated in the prior proceedings.3 Krzankowski stated
that the Association officials told him that the reason he could not
obtain employment was because he was a member of the Union 'and
because he had testified against the respondent in the prior proceed-
ings. Samp denied sending Krzankowski to see the Association of-
ficials and testified that Krzankowski consulted them on his own
initiative. The Association officers denied having made the state-
ments attributed to them by Krzankowski. The respondent has hired
no new employees. In the light of the entire record we do not credit
Krzankowski's testimony.
Although Krzankowski joined the Union in June 1937, there is no
showing that his affiliation was known to the respondent.
The evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint that
Krzankowski was discharged and refused reinstatement because of
8 See footnote 1.
J. GREENEBAUM TANNING COMPANY 165
his union activity or because he gave testimony under the Act. We
shall therefore dismiss the complaint.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF ' LAW
1. The operations of the respondent constitute a continuous flow
of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. National Leather Workers Association, Local # 43, affiliated
with the C. 1. 0., is a, labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not discriminated ' in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of -Joseph, Krzankowski within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) and (4) of the Act.
4: The respondent has not interfered * with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the'Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the, complaint against the respondent, J. Greenbaum Tanning' Co.,
Chicago, Illinois, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.